Malawi Livestock for Resilience End of Project Evaluation Report ` 
Submitted by;
Institute for Economic and Social Research
July, 2016
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Institute for Economic and Social Research (IFESOR) is sincerely thankful to Land O’Lakes team for 
the immense support rendered for the fruition of the Livestock for Resilience endline evaluation. 
Particularly, IFESOR would like to mention the following for the significant roles played in advising and 
professionally providing an enabling milieu for the evaluation exercise pursuant to the agreement on the 
execution of the assignment:
Acknowledgements would be incomplete without mentioning the rest of the stakeholders who took part in 
the evaluation process including L4R staff, project beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries, government staff and 
Project Advisory Committee (PAC) member. 
Finally, the views contained herein are those of IFESOR and do not necessarily represent those of Land 
O’Lakes and/or USAID.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................ ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................... vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... viii
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................12
1.1 Project background.........................................................................................................12
1.2 Objective of the evaluation ...............................................................................................13
1.3 Evaluation questions and criteria.......................................................................................13
2 EVALUATION DESIGN ......................................................................................................13
2.1 Data collection methods and tools .....................................................................................13
2.2 Sampling.......................................................................................................................14
2.2.1 Household survey......................................................................................................14
2.2.2 Key informants interviews ...........................................................................................16
2.2.3 Focus group discussions ............................................................................................16
2.2.4 Identification of households for success stories...............................................................17
2.2.5 Ethical considerations................................................................................................17
3 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOLLOWED ................................................................................17
3.1 Review of documents......................................................................................................17
3.2 Staff mobilization, interviewer training ................................................................................17
3.3 Field data collection........................................................................................................17
3.4 Field quality control measures...........................................................................................17
3.4.1 Pretesting ................................................................................................................17
3.4.2 Field supervision, spot-checks and back-checking ..........................................................18
3.4 Data management..........................................................................................................18
3.4.1 Data entry and cleaning..............................................................................................18
3.5 Limitations and challenges of study....................................................................................19
3.5.1 Planned versus actual sample size of 2015 project participants.........................................19
3.5.2 Underestimated work volume ......................................................................................19
3.5.3 Limited accuracy on comparing baseline and endline ......................................................19
4 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................19
4.1 Characteristics of respondents and households ...................................................................19
4.1.1 Demographic characteristics .......................................................................................19
4.1.2 Household asset base................................................................................................21
4.1.3 Household income.....................................................................................................21
iii
4.2 Relevance of the project..................................................................................................22
4.3 Effectiveness/impact of the project.....................................................................................24
4.3.3 Animal husbandry practices ........................................................................................29
4.3.4 Village Savings and Loans Associations........................................................................39
4.3.5 Household decision making.........................................................................................44
4.3.7 Households that hired labour.......................................................................................46
4.3.8 General impact from participant perspective...................................................................46
4.4 Efficiency of the project....................................................................................................48
4.5 Gender mainstreaming findings based on KIIs .....................................................................49
4.6 Key weaknesses and strengths of the project......................................................................49
4.6.1 Weaknesses.............................................................................................................49
4.6.2 Strengths .................................................................................................................50
5 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................51
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................53
ANNEX 1: SUCCESS STORIES..................................................................................................55
1. Money in a box: “Para-vet model” mitigates widowhood..........................................................55
2. Height magic: raised goat kraal (khola) increases livestock asset base for chimwemwe................57
3. L4R Transforms Akimu Kawaye’s household ........................................................................58
4. Age does not matter: Of proper goat husbandry and VSLAs ....................................................60
5. Thank you L4R, am better now than before-Says Angelina, a widow.........................................62
ANNEX 2: EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS .................................................................63
ANNEX 3: LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS INTERVIEWED ................................................................65
ANNEX 4: END OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE DATA TABLE (PDT) .............................................66
ANNEX 5: TOOLS USED ...........................................................................................................69
Tool 1: Household questionnaire ..............................................................................................69
Tool 2: FGDs with Participants.................................................................................................18
Tool 3: Key Informant Interview: Government Staff ......................................................................25
Tool 4: for Key Informant Interviews with LLFs ............................................................................26
Tool 5: Key Informant Interview with key Project Staff ..................................................................29
Tool 6: Key Informant Interviews with Village Agent ....................................................................32
ANNEX 6: TERMS OF REFERNCE .............................................................................................35
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: L4R target area (EPAs and VDCs) ...............................................................................................................12
Table 2: Methods for addressing key evaluation questions.....................................................................................14
Table 3: Sample size distribution per district, EPA and categories of beneficiaries...........................................15
Table 4: Details of FGDs conducted.............................................................................................................................16
Table 5: Demographic characteristics of respondents at baseline and endline..................................................20
Table 6: Characteristics of the home at baseline and endline................................................................................20
Table 7: Household assets owned across beneficiary and comparison households.........................................21
Table 8: Comparison of household incomes by beneficiaries’ status....................................................................22
Table 9: Source of income..............................................................................................................................................22
Table 10: Average number of livestock........................................................................................................................24
Table 11: Size and value of goat herd/chicken flock.................................................................................................26
Table 12: Vouchers and livestock redemption............................................................................................................26
Table 13: Number of animals redeemed.....................................................................................................................27
Table 14: Livestock multiplication and survival ..........................................................................................................27
Table 15: Training on livestock production..................................................................................................................28
Table 16: Livestock training providers..........................................................................................................................28
Table 17: Type of livestock training ..............................................................................................................................29
Table 18: Livestock training participant........................................................................................................................29
Table 19: Adoption of raised khola ...............................................................................................................................30
Table 20: Provision of supplementary feeding ...........................................................................................................32
Table 21: Practice of chick care....................................................................................................................................33
Table 22: Mortality rate of chicks...................................................................................................................................33
Table 23: Number of animals that received heath care............................................................................................34
Table 24: Source of money for animal health services.............................................................................................36
Table 25: Rating of animal health service provider ...................................................................................................36
Table 26: Rating of LLFs in terms of price, customer care, frequency of service and training.........................37
Table 27: Access to loan after L4R VSLA...................................................................................................................39
Table 28: Use of VSLA loans.........................................................................................................................................40
Table 29: Use of VSLA money on food........................................................................................................................40
Table 30: Household economics...................................................................................................................................42
Table 31: Coping mechanisms when unexpected expenditure occurs.................................................................43
Table 32: Saved earnings from the business to VSLA.............................................................................................43
Table 33:Times of saving earnings from the livestock to VSLA.............................................................................44
Table 34: Household decision making.........................................................................................................................44
Table 35: Household Dietary Diversification Score...................................................................................................45
Table 36: Food Groups consumed in the past 24 hours ..........................................................................................45
Table 37: Job creation in impact areas........................................................................................................................46
Table 38: Summary statistics on job creation by the project...................................................................................46
v 
Table 39: Impact of chicken farming on household livelihood since joining L4R................................................47
Table 40: Impact of goat farming on household livelihood since joining L4R project.........................................47
Table 41: Impact of egg production on household livelihood since joining L4R project....................................47
Table 42: The most important livestock for household livelihood...........................................................................48
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A Basket Chick Care (Left) and a Chicken Raised Kraal (Right)..........................................................34
Figure 2: Nelesi with her daughter................................................................................................................................55
Figure 3: Chimwemwe in front of her raised goat kraal ............................................................................................57
Figure 4: Maize produced using manure from chicken and fertiliser from VSLA................................................59
Figure 5: Chakazonda with his raised goat kraal and tobacco harvest.................................................................60
Figure 6: Chakazonda proudly displaying his VSLA shares for 2016....................................................................61
Figure 7: Angelina and her raised kraal for goats ......................................................................................................62
vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
AEDC Agriculture Extension Development Coordinator
AEDO Agriculture Extension Development Officer 
APES Agricultural Production Estimate Survey
ASWAp Agricultural Sector-Wide Approach
CLWs Community Livestock Workers
CRS Catholic Relief Services
EPAs Extension Planning Areas 
FGDs Focus Group Discussions
FHH Female-Headed Households
IfESOR Institute for Economic and Social Research
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change 
KIIs Key Informant Interviews
L4R Livestock for Resilience
LLFs Livestock Lead Farmers
LOL Land O’Lakes
LUANAR Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources
MGDS II Malawi Growth and Development Strategy II 
MHH Male-Headed Households
MWK Malawi Kwacha
OFDA Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
PAC Project Advisory Committee
PMEP Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
PSP Private Service Provider
RFP Request for Proposals 
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists
TA Traditional Authority 
ToT Training of Trainers
USAID United State Agency for International Development
VAs Veterinary Assistants
VDCs Village Development Committees
WALA Wellness, Agriculture and Life Advancement 
vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction 
In 2014, Land O’Lakes’ International Development Division (IDD) received a $1,999,970 grant from the 
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through their Office of Foreign Disaster 
Assistance (OFDA) to implement a 23‐month project in Central Malawi called Malawi Livestock for 
Resilience (L4R). The L4R project was implemented in the two disaster prone districts of Dowa and Ntchisi, 
directly targeting 6,000 chicken and goat farmer households, 30,000 individuals in total, by building their 
resilience to enable them withstand climatic and economic shocks through diversified livelihoods and 
improved financial literacy. 
The L4R project, implemented in ten Village Development Committees (VDCs) in the districts, endeavoured 
to support goat and chicken producers to: expand and maintain their livestock asset base; improve access 
to animal health services; and improve their ability to plan save and mitigate risks. In doing this, the project 
facilitated formation of 300 producer groups from which 150 Livestock Lead Farmers (LLF) and 150 Village 
Agents (VA) were selected and intensively trained in livestock production and savings and lending, 
respectively. The LLFs, backstopped by L4R extension staff, in turn trained group members on improved 
animal husbandry techniques through a training of trainers approach. About a third of these households 
also received livestock vouchers to obtain locally available goats and chicken. LLFs were also trained in 
animal health provision to improve the access to animal health services of producer group members and 
other farmers in the area. The VAs trained producer group households in household economics and formed 
300 village savings and loans associations (VSLAs).
