1
Stuart Coupe & Roger Lewins
January 2014
Sustaining Livelihoods for Vulnerable Older People
through Enhanced Resilience to Shocks
Final Evaluation
2
Contents 
 
1. Introduction 
1.1 Context, aims and objectives of the evaluation 
1.2 Background 
1.3 Methodology 
2. Implementation and delivery of activities 
3. Programme impacts 
3.1 Qualitative overview of impacts 
3.1.1 Local project structures 
3.1.2 Agriculture and Food Security 
3.1.3 Economic Recovery and Market Systems Activities 
3.2 Quantitative Survey Results - Household impacts 
3.3 Individual Case Studies 
4. Programme performance overview 
5. Management issues 
 
6. Lessons learnt 
6.1 Relevance to beneficiaries 
6.2 Appropriateness to context 
6.3 Ability to deliver 
7. Discussion 
8. Recommendations 
Annexes 
Annex 1 – Evaluation ToR 
Annex 2 - Semi-Structured Interview Formats 
Annex 3 – Household questionnaire 
Annex 4 - Semi-Structured Interview Responses 
Annex 5 - FGD Feedback 
Annex 6 - Case study of poultry procurement - the constraints to efficient delivery 
Annex 7 – HelpAge Management response letter to evaluation reccommendations 
3
Executive Summary 
Despite considerable delays to the implementation of the “Sustaining Livelihoods for Vulnerable 
Older People through Enhanced Resilience to Shocks Programme” HelpAge International and their 
partners have managed to deliver all project outputs and activities in line with a revised narrative 
proposal. The revised programme emphasised an integrated approach to livelihoods development in 
the complex and unstable early recovery context of West Darfur. The programme was designed in 
line with the organisation’s livelihoods strategy for Darfur - Programme for Integrated Livelihoods 
and Recovery (PILAR) – linking productive activities, natural resources and assets, institutions and 
markets. 
At local level, the evaluation revealed real but quite variable impacts for targeted households. 
Activities under the Agriculture and Food Security sector resulted in tangible benefits to participating 
households. However, approximately 20% of households no longer retain or practice project-related 
inputs and activities. The key constraints appear to be: 1) the degree to which these vulnerable 
households can secure these assets or transfer them, so spreading risk, and; 2) unfavourable weather 
and other external factors which reduced the viability of some groundnut and poultry activities. 
Some households have increased their asset base but the risk of losses is a continuous one. 
The project has not been able to increase the months of food self-sufficiency since 2012 but this 
short-fall is attributable to a poor growing season in 2013. In this regard, the project has almost 
definitely helped improve food security from otherwise extremely low levels for the targeted 
households. 
Activities delivered under the Economic Recovery & Market Systems sector have resulted in some 
significant personal gains and the highest potential enterprises appear to be those available to 
groups or those based on the one-off provision of commodities for trade or equipment for transport 
and processing. Approximately 90% of these small and medium enterprises are still functioning. Case 
study and focus group feedback suggest that not all these opportunities may be so readily accessible 
or useful to the most vulnerable, however. 
The Older People Association and Older People Committees represented a focal point for the project 
– targeting the most vulnerable households and delivering many activities and services on behalf of 
HelpAge. These structures are diverse in their membership and are well-regarded but they are solely 
reliant on HelpAge support. Crop Protection Committees performed an important conflict avoidance 
role and ably represented all host community, IDP and pastoralist groups. 
HelpAge have navigated the bureaucratic constraints to work and travel in the region as well as they 
possibly could and they have been fully accountable to both communities and government agencies. 
Insecurity and the complex political and social context means that agencies are struggling to define 
how to operate with respect to relief, rehabilitation and development. The OFDA project sits well 
with the current movement towards livelihoods development and early recovery efforts. HelpAge
had to operate in a fragile security environment and, to some extent, straddles both humanitarian 
and development spheres – attempting to deliver livelihoods work in the context of a short 
humanitarian project cycle. This work is broadly coherent with the political and development agenda 
for the region. 
4
Recommendations summarised: 
Continuing the livelihoods approach - the Programme of Integrated Livelihoods and Recovery 
(PILAR) was developed to provide a framework to link support to human capital, markets and 
productive natural resources as the project was modified to an integrated livelihoods approach. 
PILAR should allow a more holistic approach to reducing vulnerability in future programming. 
However, it is likely that widening the range of activities makes funding and management more 
complex with a greater number of potential partners and there are indications that the various 
components of projects may require support from a set of donors rather than a single source. 
Log-frame design and monitoring - programme design and presentation via a single master log￾frame will improve the strategic focus and understanding of the programme objectives across the 
organisation. The indicators must not be a combination of USAID (generic) and HelpAge targets but 
should be consolidated in some way and made SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and 
time-bound). Generic indictors should be “unpacked” and made locally relevant during baseline or 
inception activities. Monthly and quarterly reporting could include a forward-looking section to 
encourage reflection of the constraints to uptake and performance rather than a focus on the 
delivery of inputs. 
A potential advocacy component – it should be possible to develop a strong evidence-based case on 
the vulnerability of older people in the Habila area. This evaluation revealed the important inter￾generational benefits associated with support to the older household members, including their 
support to vulnerable children and grandchildren. This type of evidence could be utilised to develop 
policy advocacy documents, promoting additional support from government agencies and donors. 
The HelpAge model for livelihoods development with older people is novel and could be widely 
disseminated within Sudan 
Risk reduction - HelpAge should work to explore minimising risks associated with agricultural 
interventions such as early vaccination, provision of better quality stock or, potentially, activities to 
ameliorate the impact of poor rains. 
Building resilience in project structures - HelpAge must be realistic with respect to the future 
potential of the OPA and OPCs outside the project context. Capacity building of project committees 
will be problematic under short livelihoods development initiatives. The OPA and OPCs could be 
strengthened with long-term support and funding, ideally within a longer-term programme of 
development, rather than a series of short projects. Additional attention should also be given to the 
Older People Social Centres in future because they perform an important psycho-social well-being 
role but are not currently dispersed throughout the project area. 
Maximising impact via SMEs – in future work, support to livestock and agricultural interventions 
should continue with a focus on building household assets for basic food and income security. 
However, the largest gains may be from small and medium enterprises building on the previous 
success supporting individuals and groups with assets, capital and business planning for market 
trading, wheelbarrows, donkeys and carts and the agro-processing machinery. 
Prioritising activities with respect to performance and cost - when performance is viewed in relation 
to cost it appears that the agricultural activities need refining in future projects. The external risks 
associated with groundnut cultivation may not merit such a focus of project time and resources and 
HelpAge should explore the performance of this component with the Ministry of Agriculture and 
other local partners before committing equivalent resources in future. 
 
5
1. Introduction 
1.1 Context, aims and objectives of the evaluation 
This evaluation attempts to assess the impact of the Sustaining Livelihoods for Vulnerable Older 
People through Enhanced Resilience to Shocks Programme and its level of achievement with respect 
to objectives and results. The emphasis is on learning and capturing lessons for ongoing 
programming (see the Terms of Reference – Annex 1). 
1.2 Background 
The Darfur conflict has directly and indirectly contributed to food insecurity. Approximately 3 million 
people in Darfur will remain moderately and highly food insecure and require external assistance to 
meet their minimum consumption requirements. Food security assistance is ongoing but early 
recovery interventions for vulnerable older people IDPs and poor households population are crucial 
to address food insecurity sustainably. The USAID-funded “Sustaining Livelihoods for Vulnerable 
Older People through Enhanced Resilience to Shocks Programme” in West Darfur operated in Habilla 
town and surrounding villages of Gobi and Tawang from September 26th 2011 to October 31st 2013. 
The target beneficiaries were vulnerable older agro-pastoralists including IDPs and returnees. 
The project was modified in July 2012 following the outcome of a baseline survey and in consultation 
with the USAID/OFDA Program Officers for Darfur. The depth of the programme was increased to 
include market development and infrastructure rehabilitation and an original plan to support a 
central poultry enterprise was abandoned in favour of a greater range of local productive options. 
The Project Goal was the “enhanced income security and sustainable livelihoods for 13,044 conflict 
affected vulnerable older people population” via a combination of activities under the “Agriculture 
and Food Security” and “Economic Recovery and Market Systems” sectors. The activities are 
summarised in the table below. 
Objective Sub-sector Activities
Increasing livestock 
productivity to protect 
and diversify older 
people’s asset bases
Livestock - The project will focus on supporting older people 
with poultry farming through building their skills on poultry 
production and management.
Poultry provision for 600 
older people.
Seed Systems and Agricultural Inputs - With access to 
proper seeds and agricultural extension services, groundnut 
yields can increase to at least 550kgs per acre. The project 
will support 600 older people HHs to increase groundnut 
production.
Provision of cash grants to 
600 older people HHs; 
support existing but inactive 
Crop Protection Committee.
Strengthening 
livelihoods options to 
increase older people’s 
purchasing power
Economic Asset Development - The project will strengthen 
community structures i.e. the Older People Association 
(OPA) to undertake enterprises that will benefit the older 
people socially and economically. Older people will be 
empowered to decide on the income generating activities 
(IGAs) to undertake and whether to work individually or in a 
group. 
Establishment of an older 
people association and 
provision of training.
Market Infrastructure Rehabilitation - Trade is between 
Gobe and Habila village is affected by the poor state of the 
‘Wadi’ crossings along the road. There is need to protect 
livelihoods through rehabilitating these crossings to ensure 
trade continues unabated.
Wadi Crossing Rehabilitation; 
provision of cash grants to 
400 older people for SMEs. 
6
1.3 Methodology 
This evaluation triangulates the outputs of a desk review and in-country feedback via semi-structured 
interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs) and a household survey. 
The desk review helped inform the in-country strategy. Semi-structured interview formats for staff 
and external stakeholders were developed in advance and focussed on the perceived relevance and 
performance of the programme (Annex 2). FGDs with 10-20 participants were held to discuss and 
explore the impact of each project activity, in turn, and were structured in relation to a simple 
livelihoods checklist. Finally, a household survey questionnaire was developed to quantify and 
disaggregate the impact of project activities on vulnerable older people and their family members in 
a representative sub-sample of participating households (Annex 3).
A team of four local enumerators was employed for one week to support the evaluation. The team 
were selected for their previous experience in survey work and bilingual English/Arabic capacity. 
After field testing and finalising the questionnaire, the enumerators were directed to interview 
exclusively men and women over the age of 50. A small sample of 10% non-beneficiaries aged 50+ 
was included for the purposes of comparison with direct beneficiaries. The survey covered a 
statistically representative sample of approximately 10% of the beneficiary population. 
It was possible to conduct 146 household interviews in the time available and this was broken down 
in relation to the scale of activities: Habila with 600 poultry beneficiaries and Gobe with 600 
groundnut beneficiaries1
. 
The HH survey was limited in its inability to identify small income gains with great precision2
. 
 
1
In the final sample, 71 questionnaires were completed in Habila (39 poultry beneficiaries), 53 in Gobe (30 
groundnut beneficiaries) and 22 in Tawanj, covering the smaller programme of SME activities. 
2
The questionnaire was not designed as a HH income and expenditure monitoring tool. In addition, because 
goats were categorised as an SME intervention the questionnaire lacked a question on the food security 
dimension for goat beneficiaries, making it more difficult to compare outcomes with poultry keepers.
7
2. Implementation and delivery of activities 
The table below is a full record of all the completed project activities prepared by HelpAge team 
showing apparently 100% of all planned project outputs and activities. Section 3 explores the local 
and individual effect of these activities. 
# Planned Output No. Beneficiaries Category Returnee Host M F Pastoralist IDP
1 600 households provided with 6,000 poultry( 
Each person 10 chicken)
600 180 420 0 324 4 272
2 10 Community Animal Health Workers 
(CAHWs) trained
10 7 3 2 3 3 2
3 300 poultry cages supplied to 300 vulnerable 
chicken beneficiaries 
300 80 220 0 224 4 72
4 36 metric tons of certified seed procured & 
provided to 600 beneficiaries
600 242 358 246 15 339 0
5 Procured & distributed farm tools (1800 Ajiar, 
1800 Atoria & 200 donkey ploughs) to 600 
beneficiaries 
600 242 358 246 15 339 0
6 600 households provided with cash grant for 
land preparation, planting, weeding, harvesting 
&oil extraction/processing (US$ 150)
600 247 353 253 17 331 0
7 5 Community Agricultural Extension Workers 
(CAEW) identified & trained to support 
groundnut beneficiaries in Gobe 
5 4 1 1 0 4 0
8 5 ground groundnut demonstration gardens to 
train 600 farmers in Gobee established.
5 247 353 253 17 331 0
9 1 Crop Protection Committees (CPC) with 
membership of 60 people provided with dates, 
fuel, sugar & tea leaves in Gobe for a period of 
4 months
1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
10 5 Older Peoples Committees with membership 
of 100 OP established ( 2 Tawanj & 2 Gobe &
1 Habilla)
100 65 35 20 6 60 12
11 One OPA with membership of 120 people 
established & registered
140 87 53 22 36 64 18
12 120 OPA members trained in Disaster Risk 
Reduction & Conflict Mitigation
120 77 43 26 38 54 22
13 250 OPs members trained in 
business/Association skills training
250 181 69 63 148 39 0
14 120 OPA members trained in group dynamics 
and leadership skills
120 77 43 26 38 54 22
15 OPA Trained in Community Fund management 30 23 7 3 4 11 12
16 OPA supported with community fund of US$ 
14,196 
140 87 53 22 36 64 18
17 3 Wadi crossings rehabilitated 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
18 90 persons employed under Cash for Work for 
one month
103 55 48 31 56 16 0
19 400 households each supported with US$ 133 
for Cash grants to Small Micro Enterprise
400 84 316 84 176 140 0
8
3. Programme Impacts 
3.1 Qualitative overview of impacts 
The following sub-section draws from all semi-structured interviews and FGDs with project 
stakeholders and target groups (Annexes 4 and 5) and centres on the performance and impact of the 
project activities as experienced by the target groups and their perceived relevance to the 
household. 
3.1.1 Local Project Structures 
 The Older People’s Association and Older People’s Committees
The OPA and OPCs have demonstrated that they are a crucial component of HelpAge’s operations in 
West Darfur as an interface between staff, the community and other stakeholders. The OPCs are at 
different stages in their development and at least one OPC still has to agree funding arrangements 
with the OPA in order to access the revolving loan system. 
Representation and legitimacy 
Although the OPA and OPCs are predominantly male, these structures seem to be viewed as 
legitimate by the community and other local stakeholders and there is interest in supporting them. 
The project team acknowledge that there are significant cultural obstacles to female participation in 
leadership roles and are pragmatic in their approach. Women are participating in OPC and OPA 
structures but are not performing a leadership role. The result is the OPCs and OPA represent a 
series of platforms that appear to be quite effective at supporting the implementation and ongoing 
management of sets of project activities (e.g. identification of beneficiaries, monitoring of the 
distribution of livestock and other inputs etc.). The OPA have been used by HelpAge to run 
awareness-raising campaigns on hygiene and good animal husbandry, for instance. However, the 
committees apparently have not represented older people’s issues outside the remit of the project.
The process by which they were established – in consultations with religious, sheik, pastoralist and 
other community leaders – and the role they adopted early in the project seems to be important. In 
particular, the OPCs appeared to be effective at identifying those vulnerable HHs and individuals 
most in need. In this respect the OPCs were effective structures for project delivery. FGDs revealed 
general satisfaction with the identification of the most vulnerable and this appears to be supported 
by discussion with external stakeholders (HAC and the Governor of Habila) and the findings from the 
HH survey which suggest the most vulnerable are captured by project. The HelpAge team agree the 
selection criteria with the committees (HHs with large numbers of children, female-headed HHs etc.) 
who then use their local knowledge to identify specific HHs. 
The committees are composed of 20 members and are not specifically intended to be decision￾making or planning bodies but rather as a group of community representatives to HelpAge. Young 
people are included in the committees to help physically and to report back to older relatives and 
this provides a useful inter-generational aspect for building mutual awareness. 
One of the most impressive aspects of the OPCs is their inclusion of pastoralist or IDP representatives 
either directly or via intermediaries. Pastoralists are typically marginalised from decision-making and 
difficult to engage in joint-processes and this is compounded by a history of local conflict. 
9
The committees hold considerable capital assets as part of the revolving fund schemes (88,391 SDG3
in the case of the OPA). MoUs are agreed with the committees and there are strict conditions on the 
management of funds although there appears to be some degree of flexibility with respect to the 
precise role and responsibility of each committee. 
 
Sustainability 
The OPA and OPCs are totally focussed on HelpAge project activities i.e. as recipients of business and 
management training and as recipients of SME inputs. Essentially, these structures are intermediaries 
between the project and the community and they are staffed on a voluntary basis. With or without 
extended support, the committee members expressed a desire to carry on supporting the local 
community and using the OPC as a means to organise nefeer – community-led and voluntary support 
or collections on behalf of older people and the vulnerable. Other informal functions include the 
management and distribution of fodder to vulnerable households during lean seasons. The 
committee members appear to recognise much greater potential in these structures. The FGDs 
discussed their prospective role in planning for food security with government, UN and NGO 
stakeholders, for instance, and they see themselves able to implement new initiatives if external 
support is forthcoming 
They are young structures (two of the OPCs were established in the last six months) and they are still 
to make significant independent contacts with other sets of stakeholders and service providers. 
However, the OPA at Habila has made enquiries to other sponsors in order to develop an office and 
they have produced a plan to increase their visibility and consolidate since registration at Locality 
and State level. It was via registration that the OPA was able to open a bank account with the Export 
Development Bank of Sudan, Geneina branch. 
It is not clear to what degree the government registration of these structures is wanted or required 
by HelpAge but there indications that the OPCs themselves are keen to acquire a formal CBO status 
and are aware of the criteria for registration. 
The next phase of HelpAge activity would represent an opportunity to develop the resilience and 
autonomy of these structures and they could be encouraged to seek external sources of support i.e. 
services, advice and inputs from new linkages to government stakeholders and other NGOs. The 
relevance and sustainability of these platforms often depends on their modification by local people 
to make them economically viable and integrated with permanent stakeholders such as the Ministry 
of Agriculture and market actors that outlive the duration of projects. To encourage this, the project 
team would have to be more aware of issues that emerge at the fringes of the project and are not 
obviously related to their delivery of activities or log-frame commitments (i.e. acknowledging the 
modification of HelpAge livelihoods options and independent contact with the Ministry of 
Agriculture).
The OPCs do exercise a supervisory role and have been supported to monitor the implementation of 
project activities and report back their relevance to HelpAge. This function includes visits to 
households to attempt to ensure benefits are secured by the most vulnerable although the project 
team did not have the means to formally validate that this was the case. This monitoring function 
could be developed in future so that the committees report the status of any autonomous activities 
and breakthroughs. 
Ideally, HelpAge should consult these structures thoughtfully during the needs assessment and 
design of the next phase of activities. This would add legitimacy and public support to future work 
 
