Standard Methods and Procedures for Animal Health (SMP-AH) Project EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT February 2016 This report was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development, and was prepared independently by consultants Greg Sullivan and Julius Kajume. USAID/East Africa Resilience Learning Project Standard Methods and Procedures for Animal Health (SMP-AH) Project EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT February 2016 Contract number: 623-TO-14-00007 USAID/East Africa Resilience Learning Project 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. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMNS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 1. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS 9 1.1. Purpose of evaluation 1.2. Evaluation questions 2. EVALUATION BACKGROUND 11 2.1. Project goal and objective 2.2. Development hypothesis 3. EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 12 3.1. Cross-border meeting in Naivasha of CVOs and their veterinary staff 3.2. Electronic survey of CVOs participating in participating member states (MS) 3.3. Mirror image survey 3.4. Key informant interview (KII) and focus group discussion (FGD) 3.5. Gap analysis 3.6. Data analysis 3.7. Findings, conclusions and recommendations 3.8. Limitations 4.0. KEY FINDINGS 15 4.1. Relevance of project to the needs of the beneficiaries 4.2. Effectiveness of the project 4.3. Efficiency of the project 4.4. Outcomes/impacts 4.5. Sustainability 4.6. Lessons learned 5. CONCLUSIONS 40 6. RECOMMENDATIONS. 44 1. Rolling out of SMPs and engagement of cross-border stakeholders and beneficiaries 2. Increase partnerships with key stakeholders and beneficiaries 3. Improvement of intra-regional and regional livestock trade 4. Support regional networks to enhance collaboration among CVOs 5. Improve SMP-AH Project's operations for efficiency and effectiveness 7. ANNEXES 46 7.1. Scope of Work 7.2. References 7.3. Contact List 7.4. Kenya-Tanzania cross-border meeting in Naivasha 7.5. Results from electronic questionnaire sent to CVOs 7.6. Mirror image survey of CVOs on cross-border relationships 7.7. Field survey/discussion guides 7.8. Indicators specific to activity outputs and result outcomes of SMP-AH Project 7.9. Sanitary requirements of importing countries for live animals from GHOA 7.10. East Africa Community Treaty Chapter 18: Agriculture and Food Safety 7.11. SMP-AH supported trainings at regional and national levels 7.12. Training materials produced by SMP-AH Project 7.13. National training programs conducted in Member States 7.14. Survey results on effectiveness of training programs 7.15. Activities, targets and achievements for regional quarantine standards 7.16. Organogram of AU-IBAR management structure 7.17. CVOs' perspective on impact of SMP-AH Project on livestock trade 7.18. Data on livestock and meat trade from GHOA countries, 2012-2015 7.19. Map of the countries participating in SMP-AH Project 1 ACRONYMS AGDP Agriculture Gross Domestic Product ASAL Arid and Semi-Arid Lands AUC African Union Commission AU-IBAR African Union - Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources CAHW Community Animal Health Worker CBO Community Based Organization CCPP Contagious Caprine Pleuro-Pneumonia CBPP Contagious Bovine Pleuro-Pneumonia COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa CVL Central Veterinary Laboratory CVO Chief Veterinary Officer DH Development Hypothesis EAC East Africa Community EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FGD Focus Group Discussions FMD Foot and Mouth Disease FPP Focal Point Person GCC Gulf Cooperation Council GHOA Greater Horn of Africa ICPALD IGAD Center for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development IDRB International Development and Relief Board IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development IP Implementing Partner ILRI International Livestock Research Institute KEVEVAPI Kenya Veterinary Vaccine Production Institute KII Key informant interview LITS Livestock Identification and Traceability System MS Member State NAHDIC National Animal Health Diagnostic and Investigation Center NEALCO North Eastern Africa Livestock Council NGO Non-government Organization NTB Non-tariff trade barriers NVI National Veterinary Institute OIE Organization International Epizootic PMUT Project Management Unit Team PPR Peste des Petits Ruminants PSC Project Steering Committee RA Result Area RVF Rift Valley Fever SGP Sheep and Goat Pox SMP-AH Standard Methods and Procedures in Animal Health SOP Standard Operating Procedures SP Supporting Partner 2 SPS Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Standards TAD Trans-boundary Animal Disease TWG Technical Working Group USAID/KEA United States Agency for International Development/Kenya and East Africa 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Evaluation purpose This evaluation is an assessment of USAID/KEA's Standard Methods and Procedures for Animal Health (SMP-AH) Project in the Greater Horn of Africa(GHOA) which is in the fourth and final year. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine the progress made by the project towards achieving the expected outcomes in order to learn from it, and use the lessons learned for future regional programming. Project background In 2012, The Joint Planning Cell (JPC) in the Horn of Africa Resilience Action Plan requested that USAID support the livestock value chain in the dry land areas of the GHOA to address sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS) issues that were a major constraint to trade in livestock and livestock products. Harmonization of SPS in the GHOA is key in opening livestock trade within the region and accessing lucrative markets in the Middle East Region and beyond. In February, 2012, USAID/KEA committed its support for this course through the project, Standard Methods and Procedures in Animal Health (SMP-AH),implemented by AU￾IBAR and other partners to address sanitary issues affecting trade in the region. The project covers the countries of the GHOA: Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Uganda. Tanzania is also included due to its strategic position with Kenya and Uganda and its importance in disease control and surveillance. The Government Sudan does not receive U.S. funds but does receive financial assistance from AU-IBAR (see map in Annex 7.19). Evaluation questions The evaluation questions address six key areas of the project: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, outcomes/impacts, sustainability, and lessons learned. Methods The methodology included collection of both quantitative and qualitative data to address the evaluation questions in the six key areas of the project. It was planned to use multiple methods involving desk review of documents, development of survey tools for collecting information, and interviews with various stakeholders including implementing partners, support partners as well as both direct and indirect beneficiaries. Five countries (Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania and Djibouti) were visited to collect information using survey tools as a guide. Stakeholders and beneficiaries contacted included government veterinary services, veterinary associations, veterinary schools, livestock traders, meat and meat products exporters, abattoir operators, and livestock-based associations among others. The methodology used has some limitations including inability to reach stakeholders at community level especially in cross-border areas, and inadequate quantitative data in some cases. 4 Development hypothesis (DH) The development hypothesis of the SMP-AH Project is if governments in the region can control the endemic, trade-sensitive and devastating diseases through coordinated and cooperative efforts, then livestock owners will experience less debilitating diseases, increase production and productivity of their livestock. This in turn will lead to increases in trade improving both household livelihoods and political stability in the region. Objective The objective of SMP-AH Project is to provide a regional Standard Methods and Procedures framework that will guide in the prevention and control of trans-boundary animal diseases (TADs) and subsequently provide a stable foundation for both live animal trade and livestock commodity- based product trade within the Greater Horn of Africa (GHOA) ecosystem, Eastern and Southern Africa regions and for international trade to destinations outside the region. Findings The team's findings are presented according to the six key general evaluation topics. Relevance The initial project design, based on the development hypothesis, was appropriate at the beginning of the project, and the assumptions still remain relevant within the current contextual situation. Since the inception of the project, some stability has returned to Somalia and numbers of livestock moving to export through the ports of Berberra and Bossaso have increased. The public sector through Departments of Veterinary Services has the mandate to control transboundary animal diseases (TADs), and it is within their needs and interests to execute this mandate. This is of great relevance to SMP-AH project whose objective is to develop Standard Methods and Procedures (SMP) framework for the surveillance and control of TADs. Other stakeholders/beneficiaries outside of the public sector including livestock producers, livestock traders, meat exporters and traders, and abattoir operators benefit indirectly since animal diseases affecting their operations will be under better control. Their needs are well within the purview of the project. However, there is a low level of awareness of the project because of the heavy focus on engaging public sector entities and the slow roll-out of activities which would impact the private sector. The stated outcomes are aligned with the missions of implementing partners (IP): AU-IBAR, IGAD, and ILRI. In addition, supporting partners (SP), such as Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the East Africa Community (EAC) provide valuable information in the Project Steering Committee (PSC). These organizations are leaders in the region and active in addressing animal health and trade related issues. This aside, the IPs could 5 broaden their reach to include more private sector stakeholders, non-government organizations (NGOs) and community based organizations (CBOs) to make the project more relevant to the needs of a wider spectrum of stakeholders. Effectiveness SMP-AH protocols strengthen the capacity of the national veterinary services for cross-border surveillance and disease control. The project completed eleven SMPs plus 16 laboratory Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and 26 epidemiological investigation SOPs. CVOs and their staff attended a number of regional meetings to harmonize prevention and control of TADS based on the SMP approach. Trainings are a pillar of success offering both technical and managerial skills. Member states (MS) have had follow-on national-level trainings for their veterinary staff in each country. The impact of the trainings will be evident once implementation takes root in the cross-border areas. Diagnostic laboratories and vaccine institutes received staff trainings, equipment and consumables. Some accomplishments were the reduction in time for disease diagnosis using different agreed methods and the production of certain vaccines such as an additional 10,000 doses of Contagious Caprine Pleuro-Pneumonia (CCPP) by Kenya Veterinary Vaccine Production Institute (KEVEVAPI). SMP-AH Project engaged the regional quarantine station in Djibouti as a training site for operators of quarantine stations in other countries. Representatives from Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda received training in quarantine station operations at the Djibouti facility. In Result Area (RA) #4, one activity is to improve trade linkages based upon SMPs being recognized by the countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). A key activity in the work plan is the development of the North Eastern Africa Livestock Council (NEALCO). NEALCO was registered in Kenya, and a consultant completed a strategic plan for the organization. However, there are no active members. This is partly because the organization lacks a full-time executive director and a functioning secretariat. Efficiency The project has been successful in using local institutions and experts to provide trainings. The Kenya School of Management, the Veterinary School of the University of Nairobi, and Ethiopia's National Animal Health Diagnostic Investigation Center (NAHDIC) have all done a good job of providing training to veterinary staff. Their efforts built a lasting network of veterinary professionals. However, a difficulty for the project management unit team (PMUT) is managing approximately 40 activities across four Result Areas (RAs). This large number of activities with deliverables puts a strain on the PMUT to deliver needed resources efficiently. This is compounded by the fact that AU-IBAR has a system of checks and balances it must follow which are outside its control. AU-IBAR, for instance, requires approval from African 6 Union Commission (AUC) for every purchase over US$10,000. The delay in getting this approval negatively affects project delivery timelines. Outputs/Impacts SMP-AH Project has produced a number of valuable outputs ranging from SMPs for the nine trade limiting diseases to improvement in diagnostic laboratories. Soft and hard investments in the public veterinary services of the MSs are important accomplishments. Diagnostic tests can be done faster, and more vaccine can be produced in the same amount of time because of these investments. During the project there has been improved trade relationships which can be attributed to the project. The improved communications between CVOs will certainly yield long￾term benefits in controlling TADs. As one respondent told the evaluation team, "SMP-AH has sharpened the knives (skills) of the veterinary service, but they have not been used yet." The implementation has been slow but can be ramped up with a concerted effort of the PMUT. The project has not utilized the capacities of other stakeholders/beneficiaries, and the private sector, NGOs, and community based organizations (CBOs) have not been solicited to join the SMP-AH Project's implementation plan. The opportunity exists to leverage USAID/KEA funds with these important stakeholders. Sustainability The project does not have a viable sustainability plan beyond the project's lifetime. Based on the information gathered from various stakeholders, it is apparent that the sustainability of benefits derived from SMP-AH Project interventions will largely depend on governments’ commitment and ability to support disease control and surveillance, and constructive engagement of other stakeholders and key actors by the project during the remaining implementation period. The knowledge built around SMPs and SOPs will be sustained with continued use, and more so through learning institutions including veterinary schools and colleges. Sustainability of disease control and surveillance in cross-border areas will be inadequate without sufficient resources (funding in particular) and coordination mechanisms. Regional collaborations, linkages and networks that have been created and supported are critical for the realization of the intended impacts and therefore need to be sustained. AU-IBAR and IGAD's Center for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (ICPALD) will have to continue being at the center of these initiatives, providing support and guidance as necessary. Lessons learned SMPs roll-out. There was an opportunity to roll-out the SMPs for the most trade limiting diseases of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), Rift Valley Fever (RVF), Brucellosis, Contagious Bovine Pleuro-pneumonia (CBPP) and Sheep and Goat Pox (SGP). Impacts could have been realized earlier instead of waiting for all SMPs to be developed if there was greater inclusion of the private sector. 7 Pro-activeness. Some MSs had different take-aways from the regional trainings. Djibouti, for example, took a proactive approach to carry out a surveillance program on its borders to determine the level of disease occurrences as a basis for planning disease control programs with its neighbors, Somaliland and Ethiopia. Other MSs have not started joint surveillance programs. Project flexibility. The Project Management Unit (PMUT) has been flexible enough to accommodate emerging needs, e.g. support to cross-border meetings between Kenya and Tanzania in Naivasha, and support to containment of FMD outbreak in Uganda. Further, a livestock identification and traceability system (LITS) pilot study was re-located from the Garissa-Nairobi corridor to another site following insecurity incidents within Garissa area. Conclusions The SMP-AH Project has been effective in its mandate to develop and harmonize disease control and surveillance approaches for trans-boundary animal diseases. A significant number of people in the government sector have been trained in use of SMPs and SOPs. Short- term trainings have been carried out in surveillance and epidemiology, management skills development, quarantine practices, and laboratory diagnosis and testing. The project has strengthened the public veterinary service at the national level of MS but less so at the sub-national level in cross-border areas. Laboratories and vaccine production facilities have received equipment, consumables and trainings; however, the support received remains small compared to the needs. In order to realize the outcomes expected of the project, it will be necessary to carry out well planned and coordinated disease control and surveillance campaigns, primarily targeting cross￾border areas. It will be equally important to bring more stakeholders in the livestock value chain on-board. The key stakeholders in the private sector and pastoral communities in cross-border areas will need to be effectively engaged. Recommendations The evaluation team recommends the following actions to better meet the objectives of the SMP￾AH Project. • Roll out SMPs and engage cross-border stakeholders and beneficiaries - strengthen the institutional linkages between MSs to plan and carry out surveillance and control activities in cross-border areas. Departments of Veterinary Services of MSs would take the lead in building necessary linkages for cross-border surveillance and control. AU-IBAR would support the veterinary departments. • Increase partnerships with key stakeholders and beneficiaries - leverage SMP-AH Project resources to foster an inclusive approach engaging a greater number of partners. The PMUT will promote partnerships supported through their communication activities. The effective control of animal diseases requires greater private sector involvement. 8 • Improve intra-regional and international livestock trade - sign and implement the MOU between IGAD and GCC and conduct more trade missions. It is important to strengthen NEALCO and its national member organizations with support from the Regional Economic Commissions (RECs). Finally, it is important to undertake alignment of Pests des Petits Ruminants (PPR) control with global PPR eradication strategy. The main institutions to carry out this recommendation are the Regional Economic Commission supported by African Union, IGAD, and AU-IBAR and national trade organizations such as the livestock and meat exporters association in each MS. • Support to regional networks to enhance collaboration among CVOs - AU-IBAR and IGAD need to continue supporting and strengthening the existing networks (e.g. quarantine, epidemiology, and vaccine production) with a view to ensuring continued sharing of information and collaboration among MSs. The private sector needs to be included in the networks. • Improve SMP-AH Project's operations for efficiency and effectiveness - streamline the procurement and reporting process for AU-IBAR to allow for timely disbursement and reporting of funds to Africa Union Commission and USAID/KEA. 9 1. EVALUATON PURPOSE AND QUESTIONS 1.1. Purpose of evaluation This is an evaluation of the Standard Methods and Procedures in Animal Health (SMP-AH) Project funded by United States Agency for International Development for Kenya and East Africa (USAID/KEA) region. The evaluation is occurring now in the fourth and final year of the project to ensure that adequate information is collected on what occurred over the life of the program and what progress has been made towards achieving the results. The purpose of the evaluation is to ascertain the progress made in developing and harmonizing the standards and procedures for animal health and their implementation in the Greater Horn of Africa (GHOA). The project targets eight principal countries namely Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda with large variability in resources among the member states (MS). It is important to understand what worked and did not work in this contextual setting. The findings from the evaluation will serve as a guide to AU-IBAR and USAID/KEA to make necessary course corrections having bearing on the livestock sub-sector in the GHOA region. The evaluation findings are pertinent for both the Regional Mission of USAID, as well as, the individual country offices. Both regional and country program offices will benefit by better planning and coordinating their activities to fill the gaps while ensuring alignment to and smooth working relationship with other projects in the region. Better decision-making by both the donor and implementing partners will improve the overall performance of the project. Because of the link between TADs and livestock trade as highlighted in the project document, the evaluation is also likely to inform the policy and decision makers of the need to vote for more resources in support of cross border disease control and surveillance programs as a strategy for improved livestock trade. It is necessary for each MS to obtain commitment and support in securing line items funding for program activities. The potential audience for the findings of the evaluation is quite broad. It is recognized that sustained disease control and surveillance in cross-border areas calls for adequate level of funding especially by national and district governments. The CVOs can therefore utilize the evaluation findings to solicit the needed support from their national and district treasuries. The success of the SMP-AH Project also relies on the involvement of private sector stakeholders. Those with vested interest include input service providers (veterinarians and veterinary paraprofessionals, community animal health workers); pastoral societies, ranches, abattoir operators, traders and exporters. These stakeholders can utilize the findings of the evaluation to become better informed about the importance of their participation and support for the project to improve disease control and surveillance in cross-border areas. In the end, the goal is to improve the overall performance of the livestock-meat subsector for the benefit of stakeholders. 10 1.2. Evaluation questions The evaluation team received a series of questions from USAID/KEA to guide discussions on the purpose of the evaluation. The questions provided the framework for assessing the project, ensuring that the findings are generally confined within the defined scope. The questions were grouped into key areas of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, outcomes, sustainability, and lessons learned. Each topic area has a number of sub-questions as highlighted below: A. Relevance of project to the needs of beneficiaries - Is the project design appropriateand are the key assumptions made still holding? - Are the project objectives addressing the needs of the target groups/stakeholders? - Are the outcomes aligned and part of strategies/plans of implementing partners? B. Effectiveness of the project - What progress has been made towards achievement of expected outcomes and results? - What are the enablers for the achievement and disablers for non-achievement of results? - To what extent have the beneficiaries been satisfied with the results? - Have the outputs been delivered in a timely manner? - Does the project have effective monitoring mechanisms? Are the indicators appropriate, relevant and measurable? To what extent have recommendations from previous monitoring missions and steering committee meetings been implemented? If not why? C. Efficiency of the project - What measures have been taken during planning and implementation to ensure that resources are efficiently utilized? - Has AU-IBAR’s organizational structure, managerial support and coordination mechanisms effectively supported delivery of the project? To what extent are the inputs and outputs equally distributed between different target groups? D. Outcomes/impacts - What are some of the outcomes (positive or negative) that have been realized? - What are the major challenges to the full realization of the expected project outcomes? - Has the project utilized existing local capacities of the beneficiaries to achieve its outcomes? E. Sustainability - What is the likelihood of benefits to be maintained beyond the lifetime of the project? F. Lessons learned - What lessons can be drawn from the implementation of the project? 11 2. PROJECT BACKGROUND Livestock production is a major economic activity in the Greater Horn of Africa (GHOA) contributing a large percent to the agricultural gross domestic product (AGDP). The region has an estimated 120 million cattle, 210 million sheep and goats, and 14 million camels. A unique aspect of the GHOA is the predominant arid and semi-arid ecosystems. This presents a unique challenge because livestock must move to water and grazing,and without restrictions by internal political boundaries or national borders. Migratory patterns represent decades of long￾held traditional grazing systems for both pastoral and agro-pastoral communities. The livelihood of these livestock communities is dependent on the utilization of their animals for both food (primarily milk) and the trade of animals for household needs, e.g. staple foods and household merchandise. Sales of livestock supplyboth the meat deficit countries in the GHOA (example is Kenya), as well as, the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the Middle East. However, livestock producers and traders face a number of challenges regarding diseases and the access to markets. A number of trade-limiting diseases are endemic in the region. An outbreak of a disease, if uncontrolled, can push large numbers of households into a precarious economic situation affecting their livelihoods. The potential for disaster can result in large numbers of livestock owners having toexit the livestock business and to fall into an irreversible poverty trap becoming dependents on the state and donor organizations. A "proactive" animal health system controls the cross-border transmission of animal disease between countries of the GHOA. The control and eradication of Rinderpest (RP) was a significant accomplishment for local governments with the help of international organizations. Since the eradication of RP, countries in the GHOA have not established a coordinated approach for surveillance and control of other key trade-limiting animal diseases. The international community is preparing to undertake the eradication of Peste des Petit Ruminants (PPR) with similar characteristics to Rinderpest. 2.1. Project goal and objective In 2012, The Joint Planning Cell (JPC) in the Horn of Africa Resilience Action Plan made a request to USAID/KEAto support the livestock value chain in the dryland areas of the GHOA. The JPC found that a major obstacle to development was prevention of trade to the GCC and the Middle East. Governments in the region lacked a harmonized approach to address sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards (SPS) and other non-tariff barriers. USAID/KEA committed funds in February, 2012 to support a project to develop Standard Methods and Procedures for Animal Health (SMP-AH) to address this constraint. USAID/KEA funded the project with a direct grant to the African Union - Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR). AU-IBAR received funding for the project in August, 2012 and the project will end in September, 2016. AU-IBAR, in partnership with the Inter-government Authority for Development (IGAD) and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), implements the project in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. 12 The project's goal is to contribute to the reduction of poverty, enhance regional economic growth and integration through improved access of live animal and animal products to regional and international markets. The purpose is to enhance the capacity of countries in the region to harmonize and coordinate surveillance and disease control approaches in the region. 2.2. Development hypothesis The initial project design was based on two premises: first, that livestock are important to the economic livelihoods of large numbers of households in the semi-arid and arid regions of the Greater Horn of Africa (GHOA); and second, that trade in livestock (both intraregional and interregional) is critical to both livelihoods and food security in the region. The major impediment is the presence of endemic trans-boundary diseases (TADs) which disrupt trade and cause severe repercussions on households' livelihoods. If governments in the region can control the endemic, trade-sensitive and devastating diseases through coordinated and collaborative efforts, then livestock owners will experience less debilitating diseases, increase the productivity of their livestock asset, and lead to an increase in trade thereby improving both household livelihoods and economic stability in the region. 3. EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The evaluation team carried out a qualitatively-dominant but still mixed-methods approach involving: (i) a desk review of available documents - both project and non-project specific (See Annex 7.2.); (ii) consultations with USAID/KEA and AU-IBAR staff; (iii) semi-structured field interview/discussion guides for conducting key informant interviews (KIIs) and a few focus group discussions (FGD) (see Annex 7.7.); (iv) a mirror image survey examining the opinions of CVOs about their neighboring countries' conditions (see Annex 7.6.); (v) site visits to project beneficiaries (e.g. diagnostic and vaccine laboratories and quarantine stations) and indirect beneficiaries (abattoirs, trade association and educational institutions) to observe their operations (see Annex 7.3.); and(vi) an email survey to eight CVOs for their opinions and to collect data on diseases, production and trade (see Annex 7.5). The evaluation team chose an approach that would actively engage stakeholders/beneficiaries in the livestock value chain. The team made contacts throughout the livestock value chain to gather factual information (See contact list in Annex7.3.)Wherever possible, the team triangulated their data from a number of sources to improve the accuracy of the evaluation. Our aim was to understand the project, not only from inside, but also those stakeholders who will benefit indirectly from the project. This larger list of stakeholders represents the livestock-meat value chain. 13 3.1. Cross-border meeting in Naivasha of CVOs and veterinary staffs The team had the opportunity to attend a cross-border meeting between staffs of the veterinary services in Kenya and Tanzania held in Naivasha, Kenya from December 7 to 9, 2015. A rapid survey was prepared and interviews conducted with approximately thirty attendees. The survey design is in Annex 7.4. This helped the team to kick-start the evaluation with an introduction to cross-border issues addressing the TADs. 3.2. Electronic survey of CVOs in participating member states A questionnaire was sent electronically to eight CVOs in the IGAD region participating in the project requesting data on their veterinary service programs (see results in Annex 7.5.). The project manager of SMP-AH Project alerted each of the CVOs of the on-going evaluation and to expect the questionnaire. The evaluation team received six of the eight questionnaires sent, not receiving information from the governments of Sudan and Somalia. 3.3. Mirror image survey The team's first visit in each country started with the Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) or the Focal Point Person (FPP) if the CVO was unavailable. The CVO and his staff met with the team members, and the interview was conducted individually or in groups depending on the time and staff availability. After an introduction, three questions in the format of mirror - image questions were asked (see Annex 7.6). The CVO or his representative was asked to describe their relationship with his counter-parts in the cross-border countries with respect to three cross border disease related issues: (i) sharing of information on TADs, (ii) coordination of disease control and surveillance, and (iii) coordination and control of livestock movements. CVOs were requested to give a score within the given range of 3 (very good) to -3 (very poor) as an indication of the relationship. The survey had moderate success because the CVO or his representative were not sure of the implication of the information being sought and quite often opted not to give a direct response. It was however explained to them that the idea is not to blame anybody but to understand the magnitude of challenges that would need to be addressed for effective disease control and surveillance in cross border areas. Generally, CVOs were reluctant to say openly anything negative about the other CVOs. However, the questions allowed the team to probe on the levels of cooperation between different pairs of country CVOs and equally varying levels of cooperation on the three issues presented. As a whole, except for weaknesses arising from the instability in South Sudan, CVOs had a generally positive opinion of their relationship to carry out cross-border activities with their neighboring CVOs. 14 3.4. Key informant interviews (KII) and focus group discussions (FGD) The team prepared a series of interview guides to help lead the interviews with stakeholders/beneficiaries (see Annex 7.7.). The interview guide follows the outline of questions provided in the Scope of Work (SOW) (see Annex 7.1.) The guides were tested in the first week in Kenya and found to be too long so the questions were shortened for interviews conducted in Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Individual and group interviews were conducted with both public and private sectors stakeholders. 3.5. Gap analysis The project management unit team (PMUT) prepared a table listing activities and deliverables by the Result Area (RA) and the status of these activities at the time of the evaluation (see Annex 7.8.) In many cases the PMUT met or exceeded the targets set for the activities. Some activities are still underway, and a few had been scrapped. The project manager was asked to identify those activities that would be given priority in the time remaining in the project. Activities planned for the cross-border areas are high priority. 3.6. Data analysis The team analyzed the data collected from the various sources of information, e.g. country visits, electronic surveys, and interviews with stakeholders/beneficiaries. In some cases, it was necessary to follow-up with contacts to clarify their responses if they were not consistent collected from other sources. Quantitative date were difficult to obtain. For example, the M& E officer of AU-IBAR in her initial review of the baseline survey found, "A lack of data on disease control programs coupled with lack of evaluation of surveillance systems and options for determining cost-effectiveness were widespread across the majority of MS." The PMUT did not exhibit any urgent response to rectify these deficiencies. In fact, Kenya veterinary service did not submit any data for setting their baseline figures at the start of the project. The evaluation team found the paucity of data continues to exist. Data were requested to see if a correlation could be established between project activities and trade statistics. Only Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya provided multi-year trade statistics for livestock and meat during project time period. The trade data indicates high volatility in volumes of live animals and meat. A time frame of four years is too short to draw definitive conclusions on the effect of the project on trade (See trade data in Annex 7.18.) The evaluation team's focus was more on output indicators because it is too short a period to see higher level outcome/impact indicators on poverty alleviation, economic growth or trade volumes from the SMP-AH Project. 