Following the L4R baseline and midline studies, an independent endline was commissioned to establish 
the appropriateness/relevance of the program approach, effectiveness of the implementation in achieving 
the expected results, efficiency and sustainability of the program activities and outcomes.
Methodology 
The evaluation design adopted both quantitative and qualitative research methods. It sampled 150 chicken 
and goat producer groups out of 300 producer groups. Then, a structured household survey was conducted 
with 514 project participants, randomly selected from the sampled producer groups. The 300 producer 
groups had a total of 7,277 goat and chicken producer group members spread across Dowa and Ntchisi in 
a ratio of 60:40, a proportion equally reflected in the sample size for the groups and producer group 
members. For comparison, a structured survey using the same tool was administered to 202 individuals 
who did not participate in the project; the project non-participants were randomly selected from different 
Extension Planning Areas in the same districts. The criteria used to identify the non-participants were the 
same as that which the L4R project used for identifying beneficiaries. The study ensured triangulation of 
the data for enhancing external validity, generalization and reliability by conducting 20 focus group 
discussions and over 30 key informant interviews with key stakeholders. Generally, the analysis relied on 
comparing the results with the baseline findings and the comparison groups in order to objectively judge its 
performance. However, since the baseline was done before project participants were identified, it was 
conducted with the general population which did not necessarily fit the criteria for beneficiary selection. 
Therefore, the differences in the sample composition should be taken into account when interpreting the 
results. 
viii
Key findings
The L4R final evaluation study established the following key findings;
• There is a significant increase in the percentage of L4R participant households that have 
viable flock/herd size and that have increased livestock asset base over baseline. About 37% 
of households had viable goat herd size at endline, which was much higher than the 15% reported 
at baseline but slightly lower than the 40% targeted in the project life span. About 75% of the sampled 
households had viable chicken flock size at endline, an increase over the 69% at baseline but lower 
than the 90% targeted in the project life span. Average livestock asset base per participant
household increased by 70% (MWK105, 594 /$150.85 at endline versus MWK61, 933/$110.2 at 
baseline). Furthermore, 77.2% of the participant households (76.5% MHH and 78.4% FHH) 
experienced increase in livestock asset base over the project period. This percentage is a significant 
improvement from the 43% (48%MHH and 38%)reported at midline evaluation and ultimately slightly 
above the 75% targeted in the project.
• The endline evaluation reveals a sharp increase in the percentage of households that are 
practicing improved animal husbandry and feed techniques. About 72% (71.6%MHH and 
74.1% FHH) of the participants applied at least 3 of the 5 practices, slightly lower than the 75% 
targeted in the project. Furthermore, the percentage is well above the baseline value (4%) and the 
comparison respondents (24.8%). The five practices under mention are as follows: improved 
housing; improved breeding; supplementary feeding; animal health and recording keeping. More 
households are practicing raised khola (65% chicken and 63.3% goats) than the baseline (7.7% 
and 21.5% respectively). More participants are providing supplementary feeding to their livestock 
75% at endline than the baseline (48.7% chicken and 21.9% goats) and comparison (70.5% 
chicken and 63.5% goats). About 30% of the chicken producer participants practiced chick care, 
higher compared with midterm review (22.4%) and comparison (none). In addition, more 
households (12%) kept records at endline than at baseline (6.7%) and comparison (3%).
• Enhanced access to animal health services and better animal husbandry practices led to 
huge decrease in mortality of goats and chickens for the participant households.Goat and 
chicken mortality rates amongst target producer groups’ households have been significantly 
reduced to 4% and 6% at endline from 23% and 57% for goats and chickens at baseline, 
respectively. The findings are far exceeding the project target (14% for goats and 32% for chicken). 
• The LLFs have reached out to more livestock producer group members’ households, done 
more treatments and supported more animals than planned in the project life target. The
LLFs have reached 11,626 householdswith animal health services, well above the 4,500 targeted. 
In the process, they have provided a total of 147,692 treatments (target was 25,000) to 90,294 
animals according to monitoring information. Nearly, 87.1% of the participants acknowledged that 
LLFs provided veterinary services in their households in the past 12 months. This is a great 
achievement comparing to the target of project life of 75%, and well above 61.3% at baseline. 
However, the net monthly income of the LLFs from sale of animal health services remains meager
and not sustainable; it is below the target ($10.01 versus $50). In spite of this, LLFs are still 
motivated enough to continue with their services in the absence of the project.
• There was a substantial overachievement of savings in the VSLAs as compared to the 
project target. While the project targeted a total of US$30,000 as amount saved or loaned, 
US$108,178 was actually saved or loaned at the end of project life. Nearly all the participants 
sampled belonged to a VSLA group which were being facilitated by LOL in the project impact areas. 
ix
During the baseline, only over half of all respondents (56.4%) belonged to a VSLA while for 
comparison, only 51.8% belonged to VSLA. Average savings in VSLA per household increased 
among the participants to MWK31, 594.75 ($45) at endline, from MWK27, 614.00 ($39) at baseline. 
• The proportion of households that utilized improved business practices was significant 
though lower than expected. About 27% of participant households (27.2% FHH and 26.3%MHH) 
practiced the improved business practices, substantially lower than the targeted 75% though well 
above the 8.6% (10.9% male and 8.1% females) midline and probably very much well above 
baseline. The deficit is largely due to low adoption of financial record keeping which is not a 
surprise among the many lowly educated farmers. Part of this deficit may also be the 
underachievement in training on household economics where only 10,360 (5,543 females and 
4,818 males) were trained against the 18,000 (9,000 females and 9,000 males) targeted. 
Interestingly, this indicates that more women were trained than men. 
• Wider impact has been noted on food security. Household Dietary Diversity Score increased 
for participants after the project to 4.03 at endline from 3.3 at baseline, and 3.3 in the comparison 
group. While most households consumed grain, roots and tubers at both baseline and final 
evaluation (91.3% and 100% respectively), the consumption of dairy (33% versus 21.3%), organ 
meat (12.8% versus 1.3%), eggs (5.5% to 19%) and flesh foods (5.5% to 16.7%) increased greatly. 
Furthemore, participant households were more likely to consume the following more than the 
comparison group: dairy (22.1% versus 9.7%), organ meat (12.8% versus 2.2%) and flesh foods 
(16.7% versus 7%). 
Key weaknesses and strengths of the project 
Lastly, the following were the key weaknesses of the project:
• It had short life span. According to diffusion of innovation theory, the 23-months span is a short 
period for adoption of unfamiliar and difficult practices such as chick care and record keeping. 
• Lacked direct capacity building of government extension staff. The government staffs
(extension workers) were not trained prior to engaging them as co-facilitators. Consequently, they 
felt embarassed they were lumped together with farmers during trainings. 
• Sourced livestock for distribution from distant markets. Livestock procured for distribution 
travelled long distances before being handed over to farmers because they were sourced far away 
from points of distribution. This might have principallyincreased incidences of stress, infection and 
mortality during transportation. 
The following were the key strengths of the project:
• Appropriate targeting of beneficiaries. The project was unique because it identified beneficiaries 
that were vulnerable but serious about livestock production. The criteria that one had to satisfy to 
receive livestock were particularly essential because it enabled those with appropriate capacity to 
have a chance to participate and receive livestock.
• High engagement of stakeholders. The L4R worked closely with the government staff at all 
levels.
x 
• Concentration in small area and reasonable number of beneficiaries. The project concentrated 
its activities in small area and worked with a manageable number of participants hence leading to 
more impact.
• Enhancement of farmer to farmer extension linkage. The LLFs and VAs are useful, cost￾effective and sustainable approaches of extension.
• Limited hand-outs. The project discouraged dependency syndrome by limiting hand-outs.
Recommendations 
• The project was implemented for only 23 months yet some of the objectives required more time so 
that adoption is reasonably judged pursuant to diffusion of innovations theory. While it is easier for 
farmers to adopt relatively familiar initiatives such VSLAs, it is difficult for majority of farmers to adopt 
new initiatives such as chick care. Therefore, future project should consider extending project 
lifespan, such as three years, to allow for adoption of more unfamiliar techniques. 
• The KIIs and FGDs revealed that there were livestock supply challenges which could be attributed 
to lack of capacity of suppliers and sourcing from distant markets. It was learnt in the project that 
some livestock died due to stress and some unknown causes that even affected other chickens not 
in the program. It is thus recommended, where possible, that livestock should be sourced locally 
near where it will be distributed. This is to reduce long travel and bringing in new infection in an 
area.
• In terms of supplementary feeding, the majority (90%) used maize bran. This is an indication that 
the other feeds may not be easy to find or may be expensive. It is recommended that future projects 
provide more lessons on locally available feeds such as cabbages and other leafy vegetables.
• Future projects should consider conducting training needs assessment on not only farmers but also 
government and other local governing structures for founding sustainability. This recommendation 
is made based on the interviews with government staff who indicated not to have been empowered 
enough before being engaged as co-facilitators. 
• LLFs provide basic animal husbandry practices, but are not allowed to perform injections as per
Malawi’s legislation that guides livestock sector. However, reports from government staff (KIIs) 
indicated that some LLFs still injected animals. On the other hand, FGDs indicated that farmers 
would have loved this improved access to services extend to injection services. Perhaps Land 
O’Lakes may take this as a point for initiating policy change discussions considering that vacancy 
rates for AVOs is significantly high, at least 40% and that the ratio of AVO to farmer is about 1:3500 
when the recommended is supposed to be about 1:700.
