Agricultural Growth Program – Livestock Market Development 
(AGP-LMD) Project 
EXTERNAL MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT 
May 2015 
 
  
    
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was 
prepared independently by Tufts University. The authors of the report are Kurt Rockeman, Beyene Tadesse, and 
Tsehay Redda.
Agriculture Knowledge, Learning, Documentation and Policy Project (AKLDP), Ethiopia 
Agricultural Growth Program – Livestock Market
Development (AGP‐LMD)
EXTERNAL MID‐TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
USAID	Contract	No.	AID-663-C-14-00002
Agriculture	Knowledge,	Learning,	Documentation and	Policy	(AKLDP)	Project	
Implemented	by:	
Feinstein	International	Center	
Friedman	School	of	Nutrition	Science	and	Policy	
Tufts	University	Africa	Regional	Office	
PO	Box	1078	
Addis	Ababa	
Ethiopia	
Tel:		+251	(0)11	618014	
www.fic.tufts.edu	
Disclaimer	
The	views	expressed	in	this	report	do	not	necessarily	reflect	the	views	of	the	United	States	
Agency	for	International	Development	or	the	United	States	Government.	
  
CONTENTS
List	of	acronyms	.........................................................................................................................................................................	i
List	of	tables	...............................................................................................................................................................................	ii
Acknowledgements	................................................................................................................................................................	ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................................	iii
1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background	to	AGP‐LMD	and	the	Mid‐Term	Evaluation	..........................................................................	1
1.2 Project	Objective	and	Intermediate	Results	..................................................................................................	1
1.3 Theory	of	Change	......................................................................................................................................................	2
1.4 Project	Management,	Coverage	and	Target	Groups	...................................................................................	2
1.5 Evaluation	Objectives	and	Questions	...............................................................................................................	3
1.6 Evaluation	Design	.....................................................................................................................................................	4
1.7 Report	Limitations	....................................................................................................................................................	4
1.8 Livestock	Value	Chain	Productivity	...................................................................................................................	5
2. EVALUATION FINDINGS................................................................................................................................6
2.1 Program	Performance	.............................................................................................................................................	6
2.1.1 General	.........................................................................................................................................................................	6
2.1.2 IR1:	Increased	Productivity	and	Competitiveness	of	Selected	Livestock	Value	Chains	.............	8
2.1.3 IR2:	Improved	Enabling	Environment	for	Livestock	Value	Chains	..................................................	13
2.1.4 IR3:	Improved	Quality	and	Diversity	of	Household	Diet	.......................................................................	13
2.2 Program	Impact	on	Government	Policy,	Process	and	Administration	.............................................	14
2.3 Effectiveness	of	the	Implementation	Approach	.........................................................................................	15
2.4 Relevance	of	Project	Activities	..........................................................................................................................	17
2.5 Gender	Issues	............................................................................................................................................................	18
2.6 Nutrition	Activity	Performance	.........................................................................................................................	19
3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................ 20
3.1 Program	Performance	...........................................................................................................................................	20
3.1.1 General	.......................................................................................................................................................................	20
3.1.2 IR1:	Increased	Productivity	and	Competitiveness	of	Selected	Livestock	Value	Chains	...........	21
3.1.3 IR2:	Improved	Enabling	Environment	for	Livestock	Value	Chains	..................................................	24
3.1.4 IR3:	Improved	Quality	and	Diversity	of	Household	Diet	.......................................................................	24
3.2 Program	Impact	on	Government	Policy,	Process	and	Administration.............................................	24
3.3 Effectiveness	of	Implementation	Approach	.................................................................................................	25
3.4 Effectiveness	of	Partnerships	with	GoE	AGP	Implementers	and	Other	Government	Offices	..	26
3.5 Relevance	of	Project	Activities	..........................................................................................................................	26
3.6 Gender	Issues	............................................................................................................................................................	27
3.7 Nutrition	Activity	Performance	.........................................................................................................................	28
4. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................................. 28
i
List of acronyms
ADLI	 Agricultural	Development	Led	Industrialization	
AI	 Artificial	Insemination	
AGP	 	 Agriculture	Growth	Program	
AGP‐AMDE	 Agricultural	Growth	Program	–	Agricultural	Market	Development	
AGP‐LMD	 Agricultural	Growth	Program	–	Livestock	Market	Development	
BDS	 	 Business	Development	Services	
CIG	 	 Common	Interest	Group	
CNFA	 	 Cultivating	New	Frontiers	in	Agriculture	
DA	 	 Development	Agent	
DCA	 Development	Credit	Authority	
ENGINE	 Empowering	New	Generations	to	Improve	Nutrition	and	Economic	
Opportunities	Project,	USAID	
EDDP		 	 Ethiopia	Dairy	Development	Project	 	
FtF	 	 Feed	the	Future	
FMSEDA	 Federal	Micro	and	Small	Enterprise	Development	
FtF	ZOI	 Feed‐the‐Future	Zone	of	Influence	
GoE	 Government	of	Ethiopia	
GRAD	 Graduation	with	Resilience	to	Achieve	Sustainable	Development	Project,	USAID	
GTP	 	 Growth	and	Transformation	Plan	
HUNDEE	 Oromo	Grassroots	Development	Initiative	
IP	 Implementing	Partner	
IR		 	 Intermediate	Result	
IGA	 	 Income	Generating	Activity	
JRIS	 	 Joint	Review	Implementation	Strategy	
LITS	 	 Livestock	Identification	and	Traceability	System	
LMD		 	 Livestock	Market	Development	
LOL	 	 Land	O’Lakes	
LTC	 	 Livestock	Technical	Committee	
LVC	 	 Livestock	Value	Chains	
LWG	 	 Livestock	Working	Group	
MLA	 	 Meat	and	Live	Animal	
MOA	 	 Ministry	of	Agriculture	
MOH	 	 Ministry	of	Health	
MOT	 	 Ministry	of	Trade	
MSE	 	 Micro‐	and	Small	Enterprises	
MSP	 	 Multi‐Stakeholder	Platform	
MSPM	 	 Multi‐Stakeholder	Partnership	Meeting	
MT	 	 Metric	Ton	
ORDA	 	 Organization	for	Relief	and	Development	in	Amhara	
PEPFAR	 President’s	Emergency	Plan	for	AIDS	Relief	
PCI	 	 Precise	Consult	International	
PLI	II	 Pastoral	Livelihoods	Initiative,	Second	Phase	
PLWHA	 People	Living	with	HIV/AIDs	 	
PMP	 Performance	Management	Plan	
PSNP	 	 Productive	Safety	Net	Programme	
PRIME	 	 Pastoralists	Areas	Resilience	Improvement	and	Market	Expansion	Project	
RDPAS	 Rural	Development	Program	and	Strategy	
REDFS	 Rural	Economic	Development	and	Food	Security	
REST	 Relief	Society	of	Tigray	
RFA	 	 Request	for	Application	
RMSDA	 Regional	Micro	and	Small	Enterprise	Development	
SNNPR		 Southern	Nations,	Nationalities,	and	Peoples'	Region	
SOW	 Statement	of	Work	
ii
TA	 	 Technical	Assistance	
TOT	 	 Training	of	Trainers	
VC	 	 Value	Chain	
US	 	 United	States	
USAID	 	 United	States	Agency	for	International	Development		
List of tables
Table	1:	 Ethiopia	cattle	population	by	age	(2013‐2014)……………………………………………..	5	
Table	2a:	 Selected	AGP‐LMD	PMP	IR1	Performance	Indicators	……………………………………..9	
Table	2b:	 AGP‐LMD	IR1	Gross	Performance	Measures	…………………………………………………11	
Table	3:	 Selected	AGP‐LMD	PMP	IR2	Performance	Indicators	…………………………………….13	
Table	4		 Selected	AGP‐LMD	PMP	IR3	Performance	Indicators	…………………………………….14	
Note	
In	Ethiopia	a	woreda	is	an	administrative	unit,	roughly	equivalent	to	a	district	in	other	countries.		
A	kebele is	equivalent	to	a	sub‐district,	being	the	next	level	of	administrative	unit	within	a	
woreda.	
Acknowledgements
The	members	of	the	evaluation	team	would	like	to	express	gratitude	and	sincere	appreciation	to	
the	AGP‐LMD	management	and	staff	for	their	dedicated	cooperation	and	assistance	in	
organizing	our	travel	and	interview	schedule	and	during	our	site	visits;	and	the	AKLDP	staff	for	
their	substantive	guidance	and	administrative	and	logistical	support.	
		
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The	external	mid‐term	evaluation	of	the	USAID/Ethiopia	Agricultural	Growth	Program	–	
Livestock	Market	Development	(AGP‐LMD)	project	was	carried	out	in	March‐April	2015	to	
respond	to	Statement	of	Work	(SOW)	specifications	and	specific	questions	provided	by	USAID.	
AGP‐LMD	is	a	five‐year,	$41	million	project	implemented	as	part	of	the	U.S.	Government	Feed‐
the‐Future	(FtF)	Initiative.		The	goal	of	the	project	is:	Improved Smallholder Incomes and
Nutritional Status.		AGP‐LMD,	in	concert	with	the	crop	value	chain	program	(AGP‐AMDe),	
serves	as	part	of	USAID’s	contribution	to	the	Government	of	Ethiopia’s	Agricultural	Growth	
Program	(AGP).		The	AGP	goal	is	“to end poverty and enhance growth”,	which	aligns	with	the	
FtF	goal	to	“sustainably reduce poverty and hunger”.		The	project	is	implemented	by	CNFA.	
The	objective	of	AGP‐LMD	is	to	“foster growth and reduce poverty by improving the
productivity and competitiveness of selected livestock value chains: dairy, meat and live
animals.”		It	seeks	to	achieve	this	objective	through	three	Intermediate	Results	and	four	cross‐
cutting	issues:	
IR	1:	Increased	productivity	and	competitiveness	of	selected	livestock	value	chains	
IR	2:	Improved	enabling	environment	for	livestock	value	chains	
IR	3:	Improved	quality	and	diversity	of	household	diets	
Cross	cutting	issues:	gender,	ICT,	environment	and	pro‐poor.	
Specifically,	AGP‐LMD	implementation	focuses	on	7	main	livestock	growth	corridors	and	milk	
shed	areas,	and	includes	62	woredas (46	AGP	woredas	and	16	non‐AGP	woredas) in	Tigray,	
Amhara,	Oromia	and	the	Southern	Nations,	Nationalities,	and	Peoples'	Region	(SNNPR).		Of	
these	10	woredas	have	been	designated	Deep	Focused	Woredas	where	the	project	will	invest	
much	of	its	efforts,	with	a	specific	emphasis	on	nutrition	related	activities.	
The	AGP‐LMD	evaluation	team	collected	and	analyzed	quantitative	and	qualitative	information	
to	assess	progress	towards	meeting	the	project	goal	and	objectives	using	selected	indicators	and	
targets	from	the	AGP‐LMD	Performance	Monitoring	Plan	(PMP).		Quantitative	information	on	
accomplishments	described	in	project	documents	and	reports	was	verified	and	complemented	
with	qualitative	information	from	face‐to‐face	interviews	with	over	70	project	implementers,	
stakeholders	and	informed	observers	in	six	of	the	main	livestock	growth	corridors/milk	sheds.			
Key Findings and Conclusions
The	following	discussion	is	a	summary	of	the	general	findings,	conclusions	and	
recommendations	of	the	evaluation	team:	
 CNFA	and	its	consortium	partners	are	making	a	credible	effort	to	implement	the	project,	
with	the	following	very	notable	positives:
o Capacity	Building:	Individuals	interviewed	were	very	positive	about	project	technical	
and	business	training,	which	we	believe	has	been	the	most	successful	element	of	the	
project	to	date.	
o Women’s	Participation: The	specially	designed	entrepreneurship,	governance	and	
leadership	training	focused	on	women,	and	the	substantive	involvement	of	women	in	
all	project	activities.
o Business‐to‐Business:	This	activity	is	greatly	appreciated	as	a	process	for	introducing	
firms	to	one	another,	breaking	down	resistance	to	cooperating	with	one	another,	and	
facilitating	collaboration	locally	and	internationally.		
o Dairy	Value	Chain:	The	project	is	doing	a	very	good	job	of	developing	the	dairy	sector,	
especially	with	regard	to	collection	centers	and	processors	at	all	levels.	
o Investment:	The	project	is	providing	grants	totaling	more	than	$6	million	to	leverage	
private	investment,	and	has	helped	9	borrowers	obtain	$2.2	million	in	DCA	financing.	
iv
o Regional	Livestock	Working	Groups	(LWGs):	This	is	a	highly	regarded	platform	for	
bringing	together	government,	NGOs,	business	interests,	and	producers	to	discuss	
practical	issues	and	problems	impacting	the	livestock	sector	and	recommend	
solutions.		
 Based	on	our	findings	and	conclusions,	we	believe	that	the	project	should	concentrate	its	
efforts	during	the	remaining	LOP	on:	
o Greatly	expanding	support	for	micro‐	and	small	enterprise	(MSE)	development	in	the	
rural	areas	adjacent	to	livestock	producers.	
o Substantially	increasing	the	role	and	responsibilities	of	the	local	Implementing	
Partners,	especially	in	designing	and	implementing	MSE	development	activities,	and	
measuring	the	impact	of	project	activities	(with	CNFA	technical	advice	and	support).	
o Establishing	private	Business	Development	Services	(BDS)	providers	to	ensure	
essential	services	for	grantees	and	industrial	scale	value	chain	operations.	
The	principal	findings	and	conclusions	of	the	evaluation	team	which	inform	the	summary	and	
recommendations	above	are:	
 The	link	between	AGP	and	FtF	goals,	and	their	link	to	the	AGP‐LMD	objective	of	increasing	
value	chain	productivity	and	competitiveness,	is	not	clearly	articulated	in	project	
documents.		This	results	in	an	awkward	geographic	and	targeting	focus.	
 It	can	be	argued	that	AGP‐LMD	supports	rural	economic	growth,	and	that	such	growth	is	a	
necessary	(but	not	sufficient)	condition	for	poverty	reduction.		It	can	also	be	argued	that	
increasing	value	chain	productivity	and	competitiveness	can	contribute	to	the	
achievement	of	both	AGP	and	FtF	goals.		However,	project	documents	do	not	make	these	
arguments.	
 Individual	project	components,	strategies	and	activities	are	not	clearly	defined	and	
articulated,	especially	with	regard	to	the	separate	dairy	and	meat/live	animal	value	
chains.		This	creates	confusion	among	implementing	partners	and	stakeholders,	
compromising	implementation	effectiveness.	
 AGP‐LMD	activities	(dairy	value	chain,	meat	and	live	animal	value	chain,	training,	grants	
program,	enabling	environment,	and	nutrition)	resemble	separate	projects.		There	is	little	
synergy	between	activities,	which	dilutes	and	complicates	project	management.	
 CNFA	is	roughly	on	track	to	meet	most	PMP	targets,	especially	when	compared	with	the	
percentage	of	the	budget	which	has	been	expended.		This	is	in	spite	of	unrealistic	
implementation	expectations;	unreasonable	expenditure	targets	during	the	first	two	
years;	and	some	ill‐considered	decisions	(e.g.,	suspending	IR1	training	in	Year	3).	
 The grants	program	is	designed	to	leverage	large‐scale	private	investment,	particularly	
processing	capacity,	in	the	livestock	value	chains.		But	the	grant	process	is	incredibly	
cumbersome,	and	the	current	rate	of	expenditure	makes	it	unlikely	that	the	program	will	
contribute	substantially	to	the	achievement	of	project	goals	during	the	LOP.	
 Major	PMP	indicators,	especially	the	mandatory	FtF	indicators,	are	inadequate	to	measure	
project	impact	or	contribution	to	the	achievement	of	AGP	and	FtF	goals.		PMP	indicators	
are	also	insufficient	to	measure	the	performance	and	the	contribution	of	the	grants	
program	and	credit	facilitation	activities	to	the	achievement	of	project	goals	
 As	stated	previously,	the	project	is	doing	a	very	good	job	of	supporting	dairy	industry	
development.		But	the	impact	of	increased	capacity	and	consumer	demand	on	productivity	
will	not	really	be	felt	until	after	the	project	ends.	
 The	project	“pull”	philosophy	for	drawing	producers	into	the	value	chain,	while	focusing	
on	working	in	the	middle	of	the	chain,	makes	sense.		But	in	practical	terms	the	project	is	
working	too	far	distant	in	the	value	chain	from	rural	producers	to	impact	productivity.	
v
 Meat	and	live	animal	activities	are	too	concentrated	at	the	top	end	of	the	value	chain,	
working	with	abattoirs	and	large	scale	feedlots,	too	focused	on	exports,	and	too	far	distant	
from	producers	to	exert	effective	“pull”.	
 Ethiopian	exports	of	live	cattle	and	shoat	carcasses	are	solidly	competitive	in	the	regional	
market.		But	they	are	unlikely	to	increase	unless	government‐imposed	disincentives	
(policy	and	regulatory)	are	eased	to	draw	more	animals	into	formal	export	channels.	
 Beef	exports	are	not	presently,	nor	likely	to	be,	competitive	–	at	least	in	the	near	future.		
Major	factors	affecting	competitiveness	include	product	quality	and	cost.	
 Efforts	to	improve	the	enabling	environment	for	livestock	value	chains	are	encouraging,	
but	the	impact	on	government	policy	and	regulation	is	yet	to	be	realized.	
 The	project	is	on	track	to	meet	IR3	indicator	targets,	but	the	practical	impact	on	
nutritional	practices	and	PLWHAs	is	not	yet	realized,	and	the	scale	of	eventual	impact	is	
uncertain.	
 The	project	is	not	taking	full	advantage	of	the	institutional	and	organizational	strengths,	
and	technical	capabilities	of	local	Implementing	Partners.		The	culprit	is	the	ineffectual	
sub‐contracting	mechanism	currently	in	use,	which	mitigates	against	effective	
performance.	
Recommendations
The	specific	recommendations	of	the	Evaluation	Team	for	increasing	the	project	contribution	to	
both	AGP	and	FtF	objectives,	and	achieving	the	project	goal	and	objective,	are	as	follows:	
1. Develop and incorporate in project documents and reporting a clear articulation of
the relationship between the AGP and FtF goals, their linkage with the project goal
and objectives, and exactly how project activities are expected to contribute to the
achievement of those goals and the project objective.
 At	present	the	project	goal	and	rationale,	and	the	expected	contribution	of	project	activities	
to	the	achievement	of	the	goal	and	LOP	targets,	is	not	clearly	articulated.		
2. Develop custom PMP indicators to measure and record the outcome and impact of the
training programs and the grants program; and their contribution to the achievement
of project goal and objective.
 We	suggest	developing	an	indicator	of	increased	sales/income	for	measuring	the	impact	of	
training	on	MSEs	and	producers.	
 We	also	suggest	indicators	of	increased	product	sales	(volume	and	value),	increased	input	
purchases	(volume	and	value),	and	a	re‐evaluation	of	the	job	creation	indicator	
(person/days	of	employment)	to	measure	the	impact	of	the	grants	program	and	loan	
facilitation.	
3. Develop and implement a methodology to measure (rather than simply estimate) the
impact of AGP and AGP‐LMD activities on livestock productivity (fertility, mortality,
and yield/animal) and rural household income.