3.7. Findings, conclusions and recommendations 15 The findings are based on the best available evidence collected from a number of respondents. The data collection and analytical approaches are systems oriented and utilization focused. Presentations of preliminary findings were made to the staffs of USAID/KEA, AU-IBAR, and implementing partners who then submitted their comments on the draft report which the evaluation team addressed. 3.8. Limitations In conducting the evaluation, some limitations were encountered in performing the evaluation. • Lack of quantitative data on the impact on disease control and trade which can be directly attributed to SMP-AH. We tried to overcome this deficiency with the electronic surveys to CVOs; however, we had mixed results. CVOs were reluctant to provide their annual budgets, the percentage from donor agencies, and the amounts spent on developing and implementing SMPs. • Inadequate execution by the PMUT in: monitoring and evaluation without adequate numbers of country visits, a lack of formulating an exit plan, and not conducting an audit of the communication activities as prescribed in the work plan. These deficiencies made it difficult to assess the impact and outcomes, as well as the reasons for the poor level of awareness by people outside the public sector of the SMP-AH Project. • The process of the roll-out of SMPs by each government was slow and made it difficult to assess the likely impacts that the SMP-AH Project had on cross-border control of TADs. 4. KEY FINDINGS The findings are presented in the six categories of questions posed by USAID/KEA to the evaluation team: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, outputs/impacts, sustainability and lessons learned. 4.1. Relevance of project to the needs of beneficiaries The Joint Planning Cell of the Horn of Africa in 2012 determined that the livestock value chain played a key role in increasing economic opportunities in the dryland areas of the Horn of Africa(Joint Planning Cell -JPC). However, the lack of harmonized sanitary and phytosanitary standards restricted the trade in livestock and animal products in the region and to the Middle East and the Gulf States. 16 4.1.1. Project design is appropriate and key assumptions are holding The project design which evolved out of the JPC findings was relevant at the time, and still remains relevant four years later. The ban on livestock from the GHOA because of Rift Valley Fever (RVF) had severe economic consequences on pastoral societies. All countries in the GHOA were treated equally enduring the trade restriction even though RVF was not confirmed in all areas of the GHOA. It served the interest of the countries in the GHOA to harmonize their approaches to trans-boundary animal diseases (TADs) to ensure that future surveillance and control practices could effectively address these episodic outbreaks when they occurred. The key assumptions at that time are still relevant today. The political balance of power in the trade relationship has been in favor of GCC countries but has moderated with more balance in trade negotiations between GHOA and GCC trading blocs. The JPC concluded that if MSs in GHOA harmonized their approaches to endemic, trade-limiting diseases this would improve their position with importing countries like the GCC. Since the initiation of the SMP-AH Project there have been no bans imposed on the GHOA countries because of a disease outbreak. The findings support this development as GCC and Middle East countries have more confidence in the data being reported on animal diseases. The two trading parties are on a higher level of transparency and trust which the evaluation team believes can be largely attributed to SMP-AH Project. This implies that SMP-AH has had positive subjective impact. The evaluation team examined a number of veterinary export certificates signed by veterinary authorities of MSs (Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti) for livestock and livestock products destined for Middle East countries. Information gathered from the respective CVOs indicates that all their certificates were respected by veterinary authorities of the importing countries. However, should there be an outbreak of RVF or any other serious disease a ban on export of livestock and products from affected countries is highly possible, but it is very likely that a blanket ban of the whole region would not occur as in the past. The design of SMP-AH Project was primarily focused on communication, coordination and cooperation in the prevention and control of trade-sensitive diseases. The SMP-AH's project management unit team (PMUT) commissioned a number of initial assessments to ensure that activities proposed were targeted at building necessary capacity in the veterinary services in the MSs. The assessments helped to identify gaps in veterinary programs of various institutions, e.g. vaccine production. After the assessments, project funds predominately went to the public sector of national governments to harmonize approaches to control the major trade limiting diseases. There is evidence of some funding to private sector initiatives, like the establishment of NEALCO to improve trade, but the allocations have been relatively small and ineffective. Some efforts have been made but more intensive efforts are needed to engage private sector stakeholders in rolling out of SMPs, publication and circulation of documents, and outreach in the cross-border areas. We recognize serendipitously spill-over effects from the public sector to the private sector beneficiaries, but they are limited and largely ineffective. The team did meet with meat exporters, and they shared their opinion on how the GCC market has improved with regard to access. This trend in trade improvement can be correlated with actions by SMP-AH. 17 Importers want assurances on health of livestock and quality of livestock products Importing countries have a need for health and sanitary assurances with respect to imports of livestock and livestock products. Even though the SMP-AH treats them as a trading block in the GCC, they are not consistent in their requirements for livestock from the GHOA. In Annex 7.9,the animal health requirements vary by countries in the GCC and the Middle East for imports of live animals from the Horn of Africa. These variations in requirements are in themselves non￾tariff trade barriers for GHOA livestock. The quarantine period ranges from only 10 days in Qatar, Kuwait, and Yemen to 30 days for Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. SMP-AH Project was designed to help to harmonize these requirements based on scientific-evidence to eliminate the variations among importing countries and improve trade between the two regions. There is evidence from stakeholders in the GCC that in fact SMPs resulted in an improved level of coordination in recognizing the importance of surveillance and reporting of animal diseases. There appears to be growing awareness by veterinary officials in GCC countries on the state of animal health reporting in the GHOA. Draft memorandums of understanding (MOUs) have been prepared between Kenya and Tanzania, Kenya, South Sudan, and Uganda, and Kenya and Ethiopia, and they indicate a willingness to cooperate to achieve animal health and sanitary measures in the targeted areas along their mutual borders. MOUs are instruments of cooperation and coordination. Though there is no draft MOU between MSs involving Djibouti, there is strong coordination of epidemiology activities involving its surrounding neighbors. 4.1.2. Project objectives to address needs of larger target groups/stakeholders The project's objectives focus mainly on the public sector veterinary services. Certainly, the veterinary services, laboratories and quarantine stations have a mandate to control animal diseases to protect the general public from economic and livelihood losses caused by livestock diseases especially in arid and semi-arid areas. The project objective is well aligned to their missions and mandate. The other private sector stakeholders on the other hand are negatively affected by the inability of the public sector to control TADs or to enforce food safety regulations and good practices. If veterinary service is unable to perform their responsibilities then livestock and meat exporters cannot compete and enter attractive export markets. Information obtained from livestock traders and transporters, meat exporters, and abattoir operators showed that livestock trade bans and quarantines resulting from disease outbreaks cause heavy economic losses affecting their businesses. For instance, in 2013 Saudi Arabia rejected about 800 head of cattle from Djibouti on the grounds that they were FMD infected (source: CVO staff in Djibouti). By supporting the public veterinary service in a respective MS, the project positively impacts the larger group of beneficiaries/stakeholders. The relevance to their needs and interests is highly significant. SMP-AH Project has also generated substantial amount of knowledge through SMPs, SOPs and training manuals that is relevant to veterinary training institutions, private animal health service providers and veterinary professional associations. These indirect beneficiaries can tap into this knowledge to enrich their professional skills. In this regard, the project outcomes are aligned to the veterinary professional objective of advancing veterinary knowledge and promoting professional development. 18 4.1.3. SMP-AH's outcomes aligned to strategies/plans of implementing partners (IP) The stated outcome of SMP-AH Project is for "harmonized and coordinated surveillance and disease control approaches in the GHOA developed and implemented." The mandate of the three IPs (AU-IBAR, IGAD and ILRI) fit closely with expected outcome of the project. AU-IBAR's mandate covers all aspects of animal resources, including livestock, fisheries and wildlife across the entire African continent, and it works at both the regional and continental level. IGAD's livestock objective is to formulate and implement livestock sector and related policies to reduce food insecurity and poverty. The outcomes of the project fit well within their mandate. Finally, ILRI mandate is to work at the nexus of livestock and poverty, bringing high-quality science and capacity building to bear on poverty reduction and sustainable development of the poor livestock keepers and their communities. ILRI is engaged in a pilot project on Livestock Identification and Traceability Systems (LITS) in Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia. This innovation could be of great value in improving the control of TADs. Other partners add value through the Technical Working Group (TWG) and the Project Steering Committee (PSC). OIE, FAO and AU-PANVAC serve as technical partners. These organizations provide valuable advice and expertise to the PMUT since they have good experience with similar programs in the region. AU-PANVAC carried out an assessment of vaccine laboratories at the beginning of the project. The SMP-AH Project has collaborated with FAO on its global strategy for the eradication of PPR. Relevance of SMP-AH to the policy and legal frameworks of MS SMP-AH Project activities are in tandem with policy and legal frameworks in each MS in which the project activities have been implemented. For example, Tanzania has a number of policies supporting the SMP-AH initiative. They include the National Livestock policy, 2006; Livestock Sector Development Strategy, 2011; Livestock Sector Development Program 2011; and Tanzania Livestock Modernization Initiative, July 2015. Others regulations include Veterinary Act, 2003; and Livestock Identification, Registration and Traceability Act. The case of Tanzania above is given as an example of institutional framework for SMP-AH. Other MSs have similar types of policies and laws to which the SMP-AH Project objective, outcomes and activities are aligned. Researching these policies across the eight countries in the GHOA would determine if they are supportive or counter-productive to implementing SMP-AH. Text Box 4.1: Tanzania Livestock Policy 2006: ‘Trans-Boundary Animal Diseases (TADs) are notifiable requiring urgent actions. National, regional and international cooperation is necessary in the control of TADs through an enhanced system of early warning, early detection, coordination and harmonization of control strategies. Livestock Identification, Registration and Traceability: the government in collaboration with stakeholders will establish a national system for livestock identification, registration and traceability’ 19 Relevance to the requirements of importing countries The SMP-AH Project aims to contribute to improved export trade in livestock and livestock products of the MS with GCC and Middle East countries and other regions through harmonized SMPs for the control and surveillance of TADs. The animal health requirements of importing countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Omani revolve around freedom from TADs, mainly the diseases of FMD, RVF, Brucellosis, CBPP, CCPP and PPR. Text Box 4.2. CVO's comments on the importance of requirements by importing countries • CVO Uganda: Uganda Fresh Cuts company used to export meat to United Nations Troops in Central Africa but lost the market due to non-compliance with European Union standards; • CVO Djibouti: In 2013, Saudi Arabia rejected 800 head of cattle from Djibouti due to suspected FMD; • CVOs in MS: Control of TADs is important for export of livestock and livestock products – it is a demand from importing countries Harmonization of standard methods and procedures for the control of TADs among MSs, (considering the high orientation of these methods and procedures to international standards), has the potential to satisfy the requirements of the importing countries and to increase the confidence in the MSs to reporting and control TADS in the GHOA. Relevance of SMP-AH to the policies and legal frameworks of Regional Economic Commissions (REC) COMESA, IGAD and EAC have policy objectives which support USAID/KEA's objectives to foster trade, improve competitiveness and food security for the GHOA region. COMESA has its Livestock Policy Hub in each country, and it is addressing many of the issues of USAID/KEA's efforts to harmonize trade in the region. The EAC Treaty, which is the framework for cooperation among member states, strongly focuses on animal disease control and surveillance as reflected below: "The Partner States shall co-operate in surveillance, diagnosis and control strategies of transboundary pests and animal diseases." EAC declaration Similarly, IGAD’s Animal Health Policy Framework is directed at addressing trade and its impact on vulnerability of large numbers of livestock keeping households. The AUC’s protocol on relations between the African Union (AU) and Regional Economic Communities (RECs) provides for closer cooperation among the RECs (such as IGAD, EAC, SADC etc) to avoid unnecessary overlaps and duplication of efforts It also provides for participation in each other’s meetings and exchange of expertise and information. The cooperation of IGAD, COMESA and EAC in the SMP-AH Project is guided by this protocol and helps to ensure that their operations are in harmony and beneficial to the project. Relevance to the needs of livestock keeping communities Livestock keeping communities in pastoral areas face a myriad of challenges – drought, water shortage, inadequate nutrition for livestock, diseases, exploitation by middlemen and marketing 20 cartels, lack of commercial orientation in livestock keeping, limited access to marketing information, poor marketing infrastructure etc. TADs present many challenges for producers, and the control of TADS is a felt need of the pastoral communities. Livestock deaths, closure of livestock markets and restriction of livestock movement due to TADs are well known phenomena among pastoralists. In this case, relevance of SMP-AH activities to the needs of livestock keeping communities in pastoral areas is highly significant. However, control and surveillance of TADs is one of the many interventions that have been carried out in the past but with limited success. The question is if control and surveillance under SMP-AH Project can make a difference? Will the developed standard methods and procedures, as well as SOPs, enable the CVOs carry out vaccination and surveillance campaigns in cross-border areas more effectively and with tangible outcomes and impact at the community level? This will be dictated by many factors especially resources (human capital and funding for per diem, logistics, purchase of vaccine and reagents). This will be the true test of SMP-AH Project's relevance to the needs of the livestock keeping communities in cross-border areas. Without actions on the ground (vaccinations, surveillance, training and awareness creation, early detection of TADs, early response to any outbreak or suspicion of an outbreak), relevance of SMP-AH to the needs of the livestock community is perceived to be of little value. 4.2. Effectiveness of the project AU-IBAR planned activities in four result areas (RAs) to achieve the project's objective to develop and to implement harmonized approaches to surveillance and control of TADs. • RA #1. Harmonize and develop approaches to TADs with SMPs and SOPs • RA #2 Support regional and national laboratory and regional vaccine institutes • RA #3. Support quarantine stations • RA#4. Support capacity building for IGAD's ICPALD, MSs' veterinary services, and NEALCO and member trade associations The activities for each RA are presented in Annex 7.8. 4.2.1. RA #1 -Surveillance and control of trade-related animal diseases established Development SMPs and SOPs The project developed 11 SMPs (two more than planned), and all have been published and shared with MSs. Sixteen SOPs developed for laboratory testing and diagnosis and validated by the veterinary services. In addition, 23 SOPs for epidemiology investigations are ready to be validated. One syndromic manual with pictures was published with limited distribution to field practitioners engaged in passive surveillance and disease recognition. More manuals are planned for printing and distribution in cross-border areas. The manual is effective and practical in the field and recognized by even the US military command in Djibouti which funded the translation of the manual into French for distribution to non-governmental organizations like IDRB. IDRB is using the manual to train community animal health workers (CAHW) in two areas of Djibouti. Despite the development of SMPs and SOPs, more of the document need to be published and circulated in the cross-border areas. 21 Knowledge creation and training A number of trainings have been conducted at both the regional and national levels and to a small extent at the community level. A total of 651 participants have been trained (See Annex 7.11.) Regional trainings were conducted in epidemiology and surveillance for 46 participants with training manuals developed (See Annex 7.13. for list). Regional trainings for development of veterinary management skills were conducted for 42 senior government officers working in diagnostic laboratories and other relevant areas. The project developed seven training modules (See Annex 7.13.) These training guides will assist in continued staff development by individual veterinary departments. Other regional trainings included: • Trainings in animal inspection, certification and welfare – 22 participants. • Training on laboratory techniques – 24 participants. • Training and mentoring users of ARIS information system --13 participants trained. • Training on regional risk assessments for TADS as a tool for regional harmonization and coordination of disease surveillance and control – 15 participants Follow-up national trainings were conducted in each country based on regional training workshops (see Annex 7.11 and 7.12). Twenty trainings were conducted at the national level with a total number of 489 participants. Some national veterinary departments wanted to do district trainings but access to project funds became more difficult for disbursement reasons. Participant evaluations of the trainings indicated that their expectations were well met with good delivery of contents. (Example: Annex 7.14.) However, there are indications that: • Most participants lacked statistical skills required in risk analysis for epidemiology • Interpretation from English to French for Djibouti participants was not available and a bi￾lingual trainer would have been appropriate. • Duration of the surveillance and epidemiology training was not long enough Regional trainings Based on information obtained from FPPs and a few other veterinary officers who attended the regional training, the sessions were organized with good content. The level of satisfaction was high and number of drop-outs was low. Altogether, a total of 162 participants were trained with a fair distribution among MSs. From a technical perspective, the training materials covered disease control and management, surveillance, reporting, coordination and harmonization. However, some other critical areas including monitoring of activities, data collection and storage, data analysis and management should have been covered. The number of participants in each training ranged from 13 to 28, which was manageable for teaching purposes. 22 National trainings The Project provided to each MS funds to undertake follow-on national trainings based on their individual country needs. However, trainings were of a shorter duration ranging from 2 to 5 days. These were essentially workshops and did not allow for intensive trainings. Learning was therefore limited within the tenets of a short-term workshop. Furthermore, the number of participants in each training ranged from 9 to 50. It is not easy to manage a serious training session of more than 35 participants for a short duration of 2 to 5 days. Apparently, these trainings were wholly managed by the respective CVOs without guidelines from the PMUT except for being relevant to their needs and anchored within the project’s results frame. In many cases, there was no due consideration for the need to visit appropriate facilities for learning purposes. An example is given of a 4-day national training in inspection, quarantine procedures and certification held in Kampala from 19 to 22 October 2015 where there was no quarantine facility to see. Adult learning styles and principles (seeing, feeling and doing) should have been considered when choosing suitable training venues. 4.2.2. RA #2 - support to regional and national laboratory and regional vaccine institutes At start of the project, SMP-AH Project commissioned assessments of the diagnostic laboratories and the vaccine production institutes. The assessments helped to determine what trainings, equipment and supplies were required from the project. However, some MS laboratories reported that they did not receive the equipment and reagents as promised by the PMUT. A similar complaint was received from the regional labs complaining of slow delivery of requested items. Some of the difficulties stemmed from the AUC procurement process and the companies that bid on the requests not submitting approved documents. Some companies were not able or willing to deliver to certain countries in the GHOA. These circumstances caused delays and in some cases cancellation of the procurement. The PMUT could have resolved these issues early in the Project by screening eligible companies and compiling a list of names to receive notices for requst for bids. The regional vaccine institutes received support in trainings and in supplies of equipment, reagents and materials for vaccine production. However, the amounts were was small relative to the investments spent on development of the SMPs and SOPs. One positive impact in the case of KEVEVAPI was it allowed for an increase in Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP) vaccine. Another positive development is the reduction in time to make diagnosis of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) within six hours based on information from the director of the received from FMD reference laboratory at Embakasi, Kenya. The two regional vaccine production institutes have serious gaps in their operations that need to be addressed for optimal performance. For instance, KEVEVAPI is still using the old manual 23 technology of capping and labeling vaccine vials leading to production backlogs and delayed execution of vaccine orders. The SMP-AH Project could help address these constraints. Sometime before the SMP-AH Project began, the two regional vaccine institutes (Kenya and Ethiopia) signed a MOU to collaborate; however, during SMP-AH Project no collaboration occurred on sharing scientific information. The opportunity to foster closer ties of collaboration between the two vaccine production institutes was missed by the PMUT. While providing the requested assistance to the two institutes, the SMP-AH Project, if it had known about the MOU, could have seized the opportunity to use the MOU as a tool to facilitate close collaboration between the two institutes. 4.2.3. RA #3 - support to quarantine stations Most of the set targets for improving quarantine stations have been met (See Annex 7.15.) Although a network of export quarantines was established in October 2015, it has not started functioning to meet its intended objectives. Similarly, the SMP on export quarantine will require SOPs for effective application, and this activity is planned during the time remaining in the project. 4.2.4. RA#4 - Support for capacity building of ICPALD and NEALCO Support to IGAD's ICPALD The Project supported the start-up of the IGAD's Center for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (ICPALD) with equipment, furniture and salaries for staff. An epidemiologist and socio-economist were hired with project funds. Staff carried out a number of visits to MSs to discuss stakeholders' involvement in the SMP-AH program. ICPALD as part of IGAD will likely continue after the Project because of the work it is doing in the MSs. Support development of North Eastern Africa Livestock Council (NEALCO) The SMP-AH Project supported IGAD in the creation of NEALCO by engaging a consultant to prepare a constitution, trategic plan, and he arranged for its registration in Kenya. The project supports periodic meetings of the executive committee and advisory committee. However, there is no functioning secretariat and very few members. NEALCO is not officially recognized in the MSs except in Kenya. The criteria and requirements for being a member is not clear. NEALCO serves as an apex organization representing the national livestock marketing associations in the MSs. However, these national livestock associations in some MSs are themselves very weak and ineffective. It is envisioned that one objective is that NEALCO will support these country associations, but it is inherently weak itself. The future of NEALCO will largely depends on the ability and willingness of member organizations to participate and contribute to NEALCO's development. Project support for NEALCO will be necessary for at least the next two years or longer. 24 4.2.5. Disease Surveillance and Control A mirror-image survey was conducted with CVOs to seek their opinion on the level of collaboration with their neighboring CVOs in the areas of: 1) sharing of information on diseases, 2) coordinating disease control and surveillance, and 3) controlling livestock movement in cross-border areas. Results of the mirror image survey (see Annex 7.6) found that: i. Sharing of information on TADs among neighboring CVOs has improved compared with coordination of disease control and surveillance, and coordination and control of livestock movement across the borders. The improved sharing of information was attributed to cross-border meetings, CVOs networking, laboratory networking, disease reporting to OIE, and other regional meetings facilitated by FAO, IGAD and EAC. ii. Big gaps exist in coordination of disease control and surveillance, as well as, coordination and control of livestock movement across the borders. This is mainly due to: lack of coordination mechanism in disease control and surveillance activities between neighboring countries; neighboring countries do not normally plan their disease control and surveillance activities together unless under the coordination of a regional program or project; and inadequate resources to carry out joint disease control and surveillance programs. Within a particular cluster of countries sharing a common border, you may find MSs with different levels of communication and collaboration. However, with draft MoUs prepared for signature, this situation will likely improve as countries determine how to plan and cost for disease surveillance, reporting and control in cross-border areas. The sharing of information among the CVOs is very useful, and trainings were conducted to introduce the ARIS2 reporting platform. Unfortunately, Ethiopia pulled out of using the ARIS2 reporting system. This creates a serious weakness for the system in reporting on diseases in the common cross-border areas. The reason given by the Ethiopian CVO was that he and his staff made several efforts to have the PMUT consider changes to ARIS2, but no action was taken. on their requests. 4.2.6. Trade with the GCC IGAD initiated a MoU with the GCC Secretariat, and this document serves as a platform for sharing information on animal health issues. The MOU will reduce the likelihood of imposing non-tariff trade barriers by the countries in GCC without scientific evidence. Two inter-regional meetings were held in the GCC in 2013 and 2015 to promote safe and stable livestock trade. Future trips are planned for the GCC representatives to visit countries in the GHOA at the request of the PMUT. IGAD with NEALCO, need to widen the scope to tap opportunities in other regions. Food safety and meat standards will need to be addressed if expansion of trade to new markets will occur. 25 4.2.7. Networking SMP-AH Project has developed networks for sharing information among professionals. These networks include surveillance and epidemiology, quarantine stations, laboratories, and a CVO network. These networks are important venues to share sharing technical information and to plan for actions when an animal disease outbreak occurs in the GHOA. 4.2.8. Communications The role of communication was recognized as important early in the project to educate stakeholders/beneficiaries in the purpose of the SMP-AH protocols. The creation of strong public-private partnerships could have been achieved, but the results are mixed. Awareness creation about SMP-AH A communication plan was developed in the first two years of the project (AU-IBAR). The plan sets out four expected results: • relevant stakeholders know about SMP-AH's goals, purpose, objectives, activities, outcomes and impacts • relevant stakeholders are aware of the importance of harmonized animal health regulations and have developed a positive attitude towards compliance with the SMP-AH Program • The role of AU-IBAR, IGAD and USAID/KEA in livestock development among stakeholders and general public is enhanced • Communication mechanism on livestock trade between the GHOA and Middle East enhanced The project has not been successful in achieving the stated impact of widespread awareness of the program because of the priority given to development of the SMPs. Relevant stakeholders were not effectively reached with the social marketing program which include promotion and visibility activities, distribution of SMP manuals, a quarterly national epidemiology bulletin, and a regional animal health bulletin. These activities were focused on a narrow range of professionals in the public veterinary service. Some effort was made to improve communications between the GHOA and Middle East countries but mainly at the government-to-government level. Finally, an activity was planned to conduct a marketing audit of the effectiveness of the communication campaign; however, the audit was not done. Therefore, it is hard to tell after two years whether the four results above were reached and if there were any lessons learned. The visibility of SMP-AH Project is low to what would be expected at this time close to the end of the project. The remedy is for the CVOs to hold a series of meeting at the sub-national level on the role of SMP-AH and intensify the communications with suitable marketing products for dissemination, e.g. brochures, video and teaching aids to district veterinary officers, NGOs, CBOs, veterinary colleges and trade associations. Cross-border communication with CVOs and their staff 26 The activity plan was for two cross-border meetings to be held, and four have been completed: (i) Ethiopia, South Sudan, Kenya and Uganda in Gulu, Uganda,(ii) Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia and Kenya at Dire Dawa; (iii) bilateral cross-border meeting for the Kenya-Ethiopia Border, Nanyuki, Kenya, and (iv) a regional trilateral cross-border meeting for Uganda, Kenya and South Sudan organized by IGAD, AU-IBAR and FAO at Moroto. These meetings build trust and encourage collaboration among CVOs to enact cross-border activities to control TADs. 4.2.9. Enablers The evaluation calls for identification of the enablers for SMP-AH Project's success. The following enabling factors have been identified. i. AU-IBAR’s past experience in disease surveillance and eradication in the Rinderpest campaign offers good direction for SMP-AH Project. With the past experience in disease control and surveillance under Pan African Rinderpest Control (PARC) and Pan African Control of Epizootics (PACE) programs, it was relatively easier for AU￾IBAR to design and manage SMP-AH Project. For instance, the idea of FPPs is similar to national coordinators that were in place under the two programs mentioned above. ii. Local, regional and international experts have effectively guided SMP-AH Project. Both AU-IBAR and IPs have technical experts in various disciplines within the scope of disease control and surveillance including epidemiologists, virologists, specific disease experts, animal health policy specialists etc. Their inputs in the development of SMPs and SOPs were very useful. iii. CVOs' tour to the U.S.A. was important to show how effective SMPs could be and how they can be the basis for a partnership between the public and private sectors. The tour experience helped CVOs to appreciate quality disease control and surveillance systems and the benefits that could be expected. iv. Representatives of the regional organizations, COMESA and EAC, have offered their support to SMP-AH in improving trade relationships. v. International organizations, such as FAO and OIE, participated and provided technical support in the development of SMPs and SOPs. vi. Regular cross-border meetings between CVOs and their staffs build trust and collaboration. The meetings enabled the CVOs to share information, plan and work together as a team. Teamwork was important for the success of the project. vii. The signature of MoUs between MSs, though still in process, is an indication that veterinary services are committed to control TADs in cross-border areas. The commitment surrounding the MoUs is a critical element for the successful implementation of the Project activities. viii. IGAD is promoting an evidence-based trade relationship with the GCC countries to support GHOA livestock producers and traders using SMPs, thus minimizing the chance of a blanket ban on livestock and meat exports from the GHOA. 27 4.2.10.Disenablers A similar task is to identify who or what are the disenablers preventing the Project from achieving its intended results. i. Procurement bureaucracy: the procurement requirement that purchases over US $10,000 must be approved by AUC at the AU Headquarters in Addis Ababa resulted in delays and higher transaction costs in filling procurement orders. ii. Lack of financial contribution from a MS: Member States were not asked to contribute to the payment of activities -- everything was paid from the donor funds. A MS did not have to