• The employment of LLFs and VAs was very instrumental in reaching out to more farmers with farmer 
to farmer advisory service. It is recommended that these be applied in future projects. What was 
very innovative in this project was the LLF paid service. However, the VA was observed to work on 
voluntary basis yet there is potential for VA to also be paid from the VSLA group members that they 
serve. A Private Service Provider (PSP) model is proposed for VA, where the VA receives monthly 
fees from the VSLA groups that he/she serves. 
xi
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project background 
In 2014, Land O’Lakes’ International Development Division (IDD) received a $1,999,970 grant from the 
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through their Office of Foreign Disaster 
Assistance (OFDA) to implement a 23‐month project in Central Malawi called Malawi Livestock for 
Resilience (L4R). The L4R project was implemented in the two disaster prone districts of Dowa and 
Ntchisi, directly targeting 6,000 chicken and goat farmer households by building their resilience to 
enable them with stand climatic and economic shocks through diversified livelihoods and improved 
financial literacy.
Specifically, the project worked in four Extension Planning Areas (EPAs), covering ten different Village 
Development Committees (VDCs). Table 1 details the names of EPAs and VDCs in which the project 
was implemented. 
Table 1: L4R target area (EPAs and VDCs)
District Extension Planning Area Village Development Committee
Ntchisi Chipuka Chikhungwa
Malenga
Malomo Kadundwe
Mpofo
Dowa Bowe Lichere
Mwangala
Kamungwe
Nachisaka Nyundo
Zolire
Chiponda 
The L4R project endeavoured to achieve the following specific objectives and intermediate results:
Objective 1: To build resiliency of vulnerable households in Dowa and Ntchisi districts by 
expanding their livestock production capacity and livelihood asset base
• Increase capacity to maintain livestock asset base: The project sought to facilitate the 
formation of 300 producer groups and built their capacities by providing trainings to 6,000 
producer group members in livestock husbandry and group formation and management. The 
project also trained 150 Livestock Lead Farmers (LLFs) to each provide animal husbandry 
training to two producer groups. 
• Improve capacity and access to animal health services: L4R aimed to identify and train the 
same 150 LLFs in animal health diagnosis and treatment, and link them to private sector input 
and animal health service providers. Through LLFs, the project provided animal health services 
to members of producer groups and other livestock keepers in the various communities.
• Expand livestock asset base:The project targeted 2,000 households with vouchers to obtain 
locally available goats and chickens. Of the 2,000 households set to obtain livestock: three￾quarters (1,500) of the households were to receive four hens and one cock; one-quarter (500) 
of the households were to receive two does; and finally, 150 LLFs were to receive one buck 
each. 
Objective 2: To build resiliency of vulnerable households in Dowa and Ntchisi Districts by 
improving their financial literacy and capacity to plan, save and mitigate risk
12
• Improve capacity of households to, save, and mitigate risk: The project sought to improve 
financial literacy of the 6,000 households by training three members from each targeted 
household in household economics, risk mitigation and planning, and business practices. The 
project also endeavoured to provide capacity building to households to establish 300 VSLAs 
through providing training of trainers (TOT) training in VSLA methodology to 150 VAs.
1.2 Objective of the evaluation 
The final evaluation embraced the conventional Organisation for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD) criteria; assessing the appropriateness/relevance of the program approach, 
effectiveness of the implementation in achieving the expected results, efficiency and sustainability of 
the program activities and outcomes. Specifically, the evaluation was executed to meet the following 
objectives: 
• Assess the appropriateness of the strategies employed by Land O’Lakes in the program given 
the Malawian context; 
• Assess the degree to which the project has met its projected goals, objectives, outcomes and 
targets and explain deviations using an evidence based approach; 
• Provide an objective description of the overall effectiveness and sustainability of the program 
and its various activities; 
• Identify key strengths and weaknesses of the program; and
• Identify key lessons learned and recommendations which should be adopted by Land O’Lakes 
for similar resilience programs in Malawi or elsewhere in Africa. 
1.3 Evaluation questions and criteria
As highlighted, the evaluation adapted OECD criteria as adapted in the request for proposals (RFP), 
(refer to annex 6 for the RFP). The criteria specifically consisted of the following aspects; 
appropriateness/relevance, effectiveness (impact), efficiency, and sustainability. In addition, gender 
equality and equity was also explored. For details, refer to annex 2 for questions falling under each of 
the criterion that guided the study.
2 EVALUATION DESIGN 
2.1 Data collection methods and tools
The evaluation employed both quantitative and qualitative methods. Combining these two types of data 
did not only ensure appropriate achievement of objectives of the assignment but also enhanced 
robustness of the findings due to triangulation of the data.
To that effect, the following methods with corresponding tools were used in capturing data in this 
evaluation:
• Household survey with project participants and non-participants: Face to face, individual 
interviews were facilitated using structured questionnaires to obtain measurable and quantifiable 
data from project participants and also from similar non-participants. 
• Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with mainly project participants: A checklist was used 
to obtain qualitative narratives from project participants to support the quantitative findings.
• Key Informant Interviews (KIIs): KIIs were administered to key individuals within the L4R 
framework who had in-depth knowledge of the project. The individuals interviewed are as 
follows; Livestock Lead Farmers (LLFs), Veterinary Assistants (VAs), L4R staff, government 
agricultural officials, and other relevant stakeholders. 
13
The Evaluation Matrix in Table 2 provides insight on the type of data and methods employed to answer 
key evaluation questions. As indicated, the study benefited from both qualitative and quantitative data 
obtained throughout the evaluation exercise. Additionally, the study also utilized information obtained 
from the L4R project documents, project reports and grey literature. 
Table 2: Methods for addressing key evaluation questions
Key Evaluation 
Questions (KEQs) Data Collection Methods to Address Key valuations Questions
Household
surveys 
Key Informant 
Interviews
Project 
Documents
Focus Group 
Discussion 
Success 
Stories
Relevance or 
Appropriateness 
  
Effectiveness or 
Impact
    
Efficiency  
Sustainability  
Gender Equality and 
Equity
    
Source: Adapted from Peersman (2014) 1
2.2 Sampling 
2.2.1 Household survey 
The household survey was administered to a random sample of participants and non-participants. The 
objective of the design was to give every sample element (household producers) an equal chance of 
being chosen for inclusion in the sample, thus, random selection was used at every stage of sampling 
to ensure a representative sample that gave unbiased estimates and robust sample statistics.
There were a total of 7,277 participant households organized into 300 producer groups (150 chickens 
and 150 goats) in Dowa and Ntchisi districts at the time of sampling. The team randomly selected 150 
of the producer groups, sampling 90 in Dowa and 60 in Ntchisi since the distribution of groups across 
the two districts is 60:40, respectively. Half the groups selected in each district were goat groups and 
half chicken groups. 
The evaluation also sought to compare those participant households that received livestock from the 
project in 2015, and those that did not. The size of the different populations of producer group members 
were as follows at the time of sampling:
• Goat producer group members who did not receive goats-about 2,300
• Goat producer group members who received goats in 2015-about 413
• Goat producer groups who received goats in 2016-about 259 
• Chicken producer group members who did not receive chickens-about 3,350
• Chicken producer group members who received chickens in 2015-about 50
• Chicken producer group members who received chickens in 2016-about 900. 
The groups that neither received goats nor chickens were categorized together with those that received 
either goats or chickens in 2016. The evaluation team decided to do this because, likely, there would 
be insignificant differences in the resilience of the members who received livestock in 2016 and those 
that did not because the evaluation period could be too short. Therefore, three groups of livestock 
producers emerged out of this assumption as follows:
• Participants who did not receive goats/chickens-About 6,809 (2,300+259+3,350+900)
1 Peersman, G. (2014) Ov erv iew : Data Collection and Analy sis Methods in Impact Ev aluation. Methodological Briefs #10. UNICEF
14
 
• Participants(beneficiaries) who received goats in 2015-about 413
• Participants (beneficiaries) who received chickens in 2015-about 50
Using the conventional sample size determination formula2, representative sample size for each of the 
foregoing categories of L4R participants was determined and totalled 515 producer group members 
(participants); at 92% confidence level. Thus, below is how the 515 was arrived at;
• Participants who did not receive goats/chickens (294) 
• Participants (beneficiaries) who received goats in 2015 (177) 
• Participants (beneficiaries) who received chickens in 2015 (44) 
To enable a discussion of attribution of the project results seen in the participants, a comparison group 
of 200 non-participants was also sampled.Four different EPAs were purposefully selected from which 
project non-participants were randomly selected. The non-participants were identified using the same 
criteria as used for identifying project beneficiaries. The following criteria, adopted from the L4R project 
beneficiary identification, were used:
• Reside within the L4R Districts of Dowa and Ntchisi
• Three months of food insecurity each year over the past two years
• Limited access to land (less than 2 hectares)
• Income less than $1 per day
• Women-or youth-headed households, or those affected by HIV/AIDS
• High dependency ratio (i.e. households supporting people with disabilities
• Dependent on piecework/wage labour or at least part of the year 
• No external source of routine remittance
Guided by the criteria, government agricultural officials advised on communities/VDCs to visit to capture 
data from comparison households having similar demographic characteristics. When in a community, 
the team randomly sampled villages and then sampled households within the villages practicing chicken 
and/or goat farming and meeting the criteria to reach the required interviewees per the given VDC. 
While a total of 715 respondents (515 participants plus 200 control group) were expected to be 
interviewed in the whole survey, 716 (514 participants and 202 control) were actually interviewed. The 
sample distribution was in accordance to the distribution of the sample frame in Dowa and Ntchisi (60:40 
respectively). Since the comparison households were picked from different VDCs but in the same 
districts, the 202 sample size was distributed by 60:40 ratio (Dowa: Ntchisi) as well. The following table 
details actual sample size distribution:
Table 3: Sample size distribution per district, EPA and categories of beneficiaries
Districts Participants Comparison
2 n = [Z2(1-p)p /e2]/[1+(z2(1-p)p)/e2N]
Where: n= Sample size; N= Population Size; e= Margin score; z= Standard normal dev iation; p = Estimate of prev alence rate (0.5)
15
 
EPA n EPA n Total
Received 
goats 
2015
Received 
chickens 
2015
Did not 
receive 
livestock
Total
Dowa Bowe 31 25 137 320 Chibvala 73 110
Nachisika 17 3 107 Mvera 37
Ntchisi Malomo 10 3 84 194 Kalira 36 92
Chipuka 12 5 80 Chikwatula 56
Totals 70 36 408 514 202 202
2.2.2 Key informants interviews
For the key informants, selection was purposeful and ensured that all the variant stakeholders were 
interviewed at all levels (LLFs, VAs, L4R staff, government officials, and other relevant stakeholders) 
starting from the VDC to the Land O’Lakes level. The final evaluation interviewed 10 LLFs, 10 VAs, 11
government agriculture staff, one Project Advisory Committee (PAC) member and 3 L4R members of 
staff. Annex 3 has a full list of the key informants interviewed. 