3
 1 SDG is approximately 0.23 $US.
10
and help modify the approach in view of what were considered by many to be short-comings in the 
choice of inputs and livelihoods options. The OPA indicated that they require more support to 
building their capacity and are yet to be consulted on any new phase of work by HelpAge. 
The household survey revealed modest overall satisfaction with the OPCs established under the 
project (below). Respondents in Habila rated the OPCs the most highly, many mentioning the social 
activities at the Older People’s Centres and donations such as blankets that they valued. This is 
probably due to the proximity of the OPC to the HelpAge office and corresponding levels of support, 
rather than a specific performance issue related to the OPC itself. The overall responses indicate that 
local people were generally unable to distinguish between the role of the OPCs and the role of 
HelpAge. 
11%
18%
0%
59%
64%
95%
30%
18%
5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Habila Gobe Tawanj
Level of Satisfaction with the Older People's 
Committees
Low
Medium
High
11
 The Crop Protection Committee (CPC)
The CPCs in the project area were established about 18 years ago but have not been active due to 
limited support. With HelAge support the local CPC appears to now be quite effective addressing 
potential conflict and problems before they arise. 
The CPCs are comprised totally of men who must be able-bodied and physically active to patrol the 
extensive area and in this regard they represent the interests of older people and the broader 
community indirectly. The CPC remit is set by government and HelpAge’s role is to provide support 
through food supplies, animal transport and by facilitating awareness-raising workshops with the 
farmers and nomads. 
Representation and legitimacy 
Community-wide representation in the Gobe CPC was impressive. Gobe features a mixed farmer and 
pastoralist community that has been interacting locally for many years and the CPC represents this 
diversity. Transiting nomads are represented in the CPC via kinsmen settled in the town. 
The CPC is also well connected to other institutions, liaising with the police and army (Joint 
Sudan/Chad Border Force) and linking to the Habila higher level committee to resolve the more 
serious issues. 
The committee membership does not comprise the project’s target group (most members are under 
50 years of age) but the benefits of the CPCs work is likely to positively impact the entire community 
because it reduces the risks of losses to animals and crops and avoids costly and damaging local 
conflict. The CPCs seem to be performing an important role in maintaining community relations. One 
of their initiatives is to hold stray livestock until they are reclaimed, a service to both farmers and 
pastoralists. The household survey picked up a modest level of awareness but general overall 
satisfaction with the Habila CPC (not supported by HelpAge under this project) and better awareness 
at the HelpAge area around Gobe. 
52%
66%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Habila sample aware of CPC Rated performance during the season as
medium/high
Crop Protection Committee - Habila (not supported by 
HAI)
12
61%
81%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Gobe sample of CPC Rated performance during the season as
medium/high
Crop protection committee - Gobe (supported by HAI)
13
Sustainability 
There appears to be enough local incentive (for conflict avoidance and crop protection) to maintain 
some activity of the CPCs but their coverage and capacity would probably decline without continuous 
external support. 
Project staff believe that the CPCs do their work well with the sustenance and fuel support provided 
by the project. However, this support is still very modest and the capacity of the CPCs is probably 
only just sufficient to reduce the threat of conflict and associated losses. The CPCs patrol a huge area 
on foot, donkey or horse and only use vehicles when they can provide a fuel allowance to the police 
(the CPC members have identified a need for their own motorcycles). Sub-committees are dispersed 
throughout the area and this seems to have been effective in avoiding disputes remotely. 
The FGD participants suggested that the CPCs could support themselves with their own simple IGAs 
such as groundnut oil production or milling through the provision of a machine. 
3.1.2 Agriculture and Food Security Activities 
Livestock 
The project has distributed 6000 poultry across 600 HHs. A further 486 goats and 29 donkeys were 
given under SME support. Eight of these donkeys were supplied with carts to two groups of 34 
beneficiaries. The five CAHWs supported all livestock beneficiaries and will provide services to other 
livestock with a parallel vaccination campaign for 50,000 animals (camels, cows, donkeys, horses and 
goats) which HelpAge successfully secured in October 2013 to cover its intervention areas4
. Cages 
were supplied to HHs that had accumulated more than 15 hens and the birds were supplied in 
conjunction with support on feed, hygiene and disease prevention as planned. 
 Poultry 
Status 
The discussions revealed problems with the distribution of birds. In some cases, the birds supplied by 
traders were not in good condition and the mortality rate appears to have been as high as 50%.
The poultry recipients in Habila believe that Newcastle disease has spread through the stock and 
accounts for significant mortality in young chicks. The precise cause of these losses has not yet been 
verified by the Ministry of Animal Resources, however (see Annex 6 for more detail). 
Poultry HHs supplement the poultry feed with sorghum bought for HH consumption and there are no 
associated veterinary costs as no additional treatments are available locally. The activity is conducted 
individually at HH level and there is no group planning or joint-business although poultry concerns 
are discussed informally at the OPC. 
Having originally received 10 birds per HH, the current HH stock varies widely between participants 
from over 20 to just 2 hens in some cases. The HH strategy is to reproduce the birds, consume some 
and sell others, rather than use eggs for HH consumption. 
 
4
This is a complementary activity supported by FAO with ODFA funding, due to be carried out in the next few 
months.
14
Performance and Impact 
The FGDs revealed a wide range of opinion on the relevance of poultry inputs to the livelihoods of 
older people. In general, there was limited enthusiasm and a request for larger, one-off, 
contributions of livestock such as goats. Discussions with secondary stakeholders also reported a lack 
of enthusiasm for poultry interventions (see CRS and FAO feedback, Annex 4). However, in many 
cases the poultry did, in fact, provide a continuous source of low level benefits to the HH through 
meat for direct consumption and sales of live birds (see Section 3.2 for a brief overview of 
quantitative impact). Participants could expect to sell one to two hens per month, receiving about 
30-60 SDG. Overall, this income is used for general HH expenditure including health and education 
costs (school fees and books) in addition to some food purchases and directed support to vulnerable 
people within the HH. 
The cases studies below demonstrate that the ability of individuals and HHs to secure the benefits 
from poultry appear to be a combination of good fortune (avoidance of disease and losses to wild 
animals) and the entrepreneurial capacity of certain HHs to diversify and spread risk by 
reinvestment, for instance. 
Sustainability 
Discussion with FAO and Ministry of Agriculture & Animal Resources staff revealed some doubts to 
the viability of HH-level poultry interventions, citing the need for animal feed processing at scale (no 
such facility is available to the area). 
The strategy of vulnerable older people’s HHs seems to be rather ad hoc and not business-orientated 
in that surplus birds are sold but are not expected to provide a key or sole source of income, perhaps 
due to the impact of disease and early deaths. Some respondents saw the poultry as a stop-gap and 
intended to graduate to larger, higher-value goat stock when this became affordable. Whether or not 
this is a realistic aspiration, the HH survey does indicate that there are tangible and long-lasting 
benefits associated with homestead poultry interventions. 
There are suggestions that the HelpAge poultry work could be better linked to other service 
providers. Discussion with FAO and Ministry of Animal Resources staff indicated a need for better 
communication, especially with respect to reporting disease outbreaks and planning treatments. The 
FGD participants believed better support is required on vaccination and disease prevention in future.
The security situation in West Darfur has implications for the selection of animal inputs and both 
community and secondary stakeholders acknowledged the greater risk associated with large, higher 
value, animals. 
Seeds and Agricultural Inputs 
In Gobe,600 households received 1.5 sacks of ground nuts for planting, 829 SDG5
 of cash support for 
family or hired labour and ploughs to be shared, one per three households, Five community level 
agriculture workers were also employed, monitoring 120 households each and organising visits to 
demonstration gardens.
 Groundnuts 
 
5
 The cash grant was staggered as follows: 247 SDG - land preparation & planting, 247 SDG -weeding & 335 
SDG – harvesting and oil pressing.
15
Status 
The HelpAge project came at time when general WFP food relief had ceased with little explanation. 
The furasha (local leader) was told that the agencies were now moving into a development phase. 
The groundnut initiative was introduced to Gobe in May 2013 during which time the most vulnerable 
individuals and HHs were identified in partnership with the community and the furasha. The Gobe 
community is a mixed host community, IDP returnees (representing about 20% of the local 
population) and pastoralists who have been settled for over two decades. The identified vulnerable 
HHs seems to have cross-cut these groups. 
Each of the participating HHs was given 1.5 sacks of groundnut (equivalent to 60kg), provided 
training on cultivation and significant cash inputs over three phases to pay for land. IDPs without 
their own land, hired 1.25 feddans at 100 SDG per season. 
The groundnut activity was introduced in conjunction with the provision of ploughs and hand tools to 
groups of three to all participating HHs and the ploughs are currently used with donkeys and horses 
hired with the cash inputs. 
Performance and Impact 
Participants believe that the groundnut yield was directly related to the soil type with sandy soils 
providing considerably larger yields than clay soils. The lowest harvests were about 4 sacks and good 
harvests were considered to be about 15 sacks. 
Groundnuts were normally sold directly rather than processed to oil. As with the poultry inputs, sales 
from groundnuts were used for a variety of HH expenses including clothes, school fees and other 
education costs. The FGD participants believed that food purchases achievable from the cash income 
from sales of unprocessed groundnuts was the single largest benefit to the vulnerable HH. However, 
they believed that the low market value of groundnuts restricted impact. In a normal season, value 
can be added by processing the groundnuts to oil. In the project season, however, the poorer quality 
of harvested nuts meant that the oil yield was much lower than normal and it was found not to be 
profitable to convert the nuts to oil. Growers tend to conserve or consume groundnuts in such poor 
seasons (personal communication, Moses Mukirane) 
The participants are now able to cultivate land with the ploughs rather than hand-sowing as before. 
Sustainability 
The FGD participants are enthusiastic about the prospects of groundnut and believe that yields of 25 
sacks are possible in the right conditions. The participants have started planning for next season and 
significantly have made plans to modify the strategy (they will start the cultivation process earlier in 
the season). The community are also independently seeking additional support for groundnut inputs 
via zakir from local business and organisations and this has already been used to help fund 
cultivation. 
The participants have managed to reserve some seed for the next growing season and managed this 
seed protection between the group. It is possible that some HHs will be able to repeat efforts to 
cultivate next season without additional external cash inputs but the most vulnerable HHs would 
probably struggle to meet the costs of cultivation. However, the FGD participants believe that the 
OPC has performed an important focal point for the planning of voluntary support to cultivation on 
behalf of the most vulnerable (nefeer) and this could be an important feature in future. 
16
3.1.3 Economic Recovery and Market Systems Activities 
Economic Asset Development 
Under this sub-sector, target HHs were provided a combination of goats, donkeys, carts, 
wheelbarrows and seed for trade (groundnuts and millet) on the basis of personal preference. 
 Goats 
Goats were distributed under this sub-sector and, unusually, viewed as a small-medium enterprise 
(SME) by the project. 
Status 
Direct consultations with a sub-set of participating HHs in Habila reveal that the majority of goats are 
yet to produce young. By the end of the project, 486 goats had been provided and 126 had given 
birth (personal communication, Moses Mukarine). The goats were provided very young and are still 
to reach maturity. The recipients of goats have been visited by the project CAHWs and provided good 
advice. Some respondents claimed that male goats were not provided by HelpAge, however. The 
decision not to provide males was made during the consultation process when it was suggested that 
males could be accessed from the existing livestock population. Despite this, some older people 
targeted in this project complained that they could not access to a male goat. 
Performance and Impact 
Although the goats have not been prone to disease they have not produced as many off-spring as 
hoped. The goat recipients were generally disappointed that the goats supplied were so young and 
this point was reiterated by the OPA. The goats are yet to provide significant income and the FGD 
respondents believe insufficient numbers were provided. Despite this, the group believe the stock 
will become more profitable in the coming months. 
The FGDs and Individual Case Studies (below) demonstrate that the programme has already been 
quite successful in providing milk for HH consumption and to some degree in cash generation 
through sales of the first kids (the sale price for male kids was 150 SDG and only male goats were 
sold). Cash is used for general HH expenditure including medical and education costs. 
Sustainability 
It is expected that the goat stock will provide greater income as they reach maturity. Goats have 
good value (300-350 SDG) and provide relatively few time or financial demands on the owners. There 
is a strong local demand for goats and other larger livestock (poultry owners expressed a desire to 
“trade-up” from poultry to goats and there examples of this in the Individual Case Studies – see 
below). The group believe that the improved security situation has helped maintain the goat stock 
and they believe that goat husbandry has great promise. 
One constraint may be a seasonal lack of grazing due to drought and possibly limited access to 
veterinary medicines, with or without CAHWs. 
17
 Wheelbarrows 
Status 
The provision of wheelbarrows was a business option selected by eight households and have proved 
very popular and productive to vulnerable HHs. Children are commonly expected to contribute to 
household chores and income-generation in these vulnerable HHs. Under the supervision of 
participating HHs, the children of these HHs work on market days (Mondays and Thursdays) to 
generate income from errands.to the market or are hired for specific transport tasks at other times. 
Performance and Impact 
The wheelbarrows generate a profit of about 50 SDG per week for each HH but they may also 
provide less tangible economic benefits such as greater connectedness to the market, engaging other 
members of the HH in economic activity and reducing opportunity costs for the most vulnerable 
within the HH i.e. freeing up household members for other economic and domestic activities. 
Sustainability 
The wheelbarrows require some funds to be set aside for maintenance and spare parts but there is 
sufficient monthly income to do this and all owners were committed to saving for reinvestment, an 
outcome of the training on SME. The wheelbarrows obviously have a limited life-span but the steady 
income could spread over several years and the HHs would have the opportunity to diversify or 
reinvest over this period. 
 Grains and Groundnuts as capital for market trading. 
Status 
In this case, the groundnuts and millet were provided for trading, not for planting. The groundnuts 
and millet have been sold directly to the market for direct HH income. This capital also enabled these 
indivuals to become indepdnend tof larger traders and allowed them to buy their own stocks of 
groundnuts and millet from farmers and recipients of food aid (see Individual Cases Studies for some 
successful examples). 
Performance and Impact 
This form of input seems to be popular because it is a one-off, low-risk input to the HH economy and 
represents an immediate asset that can be stored or traded. This activity took place in Habila which 
is vibrant market town. 
Sustainability 
Entrepreneurial individuals and HHs seem to be extending their businesses. Some of these individuals 
were traders before the project but it is less clear to what degree the most vulnerable will be able to 
secure the benefits of these assets in the future. There is variability in the capacity of targeted HHs to 
secure project assets or to transfer these to other sources of capital, as illustrated in the Individual 
Case Studies – number 8 (below). 
18
3.1.4 Market Infrastructure Rehabilitation 
 Wadi crossings 
Status 
The wadi crossings were successfully completed and have helped connect Gobe and Habila. 
Performance and Impact 
About 50% of respondents knew of the wadi-crossing rehabilitation work and all these people 
believed this has helped the local population. In particular, they have made fields accessible during 
the rainy season, improved access to markets and reduced the travel time to hospital. There are 
issues associated with the success of this activity because there could be increased pressure on 
HelpAge to dedicate a greater proportion of its resources to these general development activities 
and away from targeted interventions for older people’s HHs6
 (see Discussion). 
As an additional benefit to older people during the rehabilitation works, able-bodied members of the 
HH were enrolled for Cash for Work. The HH survey revealed that although a small proportion of HHs 
had gained directly via Cash for Work to younger member of the HH (six out of 146 HHs sampled), 
this cash injection had enabled some to start micro-enterprises with the older person reporting 
improved welfare as a result. 
Sustainability 
It is likely that these crossings will require regular maintenance but it is unclear whether there is 
sufficient external support or through local planning to secure this support (political support, funds 
for labour, materials etc.). 
 
6
 Future work of this type was seen as highly desirable by secondary stakeholders such as HAC and the Governor of Habila 
who see infrastructure projects as prestigious and visible contributions to economic development (Annex 4).
19
3.2 Quantitative Survey Results - Household Impacts 
A total of 146 interviews were conducted via questionnaire (Annex 6). The interviews were 
conducted with registered beneficiaries of the project over the age of 50 and with a small sample of 
randomly selected non-beneficiaries in the same communities, also over the age of 50. The sample 
was purposive in that it represented the range of activities i.e. it was stratified according to 
involvement with poultry, groundnuts and other activities. All respondents were over the age of 50 
but the survey was random with respect to age and gender and aimed to include 10-15% non￾participating older people’s HHs. 
Age of beneficiaries 
The project appears to have been effective in apportioning the interventions to households with 
older (70+) and hence more vulnerable older persons. About 44% of the respondents were aged 70 
or above which seems to be an effective targeting of vulnerable older people’s HHs. 
Gender 
In the random gender sampling of beneficiaries 108 were women and 38 were men, revealing 
approximately 75% of direct project beneficiaries were women. This seems to show proportionate 
targeting since women constitute the majority of the older population and an overwhelming majority 
in the 70+ age group. 
A greater proportion of women than men reported improvement in their overall circumstances since 
the project began. Women are traditionally viewed responsible for chicken and goat husbandry, 
activities which were targeted at more than 50% of the participating households. Women appeared 
to derive greater satisfaction or benefit from small livestock activities than men. 
23%
34%
30%
14%
Age - Sample 146
Age 50-59
Age 60-69
Age 70-79
Age 80+
20
The tables below demonstrate that only 8% of the male respondents reported any improvement in 
their confidence (relating to knowledge and skills) as a result of the project. 
The difference in perceived value, by men and women, was greatest in relation to poultry. No 
significant differences in attitudes of men and women were demonstrated with respect to the 
groundnut activity in Gobe.
Women Male
worse 54% 65%
better 46% 35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Perceived Overall Situation with Respect to Gender
46%
34%
24%
29%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Women - Categories of Perceived Improvements
Overall situation (better) Income Food Confidence
21
Vulnerable older persons within the households 
In this sample, 36% of respondents reported the presence of more than one older person in the 
household. It is significant that those that reported they were doing worse now than in 2011, were 
more likely to be households with more than one older person. These HHs received the same overall 
project support as households with one older person and this has implications for future 
interventions where there could be higher levels of support to households with multiple older 
persons (see table below). 
35%
14% 14%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Men - Categories of Perceived Improvements
Overall situation (better) Income Food Confidence
one older person in househould More than one person in household
worse 53% 61%
better 47% 39%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Perception of Situation with Respect to Number of Older People 
in Household
22
Overall situation according to intervention area 
The chart below shows that Tawanj beneficiaries are reporting less perceived improvement in their 
circumstances, relative to Habila and Gobe. This is probably a result of a combination of external 
factors (the quality of services, access to markets etc.) and some issues of project performance – in 
particular, the large number of goat beneficiaries in the Tawanj sample where the benefits of the 
intervention are yet to be enjoyed. 
62 of the households reported that they are doing better than in 2011. It emerged that the largest 
proportion of beneficiaires “doing better” was is in the 70-79 age group. The project is perhaps well 
targeed to this age group, addressing their circumstances and vulnerabilities. 
50%
42%
27%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Habila Gobe Tawanj
Perception of Improved Overall Situation
43%
31%
41%
52%
37%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
All 50-59 60-69 70-79 80+
Age of older people whose situation is better
23
The group of beneficiaries “doing better” than in 2011 are particularly associated with SME and 
Poultry activities (the poultry activities were focussed on Habila, however, and the town also benefits 
from better access to services, generally). 
It is more likely that a person reports doing better if they have been involved in the project 
32%
59%
37%
57%
24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Goat SME Groundnut Poultry Non-Beneficiaries
Percentage of Beneficiaries Doing Better According to 
Activity
24
Poultry
For 80% of the poultry beneficiaries the monthly contribution to household income and equivalent in 
foodstuffs is below 50 SDG. Unlike the goat intervention poultry income, whilst low, is immediate 
and regular. The majority of HHs reported that this contribution to household income was medium 
or high during the period as hens could simply be sold to cover household needs. As many as 38% 
reported that they will abandon poultry keeping but this was mainly in conjunction with a desire to 
graduate to goat rearing rather than despair at the poultry intervention. 
 