commit funds from the national budget for activities. As a result, the roll-out of SMPs in terms of vaccination and surveillance activities was compromised. In this regard, it is noted that when there was an outbreak of FMD in Uganda, the CVO had to request for funding support from the Project. Further, lack of commitment of funds from MS national budgets to project activities jeopardizes sustainability prospects. Although MS made in-kind contributions of personnel, transport, office facilities, etc, it would be useful and effective if matching funds were provided especially for disease control and surveillance activities. iii. Varying resources and capacities of MS: MS have varying sets of financial resources and human capital for adopting programs of the SMP-AH Project. Capacity of MSs to participate in the project differed and so effected the rate of implementation. These factors were not considered appropriately and countries such as South Sudan and Somalia were left in a disadvantaged position. The preference would be to give greater funding support to weaker MSs to reduce the weakest link in the livestock value chain. Although the PMUT considers absorptive capacity to be a constraint in some MSs, the matter could be discussed in the annual planning meetings of CVOs to address the problem. iv. Inadequate capacity of Monitoring and Evaluation (M &E) Unit: M&E activities were not effectively undertaken in the project as the Unit responsible had no definite project budget allocated to review activities and report to the key decision-makers. M&E could have been more impactful on the project than was the case. The Unit lacked the necessary number of full-time staff and resources to carry out regular and thorough audits. v. Inadequate strengthening of NEALCO: IGAD, along with other organizations like COMESA and EAC, supported NEALCO; however, the concept lacked sustained funding and support. NEALCO was to draw support from national livestock and meat trade organizations, but these organizations are weak themselves. Consequently, NEALO, in its current low operational state, could not effectively play its envisaged role of promoting livestock trade; Insecurity: Insecurity played a part in preventing some activities. The ILRI pilot research on LITS in the corridor from Nairobi to Garissa was abandoned due to insecurity in Garissa. The activity was relocated to another site. 28 4.3. Efficiency of the Project The evaluation considers if the PMUT managed the planned activities in a timely manner and if they were responsive to the needs of the MS. 4.3.1. Delivery of Resources to Project Activities The project has been successful in using local institutions and experts to provide trainings. The PMUT took necessary steps to ensure transparent bidding in the use of local suppliers of contract services notably in assessments, training and procurement services. The PMUT advertises for local suppliers of inputs and services in each of the MS. For example, bids were received for management training and the winner was the Kenya School of Government. A second request for proposals was announced for epidemiology training, and the award went to the Veterinary School of University of Nairobi. A large training in laboratory diagnostics was awarded to the Ethiopia National Animal Health Diagnostic Investigation Center (NAHDIC). The evaluators observed that these institutions are appropriate for the contract services they were offered to deliver. Each of the trainings was delivered within the stipulated time limits. The selection of local institutions and experts using a competitive bidding process with well defined specifications ensured a good balance of quality and value for money in the delivery of training. However, a challenge for the project management unit team (PMUT) is managing approximately 40 activities across four Result Areas (RAs) (see Annex 7.8.). This large number puts pressure on the PMUT to deliver needed resources efficiently, especially when the system has a number of checks and balances outside its control that need to be followed. The PMUT would have to be more efficient in its implementation to undertake the large number of planned activities. It will be necessary for the PMUT to delegate more responsibilities for certain activities to the MS. A few other challenges impacted negatively on timeliness in delivery of goods. In one case there was lack of companies which responded to procurement adverts leading to the need to re￾advertise for and thus causing delay in delivering within planned time schedule. In other instances bidders awarded the contracts had to source for the required goods resulting in delays or cancellations of procurements. In another instance, one local company was awarded the tender to deliver some laboratory supplies, only to find that it had quoted the prices from the mother company and could not therefore deliver using the same prices. These circumstances resulted in delay in the delivery of laboratory supplies in most cases. A few CVOs felt that they could have improved on the procurement of goods if there had been closer consultation by the PMUT. In some cases, local institutes and departments in MSs would be in a better position to recommend best procedures to order needed supplies. The PMUT needs to perform better on procurements by conducting more thorough background research on supplier firms to avoid these missteps and delays in procurement. Burn rate and procurement rules The project encountered a number of issues in the disbursement of funds preventing the efficient utilization of resources to supply consumables. The burn rate of project funds was below 29 expectations because the initial activities establishing the SMPs required less funding. The result was unspent funds late in the life of the project. USAID/KEA pointed this out to the PMUT. Consequently, approximately 72 percent of funds have been spent with nine months remaining. The first problem is that AU-IBAR must follow the procurement rules of AUC which requires that purchase orders over $10,000 be approved at headquarters in Addis Ababa. This takes extra time, as much as six months in some cases, resulting in delay of activities. A request by AU￾IBAR to the AUC has been made to raise the amount to $50,000 for headquarter's approval. A second issue is the flow of project funds between AU-IBAR and USAID/KEA. IBAR has not been able to comfortably move between planning and budgeting of activities to fit within USAID/KEA procedures for release of funds. The requirement for SMP-AH Project to report expenses with invoices monthly for payment / reimbursement proved difficult for the project team to manage. Finally, the procedures in disbursement of funds results in inefficient practices by AU-IBAR. The accountant in Nairobi goes to each project activity (e.g. training) in a MS solely to pay per diem for a training. This practice is a wasteful use of time and money. This was partly done to insure that invoices could be collected and submitted to USAID/KEA monthly. This procedure of payment meant that sub-national programs in the cross-border target areas would be more difficult to pay for from the Nairobi office The Director of AU-IBAR indicated that some of the MSs do not have the internal financial controls to ensure adequate reports and documentation, and he was reluctant to delegate local purchases to some MSs. There is indeed some merit in this assertion as evidenced in Ethiopia in the course of this evaluation. The Directors of National Veterinary Institute (NVI) and the Diagnostic Laboratory at Sebeta strongly claimed not to have received funds from PMUT for training, but a follow-up revealed that the funds in question had been received only that the local accountant had not informed the director. It seems that either there was no proper system of informing the Head of the Institute of such a payment or the system was flawed. However, it does seem that the heavy dependence on centralized controls, given the expected mode of reimbursement and reporting, slows the disbursement and also leads to inefficiency in the disbursement of funds. This would explain why AU-IBAR feels that more central control ensures better accountability of funds but the trade-off is less efficiency and effectiveness. 4.3.2. Allocation of inputs and outputs to different targets The allocation of funds from 2012 through 2015 to the four result areas shows that a majority of the funds went to Result #1: development of SMPs -US$ 2,665,572 (52%); Result #2: laboratories and vaccine institutes - US$ 1,101,420 (22%); quarantine stations - US$160,807 (3%); and Result #4: Ministerial and ICPALD capacity building - US$1,157,633 (22%). There was a heavy weighting of funds to training of government staff in surveillance, disease control and reporting. The result was that the project has not been able to deliver effectively on its second mandate - implementation of the SMPs to control TADs. For example, vaccine production has received less funding than other RAs yet it faces a critical need for increases in 30 production of FMD vaccine to carry out control programs. Whereas the capacity building of government veterinary staff and development of SMPs are important areas of investment, the implementation of SMPs to control TADs is equally important for the project to realize the overall objective. It is important to note that development of disease control and surveillance tools and their approaches are important; however, but without the effective control and surveillance activities outbreaks of diseases will be harder to manage. The decisions of the PMUT was to focus on development of SMPs in accordance with the design of the project, but decisions taken or not taken in execution of how inputs were allocated to the result areas was a key consideration. A second issue is a MS's ability to pay for some resources was not considered in the allocation of funds. It assumes that all MSs are at the same resource base and have the same capacity to participate. There is no "affirmative action" to lift up the weaker MS to be competent in cross￾border programs. In particular, South Sudan and Somalia have had political and insecurity issues that have undermined their financial and human resource capacity to address disease surveillance and control. Operational logistics in particular are a serious limitation to efficient and effective delivery. The need is to address all weak links by ensuring that cross-border disease control and surveillance programs are carried out satisfactorily on both sides of the border. The argument that the weaker MS have low funds absorptive capacity could be true but should not be overstated. Some limited adjustments in fund allocation can be done to offset the imbalances. MSs are conducting national trainings of their staff, and some countries are doing more than others. Trainings were planned in line with country plans and budgets. However, in general, we found there was no structured implementation plan and no budget at the country level for any sustained roll-out of the SMPs beyond training. As indicated above, the national trainings were workshops ranging from 2 to 5 days. There was no monitoring of these trainings to ensure cost effectiveness or value for money. Workshops are easy venues for spending funds without much value. PMUT needs to implement more rigorous guidelines for conducting a workshop and to ensure evaluation questionnaires are taken from participants. 4.3.3. Organizational structure, managerial support and coordination mechanisms AU-IBAR has six units: Finance, Human Resource and Administration, Programs and Projects, Animal Health, Animal Production, and Trade and Marketing. (See organogram in Annex 7.16.). AU-IBAR's management structure is appropriate for taking on projects and seamlessly embed them in the institution's framework. SMP-AH Project, being livestock health and trade focused, is domiciled under the Animal Health Unit. Activities in other on-going projects can be in close collaboration within the Animal Health Unit and the Trade & Marketing unit. Additionally, in matters of project management including M&E, the project gets support from Programs & Projects Unit. 31 In each MS, there is a focal point person (FPP) in the MS responsible for liaising with the PMUT in AU-IBAR. This person keeps national staff informed on activities underway with SMP-AH. The current role of the FPP could be strengthened and provided with dedicated resources to better perform their role. The FPP could have an appointed assistant who is familiar with the project. This would help to address "lethargy creep" and speed up the roll-out of activities. The procurement process within AU-IBAR begins with the MS recipient requesting a list of necessary equipment or consumables. Specifications for the equipment are made in consultation with the PMUT. The Project Coordinator consults with each recipient for a final consensus of the priority items. The tender is then issued with a time frame to respond. Upon getting the bids, PMUT holds an in-house technical evaluation. Evaluation criteria are set based on technical specifications, and the supplier may be requested to submit a sample. The technical evaluations (without the financial bids attached) go to tender board. The tender board meets weekly to review the bids on the technical merits. Eventually a decision is made based on financial review, technical evaluation, and capacity of supplier to deliver. Past performance of the supplier is also considered. A final decision is made to award the tender to the successful bidder or to refer to AUC if it is over US$10,000. The process functions with reasonable transparencies, but there can be delays in procuring goods and services because of the number of steps involved. The Director of AU-IBAR believes he will receive authority from AUC within three months to complete and award bids up to $50,000 without AUC approval thus shortening the period for completing a purchase order. Some observations by the evaluation team: i. The project fits well within the AU-IBAR structure without the need of creating its own M&E and financial / accounting units. The systems are in place.The project draws support from AU-IBAR structure, thus lower overhead costs. ii. If and when AU-BAR is given the authority to deal with purchases up to US$50,000, some delays in procurement will be reduced and this will impact positively on implementation of activities. iii. The procurement process ensures transparency and quality of required items or services but not necessarily the most cost effective process. In tendering, the bidders tend to put in additional costs and big margins. Nevertheless, the project procurement process compares well with procurement systems in other similar public institutions including government departments and ministries and largely ensures a good balance of quality and value for money. 4.4. Outcomes/impacts The stated outcome of the SMP-AH is: "harmonize and coordinate surveillance and disease control approaches in the Greater Horn of Africa region developed and implemented." The impact is for improved contribution of livestock to food security and safety, economic growth 32 and poverty reduction in Africa. In the short time period of the SMP-AH Project, it is not possible to state definitely if the expected impacts have been achieved. The M & E officer of AU-IBAR said that current reporting systems in the MSs are not adequate to undertake higher level analysis on the impact indicators. We do feel though the project has had positive effects. 4.4.1. Positive and negative outcomes The project design was heavily oriented to development of SMPs and SOPs. AU-IBAR and its partners have successfully completed the nine planned SMPs and even exceeded that number. The same goes for the development of SOPs in a number of areas. However, the second condition was to develop coordinated surveillance and disease control approaches. There have been cross-border meetings between groups of MS; however, roll-out of a coordinated disease surveillance, reporting and control plan has not taken off. Further, realization of coordinated disease surveillance, reporting and control plan requires costing and incorporation into the project budget that needs to be agreed upon between a MS and PMUT. Implementation of a disease control and surveillance plan in cross-border areas has not happened to the extent expected. A large amount of time and resources have been focused on training of staff and development of the SMPs. If a meaningful disease control plan is to be put in place, it will then require longer period of time to roll it out and definitely more resources. The remaining time until the close of the project is not enough for this purpose. However, we do see that there is a greater level of communication and cooperation between CVOs in addressing TADs in the cross￾border areas to carry out coordinated programs. Training and knowledge development The number of trainings and people trained (651 of which 107 are women) is a significant contribution to the national veterinary services in the MSs. Each CVO or FPP interviewed mentioned the benefits of up-grading the skills of department staff. However, there was no effort to ask the questions of what changes in veterinary service delivery resulted from the application of the knowledge acquired. In one case, we did hear that for the National Vaccine Institute (NVI) facility that only one person on the staff received training, A training gap still exists in some institutions, like vaccine production and quality control. Nevertheless, the base of knowledge established is a platform for further building of national veterinary services. Diagnostics The evaluation found that with the new SOPs in diagnostic laboratories the time to complete diagnostic results has been reduced for some tests. For example, the officer in-charge of FMD reference laboratory at Embakasi in Nairobi, informed the evaluation team that with the combination of ELISA and PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests, conclusive diagnosis can be reached within six hours if sampling is correctly done whereas in the past confirmatory diagnosis was based on isolation of the virus, a process that took at least 48 hrs. This improvement in efficiency allows for more tests to be done and results provided to support the private sector export traders. The provision of equipment and protocols for FMD and Brucellosis testing required by most importing GCC countries, is a very positive development. 33 Communications The outcome statement makes clear reference to implementation and this is a weakness of the project design. The lack of success to go beyond the public sector to other important stakeholders is an issue that needs to be resolved going forward by the national programs. At the FAO/OIE conference in Bangkok, the participants recommended that: "The national FMD Control Program be based on robust animal health systems and effective public-private partnerships, and notably encourage the role of the private sector and of local communities, as key actors in FMD and other animal disease preventioin and control measures." (FAO/OIE, June, 2012) The PMUT's communication plan and its implementation did not gain any traction so that pushing the program out to stakeholders did not materialize. As with any new livestock program, early buy-in from the agro-pastoralists and pastoralists is key in the initiative. This has not happened which creates a scenario where SMP-AH Project's efforts for disease surveillance and control could be at odds with local pastoral communities. Contributions by Member States (MSs) Another weakness is that the PMUT team did not attempt to engage MSs in their contribution to "roll-out" of national activities. The project paid for all activities with a MS providing in-kind contributions of personnel, utilities, transport, etc. Consequently, SMP-AH activities were done off-budget with no attempt to have CVOs look for ways to incorporate the project expenses into an on-going program budget lines. This raises a serious question of sustainability. The current size of the SMP-AH budget is relatively small in funding compared to large production focused livestock projects, e.g. building market infrastructure, corridor facilities, quarantine station construction, abattoir upgrades, etc. SMP-AH needs a line item in the budget of each MS for recurrent operational expenses. SMP-AH initiatives needs to have MS matching funds attached to the project so that they become regular parts of the veterinary service. Leveraging of funds for better outcomes / impacts SMP-AH would benefit from leveraging its funds with other projects and institutions to gain critical mass and exposure. Because SMP-AH is a regional project it will be important to delineate activities that can be done at the bilateral versus the regional level. For example, veterinary schools would be ideal for training future veterinarians in the SMP-AH approach. This would be a bilateral program between veterinary services in a MS and the donor agency. NGOs with strong links to donors and communities can roll-out pastoral based programs on disease control and upgrading disease reporting with community animal health workers (CAHW). The involvement of the private sector offers opportunities as well for the project to tap into sources of funding. A firm like Sidai, a veterinary service provider in Kenya, is a prime example for collaboration. These are examples for suitable bilateral funding. USAID/KEA, World Bank and the European Union (EU) are potential partners for SMP-AH Project to address the regional issues of sharing information on disease outbreaks, control of livestock in border areas and trade of livestock and livestock products to regional and international markets. 34 Trade in livestock and livestock products There is evidence from stakeholders in the GCC that in fact SMPs have resulted in an improved level of coordination in controlling animal diseases. The PMUT asked government veterinary officers in the GCC to review the SMPs, and they gave their approval for the importance of these tools for improving trade. The growing trust and confidence among GCC and Middle East Countries is also based on measures being taken within GHOA. Draft MOUs have been prepared between Kenya and Tanzania, Kenya, South Sudan, and Uganda, and Kenya and Ethiopia. The MOUs indicate to the international community a willingness to cooperate to achieve animal health and sanitary measures in the targeted areas along their borders. MOUs are instruments of cooperation and coordination and help to achieve desired level of disease control. Though there is no draft MOU between a MS involving Djibouti, there is strong coordination of activities with its neighbors. SMP-AH made efforts to improve the trade linkages with the GCC with the harmonization in approaches to disease control. It is too early to say definitely if SMP-AH will result in the type of high level indicators for project impacts –improved trade in livestock and livestock products and contribute to "reduction of poverty, enhancement of regional economic growth and improved access of livestock and livestock products to regional and international markets." The slow start￾up of NEALCO is one of the factors contributing to this. The envisaged role of NEALCO in the promotion of livestock trade has been lacking, and so far the organization has not been strengthened to the level that it can play its defined role effectively. Data from the CVO surveys found that Djibouti and Ethiopia are actively engaged in the trade of live animals to the GCC. Ethiopia also has significant exports of chilled sheep and goat carcasses to the GCC countries. Kenya has fewer exports of these products and mainly to Middle East region, as well. The other countries are not engaged like Ethiopia and Djibouti in large amounts in trade in livestock and meat outside the IGAD region. The General Manager of the quarantine station in Djibouti remarked that livestock exports are also embarking from the company's quarantine stations at ports of Berbera and Bobasso in Somalia shipping to the GCC. The implication is that Ethiopia herders are preferring to use Somali ports as stability returns to the region. Ethiopia reported that meat exports (probably exclusively shoat carcasses) increased from 17,780 mt in 2012 to 19,050 mt in 2015 (annex 7.18). SMP-AH Project supported trade missions to GCC in which Ethiopia attended. This subsequently led to improved trade ties between MSs and GCC impacting the increase in their meat exports. Ethiopian exports of cattle ranged from 636,000 head in 2012 to a high of 785,078 head in 2013 before falling back to 671,157 head in 2014. (No data were available for 2015.)The cattle trade from Djibouti was highest in 2015 with 55,470 head; however for sheep and goats exports were the lowest annual quantity since 2012 with 350,147 head. Camel exports were up and down over the four year period with 37,500 head in 2015 about the same in 2012.. With the opening of two quarantine stations at ports in Puntland and Somaliland, the numbers of livestock transshipped through Djibouti has declined. The SMP￾AH Project activities in trade have likely benefitted mostly Djibouti and Ethiopia in the GHOA. The trade missions from MSs to GCC supported by SMP-AH Project could have a positive influence. 35 SMP-AH project, alongside other initiatives, was useful to the CVO of Kenya in providing information on RVF in negotiating with the Government of Saudi Arabia to lift the ban on livestock and livestock products. The ban was imposed in 2007 following a RVF outbreak. The ban was lifted in 2014 with contribution from the SMP-AH Project along with other initiatives. From the electronic survey (Annex 7.17), CVOs believe that the impact of the SMP-AH Project on trade will be realized more in the future. The consensus among the CVOs is that the project has the potential to contribute significantly to improved trade in livestock and livestock products depending on effectiveness of the disease control and surveillance activities put in place. Generally, the trade data (annex 7.18) do not show an increasing trend in livestock trade between GHOA and GCC nor do they show that trade in livestock and livestock products has increased significantly during the project period. However, the anecdotal information is that SMP-AH Project has contributed to building a foundation for improved livestock trade between GHOA and GCC. 4.4.2. Major challenges to fully realize expected project outcomes SMP-AH Project faces a number of challenges to reach the expected outcomes. Inadequate funding A major constraint is lack of funding for coordination, surveillance and control of TADs in cross-border areas. This is a problem that faces all the MSs in the GHOA. Although disease control and surveillance is one of the core functions of public veterinary services, the funds allocated to support this function is totally inadequate. In some of the MSs including Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, the priority given to livestock sector is low compared to crops - even in arid and semi-arid areas where livestock is the main source of livelihoods and income. Disease control Following on from the funding challenge is that government's veterinary services do not have viable and sustainable disease control and surveillance programs with dedicated line item funding each year in cross-border areas. Certain disease control programs require repeated vaccinations, e.g. CBPP and FMD, for effective control. Other diseases are one time vaccination like PPR. Because of the diversity of diseases it is a challenge to control a number of trade limiting diseases at one time in one area. National governments need a plan supported with budget allocation to be effective. Based on results from the electronic survey, veterinary departments do not have direct line-item government support for implementing SMPs. This will need to be corrected in the future. Market linkages SMP-AH Project has not addressed the challenges facing the livestock value chain. Disease surveillance and control are just one issue in the overall value chain development. Importers have specific requests, and they vary by country in the GCC. IGAD's work with NEALCO is to 36 address these challenges from importing countries, but to date the organization is struggling to gain its footing and establish a reputation. NEALCO is a top-down creation with little evidence that it has the support of country-level trade associations or that it can coordinate programs with the country-level trade associations. SMP-AH Project has started to engage with GCC veterinarians on how to incorporate the SMPs protocols so as to build necessary trust. The draft MOU between IGAD and GCC secretariat is a good start for future dialogue on control of TADs. Political Context Variability in political situation exists among governments in the GHOA. Some countries have newly devolved systems of government with different approaches to disease control and surveillance. In some countries civil conflicts constitute elements of insecurity that can affect project implementation. In addition, MSs are in different RECs, including COMESA and EAC, and requires having to look at conflicting trade policies to ensure harmony. 4.4.3. Utilization of existing local capacities of the beneficiaries for better impact The public sector has benefited the most from SMP-AH Project with support for training and purchases of equipment and materials to develop the SMPs and SOPs. The implementation of the SMPs will require other beneficiaries to join in the "roll-out" of SMPs for the coordinated control of TADs. These beneficiaries will include pastoralist societies, conservancies, feedlots, abattoirs, traders and exporters. Citing from the FAO/OIE workshop in Bangkok: "Capacity building at the technical and managerial level as well as regular and effective communication to build public-private partnership and gain the support of the animal owners are crucial for any control strategy." FAO/OIE, 2012 The SMP-AH Project collaborates with other similar projects which adds credibility to the program. The EU funded project, Surveillance in Support of Livestock Trade (STSD), participates in the Project Steering Committee joint meetings organized by AU-IBAR. Collaboration with other projects in the region will increase the recognition of SMP-AH among larger numbers of beneficiaries. The Focal Point Person (FFP) in Djibouti is undertaking field ground work for extending the national program to reach down to producers and traders. The veterinary services is partnering with NGOs, like IRDB and the US military, to engage with pastoralists in surveillance and reporting of diseases. The syndromic manual is a key field tool for the Djibouti veterinary service to train community animal health workers (CAHW) with help of NGOs. There is room for the SMP-AH Project to expand to take in more local partners and utilize untapped institutional capacities. It is by creating strategic partnership will the SMP-AH Project achieve diffusion of the knowledge to a wider audience. Veterinary schools and colleges could train future veterinarians in the application of SMPs and SOPs. Venues for professional associations are also potential ways to expland the impact of SMP-AH. In a recent Kenya Veterinary Association regional branch conference (Eastern Regional Branch), a presentation on SMPs was made and apparently only a handful of participants were aware of SMPs. Outreach to 37 veterinary schools and other institutions is within the mandate of SMP-AH Project's communication activity. 4.5. Sustainability A number of issues affect the sustainability of impacts and outcomes of SMP-AH project. Exit Plan: The project design called for an exit plan to be developed early in the project but none was prepared. Work on an exit plan in the remaining time of the project is of critical importance. The challenge is whether there is enough time to mobilize partners and MSs to collaborate in the plan. In one of the regional trainings, it was recommended that each MS develop implementation strategies and action plans for continuity after the end of the project. This implies that each MS may be left seeking bi-lateral funding for their SMP-AH development rather than securing funding for the preferred regional approach. Hopefully, both donor funds can be secured for both bilateral and regional activities. Budgets: SMP-AH activities being implemented have not been adequately considered in national budgets of MS and therefore unlikely be sustained after the project is completed. Disease control and surveillance budgets are small and no increase has been made in consideration of SMP-AH Project activities. All the CVOs interviewed indicated that their budgetary provisions for disease control and other animal health related activities are too little compared with actual needs, and this explains why diseases such as FMD and other TADs have been a big challenge to all MSs. In recent years, and particularly in some countries such as Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda, much of national financial resources have been directed to constitutional reforms leaving other activities under-funded. In view of all this, recurrent external financial support will be required for sustained disease control and surveillance activities for the foreseeable future. Institutional memory: Salaries and benefits for staff of veterinary services in some MSs are relatively low leading to high staff turn-over. Employees with good technical skills and knowledge are more likely to get better terms elsewhere (even outside the country) and not necessarily in positions where their acquired skills can be better utilized. For instance if an employee of a government department leaves to work for an international NGO, the concerned department will be deprived of the skills and the services of the departing employee, and his or her skills will no longer be directly available to the concerned department. Staff members are also frequently reassigned from the federal office to county/district offices. The development of SMPs requires that they be "living documents" which are used, updated and refreshed periodically for new staff joining the departments. This may be lost due to frequent staff changes. In addition, a regulatory framework or an appropriate collaborative mechanism will be needed to ensure that the federal-county relationship and the devolved local agencies embrace SMP concepts. NEALCO: IGAD/ICPALD and COMESA have expressed a willingness (no firm commitment) to provide continued support in the development of NEALCO. The priority will be on securing 38 funding for operations and a membership drive. COMESA's Livestock Policy Hub in most of the countries can support NEALCO by engaging with local government on policies which could benefit NEALCO and its members. However, the eventual sustainability of NEALCO will depend on its own resource base and not external support. In particular, the sustainability of NEALCO will largely rely on the strength of the member organizations in the MSs. In the short term (next two to three years), the viability of the organization seems doubtful without a large infusion of external donor support. Knowledge development: The SMP-AH Project has developed an extensive set of reference materials and training manuals to be used by national veterinary service. These training materials can be used by national staff to conduct education training in their respective countries. Other opportunities to disseminate the knowledge lie with veterinary schools, pastoral field schools, NGOs, and CAHWs to advance the use of SMPs. This is also why the syndromic manual has been so well received as a practical field guide to recognize animal diseases. Professional associations can also utilize the SMPs and training manuals in their continuous professional development trainings as a way of advancing veterinary knowledge. The reservoir of knowledge developed by SMP-AH Project creates the foundation for sustained impacts and outcomes on all stakeholders in the livestock value chain. 