 Specifically, we recommend joint design and implementation of the methodology with
local Implementing Partners in line with Recommendation 5, in consultation with other
stakeholders.		This	will	both	improve	the	effectiveness	of	FtF	reporting,	and	help	AGP	
measure	the	impact	of	its	activities.	
4. Greatly expanding support for micro‐	and small enterprise (MSE) development in the
rural areas adjacent to livestock producers (first point of sale) as the focus of
implementation during the remaining Life‐of‐Project.
 Specifically, we recommend combining technical and business management training
with small capital investment grants to leverage entrepreneurship (suggested amount
vi
$500	‐	$1,000). 	This	will	promote	value	chain	development,	more	directly	impact	the	FtF	
target	population,	increase	the	number	of	beneficiaries,	and	contribute	more	clearly	to	the	
achievement	of	the	AGP	goal.	
5. Substantially increasing the role and responsibilities of the local Implementing
Partners, making them directly responsible for the design and implementation of the
MSE development program recommended above.
 Specifically, we recommend changing the current sub‐contracting modality to either a
sub‐grant (preferred) or a multi‐year subcontract combining cost reimbursement for
core operations with purchase orders for specific activities. 	This	will	ensure	continuity	in	
implementation,	dramatically	increase	impact,	and	take	full	advantage	of	IP	institutional	and	
technical	capacity	and	operational	presence,	enhancing	sustainability.	
6. Bring the large‐scale grants program to an orderly conclusion.
 Specifically, we recommend that LMD not consider any grant in excess of $100,000.		
AGP‐LMD	has	done	enough	with	the	program	to	leverage	new,	larger‐scale	value‐chain	
investments.		It	needs	to	finalize	those	grants	currently	in	process,	and	bring	the	activity	to	a	
close.		However,	the	project	will	need	to	continue	providing	TA	during	the	remaining	LOP	to	
help	the	grantees	succeed.	
7. Design and implement a professional BDS program for providing essential TA and
training services grantees and industrial scale value chain operations (milk
processors, feedlots, feed processors, and abattoirs).
 AGP‐LMD	needs	to	develop	individual	programs	of	assistance	with	each	client,	defined	in	a	
written	agreement	which	clearly	states	what	the	project	will	do	in	terms	of	providing	
technical	assistance	and	advice,	client	obligations,	and	clearly	defined	results	benchmarks.		
8. Keep IR2 activities modest and focused.
 The	project	should	continue	facilitating	MSP	and	LWG	activities,	the	pilot	LITS,	and	modest	
engagement	to	support	SPS	issue	resolution.		The	project	should	also	seek	to	promote	a	new	
unified	policy	and	regulatory	framework	for	the	livestock	sector	to	replace	the	present	
burdensome	and	inconsistent	combination	of	contradictory	policies	and	regulations.	
9. Design and incorporate pilot poultry activities into IR3, emphasizing patio production
and home consumption of eggs.
 We recommend a combination of including messages promoting the home use of eggs
and poultry, and modest efforts to improve management and productivity of patio
flocks.		This	will	tie	IR3	more	directly	to	the	overall	project;	emphasize	the	use	of	the	animal	
source	food	(eggs	and	chicken)	which	is	most	accessible	to	the	poor	to	improve	nutrition;	
and	lay	the	foundation	for	the	design	of	future	nutrition	activities.		In	particular,	the	pilot	
poultry	activity	should	incorporate	value	chain	concepts	where	appropriate,	perhaps	
engaging	PLWHAs	to	raise	chicks	into	mature	birds	which	can	be	made	available	to	
households.	
Implementing the Recommendations
We	have	crafted	the	recommendations	to	make	implementation	a	fairly	straightforward	
process.		The	changes	we	recommend	will	stimulate	creativity	and	action,	promote	
achievement,	produce	results,	and	make	everyone	look	better.		The	two	steps	to	implement	the	
recommendations	are:	
1. Annual	Work	Plan:	Recommendations	1,	2,	3,	6,	7,	8	and	9	can	be	implemented	in	the	
context	of	developing	the	next	Annual	Work	Plan.		USAID	will	need	to	provide	guidance	to	
CNFA	to	carry	this	out,	but	the	recommendations	are	not	complicated	and	do	not	appear	to	
require	substantive	changes	to	the	project	SOW	or	budget.	
vii
2. Contract	Amendment:	Implementing	Recommendations	4	and	5	will	require	an	amendment	
to	the	contract	SOW	to	describe	the	MSE	development	program,	establish	the	guidelines	for	
expanding	Implementing	Partner	roles	and	responsibilities,	and	amending	the	budget	to	
accommodate	these	changes.		USAID	may	wish	to	consider	a	project	extension	to	
compensate	for	the	time	needed	to	make	these	changes.
This	need	not	be	a	long,	drawn‐out	and	complicated	process.		But,	it	will	take	will	and	
decisiveness:	the	will	to	embrace	change;	and	the	decisiveness	to	press	on	and	make	it	happen.			
Summary
CNFA	is	doing	a	credible	job	of	implementing	the	project,	and	we	believe	that	AGP‐LMD	is	
contributing	to	the	achievement	of	the	AGP	goal.		But	the	project	contribution	to	the	
achievement	of	the	FtF	goal	is	not	clear,	project	activities	lack	synergy;	and	project	results	and	
impact	are	not	being	methodically	measured.	
Therefore, in summary we recommend that implementation during the remaining LOP
focus on MSE development in areas adjacent to rural livestock producers to increase
impact and project contribution to the achievement of AGP and FtF goals.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to AGP‐LMD and the Mid‐Term Evaluation
The	external	mid‐term	evaluation	of	the	USAID/Ethiopia	Agricultural	Growth	Program	–	
Livestock	Market	Development	(AGP‐LMD)	Project	was	carried	out	in	March‐April	2015	
following	the	Statement	of	Work	(SOW)	specifications	provided	by	USAID.		The	purpose	of	the	
evaluation	is	to	examine	what	AGP‐LMD	has	achieved	at	the	mid‐point	in	implementation.		
Specifically,	the	evaluation	assessed	whether	AGP‐LMD	is	achieving	or	is	likely	to	achieve	the	
expected	results	by	the	end	of	the	project,	as	well	as	the	management	and	operation	of	the	
project.		The	findings,	conclusions	and	recommendations	are	intended	to	inform	and	improve	
implementation	of	AGP‐LMD	during	the	remaining	life	of	the	project.		The	evaluation	findings	
will	also	help	inform	the	design	of	similar	projects	in	the	future.	
AGP‐LMD	is	a	five‐year	project	implemented	as	part	of	the	U.S.	Government	Feed‐the‐
Future	(FtF)	Initiative.		The	goal	of	the	project	is:	Improved Smallholder Incomes and
Nutritional Status.		AGP‐LMD,	in	concert	with	the	crop	value	chain	program	(AGP‐AMDe),	
serves	as	part	of	USAID’s	contribution	to	the	Government	of	Ethiopia’s	Agricultural	Growth	
Program	(AGP).		The	AGP	goal	is	“to end poverty and enhance growth”,	which	aligns	with	the	
FtF	goal	to	“sustainably reduce poverty and hunger.”	
AGP‐LMD	is	being	implemented	under	a	contract	signed	with	Cultivating	New	Frontiers	
in	Agriculture	(CNFA)(AID‐663‐C‐12‐00009)	on	September	17,	2012	with	an	end	date	of	
September	16,	2017.	Project	activities	focused	on	livestock	growth	corridors	and	milk	sheds	
which	encompass	targeted	AGP	and	food	insecure	woredas	in	Tigray,	Amhara,	Oromia	and	
SNNPR.		Implementation	arrangements	use	and	build	upon	the	extensive	professional	and	social	
networks	of	local	organizations	in	the	four	regions.		The	initial	Life	of	Project	Budget	was	
$37,673,362,	subsequently	increased	to	$41,173,362	on	February	11,	2015.		
1.2 Project Objective and Intermediate Results
The	objective	of	AGP‐LMD	is	to	“foster growth and reduce poverty by improving the
productivity and competitiveness of selected livestock value chains: dairy, meat and live
animals.”		It	seeks	to	achieve	this	objective	through	three	Intermediate	Results	(IRs),	five	
Components,	and	numerous	activities	as	follows:	
IR 1: Increased productivity and competitiveness of selected livestock value chains
	 Component	1:	From	Analytics	to	Strategy	to	Learning	
- Community	of	practice	
- Innovations	and	good	practices	
- Cases,	studies,	presentations	and	exchanges	
- Training	of	staff	
	 Component	2:	Improve	the	Productivity	and	Competiveness	of	Livestock	Value	Chains	
- Link	value	chain	actors	to	input	and	service	providers	
- Strengthen	input	and	service	providers	
- Improve	livestock	management	
- Improve	post‐production	relationships,	efficiencies	and	quality
- Improve	number,	quality	and	functionality	of	the	middle	of	the	value	chain	
- Market	expansion	–	domestic	and	international	
- Strengthen	governance	and	collaboration	within	value	chain	
- Increase	domestic	consumption	of	dairy	products	
- Increase	women	entrepreneurship	and	leadership	development	
	 Component	3:	Spur	Investment	and	Innovation	
- Stimulate	investments	and	access	to	finance	throughout	the	value	chain	
		
2
IR 2: Improved enabling environment for livestock value chains
	 Component	4:	Improve	the	Enabling	Environment	of	Livestock	Value	Chains	
- Facilitate	and	empower	stakeholders	for	policy	reform	and	advocacy	
- Build	capacity	of	public	and	private	stakeholders	to	provide	services	
- Institutional	coordination	among	stakeholders	
- Applied	research	for	development	
- Linkage	creation	with	others	
IR 3: Improved quality and diversity of household diet
Component	5:	Enhanced	Nutrition	of	Rural	Households	(Nutrition	and	PLWHA)	
- Capacity	building	for	IPs	
- Behavioral	change	communication	
- Community	engagement	
- Focus	on	gender	
- Developing	partnerships	and	network	
- Savings	and	Credit	Group	(SCG)	formation	and	training	(PLWHA)	
- Business	training	and	resource	mobilization	
Cross Cutting
	 Gender,	ICT,	Environment,	Pro‐Poor	
1.3 Theory of Change
AGP‐LMD	is	focused	in	the	highly	productive	areas	of	Ethiopia	where	smallholder	farmers	have	
the	productive	assets	required	for	at	least	minimal	commercial	engagement.		It	also	includes	
activities	which	target	extremely	poor	and	subsistence	level	households	and	selected	food	
insecure	woredas	where	the	graduates	of	the	Productive	Safety‐Net	Program	(PSNP)	reside.		In	
these	areas	it	aims	to	pull	their	products	into	the	marketplace	upon	graduation	from	USAID	
"push"	initiatives,	which	will	ultimately	increase	their	incomes.		The	idea	is	for	AGP‐LMD	
interventions	to	generate	the	market	“pull” required	to	expand	producer	incomes,	develop	
commercially‐oriented	supporting	services,	and	form	sustainable	supplier	and	buyer	
relationships.		This	expanded	market	pull	will	link	new	market	participants	graduating	from	
subsistence	agriculture	by	USAID's	GRAD	and	PRIME	initiatives.	
The	key	development	hypothesis	of	AGP‐LMD	is	that	market‐driven	enterprise	
development	can	generate	increased	producer	incomes	by	pulling	previously	marginalized	
populations	into	commercial	value	chains.		Increased	incomes,	supported	by	effective	planning	
and	social	behavior	change	communication,	then	lead	to	improvements	in	nutrition,	household	
food	security	and	health,	and	can	equitably	impact	women,	minorities	and	people	living	with	
HIV/AIDS.		The	project	implementation	approach	is	guided	by	a	hypothesis	which	states	that	
“empowering the private sector at all levels of the value chain, including the intersections
with health and nutrition, is the most effective way to achieve sustainable growth of the
livestock sector and to assure improvements in people’s nutrition and health.”	
To	prove	the	hypothesis	AGP‐LMD	applies	a	holistic	value	chain	development	approach	
to	achieve	its	objectives,	with	the	middle	of	the	value	chain	as	an	entry	point	and	AGP	woreda
livestock	and	dairy	producers	as	primary	beneficiaries.		To	effectively	implement	this	approach,	
AGP‐LMD	used	a	“livestock	growth	corridor”	or	“milk	shed”	(cluster	of	woredas)	approach	to	
select	intervention	areas	and	targeted	beneficiaries.		Value	chains	are	not	limited	to	specific	
woreda	boundaries	or	even	to	regional	boundaries.		Downstream	value	chain	actors	are	often	
not	present	in	the	same	woreda	as	their	suppliers,	while	the	improvement	of	the	competiveness	
of	a	value	chain	requires	working	with	the	actors	along	the	chain.	
1.4 Project Management, Coverage and Target Groups
AGP‐LMD	is	led	by	CNFA	and	supported	by	thirteen	consortium	partners.		CNFA	uses	an	
implementation	approach	which	combines	Ethiopian	and	international	consortium	partners	
with	proven	livestock	and	dairy	value	chain	development	experience,	with	expertise	in	health,	
nutrition,	gender	equity,	and	ICT.		In	addition	to	CNFA,	the	AGP‐LMD	consortium	includes	four	
large	and	experienced	regional	partners	operating	in	the	target	regions:	Relief	Society	of	Tigray,	
3
the	Organization	for	Rehabilitation	and	Development	in	Amhara,	the	Oromo	Grassroots	
Development	Initiative,	and	Self‐Help	Africa	–	Ethiopia.		These	organizations	provide	regional	
office	facilities	and	regionally	based	personnel	for	front‐line	implementation.			Local	business	
consulting	firms	Precise	Consult	International,	BCad	Consulting	Management,	and	TREG	Consult	
conducted	end	market	studies,	value	chain	gap	analyses/strategies,	and	program	learning	
strategies,	as	well	as	supporting	program	interventions	to	improve	access	to	finance,	business	
skills,	and	gender	inclusiveness.		This	team	is	supported	by	international	consortium	partners,	
which	include	the	Netherlands	Development	Organization,	International	Medical	Corps,	J.E.	
Austin	&	Associates,	the	Institute	for	International	Education,	and	the	International	Institute	for	
Communication	and	Development.	
In	terms	of	geography	the	overall	FtF	implementation	area	includes	the	111	AGP	
woredas	that	fall	under	the	aegis	of	AGP‐AMDe,	AGP‐LMD	and	ENGINE.		It	also	includes	an	
additional	38	woredas	outside	the	AGP	woredas	where	GRAD	and	PRIME	are	active.		This	
diverse	group	of	149	woredas	constitutes	the	Feed‐the‐Future	Zone	of	Influence	(FtF	ZOI),	with	
the	population	of	vulnerable	households	within	it	the	ultimate	targeted	beneficiaries	of	the	FtF	
program.	
Within	this	context	AGP‐LMD	implementation	focuses	on	7	main	livestock	growth	corridors	and	
milk	shed	areas,	and	includes	63	woredas	(46	AGP	woredas	and	16	non‐AGP	woredas) in	Tigray,	
Amhara,	Oromia	and	the	Southern	Nations,	Nationalities,	and	Peoples'	Region	(SNNPR).		Of	
these	10	woredas	have	been	designated	Deep	Focused	Woredas	where	the	project	will	invest	
much	of	its	efforts,	with	a	specific	emphasis	on	nutrition	related	activities.	
In	addition,	the	project	includes	a	focus	on	engaging	women	as	participants	and	
increasing	women’s	role	in	leadership	and	decision	making	participants.		Women	are	key	actors	
in	livestock	value	chains,	but	due	to	culture	and	social	traditions	do	not	benefit	fully	and	freely	
from	their	participation.		It	also	targets	households	with	children,	youth,	and	HIV/AIDS	positive	
members.	
1.5 Evaluation Objectives and Questions
The	objective	of	the	AGP‐LMD	project	mid‐term	evaluation	is	to	provide	USAID,	CNFA,	and	
stakeholders	with	an	independent	assessment	of	project	performance	to	date.		The	evaluation	
focuses	on	progress	in	achieving	the	project	goal,	objectives,	and	planned	results	from	
September	2012	through	March	2015;	and	on	AGP‐LMD’s	contribution	to	USAID	Ethiopia’s	FtF	
program	delivery.	
Specifically,	the	evaluation	assessed	quantitatively	measurable	progress	toward	the	
achievement	of	the	AGP‐LMD	goal	and	objectives	as	articulated	in	the	Performance	Management	
Plan	(PMP),	and	the	impact	of	AGP‐LMD	activities	on	selected	livestock	value	chains.		This	is	
complemented	by	a	qualitative	assessment	of	other	project	results;	the	effectiveness	of	CNFA	
management,	including	collaboration/coordination	mechanisms;	the	working	relationship	
between	implementing	partners	and	stakeholders;	and	the	program’s	contribution	to	the	
achievement	of	FtF	development	objectives.	
The	evaluation	also	provides	recommendations	to	USAID,	CNFA,	and	other	stakeholders	
regarding	the	prioritization	of	project	resources	and	activities	to	maximize	impact	and	
sustainability	during	the	remaining	life	of	the	project,	as	well	as	to	inform	the	design	and	
implementation	of	similar	projects	in	the	future.	
The	specific	objectives	of	the	AGP‐LMD	evaluation	are	to:	
1. Assess	progress	towards	achieving	the	AGP‐LMD	project	goals	and	objectives	in	
measurable,	quantitative	terms;	
2. Assess	other	results,	such	as	the	impact	of	promotional	and	training	activities,	and	
women’s	participation	in	project	activities,	in	qualitative	terms;	
3. Evaluate	CNFA’s	methodologies,	management,	and	activity	coordination	between	
partners	and	stakeholders	in	terms	of	programmatic	and	cost	effectiveness	in	achieving	
project	objectives	and	key	results;	
4. Provide	information	on	project	achievements	and	challenges,	and	make	
recommendations	to	USAID	and	CNFA	for	priority	interventions	during	the	remaining	
4
life	of	the	project	to	maximize	impact,	sustainability,	and	contribution	to	FtF	
development	objectives;	and	
5. Make	recommendations	regarding	activities	which	are	candidates	for	being	scaled	up,	
those	that	should	be	discontinued,	and	those	which	can	be	used	to	inform	new	projects.		
The	evaluation	addresses	the	seven	questions	posed	in	the	Statement	of	Work	(Annex	1)	as	
follows:
1. Are	the	selected	program	activities	on	track	to	reach	the	desired	FtF	results	in	Ethiopia?	
2. Did	the	program	activities	lead	to	any	significant	changes	in	government	policy,	process,	
or	administration	that	can	be	expected	to	contribute	to	increased	production	and	
investment	in	the	sectors	and/or	increased	export	competitiveness?	
3. What	is	the	demonstrated	effectiveness	of	the	current	implementation	approach	(e.g.	
working	with	local	regional	organizations	such	as	ORDA,	REST,	HUNDEE	and	Self	Help	
Africa	‐	Ethiopia;	and	with	international	consortiums)?		
4. How	effective	is	the	partnership	with	GoE‐AGP	implementers	and	other	government	
offices	such	as	Ministry	of	Agriculture,	Ministry	of	Trade,	Ministry	of	Industry,	Federal	
Cooperative	agency	and	ATA	in	terms	of	collaboration	and	coordination	to	implement	
AGP‐LMD?		What	factors	contribute	to	success	or	challenges	in	partnerships,	
particularly	with	regard	to	the	GoE‐AGP,	and	what	is	recommended	to	resolve	the	
challenges?	