The beneficiaries were given ten birds, and the stock of poultry is now rising after an initial dip due to 
mortality and to sales of mature birds to cover urgent household needs. Unfortunately, the majority 
of beneficiaries have not recovered to the level of 10 birds that they started with. 
43%
80% 80%
38%
59%
66%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
beneficial 0-50 SDG 0-50 SDG abandon medium or 
high
medium or 
high
Poultry Beneficiaries
Contribution to HH diet
Contribution to HH income
Will abandon poultry keeping in future
Monthly value of consumed meat/eggs
Monthly income from sales
training
33%
28%
18%
18%
3%
Current number of birds
0 - 5
5 - 10
10 - 15
15 - 25
25+
25
Comparative contribution of the interventions to Income and Diet. 
As the goat activity was classified as an SME rather than a food security intervention, the 
questionnaire did not include a question on the contribution of goats to the value of foodstuffs 
obtained. Nevertheless, it was clear form the FGDs (below) that due to the longer gestation period 
and that fact that the goats distributed were young, the accumulation of goat stock has not been 
appreciable and that significant benefits are anticipated in future rather than at present. With 
respect to the groundnut intervention, it is important to take account of the 829 SDG cash grant 
given to households to carry them through the season. This had a positive impact on maintaining 
income and consumption levels despite the ultimately disappointing yields obtained. Probably the 
most successful intervention concerned transport and trading. Both on an individual and group basis, 
the reported contribution to household income was much higher than in any of the 
agriculture/livestock interventions. The significance of the activities under the Economic Recovery 
and Market Systems sector is discussed fully in Section 3.1.3. 
 
40%
34%
26%
Poultry - Contribution to Income
Low
Medium
High
34%
42%
24%
Poultry -Contribution to Diet
Low
Medium
High
37%
53%
10%
Groundnut - Contribution to Income
Low
Medium
High
34%
63%
3%
Groundnut - Contribution to 
Diet
Low
Medium
High
32%
49%
19%
Goats - Contribution to Income
Low
Medium
High
8%
46%
46%
SME - Contribution to Income
Low
Medium
High
26
Overall status of the households 
Whilst the interventions may have made a medium or high contribution to household income, they 
were probably not strong enough to counteract negative impacts in the economy and society, 
especially the reduction of food relief and poor rainfall leading to low production of staple crops and 
cash crops. These external factors created local inflation of food prices over and above that suffered 
in the Sudanese economy, nationally. All the interventions were highly valued with the exception of 
the goat inputs where future benefits are nevertheless widely anticipated. It appears that the SME 
activities (excluding goats) were the activities that contributed most towards improved conditions for 
older persons and their households.
The following four tables represent the perceived improvements to wellbeing (overall, income, 
access to food and confidence) since the project started. The perceived improvements appear 
greater for the non-livestock SME participants than those involved in agriculture and livestock 
activities. 
56%
34%
23%
31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
better
Poultry Beneficiaries
Overall situation Income Food access Confidence
32%
15%
12% 14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
better
Goat Beneficiaries
Overall situation Income Food Confidence
27
37%
17%
13%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
better
Groundnut Beneficiaries
Overall situation Income Food Confidence
65%
71%
53%
65%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
better
SMEs
Overall situation Income Food Confidence
28
Non-participating repsondents percieved fewer improvements in overall well-being over this period. 
 
 
24%
20% 20%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
better
Non-Beneficiaries
Overall situation Income Food Confidence
29
3.3 Individual Case Studies7
The following eight case studies are included here to illustrate the range of experiences and issues 
faced by the participants and as found typical during the FGDs for each of the project activities. 
 
1.) Older woman, 80 years old (modest, sustained impact from groundnut and poultry inputs)
 
K. is about 80 years old. Her two sons live in Masalit. They cannot help her much as they both have 
health problems themselves and are unemployed. She has three grandchildren of schooling age that 
live with her - two boys aged 6 and 7 and a girl aged 9. The grandchildren bring water and cook 
meals for the household. From her own farming and livestock activities she supports the 
grandchildren and pays the school fees. 
 
Before the project started she had a single goat but now she has two because she managed to raise 
the money for a new goat from growing groundnuts via the project. K. received 10 birds from the 
project. Three died, two were consumed and one was sold. Now she has three hens, one cockerel 
and many chicks. 
She feels that she now knows how to manage them and has received the right support from the 
Community Animal Health Worker. 
2.) Older woman, 76 years old (modest, sustained impact from goat provision – SME) 
A. is approximately 76 years old and lives with two grand-daughters, aged 11 and 9. The mother is 
living in another village and is too poor to help. The father has passed away. There is a ration 
available from WFP but this too small and not enough for the household. 
The goats given by the project have provided milk for her and the children to consume directly and 
she believes that when the goats reproduce she will sell some to buy clothes for the family. Asha has 
a very small farm which she works by herself and she produces millet, some of which she uses for 
goat feed.
3.) Older men, over 90 years old (modest, sustained impact from poultry)
S. is aged between 90 and 100. There are five children and grandchildren living with him. The poultry 
secured via the project is going well and they have six hens, one cockerel and 15 chicks. 
He uses the local sorghum variety to top up the poultry diet. Sometimes they eat the birds and 
sometimes they sell in the market. The money is used for food, for other daily needs, and for 
monthly school fees. 
The enterprise is going better than S expected but he believes sheep rearing would be better for him. 
Once the poultry have increased sufficiently, he plans to trade for a sheep or goat. 
 
7
Individuals personal details have been modified and pictures removed to protect their privacy
30
4.) Older woman, late 70s (significant sustained impact from donkey and cart – SME) 
H. is in her late-70s and her husband is absent, working in the field. She has six children that do not 
live with her. Every one of the sons and daughters is struggling to survive and cannot help her 
directly. She is supporting two grandchildren living with her (orphan boys aged 15 and 12). Before 
this project, she had a ration card from WFP-CRS but when the list was updated in 2011 it was lost. 
Through the project, the family now share a donkey and cart with four other people. The donkey and 
cart brings firewood, sand and mud for building and they sell firewood in the market. They pay a 
salary for a worker to work with the donkey and cart.
They save jointly and also share some income. Each person gets 5 SDG per market day and there two 
market days each week and so they manage to save 10 SDG per week. From the sand and mud 
transportation with the donkey and cart, the family make a profit of 10 SDG after 2 to 3 day’s work 
by the workman. They have been benefiting continuously from this for 5 months. All the grasses for 
their building are also brought by donkey cart. 
Their own investments have included the costs of a harness but it is going better than H. expected 
and she no longer has to carry goods on her head. The new income means that the family can cover 
their daily needs and they plan to buy a sheep or goat soon. H. is now able to buy better food - 1kg of 
meat instead of half kg - and she buys extra vegetables like onions to increase the variety in her diet. 
H. received training on good business practices and on how to reserve money for spare parts. She 
feels that, to date, the relationship is good and that she is coping well as a partner with the other 
three owners. 
5.) Older man, 66 years old (significant sustained impact though trading stock and SME support)
Y. is 66 years old and lives with his wife and eight family members and is responsible for another 
household of four. Before Yagoub was displaced he was a trader so when he came to Habila he 
started as a small sub-trader working for a big trader who received most of the profit. He was 
essentially a worker re-selling for a survival income. During ration distribution, when millet is 
available, it is difficult to get produce from the farms as production is down. 
Y. buys and sells produce at the market (buying millet at 7 SDG per kora and selling for 8 SDG per 
kora, buying sorghum at 4 SDG and selling at 5 SDG, buying ground nuts at 3 SDG and selling at 4 
SDG).
In March and April 2013 he received the capital injection from HelpAge. Now he has 60 - 70 SDG per 
month for saving after paying for all his basic needs and paying school fees. After securing this capital 
from HelpAge he is now able to cover university fees for one of his daughters. 
 
The IDPs sell him their millet and buy vegetables and meat etc. Then, before the new rations are 
available they come back and buy from him at a higher price. 
Y. has no plans to change his activities because he wants to increase his capital – he has a problem 
with his eyes which requires medication costs and he has to pay shop rent. His savings increase 
during the school holidays as there are no fees. 
31
6.) Older man, 73 years old (significant sustained impact through trading stock and SME support)
Y. is 73 and is responsible for two households, one of 5 members and one of 4 members. Neither of 
his wives have land or farm. Before he was made an IDP, Y. had been a trader, selling sugar cane and 
other produce on behalf of others. He has had no capital for nine years. 
Things are a bit better than in the past since he received 800 SDG worth of millet and groundnuts as 
trading capital ia the project. He gave one sack of sorghum to his wife to ferment and sell for people 
to make porridge. With the profits she is buying okra, vegetable, onions etc. for the family. The 
households buy meat and sugar when income is good (about 1kg meat per HH) and less when 
income is poor (about half kg per HH). 
To Y., trading is a better option than goat-rearing or cultivation because it is easier to control and 
there are less risks. 
He manages to save about 20-30 SDG each week. One of his main spikes in business is around WFP 
ration distribution. He gathers from those with a surplus and resells to those that are lacking on the 
same day. 
7.) Older woman, 70 years old (significant sustained impact though wheelbarrow and SME support)
Z. is 70 years old and has one six-year old grandchild living with her who is an orphan. She came to 
Habila before the conflict and was previously a farmer. In the past she has received clothes from 
Oxfam and a ration from WFP but the ration stopped two years ago because they are classified as a 
host community. 
Z. now farms a small plot and cultivates sorghum. Her eldest son helps by supervising the use of the 
wheelbarrow provided by HelpAge - renting it to two boys to use. The net benefit of hiring the 
wheelbarrow on a market day is 30 SDG and it all goes to Z. 
Z. also has a blind brother and she is able to provide him money for food. She also uses her new 
income for her daily needs including meat, okra and pepper. 
She enjoys having the wheelbarrow as opposed to alternative income generating options such as 
goats which are less predictable and more difficult to manage. 
Z. plans to continue with the wheelbarrow for the foreseeable future. She intends to reinvest any 
savings to repair the wheelbarrow as it is not possible to save enough money to replace it (the cost of 
a new wheelbarrow is 350 SDG). 
8.) Older woman, 60 years old (the struggle to secure assets)
H. is aged 60 and lives with her sick husband and six children. She received two sacks of groundnuts 
and two sacks of grain through HelpAge as trading capital and as a result she was able to go to 
market to buy and sell crops such as okra, dried tomatoes and millet and she could earn an income of 
10-30 SDG on market days. 
32
In July 2013 H. fell ill and had to stop work and she had to spend all her assets on food and medicine. 
H. took a long time to recover and although her neighbours cultivated and harvested for her, fire 
destroyed the whole area and so she received nothing. 
She is now very dependent on relations and neighbours. From the WFP she receives a small food 
ration of 1 kora of grain per month. 
Summary 
The relevance and performance of the project activities at the personal level are obviously the 
outcome of human (health, skills, knowledge and the capacity to manage) and external factors such 
as environmental events and relevance to markets. In general, the SME activities resulted in 
significant income-generation if the HHs were fortunate enough to make the right decisions with 
respect to sales and re-investment. Some of this capacity seems to relate to previous experience in 
trading and this might indicate a bias towards men who have traditionally traded produce this way. 
The poultry stories represent ongoing but low-level impact. These impacts are valued and seen as 
relevant because they provide a useful contribution to HH food and sales for income but some 
recipients view poultry husbandry as merely a stepping-stone to keeping goats or other high-value 
livestock. Poultry seems to have been particularly popular with female participants perhaps because 
women are normally engaged in such activity. 
The final story of H. is included here to demonstrate how precarious the recipients of project inputs 
can be after the initial input. Health issues and external shocks meant that the early benefits were 
not sustained but it is likely that the project inputs provided a crucial function during hard times 
without which she would have endured greater suffering. 
33
4. Programme performance overview 
Relevance 
Overall, the HelpAge agenda is battling against a number of preconceptions and cultural norms which 
have lead to the neglect and even marginalisation of older people in humanitarian interventions. 
There is an overwhelming assumption that older people will be supported in households that are 
targeted by general interventions. However, these interventions are often only sufficient to support 
the targeted adult and their children. Older persons interviewed for case studies all reported that 
their adult children were struggling to survive in their own right and had no means whatsoever to 
support them. These individuals also have to face the stigma associated with admitting to the need 
for help. 
Although the baseline assessment of January 2012 was later than ideal, it did help ensure that the 
project became more relevant and directed towards diversified livelihoods development and the 
current context of early recovery. In general, the process by which needs were assessed and 
discussed with beneficiaries during the baseline and other consultations has been impressive (see 
“accountability” below). Paradoxically, the delay in implementation made the particular livelihoods 
activities less suitable or relevant as they required careful timing to maximise their potential - ideally, 
poultry would have been provided in winter to minimise the risk of disease and seeds would have 
been provided in May to allow early sowing, for instance (the seeds and the first disbursement of 
cash were actually provided 23-25 June 2013). At the level of the target HHs, the relevance of the 
activities depended on the capacity and skills of the recipients. The case studies, for instance, 
illustrate that entrepreneurial male recipients were able to consolidate capital through trading 
whereas less intensive and productive activities such as poultry keeping were able to provide modest 
gains but on an ongoing process. 
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the reported impacts and perceived relevance of the project activities 
reflected the pre-existing socio-economic roles and skills of men and women in the area. Women 
reported improved tangible benefits from homestead poultry activities and goat husbandry whereas 
men were often better-placed to exploit physical SME and market-based activities such as trading, 
for instance. Men and women appeared to benefit equally from the groundnuts activities. 
Coverage 
The project appears to have deployed its resources to the maximum number of vulnerable HHs that 
it could meaningfully engage and support. However, the HH survey and FGDs revealed that the 
number of very vulnerable HHs with older people aged 70 and above is extremely high in the project 
areas and many respondents were not direct beneficiaries. The coverage of some activities appeared 
rather ad hoc. The Older People’s Centres were very popular and performed an important psycho￾social role but were not dispersed throughout the project area, for instance. Coverage was 
impressive with respect to engagement with the diverse array of community stakeholders (host 
community, IDPs, “settled” pastoralists etc.) and the project structures (OPC, OPA and project￾supported CPCs) were crucial in this regard. 
Coherence 
The project targets specific communities with pre-defined sets of activities (groundnuts versus 
poultry etc.) and links these to services and direct funding. These structures have been very effective 
at identifying the most vulnerable stakeholders and rolling-out the activities with HelpAge and 
partners. Unfortunately, these structures are likely to have limited capacity to work autonomously 
during or after a nine month period of engagement (see “sustainability” below). The project is 
coherent with the work of INGOs and government agencies in the region which all appear to be 
working on the basis of livelihoods development in early recovery. The project activities reflect the 
34
general interests and modus operandi of the Ministry for Agriculture and FAO although their mode of 
delivery does not focus on the household, especially with respect to poultry. In the case of other 
NGOs, although the target is specific to HelpAge there are similarities with the CRS programme of 
work. The Joint Committee helps ensure that this work is coordinated not overlapping. Finally, within 
HelpAge there are good working relations and communication between the staff based in El Geneina 
(West Darfur Programme Office)and those at Habila (Field Office). 
Efficiency 
The project was originally approved by the Humanitarian Affairs Commission for implementation in 
September 2011. HelpAge, in consultation with OFDA, conducted a redesign of the project in July 
2012 aimed to shift from an emergency to an early recovery livelihoods perspective in line with the 
changing context of West Darfur. A combination of the redesign and failure to obtain work permits 
for key expatriate staff recruited meant that the original HAC approval expired before the project 
was ready to start. This approval came in November 2012. The project had a 10 month 
implementation window, from January to October 2013 with relevant staff on the ground and the 
necessary permits and permissions to go ahead and implement. However, with the end of the 
project already in sight in July 2013, the project was hit by a wave of resignations from field staff with 
no guarantee of employment after October. This coincided with a key period for the two main 
interventions around poultry and groundnuts, with emergency secondment of government staff to 
the project being the only option for continued implementation. 
The main impact of this staff turnover was on project monitoring. Seconded staff did not have any 
time to familiarise themselves with monitoring requirements. Field reports from Agricultural and 
Animal Health Workers were provided in Arabic and the human resource available to synthesise 
these and translate them was extremely limited. The M & E officer was unable to obtain a work 
permit for West Darfur and spent the crucial months of the intervention in Khartoum, unable to 
secure progress on monitoring tasks at the field level. However, the staff proved extremely flexible 
and adept at navigating the multiple challenges of effective implementation, securing the effective 
deployment of 95% of the project budget. OFDA also showed great flexibility in allowing the 
redesign of 2011-12 and then the budget realignment of June and August 2013. 
Locally, the disbursement of inputs was achieved efficiently via the OPCs and voluntary labour and
support. All inputs were procured at competitive rates and the allocation of about 60% of overall 
project budget to the provision of the inputs would seem reasonable. 
A short case study on poultry and vaccine procurement highlights (Annex 6) highlights the everyday 
challenges of achieving efficient delivery in the local context. 
The table below summarises the costs for each activity. The total cost of supporting the groundnut 
cultivation activity in Gobe was considerable at $194,378. These costs include all Community 
Agricultural Extension Workers (CAEWs) support, tools and support to the CPCs. Given the known 
variability of rainy seasons in Darfur, this seems to have been a disproportionate weighting of project 
investment and the results have been disappointing. It may have been wiser to increase the 
investment in poultry, for example, by providing all beneficiaries with cages. The cost of training and 
employing CAEWs seems to have been very high relative the costs of the CAHWs. Both the poultry 
and SME interventions represent good value for money against the benefits reported. 
35
Cost of the livelihood components, not including overhead and administrative costs
(Source: Project Financial Reports)
Activity No. 
beneficiaries
$US
Poultry 600 households provided with 6,000 poultry (Each 
person 10 chickens) 
600 32,400
Poultry 10 Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) trained 5,010
Poultry 300 poultry cages supplied to 300 vulnerable chicken 
beneficiaries 
300 9,277
Poultry Total 46,437
Groundnuts 36 metric tons of certified seed procured & provided to 
600 beneficiaries 
600 58,183
Groundnuts 5 Community Agricultural Extension Workers (CAEW) 
identified & trained to support groundnut beneficiaries in 
Gobe
 25,282
Groundnuts Procured & distributed farm tools (1800 Ajiar, 1800 Atoria 
& 200 donkey ploughs) to 600 beneficiaries 
600 19,483
Groundnuts 1 Crop Protection Committees (CPC) with membership of 
60 people provided with dates, fuel, sugar & tea leaves in 
Gobe for a period of 4 months
N/A 4,806
Groundnuts 600 households provided with cash grant for land 
preparation, planting, weeding, harvesting & oil 
extraction/processing (US$ 150)
600 86,824
Groundnuts Total 194,378
SMEs Total Provision of goats, trading capital, transport equipment, 
donkeys, agro processing machinery
300 53,998
Effectiveness 
HelpAge managed to effectively implement all project activities. Despite significant logistical and 
bureaucratic obstacles, complex activities such as the planning and construction of the wadi crossing 
were delivered as intended. The effectiveness of these activities in relation to the project objective 
and indicators is summarised in the table below. 
With respect to internal processes, the main constraint seems to have been difficulty applying the 
intended monitoring framework. The M&E Officer had developed five monitoring formats for use by 
field staff but bureaucratic constraints meant that the Officer was unable to travel to the locality and 
train the team. 
36
Sector Name: Agriculture & Food Security Comment
Objective: Increasing livestock productivity to protect & 
diversify older people’s asset base
Beneficiaries / 
IDPs Targeted 7,200 / 4,800
This target has been reached. However, after 
10 years of settlement, IDPs have become 
well established & camp boundaries are not 
obvious, relief distribution is being reduced &
it is becoming less meaningful to distinguish 
between IDPs & Host Community.
The project also has approximately 50,000 
indirect beneficiaries from the wadi crossing 
improving access to hospitals, farms, trading 
opportunities & reduced transport costs in 
the rainy season, possibly contributing to 
lower commodity prices in Habila.
Sub-sector Name: Livestock
Indicator 1: No. of animals benefiting from or affected by 
livestock activities
Productivity means the total has risen to 
approximately 10000 animals
Indicator 2: No. of people benefiting from livestock activities Approximately 4,000 persons benefited from 
livestock activities
HelpAge 3
At least 80% of the targeted households have 
improved self-reliance & livelihoods options by the 
end of the project
Due to the late delivery of some livestock, 
animal mortality, & time lag in goat 
reproduction, less than 50% of the targeted 
households improved their self reliance by 
the end of the project. However at least 80% 
have improved their livelihood options & 
have the potential to improve their self 
reliance in the next 12 months.
Sub-sector Name: Seeds & Agricultural Inputs
Indicator 1:
(Projected) increase in number of months of food 
self-sufficiency due to distributed seed 
systems/agricultural input for beneficiary families
There has been no increase in the number of 
months of food self sufficiency. The project 
was unable to counteract the major reduced 
production in 2013 caused by the rainfall 
pattern. Food self sufficiency has declined 
with supplied of harvested food expected to 
run low in February 2014. However, without 
the intervention production levels would 
have been extremely low & beneficiaries 
would be facing an immediate hunger crisis.
Indicator 2: No. of people benefiting from seed 
systems/agricultural input activities
600 households received inputs including 
seeds, cash and tools. The HH survey and 
FGDs revealed all recipients experienced a 
net benefit. The total number of HH 
beneficiaries could be approximately 3,000 
persons.
HelpAge 3
At least 80% of targeted households have increased 
their knowledge, attitude & practices in agricultural 
production
The HH survey revealed that over 90% of the 
targeted households rated their increased 
knowledge, attitude & practices in groundnut 
cultivation as “medium or high”. 
37
Delivery and performance against project objective and indicators 
Sector Name: Economic Recovery & Market Systems Comment
Objective: Strengthening livelihoods options to increase older 
people’s purchasing power 
Beneficiaries / 
IDPs Targeted 5,844 / 3,896
Sub-sector Name: Economic Asset Development
Indicator 1: No. of people assisted through economic asset 
development activities
Through livestock & agricultural & other 
assets 7,200 persons were assisted through 
economic asset development activities
Indicator 2: No. & percent of people utilizing economic assets 
created to support their livelihood pattern
The target was exceeded by 10-20% because 
at least 6,500 persons are still developing the 
assets created to support their livelihood 
patterns
HelpAge 3
Improved welfare & economic wellbeing for at least 
50% of targeted older people & their families by the 
end of the project
At least 50% of the targeted older people 
reported that the project activities 
constituted an important contribution to the 
family income & food security. However, 
overall Improved well being is reported by
30% of the targeted older people, 20% 
report that their condition remained the 
same & 50% reported a deterioration in their 
income & well being by project end. This is 
due to a sharp rise in staple food prices 
beyond the control of the project.
HelpAge 4
6 OPCs & 1 OPA established & operational by the 
end of the project 
The 6 OPCs & 1 OPA are established & 
operational
Sub-sector Name: Market Infrastructure Rehabilitation
Indicator 1: Amount of market infrastructure rehabilitated (no. 
‘wadi’ crossings/bridges)
2
Indicator 2: No. of cash grants to Small Micro-enterprises (SMEs) 400
Indicator 3: Total USD amount of cash grants to SMEs USD 56,000
HelpAge 4: All 'Wadi' crossings rehabilitated are functioning by 
the end of the project
Two wadi crossings constructed & functional.
HelpAge 5:
Increased income levels & purchasing power for at 
least 50% of older people living in the 3 targeted 
areas by the end of the project.
By the end of the project , the approximate 
percentage of older people with increased 
overall income, purchasing power & welfare 
was as follows: Habila 50%, Gobe 42% & 
Tawanj 27%
HelpAge 6: At least 70% of small micro-enterprises supported 
are functioning sustainably by the end of the project
Approximately 90% of the enterprises are 
functioning. It is debatable whether the goat 
activity should be classified as an SME 
intervention
Delivery and performance against project objective and indicators (continued) 
Sustainability 
At the HH level, about 20% of participating HHs have finished all project-related activity. In these 
cases, the inputs have been lost (to disease, immediate expenditure or consumption etc.) and the 
recipients have not been able to transfer assets to other activities to spread risk. In some HHs, 
however, the activities have expanded - in about 40% of the HHs the number of poultry appears to 
be still increasing. Sustainability here relates to the ability to prevent or withstand losses to disease. 
In many cases, sustainability is associated with the HH or group’s ability to secure support and 
services into the future, with or without HelpAge. As discussed, the project structures (OPA, OPCs 
38
and CPCs) could potentially provide such as function but these platforms still need to build capacity 
before they can be expected to make these vertical linkages and to sustain themselves. 
Accountability 
During this project, HelpAge proved themselves to be responsive partners with the community in this 
process of livelihoods development. The baseline survey and community consultations allowed the 
communities to select from a “menu” of options and in this regard the process was participatory. 
However, the mode and pace of delivery, given the earlier delay, would have restricted the scope for 
dialogue and modification once the implementation phase had started. 
The project design and mode of delivery did not emphasise a role for community feedback and 
modification. This is probably a function of the funding modality and the post-conflict context which 
is still unclear i.e. a focus on delivering inputs rapidly rather than working within a established 
development framework. 
HelpAge need to be accountable to many government stakeholders in West Darfur including the local 
administration, HAC and the Ministry of Agriculture. HelpAge seemed to be thorough in their 
navigation of these stakeholders, managing to satisfy their requirements and meet due process in 
the completion of complex actions such as constructing the wadi crossing. HelpAge have to be 
mindful that some of these stakeholders would prefer a development agenda less focussed on 
specific vulnerable groups (such as older people) and more related to physical infrastructure and 
technical activities. 
39
5. Management issues 
This project placed HelpAge with a cluster of international NGOs working on livelihoods and food 
security in the Habila locality including Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children Sweden, Concern, 
Relief International, Merlin and Intersos. Together with the UN agencies WFP, FAO, UNHCR and IoM, 
they attend cluster meetings hosted by FAO and the state level Ministry of Agriculture. Activities are 
also overseen by Humanitarian Affairs and Security ministries. 
There are areas of tension between the Sudan government and international NGOs which affected 
the implementation of this project at the field level. The NGOs hold coordination meeting which are 
vital for sharing information on programming, security and relationships with government structures. 
HelpAge is playing a full, active and constructive role in these coordination meetings. One vexing 
issue during the project has been how to resist constant pressure from the authorities for allowances 
to be paid to government staff for any engagement with the projects, however small. Additionally, 
there is tension between NGOs providing services to IDPs and what is perceived by government to be 
a disincentive to resettlement to rural areas. However, good relations with local authorities and 
agencies at West Darfur level were evident throughout this final evaluation, permitting 
uninterrupted access to beneficiaries and including permission for photography. 
In July 2013, three staff of HelpAge in Habila resigned (two of whom joined CRS on another OFDA 
funded project) at a critical moment for the project when implementation was in full motion. It may 
be advisable for OFDA to examine the protocol of staffing issues between NGOs operating locally and 
running OFDA funded projects. It may be possible that staff recruitment should stipulate the 
completion of ongoing OFDA work before starting a new with another agency, for instance. 
The main management constraint to the project concerned the issuing of work and travel permits 
from Khartoum to West Darfur for English-speaking African expatriate staff. Staff can be recruited 
and then denied work permits, delaying implementation for many months. Staff that had been 
recruited had to stay in Khartoum for many months waiting for permission to travel to West Darfur. 
In addition, the rapid turnover of Sudanese staff at all levels of the organization probably impedes 
the establishment of long standing relationships with government partners. In the first instance, a 
systematic review is required to try to reduce the blockages caused by the work and travel permit 
system – it is not known whether UK senior management has reviewed this issue or is in the process 
of doing so. 
It is understood that as a result of a review in early 2013, pay was made more competitive within the 
NGO sector and reforms to the management structure creating Area Coordinator positions for 
Sudanese staff were implemented. Sudanese candidates with the desired level of English for OFDA 
funded projects are also sought after for posts in the UN system and so turnover of Sudanese staff is 
an ever present issue. It is therefore important for HelpAge to count upon a small cadre of 2-3 
expatriate staff in West Darfur. 
40
6. Lessons learnt 
The following briefly summarises the key issues with respect to relevance, appropriateness and 
ability to deliver. Many of these issues are expanded in the next section – “Discussion”.
6.1 Relevance to beneficiaries 
In effect, the project attempted two different modes of delivery: 1) direct contact and support to the 
most vulnerable older HH member and; 2) support to the overall vulnerable HH. In the first case, the 
older person might be granted animal assets or other resources for them to manage with project 
assistance. The benefits then tend to be utilised for the entire HH (education costs, food and medical 
costs etc.). In the case of Gobe, however, cash was provided to the vulnerable HH and this capital 
was then managed according to need. The HH survey revealed that many HHs contain several older 
and vulnerable persons over the age of 70 but the mode of delivery and targeting does not fully 
account for this i.e. it might be possible to provide higher levels of support to HHs with several older 
people. In summary, it may be more appropriate to identify the most vulnerable HHs with older 
people, rather than the individuals, and tailor the support specifically to that unit. This might make 
mainstreaming this work, and joint-operations with other agencies, simpler. 
The greatest and longest-lasting impacts seem to be associated with the SME activities (trading, 
transport and the provision of processing machines). There are less risks associated with this form of 
support but this tends to be most relevant to men, and especially men with experience of trading 
(see Individual Case Studies). 
6.2 Appropriateness to overall context 
Insecurity and the complex political and social context means that agencies are struggling to define 
how to operate with respect to relief, rehabilitation and development. The OFDA project sits well 
with the current movement towards livelihoods development and early recovery efforts. HelpAge 
has to operate in a fragile security environment and, to some extent, straddles both humanitarian 
and development spheres – attempting to deliver livelihoods work in the context of a short 
humanitarian project cycle. As discussed above, this work is broadly coherent with the political and 
development agenda for the region. 
6.3 Ability to deliver 
The project has delivered all its activities and achieved much of the desired change with respect to 
vulnerability and the resource base of the targeted HHs. The HelpAge team implemented the project 
efficiently and effectively once the project had been re-designed and re-started. There were some 
significant external constraints to delivery, however. These centre on the logistics of staff travel and 
the constraints imposed by the permit system which impacted the work of key staff such as the M&E 
Officer. 
41
7. Discussion 
Working with the marginalised 
The older people have received a lot of support via HelpAge workshops and awareness-raising from a 
social, psychological and rights perspective. Unfortunately this group lack the confidence to directly 
engage government authorities and service providers because there is shame associated with asking 
for support if they are struggling to cope8
. 
Older people do appear to have made some direct representations to INGOs, complaining that they 
are not receiving food aid9
. In response, these agencies are then directing these people and their 
complaints to HelpAge The unintended effect may be to segregate the delivery of support and 
services, rather than mainstreaming support to older people across all agencies. Here, advocacy has 
a role in communicating the special issues of older people to all development partners, including UN 
agencies and NGOs (see Recommendations). 
The mode of operation 
The project has had to channel a large resource into livelihoods development activities in a short 
period of time in an implementation format more suited to humanitarian relief operations. HelpAge 
has to deliver a series of linked interventions to create the necessary continuity for livelihoods 
support but this often takes much longer – perhaps a four or five season cycle - before consolidated 
local livelihoods can be observed. Delays in implementation, beyond the control of the project, have 
reduced the potential for sustained engagement even further. The coherence of the project, then, 
must be viewed in terms of the value of the “one-off” injections of assets and support. Despite this 
short-term engagement, the project activities were found to be broadly consistent with the early 
recovery work being pursued by other agencies and NGOs in the Habila locality. 
 