4.6. Lessons learned There are a number of lessons learned from the SMP-AH. Affirmative action: An important lesson learned is that not all countries of the GHOA are similar in their livestock resources. Ethiopia has the largest livestock inventory on the African continent and more active in trade to the GCC and Middle East. Also there is a significant variation in MSs' ability to pay for livestock programs. One aspect that does unite them all is the presence of TADs which have negative effects, not just on trade, but also on household livelihoods. Affirmative action to provide disproportional amounts of the budget to certain countries would have been an acceptable strategy, especially for South Sudan and Somalia. Absorptive capacity aside, the weaker member states can be better supported in certain areas. USA tour: It is apparent that CVOs are now more conversant with each other after the tour to the USA and the chance to see the workings of the SMP system. This tour built a foundation for team-building among the CVOs which led to continued interaction after their return home. Additional staff members became engaged in the program following the return of the CVOs. This soft investment paid dividends in getting MSs' veterinary services energized in cooperating on cross-border activities and yields good long term returns for effective implementation of regional livestock programs. Learning from an existing good example is essential not only for learning purposes but helps in building momentum and aspirations. Program flexibility: The project has shown a great deal of flexibility when faced with emerging challenges – e.g. relocation of LITS pilot from Garissa-Nairobi corridor to another site due to insecurity incidents in Garissa. The PMUT supported shifting risk assessments to the Borena￾Adama-Djibouti corridor and support to cross-border meeting between Kenya and Tanzania in Naivasha. These adjustments were not planned initially but became necessary due to changing 39 circumstances. It is noted here that the adjustments were within the framework of the project RAs and made within a timely manner. The key lesson is that no matter how good the planning is, emerging situations and challenges are sometimes inevitable, hence the need for flexibility so long as the adjustments being made contribute to the project's objective. Utilization of SMPs: Large amounts of effort have been put into development of the SMPs. The first SMP completed was for the PPR disease. An opportunity was present at the completion of this SMP to market this product to the organizations responsible for the eradication of PPR on the continent. The PPR document became a reference document in the Pan African PPR Control Strategy and the IGAD's PPR control strategy. This is an excellent example of marketing the SMPs for practical utilization, and similar efforts are needed for application of the other SMPs. Another example was the Producer Cooperative Union in Uganda which is carrying out Brucellosis testing on members' cows but was not aware of SMP for Brucellosis. SMPs offered the opportunity of the veterinary service to implement the SMP in a larger testing program. The SMP is appropriate for all livestock systems and not just those in cross-border areas. Most importantly is the need that control of diseases has to be supported by appropriate public-private partnerships (FAO/OIE). One cannot stress enough the importance of a communication program to disseminate to stakeholders/beneficiaries the benefits of SMPs and the need to take the earliest opportunity possible to apply them through public-private partnerships. 40 5. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are drawn from the findings of the evaluation team. The project is active mainly in 7 countries (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia and South Sudan) with varying capacities and contextual landscape. Countries do not have equal resources and therefore their capacities to participate in the implementation of SMP￾AH project are different. Consequently, some have greater needs than others. These imbalances were not considered in allocation of project funds. There is need to address this gap with a view to leveling the playing field for better participation and benefits of all the Member States. The SMP-AH project has met its objectives in developing SMPs and SOPs for purposes of harmonizing regional approach for disease control and surveillance. These documents have been validated and shared among some stakeholders, mainly within the government's veterinary services. They are clear in their presentation for the purposes intended, and are founded on World Animal Health Organization (OIE) guidelines. However, they have not been widely distributed and their implementation has been slow and within a narrow group of stakeholders. Furthermore, the SMPs have not been rolled-out to support disease control and surveillance in cross-border areas as envisaged. The roll-out plans for disease control and surveillance activities, and the accompanying cost estimates, have not been put in place. The project has been effective in building capacity of public veterinary service through training in surveillance, epidemiology, laboratory diagnosis, quarantine stations, and management skills. Approximately 650 people have been trained at either regional or national trainings, with sixteen percent being females. The capacity building has narrowed the knowledge gap, but the impact from the application of the knowledge is yet to be fully realized. In further strengthening of surveillance and diagnostic skills, the project provided limited support to the diagnostic laboratories in MSs through purchases of equipment, kits, reagents and other consumables. Despite the delays in delivering the supplies, the support will improve diagnostic quality and operational capacity. However, the support was not enough to give the desired results in cross-border areas where the human capacity remains low. There is a need to provide equipment and trainings to sub-national laboratories which are in or close to these areas. In addition to laboratory support, two regional vaccine production institutes located in Kenya and Ethiopia were supported with equipment. The operations of these facilities were improved in terms of effectiveness in vaccine production. However, some critical operations such as capping and labeling vaccine vials need to be automated in order to reach the desired levels in quality, efficiency and effectiveness. Further support by SMP-AH Project is therefore necessary for improvement. SMP-AH Project contributed significantly to the improved sharing of information among the veterinary authorities of the MS. The project supported the establishment and operation of networks for laboratories, epidemiology scientists, CVOs and export quarantines for sharing of 41 information. The ARIS-2 program was made operational for the veterinary departments in the MS to share information; however, Ethiopia with it large numbers of livestock chose not to participate but rather develop its own reporting database. In spite of this fact, the networks are important avenues of disease information sharing; and additionally, they act as catalysts for collaboration in the control of TADs. However, their sustainability beyond the lifespan of the project hangs in the balance. Despite the success of SMP-AH Project in developing SMPs and building capacity for the government veterinary services, key stakeholders from pastoral communities and private sector value chain in the targeted cross-border areas were not adequately engaged to the level necessary in the planning and implementation of the project. These stakeholders are important in rolling￾out of the SMPs in the control of TADs. The current trend in most countries in the GHOA is to pursue public-private partnerships (PPP) in the livestock value chain (LVC). The level of impact expected in the project is possible only with private sector participation in the SMP-AH. The project lacks a clear direction on the pathway to sustainability. An exit plan was not prepared as per the project design which would have identified steps necessary for sustainability after the project. SMP-AH Project has not developed partners outside the public sector which could help with a successful on-going program after closure of the project. The project tends to rely on government funding, a life-line which is inherently weak. Some other additional strategies including engagement and partnership with other stakeholders including private sector are required. The donor community would have an interest in SMP-AH Project on a bilateral or regional basis. The project has satisfactory operational systems which contribute to its success. However, the procurement process is characterized by unnecessary bureaucracy needing to be addressed to improve efficiency and effectiveness. The AUC requires approval for purchases exceeding US$10,000 which can delay delivery of inputs. In addition, AU-IBAR considers the requirement of monthly accounting by the funding agency to be restrictive in view of the fact that the project’s activity plans are on a longer time period such as quarterly. The apparent lack of clarity for AU-IBAR on this issue requires it to improve its financial management systems to better adhere to USAID/KEA's requirements for all project recipients of US funds. A harmonized approach to disease control and surveillance in GHOA has improved trade relationships with GCC countries. It is expected that with rigorous implementation of SMPs in the next phase, there will be tangible outcomes and impacts in the trade area. However, there is need to address the weak links such as strengthening NEALCO and its member organizations. NEALCO will need to have a deeper relationship with GCC Countries and other regions. Signatories on the draft MOU would be a positive development. Development of trade relations needs better integration into the SMP-AH project. The CVO from Ethiopia asked for training in negotiation skills. 42 Overall, the project was both relevant to the beneficiaries and able to achieve most of the targets in the four results areas. The participants of Naivasha cross border meeting between Kenya and Tanzania rated the overall performance of the project as Good (annex 7.4). However, sustainability remains a challenge, and the roll-out of the project outcomes to a wider scope of stakeholders and beneficiaries, particularly in communities in the cross-border areas, has yet to be achieved. The higher level impacts of increased trade in livestock and livestock products could not been verified because of the sketchy data provided do not indicate any significant increasing trend attributable to SMP-AH Project. 6. RECOMMENDATIONS A set of recommendations are presented based on the findings and the conclusions. 1. Roll out SMPs to cross-border stakeholders and beneficiaries Considering the importance of disease control and surveillance in cross-border areas, and in view of the need to roll out SMPs for better impact, especially at the community level, it is recommended that the following activities be carried out in cross-border areas by the SMP-AH Project: i. Facilitate signing of MOUs between neighboring CVOs to enhance cross-border disease control and surveillance ii. Carry out capacity building and awareness creation targeting pastoral groups, community based animal health service providers, NGOs and CBOs, livestock based groups, etc. iii. Plan and conduct vaccination and surveillance activities for selected TADs with the SMP-AH Project facilitating planning and providing logistical support with veterinary departments of MSs. iv. Advise and support a MS to provide funding at both the national and local levels for implementing SMP-AH programs. v. Build on the existing MOUs between the two regional vaccine production institutes to improve quality of vaccines for controlling TADs in cross-border areas. vi. Strengthen the M&E Unit of AU-IBAR to better monitor the implementation of SMPs and SOPs to ensure the harmonized regional approach is kept ‘alive’. 2. Increase partnerships with key stakeholders and beneficiaries The SMP-AH Project needs to pursue public and private sector partnerships with key stakeholders/beneficiaries, including other livestock and trade projects, in an effort to increase the impact and better ensure prospects for sustainability after the end of the project. i. Engage potential beneficiaries in the utilization of SMPs, SOPs and training manuals for professional development in veterinary schools and colleges, professional associations 43 (veterinarians, agro-tech) and community level organizations, e.g. community animal health workers. ii. Collaborate with other similar livestock projects – STSD, Regional Pastoral Livelihoods Resilience Project (RPLRP), Standard Market Access Project (SMAP), Livestock Market Development (LMD) project and others in the region. iii. Establish public-private partnerships that encourage the role of the private sector and local communities as key actors in animal disease prevention and control measures. 3. Improve intra-regional and regional livestock and animal products trade The SMP-AH Project needs to continue to facilitate improved trade in livestock and livestock products within GHOA region and with GCC countries. It is recommended that SMP-AH Project: i. Push for the signing of the draft MoU between IGAD and GCC to facilitate dialogue, consultations, and market access ii. Strengthen NEALCO and its member organizations in areas of membership recruitment, capacity building of management, and trade negotiations, etc. iii. Assist MSs in a region-wide roll-out of the program to eradicate PPR in support of the global PPR eradication program 4. Support regional networks to enhance collaboration among CVOs The networks established with the support of SMP-AH Project are important for disease control and surveillance in the region. AU-IBAR with IGAD will: i. Continue to support and strengthen the existing networks with a goal to ensure sharing of information and collaboration among MSs, e.g. epidemiology, quarantine, and disease reporting ii. Seek ways to include reporting by Ethiopia in the ARIS-2 system for disease reporting. iii. Conduct a review of livestock policies in all MSs and assess their effects on animal health and trade. 5. Improve SMP-AH Project's operations to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness Delayed delivery of inputs, such as laboratory kits and reagents, has been partly caused by unnecessary bureaucracy in the procurement process. AU-IBAR's financial accounting system will need to adhere to USAID/KEA procedures. To achieve better program efficiency and effectiveness, it is recommended to: i. Improve the procurement process by receiving approval from AUC for purchases of commodities and services up to US $ 50,000 without approval from headquarters. 44 ii. Tailor AU-IBAR's planning and budgeting procedures to align with USAID/KEA requirements to improve cost efficiencies and program effectiveness 7. ANNEXES 7.1. Scope of Work Evaluation of Standard Methods and Procedures in Animal Health Project Name: Standard Methods and Procedures in Animal Health (SMP-AH) Project Duration: March 14, 2012 - September 30, 2016 Implementing Partner: Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR) Agreement No.: Limited Scope Grant Agreement No.623-LSGA-09-001-AU-IBAR Agreement Value: Total Obligated Amount of LSGA award: $7,369,000 1. Background Livestock trade in the Greater Horn of Africa is currently constrained by differing animal health requirements amongst the Horn of Africa countries, uncoordinated disease surveillance and control programs, and unjustified livestock trade bans by importing countries. Clear, standardized procedures for disease control programming in exporting nations and for entry of livestock into importing nations removes barriers and obstacles, stabilizes and facilitates trade, reduces probability of unpredictable decision making, and builds confidence between exporters and importers. The countries of the region have an estimated 119 million cattle, 208.5 million sheep and goats, and 14.3 million camels. In economic terms, the livestock sector’s contribution both to GDP and food security is substantial. National statistics estimate livestock contribution to agricultural GDP at 80% for Sudan, 50% for Kenya, and 35% for Ethiopia. Live animal sales also generate significant down-stream economic benefits in terms of employment and human nutrition. According to the Joint Planning Cell in the Horn of Africa Resilience Action Plan presented to the USAID Administrator in February 2012, support to the livestock value chain was identified as the main opportunity to increasing economic opportunities in the Horn of Africa drylands. However, lack of harmonized sanitary and phyto-sanitary standards (SPS) and other non-tariff barriers; restrict livestock trade within the region and to the Middle East and Gulf States. Hence, the JPC strategy approved on February 8, 2012, committed USAID to support development of Standard Methods and Procedures (SMPs) to address this constraint. The activity is implemented using a direct grant to the Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR) through a 45 Limited Scope Grant Agreement (LSGA). The LSGA started March, 14 2012 and currently ends on September 30, 2016. A regional Standard Methods and Procedures (SMP) framework to guide prevention and control of transboundary animal diseases provides a stable foundation for both live animal trade and livestock commodity based product trade within the Greater Horn of Africa (GHOA) ecosystem, Eastern and Southern Africa region and for international trade to destinations outside the region. Standard Methods and Procedures in Animal Health (SMP-AH) is a four year USAID/EA￾funded project being coordinated by AU-IBAR and IGAD and implemented in the Greater Horn of Africa (GHOA) i.e. Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. The project’s goal is to contribute to the reduction of poverty, enhance regional economic growth and integration through improved access of live animal and animal products to regional and international markets while the purpose is to enhance the capacity of the countries in the region to harmonize and coordinate surveillance and disease control approaches in the region. 2. SMP-AH expected results a) A new framework for surveillance and control of nine trade significant transboundary animal diseases (TADs) to which seven countries will subscribe to harmonize regional animal health procedures; b) Standardized laboratory testing procedures to harmonize disease testing for the region such that test results will be recognized as valid by all participating countries; c) Improved regional quarantine station standards effected to enhance disease control and improve the animal health and welfare of exported animals; d) Enhanced technical capacities of Ministries of Agriculture and Livestock to carry out the above activities including, establishment of a coordination body of the regional economic communities on trade in live animals and animal products to bring together both private and public actors to address livestock trade issues within the region. 3. Overall Objectives of the assignment The overall objective of the evaluation is to determine progress made by the project towards achieving the expected outcomes in order to learn from it and use the lessons for future regional programming. 3.1 Specific objectives: More specifically, the evaluation will: • Review AU-IBAR’s implementation structures, process and systems • Assess the project relevance and the validity of the assumption made at design • Determine the major outcomes/trends towards realizing the intended project impacts • Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of implementation of the project • Document key lessons learnt and best practices 46 • Provide recommendations on the future direction of the project and for future programming. 3.2. Key evaluation questions A. Relevance of project to the needs of beneficiaries • Is the project design appropriate and are the key assumptions made still holding? • Are the project objectives addressing the needs of the target groups/stakeholders? • Are the outcomes aligned and part of strategies/plans of implementing partners? B. Effectiveness of the project • What progress has been made towards achievement of expected outcomes and results? • What are the enablers for the achievement and disablers for non-achievement of results? • To what extent have the beneficiaries been satisfied with the results? • Have the outputs been delivered in a timely manner? • Does the project have effective monitoring mechanisms? Are the indicators appropriate, relevant and measurable? To what extent have recommendations from previous monitoring missions and steering committee meetings been implemented? If not why? C. Efficiency of the project • What measures have been taken during planning and implementation to ensure that resources are efficiently utilized? • Has AU-IBAR’s organizational structure, managerial support and coordination mechanisms effectively supported delivery of the project? • To what extent are the inputs and outputs equally distributed between different target groups? D. Outcomes/impact • What are some of the outcomes (positive or negative) that have been realized? • What are the major challenges to the full realization of the expected project outcomes? • How has the project utilized existing local capacities of the beneficiaries to achieve its outcomes? E. Sustainability of the project • What is the likelihood that the benefits from the project will be maintained beyond the lifetime of the project? F. Lessons learnt • What lessons can be drawn from the implementation of the project? 4. Evaluation Methodology 47 We seek the most robust evaluation design and methodological approach that is appropriate for the scope of the project, available resources and audience. The mixed method approach is preferred for this evaluation. i) Desk Review In this phase, the relevant project documents should be reviewed as well as documents shaping the wider strategy or policy framework. The evaluator will then analyze the logical frameworks of the project established at regional and national levels. The review will help the evaluators to: • Describe the development implementation context; • Understand the logical frameworks and the project’s theory of change; • Design the tools to be used in the evaluation based on information already gathered; • Refine the methodology to respond to the evaluation questions; • Describe the analysis strategy; • Develop the work plan for the whole exercise and confirm the final time schedule for the fieldwork with an indicative list of people to be interviewed and itinerary. • Draft and submit an inception report to be signed off by the client. ii) Primary Data Collection The evaluation team will visit five selected countries within the project operation area to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. During this process, the evaluation team will: • Ensure adequate contact and consultation with, and involvement of different stakeholders including relevant government authorities and agencies during the entire assignment; • Use the most reliable and appropriate sources of information and triangulate data from different sources to facilitate ready interpretation. This will include but not limited to: o In each country the mission will consult with the appropriate Government authorities such as Wthe Ministry of Livestock o The mission will consult with relevant National Livestock Service involved in the Project. o The mission will consult with relevant project stakeholders and collaborators. Intensive interactions will also take place with the project implementation partners, namely ILRI and ICPALD: o Any other important stakeholders deemed necessary by the evaluator. • Discuss the reliability and coverage of data collection while presenting the preliminary findings. The outputs of this phase are Draft Report and Debrief presentation iii) Synthesis Phase This phase will mainly be devoted to data analysis and final report writing. The evaluator will ensure: 48 • Their assessments are objective and balanced, affirmations accurate and verifiable, and recommendations realistic; • When drafting the report, they will acknowledge clearly where changes in the desired direction are known to be already taking place; • The report will be validated by stakeholders in a one-day workshop. The output of this phase will be the Final Report. 5. Management of the Evaluation The evaluation will be managed by USAID Kenya and East Africa. 6. Evaluation Team Composition The Evaluation Team shall be composed of a Team Leader (TL) and an Animal Health Specialist. Both team members must have relevant prior experiences in Africa, familiaritywith USAID’s objectives, approaches, and prior evaluation experience. The TL is ultimately responsible for overall management of the evaluation team and the final products. In addition the TL is responsible for coordinating all evaluation activities and ensuring the production and completion of an evaluation report in conformance with this scope of work and timelines. Below are the requirements for each team member: a) Team Leader (Evaluation Expert) • A minimum of a master’s degree in agricultural economics, applied economics or statistics. • At least 10 years’ experience in evaluation of donor funded development programs in Africa. • Demonstrated knowledge of evaluation methodologies, design and process for conducting USAID evaluations in agribusiness sector. • Understanding of current USAID Evaluation Policy. • Excellent report writing skills (evidence of prior evaluation reports or publications required) • A 5/5/5 level of English proficiency is required b) Animal Health Expert • A minimum of a master’s degree in Animal Health and/or veterinary sciences. • At least six years’ experience in Animal Health issues the Greater Horn of Africa • Demonstrated knowledge of evaluation methodologies, design and process especially in international development cooperation. • Hasa minimum of 10 years’ experience in international trade of livestock commodities and SPS related issues, • Excellent report writing skills (evidence of prior evaluation reports or publications required) • A 5/5/5 level of English proficiency is required 49 7. Working language(s): The assignment and the reporting will be conducted in English. 8. Duration and locations for the assignment The assignment will take 42 days starting October 2015. The evaluators will visit a sample of at least five countries within the project area. The persons to be visited and interviewed will include the Chief Veterinary Officers, Country SMP-AH focal points, beneficiaries and other stakeholders. The institutions to be visited will include the National Animal Health Diagnostic Investigation Centre (NAHDIC), National Veterinary Institute (NVI) and the Kenya Veterinary Vaccines Production Institute (KEVEVAPI). 9. Writing the Report The contractor will prepare a draft final report to share with USAID Kenya and East Africa. They will also host a workshop to present the main findings and discuss with relevant stakeholders (USAID staff, government representatives, implementing partners, etc.). Based on feedback, the report will be finalized. The report will include recommendations for actions that can be taken at the regional and national levels. 10. Deliverables Inception Report: Within five work days of the contract signing, the offeror must submit a detailed inception report to USAID. The report shall detail the evaluation design and operational work plan, which must include the proposed data collection and analysis methods to address the Key Questions of the evaluation. The inception report shall also include questionnaires and interview protocols and should not exceed 15 pages. Preliminary DraftEvaluation Report: Within three weeks of USAID’s acceptance of the Inception Report, the offeror must submit a draft evaluation report and a power point version to USAID for preliminary comments prior to final Mission debriefing. This will facilitate preparation of a more final draft report that will be left with the Mission upon the Evaluation Team’s departure. Debriefing: Within three weeks of USAID’s acceptance of the Inception Report, and immediately at the close of fieldwork and before the offeror’s team departs East Africa, the team must present the major findings of the evaluation to USAID/KEA, EAC and other partners through a PowerPoint presentation. The debriefing shall include a discussion of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Interim Evaluation Report: Within five work days after the debriefing, the offeror must submit a draft report of the findings, conclusions and recommendations to USAID, including revisions based on USAID/KEA and partner comments from the debriefing. The written report must address the evaluation questions; clearly describe findings, conclusions, and recommendations. USAID will provide comment on the draft report within two weeks of submission. 50 Final Report: Within three work days of USAID’s comments on the Interim Evaluation Report, and based on the provisions of the USAID evaluation policy, a formal and final evaluation report shall be presented to USAID/KEA. The final report shall incorporate the team responses to Mission’s comments and suggestions. The format shall include an executive summary (highlighting key lessons learned), table of contents, list of acronyms, evaluation design and methodology, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and lessons learned. The report shall be submitted in English, in both electronic and three bound hard copies. The Final Report must not be more than 40 pages excluding annexes. The report will be disseminated within USAID. A brief summary of this report (the popular version), not exceeding 15 pages, excluding any potentially procurement-sensitive information shall be submitted (also electronically, in English) for dissemination among implementing partners and stakeholders. The report must meet standards out-lined in the evaluation policy1 (see check list on page 9 of 26). 1 http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation/USAID_EVALUATION_POLICY.pdf?020911 51 7.2. References African Union Commission (AUC).(n.d.) "Protocol on Relations Between the African Union (AU) and Regional Economic Communities (RECs). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ALLPRO. 2009. "Beef Production and Marketing." Ministry of Livestock Development.and African Development Fund. Nairobi, Kenya. AU-IBAR.(n.d.)"Communication strategy for the Standard Methods and Procedures in Animal Health (SMP-AH0 project." Nairobi, Kenya. Bett. B. et al. 2015. "Piloting Livestock identification and tracebility systems in pastoral production systems in eastern Africa." Nairobi, Kenya. ILRI. Better Evaluation. (no date). "Contribution Analysis." www.betterevaluation.org/plan/approach/contribution.analysis. Brezzlon, P.J. "Contextualized Explanations."International Conference on Expert Systems for Development."Conference paper.Thailand, 1994. Department of Veterinary Services (DESV). 2014. "Atelier national sur la surveillance et le controle des maladies animalestransfrontalieres a Djibouti du 30 Aout au 02 Septembre 2014. Djibouti. FAO.OIE. (2012). " Global Confence on Food and Mouth Disease Control." Bangkok, Thailand. June 27 29, 2012. Herrero, M., P. Havlik, J. M. McIntire, A. Palazzo, and H. Valin. African Livestock Futures: Realizing the potential of livestock for food security, poverty reduction and the environment in Sub-Saharan Africa. Office of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Food Security and Nutrition and the United Nations System Influenza Coordination (UNSIC), Geneva, Switzerland. 2014. IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (ICPALD).ICPALD Brochure. ICPALD. Nairobi, Kenya. 2014. IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (ICPALD).The Contribution of Livestock to the Kenyan Economy. Policy brief series No. ICPALD 4/CLE/8/2013.ICPALD. 2013. IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (ICPALD).The Contribution of Livestock to the Sudan Economy. Policy brief series No. ICPALD 6/CLE/8/2013.ICPALD. 2013. 52 IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (ICPALD). The Contribution Of Livestock To The Ugandan Economy. Policy brief series No. ICPALD 7/CLE/8/2013.ICPALD. 2013. IGAD. Standard Methods and Procedures in Animal Health (SMP-AH): A Plan for Coordinated Prevention and Control of Trade Related Trans-boundary Animal Diseases (TDAs) in the Inter￾Governmental Authority on Development Economic Community (IGAD) of Eastern Africa. 2013. Evaluation of SPS Trade Policy Constraints 83 IGAD. Standard Methods and Procedures in Animal Health Project: Programme Synopsis. 2013 IGAD.(n.d.)"Regional Guidelines on Livestock Identification and Traceability (LITS) in the IGAD Region."IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (ICPALD) Nairobi. Kenya. IGAD.(n.d.)"Regional Animal Health Certification Guidelines."IGAD Centre for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development (ICPALD). Nairobi, Kenya. Joint Planning Cell of Horn of Africa.(2012). "Annual Report."USAID. Washington, D.C. Kenya Veterinary Board.(n.d.)"Strategic Plan - 2013-2017" Nairobi, Kenya. Patton, Michael. (2008). Utilization-Focused Evaluation.Sage Publications. California. Shapiro, B.I., Gebru, G., Desta, S., Negassa, A., Nigussie, K., Aboset, G. and Mechal, H. 2015. Ethiopia livestock master plan. ILRI Project Report. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Simpkin, S. Piers. (2005). "Regional Livestock Study in the Greater Horn of Africa." International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).Nairobil Stein, D. and C. Valters.(2012). "Understanding Theory of Change in International Development." Justice and Security Research Program (JSRP). JSRP Paper #1. London. Thomson, Gavin. (2014). "Development of a Progressive Control Strategy for foot and mouth disease (FMD)."FAO. TCP/ETH/3401-B3 USAID. 2011. "Evaluation - Learning from Experience." USAID Evaluation Policy. Washington, D.C. https://www.usaid.g ov/sites/default/files/documents/2151/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf USAID. 2012. "How-To Note: Preparing Evaluation Reports." No. 1.v.1.0. Nov. 2012. http:www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/document/187 53 USAID. (2015). " Evaluation of Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary (SPS) Trade Policy Constraints Within the Maize and Livestock-Animal Sourced Products Value-Chains in East Africa. Leo Report #12. Authors: J. Hain, L. Logan, and S. Collins. Vogel, Isabel. (2012). "Review of the Use of Theory of Change in International Development - Review Report." UK Department For International Development (DFID). London. 