2.2.3 Focus group discussions 
A total of 20 FDGs spread across the VDCs were conducted; 17 for participants and three for 
comparison. Refer to Table 4 for details of the FGDs conducted. 
Table 4: Details of FGDs conducted
Distric
t 
EPA VDC Type of 
livestock 
producer
s
Category of 
respondents
Sex Number of 
FGD 
participants
Ntchisi Malomo Kadundwe Chicken Participants Females 9
Kadundwe Goat Participants Females 6
Mpofo Goat Participants Females 6
Chipuka Malenga Chicken Participants Females 10
Malenga Chicken Participants Males 10
Chikhungwa Goat Participants Males 5
Dowa Bowe Kamungwe Goat Participants Males 6
Mwangala Goat Participants Females 10
Mwangala Goat Participants Males 11
Mwangala Chicken Participants Males 8
Lichere Female Participants Females 9
Nachisaka Nyundo Chicken Participants Females 10
Nyundo Chicken Participants Males 7
Chiponda Goat Participants Males 8
Chiponda Chicken Participants Females 9
Zolire Goat Participants Female 10
Mvera Ngozi NA Comparison Females 6
Chikwatul
a 
Malenga NA Comparison Males 12
Chibvala Funse NA Comparison Males 10
16
2.2.4 Identification of households for success stories 
Senior Consultants led in identifying and interviewing respondents for capturing success stories, 
principally in consultations with Land O’Lakes staff. Five success stories were recorded.
2.2.5 Ethical considerations 
The study embraced seeking for consent from participants of the evaluation so that their rights, of 
whether to participate or not in the study as enshrined in conventional research principles, were upheld. 
Interviews proceeded once the respondents had consented to participate in the study. 
3 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOLLOWED
3.1 Review of documents 
The following documents were reviewed for this evaluation:
• The L4R Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (PMEP);
• Baseline report & data collection tools;
• Mid-term report & data collection tools; 
• Quarterly and annual reports;
• L4R Program Description in Contract; 
• Relevant Government of Malawi documents such as Agriculture Sector Wide Approach (ASWAp), 
Malawi Growth and Development Strategy II (MGDS II) and Livestock policy.
3.2 Staff mobilization, interviewer training 
All 15 research assistants, with a minimum qualification of Bachelors’ of Science Degree, were recruited 
and trained in interviewing techniques (including in-depth interviews) in a two day intensive training 
workshop that included pretesting of the tools. The training largely covered the following: interviewing 
techniques; familiarisation with questionnaire; and FGDs and KII techniques. During the training, the 
English version of questionnaires was translated into local idiom so that the interviewers were fully 
acquainted with the tools to accurately capture the data. Furthermore, the questionnaire imbedded 
filters that skipped questions that were not relevant to a particular scenario. For traceability, each 
questionnaire had details of the interviewer and particulars of the interviewed household.
3.3 Field data collection 
Data collection lasted for a total of 15 days. It commenced from 11th May to 22nd May 2016, and then 
resumed in the same month from 26 to 27th, to finish off KIIs. The field team was split into two with 
each team led by a supervisor. All the teams started with Ntchisi and finished with Dowa.
3.4 Field quality control measures
The study incorporated multiple layers of quality control measures to capture all possible errors along 
the evaluation process.
3.4.1 Pretesting 
Apart from hiring competent research assistants, the survey tools were pre-tested as part of the training 
in communities in Chivala EPA, which were not part of the sample. The pre-test was intended to help 
identify comprehension problems and the appropriateness of response options. Soon after the 
17
pretesting, the team gathered and highlighted areas that needed correction. The senior researchers 
noted all the comments and then revised the tools accordingly. 
Furthermore, the pretesting was continued in the field in principle during actual data collection because 
the structured household questionnaire was updated after the first two days of fieldwork. Particularly, 
a senior researcher, in collaboration with a Land O’Lakes staff, organised a meeting for feedback from 
research assistants on their first day of data collection. All issues that needed correction were noted. 
When added to the comments for the second day, the tool was revised to produce the final 
questionnaire used for all the remaining days of the survey. 
3.4.2 Field supervision, spot-checks and back-checking 
In the early days of the survey, the teams were conducting the data collection in one VDC so that all 
errors and mistakes associated at early stage of data collection are easily shared and rectified. After 
being convinced that all issues of that needed attention were sorted out, the teams started to operate 
in different VDCs to quicken the exercise. 
To ensure compliance to data collection procedure, field data collection process was monitored. In the 
field, supervisors led and supervised the team. The supervisors were skilled, experienced and 
competentenough to oversee the field work. Nevertheless, senior researchers provided backstopping 
support to ensure compliance to methodologies and approaches.
To ensure that interviewers do not cheat, about 5% of filled questionnaires were randomly selected
from each interviewer and checked with the respondent during the day and returned to the owner after 
the exercise. Soon after every interview, the interviewer was asked to quickly check the questionnaire 
for completeness before the respondent left so that appropriately corrections were made instantly. All 
interviewers checked their own questionnaires for consistency before handing them over to supervisors
who checked all the completed questionnaires and sent them back to the interviewers for correction if 
there were any unclear issues. Furthermore, the senior researchers conducted four spot-checks in the 
field within the 15 day period of data collection to check if the interviewers were doing the work to the 
required standard. Spot-checking implied that senior researchers made at least four un-announced 
visits to the field to check for compliance. 
Land O’Lakes staff also participated in ensuring that the field work was compliant to plan. This was 
done by participating and clarifying about the project during enumerator training, participating in the 
pretesting and also spot-checking three times. 
3.4 Data management 
3.4.1 Data entry and cleaning 
A data entry template in Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) was used. After the data were
entered, they were properly cleaned by looking at the following areas: Spot-checking (raw data versus 
electronic data); correcting data entry or coding mistake; and checking logical flow of the data. 
3.4.2 Data analysis 
The quantitative data collected through the structured questionnaire were analysed using the SPSS. 
The senior researchers were responsible for data analysis and interpretation of the results. The 
analysis involved largely descriptive statistics to come up with percentages, frequencies and cross 
tabulations. In addition, inferential analysis was also minimally done to compare the baseline values
and comparison group to the endline. 
The qualitative data was analysed by theme and summarised to support the quantitative findings. The 
senior researchers were also responsible for analysis and interpretation of the qualitative data.
18
3.5 Limitations and challenges of study 
3.5.1 Planned versus actual sample size of 2015 project participants
The field team had difficulties in capturing samples of some of the categories of project participants as 
expected. The challenge, as reported by the field team, was that some of the farmers from goat groups 
had switched to chicken groups, particularly those that received goats in 2015. Resultantly, the groups 
of participants are not as representative as it was planned. However, this problem could have been 
avoided if the field team reported this timely since L4R staff could have specially organised respondents.
3.5.2 Underestimated work volume 
The duration of the exercise was underestimated at two levels. At field data collection, the planned 13 
days were inadeqaute; two more days were added for finalising KIIs. Furthermore, the planned 11 
days for data entry, cleaning and report writing were not enough as the questionnaire had an 
overwhelming number of variables. This made it very difficult to stick to schedule. However, good 
understanding and communication between Land O’Lakes and IFESOR enabled appropriate 
adjustment of the schedule on selected deliverables. 
3.5.3 Limited accuracy on comparing baseline and endline
The baseline data was collected prior to participant registration and thus from a general population of 
goat and chicken producers in the target area. However, the endline population was of project 
participants only. Therefore, this limited accuracy of comparison on progress on key indicators. Major 
differences in characteristics of the baseline and endline samples are underlined in the findings. 
4 FINDINGS 
4.1 Characteristics of respondents and households 
4.1.1 Demographic characteristics 
The final evaluation survey interviewed a total of 716 respondents of which about 60% (430) were from 
Dowa while 40% (286) were from Ntchisi. The respondents were in two major categories, namely 
participants of the L4R project (514) and comparison group (202). The sample sizes of the two 
categories of population were expected to show similar characteristics for valid comparisons.Since the 
baseline survey was conducted before L4R participants were identified, it constituted a general 
population of goat and chicken producers in the target area. On the other hand, the endline sample 
consisted of the project participants and a comparison group that are similar to the participants. Thus, 
differences in the samples of the baseline and endline were expected. 
As indicated in Table 5, the majority of respondents from the endline sample were males (65% 
participants; 66% comparison), which differed from the baseline (53.4% male) since the baseline made 
an effort to oversample female headed households. For the same reason, the percentage of 
respondents who were married differed between the studies (89% in participant and comparison and 
72.3% at baseline). The average ages of individuals in the categories of samples in the final evaluation 
(40 years old for participants; 38 years old for comparison) were slightly lower than baseline (44 years 
old). However, household sizes were similar across the different groups (5.6 for participants; 5.2 for
comparisons; and 5.4 for baseline). The percentage of respondents that attended some schooling was 
also similar for the baseline (93.6%) and the endline (90.2%). Interestingly, the comparison group had 
significantly less schooling (82.2%). 