Reducing risks to participants 
HelpAge should look to reduce the risks associated with animal diseases and seasonal variation in 
rainfall, both of which negatively impacted upon the projects attempt to increase agricultural 
livelihoods in the transition from relief to development. This is not to argue that such interventions 
were not appropriate and should not be attempted again, but that additional West Darfur-specific 
expertise in design and planning for risk minimisation is needed. For example, poultry interventions 
must include a vaccination programme. 
Reviewing the role of market infrastructure within the programme 
The main output of the July 2012 modification was the construction of a wadi crossing outside Habila 
on the main road to Gobe. The wadi crossing apparently met with universal acclaim from the project 
beneficiaries and the authorities in Habila. Whilst being a very efficient use of project resources, 
with the infrastructure being built to a high standard over a two month period and greatly enhancing 
the reputation of HelpAge as a development player in the state, it raises some issues for HelpAge 
 
8
“Older people are not expected to go and complain because the assumption is that everyone helps them as much as 
possible already” – interview with Governor Habila Abdalkhalig Ibrahim Matar and HAC Chairperson Habila, Jamaaldien 
Khatir Omer). The result is a relatively high proportion of older persons amongst destitute street dwellers in El Geneina and 
Habila although in the view of one respondent, this has reduced in recent years due in part to the work of HelpAge (Isaac 
Mulbah, CRS, El Geneina).
9
 Many complaints have been received by CRS from older people. They complain to WFP that they are not given a ration 
card and WFP directs them to HelpAge (Interview with CRS Habila staff group).
42
with respect to the balance of future projects. As discussed, interviews with project staff and 
secondary stakeholders reveals that there is pressure from government stakeholders to prioritise this 
type of visual and physical initiative over livelihoods work that targets specific vulnerable groups. It 
will be important to keep communicating that these infrastructure activities are just one component 
of an integrated approach which needs broad support. 
43
8. Recommendations 
Management and design 
 
 Incorporating a livelihoods approach 
The Programme of Integrated Livelihoods and Recovery (PILAR) usefully attempts to combine 
support to human capital, markets and productive natural resources. The components of PILAR are 
cross-cutting but essentially address human capital and skills development. PILAR should allow a 
more holistic approach to reducing vulnerability in future programming because, in addition to new 
skills or natural assets secured by the individual or group, it acknowledges the role of markets, 
infrastructure and institutions in making those assets useable and relevant. HelpAge acknowledge 
that widening the range of activities makes funding and management more complex with a greater 
number of potential partners and there are indications that the various components may have to be 
supported by a set of donors rather than a single source (e.g. education, markets, natural resource 
sector activities). 
 
 Log-frame design and monitoring 
Programme design and presentation via a single master log-frame would probably improve the 
strategic focus and understanding of the programme objectives across the organisation. Currently 
the indicators are presented as a combination of USAID (generic) and HelpAge targets. Donor and 
HelpAge indicators should be consolidated in some way and made SMART (specific, measurable, 
attainable, relevant and time-bound). The USAID indicators, in particular, could be un-packed and 
explored during the baseline period so that, for instance, the meaning of “Number of people 
benefiting from livestock activities” (emphasis added) is defined with reference to local examples or 
proxies.
The baseline survey placed great emphasis on the technical feasibility of a central poultry enterprise 
and although the study provided some supporting context on the social and economic background in 
the location, this information was not directly relevant to the objective and indicators of the 
programme. A log-frame approach to programme design may have helped frame the scope of the 
baseline study so that it would have been less concerned with proposed activities and more focussed 
on analysing and quantifying the specific conditions of the target groups. 
The monthly and quarterly reports provide good narrative and qualitative updates on progress, 
especially with respect to delivery. A forward-looking section in the summary would encourage 
reflection of the constraints and performance and help outline plans to overcome obstacles in the 
following months. Monitoring was focussed on the disbursement of inputs from the project side, but 
ideally the project should track the status and application of those inputs using the existing staff and 
structures such as the OPCs (e.g. how do groundnut HHs utilise cash inputs?). 
 Addressing logistical constraints 
The timely delivery of project activities and quality monitoring and reporting is contingent on the 
efficient deployment of staff to the field locations. Ideally, there should be a detailed review on the 
issue of work and travel permits for expatriate staff and ways to avoid delays or refused travel. Due 
to these constraints, five monitoring formats especially developed for the project were not fully 
applied. 
 Advocacy 
It should be possible to develop a strong evidence-based case on the vulnerability of older people in 
the Habila area. This evaluation revealed the important inter-generational benefits associated with 
support to the older HH members, including their support to vulnerable children and grandchildren. 
44
This type of evidence could be utilised to develop policy advocacy documents, promoting additional 
support from government agencies and donors. The HelpAge model for livelihoods development 
with older people is novel and should be widely disseminated within Sudan 
In the coming months, a strong presence will be needed to lobby for timely assessments of the food 
security situation and the OPCs could be provided with evidence and lobbying skills to help secure 
their proper allocation of food cards for vulnerable older persons. 
Implementation and local strategy 
 Risk reduction 
HelpAge should explore minimising risks associated with agricultural interventions. The poultry 
impacts are constrained by the risk of disease and this affects the confidence of the participants. In 
this case, a comprehensive vaccination programme may be required. In the case of cultivation, 
HelpAge may need to explore activities that can ameliorate the impact of poor rains, perhaps 
including activities to establish community wells or homestead irrigation. 
 Promoting PILAR and livelihoods development to local and secondary stakeholders 
HelpAge should work to ensure that all stakeholders understand the Market Infrastructure 
Rehabilitation activities are just one component of a broad portfolio of activities to support 
livelihoods development. These activities receive broad public and political support but projects need 
to re-iterate to government and NGO stakeholders the link between these interventions and the 
wellbeing of their key target group. In other words, local stakeholders need to be fully aware of how 
project activities are inter-related. 
 Reviewing the targeting strategy 
Additional support could be provided to households with more than one older person and 
consideration could be given to having more than one direct beneficiary per household in such cases. 
 Building resilience in project structures 
HelpAge must be realistic with respect to the future potential of the OPA and OPCs outside the 
project context. Capacity building of OPCs will be problematic under short livelihoods development 
projects. Developing the autonomy and resilience of these structures would require longer-term 
facilitation where project activities extend beyond the delivery of pre-defined activities and move 
towards supporting linkage between these structures and the permanent private and government 
stakeholders in order to support their own enterprises. This would require new skills and approaches 
to monitoring within local teams so that the quality of the links to markets and service providers is 
tracked and supported. Obviously, this is more realistic within a longer-term programme of 
development and engagement, rather than a series of short projects. 
Older People’s Centres are a source of psycho-social well-being highly valued by project participants, 
reducing isolation and loneliness, and each intervention area in future should try to provide an 
accessible Older People’s Centre.
 Maximising impact via SMEs 
In any potential future project funded by OFDA, support to livestock and agricultural interventions 
should continue with a focus on building household assets for basic food and income security. Work 
on small and medium enterprises should be expanded on the basis of the successful experiences 
supporting individuals and groups with assets, capital and business planning for market trading, 
wheelbarrows, donkeys and carts and the agro-processing machinery. These assets appear resilient, 
provide reliable income and are less vulnerable to shocks. 
45
 