7.3. Contact List Country - Djibouti Name Title Organization Phone Email Dr. Moussa Chief Veterinary Officer Dept of Veterinary Services 7784522 8 pace@intnet.dj Dr. Abdi Mahamoud Focal Point Person for SMP-AH Dept of Veterinary Services 646 418 Ame-vet@hotmail.com Ali Ibraim Chef du Service Dept of Veterinary Services 7786060 0 pace@intnet.dj kifayaali118@hotmail.com Said WaissMiguil Chef of the Laboratory National DESV 7785512 30 msaidwaiss@yahoo.fr Taher Moussa Technical Laboratory DESV 7783249 1 Taher_vet@hotmail.fr Matthew Hahn Animal Health Project Director￾North IDRB 7776291 8 Hahnsinafrica@gmail.com Heath Dame Animal Health Project Director - South IDRB 7709501 2 Heath.dame@gmail.com YoussoufIdriss Assistant IDRB 7785640 9 youssoufidriss@gmail.com Hamza Abdlahai Assistant IDRB Emmanuelle GuerneBleich FAO Representat ive FAO 2135329 8 Emmanuelle.Guernebleich.fao .org Mr. Leone MagliocchettiLo mbi Water Expert FAO 7709792 6 Leone.magliocchettiLombi@f ao.org Dr. E. FallouGueye Coordinator of Project FAO 7709442 1 Fallou.gueye@fao.org Dr. HasnaAraitaHeb ano National veterinarian FAO 7701543 1 Hasna.hebano@fao.org Mr. Moussa National FAO 7724414 Moussa.Abayazid@fao.org 54 Abayazid Moussa animal production specialist 9 Dr. Tarek Osman Senior Consultant at city abattoir Societed'InvestissementSo lidare 2135669 5 sissolidaire@gmail.com Adel Keshk Director of Djibouti Regional Quarantine Station Prima International Company 7779202 1 Keshk1944@yahoo.com Dr. Ahmed Issa Head of laboratory of Djibouti Regional quarantine station Prima International Company Ahmedissa73@hotmail.com Lt.C. Wade Reaves, DVM Veterinaria n, Functional Specialty Team Combined Joint Task Force, Horn of Africa 253-77- 765-197 hoaveterinaryteam@gmail.co m Maj. Lisa Walker Veterinaria n Combined Joint Task Force, Horn of Africa 253-77- 023-505 hoaveterinaryteam@gmail.co m Country - Ethiopia Name Title Organization Phone Email Dr. BewketSiraw Chief Veterinary Officer Min. of Livestock and Fisheries (MOLF) 0911 825270 Besiad123@gmail.com Dr. Hassan Chaka Focal Point Person for SMP-AH MOLF-FAO 0911 407988 @yahoo.com Gijsvan'tKlooster International Animal Health Consultant FAO-ET 0921 329756 Gijs.vantklooster@fao.org Dr. DarsemaGulima Secretary of Ethiopian Veterinary Association (EVA) EVA 0921 782171 Darsema.huluka@gmail.co m Dr. YismashewrWoyenyeh u Epidemiologist/Cas e Team Coordinator MOLF 0920 966644 yismayehu@gmail.com HadguMendefro Quarantine Expert MOLFR 0913 282221 Mail2hadman@yahoo.com 55 GetachewAsmaro LITS Expert MOLF 0912 692205 Getasi97@gmail.com Dr. MesfinSahle NAHDIC Director MOLF 0911 933248 Sebeta.mesfin@gmail.com Dr. Barry Shapiro Coordinator, Livestock Master Plan (LMP) ILRI 0911 397094 011 617 2108 b.shapiro@cgiar.org KidusNiguisse Brook Livestock Production and Feed Development Directorate and Livestock Master Plan (LMP) MOLF 0966 915807 0912 602536 kidusabc@gmail.com Dr. WondwosenAsfaw Awoke Senior Policy Advisor SNV and USAID-AGP￾LMD 0912 794519 WAsfaw@snvworld.org DawitAbebeShiferaw Staff in the Resilience Learning Project Tufts University 0911 684653 Dawit.Abebe@tufts.edu AbebawMekonen Secretary General Ethiopian Meat Producers￾Exporters Association 0912 249130 (c) 0116 628292 Abebaw.m1@gmail.com empea@ethionet.et www.empea.com.et Dr. Dinka Ayama Dean College of Veterinary Medicine, Addis Ababa University 0911 242539 Dinka.ayana@aau.edu.et Dr. Martha Yami General Manager National Veterinary Institute 0911 510894 marthayami@yahoo.com Dr. BerecheBayissa Scientist National Veterinary Institute berechabayissa@gmail.co m TadesseGuttaIbsa Deputy Director General Ethiopian Meat and Dairy Industry Developmen t Institute 0911 894259 taddesegutta@yahoo.com AdgolignMitiku General Manager Modjo Modern 0911 766062 022 1160899 Dr. TafesseMesfin Chairman NEALCO 091177179 tafmes@gmail.com 56 2 093001231 9 Country - Kenya Name Title Organization Phone Email Dr. KisaNgeiywa Chief Vet Officer Kenya Directorate of Veterinary Services 0722 376237 Kisajuma@yahoo.com Focal Point Person for SMP-AH Directorate of Veterinary Services Dr. M. K. Cheruiyot Deputy Dir. of Veterinary Services Directorate of Veterinary Services 0720 306557 drmcheruiyot@gmail.com Dr. Andrew K. Tuimur Principal Secretary State Department of Livestock, MALF 0722 229355 pslivestock@kenya.go.ke Dr. Benson Kibore Research and Development Manager Kenya Veterinary Vaccines Production Institute (KEVEVAPI) 0724 284240 benson.kibore@kevevapi.org Dr. Abraham Sangula Head, Foot and Mouth Disease National Reference Laboratory - Imbakasi Kenya Veterinary Vaccines Production Institute (KEVEVAPI) 0722 302444 aksangula@gmail.com Prof. Charles Mulei Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine University of Nairobi 0722 840314 cmulei@uonbi.ac.ke mulei.matiku@gmail.com Rita Velji General Manager Quality Meat Packers, Ltd. 0733 617446 rita@qmpkenya.com ImtiazVelji Operations Manager Quality Meat Packers, Ltd. 0202 525334 imtiaz@qmpkenya.com Dr. John FlookieOwino Senior Veterinary Officer at Quality Meat Packers, Ltd. State Department of Livestock 0722 312179 drflookie@gmail.com qmpvet@gmail.com S.N. Mbugua Operations Director Farmer's Choice Ltd. 0702 115108 SMbugua@farmerschoice.co.ke Dr. Lawrence SADVS (H) Farmer's Choice 0722 298646 kariukigateru@yahoo.com 57 Gateru Ltd. Dr. KisaToroitich Hon. Secretary and Assistant Director of Veterinary Services The Kenya Veterinary Association 0705 173 138 secretary@kva.co.ke tembutoro@gmail.com Qalicha G. Wario Chief Executive Officer Kenya Livestock Marketing Council 0722 536793 qalicha@livestockcouncil.or.ke klmc@livestockcouncil.or.ke Anthony M. Riungu Technical Advisor, Livestock Value Chain Inclusiveness, REGAL-IR ADESO Africa 0723 265428 ariungu@adesoafrica.org Davis Ikoror Country Director, Kenya and Somalia VSF-Suisse 0722 806531 Dikiror@vsfsuisse.org Kenneth A.Lumadede Team Leader VSF-Suisse 0722 504080 Agoi@vsfsuisse.org Genevieve Owuor Dairy specialist VSF-Suisse 0722 814751 geneowvor@yahoo.com gowvor@vsfsuisse.org Dr. Jeremiah Akumu Team Leader Veterinaires Sans Frontieres￾Suisse 0721 524392 jakumu@vsfsuisse.org Ali Hassan Mohamed Portfolio Director for Livestock Sector Kenya Markets Trust 0722 201233 ahassan@kenyamarkets.org John Wamahiu Intervention Manager Kenya Markets Trust 0720 365376 jwamahiu@kenyamarkets.org BonayaBakata Director Chairman NEEMA Slaughterhouse 0722 803223 neemaltd@gmail.com Francis W. Kamau Operations Manager NEEMA 0721 589216 AbdullahiMamo Senior staff NEEMA 0705 862564 abdullahi@neemalivestock.co.ke Dr. Christie Peacock Chief Executive Officer Sidai 254- 703491296 252- 702999232 44 7901558002 Christie.peacock@sidai.com christiep@farmafrica.org.uk Country - Tanzania Name Title Organizatio n Phone Email 58 Niwael J. MtuiMalamsha Ag. Assistant Director TADC &Zoo-Sanitary DVS / MALF +2557568462 65 niwaelanna@yahoo.co.uk S.H. Luwongo Principal Veterinary Officer MALF +2556885714 55 Sero61@yahoo.co.uk Makungu L. Sedemani Principal Veterinary Officer - Epidemiology MALF +2556855127 65 Makungus7@gmail.com Dr. NiwaelMtui￾Malamsha Ag AD-TADC & ZIS Ministry of Livestock Fisheries Developme nt +255 756 846 265 niwawlanna@yahoo.co.uk MghwiraJoram E. SMP-AH Project Focal Point MALF +2557626982 04 joelmghwira@gmail.com Niwael J. MtuiMalamsha Ag. Assistant Director TADC &Zoo-Sanitary DVS / MALF +2557568462 65 niwaelanna@yahoo.co.uk S.H. Luwongo Principal Veterinary Officer MALF +2556885714 55 Sero61@yahoo.co.uk Petro Mhamila Principal,LITATeme ke Campus Livestock Training Agency, MALF +2557652109 45 Milakp_amanogawa@yahoo.c om Christine Bakuname Principal Veterinary Officer MALF +2557538178 87 ndayirile@yahoo.co.uk Suzan M. Kiango Registrar, Tanzania Meat Board Tanzania Meat Board +255 715459013 suzykiango@hotmail.com StanslausKagaru ki Principal Veterinary Officer (LITS) MALF +2557897605 48 kagarukis@gmail.com Joseph Masambu SMP-AH Focal Point Laboratory Tanzania Veterinary Laboratory Agency +2557132238 20 Jogomas.masambu@gmail.co m Abdu Hayghaimo Director of Veterinary Services (DVS), Tanzania MALF +2557843636 31 Haygh.aa@gmail.com FurahaW.Mram ba Ag. Chief Executive, Tanzania Veterinary Laboratory Agency MALF +2557876365 65 Furaha58@yahoo.com or ce@tvla.tz.org Abdul Kyarumbika Zoosanitary Inspector (formerly quarantine Officer) MALF +2557145168 85 Abukaisinga66@gmail.com John DedeOmolo Principal Veterinary Officer (Meat MALF ? omoloj@yahoo.com 59 Inspection /hygiene ) Nicholai Chiweka Marketing Research Officer Tanzania Meat Board +2557843320 52 Chiweka.nicholai@tmb.or.tz or chiweka@hotmail.com Mzee Ali Omar Director,Mkonga General Supplies / Meat Exporter Mkonga General Supplies +2557864430 00 ? Country - Uganda Name Title Organization Phone e-mail Asiimwe Alani Veterinary Officer MAAIF +256781442862 alaniasiimwe@gma il.com Robert Mwebi Senior Veterinary Officer MAAIF +256772603130 mwebirobert@yah oo.com Erechu Sam. Richard Senior Veterinary Officer MAAIF +256774098022 richarderechu@ya hoo.co.uk Wejuli Alfred Senior Veterinary Officer MAAIF +2560772486021 alfredmafende@g mail.com KennetaMugabi. Ag. Principal Veterinary Officer MAAIF +256772446478 kmugabi@gmail.co m AyebazibweChrisos tom Ag. Principal Veterinary Officer MAAIF +256772626215 ayebazibwe@gmail .com Anna Rose AdemunOkurut Assistant Commissioner, Veterinary Diagnostic and Epidemiology, Focal point SMP-AH project MAAIF +256772504746 ademunrose@yaho o.co.uk Kauta Nicholas Director of Veterinary Services, UGANDA MAAIF +256772693257 nicholaskauta@yah oo.co.uk Individuals Martin Kasirye Principal Veterinary Inspector – Quarantines and Regulations MAAIF +256772562684 Kasirye04@gmail.c om Kiconco Doris Ag. Assistant Commissioner, Veterinary Regulation and Enforcement MAAIF +256772344217 doriskiconco@gmai l.com KyokwijukaBenon Ag. Commissioner, Animal production /Ass. Commissioner Public Health and Marketing Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) +255772586710 benonkyokwijuka @yahoo.com Alex Kakooza Under Secretary /Ag. Permanent Secretary MAAIF +256772999911 akakooza@agricult ure.go.ug 60 Dominic Lali Chairman, Uganda Veterinary Association +256712343895 +256772540415 dmundugolali@gm ail.com David MutebiMusis Chairman Uganda Cattle Traders and transporters Association +256701509183 mutebiqc@gmail.c om Michel Dione Epidemiologist ILRI, Uganda +256793344243 m.dione@cgiar.org Joshua Waiswa Chief Executive Officer Uganda Meat Producers Cooperative Union Ltd +256779342175 nabangijoshua@g mail.com TorbenLaumann Chief Executive Officer Fresh Cuts (U) Ltd +256791510272 tlaumann@freshcu ts.biz Johnson Kamuhangi Livestock Sourcing Officer Fresh Cuts (U) Ltd +256774111111 jkamuhangi@fresh cuts.biz Sheriff M. El Kallini Managing Director Egypt-Uganda Food Security Co. Ltd +256756747533 kallini@eugs￾ug.com Gerald Nizeyimana Trade Manager, Uganda Meat producers Cooperative Union +256773049283 sebigerald@gmail.c om trademanager@ug andameat.org Group JescaNakavuma Deputy Principal College of Veterinary Medicine, Makerere University +256772434097 JLNAKAVUMA@cov ab.mak.ac.ug Gabriel Tumwine Assistant Lecturer COVAB￾Makerere +256782194819 gtumwine@covab. mak.ac.ug Julius B. okumi Chair, BBS COVAB￾Makerere +256712800871 jbok@covab.mak.a c.ug Lilian Tukahirwa College Administrator COVAB￾Makerere +256775389249 ltukahirwa@admin .mak.ac.ug James A Accu Chair PCM Makerere University +256772513573 jokuse@covab.mak .ac.ug Frank N.Mwine Dean, School of Bio￾security, Biotechnical and Lab sciences Makerere University +256787405220 mwiine@covab.ma k.ac.ug Note: COVAB – COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, ANIMAL RESOURCES AND BIOSECURITY Region - Organizations of East Africa and COMESA Name Title Organization Phone Email 61 Dr. YosephMamo Staff and Livestock Policy Hub COMESA 260-979- 051-919 ymamo@comesa.int William Olaho￾Mukani COMESA williamolahomukani@gmail.com A. M. Kitolo Director, Productive and Services Min. of East Africa Community 0202 689903 akmulwa@yahoo.co.uk Dr. BounaDiop Regional Manager ECTAD, Eastern Africa 0736 999180 Bouna.diop@fao.org Dr. Samuel Wakhusama Deputy Representative Organization Intl. Epizotics (OIE) 0725 254600 s.wakhusama@oie.com Dr. Patrick Bastianesen Programme Officer Organization Intl. Epizotics (OIE) 0700 091102 p.bastiaensen@oie.int Bernard Bett Senior Consultant ILRI 0722 841938 b.bett@cgiar.org Walter Ong'eng'a Monitoring and Evaluation USAID wongenga@usaid.gov Tracy McCracken, DVM SPS Technical Advisor, Regional Economic Integration Office USAID 0714 606636 tmccracken@usaid.gov Isaac NjoroThendiu Regional Resilience Specialist USAID 0714 606605 ithendiu@usaid.gov Dr. AmehaSebsibe Head of livestock and Fisheries ICPALD, IGAD 0721 233045 Ameha.sebsibe@igad.int Prof. Ahmed El Sawalhy Director AU-IBAR 0710 888810 20 367 4212 Ahmed.elsawalhy@au-ibar.org Dr. James Wabacha Coordinator SMP￾AH AU-IBAR 0722 874870 James.wabacha@au-ibar.org Dr. Hiver Boussini Animal Health Officer AU-IBAR 0712 764176 boussinih@africa-union.org Dr. Joseph Magona Vet Epidemiologist - SMP-AH AU-IBAR 0727 7428218 Joseph.magona@au-ibar.org Susan Mugwe Monitoring and Evaluation AU-IBAR 0701 344642 Susan.mugwe@au-ibar.org Bruce Mukanda Senior Prog. and Project Officer AU-IBAR 0719 670462 Bruce.mukanda@au-ibar.org Henry Wamwayi Coordinator, RAHS Project AU-IBAR 0722 302383 Henry.wamwayi@au-ibar.org Dr. Timothy Wesonga East Africa Community 255 75 79 83 804 twesonga@each.org 62 Countries - Gulf Cooperation Council and Middle East Name Title Organization Phone Email Prof. Babikar Abbas, Consultant Consultant to the Ministry of Agriculture Kingdom of Bahrain 973-344- 394077 Babbas73@yahoo.com Dr. Ahmed Mahfouz Zahran Veterinary Officer United Arab Emirates 971-50-707- 1457 amzahran@moew.gov.ae 7.4. Kenya-Tanzania cross-border meeting in Naivasha on disease control and surveillance for Kenya and Tanzania, 7th to 9th December, 2015 Analysis of Questionnaires - 16 Respondents (Consolidated Responses) Respondents' rating of diseases on the basis of their perceived importance Disease Rating (low , medium , high ) : no of respondents in each case. Low Medium High No response Total no. of respondents PPR 1 15 16 FMD 16 16 Brucellosis 3 7 6 16 CBPP 2 14 16 LSD 2 6 7 1 15 Camel pox 8 6 1 1 15 Sheep and goat pox 5 8 2 1 15 CCPP 4 11 1 15 RVF 3 1 12 16 Rinderpest 9 2 5 11 Summary: • Diseases rated high in terms of perceived importance include FMD, PPR, CBPP, CCPP and RVF. • Medium rated diseases: Brucellosis, LSD, and, Sheep and Goat pox, • Low rated diseases: Camel pox (why was it among the 10 TADs targeted by SMP-AH Project? – Possibly it is the only TAD specific to camels. • Rinderpest received low rating due to the fact the disease has been eradicated globally and therefore no longer a significant consideration in livestock trade. Respondents' Participation in the Prioritization of TADS Did not participate Participated 11 5 Kenya – 3 (CVO, FPP, CDVS) Tanzania – 2(FPP, Dist. Vet. Officer) 63 Summary: • Majority of the respondents did not participate in the prioritization of TADs • Those who participated were Public Officers PROJECT OWNERSHIP RATING – HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR LEVEL OF OWNERSHIP/ PARTICIPATION IN SMP-AH (0% to 100%)? 0-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 81-90% 91-100% No. of respondents 3 2 1 0 0 3 2 1 No. of non respondents – 4 Summary :There were 12 respondents. 50% of the respondents thought the project ownership was 50% and below; while 50% of the respondents thought the project ownership was above 71%. Why this kind of scenario of two extreme ratings – high or low? Possibly, from Government side, the ownership is high while from private sector and community perspectives, the ownership is low. OVERALL RATING OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PROJECT Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor No. of respondents 2 12 1 0 0 Non respondents – 1 Summary :Overall rating of the project performance - Good. Reasons given for the rating include: Excellent Good Fair • Has enhanced communication and information sharing within and among member states • Completed and on-going activities (progress) • Harmonization and coordination under way • Strong support for cross-border harmonization • Actual implementation of supported activities • There are still a few unimplemented activities • Implementation on going • Some activities are still going on • Capacity has been done for some personnel • Approaching / reached level of • We have just started the program 64 implementation • Sensitization of SMP-AH Project has been done up to county executive level • The technical aspects + creation of awareness is good. RATING OF PROJECT COMPONENTS / ACTIVITIES ON THE BASIS OF PERCEIVED BENEFITS Activity or component Rating (high, medium, low): no of respondents in each case High Medium Low Non respondents Development of standard methods and procedures 14 1 1 Support to quarantine stations 9 2 3 2 Support to labs 13 1 1 1 Support to stock routes 5 5 4 2 Capacity building / training 11 4 1 Others (vaccine production ) 1 Summary : Development of standard methods and procedures for control and surveillance of TADS is considered the most beneficial activity, followed by support to Laboratories ,capacity building, and support to quarantine stations in that order. They were all rated high by majority of the respondents. CHALLENGES AFFECTING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT ACTIVITIES Funding Delays Un-coordination Others Inadequate funding Delay in the delivery of laboratory supplies Uncoordinated animal health activities across the borders Diversity of TADs Lack of funds to carry out surveillance Procurements of lab supplies and others Uncoordinated livestock vaccination against the TADs across the borders (border regions) Ignorance, reluctance and weak cooperation by the stakeholders Inadequate Resource mobilization Bureaucracy Lack of knowledge among stakeholders Inadequate Resources Procurement of lab kits taking long time Political will Delayed Disbursement of funds The procurement process is still Support for procurement of vaccine is vital but not 65 cumbersome and takes too long accepted Budgetary constraints Slow procurement process Has not adequately addressed market linkages Delay in disbursement of funds Inadequate capacity for delivery in most countries Low funding of country￾based activities Not all countries are at the same disease status/ varying situations/have different implementation speed Inadequate financial support for member countries to support project procurement activities Normadism Different government set up structures in the region Change of government leadership IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT AS PERCEIVED BY RESPONDENTS • Capacity building of livestock personnel; Support to active and passive surveillance; thus better control of diseases, more production and incomes • Better collaboration with neighbouring States; adoption of SMPs by countries in carrying out surveillance; improved capacity to diagnose Brucellosis by laboratories • SMPs developed for guiding response; trained personnel • Support surveillance of livestock disease; training of lab and field personnel • Harmonization of surveillance and control activities in the country • Collaboration among Vets; awareness of diseases present in the neighbouring district is possible • SMPs for FMD, PPR, Brucellosis and Rift Valley Fever provided; operationalization of SMP; information sharing and disease reporting enhanced; capacity building improved; • Controlled PPR; Controlled CCPP • Documentation; capacity building of personnel (training) • Not applicable • Capacity building and awareness creation; SMPs for TADs; preparation of MoU • Development of SMP documents for control and surveillance of diseases • Harmonized procedures in control of TADs; capacity building of staff; information sharing • Better collaboration with neighbouring States; adoption of SMPs by countries in carrying out surveillance; improved capacity to diagnose Brucellosis by laboratories • Capacity building for staff (field and laboratories) • No response (1) 66 Summary: No actual impacts but mainly project outputs. Project outputs are being perceived as impacts. • Project outputs: capacity building of personnel through training (knowledge gained); development of SMPs for the control and surveillance of TADs; better collaboration with neighbouring States; improved information sharing and awareness creation on TADs; improved capacity for disease diagnosis; harmonized procedures for the control of TADs; and MoUs. WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER? • Support for procurement of vaccines for targeted diseases would produce real impact • In-country follow up and monitoring of the disease surveillance and control in line with the SMPs • Support of infrastructure development to allow application of SMPs; procurement of vaccines for some priority diseases • Disease control and prevention • Improve on procurement process • Support the laboratory activities to the lower level of zones / counties • Total funding like AU-IBAR did for the control of major TADs in the region (PPR, CCPP,CBPP) – funded vaccination of these diseases as a whole including procurement of vaccines and logistics • Synchronization of the livestock vaccination across the border • Awareness creation of the stakeholders (livestock keepers, traders and livestock field officers) on the ongoing project • Speedy SMP-AH project implementation within time frame of the work, and ultimate sustainability thereafter • Funding of counties to capacity build staff be provided by project • Decentralization of some project components; support for disease control – vaccine and equipment • No response (4) Summary :Support to disease control and surveillance including procurement of vaccine and logistical support; support lower level activities – capacity building of staff, laboratories; awareness creation among stakeholders on project activities; synchronization of vaccination across-borders; in-country follow ups - all these tend to indicate that SMPs need to be rolled out to touch the ground with control and surveillance activities as well as training and awareness creation. MISSED OPPORTUNITIES • Participation of member countries in project formulation; involvement of stakeholders at lower levels in development of annual plans; more support in infrastructure development and funding to support country activities • Countries were sensitized late about the SMP Program • Omissions of other livestock catchment areas besides the border districts due to their continuous livestock movements and effects on TADs 67 • Not applicable • The good will from both the Kenya-Tanzania Governments following the Mwanza meeting to synchronize disease control activities • Engagement of East African Community on the basis of signed treaties / MoUs on movement of goods including animals along the borders to develop disease control strategies for cross-border areas. • Provision / financial support so as to go into the field to implement disease surveillance, hence control of TADs in the region • Not applicable • Engagement of more stakeholders especially the livestock farmers; early rolling out of the project • Analysis of samples collected in the course of active surveillance could have shown the spatial distribution of diseases in a wider picture and possibly suggest which diseases to tackle • None • No response (5) Summary:Key opportunity missed: Engagement of more stakeholders and early rolling out of the SMPs; MEASURES OR PLANS FOR SUSTAINABILITY OF BENEFITS AFTER THE END OF PROJECT • To adopt the SMPs developed and start including their implementation in the annual budgets • Some budgetary provisions at national and county government levels for disease control; the objectives of the project are in line with vision 2030 and other government strategies • Development of a training manual on surveillance based on the SMP • Disease plans exist for some priority diseases that will make use of developed SMPs; legislature framework exists • Through livestock policy implementation strategy being developed • Institutionalize and adopt the activities and programmes started by the project • Because the DVOs are trained and are still government employees they will proceed with the work after the project comes to an end • Objectives and expected outputs of the project have been included in government budget for 2015/2016 and subsequent years • Financial support from the county governments for disease control strategies • Effort will be made to make sure the livestock value chain players own the objectives of the project • Not applicable • Country strategic plans should roll over SMP-AH using government funding • Harmonize SMP-AH activities with the country budgets / programs • Inclusions of SMP-AH activities in country plans and build on ongoing activities • No response (2) 68 Summary: Incorporate SMP-AH activities and outputs into the Country work plans and budgets; engagement of other key stakeholders; existing disease control plans to make use of SMPs SMP-AH (STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS) Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Capacity in terms of information on TADs control Inadequate financial resources Bringing on board the 47 counties Politics Harmonized SMP for control of diseases No direct support for disease control, e.g. vaccine and shared disease control plans across-borders Demand for livestock and livestock products in the Middle East; Policy framework of IGAD and EAC Political will (lack of) Having in place SMP￾AH project and enough livestock TADs; inadequate resources; lack of harmonized strategies and information sharing Presence of abundant livestock resources Diseases (TADs); Calamities – drought, instability Trained technical team Inadequate resources (personnel , transport, funds) Improved control of TADs will lead to increased trade of livestock and products to international markets; Support of the project by credible parties; Political interference, i.e. lack of political good will to implement the SMP-AH project Existing disease control structures Low capacity in disease control initiatives Support from the county government to disease control; Good will from the community; Illegal livestock movement across￾borders; Weak disease control policies; Clear objectives and mission of the project; Well organized staff; Budget to meet the project goal and objectives Project is centralized by 85% rather than localized to the county / district close to community High population of livestock in the region Featuring the project within Decision Makers in the region; Inadequate budget within country members. It has brought Vets (neighbouring Vets) together to discuss TADs It has not yet reached (supported) the Zonal laboratory services It made us aware of different TADs Qualified personnel; Good veterinary structures; Good lab network; Strong private vet Low funding of DVS; Inadequate staff numbers Devolved system of governance Low political support to livestock sector 69 services provision; Presence of surveillance system in the country; Presence of elaborate national livestock policy Delay in rolling out of the project Political stability; Huge livestock resources and markets Uncontrolled livestock movement Political will; Prolonged procurement process; Inadequate resources Existing legislation framework; Existing institutional structures Devolved government Already established workforce in national and county governments No planned funding for the future Devolved government to embrace the SMPs Aging workforce which will soon retire leaving a vacuum Regional approach; It is within the mandate of AU-IBAR; Flexibility of the project Lengthy consensus building process Need to harmonize at donor level in terms of approaches and funding None Harmonization of disease control among member countries; Provision of platform to address problem areas at technical level Impact areas for disease control not addressed; Cumbersome procurement process Need for creation of uniform systems for surveillance, diagnosis and control of diseases Short project duration; Conflicting national interests during harmonization No response – (3) ARE THE ROLES OF IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS (AU-IBAR, IGAD, USDA, ILRI, OIE, FAO) CLEAR? YES NO OTHERS No response 8 0 Not applicable -1 2 Roles of ILRI, OIE, and FAO are not clear -1 Not sure of the role of USDA -1 AU-IBAR – implementer; USDA – donor; OIE – Stds setter; IGAD-implementer; The roles of other partners not clear -1 Roles are distinctly clear but with limitations -1 AU-IBAR (funds administrator, technical support); IGAD (technical support); FAO (technical support); USAID (Donor); ILRI (Partner / technical support); OIE ( technical support) - 1 8 0 6 2 Summary: Not all the participants know the roles of the implementing partners. Need for more awareness creation. 70 RATING THE COORDINATION OF IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS Rating (poor, fair, good, very good, excellent) Comments Excellent They are all major stakeholders in livestock welfare Good Good so far SMP-AH Project is almost halfway its implementation Very good They have been adequately involved by AU-IBAR in particular writing the SMPs Good Coordination meetings, planning and monitoring of activities Very good Fair Their impact in the project is still not clear Good coordination These partners have been participating in most activities where concerned Very good No evidence to the contrary Good Very good Collaboration among Vets is there Very good Activities done so far are well coordinated Not applicable 1 No response 3 COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AU-IBAR AND CHIEF VETERINARY OFFICERS WITH REGARD TO SMP-AH Comments: • Good – so far it has been responsible for SMP-AH documentation and training / sensitization of the project up to the county executive level • Perfect • Very good – it has been easy for CVO to communicate with AU-IBAR • Good – communication through regional meeting • Cordial and effective – consultations are sufficient • Communication has been well as most activities implemented were initiated by the CVOs before reaching the specific implementers • Communication with country focal person is very good. It is up to the country FP to pass on the information to the CVO • Routinely through the national focal person; occasional, e.g. when implementing regional activities • Not clear • Good – there is a focal point officer who constantly works closely with AU-IBAR • Fairly good – participating partners are fully engaged in the project • Not applicable – 1 • No response - 4 71 Summary /conclusion: no communication barriers between CVOs and SMP-AH project team. Country Focal Point Person plays a crucial role – he / she is the main communication link with the project team. RESPONDENTS’ INVOLVEMENT IN THE MONITORING OF SMP-AH PROJECT Yes No No response 5 7 4 Summary / conclusion: Those involved in monitoring are mainly those close to activity level (e.g. focal point persons or Lab personnel) or working in close consultation with Focal point person (e.g. CVOs or their Assistants. Involvement of other stakeholders is minimal. DO YOU BELIEVE STAKEHOLDERS (PRODUCERS, TRADERS, MEAT PACKERS, EXPORTERS AND IMPORTERS) HAVE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE IN SMP-AH PROJECT? Yes -10 No -5 No response - 1 Yes –absence of TADs will lead to improved trade in livestock and livestock products across-borders No – I do not think they know about or understand the objectives of SMP￾AH Yes – they all believe in a system which can work especially if it’s in tune with their activities No – limited engagement and poor involvement due to their weak organizational development Yes –since the SMP-AH addresses the control of TADs which affect the livelihood of the targeted communities No Yes –through improved animal health services which in turn will facilitate / improve trade among parties Not sure for Tanzania; I think there is need to promote meat value chain Yes No Yes –they all depend on well handled and controlled TADs to improve trade Yes –they are well informed about the project activities Yes – as stakeholders they have been involved in their areas of interest Yes –the SMP-AH Project is trying to address livestock trade barriers Yes – through control of livestock diseases the producers and traders will earn good money from improved trade through the services provided Summary / conclusion: Although majority of the respondents believe that the mentioned stakeholders have trust and confidence in SMP-AH, it is based on the assumption that TADs will be controlled to a level 72 that will significantly enhance trade in livestock and livestock products; will the roll out of the project outputs achieve this? DO YOU BELIEVE THE PROJECT HAS BEEN FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGING CONTEXT? Yes No Others No response 12 0 2 2 Examples given include: support to cross-border meeting held in Naivasha, not initially planned but organized to address emerging issues between Kenya and Tanzania; Support to vaccination against FMD following an outbreak in Uganda Not informed For now this cannot be evaluated for sure, may be in future as project progresses Summary / conclusion: there was consensus among the respondents that the project is flexible enough to accommodate changing context so long as such changes are within the results framework. OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE RESPONDENTS • TADs cannot be controlled along the borders alone – should be expanded further to other hotspots within each country • Need for since commitments of the participating partner States • Input evaluation, process evaluation, income evaluation, impact evaluation – need to be evaluated at the local level for 90% and 10% at the central level • All livestock value chain actors to be involved in the evaluation of the project when it will be cascaded up to sub-county level / community level in counties • A second phase is most important if the project is to make a meaningful impact – to build on good work already done • More participatory approach in formulation of second phase of the project (if any) • Increased funding to support the initially planned activities such as disease surveillance • Capacity building of the stakeholders especially the communities living along the border on disease control strategies • The project did not foresee the inclusion of the wildlife service authorities • Capacity building on management skills is essential – more staff should be given the opportunity 73 • SMP-AH project to assist in fostering cross-border meetings / networking for the purpose of improving disease control and promotion of trade • The control of TADs will be effective if the project extends support to Zonal / County laboratories to improve disease diagnosis in the region • The evaluation should concentrate /focus on the outcomes level results, given the short project implementation period How the participants rated the project: SMP-AH The participants were requested to rate (%) the project based on the following parameters: 1. Overall performance of SMP-AH 2. Level of ownership by stakeholders 3. Relevance to needs of beneficiaries 4. Operational systems and delivery of inputs 5. Sustainability prospects Rating sheet: NAIVASHA MEETING: INDIVIDUAL OPINION ABOUT SMP-AH 1. Overall performance of SMP-AH (0 – 100%) -----------------------% 2. Level of ownership by stakeholders (0 – 100%) ----------------------% 3. Connectedness / relevance to livestock marketing needs of target beneficiaries (0 – 100%) --- --------------------% 4. Operational systems and delivery of inputs (0 – 100%) -------------------------------% 5. Sustainability prospects after the end of project (0 – 100%) -------------------------------------% 6. Impression about SMP-AH (Not more than 3 descriptive words) ------------------------------- Results based on 10 score ranges Parameters Score range (%) and number of respondents in each case 0-10 (%) 11-20 (%) 21-30 (%) 31-40 (%) 41-50 (%) 51-60 (%) 61-70 (%) 71-80 (%) 81-90 (%) 91- 100(%) 1 1 0 0 1 1 8 10 4 4 0 2 2 1 1 5 7 2 3 4 4 0 3 1 0 1 1 2 1 6 9 5 3 4 0 2 1 5 4 6 3 2 2 3 5 1 1 2 3 9 5 1 1 5 1 74 1. Overall performance of SMP-AH 2. Level of ownership by stakeholders 3. Relevance to needs of beneficiaries 4. Operational systems and delivery of inputs 5. Sustainability prospects Total number of respondents: 29 Results based on 4 score ranges Parameters Score range and number of respondents Non￾respondents 0-24% 25-49% 50-74% 75-100% 1 0 1 2 19 7 2 0 3 6 12 8 3 0 1 2 9 17 4 1 2 7 12 7 5 0 2 5 15 7 Results: average score Parameters No. of respondents Total score Average score 1. Overall performance of the project 29 1939 66.9% 2. Level of ownership by stakeholders 29 1602 55.2% 3. Relevance to needs of beneficiaries 29 2115 72.9% 4. Operational systems and delivery of inputs 28 1636 58.4% 5. Sustainability prospects 29 1655 57.1% ROLLING OUT OF SMPs – WHAT DOES IT ENTAIL? According to Chief Veterinary Officers, rolling out of SMP – AH Project outcomes entails the following among others: Activities Target group /area Objectives Awareness creation, education /training and dialogue – in strategic areas and compartments or segments (national level activities) Animal health service providers at lower levels (both private and government); livestock traders, Exporters of livestock and livestock products; abattoir operators; NGOs, CBOs, livestock – based associations; • To enhance understanding on market demands in terms of animal health, meat safety and standards among stake holders; • To improve visibility of the achievements of SMP-AH project, and the need to sustain the gains made and the momentum • to enhance cooperation and support in disease control and surveillance among 75 policy makers at County / Local Government level the stakeholders Creation of partnerships and linkages (national level activities) Institutions of higher learning, e. g. veterinary training colleges; NGOs, livestock-based associations, professional and paraprofessional associations; With other projects addressing similar issues • To fast track the adoption, application and utilization of SMPs ( SMP Knowledge dissemination through anchorage in training institutions and professional associations) • To enhance disease recognition and reporting through utilization of syndromic manual at community level (use NGOs, CBOs, professionals paraprofessionals) Use and application of SMPs and SOPs in the national based laboratories (national level activities) National laboratories • To improve diagnostic and investigation procedures through utilization of SMPs and SOPs Disease control (vaccination against most trade sensitive TADs – one or two in each cross-border area) (regional level activity) Strategic regional areas, e.g. cross￾borders areas • To reduce the impact of TADs on livestock / livestock products trade – control main TADs to acceptable levels using SMPs as guide Carry out surveillance on most trade sensitive TADs – using SMPs (regional level activity) Strategic cross-border areas and compartments • To support disease control and enhance trade in livestock and livestock products Adopt global strategy for eradication of PPR (regional level activity) IGAD region (member states) • To promote and support regional alignment to global strategy for the eradication of PPR More support to regional entities and facilities - Strengthening through capacity building (regional level activity) Regional entities such as NEALCO; Regional facilities such as Vaccine production Institutes, reference laboratories and quarantine stations • To meet regional obligations relevant to trade in livestock and livestock products (provision of adequate supply of quality vaccines, quality testing and diagnosis, screening etc) 76 7.5. Results from electronic questionnaire sent to CVOs Djibouti - quantitative data from the Chief Veterinary Officers and Focal Point Person for evaluating the progress of SMP-AH in each country. Request made by email to Chief Veterinary Officer. Purpose of the questions. The SMP-AH Evaluation Team requests information on the progress made implementing Standard Methods and Procedures for Animal Health (SMP-AH) funded by USAID and implemented by AU-IBAR. We kindly request you complete the following questions. The questions will help us to better understand the activities in your country. Your information will be kept confidential and not shared with anyone outside the evaluation team. E-mail your survey answers to Gregory Sullivan (advmktsys@aol.com) and Dr. Julius Kajume (jkajume@yahoo.co.uk). Thank you! 1. Please send any reports which would describe the implementation of SMP-AH in your country. We are particularly interested in reports that provide quantitative data on the impact of SMP-AH. Please fill in the table on numbers of people trained in your service and private sector in SMP-AH: Numbers of people trained in SMP-AH 2012 2013 2014 2015 - SMP for a specific disease 26 vet staff 50 persons - disease surveillance At regional 0 0 4 vet staff 3 vet staff At national activities 0 0 30 stakeholders 56 persons - laboratory training At regional 0 0 3 Lab staff At national activities 4 lab staff 4 lab staff - Quarantine operations 0 0 4 persons from Quarantine staff 4 persons at national activities Skill managements training 0 0 3 vet staff ARIS-II training Two Vets (at regional 17 persons (at national activities) Regional Risk Assessment training One vet 2. Please provide the amount of funds from the national budget and your department allocated annually to SMP-AH from 2012 through 2015. Funds Allocated to SMP from National budget for: 2012 2013 2014 2015 - SMP for a specific disease - disease surveillance - vaccine purchases - laboratory training - Quarantine operations - Other activities: (list) 3. Number of quarantine stations supported, and the specific support provided since start of SMP? 77 Answering: Since the SMP-AH project started, the project support one quarantine (Djibouti Regional Livestock Quarantine) and support provided by the project was personal capacity building by heavy training of quarantine staff (Veterinarians and Vet technicians) at regional and national training, About 11 persons of quarantine staffs were benefited for the regional and national training and workshops under SMP-AH project during 2014 and 2015. 