5. Based	on	sustainability	and	cost	effectiveness,	which	activities	should	be	continued	and	
which	activities	are	irrelevant	or	no	more	important	to	contribute	to	the	project	
objectives	in	the	future?	
6. How	has	the	program	addressed	gender	issues?	
7. How	was	the	performance	of		the	nutrition	sensitive	activities	implementation	toward	
achieving		expected	outcome	
1.6 Evaluation Design
The	AGP‐LMD	evaluation	team	collected	and	analyzed	quantitative	and	qualitative	information	
on	project	performance	to	assess	progress	towards	meeting	the	project	goal	and	objectives	
using	principal	indicators	and	targets	selected	from	the	AGP‐LMD	Performance	Monitoring	Plan	
(PMP).		Quantitative	information	on	accomplishments	described	in	project	documents	and	
reports	was	verified	and	complemented	with	qualitative	information	from	interviews	with	
project	implementers,	stakeholders	and	informed	observers.		Interviews	provided	insight	into
implementing	partner	expectations;	the	effectiveness	and	expected	impact	of	short‐term	
training	and	nutrition	activities;	and	the	potential	for	project	sustainability.		The	evaluation	
team	also	assessed	the	data/information	collected	from	project	reports,	site	visits	and	
interviews	to	respond	to	the	specific	evaluation	questions.		The	evaluation	team	reviewed	AGP‐
LMD	achievements	and	linked	them	back	to	CNFA’s	performance	measures,	especially	regarding	
sustainability,	enterprise	development,	management,	quality,	gender	participation	and	nutrition	
issues.	
The	AGP‐LM	Evaluation	Team	worked	with	USAID	and	CNFA	to	develop	a	schedule	of	face‐to‐
face	meetings	with	implementing	partners	and	stakeholders.		These	were	combined	with	visits	
to	sites	in	six	of	the	main	livestock	growth	corridors/milk	sheds.				
CNFA	and	USAID	provided	a	list	of	key	implementing	partners	and	stakeholders	for	the	AGP‐
LMD	evaluation	team	to	interview.		The	team	developed	a	list	of	questions	to	guide	interviews	
with	implementing	partners	and	stakeholders,	which	were	used	as	a	reference	during	the	
interview	process	to	focus	discussion.		Further	details	on	the	evaluation	design	are	provided	in	
Annex	3	(AGP‐LMD	Mid‐Term	Evaluation	Work	Plan),	and	the	CVs	of	the	evaluation	team	
members	are	provided	in	Annex	8.	
1.7 Report Limitations
There	are	important	socio‐economic	and	agro‐ecological	differences	between	the	four	regions	
included	in	USAID’s	zone	of	influence,	and	the	AGP‐LMD	target	woredas.		In	addition,	given	the	
time	limitations	and	the	geographic	dispersion	of	project	activities,	it	was	not	feasible	to	use	a	
5
statistically	representative	sample	of	target	woredas	and	informants	to	examine	AGP‐LMD’s	
work.		Also,	it	was	not	possible	to	interview	every	regional	and	federal	government	counterpart	
and	institutional	stakeholder.		However,	the	Evaluation	Team	did	interview	over	70	livestock	
value	chain	actors	ranging	from	input	supply	and	service	providers	to	producers	and	
processors,	regional	and	federal	level	government	officials,	plus	implementing	partner	and	
CNFA	staff	to	obtain	the	information	upon	which	our	findings,	conclusions	and	
recommendations	are	based.	
Finally,	the	time	available	to	the	Evaluation	Team	was	insufficient	to	carry	out	in‐depth	analysis	
of	each	project	strategy,	component,	and	activity.		Therefore,	the	evaluation	report	concentrates	
on	the	broad	parameters	of	project	design,	implementation,	and	anticipated	impact	to	identify	
the	major	actions	needed	to	improve	performance	and	impact.				
1.8 Livestock Value Chain Productivity
As	previously	stated,	the	objective	of	AGP‐LMD	is	to	“foster growth and reduce poverty by
improving the productivity and competitiveness of selected livestock value chains: dairy,
meat and live animals.”		In	this	context,	Intermediate	Result	1	(IR	1)	is	focused	on	increasing	
the	productivity	and	competitiveness	of	selected	livestock	value	chains.		But	there	is	little	to	
indicate	exactly	what	this	means.		Therefore,	this	segment	of	the	evaluation	report	provides	a	
brief	explanation	of	the	key	issues	related	to	livestock	productivity	(cattle).		Additional	
information	regarding	sheep	and	goats	is	contained	in	Annex	8.	
The	estimated	cattle	population	in	the	sedentary	area	of	Ethiopia	(excluding	3	zones	in	
Afar	and	6	zones	in	the	Somali	regions)	during	2013‐2014	is	55,027,280	head,	as	represented	in	
the	table	below.		Of	that	total,	20,545,625	head	are	females	above	the	age	of	3	years.		This	
roughly	constitutes	the	breeding	population	(excluding	heifers	which	have	not	calved).	
Table 1: Ethiopia cattle population by age (2013‐2014)
Age
Total Male Female
Number % Number % Number %
TOTAL	 55,027,280 100 24,555,570 44.6	 30,471,710	 55.4
- Under	6	months	 5,228,666 9.5 2,514,073 4.6 2,714,593	 4.9
- 6	months	to	1	year 4,380,095 7.9 2,099,315 3.8 2,280,780	 4.1
- 1	year	to	3	years	 9,026,584 16.4 4,095,873 7.4 4,930,712	 8.9
- 3	years	to	10	years 34,974,795 63.6 15,121,553 27.5	 19,853.243	 36.1
- Over	10	years	 1,417,140 2.6 724,758 1.3 692,382	 1.3
Source:	CSA	Agricultural	Sample	Survey	2013/2014	(E.C.	2006)	
With	these	numbers	as	a	starting	point,	there	are	four	ways	to	increase	the	productivity	of	
Ethiopia’s	cattle	herd.		They	are:	
a. Increase fertility:	The	total	estimated	number	of	calves	born	during	the	year	was
10,225,288	–	which	represents	a	crude	fertility	rate	of	49.8%.		Simply	put,	roughly	half	
of	the	breeding	age	cows	had	a	calf	during	the	year.		Increasing	fertility	to	55%	would	
produce	an	additional	1,000,000	calves	from	the	same	number	of	cows	–	an	increase	in	
productivity.	
b. Decrease mortality:	Estimated	mortality	during	the	year	was	3,481,333	–	which	
represents	a	crude	mortality	rate	of	6.3%.		Decreasing	mortality	to	5.3%	would	mean	
that	an	additional	550,000	cattle	survive,	thereby	increasing	animals	available	for	
breeding	and	sale	(offtake)	–	increasing	productivity.	
c. Increased milk production:	An	estimated	10,731,656	cows	were	milked	at	some	time	
during	the	year.		Average	daily	production	of	1.371	liters	(net)	during	a	6	month	(180	
day)	average	lactation	period	yielded	roughly	2.65	billion	liters	of	milk.		Simply	
increasing	average	milk	production	to	1.5	liters	per	day	would	yield	an	additional	250	
million	liters	of	milk,	or	slightly	more	than	680,000	liters	per	day	–	increasing	
productivity.	
6
d. Increased weight:	An	estimated	3.8	million	head	of	cattle	were	slaughtered	for	
domestic	consumption	during	the	year.		The	survey	does	not	seek	to	quantify	the	
amount	of	meat	produced,	but	increasing	average	meat	yield	by	5	kilograms	per	head	
would	yield	an	additional	19	million	kilograms	of	meat	available	to	the	local	market	–	an	
increase	in	productivity.	
In	summary,	because	of	the	size	of	Ethiopia’s	cattle	herd	even	modest	improvements	in	these	
factors	will	yield	significant	productivity	gains.		The	basic	elements	of	increasing	livestock	
productivity	are	described	as	follows:	
a. Increasing fertility requires	improving	the	physical	condition	(health)	of	breeding	
cows.		That	can	be	accomplished	by	improved	feeding	practices	and	access	to	feed	
(better	nutrition)	and	increasing	access	to	and	use	of	veterinary	services	(health	care).	
b. Decreasing mortality requires	improving	physical	condition	(health)	of	animals.		As	
with	increased	fertility,	that	can	be	accomplished	by	improved	feeding	practices	and	
access	to	feed	(better	nutrition)	and	increasing	access	to	and	use	of	veterinary	services	
(health	care).	
c. Increased milk production requires	a	combination	of	improving	physical	condition	
(health)	by	improved	feeding	practices	and	access	to	feed	(better	nutrition),	increasing	
access	to	and	use	of	veterinary	services	(health	care),	and	genetic	improvement.	
d. Increased weight requires	improved	feeding	practices	and	access	to	feed	(better	
nutrition)	and	increasing	access	to	and	use	of	veterinary	services	(health	care).	
In	summary,	improved	feeding	practices	and	increased	access	to	and	use	of	veterinary	services	
are	essential	to	improving	productivity.		The	catch	is	that	there	is	a	long	lag	time	between	
improvements	and	increased	production	(offtake).		For	example,	it	takes	3	years	for	calves	born	
due	to	increased	fertility	to	wean	their	first	calf	(female)	or	be	available	for	slaughter	(male).		
Since	most	mortality	occurs	among	calves,	the	same	is	true	for	decreasing	mortality.	
Increased	milk	production	and	weight	can	be	achieved	in	somewhat	less	time.		But	animals	
stunted	early	in	life	never	fully	recover,	and	for	most	cows	increased	milk	production	as	a	result	
of	improved	feeding	will	take	place	in	the	next	lactation.		Genetic	improvements	require	a	
generation	(3	years	at	least)	to	begin	to	materialize.	
To	summarize,	the	lag	time	required	to	increase	livestock	productivity	means	that	most	
of	the	impact	from	what	the	project	is	doing	today	will	only	begin	to	be	realized	over	the	next	3	
years.		Some	impact	may	be	realized	in	the	short	run,	but	most	of	it	will	take	place	after	the	end	
of	the	project.	
2. EVALUATION FINDINGS
The	findings	presented	below	are	organized	according	to	the	seven	evaluation	questions	posed	
by	USAID	in	the	SOW.		AGP‐LMD	has	three	IRs,	each	with	related	components	and	activities	
(Section	1.2).		AGP‐LMD	performance	is	examined	with	regard	to	the	major	activity	indicators	
and	targets	contained	in	the	PMP	–	first	in	general	terms,	and	then	with	regard	to	each	of	the	
IRs.		There	are	also	four	cross‐cutting	issues	(gender,	ICT,	environment,	pro‐poor)	but	these	
issues	are	not	linked	to	specific	activities,	and	are	without	indicators	or	targets.	
2.1 Program Performance
The	following	are	the	findings	of	the	evaluation	team	in	response	to	question	one:	Are the
selected program activities on track to reach the desired FtF results in Ethiopia?
2.1.1 General
First	of	all,	we	found	that	CNFA	and	its	consortium	partners	are	making	a	credible	effort	to	
implement	the	project,	with	some	very	positive	achievements	to	date.		These	include:
 Capacity	Building:	The	ambitious	program	of	technical	and	business	training	across	a	wide	
range	of	subjects	and	a	large	number	of	participants	received	very	positive	comments	
from	everyone	we	interviewed.		There	is	no	doubt	that	this	is	the	most	successful	element	
7
of	the	project	to	date	in	terms	of	direct	impact	with	the	beneficiary	population,	and	most	
likely	to	have	impacted	productivity.
 Women’s	Participation: The	specially	designed	entrepreneurship,	governance	and	
leadership	training	focused	on	women,	and	the	substantive	involvement	of	women	in	all	
project	activities,	has	been	very	successful.
 Business‐to‐Business:	This	activity	is	greatly	appreciated	for	its	contribution	in	
introducing	firms	to	one	another,	breaking	down	resistance	to	cooperating,	establishing	
business	linkages,	and	facilitating	collaboration	locally	and	internationally.
 Dairy	Value	Chain:	AGP‐LMD	is	doing	a	very	good	job	of	supporting	dairy	sector	
development,	especially	with	regard	to	expanding	processing	capacity,	supporting	the	
establishment	of	collection	centers	to	improve	the	supply	network,	and	training.
 Investment:	The	project	is	processing	grants	totaling	more	than	$6	million	to	leverage	
private	investment,	and	has	successfully	helped	9	borrowers	obtain	$2.2	million	in	DCA	
financing.
 Regional	Livestock	Working	Groups	(LWGs):	This	is	a	highly	complimented	platform	for	
bringing	government	interests,	NGOs,	business	people,	and	producers	together	to	discuss	
practical	issues	and	problems	impacting	the	livestock	sector	and	recommend	solutions.
Second,	based	on	our	findings	and	conclusions,	we	believe	that	the	project	should	
concentrate	its	efforts	during	the	remaining	LOP	on:	
 Greatly	expanding	for	micro‐	and	small	enterprise	(MSE)	development	in	the	rural	areas	
adjacent	to	livestock	producers.	
 Substantially	increasing	the	role	and	responsibilities	of	the	local	Implementing	Partners,	
especially	in	designing	and	implementing	MSE	development	activities,	and	measuring	the	
impact	of	project	activities	(with	CNFA	technical	advice	and	support).	
 Facilitating	the	establishment	of	private	Business	Development	Services	(BDS)	providers	
to	ensure	the	availability	of	essential	services	for	grantees	and	industrial	value	chain	
operations.	
The	specific	findings	of	the	evaluation	team	which	inform	the	above	are	discussed	as	
follows:		
Project	Design	Issues:	The	goals	of	AGP	and	FtF	appear	complementary,	but	in	practice	make	for	
an	awkward	implementation	marriage.		For	example,	the	AGP	goal	is	“to end poverty and
enhance growth”,	and	implementation	is	focused	on	improving	productivity	and	economic	
growth	in	the	high	potential	areas	of	Ethiopia,	with	an	emphasis	on	surplus	producers.		
However,	the	goal	of	the	FtF	initiative	(the	primary	source	of	funding	for	the	project)	is	“to
sustainably reduce poverty and hunger” with	implementation	focused	on	improving	the	
incomes	of	poor	rural	households,	and	improving	the	nutritional	status	of	children.		There	is	
certainly	overlap	between	AGP	and	FtF	beneficiary	populations,	but	the	extent	of	overlap	and	
how	it	is	considered	during	implementation	is	not	clearly	described.
AGP‐LMD	combines	these	goals	under	the	umbrella	objective	of	improving smallholder
incomes and nutritional status,	which	aims	to	contribute	to	the	achievement	of	both	using	a	
value	chain	development	approach	to	improve	productivity	and	competitiveness.		However,	the	
value	chain	approach	does	not	necessarily	engage	with	or	impact	poor	rural	households.	
AGP‐	LMD	is	not	fully	consistent	with	the	AGP	geographic	focus	areas	either.		It	departs	from	
woreda	specific	geographic	targets	to	encompass	naturally	occurring	dairy	milk	sheds	and	
livestock	growth	corridors.		Since	livestock	value	chains	transcend	administrative	boundaries	
and	geography,	this	makes	perfect	technical	sense.		However,	it	makes	for	an	awkward	
geographic	marriage,	with	some	project	activities	focused	on	target	woredas	while	others	
emphasize	growth	corridors	and	milk	sheds.	
The	key	development	hypothesis	of	the	project	is	that	market‐driven enterprise
development can generate increased producer incomes by pulling previously marginalized
populations into commercial value chains, increasing their incomes.		The	assumption	is	that	
this	will	lead	to	improvements	in	nutrition,	household	food	security	and	health	in	the	target	
8
population.		However,	project	contributions	to	the	achievement	of	AGP	and	FtF	goals	hinge	upon	
exactly	which	households	actually	benefit	from	project	interventions.	
Within	this	somewhat	awkward	framework,	the	component	parts	of	AGP‐LMD	resemble	
separate	projects	(dairy,	meat,	live	animals,	training,	grants,	policy,	and	nutrition),	with	very	
little	complementarity	or	synergy	between	them.		This	dilutes	oversight,	making	the	
management	of	project	implementation	complicated	and	difficult.
2.1.2 IR1: Increased Productivity and Competitiveness of Selected Livestock Value
Chains
CNFA	is	roughly	on	track	to	meet	most	of	the	performance	indicator	targets	(see	Tables	2,	3	and	
4	below).		The	most	notable	exceptions	are	job	creation,	which	methodology	issues	makes	
totally	inadequate	to	capture	the	employment	impact	of	increasing	livestock	value	chain	
productivity	and	competitiveness,	and	the	number	of	MSMEs	receiving	USG	assistance	to	access	
loans.		We	note	that	performance	cannot	be	expected	to	be	linear,	but	increasing	over	time	with	
the	later	years	of	the	project	producing	the	bulk	of	the	anticipated	results.	
There	are	significant	issues	regarding	the	relationship	of	the	indicators	to	AGP	
(enhanced	growth)	or	FtF	(poverty	reduction)	goals.		This	is	complicated	by	the	fact	that	AGP	is	
not	attempting	to	measure	impact,	relying	upon	the	final	evaluation.		The	major	PMP	indicators,	
drawn	primarily	from	mandatory	FtF	indicators,	are	simply	inadequate	to	measure	impact,	or	to	
articulate	the	“so	what”	of	project	activities.		Therefore,	a	review	of	the	indicators	leaves	the	
reader	wondering	what	the	project	is	actually	achieving	with	regard	to	AGP	and	FtF	goals.	
Table	2a	overleaf	presents	project	achievements	as	of	the	end	of	December	2014	against	
LOP	Targets	for	selected	PMP	performance	indicators.		The	following	is	a	general	discussion	of	
these	indicators,	and	what	they	represent.	Further	detail	is	provided	in	Annex	9.	
The	primary	indicator,	value of incremental sales at household level attributed to
project implementation is	not	a	valid	measure	of	impact.		First	of	all	the	AGP‐LMD	focus	on	
value	chains	means	it	is	not	working	at	the	producer	level	(with	some	exceptions	in	the	dairy	
value	chain),	and	must	therefore	use	secondary	data	sources	to	which	a	set	of	assumptions	are	
applied.	
Second,	most	results	reported	to	date	are	from	the	live	animal	and	meat	value	chain	
(specifically	sheep	and	goats),	with	data	derived	almost	entirely	from	total	export	sales	based	
on	a	set	of	assumptions.		The	lack	of	detail	on	the	component	parts	of	the	estimate	(#	of	animals,	
sale	price)	makes	it	impossible	to	determine	whether	increased	sales	are	a	result	of	increased	
productivity,	or	market	price	increases.	
Third,	in	the	short	term	there	are	no	new	animals	being	produced	by	the	system	(due	to	
the	lag	in	supply	response),	so	any	recorded	increment	may	simply	be	the	diversion	of	animals	
from	other	channels	(market	ready	livestock	do	not	go	unsold).		That	means	the	total	should	be	
discounted	to	reflect	only	incremental	price.	
Fourth,	as	increased	dairy	processing	capacity	comes	on	line,	the	contribution	of	
increased	milk	sales	will	also	need	to	be	discounted	because	there	is,	as	of	yet,	no	new	milk	in	
the	value	chain.		Rather,	increased	producer	sales	to	processors	mostly	displace	existing	raw	
milk	sales.	
In	summary,	the	calculations	for	this	indicator	need	serious	review	and	reconsideration.		
We	recommend	reducing	the	LOP	target	for	the	indicator	to	the	original	$65,912,056.	