19
Table 5: Demographic characteristics of respondents at baseline and endline
Demographics Baseline Endline
Participants Comparison 
n Total n Total n Total
Sex 390 53.4%M; 46.4%F 514 65.0%M;35.0%
F
202 66.6%M; 33.4%F
Age 378 44 495 40.30 181 38
Married 390 72.3% 456 89.1% 180 89.1%
Widowed 390 13.3% 456 4.5% 180 4.5%
Divorced 390 8.5% 456 2.7% 180 2.0%
Separated 390 5.4% 456 1.6% 180 2.0%
Single 390 0.5% 456 1.8 180 1.5
Some Education 390 93.6% 512 90.2% 202 82.2%
Is household head 390 84.6% 514 47.1% 202 49.0%
Household size 390 5.40 508 5.56 200 5.22
As shown in Table 6, respondents during the final evaluation had slightly better facilities than those at 
baseline. Less households had thatched roofs at endline (54% of participants, 59.2% of comparison 
households, 67.4% at baseline) while more households had iron roofed houses (28% participant, 35.8 
comparison and 31% baseline). Furthermore, more households had houses made of burnt bricks at 
the endline (45.6% participant, 48.8% comparison and 41.3% baseline) as opposed to those that 
owned houses made of mud and sticks (10.5% participants, 7.0% comparison and 10.8% baseline). 
The foregoing trend with exception of comparison was also noted in households who owned a pit latrine 
with a slab (18.6% of participants; 13.0% of comparison households; 12.1% baseline), and had access 
to a borehole (81% participant; 57.7% comparison, 71.5% baseline). 
Table 6: Characteristics of the home at baseline and endline 
Baseline Endline (716)
(n=390) Participant (n=514) Comparison (n=202)
Roof material
Grass thatch 67.4% 54.0% 59.2%
Iron 31.0% 28.0% 35.8%
Asbestos - 12.3% 4%
Tiles - 2.7% 1.0%
Plastic - 1.8% 0.0%
Wood - 1.0% 0.0%
Wall material
Burnt Brick 41.3% 46.5% 48.8%
Mud brick 32.3% 40.3% 43.8%
Mud & sticks 10.8% 10.5% 7.0%
Wood/Poled 0.0% 0.6% 0.0%
Cement block - 0.6% 0.5%
Toilet type
None 2.1% 2.5% 2.5%
Flushing Toilet 0.8% 0.6% 0.0%
Compost toilet 0.8% 5.9% 0.0%
Pit latrine w/slab 12.1% 18.6 13.0
Pit latrine w/o slab 84.1% 72.1% 84.5%
Water source
Piped water 3.1% 1.4% 0%
Hand pump/ borehole 71.5% 81.0% 57.7%
Dug well 13.1% 6.7% 17.4%
20
River/ pond/ stream 12.3% 9.4% 24.4%
4.1.2 Household asset base 
The table below shows household ownership of key assets at baseline and final evaluation. While the 
percentage of households that own some assets is about the same between baseline and final 
evaluation, there are clear increases in the percentage that own bicycles (7.4% baseline; 48.0% 
participant at endline), solar panel (11.1% baseline;20.5% midterm and 21.4% participant at endline) 
and animal barns (60.3% baseline; 33% midterm; 78.4% participant at endline). The shift from midterm 
to final evaluation is more notable since both surveys were conducted with participants, while the 
baseline was conducted with the general population. 
Table 7: Household assets owned across beneficiary and comparison households
ASSETS 
OWNED
BASELINE
(N=390)
MIDLINE
(n=396)
ENDLINE
Category Participants asset by 
sex of respondent
Compariso
n (n=202)
Participants 
( n=514)
Male 
(n=334)
Female 
(n=180)
Radio 56.7% 48.2% 45.0% 54.6% 44.9% 72.6%
Mobile 
phone
51.0% 60.4% 64.9% 53.8% 46.7% 67.0%
Sofa 1.3% 8.3% 7.4% 9.0% 7.8% 11.2%
Bed 27.7% 17.7% 18.3% 21.6% 17.1% 30.2%
Mattress 20.8% 12.9% 18.8% 14.0% 13.2% 15.6%
Solar panel 11.1% 20.5% 11.9% 21.4% 18.3% 27.4%
Plough 0.8% 0.5% 5.0% 6.2% 7.5% 3.9%
Bicycle 7.4% 49.8% 54.0% 48.0% 40.7% 61.5%
Animal barns 60.3% 33.6% 70.3% 78.4% 79.3% 76.5%
Food barns 22.8% 4.6% 16.3% 27.3% 23.7% 34.1%
Oxcart 8.2% 7.8% 12.4% 8.2% 7.8% 8.9%
Hoe 97.4% 93.4% 97.0% 92.0% 93.4% 89.4%
Treadle 
pump
3.1% 3.0% 1.0% 3.1% 2.7% 3.9%
4.1.3 Household income
To explicitly capture the income effect of the project on households, the survey captured information of 
the total income of the household. This was done by listing all sources of income and attaching money 
value to each source before summing them up to get total income of the household. Through this 
approach, average income for project beneficiaries was MWK179, 562($256.52)3 per annum while that 
of non-participants was lower (MWK137, 417/$196.31). Assuming unequal variances, the difference of 
these incomes is significant at 5 percent level. Interestingly, women participants had higher income 
than the male participants just as FHH were than MHH. 
The baseline report revealed a relatively higher average income of MK197, 038 ($281.48) among 
households than the endline. However, its median which is an appropriate measure of central tendency 
whenever there are outliers is slightly near the one reported at endline. Refer to Table 8 for details. 
3 Conv erted at the rate, 1$ equals MWK700.
21
 
Table 8: Comparison of household incomes by beneficiaries’ status 
Income of the household (MK)
Baseline
(n=386)
Endline
Category Participants by Sex 
of respondent
Participants by Sex 
of HH
Comparison
(n=202)
Participant
s 
(n=514)
Male
(n=334)
Female
(n=180)
MHH
(n=352)
FHH
(n=162
)
Mean 197,038 137, 417.23 179, 562.87 161, 
552.69
213, 
168.44
170,650 199,049
Media
n
90,000 81,000 85,000 66,500 110,000 68,000 101,000
P-value: 0.019* 
4.2 Relevance of the project 
There is no doubt that the L4R project was relevant in the Malawian context. Agriculture is the main 
source of employment in Malawi, encompassing 80% of the labour force. Acutuallly, 92% of the 
sampled households in the endline indicated farming as their main occupation and 86.2% indicated 
receiving some income from farming. About a quarter of the sample (28%), also indicated that they 
receive some income from livestock or livestock product sales. Table 9 details on the sources of 
income.
Table 9: Source of income
Sources of 
Income
Baseline
(n=386)
Midline
(n=396)
Endline 
Household Type Sex of Respondent
Participants 
(n=514)
Comparison
(n=202)
Male
(n=334)
Female
(n=180)
Farming 85% 84.3% 86.2% 85.3% 86.1% 85.6%
Piecework 31.2% 41.1% 36.9% 28.4%
Salaried job 1.6% 1.5% 2.2% 5.3% 2.2% 4.7%
Land rents 1.2% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0%
Equipment 
hiring
1.2% 1.1% 1.6% 0.4%
Pension 0.6% 0.5% 0.9% 0.0%
Remittance 2.9% 4.7% 4.5% 1.3%
Hawker 7.5% 3.2% 6.7% 5.5%
Firewood selling 3.1% 1.1% 3.6% 0.4%
Molding bricks 1.6% 1.6% 2.2% 0.4%
Charcoal selling 1.8% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0%
Livestock 22.8% 22.5% 27.7% 21.1% 24.7% 28.0%
Fishing 1.4% 0.0% 1.1% 0.8%
Other 10.15% 10.4% 20.2% 24.2% 20.0% 23.7%
22
Additionally, the devastating effects of climate change, largely linked to increased frequency of the 
disasters, are predicted to continue in Malawi just as it is globally (McSweeny et al. 20104; Saka et al. 
20135; IPCC 20146). Climate change in Malawi largely increases the unpredictability of crop production. 
Therefore, interventions that build resilience by diversifying farming and promoting savings like this one 
are contributing to making agriculture and households more resilient to climate change and climatic 
shocks. Currently, agricultural diversification is very low in Malawi, with most farmers growing maize. 
With the climate change enigma, calls to diversify farming by promoting livestock are rife, as evidenced 
in the Malawi Government’s ASWAp and MGDSII, as one of the agricultural commodity priority areas. 
Furthermore, qualitative findings from FGDs indicated that the project participants thought the project 
was relevant. Participants were attracted to join the project for plausible objectives such as to improve 
livestock husbandry practices (thus increasing the number) with the help of LLFs, to receiving more 
livestock, to learn how to save money and to have access to financial services in the VSLAs. The 
underlying reason for wanting to achieve the aforementioned objectives is that goat and chickens matter 
in meeting their basic household needs such as food, cash and security; likewise VSLAs. The following 
are quotes from some of the participant FGDs:
• “We keep goats and chickens for meat, eggs, and cash and manure so that we are able to 
solve problems such as hunger”. 
• “We mainly keep goats or chickens so that we sell some when we need cash or food. Goats 
also provide manure which may reduce amount of fertiliser to buy.”
• “We keep livestock for security and against emergencies such as funeral”. 
• “Money realized from VSLAs can be used in livestock purchase, others use it in buying maize 
and fertilizers” 
• “Others have started businesses using money realized from VSLAs. One example is a 
butcherman within the group (slaughters goats and chickens)”.