4. Number of laboratories supported, and the specific support provided since start of SMP-AH? Answering: The SMP-AH supported National Veterinary Laboratory and the specific support provided was training of Laboratory staff for improving and enhancing of diagnosis of diseases especially Transboundary Animal Diseases (TADs) under SMP-AH and the beneficiaries of these trainings was about 7 persons from Laboratory staff. 5. How many of developed SMPs for trans-boundary animal diseases (TADs) are being implemented, and what are the challenge you face in implementation? Answering : Djibouti implemented four developed SMPs for transboundary animal diseases (TADs) during 2015 named PPR, RVF, FMD and Brucellosis and the main challenge was language because of the SMPs documents written by English and Djiboutian people speaks french. 6. What have been the main animal health demands (requirements) by the importing countries that have limited trade in livestock and livestock products? Have the key issues been addressed by SMP-AH? Any rejections of shipments received by importing countries since the start of SMP￾AH?If yes, how many and for what diseases or reasons? Answering: The sanitary requirements are the main animal health demands by the importing countries, like Saudi Arabia the main requirements are to quarantine animals at least 21 days, 100% vaccinated against RVF and 100% tested for Brucellosis. Yes, during 2013 the Saudi Arabia rejected about 800 head of Bovine because of suspect of FMD, and clinical signs are absent. 7. How are the veterinary personnel on the ground (field staff) being informed of the project activities and expected outcomes? How are they participating in this programme? Is there adequate funding and training to support the front-line field staff in surveillance? Answering: Since the SMP-AH project started we held a several activities at national, we trained a lot of animal health personal such as CAHWs from the grassroots ( about 50 CAHWs), Veterinary staff, Quarantine staff, border inspectors, livestock market and abattoirs inspectors and traders...etc. also we held during 2015 one activity for front-line animal health personnel between Djibouti, Somaliland and Puntland. However, these activities are actually enhanced the diseases controlled and surveillance systems. 8. Since the start of the project, have key national policy documents and legislations been published and passed related to disease control and surveillance? Please provide a list of policies and documents? 78 Answering: Currently there updating of the Djibouti Veterinary legislations under SHARE project who is implemented by FAO Djibouti, and still under draft. 9. What are the main country-specific challenges and constraints faced in the implementation of the project and any legislation passed? (List in order of importance). Answering :In general, the SMP-AH project ongoing well at regional and national level, and in Djibouti case the main challenges faced in the implementation of the project is the language especially at national level. 10.Key factors contributing to the success or shortcomings of the project? (list in order of importance) 11. List both intended and unintended impacts/outcomes of the project for improvement in trade in livestock and livestock products? Have you seen increased numbers of livestock in quarantine and tested? 12. Give examples of ways issues of gender are considered in the project activities? Staffing? Training Answering: At the national activities the gender was about 90% of the male and 10% of the women 13. How has the political, economic and social context in your country impacted the project? Answering: For the politically it good welling for the project. 14. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the project? (List both separately) Strengths: The main strengths of the project are: 1. Good capacity building of the personnel at the national level for disease surveillance, Diseases control, laboratory diagnostic, quarantine procedures and reporting systems; 2. Enhanced for the ecosystem harmonization and coordination of veterinary activities in cross￾border areas at the regional level; 3. Development of the disease surveillance, control and reporting system at the national and regional levels; 4. A feedback mechanism for implementation and concept of SMP-AH project developed well in the country Weaknesses: The main weakness: 1. Delay of the procurement and distribute of equipment, materials, reagents, diagnostic kits for the Lab, Surveillance and Disease control. 2. Main challenge to Djibouti is language, the SMPs documents are written by English and Djiboutian speaks French, also the Manual of Syndromic Diseases. 15. Are there any missed opportunities or lessons learned for consideration in a possible follow-on project? 79 16. Using a score range of 0-5, indicate the relative importance of the project on the following components: Component Score (0-lowest; 5- highest) 1. Development of standard methods and procedures for control and surveillance of the targeted diseases (documentation) 3 2. Development of quarantine stations and their operations 4 3. Development of laboratories - district/regional and national 2 4. Capacity building of personnel 5 17. Provide data on livestock and meat trade of each year for 2012 to 2015. Activity Species 2012 2013 2014 2015 Number of livestock that have been tested and tagged for export Bovine 48439 45830 54777 55470 Small Ruminants 449009 461464 509505 350147 Cameline 38053 10878 3791 37444 Quantity of meat (fresh or frozen) for beef, sheep meat, goat meat from your country tested and passed or rejected by inspection No data No data About one ton of red meat tested and passed to the U.E.A during 2014 by the Djibouti Abattoir No data GCC data on inspection of livestock and livestock products from your country that was tested and passed or rejected During 2013 the Saudi Arabian rejected about 800 heads of bovine because of suspect FMD 18. In your opinion has SMP-AH improved overall trade in livestock and livestock product? Yes/No? How? Answer: Yes, as we know the project’s purpose is to support development and implementation of harmonized animal health approaches forprevention and control of trade-related trans-boundary animal diseases (TADs) in theregion, which will lead to an improvement in the ability of live animals and animalproducts to move within the region and internationally. 80 Ethiopia - quantitative data from the Chief Veterinary Officers and Focal Point Person for evaluating the progress of SMP-AH in each country. Request made by email to Chief Veterinary Officer. Purpose of the questions. The SMP-AH Evaluation Team requests information on the progress made implementing Standard Methods and Procedures for Animal Health (SMP-AH) funded by USAID and implemented by AU-IBAR. We kindly request you complete the following questions. The questions will help us to better understand the activities in your country. Your information will be kept confidential and not shared with anyone outside the evaluation team. E-mail your survey answers to Gregory Sullivan (advmktsys@aol.com) and Dr. Julius Kajume (jkajume@yahoo.co.uk). Thank you! 1. Please send any reports which would describe the implementation of SMP-AH in your country. We are particularly interested in reports that provide quantitative data on the impact of SMP-AH. Please fill in the table on numbers of people trained in your service and private sector in SMP-AH: Numbers of people trained in SMP-AH 2012 2013 2014 2015 - SMP for a specific disease - disease surveillance( including syndromic surveillance) 3(regional level) 100(national) 3 (regional level) 45( nationally) - laboratory training 4( regional) 14(national; from seven labs) - Quarantine operations - 6 (Mille) - Other trainings: (management skill) 3 (regional) 4 (regional) 2. Please provide the amount of funds from the national budget and your department allocated annually to SMP-AH from 2012 through 2015. Funds Allocated to SMP from National budget for: 2012 2013 2014 2015 - SMP for a specific disease - disease surveillance - vaccine purchases - laboratory training - Quarantine operations - Other activities: (list) 3. Number of quarantine stations supported, and the specific support provided since start of SMP? Two (Adama and Mille); both in training and also providing technical support to Mille. 4. Number of laboratories supported, and the specific support provided since start of SMP-AH? Seven national veterinary labs (of regional states) have benefited from training on selected trade related TADs diagnosis 81 5. How many of developed SMPs for trans-boundary animal diseases (TADs) are being implemented, and what are the challenge you face in implementation? Four, the SPMs as they stand now lacks the SOP( being developed) to advance their implementation. Moreover, the cost of implementing them is not duly indicated (both nationally as well regionally) 6. What have been the main animal health demands (requirements) by the importing countries that have limited trade in livestock and livestock products? Have the key issues been addressed by SMP-AH? Any rejections of shipments received by importing countries since the start of SMP-AH?If yes, how many and for what diseases or reasons? SMP has made many different efforts specially by developing SMPs for various diseases, quarantine procedures, laboratory trainings etc., but bringing real impact requires time and consolidation works are required. There are however no rejections over the last five years. 7. How are the veterinary personnel on the ground (field staff) being informed of the project activities and expected outcomes? How are they participating in this programme? Is there adequate funding and training to support the front-line field staff in surveillance? During several awareness and training workshops held nationally; moreover, those veterinary personnel residing in the bordering areas had taken part in the cross-border meetings. Funding (We would say it is not sufficient from the project, moreover since the country is very wide and AU-IBAR is directly financing the activities from head quarter, it was not possible to reach those front line agents as required. 8. Since the start of the project, have key national policy documents and legislations been published and passed related to disease control and surveillance? Please provide a list of policies and documents? Not yet published, but one proclamation and 7 regulations prepared and waiting for endorsement. 9. What are the main country-specific challenges and constraints faced in the implementation of the project and any legislation passed? (List in order of importance) • Slow pace of implementation of national activities attributed to intention of AU-IBAR to directly financing each and every activities. Moreover, as the result of the wide country areas fund disbursement modalities for activities the involves grass root actors was found not suitable. • Delayed and lengthy procurement procedures (even the attempted through local supplier was cancelled) • Delay in the commencement of the national activities implementation • lengthy approval process after planning during 2014 ( actual implementation was only for six month: June-November, 2016) • Unclear donor and AU-IBAR(finance) regulations to national implementers. 10.Key factors contributing to the success or shortcomings of the project? (list in order of importance) • All the member states are allowed to participate actively in each and every process of the project • Experts/stakeholders sufficiently sensitized about the intended project outcomes from the beginning • Shortcoming ( very centralized financing system) 82 11. List both intended and unintended impacts/outcomes of the project for improvement in trade in livestock and livestock products? Have you seen increased numbers of livestock in quarantine and tested? • Yes, the trend is upwards but there were some fluctuations in the number of animals exported. But the real impact is going to be seen in the future as the time is short to tell about impacts. 12. Give examples of ways issues of gender are considered in the project activities? Staffing? Training • During national trainings and awareness workshops, regional states were encouraged to send women participants 13. How has the political, economic and social context in your country impacted the project? • The political system of the country is stable and we feel it has impacted the project positively. The implementation was smooth. 14. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the project? (List both separately) Strength Weakness Relays more on the existing expertise in the region The link between project management and National focal point was not very clear and weak Attempts to harmonize and/or standardize surveillance, disease control approaches, quarantine procedures is encouraging Capacity building to experts in the region on management skill, surveillance and laboratory techniques 15. Are there any missed opportunities or lessons learned for consideration in a possible follow-on project? Operation arrangements need to become clearer in the future 16. Using a score range of 0-5, indicate the relative importance of the project on the following components: Component Score (0-lowest; 5-highest) 1. Development of standard methods and procedures for control and surveillance of the targeted diseases (documentation) 4 2. Development of quarantine stations and their operations 4 3. Development of laboratories - district/regional and national 2 4. Capacity building of personnel 5 83 17. Provide data on livestock and meat trade of each year for 2012 to 2015. Activity 2012 2013 2014 2015 Number of livestock that have been tested and tagged for export 636822 785078 671157 Not yet compiled Quantity of meat (fresh or frozen) for beef, sheepment, goatmeat from your country tested and passed or rejected by inspection (MT) 17780 15520 15700 19050 GCC data on inspection of livestock and livestock products from your country that was tested and passed or rejected 18.In your opinion has SMP-AH improved overall trade in livestock and livestock product? Yes/No? How? Yes ,as the systems put in place helps to satisfy the requirements of the importing countries. Bu the real impact is going to be seen in the future when the Mille quarantine starts its operations, disease for which SMPs were developed take off and their impact get reduced and confidence of the buying end improved overtime. 84 KENYA - quantitative data from the Chief Veterinary Officers and Focal Point Person for SMP-AH in each country. Request made by email to Chief Veterinary Officer. Purpose of the questions. The SMP-AH Evaluation Team requests information on the progress made implementing the Standard Methods and Procedures for Animal Health (SMP-AH) funded by USAID and implemented by AU-IBAR. We kindly request you complete the following questions. The questions will help us to better understand the activities in your country. Your information will be kept confidential and not shared with anyone outside the evaluation team. E-mail survey to Gregory Sullivan (advmktsys@aol.com) and Dr. Julius Kajume (jkajume@yahoo.co.uk). Thank you! 1. Please send any reports which would describe the implementation of SMP-AH in your country. We are particularly interested in reports that provide quantitative data on the impact of SMP-AH. For example, fill in the table on numbers of people trained in your service and private sector in SMP-AH: Numbers of people trained in SMP-AH 2012 2013 2014 2015 - SMP for a specific disease Nil Nil Nil One National workshop held, 78 participants sensitized 20 laboratory personnel sensitized at one proficiency training workshop, Nakuru, July 2015 2 meetings held with VEEU staff on SMPs. Kajiado, TaitaTaveta and Tharaka countiescarried out meetings with county vets to roll out adoption of SMPs - disease surveillance Nil Nil 28 staff from 9 counties (24 males, 4 females) trained on surveillance and reporting using ARIS 2 200 syndromic manuals distributed 8,000 brochures on various TADs printed 40 participants comprising of: Livestock farmers, Community Animal Health Reporters, Sub county field Veterinary Officers, Pharmacy and Poisons Board officers, Kenya Wildlife Services (KWS), Regional Veterinary laboratories, Regional Veterinary Inspectors, Nairobi University College of Veterinary Medicine, VSRI, DVS, Epidemiology Unit personnel, KVA, FAO and NGOs attended a 2-day meeting on disease reporting 250 syndromic manuals given out to communities 8 sub-counties committed to 85 establishing community disease reporting systems 5 communities already have systems but they need strengthening 150 manuals distributed 8,000 brochures distributed - laboratory training Nil Nil 4 laboratory personnel trained at the NAHDIC Institute, Ethiopia 20 laboratory personnel trained on brucellosis testing SOPs - Quarantine operations Nil Nil Nil Quarantine SMP applied in the setting up of Bachuma Livestock Export Zone. Project advertised for consultancy to carry out feasibility study of Disease Free Zones - Disease Control Nil Nil Nil Project provided logistical support to Kajiado and Narok Counties to carry out vaccination against major TADs. Over 300,000 animals were vaccinated against CBPP, CCPP, PPR, and blue tongue Cross-border harmonization Nil Nil Joint meetings held with neighboring countries of Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia and Djibouti. Joint workplans developed to be adopted in 2015 Meetings held with Ethiopia and Tanzania each. Two MoUs developed. Information Sharing Nil Nil 4 quarterly epidemiological bulletins produced 4 quarterly epidemiological bulletins produced Capacity Building 4 officers trained on management at Kenya School of Government. 4 officers trained on surveillance and epidemiology at University of Nairobi. 3 officers trained on surveillance and epidemiology at University of Nairobi. 2 officers trained on management at Kenya School of Government 86 2. Please provide the amount of funds from the national budget and your department allocated annually to SMP-AH from 2012 through 2015. Funds Allocated to SMP from National budget for: 2012* 2013* 2014* 2015** - SMP for a specific disease Nil Nil Nil Figures on expenditures by counties are not available - disease surveillance Nil Nil Nil USD 40,000 at Headquarters. National figures not available - vaccine purchases Nil Nil Nil National figures not available - laboratory training Nil Nil Nil National figures not available - Quarantine operations Nil Nil Nil National figures not available - Other activities: (list) Nil Nil Nil National figures not available *SMPs had not been rolled out. **Expenditures by counties will have to be determined through a survey since they do not provide any figures to headquarters. 3. Number of quarantine stations supported, and the specific support provided since start of SMP? One Station at Bachuma has received some support. SMP for quarantines is being applied. The project sponsored the advertisement for a consultant to carry out a feasibility study on Disease Free Zones 4. Number of laboratories supported, and the specific support provided since start of SMP? 7 Laboratories (CVL Kabete, 6 Regional VILs) received support in training of personnel. 4 Staff members attended regional laboratory training in NAHDIC, Ethiopia. 20 personnel were trained on SMPs and SOPs for brucellosis testing. 5. How many of developed SMP for trans-boundary animal diseases (TADs) are being implemented, and what are the challenges faced? The SMPs were launched three months ago and the counties are still carrying out training and sensitization on them. It is still too early to gauge the impact and challenges being encountered. 6. What have been the main animal health demands (requirements) by the importing countries that have limited trade in livestock and livestock products? Have the key issues been addressed by SMP￾AH?Importing countries of the Middle East are manly concerned about the risk of entry of TADs e.g. FMD, RVF mainly and CBPP, brucellosis, sheep and goat pox and LSD to a lesser extent. The development of SMPs for these diseases and their subsequent adoption by the IGAD countries will greatly allay these fears. 7. How are the veterinary personnel on the ground (field based staff) being informed of the project outcomes? How are they participating in this programme? Is there adequate funding to support the front-line field staff in surveillance? 87 Through workshops the county directors have been sensitized and they are now holding meetings with their personnel and distributing SMP books. 8. Since the start of the project have key national policy documents and legislations been published and passed related to disease control and surveillance? Please provide a list of policies and documents? a) Guidelines for the Delivery of Veterinary Services in Kenya- 2014 b) The Kenya Veterinary Policy- 2014 9. What are the main country-specific challenges and constraints faced in the implementation of the project and any legislation? (List in order of importance) a) Devolution- having 47 County governments to come together and agree on implementation b) Lack of a central chain of command c) Inadequate funding 10.Key factors contributing to the success or shortcomings of the project? (List in order of importance) a) Willing personnel b) Regional approach to addressing the TADs 11. List both intended and unintended impacts of the project for improvement in trade in livestock and livestock products? Have you seen increased numbers of livestock in quarantine and tested? It is still too early to measure these impacts. A study should be conducted in 2016 to assess this. 12. In which ways have issues surrounding gender been considered in the project activities? Staffing? The project has tried to ensure that both male and female personnel are given equal access to trainings. 13. How has the political, economic and social context in your country impacted the project? a) Devolution has posed some challenges as stated in 9 above. b) Insecurity in some areas has hindered the roll out of some project activities 14. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the project? (List both separately) Strengths: a) Regional approach to addressing issues b) Planning with the member countries for activities to be carried out Weaknesses: a) Low budgets for country activities b) Lack of a structure for carrying out disbursement of funds to countries. All payments and procurements have to be done by the project coordinator at AU-IBAR. c) Short implementation period of country-based activities. They started in 2014. 15. Are there any missed opportunities or lessons learnt? Delays in procurement greatly affected implementation of certain activities 88 16. Using a score range of 0-5, indicate the relative importance of the project on the following components: Component Score (0-lowest; 5-highest) 1. Development of standard methods and procedures for control and surveillance of the targeted diseases (documentation) 5 2. Development of quarantine stations and their operations 3 3. Development of laboratories - district/regional and national 2 4. Capacity building of personnel 3 17. Livestock and meat trade data from time periods from 2012 to 2015. (The data for live animal export include cattle, sheep, Goat and camels) Activity 2012 2013 2014 2015 Number of livestock that have been tested and tagged for export 336 3369 7944 3000 Quantity of meat (fresh or frozen) for beef, sheep meat, goat meat from your country tested and passed or rejected by inspection 6,186,827kgs 7,221,770kgs 310,815 kgs 661,923.5 kgs GCC data on inspection of livestock and livestock products from your country that was tested and passed or rejected Not available Not available Not available Not available 18.In your opinion has SMP-AH improved overall trade in livestock and livestock product?Yes/No? How? None of the above; it is still too early to tell since the SMPs were only rolled out in late 2015. 89 SOUTH SUDAN - quantitative data from the Chief Veterinary Officers and Focal Point Person for evaluating the progress of SMP-AH in each country. Request made by email to Chief Veterinary Officer. Purpose of the questions. The SMP-AH Evaluation Team requests information on the progress made implementing Standard Methods and Procedures for Animal Health (SMP-AH) funded by USAID and implemented by AU-IBAR. We kindly request you complete the following questions. The questions will help us to better understand the activities in your country. Your information will be kept confidential and not shared with anyone outside the evaluation team. E-mail your survey answers to Gregory Sullivan (advmktsys@aol.com) and Dr. Julius Kajume (jkajume@yahoo.co.uk). Thank you! 1. Please send any reports which would describe the implementation of SMP-AH in your country. We are particularly interested in reports that provide quantitative data on the impact of SMP-AH. Please fill in the table on numbers of people trained in your service and private sector in SMP-AH: Numbers of people trained in SMP-AH 2012 2013 2014 2015 - SMP for a specific disease 0 0 0 0 - disease surveillance 0 0 5 4 - laboratory training 0 0 3 0 - Quarantine operations 0 0 2 0 - Other trainings: (list) management skills National coordination meeting workshop CAHWs involvement in disease surveillance workshop Feedlots visit to Ethiopia Ear tag training in Ethiopia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 32 0 0 0 1 30 21 2 3 2. Please provide the amount of funds from the national budget and your department allocated annually to SMP-AH from 2012 through 2015. Funds Allocated to SMP from National budget for: 2012 2013 2014 2015 - SMP for a specific disease 0 0 0 0 - disease surveillance 0 0 0 0 - vaccine purchases 0 0 0 0 - laboratory training 0 0 0 0 - Quarantine operations 0 0 0 0 - Other activities: (list) 0 0 0 0 3. Number of quarantine stations supported, and the specific support provided since start of SMP? Three quarantine stations were established 9Nimule, Nadapal and Joda) and none of the station has direct support from SMP project 90 4. Number of laboratories supported, and the specific support provided since start of SMP-AH? Three lab technicians received training in Ethiopia in 2014 and no any laboratory equipments sent to South Sudan by SMP project. 5. How many of developed SMPs for trans-boundary animal diseases (TADs) are being implemented, and what are the challenge you face in implementation? Nine of the TADs developed by SMP project are work on progress in South Sudan by distributing field manual syndrome to field workers to improve on disease surveillance and reporting. The challenges are logistical support in collection of samples for laboratory submission for testing and kits are missing. 6. What have been the main animal health demands (requirements) by the importing countries that have limited trade in livestock and livestock products? Have the key issues been addressed by SMP-AH? Any rejections of shipments received by importing countries since the start of SMP-AH?If yes, how many and for what diseases or reasons? Not applicable to South Sudan 7. How are the veterinary personnel on the ground (field staff) being informed of the project activities and expected outcomes? • Through workshops and distribution of manual field books and SOP for each disease. How are they participating in this programme? • It depends on budget available but general all are participating in disease surveillance. Is there adequate funding and training to support the front-line field staff in surveillance? • No 8. Since the start of the project, have key national policy documents and legislations been published and passed related to disease control and surveillance? No. Please provide a list of policies and documents? • So far none of veterinary bills were passed by national assembly in South Sudan. 9. What are the main country-specific challenges and constraints faced in the implementation of the project and any legislation passed? (List in order of importance) • Programs developed in 2014 by nationals with support of SMPs were not implemented as scheduled and the officers in-charge of specific program were disappointed to work with SMP coordinator • Inadequate fund • Inadequate equipment and kits for testing specific diseases example FMD, RVF and others • Insecurity 10. Key factors contributing to the success or shortcomings of the project? (List in order of importance) • Communication was good between SMP project coordinator and national focal person • Release of funds or implementation projects activities is done according to scheduleplanned 11. List both intended and unintended impacts/outcomes of the project for improvement in trade in livestock and livestock products? Have you seen increased numbers of livestock in quarantine and tested? • Staffs were able to connect disease surveillance with livestock trade 12. Give examples of ways issues of gender are considered in the project activities? 91 • Staffing fairly involves in all activities and it depends on their employment and training background in the area of specialization Training: the ratio of training will depend of employed staff in the pay roll of the institution. The ratio is 1 female to 3 men in project implementation and trainings 13. How has the political, economic and social context in your country impacted the project? • 60% of the country population are agro-pastoralist. It has direct political, economic and social impact 14. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the project? (List both separately) • Strength: good coordination • Weaknesses: programs are implemented not based on what was agreed for with clear time frame approved in the year. A lot of evaluation and assessment without program been implemented. 15. Are there any missed opportunities or lessons learned for consideration in a possible follow-on project? • Missed opportunity when 2014 July plans were submitted and preparation to implement project as scheduled was not done until December 2014. All staff heading specific activities lost interest in continuing with SMP project implementation. 2015 gone without implementing what was planned and agreed upon. 16. using a score range of 0-5, indicate the relative importance of the project on the following components: Component Score (0-lowest; 5-highest) 1. Development of standard methods and procedures for control and surveillance of the targeted diseases (documentation) 4 2. Development of quarantine stations and their operations 3 3. Development of laboratories - district/regional and national 3 4. Capacity building of personnel 4 17. Provide data on livestock and meat trade of each year for 2012 to 2015. Activity 2012 2013 2014 2015 Number of livestock that have been tested and tagged for export 0 0 0 0 Quantity of meat (fresh or frozen) for beef, sheepment, goatmeat from your country tested and passed or rejected by inspection 0 0 0 0 GCC data on inspection of livestock and livestock products from your country that was tested and passed or rejected 0 0 0 0 18.In your opinion has SMP-AH improved overall trade in livestock and livestock product? Yes/No? How? • No because trading in our internal market does not require testing. 