The	indicator	value of livestock and livestock product exports attributed to project
implementation provides	a	reasonable	source	of	information	on	project	achievements.		But	the	
target	is	almost	certainly	overstated,	because	increased	beef	and	live	shoat	exports	are	highly	
unlikely	to	materialize.		In	addition,	the	indicator	is	insufficient	to	measure	the	impact	of	
increased	exports	on	household	income	and	nutrition.		We	recommend	reducing	the	LOP	target	
for	the	indicator	to	the	original	$135,906,300.		
9
Table 2a: Selected AGP‐LMD PMP IR1 Performance Indicators
Indicator
Achieved to
December 2014 LOP Target
 Value of incremental sales attributed to project
implementation
- Milk	
- Cattle	
- Shoats
$ 29,613,505
$						524,230	
$						872,686	
$	25,582,734	
$ 111,293,5291
$			11,548,403	
$					2,104,501	
$			97,640,625	
 Value of livestock and livestock product exports
attributed to project implementation
- Beef
- Live	cattle
- Shoat	meat
- Live	shoat
$ 32,315,261
‐	
$			1,525,000	
$	30,790,261	
‐	
$ 191,292,3212
$		54,500,000	
$		21,104,021	
$100,336,500	
$		15,351,800	
 Gross Margin	per	unit	of	land,	kilogram	or	animal	of	
selected	product	
‐				Cattle	
‐				Shoats	
‐				Milk	
		‐ 	 		‐	
$	57.50	
$	10.60	
$	10.00	
 Number of jobs	attributed	to	project	implementation	 				220 		5,025	
 Number	of	farmers	and	others	who	have	applied	new	
technologies	or	management	practices	as	a	result	of	USG	
assistance
	7,158 53,099	
 Number of individuals	who	have	received	USG	
supported	short‐term	agricultural	sector	productivity	or	
food	security	training
12,204
4,180 F
76,976
23,093 F
 Number	of	food	security	private	enterprises,	producer	
organizations,	water	users	associations,	women’s	
groups,	trade	and	business	associations,	and	
community‐based	organizations	receiving	USG	
assistance
				499 					700	
 Number	of	vulnerable	households	linked	to	markets	as	a	
result	of	the	project
		1,826 		7,420	
 Value	of	new	private	investment	in	the	livestock	sector	
or	food	chain	leveraged	by		project	implementation
$	3,188,747 $35,475,000
 Value	of	agricultural	and	rural	loans	facilitated	by	the	
project	
$	7,556,862 $	24,265,830
 Number	of	MSMEs	receiving	USG	assistance	to	access	
loans
18 193	
The	gross margin	indicator	is	essentially	useless.		First	of	all,	the	methodology	is	not	
applicable	to	the	livestock	sector	because	output	prices	are	not	stable	and	are	outside	producer	
control.		That	makes	the	calculation	unpredictably	cyclical	and	variable.		Second,	it	only	looks	at	
cash	expense,	and	does	not	provide	for	recovery	of	the	considerable	upfront	investment	costs	
required	to	engage	in	livestock	production.		Third,	it	does	not	account	for	any	changes	in	
inventory.		Those	same	reasons	make	in	equally	useless	for	perennial	crops,	and	virtually	
useless	for	annual	crops.	Fourth,	data	collection	based	on	farmer	recall	is	notoriously	
inaccurate.		Fifth,	as	a	point	of	reference,	standard	operating	procedure	for	agricultural	
production	enterprises	and	professionals	is	to	measure	and	manage	production	costs,	using	
them	as	a	reference	point	when	considering	production	decisions	based	on	price	expectations.		
It	needs	to	be	eliminated,	not	just	from	the	PMP,	but	from	the	pantheon	of	FtF	indicators	
globally.	
                                                            
1	Original	LOP	target:	$65,398,306
2	Original	LOP	target:	$138,906,300
10
As	noted	above,	the	methodology	for	measuring	jobs created makes	it	totally	
inadequate	to	capture	the	employment	impact	of	increasing	productivity	and	competitiveness	in	
livestock	value	chains.	
The	next	four	indicators	(number of farmers, individuals, enterprises and	
households benefitting from the project)	are	simple	output	figures.		While	useful	for	
indicating	the	scale	of	activity,	they	do	not	measure	the	impact	of	the	project	on	household	
incomes	and	nutrition.	
The	next	two	indicators	(value of new private investment leveraged, value of agricultural
and rural loans facilitated)	also	provide	a	useful	indication	of	the	scale	of	activity.		But	again,	
actual	impact	of	these	investments	on	household	incomes	and	nutrition	is	not	being	measured.	
Finally,	the	target	for	the	number of MSMEs receiving USG assistance to access loans
is	far	too	ambitious,	and	the	whole	indicator	merits	further	redefinition,	review	and	adjustment.
Table	2b	(below)	summarizes	overall	indicator	achievement	as	a	%	of	the	LOP	indicator.		
Table 2b: AGP‐LMD IR1 Gross Performance Measures
Indicator
Achieved to
December 2014 LOP Target
 Financial Expenditure
- %	of	target	
$ 13,883,227
34%	
$ 41,173,362
 Value of incremental sales attributed to project
implementation
- %	of	target							Overstated – return to original level
$ 29,613,505
26%	
$ 111,293,529
 Value of livestock and livestock product exports
attributed to project implementation
- %	of	target
$ 32,315,261
17%	
$ 191,292,321
 Gross	Margin	per	unit	of	land,	kilogram	or	animal	of	
selected	product	
Useless No target
established
 Number	of	jobs	attributed	to	project	implementation	
- %	of	target	
220
4%	
		5,025	
 Number	of	farmers	and	others	who	have	applied	new	
technologies	or	management	practices	as	a	result	of	USG	
assistance
- %	of	target					Problem Indicator – needs revision
7,158
13%	
53,099	
 Number	of	individuals	who	have	received	USG	supported	
short‐term	agricultural	sector	productivity	or	food	security	
training
- %	of	target	
12,204
16%	
76,976	
 Number	of	food	security	private	enterprises,	producer	
organizations,	water	users	associations,	women’s	groups,	
trade	and	business	associations,	and	community‐based	
organizations	receiving	USG	assistance
- %	of	target
499
71%	
					700	
 Number	of	vulnerable	households	linked	to	markets	as	a	
result	of	the	project
- %	of	target
1,826
25%	
		7,420	
 Value	of	new	private	investment	in	the	livestock	sector	or	
food	chain	leveraged	by	project	implementation
- %	of	target
$	3,188,747
9%	
$35,475,000
 Value	of	agricultural	and	rural	loans	facilitated	by	the	
project	
- %	of	target	
$	7,556,862
31%	
$	24,265,830
 Number	of	MSMEs	receiving	USG	assistance	to	access	loans
- %	of	target					Problem Indicator – needs revision
18
9%	
193	
Two	cautions	with	regard	to	the	levels	of	performance.		First	of	all,	it	should	be	
compared	to	the	amount	of	funds	expended	as	a	%	of	project	budget	–	34%	in	the	case	of	AGP‐
11
LMD.		Second,	performance	is	not	linear.		Rather,	one	expects	it	to	increase	at	an	increasing	rate	
over	the	LOP,	with	most	impact	taking	place	in	years	4	and	5.		For	these	two	reasons,	we	believe	
that	the	project	is	roughly	on	track	to	meet	performance	targets,	with	exceptions	to	that	
statement	noted.		However,	actually	meeting	the	targets	will	depend	upon	the	success	of	
recommended	actions.	
Beneficiaries:	The	pull	philosophy	of	the	project	is	to	draw	producers	into	the	value	chain	by	
formal	market	participation.		But	other	than	capacity	building,	project	activities	are	working	too	
far	distant	from	producers	to	have	any	direct	and	immediate	impact	on	producer	income.	
AGP‐LMD	activities	have	emphasized	facilitating	and	supporting	industrial	scale	
agriculture	(milk	processing	plants,	export	abattoirs,	large	feedlots,	and	feed	mills)	investments,	
with	the	rather	heroic	assumption	that	this	will	exert	the	needed	market	“pull”	on	smallholder	
production.		However,	the	link	between	prices	paid	by	these	enterprises,	and	any	changes	in	
smallholder	producer/rural	household	income,	is	not	being	measured	or	recorded.	The	project	
incorporates	key	value	chain	actors,	including	animal	feed	processors,	private	and	cooperative	
dairy	producers/processors,	live	animal	exporters,	domestic	and	export	abattoirs,	input	supply,	
and	AI	and	animal	health	service	providers.		However,	it	has	to	date	overlooked	other	key	actors	
(traders,	transporters	and	brokers)	who	play	a	significant	role	in	the	operation	of	livestock	
value	chains.	This	needs	to	be	remedied.	
Capacity	Building:		AGP‐LMD	has	provided	a	great	deal	of	technical,	business,	leadership,	and	
policy	training	to	a	wide	range	value	chain	actors.		These	have	included,	among	others:	skill	
training	on	animal	husbandry	management,	feed	formulation,	sanitation	and	hygiene	for	meat	
and	milk	products;	Standard	Operational	Procedures;	marketing;	entrepreneurship;	business	
proposal	development,	data	recording	and	bookkeeping;	and	policy	formulation.		All	the	
individuals,	firms,	cooperatives	and	government	service	providers	we	interviewed	
complimented	the	relevance	and	effectiveness	of	the	training	provided.		
The	project	also	offered	special	training	to	women	in	entrepreneurship	and	leadership	
development.		Some	women	entrepreneurs	in	the	livestock	sector	were	also	identified	for	
additional	entrepreneurship	and	business	management	training	and	mentoring.		The	project	
conducted	needs	assessments	for	each	of	these	entrepreneurs,	and	developed	a	coaching	
strategy	to	support	women	entrepreneurs	trained	in	the	previous	year.		This	involves	long	term	
coaching	through	the	Women’s	Bureau.	
Participants	stated	that	training	activities	were	very	effective	in	improving	beneficiary	
skills	as	reflected	in	the	enhanced	productivity	and	production	of	their	businesses.		For	example,	
dairy	producers	stated	that	practices	changed	subsequent	to	the	training	increased	milk	yields,	
improved	milk	hygiene	and	quality,	reduced	the	percentage	of	milk	rejected	by	processors,	
increased	the	quality	of	processed	milk,	and	increased	income.		Some	dairy	processors	are	also	
attempting	to	introduce	quality‐based	payment	systems	based	on	milk	density	measurements	
and	alcohol	tests.		Experience	sharing	among	different	actors,	within	and	across	the	regions,	and	
visits	to	enterprises	out	of	the	country	were	also	very	much	appreciated.	
Grants	Program: The	grants	program	is	focused	on	leveraging	private	investment	in	the	value	
chain.		The	objective	is	to	enhance	the	capacity	of	key	value	chain	actors,	improve	their	
efficiency	and	competitiveness,	and	strengthen	the	pull	effect	on	small	producers.		The	program	
has	been	carefully	designed,	and	is	being	responsibly	managed.		But	in	practice	it	is	proving	to	
be	slow	and	cumbersome,	and	in	need	of	streamlining.			
Total	grant	funding	budgeted	under	the	project	is	$6,058,738,	to	be	allocated	to	a	
combination	of	private	enterprises,	cooperative	businesses,	and	women	entrepreneurs	(not	
including	PLWHA	credit	and	savings	groups).		However,	only	19	grants	with	a	total	value	of	
$1,773,983	have	been	signed	to	date,	and	only	$255,394	actually	disbursed.	Another	56	
proposals	are	being	further	refined	and	evaluated.			
The	grants	which	have	been	signed,	and	those	in	process,	seem	reasonable.		But	the	
expected	contribution	of	the	program	to	the	achievement	of	major	indicator	targets,	while	
expected	to	be	substantial,	is	yet	to	be	realized.		Furthermore,	delays	in	process	mean	that	most	
grants	will	not	have	any	significant	impact	until	after	the	end	of	the	project.	Individual	grantees	
will	also	need	continued	TA	throughout	the	remaining	LOP	to	have	the	best	chance	of	success.	
12
Business	Linkages:	The	Business‐to‐Business	(B2B)	meetings	have	been	an	effective	and	
popular	approach	to	building	relationships	between	value	chain	businesses,	and	promoting	the	
concept	of	collaboration.		Facilitating	the	participation	of	abattoirs	in	the	international	business	
exhibition	and	study	visits	was	also	contributed	to	business	linkage	and	experience	sharing	
opportunities.			AGP‐LMD	also	used	these	opportunities	to	introduce	new	concepts	and	ways	of	
thinking.		These	activities	are	greatly	appreciated	as	a	process	for	introducing	firms	to	one	
another,	breaking	down	resistance,	and	facilitating	collaboration	locally	and	internationally.	
2.1.2.1 Dairy Value Chain
Dairy	value	chain	activities	are	centered	on	larger	urban	centers,	which	provide	the	market	
outlet	for	pasteurized	milk	and	milk	products.		The	emphasis	is	on	milk	sheds,	and	urban	and	
peri‐urban	milk	production.		This	does	not	entirely	satisfy	AGP	targeting	criteria,	but	is	
nonetheless	making	a	significant	contribution	to	the	achievement	of	AGP	goals.		However,	the	
impact	of	dairy	value	chain	activities	on	the	achievement	of	FtF	goals	is	not	being	measured	and	
recorded.	
A	significant	amount	of	technical	and	management	training	is	going	into	the	dairy	sector,	
from	producer	level	through	small	scale	processors	to	new	startups	and	larger	scale	processors.		
Training	for	input	supply	(feed,	veterinary	drugs)	and	services	(animal	health,	AI)	is	supporting	
the	production	side.		All	of	this	provides	an	essential	entrepreneurial	and	technical	foundation	
for	expanding	dairy	production,	but	much	more	needs	to	be	done	(collection	centers,	small‐
scale	processing)	to	more	effectively	reach	FtF	beneficiaries.		However,	more	effort	is	needed	to	
strengthen	the	market	link	between	producers	and	processors	and	band	consumers.	
The	grants	program	is	leveraging	new	investment	in	dairy	processing	and	supporting	
services.		The	emphasis	on	industrial	milk	processing,	and	the	marketing	of	pasteurized	milk	
and	milk	products,	will	undoubtedly	have	an	impact	on	domestic	milk	consumption.		But	dairy	
development	faces	significant	challenges.	
For	example,	at	the	beginning	of	the	project	total	of	107,050	liters/day	of	milk	was	being	
processed,	versus	established	processing	capacity	of	190,500	liters/day.		With	new	capacity	
coming	on	line,	all	plants	will	be	challenged	to	grow	their	product	market	while	capturing	
enough	milk	to	satisfy	increasing	demand.		There	is	certainly	potential	at	the	smallholder	level	
to	fill	this	gap,	but	it	will	require	greater	emphasis	on	pulling	the	already	available	raw	milk	into	
the	formal	channel,	and	building	the	milk	supply	network.	
2.1.2.2 Meat and Live Animal Value Chain
Current	meat	and	live	animal	value	chain	activities	are	focused	at	the	end	of	the	value	chain	as	
witnessed	during	our	visits	to	export	abattoirs,	and	large‐scale	feed	lots	with	an	exclusive	
export	orientation.	There	are	also	limited	efforts	underway	with	domestic	abattoirs	and	the	feed	
lots	which	provide	animals	to	them.		However,	the	domestic	supply	of	meat,	emanating	from	
municipal	abattoirs,	raises	hygiene	and	safety	issues	which	need	to	be	addressed	to	promote	
and	support	modern,	commercially	oriented	private	sector	owned	abattoirs	slaughtering	for	the	
domestic	market.	
Ethiopia’s	comparative	advantages	make	it	solidly	competitive	in	the	export	of	live	cattle	
and	shoat	meat.		For	beef	there	is	solid	export	demand	for	fresh	(hot)	meat	in	the	Gulf	States	and	
Egypt,	and	the	cattle	which	Ethiopia	exports	(Boran	type)	are	well	known	and	preferred.		But	
Ethiopia	is	not,	and	is	not	likely	to	ever	be,	competitive	in	the	export	of	chilled	or	frozen	beef.		
The	reality	is	that	Ethiopia	cannot	currently	compete	on	either	meat	quality	(tenderness,	a	
combination	of	age	and	condition)	or	price	(high	cost	of	conditioning	animals)	with	major	
exporters.		To	further	complicate	things,	domestic	prices	for	beef	are	often	higher	than	export.		
As	a	result,	further	investment	in	export	abattoir	capacity	for	beef	is	not	warranted.	
Live	cattle	export	remains	a	profitable,	but	risky	enterprise.		With	the	growing	domestic	
demand	for	beef,	and	demand	for	lowland	animals	of	export	quality,	there	is	little	room	for	
further	growth.		There	is	also	a	solid	market	for	chilled	shoat	carcasses	of	the	size	Ethiopia	can	
produce	in	abundance.		Ethiopia	is	currently	competitive	in	this	market,	but	to	maintain	its	edge	
must	continue	efforts	to	increase	productivity	and	decrease	processing	costs.	
13
2.1.3 IR2: Improved Enabling Environment for Livestock Value Chains
AGP‐LMD	efforts	to	improve	the	enabling	environment	fall	into	two	general	areas.		First	of	all,	
building	upon	some	modest	individual	successes,	AGP‐LMD	is	playing	a	key	role	by	facilitating	
the	establishment	and	organization	of	regional	Livestock	Working	Groups	(LWGs).		Chaired	by	
the	relevant	Livestock	Authority,	these	are	providing	a	platform	for	bringing	together	
government	representatives,	business	interests,	producers,	and	other	stakeholders	to	discuss	
practical	issues	and	problems	and	recommend	solutions.		The	outcomes	and	recommendations	
of	these	groups	will	be	taken	up	for	consideration	by	the	Multi‐stakeholder	Platforms	(MSPs).		
This	bottom‐up	approach	to	raising	policy	and	regulatory	issues	has	great	potential	for	
influencing	change.	
Second,	AGP‐LMD	is	collaborating	with	and	supporting	efforts	at	the	national	level	to	
pilot	the	Livestock	Identification	and	Traceability	System	(LITS),	and	providing	technical	
assistance	to	help	address	issues	related	to	the	livestock	and	livestock	product	exports	and	the	
national	SPS	system.	
Table 3: Selected AGP‐LMD PMP IR2 Performance Indicators
Indicator
Achieved to
December 2014 LOP Target
 Number	of	policies,	regulations	and	administrative	
procedures	developed,	enacted	or	implemented	as	a	
result	of	the	project
- %	target
5
44%	
12	
 Reduction	in	the	cost	of	doing	business	in	the	dairy,	
meat	and	live	animal	value	chains	
‐ 20%	
Performance	indicators	do	not	really	capture	what	is	taking	place.		Simply	counting	numbers	of	
things	done	does	not	indicate	their	relative	importance.		For	example,	the	Chief	Veterinary	
Officer	cited	instances	of	important	AGP‐LMD	collaboration	on	several	animal	health	and	
management	issues	–	including	LITS,	and	SPS,	and	the	new	Livestock	Marketing	proclamation.		
This	support	is	critical	to	help	Ethiopia	reduce	regulatory	burdens	and	costs,	and	maintain	its	
comparative	advantage	in	live	cattle	and	shoat	meat	exports.	
We	have	included	include	a	new	custom	indicator	for	IR2	which	captures	in	
understandable	terms	the	goal	of	these	activities	–	to	reduce	the	cost	of	doing	business	in	the	
dairy,	meat	and	live	animal	value	chains.		The	intent	is	clear,	but	the	methodology	for	this	
indicator	needs	to	be	developed,	defined,	and	properly	measured.	