A key informant [Project Advisory Committee member] indicated that the project was relevant because 
it promoted small livestock such as goats and chickens which are well suited for small-scale farmers 
unlike cattle and other big livestock which from experience tend to be a burden to farmers since they 
demand more resources seldom attained by the small-scale farmers. He further explained that the 
project fell within the government broad agenda; the following quote from the PAC member elucidates
the finding: 
“The project’s design was well aligned to nation’s livestock policy which envisions Malawi becoming a 
nation that is self-sufficient in safe locally produced livestock. Through expansion of livestock asset 
base, L4R directly addressed this national mission. Secondly, the objective of the Malawi Growth and 
Development Strategy II (MGDSII) is to create wealth and reduce rural poverty through sustainable 
economic growth and infrastructure development. Specifically, the government is committed to 
increase rural incomes in order to reduce rural-urban migrations. By distributing chickens and goats to 
vulnerable households, training beneficiaries in best husbandry practices and promoting VSLAs, 
Malawi L4R bears potential for enhancing rural livelihoods thereby reducing vulnerability of poor 
households to both economic and climatic shocks hence contributing to the wider national goat”
Generally, government staff considered all objectives of the project relevant. For instance, it was 
indicated that before L4R, chickens could be wiped out in the communities due to new castle disease 
4McSw eeney , C. et al. (2010) The UNDP climate change country profiles improv ing the accessibility of observ ed and projected climate 
information for studies of climate change in dev eloping countries. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society . 91:157-166
5 Saka, J.D.K. et al. (2013) Chapter 5: Malaw i. In, Hachigonta, S., Nelson, G.C., Thomas, T.S., & Sibanda, L.M. (eds.) Southern African 
Agriculture and Climate Change: a comprehensiv e analy sis. International Food Policy Research Institute: 111-146.
6 IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: sy nthesis report. Intergov ernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC)
23
 
because access to vaccination was limited. An emphasis was also made that the objective of promotion 
of savings and the VSLAs was very relevant. Hereunder is one of the quotes from government staff;
“VSLA activities have helped farmers a lot; farmers bought food using the savings. Annually, they 
share VSLA money in December. So they make plans with that money. Others buy fertiliser while 
others buy food. Others received as much as MWK100, 000 [$143]. Most of the times the money is 
under the control of a woman while the largely grown tobacco is under men”. 
Finally, KIIs with L4R staff underscored that all the objectives and activities were very relevant though 
the following were rated to be highly relevant:
• Promotion of VSLAs. The VSLA have proved to be key in enhancing resilience of households 
since they are providing farmers a mechanism to save their money and easily access finances.
• Promotion of recommended animal husbandry practices like raised kraal, supplementary 
feeding and promotion of chick-care has tremendously increased livestock asset base.
Below is a quote from one of the L4R staffs on the relevance of the project objectives and 
activities:
“The training of farmers in the four areas of livestock management, namely housing, disease 
control, feeding and breeding were very relevant in meeting participants' needs. They helped 
farmers to have healthy livestock. Of special mention are chick care and vaccination in chickens 
which reduced time between brooding and egg laying and reduced incidences of new castle 
disease, respectively. Mass vaccination in chickens was done every three months and this led to 
no cases of new castle disease in Nachisaka EPA”
In succinct, the Malawi government policies, quantitative findings and stakeholders consulted all 
point in one direction which is that the project, its objectives and activities were revenant to the 
needs of the participants. However, the only point that came out strongly was that the life span
was shorter than stakeholders expected according to majority of government staff and participants. 
4.3 Effectiveness/impact of the project
4.3.1 Livestock asset base
Raising livestock asset base is one of the objectives of the L4R. The program expected to do this 
through a number of pathways as follows: firstly, the project directly distributed animals to a portion of 
the participants; secondly, through the decrease in mortality rate from improved animal husbandry 
practices and access to animal health services by the participants; and lastly, through access to savings 
and loans through the VSLAs. 
Results show that average number of animals (especially chickens and goats) owned by a household 
has increased throughout the implementation period of the project. Average number of chickens has 
increased from 9.6 to 14.7 between the baseline and final evaluation, while that of goats has just slightly 
improved from 4.6 to 5.29 (refer to Table 10). Differences in increase can be due to different 
reproduction cycles between goats and chickens. Chickens take short time to reproduce whereas goats 
take almost the whole year to reproduce. Additionally, chickens are more fecund than goats. 
Table 10: Average number of livestock
24
Animal 
Type
Household Livestock Asset Base
Baseline
(n=310/302)
Midline
(n=214/164)
Endline
Household Type Participants by sex 
of respondent
Comparison
(n=202)
Participant
(n=514)
Male
(n=334)
Female
(n=180)
Chickens 9.6 10.4 10.67 14.37 14.68 13.77
Cocks 1.4 1.90 1.99 2.05 1.88
Hens 4.9 4.72 7.27 7.34 7.15
Chicks 4.2 7.05 8.64 8.44 9.07
Goats 4.6 3.5 5.75 5.29 5.11 5.59
Adult 
Bucks
0.5 1.71 1.53 1.58 1.45
Adult 
Does
2.4 3.07 3.49 3.22 3.87
Kid 
Bucks
0.2 1.86 1.68 1.66 1.71
Kid Does 0.3 2.62 1.49 1.45 1.67
According to the final evaluation survey, 75% of the participant households sampled had a viable flock 
size of chicken (5 hens), higher than 69% at baseline but lower than the 90% targeted in the project life 
span. About 37% of households had viable herd/flock size of goats (4 does), higher than the 15% at 
baseline and 26% at midline but slightly lower than the 40% targeted in the project life span. Refer to 
Table 11 for details. 
Average value of livestock (chicken and goats) at endline for a participant household was MWK105, 594
($150.85), far much greater than the value at baseline (MWK61, 933/$110.2). This means average 
livestock asset base per household has increased by about 70% from the baseline. Further analysis 
indicated that 77.2% of the participant households (76.5% MHHand 78.4% FHH) experienced increase 
in livestock asset base over the project period.This is slightly above the project target of 75%. Comparing 
it with the midline which reported lower value than baseline (MWK52, 263/$93), the endline average 
livestock asset base per household has doubled. Further analysis indicated that 83.9% of the participant 
households (84.9%MHH and 81.8%FHH) experienced increased livestock asset base when taking 
midline as a benchmark. This is a surprise because the endline had been conducted about seven months 
after midline. 
However, the phenomenal increase could be attributed to intensification of project implementation based 
on midterm recommendations; for instance, a significant amount of livestock was distributed in 2016. By 
the time the midterm survey was conducted, only 240 households had received livestock against the
target of 1,000 while by the time the endline was conducted;monitoring data information indicated that 
over 2,000 households had received livestock. A part from the distribution of the livestock, other practices 
that were recommended to be intensified according to the midterm were: reduction in livestock mortality 
through improved animal husbandry practices and access to animal health services, through practices to 
decrease brooding time, and through household purchase of livestock through VSLA savings activities.
Therefore, the number of households experiencing increased livestock asset base is justifiable. The 
significant difference between the baseline emanates from the fact that baseline had a different 
population that also included non-participants of the project hence limiting comparability as already 
highlighted.
25
The value of the livestock was determined by multiplying the total number of the livestock and average 
prices recorded at the endline survey. The indicator on percentage of households was calculated by 
adapting the formula in the PMEP; number of households that participated in the project whose livestock 
value surpassed the average of the baseline over the total number of households sampled. The major
limitation with this method is that the baseline had a different population. For appropriate conclusion, the 
midline helped because its sample was drawn from the same population with the endline.
Table 11: Size and value of goat herd/chicken flock
Variable of Interest Baseline Midline Endline
n Value n Value n MHH FHH Total
Viable flock (chickens) 390 32.6% 171 36.3% 514 76% 74% 75%
Viable flock (goats) 390 11.4% 171 26.2% 514 38% 36% 37%
Average Livestock 
Asset Base (goats 
and chickens)
390 MWK
61,933
396 MWK
52,263
254 MWK
106,132
MWK
104,578
MWK
105,594
Median Livestock 
Asset Base (goats 
and chickens)
390 MWK
48,500
396 MWK
42,000
254 MWK
102,157
MWK
96,541
MWK
101,033
Land O’Lakes adopted a voucher approach to livestock distribution. According to the project proposal, 
this arrangement ensured linkages among players and was used to track the number of livestock that 
had been redeemed. Results of the endline evaluation show that, 62% of the households surveyed
received livestock vouchers and 87% of those that received vouchers actually redeemed animals (see 
Table 12). However, cross reference with project monitoring information indicates that all the 2,000 
producer group members set to receive had redeemed (1,500 members for goats and over 500 
chickens). The differences in the results could be attributed to lack of honesty in some members who 
might have thought that more livestock would be distributed after the survey. Therefore, the monitoring 
data would be more reliable especially due to the tracking of the vouchers unlike during the survey 
where verification is usually difficult.
Table 12: Vouchers and livestock redemption
Received Voucher Baseline
(n=390)
Midline
(396)
Endline
(n=480)
Male
(n=329)
Female
(n=151)
TOTAL
(n=480)
No 90.4% 36.6% 40.7% 38%
Yes 9.6% 63.4% 59.3% 62%
Redeemed 
Animals
Baseline
(n=390)
Midline
(n=396)
Endline
(n=318)
Male
(n=222)
Female
(n=96)
TOTAL
(n=318)
No 76.3% 12.0% 16.1% 13.5%
Yes 23.7% 88.0% 83.9% 86.5%
As depicted in the Table 13 that follows, average number of redeemed goats was 1.79 does while for 
hens was 3.72. The findings near what is reported in the L4R reports, when rounded to nearest whole 
numbers, that project beneficiaries received 2 does and 4 hens each. 
26
Table 13: Number of animals redeemed 
Statistic
s 
(n=282)
Goats 
Redeeme
d
Bucks 
Redeeme
d
Does 
Redeeme
d
Chickens 
Redeeme
d
Cocks 
Redeeme
d
Hens 
Redeeme
d
Mean 2.35 .97 1.79 4.61 .99 3.72
Median 2.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 4.00
Mode 2 1 2 5 1 4
Min 1 0 1 1 0 1
Max 3 1 2 5 1 4
As shown in Table 14, most of the redeemed livestock have not yet reproduced. Only 19.4% of 
households that received livestock in 2015 reported that one or more of their livestock reproduced. 
Further analysis indicates that average number of goat offsprings per household of those whose 
livestock reproduced is 1.24 while that of chickens is 13.9. Interestingly, results further indicate more 
than 80% survival of both offsprings.