 Prioritising activities with respect to performance and cost 
The project activities represented well the varied socio-economic roles and skills of men and women 
in the area. Women reported improved tangible benefits from homestead poultry activities and goat 
husbandry whereas men were often better-placed to exploit physical SME and market-based 
activities such as trading, for instance. When performance is viewed in relation to cost, however, it 
does appear that the agricultural activities need refining in future projects. Although both men and 
women benefited from the groundnut activities, the external risks remain high and may not merit 
such a focus of project time and resources. HelpAge should explore the performance of this 
component with the Ministry of Agriculture and other local partners before committing equivalent 
resources in future. 
46
Annex 1 
Terms of Reference for the final external evaluation of the following HelpAge’s 
programme in West Darfur 
“Sustaining livelihoods for vulnerable older people through enhanced 
resilience to shocks”
TOR produced on 13/08/13 
47
Background 
Current general intervention context 
The protracted conflict in Darfur remains unresolved despite efforts to end the political crisis 
since 2003. According to OCHA, in 2013, up to 3.5 million people currently receive food aid, 
including some 1.4 million in IDP camps10. Although the situation in improved in some areas, 
others deteriorated underscoring the need to continue with humanitarian assistance while 
seeking durable solutions. The UN estimates that about 287,000 people were displaced or 
severely affected by fighting and conflict from January to June 2013. The conflict has led to 
further marginalization of some vulnerable groups, erosion of livelihood assets such as 
livestock, destruction of markets, agricultural infrastructure and implements, loss of public 
infrastructure, and restricted access to farmland. In addition, the conflict has severely 
affected the natural resource base and caused massive population displacements11
. 
Increasingly, there is lack of access to livelihoods opportunities for the Darfurians. As a result 
of the conflict most of the population have limited access to their pre-conflict livelihoods 
and are forced to rely on food aid or adapt to unsustainable options such as petty trade and 
daily labour as alternative to their diverse traditional livelihoods strategies. Further, 
environmental degradation has increased in recent years due to climatic changes and human 
impact such as over cultivation and over grazing compounded by selling of firewood and 
charcoal to supplement incomes. This has led to increased tensions between sedentary 
farmers and pastoralists/nomads over resources. 
The situation has contributed to food and livelihoods insecurity significantly reducing the 
resilience of Darfur’s population to livelihoods shocks. This has been worsened by increased 
general inflation rate which reached its highest in February 2013 when it reached 46%. The 
hardest hit is poorer households who spend the greater part of their income on food. At the 
time of writing the project proposal, according to WFP, Food Security and Monitoring 
System (FSMS) round 8 for West Darfur in November 2010, 60% of the population’s income 
was spent on food revealing their vulnerability to food security. In addition, 23% IDPs, 16% 
 
10 OCHA – Sudan Humanitarian Dashboard 30 June 2013
11 Sudan, UN and Partners Work Plan, 2011
Reference Number: SUD873
Donor Reference: AID-OFDA-G-11-00243
Project budget: $ 1,199,001
Project funding sources: USAID/OFDA 
Project duration and evaluation period:
26 September 2011 to 31 October 2013
Implementing agency and partner(s):
HelpAge International – Sudan Country 
Programme
Start date of evaluation: late October/early 
November 2013 (TBC)
Evaluation report Release date:
December 2013 (TBC)
Type of evaluation: Final Project Evaluation
48
mixed and 7% resident population remained vulnerable and could not afford the food 
basket. 
Details of the Programme 
The Darfur conflict has directly and indirectly contributed to food insecurity. Although 
reports indicate that food security has improved in relation to previous years, approximately 
3 million people in Darfur will remain moderately and highly food insecure and require 
external assistance to meet their minimum consumption requirements. In addition, limited 
livelihoods opportunities have forced the population to rely on unsustainable livelihoods 
options such as petty trade and daily labour. As a result, the population suffers from chronic 
vulnerability and exacerbating poverty levels thus requiring an immediate and strategic 
target response. The project will improve food security and strengthen livelihoods options 
to increase resilience of the population to livelihoods shocks while strengthening their 
capacity to quickly recover from natural and man made disasters. 
Food security assistance is on going however early recovery interventions for vulnerable 
older people IDPs and poor households population are critical to address food insecurity 
sustainably. HelpAge will focus this project in West Darfur, Habilla locality – Habilla town 
and surrounding villages of Gobi and Tawang. The target beneficiaries are older agro￾pastoralists who are also vulnerable as they rely on a combination of agricultural-pastoralist 
livelihoods which have been affected by the conflict, environmental degradation and food 
price increase. The targeted group has also a combination of IDPs and returnees in the 
target area together with the resident population. The most appropriate approach is cash 
distribution to restore and diversify older people’s asset bases and in the long-term to 
strengthen their livelihoods and increase their purchasing power through running a 
community animal farm. 
HelpAge has over two decades direct-work experience in Sudan intervening in both 
emergency and development contexts as the only organization that focuses on older people 
and with expertise on ageing issues. In West Darfur, HelpAge has been working with 
communities since 2004 through emergency operations, currently operating across the 12 
IDP camps in (Geneina, Habilla and Kreneik localities). The 7 years experience working in 
Darfur has given HelpAge insights into the challenges of the area and an opportunity to forge 
healthy relations in the state with the community, government and other agencies. Over the 
past, HelpAge has conducted various studies and assessment that has formed the basis of 
the ongoing and planned interventions in the area. 
1.2.1 Project Goal 
Enhanced income security and sustainable livelihoods for 13,044 conflict affected 
vulnerable older people population. 
The project will aim to increase and diversify older people’s asset bases in the medium term 
and in the long-term to establish an older people’s association to undertake collective 
production and marketing; it will build up strategic efforts to increase skills and knowledge 
of the targeted beneficiaries in livestock production, market and financial institutions 
linkages, enhancing incomes and association management. 
 1.2.2 SECTOR: Agriculture and Food Security 
49
Objective - Increasing livestock productivity to protect and diversify older people’s asset 
bases. 
 Sub-Sector: Livestock - The project will focus on supporting older people with 
poultry farming through building their skills on poultry production and management. 
Activities – Poultry provision for 600 older people 
 Sub-Sector: Seed Systems and Agricultural Inputs - Average crop production around 
Gobe village is approximately 430kg per acre and each farmer has an average of 2 
acres and plants 20kg of seeds per acre. With access to proper seeds and agricultural 
extension services, groundnut yields can increase to at least 550kgs per acre. The 
project will support 600 older people households to increase groundnut production 
Activities – Provision of cash grants to 600 older people households; support 
existing but inactive Crop Protection Committee to maintain a conducive farming 
environment for the farming season. 
1.2.3 SECTOR: Economic Recovery and Market Systems 
Objective - Strengthening livelihoods options to increase older people’s purchasing power 
 Sub-Sector: Economic Asset Development - The project will strengthen community 
structures i.e. the Older People Association (OPA) to undertake enterprises that will 
benefit the older people socially and economically. Older people will be empowered 
to decide on the income generating activities (IGAs) to undertake and whether to 
work individually or in a group. 
Activities – Establishment of an older people association and provision of training 
 Sub-Sector: Market Infrastructure Rehabilitation - Trade is between Gobe and 
Habila village is affected by the poor state of the ‘Wadi’ crossings along the road. 
This road is rendered impassable during the rainy season affecting income and 
market linkages negatively. There is need to protect people’s livelihoods through 
rehabilitating these crossing to ensure trade continues unabated. 
Activities - Wadi Crossing Rehabilitation; provision of cash grants to 400 older 
people for small micro-enterprises 
Aim of the Evaluation 
HelpAge International is looking for a Consultant to submit an expression of interest for a 
final evaluation of this one two year project. The evaluation will be conducted in West 
Darfur (Habila, Gobe, and Twang villages). 
Overall Objective 
The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the impact of the project and the level of 
achievement of the project’s objectives and results. This evaluation is part of a strategy 
aiming at strengthening HelpAge’s programming in Darfur, as well as strengthening 
50
communication, transparency towards various partners about HelpAge’s performance and 
approaches in the area. 
Specific Objectives 
► The evaluation will focus on assessing the Older People Association model in 
Darfur using standard evaluation criteria. 
► Since early recovery interventions are relatively new for HelpAge in this area, the 
external evaluation shall mostly concentrate on capturing lessons learnt in order 
to feed ongoing programming rather that considering the study as a final step in 
the program cycle. 
► The external evaluation shall reinforce HelpAge’s advocacy capacities, through 
strengthening HelpAge’s network and connections with partners, allowing 
transparent and independent communication towards partners, and supporting 
the HelpAge office to establish an appropriate technical advocacy strategy. 
► This review is part of HelpAge Strategy to build income security and livelihoods 
for older people in Darfur and shall support it with appropriate and operational 
recommendations serving that purpose. 
Major Factors to be taken into account 
- The shift from emergency to early recovery interventions 
- Intervening in surrounding villages outside IDP camps 
- Potential returns that may increase pressure on service provision 
Detailing of the Evaluation Criteria 
Relevance 
The evaluator should assess the appropriateness of the objective and results pursued by the 
program in relation to the identified needs. 
→ Was the analysis of needs adequate (methodology, findings, conclusion and 
recommendations)? 
→ Was the involvement of beneficiaries ensured in the design phase? 
→ Did this analysis lead to the elaboration of adequate objectives in relation to the 
needs identified? 
Coverage 
The evaluator should assess the coverage of the program in relation to the identified needs. 
 Is an adequate percentage of the needs covered? 
 Were the worst-affected groups correctly identified? 
 Was there appropriate geographical coverage? 
 Was there fair targeting of beneficiaries? 
Coherence 
The evaluator should assess the adequacy of the activities that were implemented in 
relation to the objective and results pursued by the program. 
→ Did the activities have a direct relationship with the objective and results pursued? 
51
→ Were the activities adequately coordinated with other humanitarian actors? 
→ Were the activities adequately integrated between HelpAge departments at each of 
the following stages of the program: 
 Assessment of needs 
 Project proposal 
 Targeting of communities and beneficiaries 
 Implementation of activities 
 Monitoring 
→ Did the authorities and communities understand, accept and welcome HelpAge 
program? 
Effectiveness 
The evaluator should assess the adequacy of the results that were reached in relation to the 
objective and results that were pursued by the program. 
→ Will the program reach the intended results and specific objective (taking in 
consideration remaining month to implement it? 
→ If not, what are the justifications provided for the risk of non-achievement? What 
hampered the achievement of the target? Does the organisation anticipate the 
constraints that are met? Does the organisation react adequately to unforeseen 
events in order to re-adjust/ adapt the program and ensure the achievement or the 
readjustment of the objective and results pursued by the program? 
→ Are the information correctly passed onto the communities and the authorities? 
→ How can the monitoring system be strengthened in order to measure impact more 
effectively in the coming years? 
Efficiency 
The evaluator should assess the cost-efficiency of the program, per se and through a 
comparison with similar programs in the area. 
→ Was the program cost-effective? 
→ Could more have been achieved with the same resources? 
→ Could the same results have been achieved with less resources? 
→ Are the log / admin procedures well understood, accepted and respected by 
everyone? 
→ Is the internal coordination and communication efficient? 
Sustainability 
The evaluator should assess whether or not the intervention could sustainably improve 
income security and livelihoods of the targeted population. To do so, the evaluator should 
look at the program’s capacity-building components, local ownership aspects, Older People 
Association functionality and financial sustainability aspects. 
Accountability 
The evaluation should also provide an assessment of HAI’s Accountability in areas such as 
beneficiaries’ participation in the project and to evaluate also how their feedback has been 
integrated. 
Cross cutting issues 
To understand how the following cross-cutting issues have been taken into account at all 
stages of program implementation so far: 
52
− Disaster risk reduction and Preparedness; 
− Do no Harm / Effects on the environment; 
− Gender; 
− Security of aid workers; 
− Participation.
The consultant will take into account the non-exclusive list of criteria referred to above. 
Their definitions and key evaluation questions to be answered will be defined in the briefing 
phase 
Methodology of the evaluation 
The methodology used should be participatory and include all stakeholders and beneficiaries 
in the process. As much as possible, the evaluator will utilise tools that do not require high 
levels of literacy and adapt those tools to ensure full participation of people with disabilities. 
Tools should be developed in consultation and approved by HelpAge. 
Briefings/ preparation 
 Reviewing of the project documents (proposal, reports, monitoring reports, surveys, 
assessments, capitalisation documents, etc) 
 Meetings with relevant stakeholders 
 Preparation and training of local evaluation team 
Field activities 
For data collection, 3 levels shall be used:
 Direct information: 
o visit to project sites 
o Interviews with beneficiaries 
o Interviews with project staff
 Indirect information: Interviews with local representatives; Interviews with project 
staff (expatriate and national staff); Meeting with local authorities, groups of 
beneficiaries, humanitarian agencies, donor representatives, or any other relevant 
stakeholder. 
 For data collection, standard and participatory evaluation methods are 
expected to be used (PRA / HH interviews and FGDs with beneficiaries, non￾beneficiaries, key informants – health workers, teachers, leaders). 
 Secondary information analysis: e.g. information about the organization of the 
project – general coordination, communication, how capitalization is being 
organized, etc… 
Note: All data must be disaggregated by age and sex and according to HelpAge data 
disaggregation policy 
53
5 Timeframe and deliverables 
The evaluator will produce a clearly set out final report in a reader-friendly forma which 
should include, but not be limited to the following: 
- Executive summary of the main findings (maximum 2-3 pages) 
- A clear set of conclusions emerging from the evaluation work (max 2-3 pages) 
- Lessons learnt with regard to relevance of activities (for beneficiaries), 
appropriateness (of interventions in the given context) and HelpAge’s ability to 
deliver (max 3 pages) 
- Recommendations for the future (max 2 pages) 
- Relevant annexes with supporting documentation that might include approach, 
methodology, people consulted, project sites visited, interview tools used for 
different stakeholders, summary of FDGs hel. 
- The evaluation must also produce at least one case study per activity. 
The main text of the evaluation report should not be longer than 20-25 pages, excluding the 
executive summary, and annexes. 
Dissemination of Evaluation Findings. 
When the first draft of the report is completed a presentation of the findings followed by 
team discussion at Darfur and Khartoum level will be organized 
After Headquarter validation of the report at the end of the mission the consultant should 
meet with the OFDA’s field officer and, where relevant and applicable, with the 
organisation’s experts and organisation’s partners for discussion of observations arising from 
the evaluation. 
The response - Following the completion of the report, records will be kept by HelpAge on 
the management response to the final evaluation findings, including what was found to be 
useful and what was contested. This information will be shared with the donor 
Timeframe – The evaluation is expected to take place in late October/early November 
depending on approval of visa and travel permits from the Sudanese Government if 
required. The evaluator will submit the final report as per plan to be agreed with HelpAge 
International.
6 Evaluator profile 
6.1 Core competencies 
 Ability to collect and analyze qualitative and quantitative data and to translate 
research findings into practical programme and policy recommendations 
 Ability to consult and communicate effectively with a wide range of people from 
beneficiaries to Government, development agencies at various levels and 
UN/international agencies 
54
 Demonstrates sensitivity, tact and diplomatic skills in personal and professional 
communication; ability to communicate challenges and weaknesses in a constructive 
way, 
 Able to handle confidential and politically sensitive issues in a responsible and 
mature manner and in line with set protocols 
 High proficiency in written and spoken English 
 Ability to write high quality and concise technical reports within agreed terms of 
reference and deadlines. 
6.2 Education and Experience: 
 Advanced degree in field relevant to the project 
 Experience in working and carrying out assessments and evaluations in protracted 
crisis and recovery contexts, and particularly in the field of food security and 
livelihoods (including cash transfers, IGA and small livestock interventions). 
 Proven experience in participatory research and capacity assessments. 
 Experience carrying out quantitative data analysis of secondary datasets using 
statistical software packages
 Experience in cost-benefit analysis 
 Experience in working and evaluating programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa (experience 
in Sudan would be an advantage) 
6.3 Desirable 
 Experience in carrying out evaluations for OFDA funded programmes would be an 
advantage 
 Knowledge of Arabic 
Expression of interest 
All interested consultants/firms are requested to submit their application which should 
include: 
a) A cover letter explaining how the consultants meet the core competencies, 
education, and experiences in the evaluator profile (section 6) 
b) A CV of the lead consultant/s 
b) Explain in detail the methodology to be used in carrying out the assignment 
c) Provide a detailed budget in USD (Indicate daily rates) excluding cost of flights and 
accommodation which will be provided by HelpAge International 
d) Provide timeline for the assignment and indicate when ready to undertake the 
assignment. 
e) Provide two evaluation reports of similar work undertaken in the recent past (Not 
more than 2 years) 
f) Contact information for 2 professional references 
55
Annex 2 - Semi-Structured Interview Formats 
 
Project Manager 
Relevance 
How was the project designed and by whom? 
Did you have any role in project design? 
How were the needs of the local beneficiaries assessed? 
How were the needs of the local beneficiaries (findings of the above etc.) addressed in the 
design? 
What do you consider to be the greatest achievement on behalf of the target group? 
What do you consider to be the main shortcomings? Why and how could they be addressed? 
What other types of activities (detailed markets analysis, other IGAs, rights-based planning 
etc.) could/should the project provide in future? 
Coverage 
Discuss participant selection. How systematic and fair was it? Who might have been 
excluded? 
What % of local HH in the target villages are participating? Is this adequate, why? 
Did you target the most vulnerable HH and individuals – could targeting have been more 
strategic and focussed? 
Coherence 
How does the project relate to other assistance and projects in Habilla? – is it distinct or 
does it complement the activities of others? 
How are activities and issues communicated with others agencies and stakeholders? Is this 
sufficient? 
Discuss the role of each HelpAge department in assessing the need and designing the project 
(what are these departments)? What was the sequence of developing the project, for 
instance? 
How do you manage implementation of the activities (systems of reporting and 
responsibilities of local offices in Geneina and Habilla)? 
What is the link between the M&E department and you? How do you respond to 
information from the project area? 
56
Effectiveness Discuss the table of indicators and activities…..
Are these targets in deliverables going to be met, if not why not? 
Are these indicators going to be met – what is the evidence? Discuss each in turn? 
What does the Manager believe are the constraints if there are shortcomings in delivery and 
outputs? 
What does the manger feels the M&E system could do differently especially wrt to 
improving: 1) tracking ongoing performance and; 2) assessing impact. 
Efficiency 
Explore administrative procedures – are these adhered to, understood and respected by the 
whole team (Khartoum, Geneina and Habilla)? 
What is the Manager’s perspective on cost-effectiveness? Are there estimates for cost per 
HH (obtain these) and what activities and components appeared most cost-effective and 
why? 
What components of the project were less cost-effective and why? 
How did the change in project design and the 6-month delay, staff changes etc. affect cost￾effectiveness? Could this have been managed differently? 
Cross-cutting issues 
How does the project accommodate and balance the following: DRR and preparedness, Do 
no Harm, the environment, gender, security of staff, participation?
57
M & E Officer 
Project indicators 
Is there a master project plan other than the Narrative Proposal – are the indicators 
summarised in log-frame or tabular form? 
Look at the quarterly reports – the indicators are different to those in the narrative report –
why? 
Do you refer to the baseline – has the baseline been useful? 
Progress against indicators – get all updated figures on the following and complete the table 
if possible….
Sector Name: Agriculture and Food Security
Objective: Increasing livestock productivity to protect and diversify older 
people’s asset bases
Dollar Amount Requested: $274,762
Number of 
Beneficiaries Targeted: 7,200
Number of IDP
Beneficiaries Targeted: 4,800
Geographic Area(s): West Darfur, Habilla Locality (Habilla town, Gobe village)
Keyword(s) Capacity building/training, livelihoods/income generation, cash 
distribution, protection mainstreaming, Nomads and 
Pastoralists, DRR and Returnees
Sub-sector Name: Livestock
Indicator 1: Number of animals benefiting from or affected by livestock 
activities
Indicator 2: Number of people benefiting from livestock activities
HelpAge 3 At least 80% of the targeted households have improved self￾reliance and livelihoods options by the end of the project
Sub-sector Name: Seeds and Agricultural Inputs
Indicator 1:
(Projected) increase in number of months of food self￾sufficiency due to distributed seed systems/agricultural input 
for beneficiary families
Indicator 2: Number of people benefiting from seed systems/agricultural 
input activities
HelpAge 3 At least 80% of targeted households have increased their 
knowledge, attitude and practices in agricultural production
58
Sector Name: Economic Recovery and Market Systems
Objective: Strengthening livelihoods options to increase older people’s 
purchasing power 
Dollar Amount Requested: $222,073
Number of 
Beneficiaries Targeted: 5,844
Number of IDP
Beneficiaries Targeted: 3,896
Geographic Area(s): West Darfur, Habilla Locality (Habilla town, Gobe andTawang 
villages) 
Keyword(s)
Capacity building/training, host government, DRR, gender 
relations, Cash distribution, cash for work (CFW), 
livelihoods/income generation, IDPs, host community , 
Nomads/Pastoralists, and Youth
Sub-sector Name: Economic Asset Development
Indicator 1: Number of people assisted through economic asset 
development activities
Indicator 2: Number and percent of people utilizing economic assets 
created to support their livelihood pattern
HelpAge 3
Improved welfare and economic wellbeing for at least 50% of 
targeted older people and their families by the end of the 
project
HelpAge 4 6 OPCs and 1 OPA established and operational by the end of the 
project 
Sub-sector Name: Market Infrastructure Rehabilitation
Indicator 1: Amount of market infrastructure rehabilitated (number of 
‘wadi’ crossings/bridges)
Indicator 2: Number of cash grants to Small Micro-enterprises (SMEs)
Indicator 3: Total USD amount of cash grants to SMEs
HelpAge 4: All 'Wadi' crossings rehabilitated are functioning by the end of 
the project
HelpAge 5:
Increased income levels and purchasing power for at least 50% 
of older people living in the three targeted areas by the end of 
the project.
HelpAge 6: At least 70% of small micro-enterprises supported are 
functioning sustainably by the end of the project
Geographic Area(s): West Darfur, Habilla Locality (Habilla town, Gobe village) 
Financial management 
What is your role in this respect? 
Can you provide an overview of the total cost per beneficiary? (we need to make a 
judgement on value for money relative to other projects in the region). 
Stuart to review budgets and spending (relevant here?) 
59
Management 
How long have you been in the post? 
How did the 6 month delay affect the M&E strategy – was the previous sampling and system 
re-designed or abandoned etc.? 
What are the challenges to you as the project has moved towards integrated livelihoods 
approaches (PILAR)? 
How has staffing changes challenged you? 
What would improve the quality of your M&E? (Does it need to be more reflective and 
responsive to performance throughout the project?). 
60
Field Manager 
An overview discussion of each of the following sets of activities/themes: 
1. Groundnuts, tools and other agricultural support 
2. Poultry support 
3. SME support 
4. The OPCs and OPA 
5. The CPCs 
6. Wadi rehabilitation 
7. Training (business, conflict resolution, DRR etc.). 
 