In	summary,	AGP‐LMD	efforts	in	IR2	are	definitely	contributing	to	improved	livestock	
sector	policy	and	regulations.		But	the	impact	of	these	efforts	on	value	chain	efficiency	and	
productivity	is	yet	to	be	realized.	
2.1.4 IR3: Improved Quality and Diversity of Household Diet
The	IR3	program	is	being	implemented	in	collaboration	with	the	Ministry	of	Health	(MOH)	and	
the	Ministry	of	Agriculture	(MOA).		We	were	told	that	this	collaboration	is	helping	DAs	improve	
their	understanding	of	health	and	nutritional	issues.			
We	visited	nutrition	training	sessions,	nutrition	clubs,	and	cooking	demonstrations	
promoting	the	use	of	animal	source	foods	to	improve	maternal	and	child	nutrition.		The	
approach	is	to	provide	TOT	training	on	maternal	and	child	nutrition	to	IP	staff	and	woreda focal	
persons	as	the	basis	for	influencing	behavioral	change	in	the	target	communities.		These	are	
complemented	by	nutrition	training	and	cooking	demonstrations,	which	help	mothers	learn	by	
involving	them	in	the	preparation	of	a	nutritional	porridge	recipe	using	animal	products,	
cereals,	vegetables,	fruits,	oil	and	iodized	salt.		
The	project	is	also	training	DAs	on	dietary	diversity,	infant	and	young	child	feeding,	and	
livestock	product	preservation	and	storage.		The	objective	is	to	build	their	capacity	to	transfer	
nutrition	education	to	beneficiaries	at	the	grassroots	level.		The	training	includes	an	overview	of	
14
why	nutrition	matters,	nutrition	priority	groups,	dietary	diversification	and	the	importance	of	
consuming	animal	products,	as	well	as	safe	milk	and	meat	consumption.		The	primary	target	is	
pregnant	and	lactating	mothers,	but	also	includes	fathers	as	they	play	a	major	role	in	household	
decision‐making	regarding	what	food	appears	on	the	plate.	
The	project	also	supported	School	Milk	Day	and	The	Second	World	School	Milk	Day	
events	in	a	number	of	towns.		The	objective	was	to	initiate	school	milk	feeding	programs,	and	
promote	safe	milk	consumption	among	schoolchildren,	their	family	members,	and	nutritional	
target	groups	in	the	community.		These	events	emphasized	the	nutritional	benefits	of	drinking	
safe	milk	as	part	of	a	regular	diet,	and	the	importance	of	boiling/pasteurizing	milk.		However,	
behavior	change	takes	long	periods	of	time	to	take	effect,	and	is	directly	linked	to	access	and	
control	of	household	resources.		Therefore,	mothers	need	access	and	control	of	these	resources	
in	order	to	provide	improved	nutrition	for	their	families.		For	these	reasons	it	is	not	clear	how	
effective	these	activities	will	be	in	contributing	to	improved	nutrition.	
AGP‐LMD	is	roughly	on	track	to	meet	the	LOP	Indicator	targets	related	to	the	number	of	
children	under	five	reached	by	the	project	(see	rationale	above),	and	is	definitely	on	track	with	
regard	to	the	number	of	people	trained	in	child	health	and	nutrition.		Performance	as	measured	
by	the	indicators	is	quite	good,	but	impact	will	be	difficult	to	measure.	
Table 4: Selected AGP‐LMD PMP IR3 Performance Indicators
Achieved to
December 2014 LOP Target
 Number of children under five	reached	by	project	
supported	nutrition	programs
- %	of	target
14,905
7,513 F
34%	
44,283
22,359 F
 Number of people trained	in	child	health	and	
nutrition	through	Project‐supported	programs	
- %	of	target	
17,635
5,706 F
49%	
35,728
10,718 F
Activities	are	also	underway	to	improve	the	nutrition	and	economic	status	of	HIV‐affected	and	
infected	households	in	project	Deep	Focus	Woredas.		We	visited	one	group,	and	talked	with	the	
members.		PLWHA	are	being	helped	to	form	savings	and	credit	groups	(SCG),	which	are	
receiving	TA	and	capacity‐building,	and	are	using	their	savings	to	invest	in	joint	group	
enterprises	or	individual	businesses.		The	activity	is	small,	but	is	making	a	difference	in	the	lives	
of	the	participants.		
This	is	really	a	stand‐alone	activity,	with	little	relationship	to	the	rest	of	the	project.		But	
it,	the	nutrition	program,	and	the	wrap‐around	PLWHA	program	are	activities	for	which	the	
Implementing	Partners	are	responsible.		From	what	we	observed,	what	we	were	told,	and	the	
indicator	information	implementation	is	going	quite	well.		But,	impact	is	not	being	measured	or	
recorded,	and	is	yet	to	be	realized.	
2.2 Program Impact on Government Policy, Process and Administration
The	following	are	the	findings	of	the	evaluation	team	in	response	to	question	two:	Did program
activities lead to any significant changes in government policy, process, or administration
that can be expected to contribute to increased production and investment in the sector
and/or increased export competitiveness?
AGP‐LMD	is	very	judiciously	working	on	government	policy,	process	and	administration	
issues	related	to	livestock	value	chains.		The	scale	of	effort	appears	to	be	just	about	right.		
Specific	activities	which	provide	a	setting	for	broad‐based	identification	and	discussion	of	issues	
impacting	the	livestock	sector	include:	
Livestock	Working	Groups	(LWGs):		The	project	has	facilitated	the	organization	and	
establishment	of	these	groups	as	instruments	for	developing	livestock	policy	agendas	in	the	
regions,	and	to	help	tackle	practical	problems.		Regional	livestock	authorities	chair	the	LWGs,	
and	participants	include	Regional	government	bureaus	and	agencies,	private	sector	interests,	
and	NGOs	working	in	the	livestock	sector.		LWGs	have	been	established	in	all	regions,	an	
15
executive	body	elected,	and	participants	have	identified	priority	policy	issues	and	agendas	to	be	
presented	and	discussed	at	the	next	multi‐stakeholder	platforms	(MSPs)	in	their	respective	
regions.		
Multi‐stakeholder	Platforms	(MSPs):	The	project	plans	to	organize	4	MSPs	per	year	in	the	
regions,	and	1	at	the	federal	level.		To	date	the	project	has	hosted	a	total	of	22	MSPs	(19	regional	
and	3	federal.		However,	there	is	only	anecdotal	evidence	of	their	impact.	
Live	Animal	Trading	Proclamation:		AGP‐LMD	has	conducted	sensitization	and	awareness	
sessions	on	the	implementation	of	the	Live	Animal	Trading	Proclamation	for	government	
officials,	traders,	feedlot	operators	and	transporters.		Unfortunately,	the	proclamation	is	
seriously	flawed.		That	said,	project	efforts	are	helping	create	a	common	understanding	of	the	
new	proclamation,	the	substantial	financial	investment	which	will	be	required	to	implement	it,	
and	capacity	building	needs.		It	will	also	require	changes	in	the	mindsets	of	producers,	market	
actors	and	law	enforcement	agencies	–	the	need	for	which	is	debatable.	
Federal	MOT	representatives	and	regional	Trade	and	Transport	Bureaus	are	considering	
these	challenges,	and	have	promised	to	come	up	with	possible	solutions.		In	the	absence	of	a	
repeal	of	the	proclamation,	this	is	probably	the	best	that	can	be	expected.		It	remains	to	be	seen	
if	the	proclamation	will	have	any	positive	impact	on	the	sector.	
Livestock	Identification	Traceability	System	(LITS):	In	support	of	this	pilot	effort	an	
international	LITS	Consultant	has	been	contracted;	a	working	group	established	to	technically	
lead	the	pilot	program;	and	draft	data	entry	and	animal	health	certification	forms	have	been	
designed.	Planning	is	underway	to	conduct	the	pilot.		
Government	livestock	personnel	all	cited	the	LWGs	as	being	an	important	step	in	
providing	an	open	and	transparent	environment	for	discussing	issues	and	possible	solutions.		
However,	the	work	on	LWGs,	and	their	relationship	with	the	MSPs,	is	still	being	defined.		As	a	
result,	the	impact	on	value	chain	productivity	competitiveness	is	yet	to	be	realized.	
2.3 Effectiveness of the Implementation Approach
The	following	are	the	findings	of	the	evaluation	team	in	response	to	question	three:	What is the
demonstrated effectiveness of the current implementation approach (e.g. working with
local regional organizations like ORDA, REST, HUNDEE, Self‐Help – Africa, and regional
consortiums)?
The	fragmented	nature	of	project	activities,	their	geographic	dispersion,	and	the	rather	
awkward	marriage	of	AGP	and	FtF	goals	tends	to	dilute	focus	and	make	oversight	and	
management	difficult.		Management	is	further	complicated	by	the	large	number	of	federal	and	
regional	government	entities,	and	private	actors,	involved	in	AGP	and	AGP‐LMD	
implementation.		The	burden	of	simply	doing	business	in	the	current	operational	modality,	with	
so	many	actors	and	in	a	setting	with	so	many	government	interests	and	structures	takes	an	
inordinate	amount	of	time	and	effort	on	the	part	of	USAID,	CNFA,	and	the	other	implementers.		
Simply	managing	the	overall	effort	requires	inordinate	amount	of	oversight	and	communication	
with	USAID,	distracting	senior	staff,	disrupting	activities,	and	making	implementation	clumsy	
and	inflexible.	
In	addition,	the	modality	of	implementation	currently	being	used	does	not	take	full	
advantage	of	implementing	partner	(IP)	capabilities.		In	fact,	IPs	are	not	really	partners.		They	
are	simply	sub‐contractors,	hired	to	carry	out	certain	tasks,	but	without	being	substantively	and	
continuously	engaged	in	activity	design,	planning	and	implementation,	or	monitoring	and	
evaluation.		For	example,	the	contractual	agreement	with	the	IPs	consists	of	an	annual	purchase	
order	for	specific	tasks	as	directed	by	CNFA.		As	a	result	these	partners	do	not	have	complete	
information	on	the	full	range	of	work	planned	for	the	whole	project.		They	only	know	what	is	
being	asked	this	year.		This	has	two	implications:	(a)	the	IPs	are	activity	oriented	and	not	result	
oriented;	(b)	it	is	cumbersome	for	the	IPs	to	effectively	organize	their	staff	and	logistics	over	the	
project	period.		A	prime	example	is	the	unexpected	dropping	of	IR1	training	activities	this	year.		
This	caused	serious	problems	for	all	IPs	as	they	were	forced	to	terminate	staff	who	had	been	
hired	in	anticipation	of	an	ongoing	training	efforts.		All	the	IPs	stated	that	their	unhappiness	
with	the	modality,	indicating	they	are	only	continuing	because	of	their	commitment	to	USAID.		
16
In	summary,	the	management	structure	for	AGP‐LMD	is	unreasonably	complex	and	
mitigates	against	effective	implementation.		Specifically,	AGP‐LMD	is	not	taking	full	advantage	of	
IP	institutional	strengths,	technical	expertise,	and	local	presence.		It	is	not	engaging	them	on	a	
continuous	basis	in	project	planning	or	in	measuring	impact	(M&E),	and	their	capacity	to	
provide	effective	BDS	services	is	not	being	built	by	participating	in	the	project.		The	same	is	true	
of	local	consulting	firms,	who	are	contracted	for	specific	implementation	tasks	without	being	
fully	engaged	in	the	management,	oversight	and	planning	of	activities.	
As	a	result	management	is	overly	centralized	in	CNFA,	leaving	senior	management	staff	
inordinately	burdened	by	coordinating	with	the	large	number	of	national	and	regional	
government	entities,	institutions,	and	stakeholders	engaged	in	AGP	and	AGP‐LMD	
implementation.		Coordinating	with	this	array	of	actors	and	interests	eats	up	huge	amounts	of	
senior	staff	time,	with	little	apparent	impact	on	implementation	and	the	achievement	of	results.		
Effectively	engaging	the	IPs	as	long‐term	actors,	and	allowing	them	to	represent	the	project	and	
coordinate	at	the	regional	level,	would	improve	communication	and	reduce	the	burden	on	CNFA	
to	coordinate	at	all	levels.		This	would	give	management	staff	more	time	to	devote	to	
implementation,	instead	of	endless	rounds	of	coordination.	
2.4 Effectiveness of Partnerships with GoE AGP Implementers and Other Government
Offices
The	following	are	the	findings	of	the	evaluation	team	in	response	to	question	four:	How
effective is the partnership with GoE‐AGP implementers and other government offices
such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Industry, Federal
Cooperative Agency, and ATA in terms of collaboration and coordination to implement
AGP‐LMD?		What factors contribute for success or challenges in partnership, particularly
with the GoE‐AGP and what is recommended to resolve the challenges?		
	 We	thoroughly	discussed	CNFA	effectiveness	in	coordinating	AGP‐LMD	implementation	
with	implementing	partners,	AGP	coordination	units,	relevant	sectors	and	relevant	bureaus	at	
federal	and	regional	levels.		Note	that	there	are	a	large	number	of	programs	supporting	
livestock	development	in	Ethiopia	including	ADLIP,	RDPAS,	GTP,	AGP,	and	REDFS.		In	addition	to	
these,	AGP‐LMD	is	supporting	specific	platforms	to	strengthen	partnerships	with	other	AGP	
implementers	and	government	offices.		These	include	steering	committees,	technical	committee,	
MSPM,	LTC,	JRIS,	and	others.	
The	project	is	working	particularly	hard	to	sustain	participation	in	regular	quarterly	
monitoring	and	planning	meetings	with	AGP	at	both	the	regional	and	federal	level.		The	project	
also	supports	and	participates	in	the	crop	livestock	Technical	Committee	meetings	at	the	federal	
level.		In	this	context	annual	AGP‐LMD	plans	and	activities	are	prepared	in	consultation	with	the	
regional	stakeholders	and	implementing	partners,	and	presented	to	respective	Technical	and	
Steering	Committees.		In	spite	of	these	efforts,	there	were	complaints	from	several	quarters	
regarding	a	lack	of	clarity	and	transparency.		
As	discussed	above,	the	implementation	modality	with	the	IPs	means	they	cannot	
relieve	the	burden	by	representing	AGP‐LMD	or	substantively	participate	in	regional	
coordination	bodies.		The	only	role	for	the	IPs	is	to	facilitate	and	encourage	private	firms	and	
cooperatives	to	compete	for	grant	funds.		For	example,	neither	the	regional	stakeholders	nor	the	
IPs	have	complete	information	regarding	how	the	grants	program	operates.		To	complicate	
things	further,	there	are	activities	directly	implemented	by	project	staff	at	both	federal	and	
regional	levels	without	any	consultation	with	the	regional	IPs.		This	disorganized	and	confused	
arrangement	for	representing	the	project	makes	it	difficult	to	effectively	coordinate	with	
government	agencies.	
	 Most	government	offices	confirmed	that	AGP‐LMD	attempts	to	plan	and	implement	
activities	in	partnership	with	key	government	entities.		For	example,	joint	efforts	to	develop	the	
pilot	Livestock	Identification	and	Traceability	System	(LITS)	and	the	Rationalization	Road	Map	
document	show	indicate	good	relationships	with	the	MOA,	the	Ministry	of	Livestock,	the	state	
minister’s	office	and	the	animal	health	directorate	at	the	federal	level.		However,	the	
effectiveness	of	partnerships	at	the	regional	level	varies	from	very	good	to	almost	non‐existent.	
17
	 However,	we	are	astounded	at	the	large	number	of	government,	donor,	and	institutional	
actors	involved	in	livestock	project	implementation,	including	AGP,	at	the	regional	and	federal	
level.		These	have	spawned	an	inordinate	number	of	working	groups,	committees,	and	
coordinating	bodies	–	all	of	which	demand	participation,	but	do	not	seem	to	impact	
implementation.	
	 In	summary,	the	AGP‐LMD	is	really	stretched	to	collaborate	and	coordinate	with	
everyone	who	expects	it.		Staff	expend	an	inordinate	amount	of	time	and	effort	talking	about	
what	they	are	doing,	all	of	which	takes	time	away	from	actual	implementation.		The	need	is	for	
the	whole	apparatus	to	spend	less	time	coordinating,	and	more	time	actually	accomplishing	
something.		It	does	not	appear	that	the	level	of	effort	required	to	improve	coordination	would	
have	any	substantive	impact	on	implementation	or	goal	achievement.	
2.4 Relevance of Project Activities
The	following	are	the	findings	of	the	evaluation	team	in	response	to	question	five:	Based on
sustainability and cost effectiveness, which activities should be continued and which
activities are irrelevant or no more important to contribute to the project objectives in
the future?		
The	relevance	of	project	activities	is	a	function	of	how	well	they	address	national	
development	objectives,	their	relationship	with	other	on‐going	GoE	and	USAID	projects,	and	the	
needs	and	priorities	of	target	beneficiaries.		AGP‐LMD	was	specifically	designed	to	contribute	to	
the	achievement	of	both	AGP	and	FtF	goals	by	increasing	the	productivity	and	competitiveness	
of	selected	livestock	value	chains:	dairy	products	and	meat	and	live	animals.		As	a	result,	it	
functions	as	the	livestock	marketing	component	of	AGP.	
The	goal	of	AGP,	which	is	“to	end	poverty	and	enhance	growth,”	aligns	with	FTF’s	goal	
to,	“sustainably	reduce	poverty	and	hunger.”		The	specific	AGP‐LMD	objective	is	to	foster	growth	
and	reduce	poverty	by	improving	the	productivity	and	competitiveness	of	selected	livestock	
value	chains.		The	overall	AGP‐LMD	goal	is	to	improve Small Holder Incomes and Nutritional
Status.		
AGP‐LMD	attempts	to	link	geographically	and	thematically	with	the	prime	AGP	focus	on	the	
highly	productive	areas	of	Ethiopia,	where	smallholders	have	at	least	minimal	commercial	
engagement.		It	also	attempts	to	integrate	activities	with	the	USAID	GRAD	and	PLI	II/PRIME	
initiatives	operating	in	selected	food	insecure	woredas	where	the	graduates	of	the	Productive	
Safety‐Net	Program	(PSNP)	reside.	In	these	areas	AGP‐LMD	attempts	to	“pull”	their	products	
into	the	marketplace	upon	graduation	from	USAID	"push"	initiatives,	assuming	it	will	ultimately	
increase	their	incomes.	In	short,	AGP‐LMD	activities	are	expected	to	generate	the	market	
demand	needed	to	expand	commercial‐oriented	input	and	service	supply	and	form	sustainable	
supplier	and	buyer	relationships	to	link	producers	to	formal	markets.		The	focus	is	on	producers	
graduating	("pushed")	from	subsistence	agriculture,	both	in	the	selected	high	agro‐ecological	
potential	areas	targeted	by	target	of	AGP,	and	food	insecure	localities	targeted	by	FtF.			
The	AGP‐LMD	implementation	approach	seeks	to	empower	the	private	sector	at	all	
levels	of	the	value‐chain	as	the	most	effective	way	to	achieve	sustainable	livestock	sector	
growth,	and	improve	people’s	nutrition	and	health.		Although,	private	sector	growth	is	decisive	
in	market	development	and	commercialization,	it	has	been	least	addressed	in	GoE	agricultural	
development	strategies.		Therefore,	AGP‐LMD	fills	a	key	strategic	gap	by	focusing	on	the	private	
sector.		It	is	within	this	context	that	we	comment	on	the	relevance	of	project	activities.			