Table 14: Livestock multiplication and survival
Does any of redeemed livestock have any offsprings? Frequency Percent
No 224 80.6%
Yes 54 19.4%
Total 278 100.0
Number of Offsprings Reproduced (n=54)
Min. Max. Mean Std. Deviation
How many goat offsprings were reproduced? 1 4 1.24 .641
How many chicken offsprings were 
reproduced?
2 33 13.90 8.211
Survival of Offsprings (n=54)
Min. Max. Mean Std. Deviation
How many goat offsprings are alive? 1 2 1.19 .396
How many chicken offsprings are alive? 5 25 12.88 6.131
4.3.2 Capacity to maintain livestock asset base 
Easy and cheap access to extension services is imperative for promotion of best practices in animal 
production thereby enhancing productivity. However, agricultural extension system in Malawi heavily 
depends on government’s extension workers who are few, less motivated and in need of transport 
mechanisms to facilitate farmer visits. Through the project, L4R has been training farmers in good 
animal husbandry practices through the LLF, a farmer to farmer extension linkage. 
The project targeted building capacity of 150 LLFs to service 300 producer groups (containing 6,000 
households) and targeted participation of female farmers in the supported groups to be 50%. Monitoring 
data shows that the 150 LLFs have received trainings in animal health services and husbandry practices 
and have been serving the 300 livestock producer groups (with 7,277 households) comprising 52% of 
women. The final evaluation sample indicates that 88.8% (89.8% females and 88.3% males) L4R 
project participants received training in various aspects of animal husbandry in the last 12 months. This 
is far higher than the 30.7 % of comparison group that received training (See Table 15). The endline 
evaluation sample further indicates that those that received training on goats and chickens increased 
substantially from the baseline, 98.9% versus 7.7% for chickens and 98.2% versus 14.6% for goats. 
Results indicate that access to livestock training by farmers has improved more than ten times. 
27
Table 15: Training on livestock production 
Did you 
receive any 
livestock 
management 
training in 
the past 12 
months?
Baseline
(n=386)
Midline
(n=363)
Endline
Category Participants gender
Comparison
(n=153)
Participants
(n=482)
Male
(n=316)
Female
(n=166)
No 69.3% 11.2% 11.7% 10.2%
Yes 30.7% 88.8% 88.3% 89.8%
FGDs with participants confirmed that trainings were administered. Participants attributed this 
improvement to L4R’s LLFs who are readily available to support fellow farmers. Below is a quote from 
goat male farmers in Bowe EPA;
“LOL taught us about constructing a raised khola, keeping livestock as a business, storing goat feed, 
identifying sick goats and knowing the heat period for goats. The most useful topics to us were keeping 
livestock as business and how to construct a raised khola”. 
On the other hand, comparison FGDs also agreed with the quantitative findings, indicating that such 
trainings have not been received. Below is a quote from male farmers in Chivala EPA:
“We have never received any training on improved goat and chicken husbandry practices”.
To attribute the improved farmers’ access to livestock training to the L4R project, the study further asked
participants to indicate all organizations that provided livestock training in the area. Interestingly, as 
depicted in Table 16, nearly all participants (97%) indicated Land O’Lakes as the provider of livestock 
information in the area. Government and other NGOs came second with a barely were mentioned by 
few L4R participants (1.6% and 6% respectively). Over half (53.1%) of the comparison respondents 
indicated that Government is the training provider, and surprisingly followed by Land O’Lakes (28.6%). 
This could possibly mean that the LLFs reach out to more farmers beyond their areas. 
Table 16: Livestock training providers
Who provided training on livestock 
information?
Type of Household
(percentage of cases)
Comparison
(n=44)
Participants
(n=432)
LOL 25.0% 97.0%
Government 56.8% 0.5%
other NGOs 18.2% 5.3%
other trainers 0.0% 3.7%
On training content, most of the respondents indicated receiving training on animal housing (87.3%), 
animal feeding (82.2%), and animal health (63.9%). Refer to Table 17 for details. The training also 
focused on household economics, VSLAs and animal breeding. However, analysis of farmer survey 
reveals that only 20.2% received training on record keeping despite that monitoring information 
indicates that everyone received training. FGDs participants also did not mention recording keeping as 
a training received. Somehow, this could be attributed to farmers forgetting or having not received it in 
28
the past 12 months. The revelation also provides an explanation to observations from LOL staff who 
indicated that adoption of record keeping by farmers still remains a challenge. 
Table 17: Type of livestock training
Type of Training Midline
(n=396)
Endline 
Participants 
Male
(n=316)
Female
(n=166)
TOTAL
(n=482)
Housing 86.0% 87.6% 86.8% 87.3%
Breeding 41.1% 59.1% 42.4% 53.0%
Animal health 66.1% 61.8% 67.5% 63.9%
Feeds and Feeding 84.6% 82.9% 81.1% 82.2%
Record Keeping 31.4% 18.1% 23.9% 20.2%
House Enterprise 36.9% 29.9% 39.5% 33.4%
VSLA Training 44.1% 46.1% 46.9% 46.4%
Livestock as business 47.4%
Other training 17.3% 10.7% 14.9%
When asked to what extent the trainings have changed how the participants manage their livestock, 
76.8% of the participants that received trainings indicated that the trainings have helped them a lot. The 
FGDs with LLF verified that they have gained knowledge on the sort of livestock that should receive 
drugs and also how to make hay using groundnuts haulms. Feed preparation using a feed ration of 
maize bran mixed with soybean meal as supplementary feed for goats and chickens. The participants 
pointed out that, more importantly, they have known how to construct raised khola. Further, FGDs also 
revealed that the most useful topic during the trainings was how to administer drugs and vaccines to 
livestock. To further understand gender participation, the respondents were asked to indicate, who in 
the household, attended the training. Majority of the respondents said that the trainings were attended 
by women as shown in Table 18. 
Table 18: Livestock training participant
4.3.3 Animal husbandry practices
The percentage of households that are applying improved animal husbandry and feed techniques is an 
outcome indicator which measured adoption of animal husbandly and feeding techniques by livestock 
farmers. Specifically, it captured a percentage of households that applied at least 3 out of 5 of the 
following improved animal husbandry and feed techniques:
1. Improved housing: Goats and chickens: the farmer must have a raised kraal with a well thatched 
roof and strong poles and floor). 
2. Improved breeding practices: Goats: inferior bucks are castrated. Chickens: farmer uses chick 
care. 
3. Improved feeding practices: Goats, feed hay bales or crop residues, grow fodder or feed local 
soya/maize meal. Chickens: feed local food rations e.g. Maize bran plus protein source. 
4. Improved Animal Health: Goats: Routinely de-worm and dip. Chickens: practice routine New Castle 
disease vaccination and de-worm; seek veterinary care for livestock when sick. 
Endline Respondents 
Participant (n=431) Comparison (n=153)
Wife 65.9% 89.8%
Husband 34.1% 10.2%
Total 100% 100%
29
5. Record keeping: Farmers keep health records of livestock. 
The calculation indicated that 72.4% (n=514) of the participants applied at least 3 of the 5 practices 
(71.6%MHH and 74.1% FHH), slightly lower than the target of 75% and phenomenally above the 
comparison (24.8%, n=202), midline (59.6%; 58.4 MHH and 65.3% FHH), and the baseline values 
though presented in a slightly different manner as they were disaggregated by livestock (MHH: 7.1% 
goats; 2.4%; and FHH: 4.7% goats; 2.9%). Thus, the indicator has been fairy achieved especially 
when the margin of error adopted is considered (±5%) and when comparing with the comparison, 
baseline and midline. However, what prevented phenomenal achievement is chiefly the low adoption 
levels of recording keeping which might have not been considered as a pressing need from the farmers’ 
perspective due to factors explained in another section. 
4.3.3.1 Adoption of raised kraal (khola)
Adoption of a raised khola was one of the good animal husbandry practices that were promoted by the 
Malawi L4R project. The survey therefore probed on the number of project beneficiaries that have
adopted raised khola both under goat and chicken husbandry. Endline results show that 65.2% of 
chicken farmers and 63.3 % of goat farmers have a raised khola. This is a huge leap from both baseline 
(7.7% and 21.5%) and midline (52% and 35.1%) results. Interestingly, adoption of raised Khola does 
not vary significantly between male and female headed households.
Despite that adoption of raised khola was a pre-requisite for the farmer to receive a livestock, field 
testimonies from FGDs indicate that farmers have now embraced raised khola due to observed benefits. 
Farmers argued that adoption of raised khola ensures healthy and clean livestock since raised khola 
prevent moist and cold conditions that cause diseases and prevent good wellbeing of animals in the 
khola. Furthermore, a raised khola is easy to clean and permit adequate ventilation thereby reducing 
proliferation and spread of disease among animals in the khola. Below is a quote from goat male 
farmers from Nachisaka EPA:
“Yes we have the raised khola for our goats because of LOL. The raised khola is clean such that 
goats cannot easily be infected. We are able to get manure and apply in Dimba….”
 
Table 19: Adoption of raised khola
Type of 
Raised 
Khola
Baseline Midline Endline
Category Participants’ Khola by 
sex of respondent
Comparison
(n=202)
Participants
(n=514)
Male
(n=334)
Female
(n=180)
Chickens 7.7% 52% 24.6% 65.2% 65.2% 65.0%
Goats 21.5% 35.1% 32.0% 63.3% 63.4% 63.2%
4.3.3.2 Reasons for not practicing raised khola
Furthermore, considering that some farmers do still not used a raised khola, the survey also looked at 
some of the reasons making some farmers not adopt a raised khola. Results show that main reasons 
against full adoption of raised khola are: unavailability of materials (25.39%), too much cost (24.87%), 
fear of thieves (22.80%) and not being trained (10.36%). The survey revealed that average cost for 
constructing a goat raised khola was MK16, 151.29 (US$23) and that of chicken was MK4, 915.61 
(US$7). While many of the reasons are self-explanatory, some beneficiaries indicated that they fear
30
that raised kholas for chickens (especially small kholas) can promote thieving of chickens since the 
thieves can just carry the whole khola thereby using the khola as a carriage. 