In each case…..
Relevance 
What evidence is that the activity supported vulnerable older people and their HHs? 
What do you consider to be the greatest achievement of the activity? 
What do you consider to be the main shortcomings? How could they be addressed? 
How could this activity be modified in future and why? 
Coverage 
Are you reaching the HHs that you should or want to – what are the constraints? 
How do others (non-target) benefit? Is it possible to estimate how many? 
Coherence 
How do these activities relate to those of other projects (are some HHs involved with other 
projects too)? 
Are your activities integrated with the work of others at village level or at Habilla? How? 
Do your staff work the same way in each of th three sites (are they seconded between 
sites)? What are management and quality issues associated with operating in 3 sites? 
61
Effectiveness Refer to the table of indicators and activities…..
Are these targets in deliverables going to be met, if not why not? 
Are these indicators going to be met – what is the evidence? Discuss each in turn? 
What does the Field Manager believe are the constraints if there are shortcomings in 
delivery and outputs? 
Efficiency 
Explore administrative procedures – are these adhered to, understood and respected by the 
whole team (Khartoum, Geneina and Habilla)? 
What is the Manager’s perspective on cost-effectiveness? Are there estimates for cost per 
HH (obtain these) and what activities and components appeared most cost-effective and 
why? 
What components of the project were less cost-effective and why? 
How did the change in project design and the 6-month delay, staff changes etc. affect cost￾effectiveness and delivery of inputs, training and activities? 
Cross-cutting issues 
How does the project ensure that it represents women, those with disabilities and other 
vulnerable groups? 
How do local staff understand these issues? Is training provided or required? What are local 
staff skill sets in this regard before they are employed? 
What processes are in place to ensure staff security? 
62
Catholic Relief Service (and Save the Children Sweden) 
General 
What is the nature of your collaboration with HAI in West Darfur, Habilla etc. (forums, 
emergency planning committees, advocacy etc.)? 
What are the cross-overs and differences between your spheres of works? 
Rehabilitation and markets assessments and market development work – constraints and 
options? 
The Older People Programme 
What do you know about the HAI project and way of working in Habilla? 
What do you think about it – constraints / strengths and relevance? 
What might strengthen this kind of work? 
 
63
Annex 3 
 HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE 
Identification of Household
Name of Respondent _____________________________________
Habilla / Gobe / Tawanj 
 
Name of Village
Household Code 
To be completed by Interviewer
Date of Interview
Name of Interviewer 
__________________________________
Day
Signature _________________________________ Month 
Comments: Year
2 0 1
64
Introduction to interviewee
Hello, I am working for HelpAge International and we are visiting here to learn about the impact of the 
Sustaining Livelihoods for Vulnerable Older People Project. We want to know from people who have been 
involved in the project activities and also from some people who have not been involved so that we can 
learn for the future. 
 
Section 1 
1.1 Gender 1.2 Age
About you
(circle one 
m / f
0 / 1 
50-59 0
60-69 1
70-79 2
80+ 3
1.3 Are there other older people in the 
HH?
1.4 What is their relationship to you 
(e.g. spouse)?
1. Spouse 
2. Brother 
3. Sister
4. Mother 
5. Father
6. Other
Y / n
0 / 1 
Section 2
2.1 Are you aware of the Sustaining 
Livelihoods of Vulnerable Older People 
Project? (circle one) y / n if no, go to Section 3
0 / 1
2.2 Have you or a HH member been 
involved in the project (a participant or 
recipient of inputs or training etc.). y / n if no, go to Section 3 
0 /1
65
2.3) If you or a HH member was a recipient of poultry and poultry training complete….
2.3.1 how many birds received?
2.3.2 was the training beneficial to 
you?
y /n
0 /1 
2.3.3 If you have sold birds or eggs, 
what is the total estimated value over 
the period?
0-50 (0), 50-100 (1), 100-150 (2), 150-200 (3), 200-500 
(4), 500-1000 (5), 1000+ (6) 
2.3.4 if your HH consumed meat and 
eggs, what is the total estimated value 
over the period?
0-50 (0), 50-100 (1), 100-150 (2), 150-200 (3), 200-500 
(4), 500-1000 (5), 1000+ (6) 
2.3.5 how many birds do you have 
now?
0-5 (0), 5-10 (1), 10-15 (2), 15-25 (3), 25-35 (4), 35-50 (5), 
50+ (6)
2.3.6 will you maintain poultry 
production this way in future?
y / n 
0 / 1
if no, why not?
2.3.7 the contribution of the poultry to 
HH income was..
high / moderate / 
low
0 / 1 / 2
2.3.8 the contribution of the poultry to 
HH diet & health was....
high / moderate / 
low
0 / 1 / 2
2.3.9 did you receive training on risk 
reduction and planning (DRR) for 
poultry keeping
y / n 
0 / 1
if yes, how useful? 
high / moderate / low
0 / 1 / 2
2.4.1 Have you or a HH member been supported by the project’s Community Animal Health Workers? y / n
0 / 1 
2.4.2 If so, how satisfied were you with their support? 
 high / moderate / low 
 0 / 1 / 2 
2.4.3 Please explain your reason to the above _____________________________________________________________
2.5 How many animals do you think were saved by the service of CAHWs ? 
0 (0), 1/2 (1), 2/5 (2), 5/10 (3), 10+ (4). 
66
2.6 If you or a HH member was a recipient of groundnut support (Gobe) complete….
2.6.1 How much cash support received? 200-300 (0), 300-400 (1), 400-500 (2), 500-
600 (3), 600-700 (4), 700-800 (5), 800+ (6)
2.6.2 Did you receive tools? if yes, were they 
beneficial to you? 
y /n
0 / 1 If no, why no? 
2.6.3 Did you receive training? y /n
0 / 1 
2.6.4 Was the training beneficial to you? y /n ا
0 / 1
2.6.5 How many bags did you receive? 1 bag, 1.5 bags 
0 / 1
2.6.6 How many kg did you plant?
2.6.7 When did you plant? July 1-15 (0), July 15-31 (1), Aug 1-15 (2), Aug 
15-31 (3).
2.6.8 How many bags did you harvest? 0-5 (0), 5-7 (1), 7-10 (2), 10-15 (3), 15-20 (4), 
20+ (5). 
2.6.9 What was your net financial benefit each 
season? 0-1000 (0), 1000-2000 (1), 2000-4000 (2), 
4000+(3)
2.6.10 the contribution of groundnut to HH 
income was..
high / moderate / low
0 / 1 / 2
2.6.11 the contribution of groundnut processing
to HH income was...
high / moderate / low
0 / 1 / 2
2.6.12 the contribution of the groundnut to HH 
diet & health was....
high / moderate / low
0 / 1 / 2
2.6.13 what is the area of land under cultivation by your HH (in acres) …..?
67
2.6.14 2 years ago
2.6.15 Today
2.6.16 When did the change occur?
2.6.17 What accounts for the difference?
2.6.18 Have you or HH member been supported by the project community agriculture extension workers? Y/n 0/1 
2.6.20 If so, how satisfied were you with their support? High/moderate/low 0/1/2
2.6.21 please explain your reason for the above: 
_______________________________________________________________________ 
2.7 Grants to small micro-enterprises (SMEs)
2.7.1 Have you or a HH member received a contribution towards a SME? y / n 0/1
2.7.2 was it for you alone or a group? 0/1 alone / group
2.7.3 What was received?
2.7.4 Did you receive related training (business planning etc.)? y / n 0/1/
2.7.5 What was your SME? _____________________________________________________________________________
2.7.6 Is it profitable and functioning? y / n 0/1 
2.7.7 If not, why not?_________________________________ 
 
2.7.8 What has been the average monthly financial benefit to you since the SME started? 
(0) Less than 100 SDG (1) 100-200 SDG (2) 200-300 SDG (3) 300-500 SDG (4) More than 500
2.7.9 The contribution of the SME to your HH income was high / moderate / low 0/1/2 
2.8 Support to younger member of the HH
2.8.1Have any younger HH members benefited from cash for work, or any employment via the project? y/n 0/1
2.8.2 How many 2.8.3 age 2.8.4 gender f/m 0/1
68
 
2.8.5 What was the nature of the activity and how long did it last ? 
2.8.6 What was the total financial benefit derived by the HH? 
Section 3 
Income security and livelihoods context 
For all respondents…
3.1 . Are you aware of the Crop Protection Committee? y /n
0 / 1 
3.1.1 If yes, how useful is it? high / moderate / low 
0 / 1 / 2
3.1.2 How could it be improved? 
 ________________________________________________________________________________ 
3.2.1 Are you aware of the Older People Committees? y /n 0 / 1 
3.2.2 If yes, are you a member? y /n 0 / 1
3.2.3 Are you on the committee of 20? y /n/ 0 / 1
3.2.4 What kind of support have you received from your OPC (funding, loan, training, inputs 
etc.)?_________________________________
3.2.5 What has this enabled you to do? 
_______________________________________________________________________________
3.2.6 How do you rate the performance of the OPC? high / moderate / low 0 / 1 / 2
3.3. 1 Are you aware of the rehabilitated ‘Wadi’ crossings between Habilla and Gobe? y /n 0/1
3.3.2 If yes, how have these benefited you and your HH? 
________________________________________________________________ 
3.4 
3.4.1 Has your situation become better / worse since 2011? 0 / 1 
3.4.2 In general, has the contribution of older people in the HH increased, decreased, or stayed the same since 2011?
 Somewhat increased / somewhat the same / Somewhat Decreased 0/1/2
69
3.4.3Please explain the answer above 
________________________________________________________________________ 
3.4.4 In the last 2 years:
Has your access to income- increased / remained the same / reduced 0/1/2 
3.4.5 Has your access to food throughout the year - increased / remained the same / reduced 0/1/2 
3.4.5a Have your skills, knowledge or confidence - increased / remained the same / reduced 0/1/2 
3.4.6 Which organizations have helped you in the last 1 year? 
3.4.7 Have you or any member of your household received relief food this year? Please specify which persons 
For non-participants…
3.4.8 Have you learned or adopted anything from participating neighbours etc.? y / n 0/1
3.4.9 If so, what? ______________________________________________________________
3.4.10 Would you have liked to have been involved in the project? y / n 0/1
Annex 4 Semi-Structured Interview Responses 
 