In	our	opinion	there	are	significant	design	and	implementation	weaknesses	which	
directly	impact	the	relevance	of	project	activities.		They	are:
Intervention	strategies:		The	AGP‐LMD	IR1	intervention	strategies	under	IR1	are	numerous,	not	
clearly	defined	and	articulated,	and	overlap	considerably.		It	would	be	far	better	to	consolidate	
these	strategies	into:	(a)	capacity	building	for	value	chain	actors	(awareness	creation,	technical	
and	business	training,	and	experience	sharing);	(b)	market	expansion	(domestic	and	global	
market	linkages);	(c)	stimulating	investment	(grant	funding,	credit	access);	and	(d)	promoting	
access	to	and	consumption	of	nutritious	food.		In	addition,	while	gender	and	environment	are	
mainstreamed	in	all	categories,	they	need	to	be	better	articulated	and	given	more	prominence.	
18
Indicators:		The	present	performance	indicators	are	inadequate	to	measure	achievement	and	
impact.		For	instance,	the	value	of	livestock/products	exported	is	affected	by	a	wide	range	of	
factors	external	to	the	production	process.		Most	project	indicators	are	simply	recording	the	
number	of	activities	carried	out	and	individuals	and	firms	affected.		It	is	nice	to	know	the	
number	of	trainees,	amount	of	grants	distributed,	total	values	of	agricultural	loans	provided,	
number	of	children	reached,	etc.	to	get	a	sense	of	the	scale	of	activity.		But	it	would	be	far	better	
to	know	the	impact	of	project	activities	on	household	income	and	nutrition.	
Capacity	Building:		The	extensive	training	program	carried	out	during	the	first	two	years	of	the	
project	was	cited	by	everyone	we	interviewed	as	a	major	contribution	to	AGP.		There	is	
considerable	anecdotal	evidence	that	this	is	true,	even	though	there	is	no	quantitative	data	to	
measure	impact.		The	inexplicable	cancellation	of	much	of	the	IR1	training	agenda	by	USAID	
during	year	three	interrupted	one	of	the	potentially	major	success	areas	of	the	project,	ruptured	
the	continuity	of	effort,	and	had	no	discernible	impact	on	implementation	of	the	grants	program	
(the	reason	cited	for	cancellation).		This	needs	to	be	immediately	rectified.	
Grants:	The	specific	objective	of	the	grants	program	is	to	leverage	private	investment	to	
improve	the	productivity	and	competitiveness	of	livestock	value	chains.		The	program	is	being	
carefully	implemented,	with	the	process	guided	by	a	project	manual.		We	noted	that,	according	
to	the	manual,	CNFA	is	expected	to	provide	the	approved	grants	efficiently	and	rapidly.		
However,	the	grant	process	has	proven	extremely	cumbersome,	and	even	approved	candidates	
are	impatient	with	the	rate	of	disbursement.		Disbursement	delays	mean	that	the	program	
cannot	be	expected	to	contribute	substantially	to	the	achievement	of	project	goals	prior	to	the	
end	of	the	project.	
As	confirmed	in	the	field,	grants	are	being	considered	for	projects	that	are	obviously	not	
feasible,	and/or	have	serious	management	issues. (Abergelle Export Abattoir, Mekele Dairy
Plant).		In	addition,	the	grants	program	almost	totally	overlooks	micro	and	small	enterprises	in	
the	value	chain.		And	finally,	the	potential	impact	of	the	grants	program	on	market	linkages,	and	
its	subsequent	effect	on	smallholder	producers,	is	not	clear.	
Beneficiary	selection:	In	principle,	value	chain	development	needs	to	identify	and	mitigate	
critical	problems	along	the	chain.		AGP‐LMD	claims	to	be	primarily	focused	on	middle	value‐
chain	actors,	important	value	chain	actors	in	the	meat and live animal value chain	(livestock	
traders,	transporters	and	brokers)	have	been	largely	ignored.		These	actors	play	a	critical	role	in	
information,	pricing,	market	linkages	and	the	overall	functioning	of	the	live	animal	market.		It	
will	be	particularly	important	to	help	them	adapt	to	the	new	Live	Animal	Trading	Proclamation.		
AGP‐LMD	is	more	focused	on	live	animal	exporters	and	export	abattoirs,	which	already	create	
sufficient	demand	pull	for	existing	production.		A	more	critical	problem	is	the	domestic	value	
chain,	from	producers	through	small	traders	and	feed	lots	to	domestic	abattoirs	and	butcheries.	
In	the	dairy value chain	AGP‐LMD	activities	are	concentrated	in	the	pre‐urban	and	
urban	areas	processors,	and	existing	dairy	producers.		These	producers	have	already	been	
commercialized,	although	the	project	support	could	be	still	relevant.		The	key	question	is,	"how	
can	the	project	support	expansion	of	the	milk	shed	collection	areas	to	small	rural	milk	
producers?”		Activities	to	increase	producer	access	to	AI	services	to	improve	genetics,	and	
improve	the	management	of	dairy	production,	are	underway.		But	it	will	take	years	for	
substantial	increases	in	total	milk	availability	and	supply	to	materialize.		In	the	meantime,	more	
aggressive	support	to	improve	fertility	(including	bull	services)	and	milk	yield	is	needed.	
2.5 Gender Issues
The	following	are	the	findings	of	the	evaluation	team	in	response	to	question	six:	How has the
program addressed gender issues?		
AGP‐LMD	is	successfully	implementing	gender	mainstreaming	activities	in	all	project	
activities	and	components.		The	project	has	a	gender	equality	advisor	who	facilitates	the	
implementation	of	every	component	of	the	three	IRs,	and	individual	activities	with	a	special	
focus	on	gender.		This	focus	is	reflected	in	indicator	targets,	and	tailored	training	and	mentoring	
activities	for	women.	The	project	needs	to	maintain	the	present	level	of	effort	and	expand	it	to	
19
help	close	the	gender	gap,	with	even	greater	emphasis	on	capacity	building	in	women’s	
entrepreneurship	and	leadership	skills.	
Observations	in	the	field	confirm	project	report	information	regarding	the	concerted	
efforts	being	made	to	address	gender	issues.		AGP‐LMD	capacity	building	activities	routinely	
record	30‐40%	women	participation,	and	has	organized	special	training	in	business	and	
leadership	for	women	entrepreneurs.		Experience	sharing,	exposure	creation	and	business	
linkage	activities	all	engage	large	numbers	of	women.		The	project	also	emphasizes	women’s	
participation	in	the	grants	program,	with	funds	set	aside	specifically	for	women	entrepreneurs.	
	 It	is	generally	acknowledged	that	women	are	more	involved	in	livestock	farming	than	
men.		The	dairy	value	chain	is	dominated	by	women.		We	visited	several	women	who	are	
engaged	as	owner/operators	in	milk	production,	processing	and	retailing	–	with	full	access	to	
and	control	of	the	resource	and	incomes.		We	also	observed	women	working	in	the	feedlots	and	
abattoirs	we	visited,	both	as	laborers	and	managers.		Nutrition	programs	emphasize	women,	
and	the	PLWHA	efforts	are	reaching	equal	numbers	of	men	and	women.		.			
In	summary,	AGP‐LMD	is	doing	an	excellent	job	of	integrating	gender,	and	is	making	
very	concerted	and	determined	efforts	to	encourage	high	levels	of	women’s	participation	in	
project	activities.		However,	the	traditional	roles	of	women	in	livestock	production	and	
marketing,	and	cultural	norms	regarding	work	responsibilities,	merit	further	consideration	in	
order	to	encourage	rural	women	to	participate	in	economic	activities	and	leadership,	with	
improved	access	to	and	control	over	resources.		For	example,	the	substantive	participation	of	
women	at	market	points,	livestock	collection	grounds,	milk	collection	centers	and	cooperative	
operations	is	steadily	expanding,	but	still	relatively	low.		In	addition,	efforts	are	needed	to	
specifically	determine	the	impact	of	this	emphasis	on	household	income	and	nutrition.		
2.6 Nutrition Activity Performance
The	following	are	the	findings	of	the	evaluation	team	in	response	to	question	seven:	How was
the performance of the nutrition sensitive activities implementation toward achieving
expected outcomes?		
AGP‐LMD	nutrition	activities	are	on track	to	meet	the	LOP	indicator	targets	related	to	
the	number	of	children	under	five	reached	by	the	project,	and	the	number	of	people	trained	in	
child	health	and	nutrition.		However,	changing	food	consumption	and	preparation	customs	and	
behavior	is	very	difficult,	especially	when	women	do	not	have	access	to	or	control	over	
resources.		As	such,	the	impact	of	nutrition	activities	on	the	target	population	–	and	their	
effectiveness	in	promoting	behavior	change	–	will	only	be	realized	over	the	long	term.			
We	visited	nutrition	training,	nutrition	clubs,	and	cooking	demonstrations	promoting	
the	use	of	animal	source	foods.		Trainers	and	extension	agents	explained	the	approach	being	
used	to	encourage	behavioral	change	in	the	target	communities.		They	also	explained	the	
messages	being	promoted	in	nutrition	education,	and	how	cooking	demonstrations	are	being	
used	to	show	women	how	to	incorporate	animal	source	foods.		The	messages,	and	the	
information	being	communicated,	is	technically	sound.		The	question	is	how	effective	it	will	be	
in	encouraging	behavior	change.		
The	project	also	supports	school	nutrition	clubs,	sharing	nutrition	best	practices	with	students	
based	on	available	resources.		Teaching	takes	place	in	the	morning	before	class.		The	idea	is	that	
young	people	are	the	most	likely	to	change	cultural	and	eating	habits,	and	respond	faster	to	new	
ideas	and	changes.		For	example,	the	popularity	of	pizza	is	having	a	great	impact	on	diet	by	
introducing	young	people	to	cheese	consumption.	
	 We	also	met	with	a	PLWHA	group	in	Yetnora,	Dejen	of	Amhara	region.		The	group	is	
broadly	representative	of	the	other	5	groups	in	the	woreda.		It	has	12	active	members,	who	have	
been	trained	on	credit	and	saving	schemes.		They	are	saving	money,	and	lending	the	funds	to	
one	another	to	finance	micro‐enterprises.		We	visited	with	group	members	about	how	the	
activity	was	impacting	their	lives.		They	explained	what	they	are	doing	and	spoke	of	
companionship,	of	encouragement,	of	hope,	and	of	how	it	was	helping	them	support	their	
families.		It	is	not	reaching	a	lot	of	people,	but	it	is	helping.	
20
In	summary,	nutrition	activities	(including	PLWHA)	are	virtually	stand‐alone	efforts,	
having	little	relationship	to	the	rest	of	the	project.		But	they	are	directly	impacting	FtF	target	
populations,	and	are	giving	the	Implementing	Partners	the	opportunity	to	demonstrate	their	
capabilities.		Both	nutrition	and	PLWHA	activities	seem	to	be	practically	oriented,	and	we	were	
not	told	of	any	issues.		But	they	are	still	in	the	beginning	stages,	and	will	need	to	be	expanded,	
evaluated,	and	further	refined	to	improve	and	demonstrate	the	level	effectiveness	needed	to	
achieve	impact	and	merit	replication.	
3. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
3.1 Program Performance
The	following	provides	the	conclusions	of	the	evaluation	team	in	response	to	question	one:	Are
the selected program activities on track to reach the desired FtF results in Ethiopia?
	 The	goals	of	AGP	and	FtF	appear	complementary,	but	in	practice	make	for	an	awkward	
implementation	marriage.		The	AGP	goal	is	“to end poverty and enhance growth”,	and	
implementation	is	focused	on	improving	productivity	and	economic	growth	in	the	high	
potential	areas	of	Ethiopia,	with	an	emphasis	on	surplus	producers.		Meanwhile,	the	goal	of	the	
USAID	Feed‐the‐Future	(FtF)	initiative	(the	primary	source	of	funding	for	the	project)	is	“to
sustainably reduce poverty and hunger” with	implementation	focused	on	improving	the	
incomes	of	poor	rural	households,	and	the	nutritional	status	of	children.		AGP‐LMD	combines	
these	goals	with	an	objective	of	improving smallholder incomes and nutritional status.		It	
aims	to	contribute	to	the	achievement	of	both	AGP	and	FtF	goals	using	a	value	chain	
development	approach	to	improve	productivity	and	competitiveness.		AGP	and	FtF	target	
beneficiary	populations	definitely	overlap,	but	the	exact	nature	of	their	relationship	to	one	
another	is	not	clearly	articulated.		Furthermore,	it	is	not	clear	how	the	project	focus	on	value	
chains	engages	poor	rural	households.	
In	fact,	AGP‐	LMD	is	not	fully	consistent	with	the	AGP	geographic	focus	areas.		It	departs	
from	the	woreda‐specific	AGP	geography	to	encompass	naturally	occurring	milk	sheds	and	
livestock	growth	corridors.		These	livestock	value	chains	transcend	administrative	boundaries	
and	geography,	which	makes	perfect	technical	sense.		However,	it	makes	for	an	awkward	
geographic	marriage,	with	some	activities	focused	on	AGP	target woredas,	others	on	food‐
insecure	non‐AGP	woredas,	and	still	others	–	especially	dairy	–	on	urban	and	peri‐urban
agricultural	areas.	
The	key	development	hypothesis	of	the	project	is	that	market‐driven enterprise
development can generate increased producer incomes by pulling previously marginalized
populations into commercial value chains, increasing their incomes.		The	assumption	is	that	
this	will	lead	to	improvements	in	nutrition,	household	food	security	and	health	in	the	target	
population.		However,	project	contribution	to	the	achievement	of	AGP	and	FtF	goals	hinges	upon	
exactly	which	households	actually	benefit	from	project	interventions.	
In	summary,	the	project	is	roughly	on	track	to	meet	LOP	indicator	targets	as	articulated	
in	the	PMP,	especially	when	compared	to	the	percentage	of	the	project	budget	expended	to	date.		
More	importantly,	the	PMP	indicators	are	inadequate	to	validate	the	key	development	
hypothesis	of	the	project.		They	are	output	focused,	and	are	not	designed	to	measure	activity	
impact	or	the	project	contribution	to	the	achievement	of	AGP,	FtF	and	project	goals.			
3.1.1 General
The	conclusions	of	the	evaluation	team	are	that:	
 The	link	between	AGP	and	FtF	goals,	and	their	link	to	the	AGP‐LMD	objective	of	increasing	
value	chain	productivity	and	competitiveness,	is	not	clearly	articulated	in	project	
documents.		This	results	in	a	collection	of	activities	with	little	synergy,	an	awkward	
geographic	focus,	and	a	dispersed	beneficiary	population.	
 It	can	be	argued	that	AGP‐LMD	supports	rural	economic	growth,	and	that	such	growth	is	a	
necessary	–	but	not	sufficient	–	condition	for	rural	poverty	reduction.		It	can	also	be	
21
argued	that	increasing	value	chain	productivity	and	competitiveness	can	effectively	
contribute	to	the	achievement	of	both	AGP	and	FtF	goals.		However,	project	reports	and	
documents	do	not	make	these	arguments.	
 Individual	project	components,	strategies	and	activities	are	not	clearly	stated	or	defined,	
especially	with	regard	to	the	separate	dairy	and	meat/live	animal	value	chains.		This	
creates	confusion	among	implementing	partners	and	stakeholders	working	on	different	
value	chain	activities,	and	compromises	effectiveness.		The	numerous	AGP‐LMD	activities	
(dairy	value	chain,	meat	and	live	animal	value	chain,	capacity	building,	grants	and	
financing,	enabling	environment,	and	nutrition)	resemble	separate	projects,	with	little	
synergy,	which	dilutes	impact	and	complicates	project	management.	
 CNFA	is	roughly	on	track	to	meet	PMP	targets,	especially	when	compared	with	the	
percentage	of	the	budget	which	has	been	expended.		This	is	in	spite	of	unrealistic	
implementation	expectations;	unreasonable	expenditure	targets	during	the	first	two	
years;	and	some	ill‐considered	decisions	(e.g.,	suspending	IR1	training	in	Year	3).	
 Major	PMP	indicators,	especially	the	mandatory	FtF	indicators,	are	simply	inadequate	to	
measure	project	impact	or	contribution	to	the	achievement	of	AGP	and	FtF	goals.	
3.1.2 IR1: Increased Productivity and Competitiveness of Selected Livestock Value
Chains
We	believe	that	AGP‐LMD	is	making	a	substantial	contribution	to	the	achievement	of	the	AGP	
goal.		However,	its	contribution	to	the	achievement	of	both	the	AGP	and	FtF	goals	is	simply	not	
being	captured	by	the	PMP	indicators.		There	is	therefore	a	pressing	need	to	develop	and	
incorporate	custom	indicators	in	the	PMP	to	more	directly	measure	impact	and	achievement.		
Given	the	complexity	of	measuring	increased	productivity	in	the	livestock	sector,	AGP	and	AGP‐
LMD	also	need	to	develop	a	methodology	for	measuring	achievements	and	impact.	
We	believe	that	AGP‐LMD	can	increase	its	contribution	to	the	achievement	of	the	FtF	
goal	by	focusing	efforts	on	the	point	of	first	sale/contact	with	producers	in	the	value	chain	
(small	traders,	dairy	collection	centers)	and	nearby	actors	(brokers,	transporters).		This	will	
more	directly	impact	target	beneficiary	household	incomes.	
AGP‐LMD	also	needs	to	place	greater	emphasis	on	facilitating	private	input	supply	and	
service	delivery	providers	to	support	increased	productivity	(increased	fertility,	decreased	
mortality,	increased	milk/meat	production).		The	project	has	done	enough	to	encourage	large‐
scale	investment	at	the	processor	level.		Over	the	remaining	LOP	it	needs	to	focus	on:	(a)	
training	and	support	to	develop	micro	and	small	scale	enterprises	closer	to	the	producer	(input	
supply,	animal	health	and	AI	services,	small	scale	fattening,	brokers,	transporters);	and	(b)	
providing	BDS	services	to	existing	clients	and	grantees	to	help	them	succeed.		(See
Recommendation 4)	
Capacity	Building:		There	is	a	great	deal	of	anecdotal	evidence	the	capacity	building	activities	
are	generating	positive	impact.		However,	training	is	being	treated	more	like	an	event,	rather	
than	a	process	leading	to	a	desired	result.		Specifically,	the	impact	of	training	on	household	
income	needs	to	be	measured.		Also,	training	is	too	often	being	provided	free	of	charge	to	
industrial	enterprises	(abattoirs,	processors)	who	are	well	able	to	pay	for	them.		
The	scale	of	training	activities	was	drastically	reduced	during	Year	3.		It	needs	to	be	
reinstated	and	expanded	into	a	more	comprehensive	combination	of	technical	and	business	
training	leading	to	tangible	changes	in	the	managerial	skill	and	entrepreneurship	of	the	actors	
to	develop	the	selected	value	chains.		(See Recommendation 4)	
Grants	program:	The	grants	program	is	leveraging	new	private	investment	in	the	livestock	value	
chains.		The	total	budget	allocation	of	slightly	more	than	$6	million	to	this	activity	makes	it	
reasonable	to	expect	that	it	will	contribute	substantially	to	the	achievement	of	project	goals.		