92 TANZANIA - quantitative data from the Chief Veterinary Officers and Focal Point Person for evaluating the progress of SMP-AH in each country. Request made by email to Chief Veterinary Officer. Purpose of the questionnaire. The SMP-AH Evaluation Team requests information on the progress made implementing Standard Methods and Procedures for Animal Health (SMP-AH) funded by USAID and implemented by AU-IBAR. We kindly request you complete the following questions. The questions will help us to better understand the activities in your country. Your information will be kept confidential and not shared with anyone outside the evaluation team. E-mail your survey answers to Gregory Sullivan (advmktsys@aol.com) and Dr. Julius Kajume (jkajume@yahoo.co.uk). Thank you! 1. Please send any reports which would describe the implementation of SMP-AH in your country. We are particularly interested in reports that provide quantitative data on the impact of SMP-AH. Please fill in the table on numbers of people trained in your service and private sector in SMP-AH: 2. Please provide the amount of funds from the national budget and your department allocated annually to SMP-AH from 2012 through 2015. Funds Allocated to SMP (related activities) from National budget for: 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 In ,000 TZS - SMP for a specific disease 84,750 85,000 85,250 96,700 - disease surveillance 50,000 65,000 71,500 78,600 - vaccine purchases 660,00 710,000 781,000 858,00 - laboratory training 14,750 15,000 15,250 16,500 - Quarantine operations - 150,000 150,000 150,00 - Other activities: (list) - Zoosanitary border posts & facilities 131,180 133,945 136,160 - Inspection of livestock production premises 43,700 54,600 64,400 - Border markets construction 34,500 26,900 32,800 38,700 3. Number of quarantine stations supported, and the specific support provided since start of SMP? - Kwala Quarantine station –Ministry regularly allocates funds for maintenance and minor rehabilitations Numbers of people trained in SMP-AH 2012 2013 2014 2015 - SMP for a specific disease 5 5 65 - disease surveillance 2 4 98 - laboratory training 3 21 - Quarantine operations 4 - Other trainings: (list) - Management Skills for Senior Veterinary staff 4 3 93 4. Number of laboratories supported, and the specific support provided since start of SMP-AH? - Tanzania Veterinary Laboratory Agency including Central vet Lab and Zonal laboratories have been supported technically through training of staff, provision of laboratory equipment, reagent kits, and consumables 5. How many of developed SMPs for trans-boundary animal diseases (TADs) are being implemented, and what are the challenge you face in implementation? - SMPs for RVF,PPR, CBPP, FMD and Brucellosis have been developed and are being implemented - challenges faced during implementation is availability and accessibility of vaccines to control the priority TADs 6. What have been the main animal health demands (requirements) by the importing countries that have limited trade in livestock and livestock products? Have the key issues been addressed by SMP-AH? Any rejections of shipments received by importing countries since the start of SMP-AH?If yes, how many and for what diseases or reasons? - Occurrence of diseases such as FMD, CBPP and PPR - SMP-AH project has partly addressed control of TADs through development of harmonized SMPs - It is however important to support regional integrated TADs control plans 7. How are the veterinary personnel on the ground (field staff) being informed of the project activities and expected outcomes? How are they participating in this programme? Is there adequate funding and training to support the front-line field staff in surveillance? - Field veterinarians have participated in active surveillance, training and workshops 8. Since the start of the project, have key national policy documents and legislations been published and passed related to disease control and surveillance? Please provide a list of policies and documents? Key documents o review of FMD Control Strategy o reviewed National RVF and PPR Emergency Preparedness and Response Plans 9. What are the main country-specific challenges and constraints faced in the implementation of the project and any legislation passed? (List in order of importance) o Decentralised system of government leads to broken chain of command which seriously affects implementation of passed legislation o Meagre funds allocated for implementation of activities 10.Key factors contributing to the success or shortcomings of the project? (list in order of importance) - training of key livestock staff at strategic points - support of laboratories to enhance disease diagnosis - SMPs development and dissemination 11. List both intended and unintended impacts/outcomes of the project for improvement in trade in livestock and livestock products? Have you seen increased numbers of livestock in quarantine and tested? - Not yet realized, more support required to improve the facility 12. Give examples of ways issues of gender are considered in the project activities? Staffing? Training Selection of participants into meetings/surveillance or any other activity was gender sensitive 13. How has the political, economic and social context in your country impacted the project? 94 14. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the project? (List both separately) § Strengths of the project - Capacity building of staff and laboratories - Development of SMPs • Weaknesses o No support considered in respect to procurement of vaccines o No support of quarantine facility 15. Are there any missed opportunities or lessons learned for consideration in a possible follow-on project? 16. Using a score range of 0-5, indicate the relative importance of the project on the following components: Component Score (0-lowest; 5-highest) 1. Development of standard methods and procedures for control and surveillance of the targeted diseases (documentation) 4 2. Development of quarantine stations and their operations 1 3. Development of laboratories - district/regional and national 3 4. Capacity building of personnel 5 17. Provide data on livestock and meat trade of each year for 2012 to 2015. Activity 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Number of livestock that have been tested and tagged for export 7422 1,123 2,139 Quantity of meat (fresh or frozen) for beef, sheep meat, goat meat from your country tested and passed or rejected by inspection- (in tons) 403.3 830.4 1,110.62 1,449.0 GCC data on inspection of livestock and livestock products from your country that was tested and passed or rejected - - - - 18. In your opinion has SMP-AH improved overall trade in livestock and livestock product? Yes. How? - Figures given above suggest that overall trade in livestock has increased but for Tanzania this can not be attributed to the SMP-AH project alone. 95 UGANDA --- quantitative data from the Chief Veterinary Officers and Focal Point Person for evaluating the progress of SMP-AH in each country. Request made by email to Chief Veterinary Officer. Purpose of the questions. The SMP-AH Evaluation Team requests information on the progress made implementing Standard Methods and Procedures for Animal Health (SMP-AH) funded by USAID and implemented by AU-IBAR. We are kindly request you complete the following questions. The questions will help us to better understand the activities in your country. Your information will be kept confidential and not shared with anyone outside the evaluation team. E-mail your survey answers to Gregory Sullivan (advmktsys@aol.com) and Dr. Julius Kajume (jkajume@yahoo.co.uk). Thank you! 1. Please send any reports which would describe the implementation of SMP-AH in your country. We are particularly interested in reports that provide quantitative data on the impact of SMP-AH. Please fill in the table on numbers of people trained in your service and private sector in SMP-AH: Numbers of people trained in SMP-AH 2012 2013 2014 2015 - SMP for a specific disease - disease surveillance Epidemio-surveillance and laboratory experts Ethiopia 4 0 0 00 Epidemio-surveillance and laboratory experts Uganda 4 0 0 0 ARIS Uganda 0 0 36 0 - laboratory training 0 0 3 0 - Quarantine operations - Other trainings: (list) Community cross-border meeting for regional ecosystem harmonization coordination of veterinary activities for Kenya, Uganda AND Tanzania 25th to 27th August 2014, Mwanza Tanzania 0 0 8 0 4th Steering Committee Meeting, Thursday, 4th December 2014, Naivasha, Kenya 0 0 ? 0 Cross-border meeting Gulu 17 National sensitization and implementation 60 Community based reporting 66 2. Please provide the amount of funds from the national budget and your department allocated annually to SMP-AH from 2012 through 2015. 96 Funds Allocated to SMP from National budget for: 2012 USD 2013 USD 2014 USD 2015 USD - SMP for a specific disease - disease surveillance 764,804 764,804 764,804 764,804 - vaccine purchases 1,111,111 1,111,111 1,111,111 1,111,111 FMD vaccine 1,111,111 1,111,111 1,111,111 1,111,111 CBPP vaccine 0 0 0 0 Rabies vaccine 0 0 0 0 - laboratory training 0 0 0 0 - Quarantine operations Construction of four border post offices 0 20,833.33 20.833.33 0 10 Zonal Senior Veterinary Inspectors were recruited 26,666.67 26,666.67 26,666.67 13 Border post Veterinary officers 32,500 32,500 32,500 - Other activities: (list) 3. Number of quarantine stations supported, and the specific support provided since start of SMP? This is not applicable. Quarantine infrastructure in Uganda were destroyed during civil strife. However the knowledge gained from the trainings and SMP AH quarantine protocols will useful in the building of quarantine system in Uganda. 4. Number of laboratories supported, and the specific support provided since start of SMP-AH? The procurement process of laboratory supports items was not concluded. 5. How many of developed SMPs for trans-boundary animal diseases (TADs) are being implemented, and what are the challenge you face in implementation? Six SMP are being implemented in routine disease control activities (FMD, CBPP, PPR, , CCPP, LSD, SGP,Rinderpest ) Not implemented (Quarantine, RVF, Camel pox, Avian Influenza) 6. What have been the main animal health demands (requirements) by the importing countries that have limited trade in livestock and livestock products? Have the key issues been addressed by SMP-AH? Any rejections of shipments received by importing countries since the start of SMP-AH?If yes, how many and for what diseases or reasons? The Uganda Freshcuts company used to export meat to the United Nations troops in Central Africa. However the UN reviewed conditionalities and required the exporting entity to provide proof of compliance with European Union standards. This is was not met and the business was lost. The issue has not been solved by SMP because it is partly out of the scope of SMP. We have not been any rejections of shipments. 97 7. How are the veterinary personnel on the ground (field staff) being informed of the project activities and expected outcomes? How are they participating in this programme? Is there adequate funding and training to support the front-line field staff in surveillance? The personnel on the ground are being informed of the project activities through; 1. Direct participation in project meetings and sensitization meeting. 2. Participation in the regional trainings in surveillance and epidemiology (Nairobi, ongoing) and laboratory Ethiopia 2015) where most of the trainees are district personnel; 3. Participating in cross-border meetings (Mwanza and Gulu); 4. Direct support was provided to 14 districts (Isingiro, Kasese, Kiboga, Kiruhura, Kyankwanzi, Luwero, Masaka, Mpigi, Mukono, Nakaseke, Nakasongola, Ntungamo, Rakai and Wakiso) by supporting FMD vaccination campaigns during December 2015; 5. Soft copies of SMP were shared with personnel during the training; 6. Over 3,000 copies of the hard copy of the Syndomic manual has been widely provided to personnel a. during shows (annual agriculture, world food day and world rabies day); b. District personnel when they come to the ministry; c. Taken by ministry personnel when they visit district for some activities 7. ARIS training under SMP AH project was done once whereby 39 personnel benefited. ARIS training has been enhanced by the fact that STST is also training and Uganda has accumulated 109 ARIS users. 8. Since the start of the project, have key national policy documents and legislations been published and passed related to disease control and surveillance? Please provide a list of policies and documents? This is not applicable 9. What are the main country-specific challenges and constraints faced in the implementation of the project and any legislation passed? (List in order of importance) 1. Low staffing level both at the ministry and local government levels; 2. Insufficient funding for vaccine procurement, disease investigations, surveillance, surveys, diagnosis and disease control; 3. Low levels of facilitation (cars, fuel) to undertake the mentioned disease control activities. 10. Key factors contributing to the success or shortcomings of the project? (list in order of importance) 1. Insufficient of counterpart funding to support SMP AH 11. List both intended and unintended impacts/outcomes of the project for improvement in trade in livestock and livestock products? Have you seen increased numbers of livestock in quarantine and tested? 1. The project sensitized stakeholders on the value of synergy and standardization of actions within the country and within the region and internationally for trade item acceptability; 2. The outcome of the project is therefore sensitized stakeholders who will be working synergistically in a standard way in animal health and trade issues; 3. There will be increased bulk of trade in health animals and animal products and hence income. 98 12. Give examples of ways issues of gender are considered in the project activities? Staffing? Training? In the field of animals/veterinary, the female actors are generally fewer so they are always given priority in selection where they exist. The Focal Point is a lady, one of the trainees in laboratory was female and the farmer that was selected to represent farmers during the sensitization meeting was a lady. Children are targeted in activities that they are able to undertake, they participated during the world rabies day by bringing pets for neutering and were given syndromic manuals to take back home to their parents. 13. How has the political, economic and social context in your country impacted the project? 1. Politically directed livestock restocking programmes have not adhered to SMPs and have been a dis-; 2. Overall insufficient fund are provided for SMP AH activities; 3. Overall the majority of farmers are still communal grazers yet husbandry activities are not standardised in farms. 14. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the project? (List both separately) Strengths of SMP AH project 1. The project is regional and all countries are targeting to achieve standardization which should have a very positive outcome with regard to regional trade 2. Weakness of SMP AH project 3. There are delays in actions due to logistical shortcomings 15. Are there any missed opportunities or lessons learned for consideration in a possible follow-on project? There should be sufficient staffing levels at the AU IBAR to address logistical and technical support issues. Regional project need to be linked financially to the country for sustainability; The inadequate staffing within the countries can be addressed by the country. 16. Using a score range of 0-5, indicate the relative importance of the project on the following components: Component Score (0-lowest; 5-highest) 1. Development of standard methods and procedures for control and surveillance of the targeted diseases (documentation) 4 2. Development of quarantine stations and their operations 1 3. Development of laboratories - district/regional and national 2 4. Capacity building of personnel 3 99 17. Provide data on livestock and meat trade of each year for 2012 to 2015. (provided in attached tables) Activity 2012 2013 2014 2015 Number of livestock that have been tested and tagged for export Quantity of meat (fresh or frozen) for beef, sheep meat, goat meat from your country tested and passed or rejected by inspection GCC data on inspection of livestock and livestock products from your country that was tested and passed or rejected 18.In your opinion has SMP-AH improved overall trade in livestock and livestock product? Yes/No? How? Yes, since the FMD outbreak that had ravaged the south, south western and central Uganda district has come down due to project direct support to vaccination campaign. The quarantine is due to be lifted in late January and early February 2016.This will enable internal trade and exports principally to South Sudan. 100 7.6. Mirror image survey of CVOs on cross-border relationships 1. Sharing of information on diseases (TADs)Rate the effectiveness in sharing information on diseases between you and: CVO GOOD Fair POOR 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 Tanzania Somalia Ethiopia So. Sudan Uganda Djibouti Kenya Probe (reasons): 2. Coordination of disease control and surveillance (TADs)Rate the effectiveness in coordination of disease control and surveillance between you and: CVO GOOD Fair POOR 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 Tanzania Somalia Ethiopia So. Sudan Uganda Djibouti Kenya Probe (reasons): 101 3. Rate the effectiveness of coordination and control of livestock movement between you and: CVO GOOD Fair POOR 3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 Tanzania Somalia Ethiopia So. Sudan Uganda Djibouti Kenya Probe (reasons): Summary of Results Cross Border areas Sharing of information on diseases (TADs) Coordination of disease control and surveillance Coordination and control of Livestock movement Score 1 Score 2 average Score 1 Score 2 Average Score 1 Score 2 average K-T 2 0 1 1 -2 - 0.5 1 1 1 K-U 2 2 2 2 1 1.5 1 -1 0 K-E 2 0 0 T-U 2 1 1.5 0 -2 -1 -1 0 -0.5 E-D K-Kenya; T-Tanzania; U-Uganda; E-Ethiopia; D-Djibouti. Score range: 3 to -3 Score 1 and score 2 – scores by the two neighboring countries The above summary shows: Ø Sharing of information on diseases between Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda is improved but there is still room for improvement especially between Kenya and T 102 Ø Big gap on Coordination of disease control and surveillance, as well as coordination & control of livestock movement across the borders; need for more interventions to improve the situation.. Note: It was not successful to get results from Ethiopia and Djibouti. 103 7.7. Field survey/discussion guides A. KII SURVEY OF PUBLIC SECTOR STAKEHOLDERS: CVO, FPP FOR SMP, NATIONAL LABORATORY DIRECTOR, QUARANTINE DIRECTOR AND OTHER PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN SMP-AH PROJECT (Each Person Will Be Asked Generally About SMP-AH and then their Specialty) Name of person interviewed:_________________________, Title___________________________ Organization or company?______________________Country:_______________________________ Office ph. __________________ Cell phone:________________ Email:________________________ Ownership / participation 1. How do you find the reception of stakeholders to support the SMP-AH program? (Very good, good, fair, poor, very poor. 2. What has been the role of the private sector in the establishment of SMP-AH? 3. How are the private Veterinarians and para-veterinarian participating in the SMP-AH Project? Relevance 1. To what extent do you think the project is addressing the priority needs of private sector beneficiaries? Very good, good, fair, poor, very poor 2. Are the project activities aligned to your policies or strategic plans? Give any specific reference, such as policy document, strategic plan document, or any other such document. 3. What have been the main animal health demands (requirements) by the importing countries? To what extent has the project addressed the issue? Fully, partly, insignificant Effectiveness 1. What are the main strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing SMP-AH Project? • Strengths, • Weaknesses, • Opportunities, • Threats 2. Indicate any challenges and constraints faced in the implementation of the project? 104 3. Do you believe that there has been flexibility on the part of the program directors to adjust to changes in the animal health situation in the countries? (yes or no). Give an example to support your opinion. Efficiency 1. Are you satisfied with how funds have been allocated to countries and within a country? 2. How is the communication between AU-IBAR and Chief Veterinary Officers in as far as the project is concerned? (Very good, good, fair, poor, very poor). Give reason for your opinion and suggest how the communication can be improved? 3. Can you provide advice on how AU-IBAR could improve the administration of the project? 4. How is project monitoring working? Cost effective? Are results being acted upon? Ask AU-IBAR Representatives: 1. How do you rank the data collected in support of carrying out SMP-AH programs? Very good, good, far, poor 2. Does the information collected add value to how the system is functioning? 3. Are the project operational systems (financial, procurement, administrative, communication etc) allowing the project to achieve its objectives? Outcomes/impact 1. What are the main impacts of the project (both intended and unintended) so far in your country? (List in order of priority) a. What are the most important aspects that public sector stakeholders find beneficial? b. What are the most important aspects that private sector stakeholders find beneficial? Sustainability 1.What plans are there in your country to sustain the benefits from the project after the project comes to an end? (policy, financial, other?) 2.How can the benefits flow down to those in the districts and lower to ensure the efficacy of the program? (Efficacy = project will produce the desired results.) What will be the sustaining benefits at the end of the project? Lessons learned 1.Any missed opportunities that the project could have taken advantage of, and improve its performance in one way or another? 2.What lessons can be learned on getting greater participation of all countries to an equal level of buy-in and implementation? Way forward 1.Suggest ways of improving performance of the project in order to realize the intended benefits 105 B. KIIS OF REPRESENTATIVES OF REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS (GCC, IGAD, AU-IBAR, COMESA, EAC) Name of person interviewed:_________________________, Title: __________________ Organization or Company?______________________Country:________________ Office ph. __________ Cell phone:___________________ Email:____________________ 1. Relevance of project to the needs of beneficiaries Ø What is the linkage (if any) between your organization and the project? Is this linkage beneficial to your organization, and if so how? Are there specific interests of your organization that you would have liked the project to address? Ø Do you have any information or knowledge on?: o Who are the target beneficiaries of the project, and who among them participated in the identification and prioritization of the needs being addressed by the project? What was the level of participation of the private sector compared with public sector / government? o Target beneficiaries: What was their contribution in the design of the project, or how did they participate? o Are the project activities aligned to government policies, regional treaties and mandates and goals of the implementing partners? Ø How did the project fit within the overall structure of AU-IBAR – within existing structures or structures were changed to accommodate the project? Ø Selection of the implementing partners – any criteria used? 2. Effectiveness of the project Ø Has the project been able to meet its targets? (Achievements against planned targets) Ø What are the contributing factors (challenges, constraints, enabling factors?) Ø Has the project met, or is in the right course of meeting, the specific interest of your organization? Ø Are you satisfied with the project results? Yes, partly, no, (reason for your choice) Ø Do you think the Management and governance structure of the project is suited for effective performance? Any adjustments required? Ø Are you involved in monitoring of the project? Is the project management responsive to monitoring recommendations? Ø What is your overall rating (%) of the project performance? 3. Efficiency of the project Ø Do you know what this project is supposed to do? – Yes, partly, no. Ø Do you know of any inputs or support that the project was to deliver or provide? If so, were they delivered timely? Ø Do you consider that the target beneficiaries including your organization are getting value for money? Give reason for your consideration. 106 Ø What is your impression of the management in terms of its structure, visibility, timeliness in responding to inquiries and issues, - Very good, good, fair, poor, very poor? Give reasons for your choice? Ø Do allocated resources match the demands of the project activities? Ø If you are among the implementing partners: where is the coordination centre, and is the coordination mechanism working well? 4. Outcomes/impact Ø What benefits or outcomes has the project delivered so far to target or non-target beneficiaries? – focus on livestock trade and disease control / surveillance. Ø As of now, what can this project be remembered for in terms of deliverables, impacts or benefits? Ø Is there any benefit or impact related to the interest of your organization? Ø What do you consider to be the most outstanding outcome as a result of the project interventions? 5. Sustainability of the project Ø Project exit plans – is there any provision for measures that will ensure sustainability of the benefits after the project comes to an end? If not, why? Ø What measures do you think can be put place by various actors (donors, beneficiaries, government, and implementing partners) to ensure that the benefits from the project will be sustained beyond the life time of the project? 6. Lessons learned Ø As far as the performance of this project is concerned, what could have been done better? Any missed opportunities? Ø Were there any new innovations in this project? Ø What factor do you consider to have made an outstanding difference (positive or negative) in the performance of this project? Ø Given another similar project, what do you think should not be repeated from the current project? What do you think should be borrowed from the current project? 107 C. GUIDE FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (FGD) WITH PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVES (LIVESTOCK AND MEAT TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, FEEDLOT OPERATORS, ABATTOIR OWNERS, AND LIVESTOCK TRADERS/EXPORTERS) and Civil Society Organization (CSO) Name of person interviewed:_________________________, Title___________________________ Organization or company?______________________Country:_______________________________ Office ph. ___________________ Cell phone:________________ Email:______________________ 1. Relevance of project to the needs of beneficiaries Ø Do you know how the project was selected? Ø What are your priority needs (including constraints) regarding trade / marketing in livestock and livestock products? Ø Are your priority needs well captured or anchored in the objectives of this project (SMP￾AH)? – Yes, no, partly, not sure (ensure that interviewees understand the project objectives) Ø To what extent do livestock diseases such as ---- (TADs) contribute to hindrances / constraints in the trade or marketing of livestock and their products in your operational areas? – give specific cases or examples; rank (--- %) this particular constraint (TADs) compared with other constraints. Ø Are you confident that this project will address your priority needs reasonably well? – yes, no, not sure. Why? 2. Effectiveness of the project Ø What are your main expectations from this project? Ø What has the project done so far towards meeting your priority needs and expectations? Ø What is your overall rating of the project in relation to its performance towards meeting your needs or expectations? - Very good, good, fair, poor, very poor. Ø Do you know of any reason(s) hindering or facilitating the performance of the project? 3. Efficiency of the project Ø Do you know what this project is supposed to do? – yes, partly, no. Ø Do you know of any inputs or support that the project was to deliver or provide? If so, were they delivered timely? Ø Do you consider that the target beneficiaries are getting value for money? Give reason for your consideration. Ø Have you had contact with the project? (Yes, No). How is the project linking with you? – directly, indirectly, no link. Ø What is your impression of the management in terms of its structure, visibility, timeliness in responding to inquiries? - Very good, good, fair, poor, very poor. Give reasons for your choice? 108 4. Outcomes/impacts Ø What benefits or outcomes has the project delivered so far to target or non-target beneficiaries? – focus on livestock trade and disease control / surveillance. Ø As of now, what can this project be remembered for in terms of deliverables, impacts or benefits? Ø What do you consider to be the most outstanding outcome as a result of the project interventions? 5. Sustainability of the project Ø What will you do, or what are you doing, to ensure sustainability of the benefits from the project beyond its lifetime? Ø What else will be done, or is being done, and by who, to sustain the benefits from the project beyond its lifetime? 6. Lessons learned Ø As far as the performance of this project is concerned, what could have been done better? Any missed opportunities? Ø What factor do you consider to have made an outstanding difference (positive or negative) in the performance of this project? Ø Given another similar project, what do you think should not be repeated from the current project? What do you think should be borrowed from the current project? 109 D. EVALUATION QUESTIONS FOR DEAN, VETERINARY SCHOOL AND TRAINING INSTITUES FOR ANIMAL HEALTH PRACTICIONERS: Name of person interviewed:_________________________, Title_________________ Organization or company?______________________Country:___________________________ Office ph. ___________________ Cell phone:________________ Email:______________________ 1. Relevance of project to the needs of beneficiaries Ø How does the Veterinary school benefit from knowledge and experiences generated through Animal health related projects in the Country? Are there created avenues for tapping such knowledge and experiences for enhancing knowledge at the Vet School? Ø Do you think the development of standard methods and procedures for disease control and surveillance in the IGAD region will significantly contribute to improvement of trade in livestock and livestock products for the region? Is this in line with training doctrine at the Veterinary School? Ø How do believe the SMP-AH will affect the training of students in the future? Ø Are your priority needs well captured or anchored in the objectives of this project (SMP￾AH)? – Yes, no, partly, not sure (ensure that interviewees understand the project objectives) Ø Are you confident that this project will address your priority needs reasonably well? – yes, no, not sure. 2. Effectiveness of the project Ø How will SMP-AH affect your curriculum in preparing students for careers in the animal health service? Ø What has the project done so far towards meeting your priority needs and expectations? Ø What is your overall rating of the project in relation to its performance towards meeting your needs or expectations? - Very good, good, fair, poor, very poor. Ø Do you know of any reason(s) hindering or facilitating the performance of the project? Ø Are you a beneficiary of SMP-AH Project or are you in contact with the project? If yes, how? Have you been involved in any of its activities, and if so which ones? Are you confident that the project will perform to your expectation? – give the level of your confidence (0-100%) 3. Efficiency of the project Ø Do you know what this project is supposed to do? – yes, partly, no. Ø Do you know of any inputs or support that the project was to deliver or provide to training of veterinary service personnel? If so, were they delivered timely? Ø Do you consider that the target beneficiaries are getting value for money? Give reason for your consideration. Ø Have you had contact with the project? (Yes, No). How is the project linking with you? – directly, indirectly, no link. 110 Ø What is your impression of the management in terms of its structure, visibility, timeliness in responding to inquiries? - Very good, good, fair, poor, very poor. Give reasons for your choice? 4. Outcomes/impact Ø What benefits or outcomes has the project delivered so far to target or non-target beneficiaries? – focus on livestock trade and disease control / surveillance. Ø As of now, what can this project be remembered for in terms of deliverables, impacts or benefits? Ø What do you consider to be the most outstanding outcome as a result of the project interventions? Ø How does the project influence the trade in livestock and livestock products? 5. Sustainability of the project Ø What will you do, or what are you doing, to ensure sustainability of the benefits from the project beyond its lifetime as leader of the veterinary college? Ø What else will be done, or is being done, and by who, to sustain the benefits from the project beyond its lifetime? Ø Do you believe the project needs to work closely with the veterinary college? 6. Lessons learned Ø As far as the performance of this project is concerned, what could have been done better? Any missed opportunities? Ø What factor do you consider to have made an outstanding difference (positive or negative) in the performance of this project? Ø Given another similar project, what do you think should not be repeated from the current project? What do you think should be borrowed from the current project? 111 7.8. Activities, indicators, and targets specific to activity outputs and result outcomes of SMP-AH Project Result area Activity planned for the period Indicator Target set Status to date Comment Result 1: Framework for surveillance and control of trade￾related animal diseases established 1.1 Prioritize the trade related disease for the region Number of regional priority diseases identified using the criteria by the end of year 1. 9 9 The Target Met The 9 priority diseases were agreed upon by stakeholders during the inception meeting in Addis Ababa Ethiopia held in August 2012 1.2.1Take stock of disease surveillance and control status Availability of documented knowledge on status of disease surveillance (including laboratory procedures) and disease control in participating countries (7 participating countries and 2 vaccine production labs) 11 11 The Target Met Self-assessment of the status followed by verification of self-assessment results was undertaken. 1.2.2 Establish and operationalize one Technical Working Group (TWG) One TWG to analyze and develop Standard Methods and Procedures (SMPs) constituted and operational 1 1 The Target Met The TWG was constituted, held three meetings and online discussions to develop draft SMPs that were to be validated by stakeholders before adoption and implementation by participating countries. In total the TWG developed 9 SMPs for priority TADs plus one for Rinderpest 112 1.2.3 Validate the SMPs Number of SMPs validated 10 11 The Target was exceeded The stakeholders observed the need to develop an SMP for the post eradication era of Rinderpest to guide the containment of Rinderpest in case of an outbreak Number of stakeholders workshops held to validate disease surveillance and control findings during the time period 2 2 The Target Met Number and type of stakeholders represented as participants in the validation workshop 30 72 The Target exceeded Practical considerations on stakeholder composition informed the higher number of participants Under the USG area of ‘Resilience and Agricultural risk management policy’ – Approval (legislative or regulatory) 9 10 The Target exceeded The stakeholders observed the need to develop an SMP for the post eradication era of Rinderpest to guide the containment of Rinderpest in case of an outbreak Under the USG area of ‘Resilience and Agricultural risk management policy’- Full and effective implementation 10 11 The Target deficit The SMPs have been shared with countries and the roll out has been done. During the remaining period there will be efforts to focus their application in cross￾border areas. However, there would still be gaps that would need further investments to ensure full implementation and sustainability 113 Number of SMPs for Surveillance and control of regional priority diseases that are in line with OIE standards developed 9 10 The Target exceeded 10 SMPs for RVF, PPR, FMD, CCPP, CBPP, S&G Pox, CP and LSD ,Bm and Rinderpest (Rp) have been developed. 114 Result area Activity planned for the period Indicator Target set Status to date Comment Result 1: Framework for surveillance and control of trade￾related animal diseases established 1.2.4 Manuals, procedures and guidelines for disease surveillance and control developed Number of instruments developed and shared with the national veterinary services and IGAD 27* 28 The Target exceeded 16 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for laboratory testing and diagnosis were developed and validated by the veterinary services. 