1. HAI Staff 
1.1 Livelihoods Manager HAI (West Darfur) 
FAO/Ministry of Agriculture are involved in the procurement of vaccine and animal husbandry 
practices are promoted by CAHWs and the vet doctor. Better treatment and vaccination will happen 
eventually. We have delivered 5000 TB treatment doses and there is a wider vaccination campaign 
for 50000 animals. 
The project distributed 6000 poultry, 600 goats and 35 donkeys. Future benefits are not yet 
captured – especially in terms of goats, because the breeding process is ongoing and older people 
will reap the rewards in future. The bad season would have been worse without the groundnut 
intervention. 
600 households are represented by 5 Agriculture workers (120 HHs each) and they organise visits to 
demonstration gardens. There are 3 OPCs in Habila, 2 in Tawanj and 2 in Gobe. They have bank 
accounts and receive financial training. 
The two wadi crossings provide 103 cash for work slots at 60 SDG per day and the forecasted impact 
of the wadi rehabilitation is very high. 
In the first season, expectations were very high, but the achievement is below average because of 
the poor rainfall. 
There are 400 x $133 grants provided against small business plans. The target is for HAI associated 
income or purchasing power to increase by 50%. 
In Gobe, there are grinding mills run by two groups of 14 members. They were given training on 
management of the machine. Another group of 7 are receiving butchery training and a groundnut 
sheller is available to 100 beneficiaries. 
He expressed doubts that goats should have featured under SME programming. It is a 
straightforward stocking intervention and the business training/planning was somewhat superfluous 
Prospects 
The HAI realignment process changed the original project design and most of the Sudanese staff 
have also changed from this period. 
There was a detailed review of available options and livelihood activities that could work within a 
one year time frame were identified e.g. agricultural inputs and provision of goats. 
In the case of West Darfur, he believes the early recovery concept can work and although instability 
is still high the HAI project has considerable resources to deploy, albeit over a short timeframe. 
Because there is still some insecurity, everyone is trying to define whether we are in a recovery 
period or not. The language associated with assistance is changing to incorporate resilience, cash 
transfers and cash for work. There is a now a flow of commodities into the market. 
With respect to general food distribution, he believes the allocation is very low and there appears to 
be fatigue in supporting the IDP camps. 
In the case of agricultural inputs, he believes there is potential for the groundnut initiatives if 
drought resistant seed is given and this will be used in 2014 due to seed saving. 
The HAI concept is to support households to help older people. Overall, there is a need to monitor 
IGAs beyond the life of the projects.
1.2 Finance Manager HAI (Khartoum)
OFDA is a high risk donor under HAI classification due to its strict policies i.e. funding can be 
withheld if procedures are not followed. Abdulla supports the programme team to formulate the 
budget and ensures that core costs are included and inflation is calculated. His role is to ensure that 
the support team human resource is covered i.e. management logistics, security, finance, human 
resources. 
The monthly financial cycle requires that expenditure is shared with the team, checking for 
deviations, over spending and underspending and eligibility of expenditure. 10% overall variance is 
permitted and money can be shifted between budget lines. 
The Finance Officer keeps an eye on advance requests from OFDA to keep funds flowing to the 
project. Devaluation has been a favourable factor - $1 - 2.67 SDG Sept 2011 and $1 - SDG 5.9 now. 
All actuals are in SDG and quotations are obtained from different vendors in line with OFDA 
procurement policy. 
Resignations tended to come towards July 2013, when staff saw that the project was ending in 3 
months time and they had to secure their future. HAI covered the gap through secondment of 
government staff. They were give consultancy for 3 months. 
HAC approved the project on 25th Sept 2011 but the redesign took more than 4 months to get 
approval and work permits were not approved. In Sept 2012, HAI had to reapply for the technical 
agreement and it was approved in December 2012. Budget realignment with OFDA happened in 
April/June 2013. 
WADI rehabilitation and poultry is supported via FAO /Government vaccine budget. 
Positive: OFDA is transparent and cash requests are paid within 3 days. 
Negative: Procurement is from local or US suppliers only (e.g. laptops) and it is not always easy to 
remember that clause during budget development, so costs may be underestimated. Timesheets are 
a challenge to administer when staff time is shared across other projects.
1.3 Agriculture Specialist (seconded to project from Ministry, July-Oct 2013) 
His role is to supervise petty trade activities in Habila and Gobe, with emphasis on groundnut. 
The CPCs are very activate during cultivation and have helped to avoid damage to crops. They did 
their work well with the support received. They patrol all areas and are on standby to visit directly 
whilst destruction is occurring. Sometimes the animals that are doing the damage have strayed, they 
have been lost by the owners so we cannot immediately identify the owner. These animals are 
brought to a compound to be reclaimed. If pastoralists know the CPC is active they will keep away. 
If we compare harvesting to 2012 which was a very good season, the yields are 50% lower this year 
for specific crops like millet and for sorghum less than 50%. With ground nuts it is hard to compare 
as the cultivation is so huge compared to 2012. Prices have doubled due to poor harvest. 
In Gobe, they cultivate groundnut for the local market but without support they will reduce the 
cultivation area next year. The quality of land in Gobe is more suited to groundnut than the other 
locations. 
The Ministry does not have the capacity to do this and there is no budget for training, advice etc. 
There are enough staff with knowledge and experience but they have no operational budget – there 
is absolute dependence on NGOs. 
Group projects are not really beneficial, we should aim at individual support and individual IGAs. A 
grinding mill for 10 older people is not really viable. We need to distribute seeds very early before 
people consider having to buy. 
His salary is low (3500 SDG and 3000 SDG after tax). The project period was short and started late –
it has always been behind schedule. 
2. Catholic Relief Services Staff 
2.1 Head of Programmes CRS Sudan (Khartoum) 
Coordination with peer NGOs consists of sharing data and using common sets of indicators. There 
are pockets of stability in Darfur which permit early recovery and West Darfur is one of these. The 
balance of the current agenda is towards early recovery but there is a constant need to straddle and 
revert back to the humanitarian setting if necessary. 
CRS distributes the WFP distributes the food aid - in Habila the number is massive (about 100,000 
people). They distribute a standard ration of cereal/pulse/vegetable oil/salt/sugar. Additionally there 
is a corn/soya blend for supplementary feeding – lactating mothers/under 5s. There has been 10 
years of constant food distribution. 
The preference of the populations is still to return to their villages but no service/security is a 
disincentive. There are seasonal returns of individuals for farming and then return to towns which is 
an indicator of a willingness to return to the land. There are two harvests a year - now including 
vegetables in June/July/August and staples. 
OFDA is funding a transitional shelter project. DCPSF is concerned with farmer protection and 
migratory routes. CRS is also working on infrastructure: river crossings/veterinary 
pharmacies/slaughterhouses/market rehabilitation. 
FAO ensures that there is no shortage of staple crop seeds - there is introduction of nutritious food 
seeds. There are seed multiplication efforts and seed fairs. 
Markets are incredibly distorted by the free distribution of food aid which can also be used as seed. 
There is a voucher scheme around the introduction of nutritious crops – mono-cropping is very 
prevalent. 
With goats there is a solidarity - pass on scheme – although Thomas believes this is not an effective 
intervention. 
2.2 CRS, Head of West Darfur Office (El Geneina) 
As partners in the INGO forum CRS are very active sharing information and discussing constraints 
with HAI. 
The forum meets twice a month to discuss security and programme issues. The forum is part of the 
FAO sector coordination. 
The forum demarcates specific areas of intervention to avoid overlap and there is demarcation of 
beneficiaries too, as required. 
CRS is now focussing more on enterprise and markets but integrating this with supporting 
production. Isaac believes the main constraints are lack of knowledge and equipment e.g. sesame, 
processing machinery for sesame. Isaac believes that HAI should also focus future support on 
processing technologies. 
OFDA needs to keep prioritising the link from humanitarian to development but they need to 
provide evidence that this approach works. 
There are older people in Habila that have become beggars. Older beggars were very noticeable but 
the HAI intervention seems to have reduced this. 
2.3 CRS Staff Habila – Group Discussion. 
CRS have been involved in a variety of work in Habila. 
CRS were involved in supporting the Crop Protection Committees which they believe to have been 
an important achievement. The staff team also acknowledge the importance of the wadi crossing 
work and believe that there are still six remaining crossing points that must be established. 
The CRS OFDA funded project is Taking Action to generate Development For Early Recovery Effort in 
Darfur (TAGEED). There is a larger peace-building project (SOAR) funded by DCPSF also operating int 
the area. 
The CRS Livelihoods Programming is associated with support to agriculture, seeds, tools, vegetables 
and groundnuts. 
CRS have worked alongside the Ministry and trained their staff on extension. There has been a policy 
shift at the Ministry of Animal Resources – from emergency to early recovery – which means there 
are less subsidies for vaccines and more interest in cost recovery. 
CRS are also involved in irrigation and establishing wells along the wadi. 
CRS coordinated a vaccination campaign for larger large animals with a Vet Doctor but they believe 
there is great potential for a poultry farm. However, the FAO vaccination programme currently does 
not cover poultry. 
In the opinion of the CRS team, HAI should utilise veterinary staff. There is a straightforward 
procedure for FAO/Ministry to bring the vaccine for NGOs that procure it but it is necessary to have 
a qualified technical person in the NGO to requisition and handle the drugs otherwise it will not 
happen. HelpAge international has suffered from staff turn-over in their veterinary roles and a 
maybe the person seconded to the OFDA project from July-October from form the Ministry did not 
allocate sufficient time to procurement. 
In the opinion of the CRS team, poultry are the least preferred choice of intervention by local people 
and if goats of a good breed can be secured this is much better option. The security situation in 
Habila, works against larger livestock interventions, however. 
CRS distributes 102,000 WFP rations every month but this is down from a peak of 300 000 the WFP 
now increasingly focuses around project-focussed harvest and food for work initiatives. CRS believe 
that older people are the most impacted by this shift away from food provision as the standard 
ration for the vulnerable is down to one beneficiary per household and was reduced by half in 2012. 
The team are convinced there will be food shortage due to the poor season but the resumption of 
larger scale food aid will depend upon government evaluations. 
Many complaints have been received by CRS from older people. They complain to WFP that they are 
not given a ration card and WFP directs them to HAI. The issue has been raised many times at the 
WFP coordination meetings. The older IDPs that want to return need extra support. This was raised 
with UNHCR as older people register as returnees. 
With respect to support to pastoralists, CRS are offering two vaccination campaigns, refresher 
training for CAHWs and drug points on migration routes. Other agencies targeting pastoralists here 
include INTERSOS who are working on seeded pastures. 
There are peace building measures intended to address the policy priority of getting people back on 
to the land. At the very least, these require the allocation of seasonal capital (grants or loans) and 
the provision of shallow wells to encourage resettlement.
3. OFDA 
Senior Humanitarian Adviser & Programme Officer OFDA (Khartoum) 
Early Recovery needs to consider long-term thinking in the context of protracted emergencies. A 
proper contextual overview is necessary and the Feinstein Centre and ODI HPG (Non-State Actors) 
have recent papers on the Darfur situation. It is an assumption that in African society that elders are 
well taken care of and respected and so HAI needs to show evidence of their marginalisation. 
It is a challenge mainstreaming older people issues in the large humanitarian agencies such as 
USAID/FAO/WFP – which are responsible for the Food Security and Livelihood Cluster in Sudan. 
Continuous lobbying in inter-agency meetings is required for a snowball effect and we need to 
consider what less emergency-orientated programming would look like. 
4. FAO/West Darfur Agriculture Ministry – West Darfur HQ 
The interviewees expressed their reservations over the potential of poultry support at the household 
level: “for cultural reasons it will never take off as a viable business”.
For disease control it is preferable to have a proper poultry production facility but there are no 
animal feed processing plants in West Darfur so the viability is questionable. 
The group were concerned over the outbreak of the poultry disease and were uncertain that is was 
indeed Newcastle disease. There is a big similarity between diseases. The outbreak needs to be 
reported to the Ministry and then samples collected for scientific work. 
SC asked whether HAI should be doing irrigated agriculture in future projects to reduce the risk of 
poor seasonal rainfall. Most of the IDPs do not have land along the wadi and so the constraint for 
irrigated agriculture is therefore accessibility to land for IDPs. Small gardening is viable but not 
larger areas like the ground nut cultivation in Gobe which would require major infrastructure and 
major reallocation of land along the wadi.
5. Governor and HAC Chairperson, Habila – 
We are in a post-conflict context and in the development stage and so need the help of supportive 
organisations. HAI is providing a special effort on development. 
The implementation of the wadi crossing, for instance, is a useful development effort and we need 
more like that. Further crossings are needed during the rainy season on the Geneina to Morne to 
Habila route. With respect to income generation activities, more capacity is required and citizens 
should be formed into groups with the emphasis on development, not relief. 
The organisations currently working Habila are: CRS, Save the Children, Intersos, HelpAge and 
WFP/UNHCR. A lot of resources are deployed. 
The most noticeable benefit is from the wadi crossing – people can get to the market and the 
hospital. The entire Habila locality benefits – urban and rural. All goods are coming from Geneina 
and Morne and costs will increase if the roads are impassable. 
With respect to the situation of older people, they have received a lot of workshops and awareness￾raising from a social and psychological perspective. 
The support to the Crop Protection Committee in Gobe was implemented fully – we expect that 
support should come to Habila and Tawanj. Crop needs to be protected and this requires a 
committee with a vehicle, fuel etc. 
Older people have not come directly to the authorities to request support as they have Zakir. People 
lack confidence to come and demand support directly. Older people do not complain even if they 
have real needs and culturally they believe it can shame their households if they are not able to 
cope. Older people are not expected to go and complain because the assumption is that everyone 
helps them as much as possible already. 
In terms of new interventions, more bridges are needed on the routes and extra irrigation pumps 
are required as the deepest well is only 10 m. In the case of livestock under the project, the number 
of sheep and goat beneficiaries was not sufficient. 
Overall impression - the quality of the implementation is good, the quantity of inputs needs to be 
increased. 
Annex 5 FGD Feedback 
1 Project Committees and Structures 
1.1 Older Persons Association - Habila 
Only seven members attended the FGD as the meeting clashed with market activities. 
Context 
The OPA is led by men and has only three female members. For religious reasons, women 
are not the leaders (female sheikhs, imams do not exist). 
Under OFDA they have had workshops on Risk Management, Project Management, 
Livelihoods, Organisational Management and M&E. These were all rolled out to the OPCs in 
Habila, Tawanj and Gobe. Some members went to Geneina for workshops at the HAI office. 
The OPA/OPC structure is given responsibility for a supervisory role in implementation and 
are involved in the distribution of project items and moneys, contributing to supervision. It 
is, however, a voluntary role. 
The OPA/OPCs are partners of HAI and have the capacity to deal with the community on 
behalf of HAI. They also have the capacity to implement activities – the OPA has a bank 
account with 88K received from HAI to establish a loan revolving fund. 
Negotiations have taken place in Gobe to discuss whether investment should be on a group 
or individual basis but no such meetings have taken place in Tawanj. 
The MoU has conditions which the OPCs need to understand – especially with respect to 
operational principals of the loans from revolving funds. 
 
The process going forwards is dependent on the budget being made available for capacity 
building - HAI is responsible for this. For the OPA to become acknowledged as a CBO or NGO 
a particular process is required (an office, a logo etc.) and the government may then grant 
their registration. 
The OPA have a plan to build an office (land has been allocated) and a plan is being 
formulated with other local organisations to give them resources for furniture and 
equipment. 
Overview of project activities 
The goats provided locally to the community were too young when they were received and 
were given without male goats. The FGD group believe that two female goats cannot 
provide a benefit in the short term. 
With respect to poultry, the trader who provided the birds failed to provide healthy stock. 
The group believe that all project activities were successful expect the poultry component. 
More than 50% of the birds that were distributed died. They were still young at the time of 
distribution. 
Poultry implementation needed more careful planning and beneficiaries need direct 
training. A budget of 30 SDG per bird was insufficient to buy a decent hen due to inflation 
and delays in implementation mean that budgets needed to be revised accordingly. Pest 
control and vaccination need extra attention to reduce the risk associated with the various 
livelihood interventions. 
The OPA did carry out awareness campaigns on hygiene and poultry shelter. More 
veterinary staff would have helped and birds could have been kept in high density units for 
disease prevention and protection. 
 
More traders could have been given capital in the form of millet/groundnuts to get them 
into the market. This was a successful intervention. The OPA believe that the market can 
accommodate more traders and that the market is not saturated or limited. 
Groundnuts would be good for the Habila area. The seed for the Gobe groundnut activities 
was bought from Kordofan but the OPA believe it would have been better to buy locally as 
the prices are lower and the local economy would have benefited. 
In Gobe, the farmers were given about 800 SDG. OPA provided monitors to check if people 
were really being hired and to see that the older people’s carers really received associated 
income. 
The group say they need a new programme for shelter - to improve or build houses using 
Stabilised Soil Blocks. They also believe that extra workshops to the OPA and OPCs would 
increase their capacity to conduct their own projects. A small tractor would be very 
beneficial to the OPA. 
The group stated that the market economy is very unstable and implementation has to 
come quickly and predictably to avoid problem of rapid changes in costs. 
The OPA was not invited to participate in the design of the new HAI OFDA project. 
1.2 Older Persons Committee - Tawanj 
Most households sent a family member to represent them citing infirmity – difficulty of 
travel. 
Twenty two participants: 
Male: 57, 32, 58, 37, 60, 41, 27, 34, 30, 30, 25, 38, 25, 38, 25, 26, 59, 30, 38, 30, 30, 18 
Female: 30, 18 
Context 
The OPC was formed in May 2013. Nine sheiks and 5 leaders of nomads were called and 
briefed on the need for a committee. 
There are 40 members on the committee. Some active youth have been called to work on 
the committee to help the older people. IDPs in a separate part of the village are also 
represented. Prior to this, there was a reconciliation committee organised by the NGO 
INTERSOS in 2007, focussing on awareness (it supports reconciliation and it starts its work 
when there is a problem). 
The OPC meets regularly every week although it is quite new. The groups said that without 
external support they will try to continue. For example, they will organise nefeer – e.g. build 
a hut or go to a farm to do voluntary labour for an older person. When an older person has a 
problem of illness they will appeal for outside help – if this is not forthcoming they will 
arrange a collection of small contributions around the village. For hunger cases they will 
provide a 2kg bag of millet/sorghum. 
The committee has received hats and t-shirts for USAID visibility. There have been six 
training meetings for the committee: 
1) How to treat older people 
2) How to select beneficiaries for IGAs 
3) Planning for capital investment 
The loan fund has not yet been provided but they have been promised support with funds to 
help businesses. The Savings Group has saved about 2000 SDG and they are now waiting for 
the corresponding loans from HAI. 
There is no explanation or understanding of why this promised loan fund is not forthcoming. 
It is a revolving fund for members to obtain loans. 
They need tractors to help them on the land and capital to trade in different sectors of the 
market. No tools or seeds are available for winter season production. 
They believe that there should be a plan from the government/UN/NGOs for the hungry 
months – distribution of food, clothes, blankets etc. 
Issues raised by the OPC during the FGD: 
 There is a lack of water – hand pumps are needed. 
 The school has 8 classes which is not sufficient for all the children. 
 There is no fencing and no store. 
 Health – there is a clinic but no medicines. 
 There is no youth centre for recreation or vocational training – carpentry or masonry 
would be useful. 
 Literacy classes in Arabic are needed for the elderly. 
 Donkey carts would help for garbage collection to clean the village environment. 
 There is a food shortage due to the poor season. 
 There is need for continuing support for the OPC to work better. 
 There is need for capital for investments. 
 Land – pumps are needed to irrigate for cash crops to support elders. 
 Donkeys and tools for transportation and cultivation would be very useful. 
The FGD participants believe that the situation of older people has improved. The goat 
programme has been particularly useful and has increased the availability of milk. 
It will be the responsibility of the OPC to bring additional fodder when needed - grasses will 
be finished but will return again in March. The rain started on time but there was a dry gap 
in the middle - the fodder and pasture was sufficient but crops were badly affected. 
The participants identified a need for a centre for women – they need training to increase 
their participation in the community. They could be provided with a grinder machine to 
make flour. 
In the main village of 700 households, there are 175 women and 60 men over the age of 70. 
With respect to the 300 nomad households, there are less than 40 persons over the age of 
70.
Women are the most vulnerable – they are weaker because men go to market and eat meat 
on market days. Women endure life-long problems due to poor nutrition. 
Infirmity can be due to being an older disabled person, or due to sheer old age. HAI 
conducted an eye campaign and those in need were provided surgery. 
OPCs are currently used to house workshops. The young people are on the committee to 
receive information to advise the older people in their HHs on dietary issues and not missing 
meals etc. 
The groups stated that extra raw materials for handicrafts and inputs such as blankets and 
carpets for warmth would help older people (very cold at night and early morning). 
The group asked whether HAI could open an office in Tawanj. 
1.3 Crop Protection Committee – Gobe 
The FGD was attended by males from 32 to 65 years (CPC members must be male and able￾bodied to conduct this work as it highly physical and potentially dangerous). 
Context 
These committees are not new - committees for crop protection and reconciliation exist in 
most villages - but HAI has activated this committee recently. It was founded 18 years ago to 
meet the following guidelines: avoidance of cropping in pastoralist grazing areas and 
migration routes; watering places to be provided for animals and; awareness of pastoralists 
and sensitivity to grazing near farms. 
The time frame for protection is from July onwards when members go to the community 
leaders to play drums and start touring the area. HAI support includes sugar, tea, fuel, millet 
and sorghum for committee members and their donkeys. Awareness workshops were held 
for farmers and for nomads 
Status 
The CPC is active and all livelihoods groups and tribes are represented. Transiting nomads 
have kinsmen settled in Gobe who responsible for their representation and conduct. 
Gobe is a model mixed community which has been like this for a long time and it is now 
difficult to differentiate between farmers and pastoralists. 
The CPC has a linkage with the police and army (the Joint Sudan/Chad Border Force). The 
CPC give prior information on their tours and get support from the police. The CPC also has a 
link with the higher level committee in Habila and they can transfer problems to Habila if 
they are serious. 
The area to be patrolled is so large that they have sub-committees to keep control in normal 
times. This season there was crop destruction on three farms. Compensation was arranged 
but the farmer forgave the pastoralist as it is honourable not to take compensation as a 
guarantee of future good relations. The CPC also succeeded in heading-off a large herd of 
cattle coming towards the cultivated area. 
The project has a 50+ beneficiary group – “this was the project that was brought to us and 
we can't change that, even though the youth have their needs”. The youth have the energy 
to do this work and older people cannot do the patrolling work. 
The FGD participants believe that if they have older people in the household, this brings 
benefits to younger people in the household: “Older people are teaching the youth to 
replace them - to be wise and learn peaceful methods”.
The Gobe area is very wide but they now have the ability to cover the entire area. However, 
because it is voluntary work, it is difficult to motivate without external support. They do not 
have a vehicle but move from place to place on foot, donkey or horse. The fuel allowance is 
for use when the police go with them. 
Prospects 
They believe they need an IGA to help the committee sustain itself e.g. a ground nut cleaner, 
oil machine or millet machine. The CPC requested motorbikes for transport. 
Overview of project activities 
70% of families are not food secure until next season. Seed and money was received in July. 
They believe it would have been better to receive this in May-June so that they can be 
better prepared for the season. Ploughs are being kept for use next season. 
2. Poultry – Habila 
Seventeen participants: 
Male: 65, 78, 90, 80, 65 
Female: 60, 60, 92, 80, 81, 61, 85, 67, 87, 90, 82, 60 
Context 
The intervention started in April 2013 and people were informed via the sheikh. They came 
and registered with their fingerprints and were informed of the project. 
They were each given 10 hens, between 2 and 4 months old and CAHWs have followed up 
on feed, hygiene, disease prevention. 
300 cages were also provided, priority was given to those who had accumulated more than 
15 birds. 
HAI also provided a yellow powder and 7-day course on how to use it in the prevention of 
Newcastle Disease. 
They work individually and there is no group activity. 
Sometimes here in the Older Peoples Centre we discuss husbandry problems – local life, the 
marketing of chickens, prices and how to sell. 
Status 
The hens are widely appreciated: “nobody helps me except the hens, I depend on them 
totally”, “It is useful, but we need more”.
The main constraint is Newcastle disease and young hens under one month all tend to die. 
The participants all provide supplementary feeding with sorghum and wheat grains but the 
cost is unclear as they buy the food for their own consumption and give some of this to the 
chickens. Approximately 16 pounds a month is required for this feed. There is no cost for 
medicines as unfortunately they are not available. 
The existing poultry stock is variable across the group: one woman has 20 chickens, one 
woman is down to 5, one man has more than 20, one man has built up 18, another woman 
has 20 but one woman has not benefited as she remains with just 2 hens. 
There appears to be no strategy for stabilisation – they want to accumulate as many birds as 
possible and they will sell hens when they have grown. The eggs are all kept to hatch - eggs 
are not used for food or sale. 
The sale price of a hen is 25- 30 or 35 SDG according to the size. Each month they sell one or 
two. 
Their strategy is to trade up to goats if they sell enough chickens. 
If the hen business is successful enough they will transfer their assets to other animals (goat, 
sheep or donkey according to the needs of the family). 
They have some traditional remedies – red pepper and hibiscus – to try to cure disease. 
Relevance and impact 
The income associated with poultry sales is used for: 
1) children’s school fees, pens, pencils, books
2) vulnerable people in the HH – “we sell hens and spend according to their need”. 
3) orphans to be fed and clothed. 
One participant used the income for medicine (he had an accident carrying water). 
Unfortunately, one woman had to sell all her hens to provide food for orphans under her 
care and pay for her daughter in hospital. Now she is going hungry. One male participant 
said his wife manages the poultry, a widower stated that he managed the poultry on his 
own. 
The group believe that any poultry project must provide vaccination. 
They believe that goats and sheep are “better than hens”. They consider there to be too 
many risks associated with poultry (disease and loss to wild cats). The group believe that 
sheep would be more productive. 
In summary, the group believe that poultry have contributed to general HH costs associated 
with education etc. but provide a minor contribution overall. The group require more 
income for education-related costs. 
3. Groundnuts - Gobe 
Fifteen participants: 
Female: 70, 55, 52, 65, 60, 67, 60, 56, 60, 57 (representing 90 year-old). 
Male: 55, 68, 78, 76, 90. 
Context 
In the first instance, HAI met the community from May-June 2013 and consulted the Firsha 
(local name for community leader). They were briefed on the groundnuts programme and 
the number of beneficiaries. They met to agree the selection criteria for the older and most 
vulnerable e.g. extreme age, illness, widow, frailty or a large number of dependents in the 
HH.
There is a Host Community with IDP returnees. There are also pastoralists who have been 
settled for more than 20 years – they are farmers and they received groundnuts too. The 
IDPs represent 20% of the village population. 
Previously, WFP gave food rations but this stopped 2 years ago. INTERSOS have a CHF 
project working with the Reconciliation Committee which had a component on shelter for 
older people. 
There was no explanation as to why food distribution was stopped. The firsha visited WFP to 
ask and were told that activities are now targeting development. 
The groundnut activity was prominent locally. Each family was given 1.5 sacks of groundnuts 
and training was provided along with three tranches of money to each farmer (247-247-335 
SDG). Land preparation was supported via money to all beneficiaries to cover family or hired 
labour food for the elders. 
IDPs without land hired 1.25 Fedan at 100 SDG per season which was enough to sow 16 kora 
(1 kora = 2.5kg). Twelve kora of ground nuts were supplied per HH. 
Harvests were dependent on the type of soil and the shortage of rain. Sandy soils harvested 
more and mud/clay soils harvested less (lack of water). 
The poor harvest was still beneficial, however. 15 sacks represented a good harvest for that 
season and even the lowest harvest was 4 sacks. The FGD participants believe that in a good 
season up to 25 sacks is possible from the same amount of seed. 
The majority sell groundnuts to buy food for the HH. They also exchange groundnuts for 
cooking oil but generally do not make their own oil (some farmers did produce oil for sale). 
Income derived from groundnuts were used according to household priorities – clothes, 
school fees, koranic studies etc. The main benefit is increased household food supply. 
In the past they cultivated by hand sowing but are now using donkeys and horses for 
ploughing (hiring and borrowing donkeys). Ploughs were also donated to groups of three 
recipients. 
In the absence of another intervention, they have kept some seed for next season. They can 
cultivate from saved seed and organised the protection themselves. 
They say the OPC has improved the social fabric – the village came together for the 
beneficiary selection. The all sit together and they organise nefeer (voluntary collective 
labour) for cultivation support. They plan to start earlier and extend cultivation next season. 
The community agriculture workers provided linkage with organisations and they 
encouraged all to cultivate. They demanded a contribution from local authorities (zakir) 
which was used to buy seeds. 
The Ministry supported them with sorghum and dura seed but, at 1 kora per person, it is a 
minimal amount. 
The group are thankful for the HAI intervention. It helped older people and their families. 
The intervention needs to be continued and not stopped and the OPC requires more 
training. 
 