However,	the	grant	process	has	proved	to	be	terribly	cumbersome.		As	a	result,	by	the	mid‐point	
of	the	project	only	$1,773,983	in	grant	funds	has	been	committed	(signed),	and	only	$299,796	
actually	expended.		It	will	take	concerted	effort	to	fully	disburse	the	remaining	grant	funds	
22
within	the	remaining	life	of	the	project.		Unfortunately,	there	is	little	prospect	of	the	grant	
funding	producing	significant	measurable	results	before	the	end	of	the	project.	
We	recommend	bringing	the	program	to	an	orderly	close	(see	Recommendation	6),	
finalizing	the	process	that	has	been	started,	but	not	adding	to	it.		Rather,	during	the	remaining	
LOP	the	project	should	focus	on	an	integrated	micro	and	small	enterprise	development	
program,	with	technical	and	business	training	combined	with	small	capital	development	grants	
(less	than	$1,000)	to	provide	the	capital	needed	for	small	value	chain	to	establish	and	expand	
their	activities.		(This	approach	is	already	included	for	CAHWs,	and	PLWHAs).		Specifically,	it	
should	be	tied	to	enterprise	development	and	management	training,	tied	to	the	achievement	of	
benchmarks	for	disbursement,	and	designed	in	collaboration	with	and	fully	managed	by	
implementing	partners.	
3.1.2.1 Dairy Value Chain
In	the	dairy	value	chain	milk	producers	and	processors	are	concentrated	in	urban	and	peri‐
urban	areas,	not	rural	areas,	and	are	already	part	of	the	value	chain.		It	is	reasonable	to	support	
these	actors,	since	the	industry	is	still	nascent	and	they	are	not	yet	strong	enough	to	fully	exploit	
the	business	opportunities	available	to	them.		However,	it	is	not	realistic	to	expect	any	pull	
effect	on	rural	subsistence	households	within	the	project	period.		
We	believe	that	AGP‐LMD	is	doing	a	very	good	job	of	supporting	dairy	industry	
development,	and	facilitating	the	increased	processing	capacity	which	is	needed	to	supply	
growing	demand.		But	the	initial	impact	will	tend	to	be	to	displace	milk	from	existing	channels	
(raw	milk)	to	processors.		There	will	be	some	increase	in	milk	production	as	feeding	improves,	
and	the	collection	area	expands.		But	the	immediate	increase	in	total	milk	production	will	be	
limited	to	existing	producers.	
A	dependable	market	outlet	for	raw	milk	(processors)	should	eventually	provide	
incentives	and	security	for	current	producers	to	upgrade	their	herd	(genetic	improvement),	try	
harder	to	get	cows	pregnant	(improve	fertility)	and	improve	feeding	practices	(increase	milk	
production	per	animal).		However,	the	lag	time	for	achieving	significant	results	is	likely	to	be	a	
generation	(three	years).			
Producers	are	most	likely	to	upgrade	their	herd	and	improve	feeding	rather	than	
increase	numbers.		Some	may	buy	pregnant	dairy	cows	to	increase	their	production,	but	this	
will	not	add	to	total	milk	production.		However,	increased	processing	capacity	should	eventually	
provide	incentives	for	rural	households	at	the	fringe	of	the	milk	sheds	to	buy	dairy	animals	and	
begin	selling	milk.		The	likely	impact	will	therefore	be	an	expansion	in	the	size	of	the	milk	shed	
(collection	area)	to	encompass	more	smallholder	producers.	
Since	most	dairy	producers	do	not	produce	all	of	their	own	feed,	the	increased	demand	
for	feed	and	forage	will	encourage	new	feed	production,	and	eventually	provide	producers	with	
the	cash	needed	to	enter	dairy	production	themselves	(buy	cows).		This	will	create	a	ripple	
effect,	expanding	the	collection	area	over	time,	and	involving	more	of	the	FtF	target	beneficiary	
population.		There	are	excellent	prospects	for	expanding	milk	production	and	consumption,	but	
it	will	take	time.	
Expanded	milk	processing	capacity	also	creates	a	demand	pull	for	input	and	service	
supply	to	increase	productivity,	as	well	as	providing	opportunity	for	new	producers	to	enter	the	
market.		This	growth enhancement is	fully	consistent	with	AGP	goals.		However,	it	does	not	
readily	contribute	to	FtF	goals	of	reducing	poverty	and	hunger.	Milk	producers	are	not	poor,	and	
pasteurized	milk	is	a	relatively	high‐end	product.		However,	with	a	sale	price	of	Birr	7‐8	per	½	
liter,	it	is	very	competitive	with	Coca‐Cola	and	consumption	should	increase.		Milk	sheds	may	
eventually	expand	deeper	into	rural	areas,	impacting	more	producers.		However,	they	are	also	
unlikely	to	be	poor.	
AGP‐LMD	needs	to	do	more	to	address	weaknesses	in	the	market	link	between	
producers	and	processors,	and	between	processors	and	consumers.		Specifically,	it	needs	to	do	
more	to	organize	and/or	strengthen	collection	centers	as	the	gateway	for	raw	milk	entering	the	
processed	milk	value	chain.		An	expanded	network	of	milk	collection	centers	will	expand	the	
supply	base	and	improve	market	efficiency.	
23
	 	 However,	AGP‐LMD	should	not	seek	to	further	expand	large‐scale	dairy	processing	
capacity.		It	is	time	to	consolidate	efforts,	and	concentrate	on	ensuring	the	availability	of	BDS	
services	to	those	already	in	existence.		There	is	little	or	no	practical	and	management	
experience	with	operating	dairy	processing	plants	in	Ethiopia,	and	the	availability	of	spare	parts	
and	repair/maintenance	services	is	questionable.		Therefore,	technical	and	management	
support	to	processors	over	the	remaining	life	of	project	will	be	essential	to	help	safeguard	
investments	already	in	process.	
We	conclude	that	the	following	dairy	chain	activities	would	more	directly	impact	the	FtF	
target	group:	
o Support	the	establishment	of	milk	collection	centers	at	the	edge	of	expanding	milk	shed	
areas.3	This	will	provide	additional	incentives	for	increased	dairy	production	(although	
not	for	poor	farmers)	and	a	ready	market	for	input	and	service	supply	–	including	forage	
production	(a	smallholder	crop	alternative).	
o Expand	entrepreneurship	training	in	target	woredas,	combined	with	technical	training	in	
cottage‐level	processing	of	raw	milk	into	cheese	and	butter.		This	will	provide	women	with	
expanded	income	opportunities,	and	improve	the	local	availability	of	dairy	products.	
o Add	training	on	bull	management	to	improve	fertility,	especially	for	high‐producing	dairy	
animals,	into	technical	training	programs.		The	dairy	value	chains	needs	to	ensure	that	
fertility	is	maintained	at	a	high	level.		AI	contributes	to	genetic	improvement,	but	after	two	
attempts	it	is	time	for	the	bull.	
3.1.2.2 Meat and Live Animal Value Chain
We	believe	there	is	potential	for	a	more	efficient	live	animal	and	meat	value	chain	to	encourage	
increased	livestock	productivity	in	the	highland	areas.		However,	we	are	not	certain	just	how	
much	productivity	can	be	increased	in	the	lowland	areas,	which	are	already	the	primary	source	
of	cattle	for	live	animal	export,	and	of	goats	and	sheep	for	carcass	exports.		It	appears	there	is	
already	excess	demand	for	lowland	animals	(shoats	and	cattle),	with	traders	reporting	a	highly	
competitive	market	in	the	Afar	and	Borena	areas.		In	the	highland	areas	AGP	support	for	
producers	seems	too	weak	to	generate	a	substantial	increase	in	the	availability	of	sheep	and	
goats.		As	a	result,	we	believe	that	AGP‐LMD	will	be	unable	to	meet	its	export	goals	for	beef	and	
live	shoats.	
Furthermore,	expanded	export	abattoir	capacity,	which	the	project	is	supporting,	will	
not	increase	the	number	of	animals	available	in	the	short	run.		It	appears	that	lowland	areas	are	
already	producing	at	or	near	their	offtake	limit,	and	it	will	take	time	to	“pull”	increased	shoat	
production	in	the	highlands.		Increased	processing	capacity	is	more	likely	to	increase	demand	
for	the	existing	supply	lowland	animals,	creating	supply	constraints	(limited	ability	to	buy	
sufficient	animals	at	the	price	processors	are	willing	to	pay)	which	will	make	it	very	difficult	for	
Abergelle	(Tigray),	Abyssinia,	and	new	facilities	under	construction	to	prosper.	
	 Ethiopian	exports	of	live	cattle,	and	goat	and	sheep	carcasses,	are	solidly	competitive	in	
the	regional	market.		But	they	are	not	likely	to	increase	substantially	without	a	rationalization	
and	streamlining	of	taxes	and	regulations.		However,	a	relaxing	of	current	government	
restrictions	(e.g.,	transport	fees,	FOREX	repatriation,	and	minimum	weight	for	live	cattle	export)	
would	almost	certainly	increase	exports	by	drawing	animals	into	formal	export	channels.	
Beef	exports	are	not	presently,	nor	likely	to	be,	competitive	–	at	least	in	the	near	future.		
The	major	factors	which	keep	Ethiopian	beef	from	being	competitive	are	quality	(tenderness	
and	taste,	related	to	age	and	condition)	and	cost.		Simply	put,	Ethiopia	does	not	have	the	
genetics,	or	the	feed	resources,	to	produce	quality	meat	at	a	competitive	price.	
In	this	setting	AGP‐LMD	meat	and	live	animal	activities	may	eventually	result	in	
increased	livestock	productivity,	but	only	if	improved	in	processing	efficiency	is	translated	into	
higher	producer	prices.		Even	then,	it	will	depend	upon	whether	producers	have	sufficient	
resources	to	improve	nutrition,	increase	fertility,	reduce	mortality,	and	increase	yield.	
                                                            
3 We	understand	this	is	currently	in	the	planning	stage.
24
	 	 In	summary	meat	and	live	animal	activities	are	too	concentrated	at	the	top	end	of	the	
value	chain,	working	with	abattoirs	and	large	scale	feedlots,	too	focused	on	exports,	and	too	far	
distant	from	producers	to	exert	effective	“pull”.		They	should	be	refocused	on	the	domestic	
market,	including:	encouraging	investment	in	small‐scale	input	supply	and	animal	health	
enterprises	and	fattening	operations	to	increase	productivity;	increasing	the	efficiency	of	
domestic	abattoirs;	and	improving	meat	cutting	and	retailing	(see	Recommendation	4).	
3.1.3 IR2: Improved Enabling Environment for Livestock Value Chains
AGP‐LMD	efforts	to	improve	the	enabling	environment	for	livestock	value	chains	are	helping	
value	chain	actors	adjust	and	adapt	to	new	regulations	(Live	Animal	Trading	Proclamation),	and	
laying	the	foundation	for	policy	change.	Project	support	for	the	establishment	and	organization	
of	MSPs	at	the	national	and	regional	level,	and	regional	LWGs)	is	proving	an	effective	way	of	
bringing	government	representatives,	business	interests,	producers,	and	other	stakeholders	
together	to	discuss	practical	issues	and	problems,	and	recommend	solutions.		In	particular,	the	
bottom‐up	LWG	approach	to	bringing	policy	and	regulatory	before	government	has	great	
potential	for	influencing	change.	
In	addition,	AGP‐LMD	support	for	the	pilot	LITS,	and	technical	assistance	to	help	address	
issues	related	to	the	livestock	and	livestock	product	exports	and	the	national	SPS	system,	is	
helping	Ethiopia	reduce	regulatory	burdens	and	costs,	and	maintain	its	competitive	advantage	
in	live	cattle	and	shoat	meat	exports.	
	 In	conclusion,	AGP‐LMD	efforts	to	improve	the	enabling	environment	for	livestock	value	
chains	are	encouraging,	but	any	substantive	impact	on	rationalizing	and	streamlining	
government	policy	and	regulation	is	yet	to	be	realized.	
3.1.4 IR3: Improved Quality and Diversity of Household Diet
AGP‐LMD	nutrition	activities	(including	PLWHA)	represent	an	important	initial	effort	to	
practically	address	food	preparation	and	consumption	practices,	and	promote	social	and	
behavioral	change	to	improve	maternal	and	child	nutrition.		That	said,	they	virtually	stand‐alone	
efforts,	having	little	relationship	to	the	rest	of	the	project.		However,	they	directly	impact	FtF	
target	populations,	and	are	an	opportunity	for	Implementing	Partners	to	demonstrate	their	
capacity.		Both	nutrition	and	PLWHA	activities	appear	to	be	technically	sound	and	practically	
oriented.	But	they	are	still	in	the	beginning	stages	of	implementation,	and	need	to	be	scaled	up,	
expanded,	evaluated,	and	further	refined	to	improve	and	demonstrate	effectiveness.	
The	one	weakness	we	note	is	that	the	nutrition	messages	and	cooking	demonstrations	
incorporate	animal	source	foods	which	are	not	readily	available	to	poor	rural	families	(e.g.,	
pasteurized	milk).		Eggs	and	poultry	are	included,	but	not	emphasized.		We	think	that	
incorporating	pilot	poultry	production	and	nutrition	messages,	promoting	egg	consumption	for	
infants,	toddlers,	pregnant	women,	and	lactating	mothers	would	improve	project	impact	by	
emphasizing	the	use	of	animal	source	foods	which	are	most	available	to	poor	families.		We	
believe	it	would	lay	the	foundation	for	improved	impact,	as	well	as	improve	the	linkage	of	these	
activities	to	the	other	elements	of	AGP‐LMD	(see	Recommendation	9).	
3.2 Program Impact on Government Policy, Process and Administration
The	following	are	the	conclusions	of	the	evaluation	team	in	response	to	question	two:	Did
program activities lead to any significant changes in government policy, process, or
administration that can be expected to contribute to increased production and
investment in the sector and/or increased export competitiveness?
AGP‐LMD	is	very	carefully	working	on	government	policy,	process	and	administrative	
issues	related	to	livestock	value	chains.		Activities	are	helping	provide	a	setting	and	platform	for	
broad‐based	popular	participation	in	discussing	issues	impacting	the	sector,	for	addressing	
systemic	issues	which	constraint	productivity	and	competitiveness,	and	putting	bottom‐up	
pressure	on	the	policy	process.		There	are	instances	where	the	project	has	been	able	to	help	
resolve	a	local	issue.		The	important	thing	is	for	AGP‐LMD	to	be	present	in	the	discussions	so	as	
to	influence	action	when	the	opportunity	presents	itself.		However,	nothing	significant	–	such	as	
25
a	major	regulatory	or	tax	change	–	has	been	achieved	to	date,	and	any	significant	impact	on	the	
productivity	and	competitiveness	of	livestock	value	chains	is	yet	to	be	realized.	
We	believe	that	AGP‐LMD	needs	to	stay	engaged,	concentrating	on	facilitating	and	
supporting	MSP	and	LWG	activities,	and	helping	them	raise	issues	and	problems	to	higher	
levels.		The	project	also	needs	to	stay	modestly	engaged	with	the	LITS	and	SPS	issues.		In	
addition,	at	every	opportunity	it	should	promote	and	support	the	development	of	a	new	unified	
policy	and	regulatory	system	for	livestock	to	replace	the	present	tangle	(see	Recommendation	
8).	
3.3 Effectiveness of Implementation Approach
The	following	are	the	conclusions	of	the	evaluation	team	in	response	to	question	three:	What is
the demonstrated effectiveness of the current implementation approach (e.g. working
with local regional organizations like ORDA, REST, HUNDEE, Self‐Help – Africa, and
regional consortiums)?
The	current	implementation	approach	is	not	taking	full	advantage	of	local	organizations	
and	partners.		It	is	being	strangled	by	paperwork	and	process,	with	substantial	delays	in	
decision‐making	that	compromises	the	effectiveness	of	project	implementation.		We	have	no	
doubt	that	an	implementation	which	fully	engages	the	IPs	in	planning	and	implementation	can	
be	very	effective,	provided	the	operational	issues	are	resolved.		Specifically:
 Subcontracting	mechanism	with	IPs:	The	institutional	strengths,	technical	and	
management	capabilities	of	the	regional	Implementing	Partners	are	simply	not	being	fully	
engaged	under	the	current	sub‐contracting	modality.		Annual	purchase	orders	do	not	
provide	an	opportunity	for	long‐term	planning	or	continuing	involvement	and	
participation	in	program	planning,	M&E,	or	program	support.		More	importantly,	there	is	
no	way	that	AGP‐LMD	can	expand	the	scale	of	their	operations	to	match	the	existing	
capabilities	of	the	IPs.	
In	summary,	substantive	IP	participation	is	essential	for	project	success,	and	would	be	
much	better	engaged	using	sub‐grants	to	finance	program	implementation,	or	a	
framework	contract	complemented	by	purchase	orders	for	specific	tasks	(see	
Recommendation	5).	
 Death by	a	thousand	cuts: 	All	the	stakeholders	are	doing	the	best	they	can,	but	project	
implementation	is	drowning	in	process	and	paperwork.		Specifically,	the	number	of	
individual	actions	for	which	specific	USAID	approval	is	required	is	daunting,	and	dealing	
with	it	saps	AGP‐LMD	of	energy	and	momentum.		USAID	and	the	Contractor	need	to	
review	the	contract	and	streamline	the	process	for	approving	STTA,	travel,	grants,	etc.		It	
simply	does	not	have	to	be	this	complicated	and	clumsy.	
 Reporting:		The	templates	for	project	reporting	and	documentation	need	serious	
attention.		Specifically,	project	documents	are	ineffectual	in	articulating	a	clear	rationale	
for	the	project	and	its	component	parts,	and	reporting	on	what	the	AGP‐LMD	is	achieving,	
where,	and	why	it	is	important.		In	summary,	AGP‐LMD	is	not	projecting	a	clear	and	
positive	image.		We	believe	the	project	has	a	story	to	tell,	but	it	is	just	not	being	told	(see	
Recommendation	1).	
 Indicators:		The	PMP	indicators	are	entirely	inadequate	for	measuring	achievement	and	
impact.		We	believe	that	a	set	of	custom	indicators	are	needed	to	better	explain	the	
expected	contribution	of	the	grants	program	(see	Recommendation	2).	
 Personnel:		Increasing	the	number	of	AGP‐LMD	staff	in	the	regions	will	not	impact	
implementation	unless	they	have	someone	to	work	with.		It	will	be	most	effective	if	
additional	staff	are	used	to	provide	technical	assistance	and	advice	to	the	Implementing	
Partners	as	their	role	and	responsibility	in	implementation	is	expanded	(see	
Recommendation	5).	
26
3.4 Effectiveness of Partnerships with GoE AGP Implementers and Other Government
Offices
The	following	are	the	conclusions	of	the	evaluation	team	in	response	to	question	four:	How
effective is the partnership with GoE‐AGP implementers and other government offices
such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Trade, Ministry of Industry, Federal
Cooperative Agency, and ATA in terms of collaboration and coordination to implement
AGP‐LMD?		What factors contribute for success or challenges in partnership, particularly
with the GoE‐AGP and what is recommended to resolve the challenges?