11 SMPs have been developed and 4 have been shared with countries 1 Manual on syndromic surveillance Note:Additional 23 draft SOPs for epidemiological investigations are now ready for validation by stakeholders. Number of veterinary services utilizing the instruments 9 (should be seven) 7 The Target Met There will be further focus on this activity (utilization) during the last phase of this project to ensure their integration in routine activities. Number of pastoralists reporting disease to the animal health service providers Target deficit Information on this target is being collected by the M&E field visits 115 Result area Indicator Target Status to date 1.2.6 Support pilot /coordination of disease surveillance and control activities Number and type of veterinary inputs provided to national veterinary services in support of application of SMPs bythe end of year 2 Assorted Inputs for Tanzania are being received. Purchase orders have been issued for Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan. Purchase Orders are now in process for Somaliland, Puntland and Central South Somalia. For Djibouti there was no responsive bid and we have re￾advertised. For Ethiopia we are to advertise as the PO issues to two companies were not honored. Target Deficit Number of cross-border coordination meetings supported by end of year 4 2 4 The Target exceeded 4 SMP-AH Cross-border meetings were held (i) for Ethiopia, South Sudan, Kenya and Uganda in Gulu, Uganda,(ii) Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia and Kenya at Dire Dawa(iii) Bilateral Cross-border Meeting for the Kenya-Ethiopia Border, Nanyuki, Kenya, (iv) A regional trilateral cross-border meeting for Uganda, Kenya and South Sudan was organized by IGAD, AU-IBAR and FAO at Moroto Number and type of common initiatives applied across-borders of 9 12 The Target Met 116 participating countries by the end of year 4. Three draft MOU’s for cross￾border collaboration; Sharing of information during four cross-border meetings; Three joint training for personnel working in three cross-border check points of Djibouti/Somalia, Uganda/Tanzania and Uganda/Kenya; Two vaccination campaigns incross-border areas along Tanzania/Kenya and Uganda/ Kenya. Note: The consolidation phase/last year phase of the project will enhance the joint cross-border activities. Number of workshops held nationally to create awareness of the project by the end of year 4. 21 34 The Target exceeded Number of countries implementing SMPs for disease control 7 7 Target Met All seven countries are integrating the SMPs in their routine disease control activities. To institutionalize the SMPs, a policy 117 communication to Minister responsible for livestock in all the 7 countries was done by the Director AU-IBAR; roll out workshops held in all the countries; countries developed implementation plans for the SMPs. The consolidation phase/last year phase of the project will focus on the implementation of the SMPs and SOPs. % increase in number of cases detected, reported and attended to 30% Information on the indicator and the target is being collected by the M&E field visits % reduction in deaths and sick animals belonging to pastoralists 5% Information on the indicator and the target is being collected by the M&E field visits Number and type of promotional materials developed and shared to raise awareness of the project by the end of year 4 Assorted Enhanced the SMP-AH portal in the AU-IBAR website, prepared and disseminated posters, brochures, information sheet, branded flush drives Target met 1.2.7 Identify and support an animal identification and traceability system One Research on animal identification and traceability system in participating countries undertaken 1 3 The Target exceeded Initially the plan was to undertake one study but a meeting of stakeholders recommended three sets of studies; a study to inform LITs utilization for intraregional trade, LITs to support livestock trade/conflict and LITS study to inform international 118 livestock trade. Availability of documentation on animal identification and traceability systems in participating countries 8 11 The Target Exceeded 1 report on the Ngorongoro livestock trade corridor 7 Situational reports on LITS in the participating countries 3 reports on the pilot studies are being finalized Number of workshops held to validate findings of LITs studies 1 2 The Target Exceeded A second workshop was held in Addis Ababa to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to design the risk assessment study along Nazareth￾Djibouti livestock trade corridor 119 Number and type of stakeholders participating in the validation workshops 30 68 The Target Exceeded A second workshop was held in Addis Ababa to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to design the risk assessment study along Nazareth￾Djibouti livestock trade corridor 1.3.1 Support networking/meeting for the Heads of Epidemiology units and regional networks One regional meeting for national heads of the Epidemiology Units held by the end of the project. 1 2 The Target exceeded To align the Pan-African, regional and national PPR control and eradication strategies to the global strategy, delegates from the Greater Horn of Africa were supported to participate in the International conference for PPR and the launch of Global PPR eradication strategy. To enhance preparedness for RVF control, Veterinary officers from the GHOAwere supported to participate in an inter-regional conference entitled: Rift valley Fever: New Options for Trade, Prevention and control, held in Djibouti, 21-23 April 2015. 120 Number of network members participating in the regional meetings by the end of the project. 18 18 The Target met 18 is the number of supported participants who participated in the two conferences in Abidjan and Djibouti Number and type of actions initiated attributable to recommendations made by the regional networks by the end of year 4 TBD 2 The alignment of the Pan African PPR strategy to the global strategy The development of the quarantine SOPs 1.3.2 Build capacity for National veterinary Staff and stakeholders to support the SMP￾AH activities Number of training manuals developed by end of year 2 4 31 The Target Exceeded 1 Syndromic Manual 8 manuals for surveillance and epidemiology 1 surveillance guideline 1 Bio-safety manual 7 training manual in management skills development 12 training manual on laboratory techniques 1training manual on quarantine procedures 121 2 Ibid Number and type of trainings conducted to support SMP￾AH activities by veterinary staff by the end of year 2 4 24 The Target Exceeded 6 regional trainings were carried out; Surveillance and epidemiology, Management Skills development, Quarantine practices, Risk assessment, ARIS and laboratory techniques 18 National trainings were carried out at the National levels Number and type of participants trained in each of the modules 2 to support SMP-AH activities by the end of year 2 140 129 Regionally and 489 Nationally making a total of 647 Males: 542 Females:105 The Target Exceeded Number and type of partnerships for facilitation of training to support SMP￾AH activities engaged by the end of year 2 3 3 Target met Partnership established with the University of Nairobi for the Surveillance training, Kenya School of Government for the Management Skills development and Djibouti quarantine for the training in quarantine practices 122 1.4.1 Train ARIS users and Administrators Number and type of trainings conducted on the use and application of ARIS by the end of year 2 8 10 The Target exceeded Number and type of personnel trained on the use and application of ARIS by the end of year 2 180 223 The Target exceeded Number of participating countries sharing timely and relevant information regionally and to other relevant organizations by the end of year 4 9 (this should be 7) 5 countries continued to share information with AU-IBAR Target deficit Ethiopia is using a country based reporting system while South Sudan was not reporting The information is not yet timely and the quality needs to be enhanced % increase of animal health decision, trade related decisions etc, made informed by information shared and communicated through ARIS nationally and regionally 40% Target deficit The information on this indicator is being collected through the field M&E missions. 123 1.4.2Provide equipment for data management and support services to ICPALD and participating countries Number and type of equipment and support provided to ICPALD by the end of year 2 5 Server and accessories and office equipment have been supplied Target met Number of technical backstopping missions by ICPALD to participating countries undertaken by the end of year 4 27 33 Target met Back to Office reports as means of verification Number of participating countries reporting usefulness of support provided by ICPALD in risk and data analysis and mapping by the end of year 4 7 No data available as of now Target deficit The information on this indicator is being collected through the field M&E missions. Number of participating countries supported with data management equipment by the end of year 2 7 Target deficit Number and type of data management equipment provided to participating countries by the end of year 2 7 Target deficit 1.4.3Undertake communication, Number of promotional materials produced and 2000 9500 Target met 124 promotional and visibility activities disseminated for increased visibility by the end of year 2 Brochures, Newsletter, Web portal, Communication strategy; A0 size posters; Roll-up banners and mini poster 1.4.4 Undertake ARIS technical backstopping Number of technical backstopping missions by ICPALD to participating countries undertaken 7 7 backstopping mission were carried out to support rolling out of SMPs( has an element of ARIS and disease reporting) in six countries Djibouti, Kenya, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Somalia. One backstopping mission was carried out to undertake training of ARIS Users and Administrators from the Region in Naivasha, Kenya Target met Number of participating countries reporting satisfaction with quality of technical backstopping support by the end of year 2 7 7 Target met Reports made during various regional meetings attest to this. Further data to support this assertion is being collected through the M&E field missions. 1.4.5 Publish Quarterly National epidemio￾surveillance bulletin Number of national epidemio-surveillance bulletins published and disseminated by the end of 6000 8000 Target met 125 each quarter. Number and type of stakeholders receiving timely epidemio-surveillance bulletins 4800 Status as of now unknown The information on this indicator is being collected through the field M&E missions 1.4.6 Publish regional animal health bulletin Number of regional animal health bulletins published and disseminated by the end of each year 9000 1600 Target Deficit The 1600 is production of the 1st and 2nd Editions. The third edition is in the pipeline. The activity continues into the last year of the project Number and type of stakeholders receiving animal health bulletins by the end of each year. 1200 1280 Target met 1.4.7 Publish the SMP document Number of participating countries that have received the project document by the end of year 1 9 (this should be 7) 7 Target met Number and type of key stakeholders that have received the project document TBD Data gathered through the AU￾IBAR website (http://www.au￾ibar.org/ ) indicate an appreciation of the new framework for surveillance and disease control by stakeholders in that the different SMPs have been downloaded by 9,299 readers; Two thousand hard copies(2000) have been shared with countries in the Target met 126 Result area Activity planned for the period Indicator Target set Status to date Comment Result 2: Laboratory testing procedures for priority diseases harmonized in IGAD region 2.1 Undertake a needs assessment to identify strengths and weaknesses of veterinary laboratories in the participating countries Number of countries that have documented information on their status by the end of year 2. 9 (this is 7) 7 Target Met Self-assessment of the status followed by verification of self￾assessment results was undertaken. 2.2.1 Enhance the diagnostic capacity of national and regional support laboratories Number of national laboratories staffed with skilled personnel and equipped appropriately to operate as per the agreed SMPs by the end of year 2 9 9 Target Met The training in laboratory techniques enrolled participants from each National Laboratory Number and type of equipment provided to national laboratories to TBD Inputs for Tanzania are being received. Target deficit Focused attention is being placed to GHOA 127 improve laboratory diagnosis by the end of year 4 Purchase orders have been issued for Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan. Purchase Orders are now in process for Somaliland, Puntland and Central South Somalia. For Djibouti there was no responsive bid and we have re-advertised. For Ethiopia we are to advertise as the PO issues to two companies were not honoured. ensure the target is met. Number and type of stakeholders reporting improved diagnostic services by the end of year 4 TBD Status as of now unknown The information on this indicator is being collected through the field M&E missions 2.2.2 Upgrade the biosecurity of regional support laboratories based on the needs and gaps assessment Number of regional support laboratories with enhanced biosecurity by the end of year 2 2 Target Deficit This will be addressed in the final year Number of laboratories with the capacity to undertake confirmatory diagnosis by the end of year 2 7 7 Target met The training in laboratory techniques enrolled participants from each National Laboratory 128 2.2.3 Provide training in laboratory diagnosis for the priority diseases Number and type of trainings 3 conducted on diagnosis of priority diseases by the end of year 2 1 1 The Target Met Number and type of laboratory staff trained on diagnosis of the priority diseases by the end of year 2 20 24 The Target exceeded 2.3.1 Provide laboratory equipment for 2 vaccine production laboratories Number of vaccine production laboratories equipped to enhance their capacity in vaccine production by the end of year 2 2 2 The Target Met Two vaccine production laboratories, NVI in Ethiopia and KEVEVAPI in Kenya were supplied with equipment for quantity and quality vaccine production Number and type of support provided for vaccine production by the end of year 2 Assorted Assorted The Target Met Rate of quality and quantity improvement in the production of vaccines by the end of year 3 100 Production enhanced The Target Met 2.3.2 Provide the 2 laboratories with Number of laboratories equipped with reagents to 2 2 The Target Met 3 Quality control; HACCAP; quality management principles; use of lab equipment, lab testing and diagnosis 129 reagents for vaccine quality control improve vaccine quality control by end of year 2 Two vaccine production laboratories, NVI in Ethiopia and KEVEVAPI in Kenya were supplied with reagents for vaccine quality control. 2.4 Support the laboratory network One regional network supported by the end of year 2. 1 1 The Target Met Number and type of support to enhance the activities of the laboratory network provided by the end of each year. TBD Support provided to cover participation in the laboratory Epidemiology workshop held in Kampala, Uganda on 22- 25th October 2012 The Target Met Number of participating countries represented in the regional laboratory networks. 9 9 The Target Met NOTE:Sudan and Eritrea were supported by AU-IBAR to participate Number of regional meetings for laboratory networks facilitated by the end of year 2. 1 1 The Target Met Type of support provided to enhance the activities of the laboratory networks by the end of each year TBD Support to the regional Epidemiology laboratory joint workshop The Target Met Number of network 18 37 The Target exceeded 130 members participating in the network meeting Number and type of actions initiated in participating countries attributable to the regional network by the end of year 4. TBD Self-assessment of disease surveillance, control and laboratory function Development of SMPs The Target Met Result area Activity planned for the period Indicator Target set Status to date Comment Result 3: Regional quarantine Station Standards established 3.1 Build capacity for quarantine stakeholders for animal inspection, certification and welfare as per the OIE code Number and type of trainings conducted for quarantine stakeholders by the end of year 2 1 1 Target met Number and type of quarantine stakeholders trained on animal inspection, certification and welfare as per the OIE code by the end of year 2 21 26 Target Exceeded The number trained was higher than the target due to the need for training more as expressed by stakeholders Number of quarantine stations applying the SOPs for animal inspection, certification and welfare as per the 4 Target Deficit The target will be met during the last year of the project once the 131 OIE code by the end of year 3 Quarantine SOPs are finalized 3.2.1 Take stock of the quarantine practice Number of quarantine practices documented by the end of year 2 4 4 The Target Met 3.2.2 Establish and Operationalise one expert working group One expert working group constituted and facilitated to analyze and develop quarantine SMPs by the end of year 1 1 1 Technical Working Group to analyze and develop the quarantine SMP was constituted and has developed a draft quarantine SMP Target met 3.2.3 Validate the quarantine findings * Number of policies / regulations / administrative procedures with the assistance of USG analyzed by the end of year 1 1 1 Target met One quarantine SMP Number of workshops to validate quarantine findings held by the end of yr2 1 1 Target met One stakeholders meeting to validate the quarantine SMP held 132 3.2.4 Develop Manuals, procedures and guidelines for quarantines Number of instruments for quarantine SMP￾AHs developed and disseminated to national policy makers by the end of year 3 1 Target Deficit This activity is in the pipeline *Number of policies / regulations / administrative procedures with the assistance of USG presented for legislation/decree by the end of year 3. 1 1 Target Met The Quarantine SMP was finalized *Number of policies / regulations / administrative procedures with the assistance of USG passed / approved by the end of year 4. 1 1 Target met The Quarantine SMP was finalized and was validated by stakeholders 3..3 Audit missions to countries to follow up on the implementation of the SMPs Number of quarantine stations complying with SMPs by the end of year 4. 4 Status unknown The information on this indicator is being collected through the field M&E missions. 133 Result area Activity planned for the period Indicator Target set Status to date Comment Result 4: Technical and Coordination capacity of Ministries of agriculture and Livestock and ICPALD enhanced 4.1.1 Provide assorted furniture and equipment to ICPALD Level of stakeholder satisfaction with quality (efficiency and effectiveness) of backstopping provided by ICPALD by the end of each year TBD Assorted furniture and equipment supplied to ICPALD Status unknown The information on this indicator is being collected through the field M&E missions 4.1.2 Supervision mission Number of backstopping missions to participating countries undertaken by ICPALD by the end of each year 9 33 Target Exceeded Back to Office reports as means of verification 4.1.3 Provide technical experts for ICPALD (Epidemiologist) and a Socio-economist Availability of two expert staff at ICPALD by the end of year 2 2 2 The Target Met ICPALD was supported through two positions, an epidemiologist and a socio-economist 4.2.1 Establish and Organize a regional meeting for national trade associations including other stakeholders (Trade One functional regional trade coordination body established by end of year 2 1 1 The Target Met A regional livestock association, NEALCO, that was established by national livestock traders association from 13 countries: 134 Associations, Livestock Producer Associations, Ministries of Livestock and Trade, development agencies working with livestock, other relevant institutions) Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Egypt, Kenya, Sudan, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, D.R. Congo, Rwanda, Burundi and Somalia has been strengthened. 4.2.2 Develop a strategic document and action plan for the Coordination body Number of instruments prepared and adopted to guide coordination and activities of the confederation by the end of year 2 2 2 The Target Met Strategic plan The NEALCO Strategic plan and action plan were finalised and validated.NEALCO wasregistered in Kenya as a regional organization. Result area Activity planned for the period Indicator Target set Status to date Comment Result 4: Technical and Coordination capacity of Ministries of agriculture and Livestock and ICPALD enhanced 4.2.3 Support periodic meetings of the coordination body Number of coordination meetings organized by the confederation to promote regional and international livestock trade by the end of year 3 2 4 Target Exceeded Four (4) meetings of NEALCO were held Number and type of stakeholders participating in relevant technical meetings by the end 30 114 Target Exceeded 135 of year 3 4.2.4 Organize a workshop for trading partners from the GHOA and Middle East Number of workshops for trading partners from GHOA and Middle East organized 1 1 Target Met Inter-regional conference to promote safe and stable livestock trade between the Horn of Africa and the Middle East Was held in Dubai UAE in November 22-24, 2015 The IGAD team undertook a mission to GCC secretariat in Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from April 28-May 03, 2013 and also visited livestock and meat markets in Jeddah. % increase in export pathways established and maintained by the GHOA countries 30% Status unknown The information on this indicator is being collected through the field M&E missions % increase in volume of livestock and livestock products exported from GHOA 5% Status unknown The information on this indicator is being collected through the field M&E missions 136 7.9. Sanitary requirements of importing countries for live animals from GHOA Country RVF FMD CBBP Brucellosis Pox Quarantine period (day) Egypt Vaccination Test Test 30 Emirates Vaccination Test Test (10%) 21 Kuwait Vaccination vaccinate 10 Oman Test (5%) Test (50%) 21 Saudi Arabia Vaccination Test (100%) Vaccinate 30 Yemen Vaccination 10 Qatar Vaccination vaccinate Vaccinate 10 Jordan Test (10%) Test (10%) Test 10% Test (100%) Vaccinate 30 Lebanon Test (100%) Test (5%+vaccinate Test Test RP-test 3% 30 Bahrain Vaccination Vaccinate TB test TB test Vaccinate (+LSD) 7-21 137 7.10. East Africa Community Treaty Chapter 18: Agriculture and Food Safety EAC treaty chapter 18, ARTICLE 108 : Plant and Animal Diseases Control The Partner States shall: (a) harmonize policies, legislation and regulations for enforcement of pests and disease control; (b) harmonize and strengthen regulatory institutions; (c) harmonize and strengthen zoo–sanitary and phyto-sanitary services inspection and certification; (d) establish regional zoo–sanitary and phyto-sanitary laboratories to deal with diagnosis and identification of pests and diseases; (e) adopt common mechanism to ensure safety, efficacy and potency of agricultural inputs including chemicals, drugs and vaccines; and (f) co-operate in surveillance, diagnosis and control strategies of transboundary pests and animal diseases 138 7.11.SMP-AH supported trainings at regional and national levels Location: Regional or National Training contents NUMBER TRAINED IN EACH COUNTRY Refer to Training Areas of Focus Below Tanzania Djibouti Kenya Ethiopia Uganda S.Sudan Somalia Sudan Eritrea TOTAL M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F Regional 16 3 20 2 17 8 26 1 22 4 14 7 19 1 0 1 1 0 162 Total (M+F) REGIONAL 19 22 25 27 26 21 20 1 1 162 National 45 17 42 7 46 20 156 23 81 10 0 0 39 3 0 0 0 0 489 Total (M+F) NATIONAL 62 49 66 179 91 0 42 0 0 489 TOTAL (N+R) 61 20 62 9 63 28 182 24 103 14 14 7 58 4 0 1 1 0 651 TOTAL trained in each country (M+F) 81 71 91 206 117 21 62 1 1 651 Details: LIST OF REGIONAL TRAINING PROGRAMMES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SMP-AH PROJECT Training programmes Target Group Number and Status Duration Status 1 Training and mentoring of ARIS users in the rollout activities of ARIS 2. ARIS 2 Administrators at the AU Member State and REC levels(Trainer of trainers (ToT)) Males: 10 Female: 3 Total: 13 5 day training for ARIS ToT from Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Uganda and IGAD at Djibouti from 3 to 7 September 2012 Completed 2 To promote the use of regional risk assessment for trade related transboundary animal diseases as a tool for regional harmonization and coordination of disease surveillance and control Veterinary Officers Male: 14 Female: 1 Total 15 5 day training for Veterinary Officers from Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda at Kampala from 5 to 9 August 2013 Completed 3 The Management Skills Development Programme Senior veterinary officers responsible for making policy related decisions Male: 19 Female: 2 Total 21 17 weeks (13th January to 8th May 2014) Note: 4 weeks are Completed 139 and managing resources spent on workplace placement to undertake a personal action plan Male: 16 Female: 5 Total: 21 17 weeks (22nd September 2015 to 19th February 2016 Ongoing 4 Training in Surveillance and Epidemiology of Trade-Related Transboundary Animal Diseases for Veterinary staff from the Greater Horn of Africa Technical staff within national Departments of Veterinary Services comprising epidemiologists and disease control personnel. Male: 21 Female: 7 Total 28 13weeks (24th February to 22nd May 2014) Note: 4 weeks are spent on workplace placement to undertake a personal action plan Completed Male: 14 Female: 4 Total: 18 13weeks (16th of November to 26th February 2016 Ongoing 5 Laboratory Training Programme on Trade Related Transboundary Animal Diseases for Veterinary staff from the Greater Horn of Africa Technical staff comprising of technicians and veterinarians working in national and regional Laboratories Male: 21 Female: 3 Total: 24 20 weeks (4th August to 19th December 2014) Note: 4 weeks are spent on workplace placement to undertake a personal action plan Completed 6 Training in animal inspection, certification and welfare Quarantine station staff comprised of quarantine managers, quarantine station assistants and quarantine technical staff Male: 21 Female: 1 Total 22 5 days (4th -8th May 2014) Completed Notes: 1. The epidemiology and surveillance course take place at the University of Nairobi 2. The management skills development course take place at the Kenya School of Government 3. The Laboratory training took place at the National Animal Health Diagnostic and Investigation Centre (NAHDIC), Ethiopia 140 LIST OF COUNTRY TRAINING PROGRAMMES UNDERTAKEN BY THE SMP-AH Country Training programmes Target Group Number and Status Duration Status 1 Uganda Training on ARIS 2 Uganda ARIS 2 Users Female: 5 Male: 20 Total: 25 5 day training in Kampala from 11-15 March 2013 2 Uganda Training on Animal Resources Information System (ARIS) to help strengthen surveillance and disease reporting at district level District Veterinary Officers Female: 0 Male: 25 Total 25 5 day training in Kampala from 21-24 October 2014 3 Uganda Training on inspection, regulations and risk analysis regarding control of transboundary animal diseases at Entry Points and Border Posts and Border districts Veterinary Inspectors and Veterinary Officers from Border districts Female: 5 Male: 36 Total 41 4 days training at Kampala from 26-29 October 2015 4 Tanzania Refresher training on disease control planning and management for cross-border districts and corresponding zonal surveillance units District Veterinary Officer and Zonal Veterinary Epidemiologists Female: 5 Male: 25 Total 30 3 days training at Morogoro from 9-11 June 2015 141 5 Tanzania Training on animal health inspection, certification, movement control and disease reporting Field Animal Health Workers from Border zones and districts Female: 12 Male: 20 Total: 32 5 day training at Moshi, Kilimanjaro from 19 to 23 October 2015 6 Somaliland Refresher Training on Participatory Disease Search and participatory Epidemiology Veterinary Teams and Veterinary Coordinators Female: 0 Male: 18 Total: 18 2 day training at Hargeisa from 6 to 7 August 2105 7 Joint for Djibouti, Somaliland and Puntland Training on disease surveillance, control and reporting in cross-border areas Frontline Animal Health Officers manning Border points Djibouti Female: 2 Male: 13 Total 15 Puntland Female: 2 Male: 13 Total: 15 Somaliland Female: 1 Male: 8 Total: 9 3 days training at Djibouti City from 18 to 20 August 2015 8 Djibouti Training on use of ARIS in disease surveillance and reporting for Djibouti ARIS Administrators Female:3 Male: 13 Total: 16 3 day training at Djibouti City from 30 Sept to 2 October 2014 9 Djibouti Training on ARIS2 for Djibouti ARIS 2 Users Female: 2 Male: 16 Total: 18 3 day training in Djibouti City from 11 to 13 March 2013 142 10 Kenya Training on ARIS 2 for Kenya ARIS 2 Users Female: 3 Male: 13 Total: 16 2 day training at Nairobi from 20-21 November 2012 11 Kenya Training on the use of ARIS County Personnel Female: 0 Male: 13 Total 13 3 day training at Kakamega from 26 to 28 February 2013 12 Kenya Training on the use of ARIS County Personnel Female: 5 Male: 7 Total 12 2 day training at Thika 19 to 20 March 2013 13 Kenya Training on quality assurance of brucellosis testing Laboratory Personnel Female: 12 Male: 13 Total 25 3 days training at Nakuru from 7 to 9 July 2015 14 Ethiopia Training on passive surveillance data capture and reporting Public veterinarians Female: 6 Male: 24 Total: 30 3 day training at Debre Zeit from 22 to 24 July 2014 15 Ethiopia Training on laboratory diagnosis on TADs Personnel of Regional State Laboratories Female: 2 Male: 12 Total 14 5 day training at Sebeta from 21 to 25 July 2014 16 Ethiopia Training on animal disease notification and investigation system (ADNIS) and epidemiological data collection using mobile phone applications Field Veterinary Staff Female: 3 Male: 34 Total: 37 3 day training at Debre Zeit from 30 October to 2 November 2014 17 Ethiopia Training on syndromic surveillance approaches and sanitary standards Inspectors, quarantine Officers, Operators of Export Abattoirs and Operators of commercial feedlots Female: 6 Male: 44 Total: 50 4 day training at Adama from 25 to 28 June 2014 143 18 Ethiopia Training on new web￾based surveillance and laboratory Database management. Animal health personnel from Regions Female; 6 Male: 42 Total: 48 4 day training at Debre Zeit from 27 to 30 April 2015 Note: The participants for regional training were fairly distributed among member states. The case of Sudan and Eritrea was unique in that they were excluded from or did not qualify for Funding Agency’s support. South Sudan did not carry out national training. Information from CVOs indicates that there was no involvement of private sector (e.g. private vets and paraprofessionals) in the regional trainings. National trainings may have involved private sector but only to a small extent and no data to corroborate. 144 7.12.Training materials produced by SMP-AH Project Surveillance and epidemiology course Module 1; Review of the Transboundary Animal Diseases Module 2: Epidemiological approaches Module 3: Disease surveillance Module 4: Risk analysis and risk based surveillance Module 5: Diagnosis of Transboundary Animal Diseases Module 6: Livestock and Livestock products trade Module 7: Animal Health Information Systems Module 8: Epidemiologist as managers Module 9: Delivery of Animal Health Services Module10: Field training and Project Management skill and development program: Module 1; Negotiations, Influencing and Persuation Skills; Module 2: Performance Management Systems; Module 3: Finalization and Standardization of PAP and Individual Work plans; Module 4: Financial Management for Non-Finance Managers Module 5: Project Development and Management Module 6: Monitoring and Evaluation; Module 7: Training of Trainers (TOT) 145 7.13. National training programs conducted in Member States Country Type of trainings carried out UGANDA Ø ARIS, Ø inspection regulations and risk analysis ; TANZANIA Ø disease control planning and management, Ø Animal Health Inspection, certification, movement control and disease reporting ; SOMALIA Ø participatory disease search and participatory epidemiology, Ø disease surveillance, control and reporting in cross-border areas DJIBOUTI Ø TADs surveillance, control and reporting, Ø use of ARIS in disease surveillance and reporting, Ø training on ARIS2; KENYA Ø quality assurance of Brucellosis testing, Ø Use of ARIS, Ø training on ARIS2; ETHIOPIA Ø passive surveillance, data capture and reporting; Ø laboratory diagnosis focusing on TADs; Ø animal disease notification and investigation system (ADNIS) and epidemiological data collection using mobile phone applications; Ø training on syndromic surveillance approaches and sanitary standards; Ø training on new web-based surveillance andlaboratory data management 146 7.14. Survey results on effectiveness of training programs Training components Rating by participants – 22 participants Excellent Very good Good Achievement of objectives 17 (77.3%) 5 (22.7%) Achievement of personal satisfaction 16 (72.7%) 5 (22.7% 1 (4.5%) Course organization and coordination 16 (72.7%) 6 (27.3) Content of training programme 14 (63.6%) 8 (36.4%) Relevance of the training 13 (59.1%) 8 (36.4%) Quality of training and training materials 9 (40.9%) 11 (50%) 1 (4.5%) 147 7.15. Activities, targets and achievements for regional quarantine standards Activity Target Achieved Training on animal inspection, certification and welfare 1 regional training 21 participants 1 regional training conducted; 26 participants trained Development and validation of SMP on export quarantine 1 validated SMP on export quarantine SMP on export quarantine developed and validated Application of SMP by quarantine stations 4 quarantine stations applying SMP SMP found useful in at least 4 quarantine stations: • Djibouti Regional Livestock quarantine, • Adama and Mille quarantine stations in Ethiopia • Bachuma Livestock Export Zone in Kenya Development of Quarantine SOPs SOPs developed and applied by 4 quarantine stations SOPs not yet developed Establishment of quarantine network Network of export quarantines established in October 2015 148 7.16. Organogram of AU-IBAR management structure 149 7.17.CVOs' perspective on impact of SMP-AH Project on livestock trade CVO SMP-AH Impact on Trade YES OR NO? COMMENTS SUPPORTING YES OR NO RESPONSE Djibouti Yes (expectation) The project’s purpose is to support development and implementation of harmonized animal health approaches for prevention and control of TADs in the region. This will lead to improvement in the ability of live animals and animal products to move within the region and internationally Ethiopia Yes (expectation) The systems put in place will help to satisfy the requirements of the importing countries; but the real impact will be seen in future when the Mille quarantine starts its operations; • SMPs developed for the diseases take off and disease occurrences are reduced and confidence of the buyers in end-markets improve overtime. Kenya Not sure It is too early to tell since the SMPs were only rolled out in late 2015 South Sudan No Trading in our internal market does not require testing Tanzania ? Figures given on livestock and meat trade suggest that overall trade in livestock has increased but this cannot be attributed to the SMP-AH Project alone Uganda Yes (Expectation) FMD outbreak that ravaged livestock herds in the south, south western and central districts have reduced due to project's direct support to vaccination campaign; the quarantine is due to be lifted in late January and early February 2016 and this will enable internal trade and exports principally to South Sudan. 150 7.18. Data on livestock and meat trade from GHOA countries¸2012 - 2015 Country Species 2012 2013 2014 2015 Djibouti Bovine 48439 45830 54777 55470 Small ruminants 449009 461464 509505 350147 Cameline 38053 10878 3791 37444 Djibouti Meat (mt) Ethiopia Bovine 636822 785078 671157 Not yet Small compiled ruminants Cameline Ethiopia Meat (mt) 17,780 15,520 15,700 19,050 Kenya Bovine Small 336 3369 7944 3000 ruminants Cameline Kenya Meat 6,168 7,221 310 661 South Sudan Bovine Small 0 0 0 0 ruminants Cameline South Sudan Meat Tanzania Bovine 7422 (yr 12/13) 1,123 (yr 13/14) 2,139 (yr 14/15) Small ruminants Cameline Tanzania Meat Uganda Bovine No information No information No information No Small information ruminants Cameline Uganda Meat 151 7.19. Map of the countries participating in SMP-AH Project SUDAN KENYA SOUTH SUDAN ETHIOPIA TANZANIA SOMALIA ERITREA DJIBOUTI UGANDA Mogadishu Nairobi Addis Ababa Juba Asmara Khartoum Kampala Dar es Salaam Djibouti