They believe that there is a need for an Older People’s Centre like this one (“We are meeting 
in the Habila Centre”). The centre should be for handicrafts production and to socialise –
“We are lonely in the house”.
Water sources need to be increased. 
There are more 75+ women than men, but they face the same problems – not enough 
energy for cultivation. A tractor would help if it could shared. 
The local traders’ prices for groundnuts is too low. For instance, one jerry can of oil is worth 
200 SDG and it takes 50 kora of groundnuts to make 1 jerry can. This year it required 60 kora 
due to the small size of the groundnuts. 
4.1 SME – Habila 
Nineteen participants: 
Female: 92,65, 70, 62, 75, 62, 90, 80, 82, 60, 52, 90, 72, 79, 60 
Male: 90, 90, 82, 90 
Context 
At the end of March 2013 people were classified into groups and then they received the 
support. 
HAI procured then distributed goats, donkeys and carts (shared by 4 people), wheelbarrows 
(used by children to transport produce in the market), groundnuts and sorghum (as trading 
stock).
Allocation depended on the preference of each beneficiary. The donkey and carts are shared 
but all other activities are individual enterprises. 
The groundnut inputs have not been successful – although some was cultivated, sold or 
consumed nothing is now left. 
The wheelbarrow inputs have been very popular and successful and are used my many at 
the market. They have allowed children to make an income through transporting produce 
and goods. 
The sorghum has developed financial capital via buying and selling. 
The goats have not yet produced a significant impact (goats are growing or ready to deliver). 
One participant was given two large sacks of groundnuts for oil production and trading –
there are minimal risks associated with this according to the group. Another man sold all his 
groundnuts in the market and transferred his income to his tailoring business. 
HAI has visited everyone to view implementation and advise. Goat owners were visited by 
the CAHW. 
The OPC received training from HelpAge in monitoring. This has allowed them to review the 
status of the groups and older people and to report back. Workshop for beneficiaries include 
advice on business management. 
The OPC has not been considered active in following up on the progress of the businesses. 
The wheelbarrow business can generate 50 SDG a week per family after all needs are 
covered. 
The donkey/cart business can generate 100 SDG a week per family after all needs are 
covered. 
In future, they expect greater runs from the goat stock and the mill – but they will have to 
wait for this. 
All expect their business to increase in future. The believe that saving is the key – to buy 
another wheelbarrow and expand the business etc. The donkey cart group saving scheme is 
working to improve the business. 
One trader of crops in the market who was given groundnuts/millet as capital, said that 
trade keeps increasing and that he was “just a farmer” before these inputs.
The participants believe that the goats will become profitable in the near future. The goats 
are still young but great benefits are expected – 300/350 SDG is the selling price. The 
problem is that the goats distributed were too young and there is too much associated risk. 
There is no disease problem but kids were still-born. 
The group stated that education of children is a priority. 
Summary: 
1) The group believe the number of goats provided should be increased. 
2) The group will suffer a large hunger gap because the season was so bad. 
3) The group believe some sheep could be included in the inputs although they are 
more expensive. 
4) The donkey cart activity requires the owners to reserve money for maintenance. 
5) Traders need more capital to increase their businesses, loans could be provided. 
4.2 SME – Tawanj 
The discussion was attended by a group of 16 participants from Tawanj - the criteria for FGD 
selection could not be followed and there was a mixture of older and younger people 
including three women. 
Context 
SME activities started in June 2013. The beneficiaries were selected at a meeting with 
community leaders and the criterion was vulnerability. Traders were identified by HelpAge 
to supply the inputs, the distribution was supervised by the OPC . 
Inputs include: a millet machine (14 beneficiaries); a groundnut oil machine (14 
beneficiaries); goats supplied on an individual basis and; butcher shop and butchery skills (7 
beneficiaries). 
Status 
The millet machine has broken down and spare parts are being sought. The machine was 
providing 700 SDG per month between the 14 beneficiaries. 350 SDG is kept in reserve. The 
machine was operating July–November and they have a paid employee to manage it. The 
profits are used to buy food. 
Groundnut production is low so there is not much demand for the machine but they are 
expecting to use it from October to May. The monthly profit so far is 850 SDG – 50% is in 
collective savings. They will continue as it is the only groundnut machine in the area and 
there is no competition. The rest of the profit is used for household food purchases for the 
older persons. 
They actually prefer to work in a group – there is a guarantee of continuity as an individual 
could use the savings for an unproductive purpose and lose them. 
A group of 7 was given butchery equipment and 2 oxen worth 3000 SDG. The butcher is 
hired and the monthly profit is 1200 SDG. A lot of money is saved to be re-invested and 
some is reserved for spare parts. The surplus after that is used for household food and 
clothes. 
One of the participants received two goats and he now owns six. He has had to spend a lot 
of his income on his own medical care. The goats mean that children in the HH have milk in 
the mornings and there is cash if the family need something urgently.
Another man also received two goats and now has three after breeding. He secured 350 SDG 
form the sale of one and uses their milk for HH consumption. One man who received two 
goats has bred three others and secured 150 SDG from the sale of one animal. 
The group believe that the improved security situation has helped maintain the goat stock 
and they believe that goat husbandry has great promise. 
The group suggested that the input should be much higher i.e. 600 beneficiaries should 
receive 2 goats. However, the intervention covered only 140 households out of 700. The 
nearby nomad settlement represents another 300 HHs. The only problem with goats can be 
a seasonal lack of grazing due to drought and a lack of veterinary medicines. 
The participants believed that the youth should be represented in addition to elders.
Annex 6 
Case study of poultry procurement - the constraints to efficient delivery 
Poultry was intended to be given in February and March 2013 but there was a disease 
outbreak in Habila. The Ministry of Animal Resources suspected Newcastle’s disease. One 
requirement of the poultry suppliers was a 24 hour incubation period during which time the 
supplier would be liable for any losses. The result was that the suppliers did not come forward 
during this period due to a fear of losses. HAI staff requested a confirmation letter from the 
Ministry that the outbreak was over and this was received in April. The distribution of 10 hens 
to 600 beneficiaries took place in April/May, with contracts to a total of 9 suppliers passing 
through the incubation process, whereby under the conditions of their contract they allowed 
the HelpAge veterinary officer to observe the birds for 24 hours before purchase. 
Nevertheless, it is estimated that 20-30% of the hens died within the first month either due to 
carrying the disease already or becoming infected by remaining traces of the disease in Habila. 
These losses could almost certainly have been prevented by vaccination prior to distribution 
but there was no provision for this in the project budget. The budget was being realigned at 
this time and $4000 for vaccination was approved in June. A further delay of a month was 
caused by consultations on OFDA guidelines that project moneys cannot be used for purchase 
of pharmaceuticals without permission from Washington D.C. At the end of June the project 
team attempted to procure the vaccine. The FAO and State Ministry of Animal Resources were 
contacted, with FAO confirming that they are bound by Ministry protocol and were unable to 
procure the vaccine. In August the Ministry seconded a veterinary office to the project to 
replace the project veterinary officer who resigned in July, and attempts to procure the vaccine 
resumed. The Ministry requested a formal communication requesting the vaccine, but in 
October the whole process lapsed as the ministry personnel did not forward any quotation for 
the price of the vaccine during the project period. Only one company in Sudan is mandated to 
produce this vaccine with a grant from the ICRC. The terms of this grant stipulate that the 
vaccines will be distributed through Ministry channels and therefore it was not possible for HAI 
to procure the vaccines directly from the manufacturer. The poultry beneficiaries of the 
project are therefore exposed and vulnerable to further outbreaks of Newcastle’s disease in 
future.
Annex 7 - HelpAge Management response to evaluation findings 
Incorporating a livelihoods approach
The Programme of Integrated Livelihoods and Recovery (PILAR) usefully attempts 
to combine support to human capital, markets and productive natural resources. The 
components of PILAR are cross-cutting but essentially address human capital and 
skills development. PILAR should allow a more holistic approach to reducing 
vulnerability in future programming because, in addition to new skills or natural 
assets secured by the individual or group, it acknowledges the role of markets, 
infrastructure and institutions in making those assets useable and relevant. HelpAge 
acknowledge that widening the range of activities makes funding and management 
more complex with a greater number of potential partners and there are indications 
that the various components may have to be supported by a set of donors rather than 
a single source (e.g. education, markets, and natural resource sector activities). 
Accepted 
Log-frame design and monitoring 
Programme design and presentation via a single master log-frame would probably 
improve the strategic focus and understanding of the programme objectives across 
the organisation. Currently the indicators are presented as a combination of USAID 
(generic) and HelpAge targets. Donor and HelpAge indicators should be 
consolidated in some way and made SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, 
relevant and time-bound). The USAID indicators, in particular, could be un-packed 
and explored during the baseline period so that, for instance, the meaning of 
“Number of people benefiting from livestock activities” (emphasis added) is defined 
with reference to local examples or proxies. 
The baseline survey placed great emphasis on the technical feasibility of a central 
poultry enterprise and although the study provided some supporting context on the 
social and economic background in the location, this information was not directly 
relevant to the objective and indicators of the programme. A log-frame approach to 
programme design may have helped frame the scope of the baseline study so that it 
would have been less concerned with proposed activities and more focused on 
analysing and quantifying the specific conditions of the target groups. 
The monthly and quarterly reports provide good narrative and qualitative updates on 
progress, especially with respect to delivery. A forward-looking section in the 
summary would encourage reflection of the constraints and performance and help 
Accepted
outline plans to overcome obstacles in the following months. Monitoring was 
focussed on the disbursement of inputs from the project side, but ideally the project 
should track the status and application of those inputs using the existing staff and 
structures such as the OPCs (e.g. how do groundnut HHs utilise cash inputs?). 
Addressing logistical constraints 
The timely delivery of project activities and quality monitoring and reporting is 
contingent on the efficient deployment of staff to the field locations. Ideally, there 
should be a detailed review on the issue of work and travel permits for expatriate 
staff and ways to avoid delays or refused travel. Due to these constraints, five 
monitoring formats especially developed for the project were not fully applied.
Accepted with 
qualification
The external constraints faced by INGOs in securing 
travel permits are a serious one. The issue of visas and 
permits is unfortunately beyond the influence of 
HelpAge as it is government controlled. HelpAge will 
continue to strengthen relationships with the 
Humanitarian Aid Commission at different levels and 
under the auspices of the INGO forum will continue 
to lobby for more supportive policies in securing 
travel and work permits for expatriates. HelpAge will 
also look at alternative ways to ensure that adequate 
monitoring information is collected in our 
programmes when expatriates do not have access to 
the field.
Advocacy 
It should be possible to develop a strong evidence-based case on the vulnerability of 
older people in the Habila area. This evaluation revealed the important inter￾generational benefits associated with support to the older HH members, including 
their support to vulnerable children and grandchildren.
This type of evidence could be utilised to develop policy advocacy documents, 
promoting additional support from government agencies and donors. The HelpAge 
model for livelihoods development with older people is novel and should be widely 
disseminated within Sudan 
In the coming months, a strong presence will be needed to lobby for timely 
assessments of the food security situation and the OPCs could be provided with 
evidence and lobbying skills to help secure their proper allocation of food cards for 
vulnerable older persons. 
Accepted with 
qualification
It is true that the project gives opportunity for us to 
build more advocacy and lobbying actions for more 
support to vulnerable households based on what is 
working well. However the environment remains 
hostile for any meaningful engagements in addressing 
the underlying causes of their vulnerability. In 2014, 
HelpAge will increase its lobbying to UN and 
humanitarian actors to integrate aging in their 
emergency livelihoods and food security responses.
Risk reduction 
HelpAge should explore minimising risks associated with agricultural interventions. 
The poultry impacts are constrained by the risk of disease and this affects the 
confidence of the participants. In this case, a comprehensive vaccination programme 
may be required. In the case of cultivation, HelpAge may need to explore activities 
that can ameliorate the impact of poor rains, perhaps including activities to establish 
community wells or homestead irrigation. 
Accepted with 
qualification
During the implementation of the project, HelpAge 
had come to an understanding that FAO was to assist 
with the poultry vaccinations and animal treatment. 
Unfortunately they had difficulties in securing the 
vaccines hence the delays in vaccinations. HelpAge 
will continue to coordinate with other stakeholders 
and lobby the government for more resources towards 
veterinary services.
Efforts will be made in collaboration with other 
partners in finding alternatives to dependency on rain 
fed agriculture as a way of mitigating the impacts of 
drought. However such efforts will need more time 
and resources beyond the current short term 
humanitarian projects for irrigation to be done at a 
scale that can bring meaningful impact.
Promoting PILAR and livelihoods development to local and secondary 
stakeholders 
HelpAge should work to ensure that all stakeholders understand the Market 
Infrastructure Rehabilitation activities are just one component of a broad portfolio of 
activities to support livelihoods development. These activities receive broad public 
and political support but projects need to re-iterate to government and NGO 
stakeholders the link between these interventions and the wellbeing of their key 
target group. In other words, local stakeholders need to be fully aware of how 
project activities are inter-related. 
Accepted
Reviewing the targeting strategy 
Additional support could be provided to households with more than one older 
person and consideration could be given to having more than one direct beneficiary 
per household in such cases. 
Accepted 
Building resilience in project structures 
HelpAge must be realistic with respect to the future potential of the OPA and OPCs 
outside the project context. Capacity building of OPCs will be problematic under 
short livelihoods development projects. Developing the autonomy and resilience of 
these structures would require longer-term facilitation where project activities 
extend beyond the delivery of pre-defined activities and move towards supporting 
linkage between these structures and the permanent private and government 
stakeholders in order to support their own enterprises. This would require new skills 
and approaches to monitoring within local teams so that the quality of the links to 
markets and service providers is tracked and supported. Obviously, this is more 
realistic within a longer-term programme of development and engagement, rather 
than a series of short projects. 
Older People’s Centres are a source of psycho-social well-being highly valued by 
project participants, reducing isolation and loneliness, and each intervention area in 
future should try to provide an accessible Older People’s Centre. 
Accepted with 
Qualification
As noted in the recommendation, building long term 
capacity of OPAs will demand more time and 
resources beyond the scope of the project which will 
also be dependent on availability of funds for multi￾year projects. While we try to secure longer term 
funding, HelpAge will continue to utilise the 
restrictive short term funding resources it has in 
building the capacity of the OPA and hopefully the 
cumulative effect of these efforts will pay off. 
Furthermore, it has to be noted that OPCs and OPAs
also play a more immediate role in each of the 
projects they are involved in, therefore it is essential 
that funds are also channelled to build their capacity 
even in short term projects.
Maximising impact via SMEs 
In any potential future project funded by OFDA, support to livestock and 
agricultural interventions should continue with a focus on building household assets 
for basic food and income security. Work on small and medium enterprises should 
be expanded on the basis of the successful experiences supporting individuals and 
groups with assets, capital and business planning for market trading, wheelbarrows, 
donkeys and carts and the agro-processing machinery. These assets appear resilient, 
provide reliable income and are less vulnerable to shocks. 
Accepted
Prioritizing activities with respect to performance and cost 
The project activities represented well the varied socio-economic roles and skills of 
men and women in the area. Women reported improved tangible benefits from 
homestead poultry activities and goat husbandry whereas men were often better￾placed to exploit physical SME and market-based activities such as trading, for 
instance. When performance is viewed in relation to cost, however, it does appear 
that the agricultural activities need refining in future projects. Although both men 
Rejected Crop production and animal husbandry are the key 
livelihoods activities in Habila. Groundnut production 
remains a key crop as it is the second highest grown 
crop in the area. Its use as a food and market crop is 
highly valued. The fact that the current year was hit 
by a drought does not mean that the same will happen 
every other year. HelpAge will continue working with 
and women benefited from the groundnut activities, the external risks remain high 
and may not merit such a focus of project time and resources. HelpAge should 
explore the performance of this component with the Ministry of Agriculture and 
other local partners before committing equivalent resources in future.
small holder farmers, the Ministry of Agriculture and 
other stakeholders in promoting varieties which will 
adapt to the changing climatic conditions.
Furthermore, to minimise the risk associated with 
failure of some components of the programme and the 
impact on the achievement of the objectives, in future 
we will endeavour to support HH with more than one 
intervention (eg agricultural and SME) to rebuild 
their assets. In the event of failure of one of the 
intervention, beneficiaries will still have a chance to 
improve their food security situation with the other.