	 We	were	astounded	at	the	number	of	government,	donor,	and	institutional	actors	
engaged	in	implementing	AGP	at	the	regional	and	federal	level.		In	combination	with	other	
ongoing	programs	and	initiatives,	this	has	spawned	an	inordinate	number	of	working	groups,	
committees,	and	coordinating	bodies	which	demand	participation.		But	that	participation	often	
has	little	apparent	impact	on	implementation	effectiveness.		There	is	a	lot	of	time	and	effort	
spent	talking	about	cooperation	and	collaboration,	all	of	which	takes	resources	away	from	
implementation.		There	is	an	urgent	need	is	for	the	whole	apparatus	to	spend	less	time	in	
meetings	and	discussion,	and	more	time	actually	implementing	activities.	
In	this	setting,	AGP‐LMD	is	working	hard	to	sustain	participation	in	regular	quarterly	
monitoring	and	planning	meetings	with	AGP	at	both	the	regional	and	federal	level.		The	project	
also	supports	and	participates	in	the	crop	and	livestock	Technical	Committee	meetings	at	the	
federal	level.		Annual	plans	and	activities	are	prepared	in	consultation	with	the	regional	
stakeholders	and	implementing	partners,	and	presented	to	respective	Technical	and	Steering	
Committees.		However,	nobody	seems	happy	with	the	present	set‐up.		
In	particular,	the	failure	to	take	full	advantage	of	the	IPs	means	they	cannot	relieve	the	
burden	on	project	management	by	representing	AGP‐LMD,	or	substantively	participating	in,	
regional	coordination	bodies.		To	complicate	things	further,	there	are	activities	being	directly	
implemented	by	project	staff	at	both	federal	and	regional	levels	without	any	consultation	with	
the	regional	IPs.		This	disorganized	and	confused	arrangement	makes	it	hard	to	effectively	
represent	what	the	project	is	doing	and	coordinate	with	government	agencies.	
Most	government	offices	confirmed	that	the	AGP‐LMD	project	attempts	to	plan	and	
implement	activities	in	partnership	with	key	government	entities,	especially	at	the	federal	level.		
However,	the	effectiveness	of	working	relationships	at	the	regional	level	varies	from	very	good	
to	almost	non‐existent.	
In	summary,	there	is	certainly	a	need	to	maintain	good	working	relationships	with	
government	counterparts.		But	there	are	so	many	coordinating	structures	that	the	project	is	
really	challenged	by	trying	to	cover	them	all.		We	believe	that	expanding	the	role	and	
responsibility	of	the	IPs,	and	empowering	them	with	a	greater	role	in	implementation,	would	
help	resolve	many	of	the	existing	issues	at	the	regional	level.		But,	AGP‐LMD	needs	to	exercise	
caution	when	it	comes	to	participating	in	all	the	things	where	it	is	requested.		Simply	put,	it	is	
not	at	all	clear	that	collaboration	and	coordination	is	having	any	positive	impact	on	
implementation.	
3.5 Relevance of Project Activities
The	following	are	the	conclusions	of	the	evaluation	team	in	response	to	question	five:	Based on
sustainability and cost effectiveness, which activities should be continued and which
activities are irrelevant or no more important to contribute to the project objectives in
the future?		
All	the	activities	we	visited	and	reviewed	are	designed	to	contribute	to	the	achievement	
of	the	project	objective,	and	hence	are	relevant.		That	said,	we	offer	some	comments	on	
sustainability	and	cost	effectiveness,	and	some	specific	recommendations	to	make	the	project	
more	relevant,	increase	impact	and	better	reach	the	target	population	–	increasing	
effectiveness.	
First	of	all,	nothing	that	the	project	is	doing	is	sustainable	–	that	is,	likely	to	continue	
after	the	LOP.		One	expects	that	many	of	the	beneficiary	enterprises	will	continue	operating.		But	
27
the	BDS	services	and	financing	being	provided	by	the	project	are	not	being	implemented	in	way	
that	ensures	the	future	effectiveness	as	BDS	providers.	
AGP‐LMD	indicators	measure	outcomes,	not	impact.		Second,	the	project	is	not	reaching	
a	scale	of	operations,	having	only	expended	34%	of	its	$41,173,362	budget	to	date.		It	must	
ramp	up	expenditures	and	the	scale	of	operation	to	generate	impact	and	be	judged	as	cost	
effective.	
Third,	cost	effectiveness	depends	upon	the	scale	of	achievement	and	impact.		And,	as	so	
often	noted	in	this	report,	AGP‐LMD	is	measuring	outcomes,	not	impact.		As	a	result,	we	have	no	
basis	for	judging	the	cost	effectiveness	of	what	is	being	done.
That	said,	there	are	actions	which	can	be	taken	to	improve	cost	effectiveness	and	
sustainability.		They	are	as	follows:	
Streamline	Intervention	Strategies:		AGP‐LMD	has	ten	interrelated	intervention	strategies	under	
IR1.		The	structure	is	simply	too	complex	to	guide	and	focus	activity.		We	recommend	
consolidating	them	into:	(a)	capacity	building	for	value	chain	actors	(awareness	creation,	
training	and	experience	sharing	on	business	and	entrepreneurship);	(b)	market	expansion	
(establishing	and	strengthening	domestic	and	global	market	linkages);	(c)	stimulating	
investment	(provision	of	grant	and	creating	access	to	finance;	and	(d)	promoting	access	to	and	
consumption	of	nutritious	food.		Cross‐cutting	activities	will	remain	mainstreamed	in	all	
categories.		This	will	improve	activity	definition,	focus,	expected	outcomes,	and	impact.	
Review	and	Revise	Results	Indicators:		As	previously	emphasized,	the	indicators	being	used	are	
simply	inadequate	to	measure	performance	‐	most	measure	outcomes,	with	impact	being	
assumed.		We	recommend	refocusing	monitoring	and	evaluation	efforts	on	revising	the	
indicators,	adding	new	ones	to	better	represent	what	is	being	achieved,	and	focus	on	developing	
and	implementing	a	methodology	for	measuring	impact.	
Expand	Capacity	Building:		The	extensive	program	of	capacity	building	carried	out	during	the	
first	two	years	of	the	project	was	extremely	relevant	to	the	achievement	of	project	objectives.		
The	challenge	is	to	go	beyond	anecdote	to	measure	that	impact.		However,	the	reduction	in	
training	during	year	three	negatively	impacted	what	promised	to	be	one	of	the	best	performing	
parts	of	the	project,	interrupted	continuity	of	effort,	and	did	not	improve	implementation	of	the	
grants	program.		The	program	needs	to	be	expanded	into	a	more	integrated	MSE	development	
effort	(see	Recommendation	4).	
Grants	Program:	The	grants	program	is	seeks	to	leverage	private	investment	to	improve	the	
productivity	and	competitiveness	of	livestock	value	chains.		There	is	no	need	for	additional	
grant	funds,	or	time	to	process	new	grants.		Rather,	AGP‐LMD	needs	to	bring	the	program	to	an	
orderly	end	and	focus	on	establishing	a	sustainable	approach	for	providing	BDS	services	to	the	
grantees	to	help	ensure	their	prospects	for	success.	
Beneficiary	Selection:	The	principle	of	value	chain	development	is	identifying	and	mitigating	the	
critical	problems	along	the	chain.		However,	important	value	chain	actors	in	the	meat	and	live	
animal	value	chain,	such	as	livestock	traders,	transporters	and	brokers	need	to	be	incorporated	
into	project	training	and	B2B	activities.		In	addition,	more	effort	is	needed	to	improve	the	
efficiency	and	quality	of	domestic	abattoirs	and	butchers.	
3.6 Gender Issues
The	following	are	the	findings	of	the	evaluation	team	in	response	to	question	six:	How has the
program addressed gender issues?		
In	our	opinion	AGP‐LMD	has	done	a	very	good	job	of	addressing	gender	issues.		The	
project	has	a	gender	equality	advisor	who	facilitates	the	implementation	of	every	component	of	
the	three	IRs,	as	well	as	individual	activities,	ensuring	a	special	focus	on	gender.		This	focus	is	
reflected	in	indicator	targets,	and	tailored	training	and	mentoring	activities	for	women.		We	
believe	the	project	should	maintain	and	expand	its	efforts,	building	on	what	has	been	done	to	
help	close	the	gender	gap,	with	even	greater	emphasis	on	building	in	women’s	entrepreneurship	
and	leadership	skills.	
It	is	generally	acknowledged	that	women	are	more	involved	in	livestock	farming	than	
men.		In	that	light,	AGP‐LMD	capacity	building	activities	routinely	record	30‐40%	women	
28
participation,	and	the	project	has	organized	special	training	in	business	and	leadership	for	
women	entrepreneurs.		Experience	sharing,	exposure	creation	and	business	linkage	activities	all	
engage	large	numbers	of	women.		The	project	also	emphasizes	women’s	participation	in	the	
grants	program,	with	funds	set	aside	specifically	for	women	entrepreneurs.		Nutrition	programs	
emphasize	women,	and	the	PLWHA	efforts	are	reaching	equal	numbers	of	men	and	women.		.			
In	summary,	AGP‐LMD	is	doing	an	excellent	job	of	integrating	gender,	and	is	making	very	
concerted	and	determined	efforts	to	encourage	high	levels	of	women’s	participation	in	project	
activities.		However,	the	traditional	roles	of	women	in	livestock	production	and	marketing,	and	
cultural	norms	regarding	work	responsibilities,	merit	further	consideration	in	order	to	
encourage	rural	women	to	participate	in	economic	activities	and	leadership,	with	improved	
access	to	and	control	over	resources.		In	particular,	the	project	needs	to	focus	on	measuring	the	
impact	of	gender	activities	on	household	income	and	nutrition.	
3.7 Nutrition Activity Performance
The	following	are	the	findings	of	the	evaluation	team	in	response	to	question	seven:	How was
the performance of the nutrition sensitive activities implementation toward achieving
expected outcomes?		
AGP‐LMD	nutrition	activities	are	on	track	to	meet	the	LOP	indicator	targets	related	to	
the	number	of	children	under	five	reached	by	the	project,	and	the	number	of	people	trained	in	
child	health	and	nutrition.		However,	changing	food	consumption	and	preparation	customs	and	
behavior	is	very	difficult,	especially	when	women	do	not	have	access	to	or	control	over	
resources.		As	such,	the	impact	of	nutrition	activities	on	the	target	population	–	and	their	
effectiveness	in	promoting	behavior	change	–	will	only	be	realized	over	the	long	term.	
	 We	believe	that	incorporating	an	emphasis	on	the	consumption	of	eggs	and	chicken,	the	
animal	source	food	most	accessible	to	the	poor,	will	improve	performance	and	help	lay	the	
foundation	for	future	nutrition	activity	design.		Specifically,	we	recommend	a	pilot	effort	to	
incorporate	messages	and	training	on	poultry	management,	combined	with	efforts	to	provide	
access	to	improved	birds	(see	Recommendation	9).	
In	summary,	nutrition	activities	(including	PLWHA)	are	virtually	stand‐alone	efforts,	
having	little	relationship	to	the	rest	of	the	project.		But	they	are	directly	impacting	FtF	target	
populations,	and	are	giving	the	Implementing	Partners	the	opportunity	to	demonstrate	their	
capabilities.		Both	nutrition	and	PLWHA	activities	are	technically	sound	and	practically	oriented.		
But	they	are	still	in	the	beginning	stages,	and	will	need	to	be	expanded,	evaluated,	and	further	
refined	to	improve	and	demonstrate	the	level	effectiveness	needed	to	achieve	impact	and	merit	
replication.	
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
The	Evaluation	Team	recommends	the	following	actions	to	increase	the	contribution	of	AGP‐
LMD	to	both	AGP	and	FtF	objectives,	and	to	achieve	the	project	goal	and	objective:	
1. Develop and incorporate in project documents and reporting a clear articulation of
the relationship between the AGP and FtF goals, their linkage with the project goal
and objectives, and exactly how project activities are expected to contribute to the
achievement of those goals and the project objective.
 At	present	the	project	rationale,	and	the	expected	contribution	of	activities	to	LOP	
targets,	is	not	clearly	articulated.	
2. Develop custom PMP indicators to measure and record the outcome and impact of the
training programs and the grants program; and their contribution to the achievement
of project goal and objective.
 We	suggest	an	increased	sales/income	indicator	for	training.		And,	we	suggest	increased	
product	sales	(volume	and	value),	increased	input	purchases	(volume	and	value),	and	a	
re‐evaluation	of	the	job	creation	indicator	(person/days	of	employment).	
29
3. Develop and implement a methodology to measure (rather than simply estimate) the
impact of project activities on livestock productivity (fertility, mortality, and
yield/animal) and rural household income.
 Specifically, we recommend joint design and implementation with local
Implementing Partners in line with Recommendation 5.		This	will	improve	the	
effectiveness	of	FtF	reporting,	and	also	help	AGP	measure	the	impact	of	its	activities.	
4. Greatly expanding support for micro‐	and small enterprise (MSE) development in the
rural areas adjacent to the producer (first point of sale) as the focus of
implementation during the remaining Life‐of‐Project.
 Specifically, we recommend combining technical and business management
training with small capital investment grants ($500	‐	$1,000). 	This	will	promote	
value	chain	development,	more	directly	impact	the	FtF	target	population,	increase	the	
number	of	beneficiaries,	and	contribute	more	clearly	to	the	achievement of	the	AGP	goal.	
 Note:	Implementing	this	recommendation	will	most	likely	require	an	amendment	to	the	
Contract	SOW.	
 Note:	MSEs	include	feed	and	fodder	suppliers,	veterinary	drugs	suppliers,	AI	
technicians,	bull	service	providers,	private	veterinarians	and	animal	health	
professionals,	livestock	traders,	brokers,	transporters,	butchers,	and	small‐scale	
(cottage)	dairy	processors.	
5. Substantially increasing the role and responsibilities of the local Implementing
Partners, making them directly responsible for the design and implementation of the
MSE development program recommended above.
 Specifically, we recommend changing the current sub‐contracting modality to a sub‐
grant (preferred) or a multi‐year subcontract combining cost reimbursement for
core operations with purchase orders for specific activities. 	This	will	dramatically	
increase	impact,	and	take	full	advantage	of	IP	institutional	and	technical	capacity	and	
operational	presence,	enhancing	sustainability.		
 Note: Implementing	this	recommendation	will	most	likely	require	an	amendment	to	the	
Contract	SOW.	
6. Bring the large‐scale grants program to an orderly conclusion.
 Specifically, we e recommend that LMD not consider any grant in excess of $100,000.		
AGP‐LMD has	done	enough	to	leverage	new,	larger‐scale	value‐chain	investments.		
Finalize	what	is	in	process,	and	bring	it	to	a	close.		Focus	during	the	remaining	LOP	on	
providing	TA	to	help	the	grantees	succeed.	
7. Design and implement a professional BDS program for grantees and industrial scale
value chain operations (milk processors, feedlots, feed processors, and abattoirs).
 AGP‐LMD	needs	to	develop	a	program	of	assistance	with	each	client,	defined	in	a	written	
agreement	which	clearly	states	what	LMD	will	do	in	terms	of	technical	assistance	and	
advice,	client	obligations,	and	results	benchmarks.		This	will	lay	the	foundation	for	
private	BDS	service	providers	to	emerge.	
8. Keep IR2 activities modest and focused.
 Facilitate	MSP	and	LWG	activities,	helping	t	hem	develop	practical	solutions	to	issues	
and	problems.		Continue	support	for	LITS,	and	modest	engagement	with	SPS	issues.		
Steadfastly	promote	and	support	the	development	of	a	new	unified	policy	and	
regulatory	system	for	livestock	to	replace	the	present	tangle.	
9. Design and incorporate pilot poultry activities into IR3, emphasizing patio production
and home consumption of eggs.
 This	will	tie	IR3	more	directly	to	the	program;	emphasize	the	use	of	the	animal	source	
food	(eggs	and	chicken)	most	accessible	to	the	poor	to	improve	nutrition;	and	lay	the	
foundation	for	future	nutrition	activity	design.		The	pilot	poultry	activity	must	be	based	
on	value	chain	concepts,	perhaps	engaging	PLWHAs	to	raise	chicks	into	mature	chickens	
for	program	use.	
30
Implementing the Recommendations
We	have	crafted	the	recommendations	to	make	implementation	a	fairly	straightforward	
process.		But,	it	will	take	commitment	and	decisiveness	to	get	it	done:	the	will	to	embrace	
change;	and	the	decisiveness	to	press	ahead	and	make	it	happen.		AGP‐LMD	cannot	afford	to	
have	USAID	and	CNFA	headquarters	get	bogged	down	in	lengthy	discussions,	complicating	
matters	and	putting	off	what	needs	to	be	done.		The	changes	recommended	are	in	everyone’s	
best	interest.		They	will	stimulate	creativity	and	action,	promote	achievement,	and	make	
everyone	look	better.	
	 	 With	this	in	mind,	we	believe	there	are	two	steps	to	implementing	the	
recommendations,	as	follows:	
1. Annual	Work	Plan:	We	suggest	implementing	Recommendations	1,	2,	3,	6,	7,	8	and	9	in	
the	context	of	developing	the	next	Annual	Work	Plan.		USAID	will	need	to	provide	
guidance	to	CNFA	in	order	to	carry	this	out,	but	they	are	not	unduly	complicated	and	do	
not	appear	to	require	any	substantive	changes	to	the	project	SOW	or	budget.		The	
Contracting	Office	may	wish	to	provide	additional	guidance,	but	there	is	no	reason	to	
delay	getting	started	on	these	things.
2. Contract	Amendment:	We	believe	that	implementing	Recommendations	4	and	5	will	
require	an	amendment	to	the	contract	SOW	to	describe	the	MSE	development	program,	
establish	the	guidelines	for	expanding	the	role	and	responsibilities	of	the	Implementing	
Partners,	and	amending	the	budget	to	accommodate	these	changes.		USAID	may	also	
wish	to	consider	a	moderate	extension	of	the	project	period	(six	months)	to	compensate	
for	the	time	needed	to	make	these	changes.
	 The	amendment	process	starts	with	USAID	preparing	an	amended	SOW	and	
Budget	for	the	contract.		The	Contracting	Office	will	provide	the	necessary	guidance	to	
ensure	that	everything	is	done	in	order.	
	 This	may	take	some	time,	but	need	not	be	complicated.		In	fact,	with	broad	
general	agreement	between	the	parties	the	next	Annual	Work	Plan	can	include	activities	
in	anticipation	of	a	Contract	amendment	during	the	planning	period,	and	provide	for	
amendment	of	the	Annual	Work	Plan	once	the	Contract	is	amended.
As	stated	earlier,	this	need	not	be	a	long,	drawn‐out,	complicated	process.		But	it	will	require	
will	and	decisiveness	to	get	it	done,	setting	the	stage	for	implementation	during	the	remaining	
LOP.	
Summary
CNFA	is	doing	a	credible	job	of	implementing	AGP‐LMD,	and	the	project	is	clearly	contributing	
to	the	achievement	of	the	AGP	goal.		But	the	project	contribution	to	the	achievement	of	the	FtF	
goal	is	not	clear,	project	activities	are	fragmented;	and	impact	and	results	are	not	easily	
measurable.	
Therefore, we recommend that implementation during the remaining LOP focus on the
development and implementation of a rural MSE development in rural areas adjacent to
the producer to increase results and impact.		Implementation at the scale recommended
will require dramatically expanding the role and responsibilities of Implementing
Partners to ensure continuity through the LOP.