The qualitative data also align with the reported findings indicating that raised Khola for goats is 
expensive and that it requires poles that are difficult to find. The issue of the theft also came out, forcing 
some farmers to keep livestock in their houses. Below are the points mentioned in “verbatim” across 
various FGDs:
• It requires about MWK15, 000 to MWK20, 000 to construct it [goat khola]; we see this as a 
challenge.
• There are no challenges really with the raised kholas except 'Kaligondo' that sometimes enters 
the khola and catch our chicken
• There are no challenges really except the cost involved in constructing the kholas: it requires 
things like poles and nails which we buy. Otherwise, it is very conducive khola for chickens 
such that we rarely see sick chickens.
• We see challenges when termites have destroyed some poles; goats get pierced with nails and 
sometimes breaking a leg. In addition, it is not easy to meet the cost involved in constructing 
the kholas: it requires things like poles and nails which we buy. 
However, despite the challenges, the adoption rate is on track considering that majority have adopted 
within the 23 month period. Normally, diffusion theory indicates that there are always other people who 
are skeptical with regard to adoption of technologies who wait for others to adopt first in order for them 
to do likewise. 
4.3.3.3 Sources of money for constructing raised khola
Considering that “unavailability of materials” and “too much cost” were the main reasons for not 
constructing a raised khola, the survey asked those that had constructed a khola, where they had 
sourced the money. Interestingly, about half of the farmers (47.24%) indicated that they borrowed from 
the VSLA. This is interesting considering that VSLA were promoted under the Malawi’s L4R project. 
Farmers argued that VSLA are a “handy” source of finances in the village because they do not involve 
complications of the formal financial sector.
Apart from borrowing from the VSLA, the second common source of money for construction of raised 
khola was “selling of crops” with 25.13%. This result is expected considering that agriculture in Malawi 
is predominated by crop production and since farmers were told to construct raised kraals before they 
receive and animal, selling of their crop harvest was a readily available source of income. Other sources 
of income that were mentioned include: small business (5.53%), selling of livestock (5.28%), and causal 
labor and savings (4.77%). 
4.3.3.4 Supplementary feeding
The majority of farmers are providing supplementary feeding to their livestock. It was noted from the 
study that 75.1% of the participants (82% in Ntchisi and 71.4% in Dowa) provide supplementary feed 
to goats as compared to 63.5% of comparison and 21.9% at baseline. Interestingly, more female 
participants provide supplementary feeding to goats than males (80.7% females versus 72.1%). On 
chickens, it was noted that 73.4% provide supplementary feed to chickens (76.1% Ntchisi; 71.8% 
Dowa), compared to 70.5% of the comparison households and 48.7% at baseline. Again, females were 
in the lead in provision of supplementary feeding chickens than males (74.5% Females versus 72.8% 
Males) among the participants in the endline. Clearly, Ntchisi has majority of farmers practicing 
supplementary feeding which might be as a result of availability materials such as maize bran or 
31
differences in extension expertise in influencing adoption since the trainings were conducted in all 
districts. The findings also underline that more women adopted the essential practice than men.
Table 20: Provision of supplementary feeding 
Baseline
(n=295) 
Endline
Participant 
(n=466)
Comparison
(n=167)
Does your 
household provide 
supplementary feed 
to goats?
21.9% 75.1%
• 80.7% female:
72.1% male
• 82%Ntchisi: 
71.4% Dowa
63.5%
Does your 
household provide 
supplementary feed 
to chickens?
48.7% 73.4%
• 74.5%female:
72.8% Male
• 76.4% Ntchisi: 
71.8% Dowa:
70.5%
The most common feed being used for supplementary feeding in goats among the participants include: 
maize bran (90.6%), home-made ration (2.5%), Leucaena (0.4%), Salt (0.4%), roasted soya (0.4%), 
and clean water (3.2%). In chicken among the participants, supplementary feeding regime is being 
practiced by feeding different feeds, and participants responded in the following manner: maize bran 
(85.9%), Leucaena (0.3%), salt (2.5%), home-made ration (2.8%), fish meal (0.3%), and roasted soya 
(0.3%), clean water (4.1%). When compared to comparison, majority indicated that they feed maize 
bran to goats and chicken (95.2% and 94.5% respectively. As much as the percentages of adoption of 
maize bran are slightly higher than the those for participants (90.6% for goats and 85.9% for chickens), 
the comparison registered very much lower adoption of other supplementary feeding practices than 
participants, with most of them zeros. For instance, none of the comparison livestock producers fed 
their livestock home-made ration, leucaena, salt, fish meal and roasted soya bean as the case with the 
participants.
Some of the fodder for supplementary feeding is sourced from own growing. The study revealed that
12% of households grew folder in the previous growing season (2014/2015), an improvement from the 
baseline (6.2%) and midline (8.1%). More than half (58.3%) of the participants that grew fodder, grew 
leucaena, one quarter (25.0%) grew soya and sesbania sesban (8.3%) of the participants for 
supplementary feeding. 
The FGDs with participants indicated that they use maize bran, groundnuts haulms and Rhodes grass 
to feed goats as supplementary feed. They also indicated to utilise feed preservation techniques such 
making hay out of groundnut haulms for use when feed is scarce. This validates the results from the 
household interviews. On supplementary feeding for chickens, the producer groups in the FDGs pointed 
out that they feed chickens with maize bran, home-made meal which is maize and roasted soya meal
though the latter was quantitatively reported by fewer participants(2.8%). The participants also pointed
that they prepare this meal and keep it in a bag for future use, and this reported to improve egg 
production.
4.3.3.5 Chicken care 
The study has shown that 30.3% of the chicken producer participants practiced chick care (31.8% 
females and 29.1% males), higher compared with midterm review (22.4%) and which was likely 
insignificantly practiced at baseline. More chicken producer participants (35.9%) in Ntchisi practice 
32
chick care than 26.5% in Dowa (refer to Table 21). Of those, 54.2% use deep litter at endline and 
44.4% used the basket method, with 1.4% “other”. While more comparison respondents used deep 
litter (58%), less used the basket method (33.3%) and 8% used other methods, as compared with 
chicken producer participants. 
Table 21: Practice of chick care 
Baseline Midline Endline
Not 
applicable 
n=396 Participant (n=412) Comparison
(n=152)
Does your 
household 
practice 
chick care 
Not 
available 
22.4% 30.3%
• 31.8% female:
29.1% male
• 35.9%Ntchisi: 
26.5% Dowa
0%
An average of 16.28 chicks per chicken producer participant household were raised through chick care 
in the past 12 months for both Dowa and Ntchisi, higher compared with 10.2 at midline. The baseline 
did not report on this.
The participants actually took an average of 13 days after birth to put chicks into chick care,and it takes 
an average of 3 weeks before they are released. The hens whose chicks are in chick care take an 
average of 4 weeks to start laying eggs. The findings nearly agree with what was reported atmidline.
Type of feed given to chicks while in care, as per the participants, included: home-made chicken feed 
(31.8%), chick marsh (0.7%), growersmarsh (0.7 roasted marsh (2.7%), maize bran (55.4%), fish meal 
(1.4%) and water (2.0%). 
FGDs with chicken groups indicated that they understand the chick care process and purpose. They 
generally reported that at the age of three weeks, chicks are separated from their mother and put in 
basket-like structure. The chicks are then fed a variety of feed including homemade meals with 
combinations of soya+fish+Khobwe meal, maize bran, clean water and other feed types. The chicks 
are safe and their mother immediately mates again to start laying eggs. This was said to increase the 
numbers of chickens in a short time. This authenticated the findings from the household interviews. 
Chick care is seen to lead to the hens laying eggs frequently and the chicks mortality rate being reduced. 
As shown in Table 22, the endline reported lower mortality rate (per household, an average of 2.11
chicks died while in chick care, an average of 1.29 chicks died after chick care and out of 10 chicks, 4
were dying before getting 8 weeks) than midline (an average of 2.5 chicks died while in chick care, an 
average of 1.8 chicks died after chick care and out of 10 chicks,5.4 were dying before getting 8 weeks) 
than at midline. Furthermore, it was noted that not everyone is practicing chick care.
Reasons for not practicing chick care included: not trained (31.7%), not interested (14.7%), do not 
know chick care (5.3%), expensive (7.9%), do not trust chicken care (6.8%), required mentor (5.6%) 
and too lazy to practice (7.5%) and other reasons (20.3%). However, other FGDs indicated that most
of the farmers use chick carewith an exception of the participants from Nachisaka EPA who indicated 
that they did not practice because their chickens died.
Table 22: Mortality rate of chicks
Question Midline (mean); n=396 Endline (mean; n=514)
How many chicks died while in 
chick care?
2.5 2.11
33
How many chicks died after 
chick care?
1.8 1.29
Before chick care, out of 10 
how many chicks died before 
getting 8 weeks?
5.4 4.00
 Figure 1: A Basket Chick Care (Left) and a Chicken Raised Kraal (Right)
4.3.3.6 Animal health services 
The LLFs have reached out to more livestock producer group members’ households, done more 
treatments and supported more animals than planned in the project life target. According to monitoring 
records, LLFs have reached to 11,626 households well above the 4500 targeted. In the process, they 
have provided a total of 147,692 treatments (target was 25,000) to 90,294 animals (against 26000 
planned). Even the endline indicates that nearly 87.1% of the participants acknowledged that LLFs 
provided veterinary services in their households in the past 12 months (88.6 Male and 84.4% female). 
Of those that were served by animal health service providers, 92.1% of participants had used the animal 
health services in the previous months while fewer comparison households (43%) had actually used 
animal health services from elsewhere. While participants were visited by the animal health service 
providers by an average of around 6 times, comparison household was visited by animal health 
providers by an average of 5 times but with very high standard deviation (double observed in 
participants). Females were served more times than male participants (6 versus 5 times).
During the baseline, veterinary services were accessible to only 61.3% of the sampled households, with 
more access to males than females. Veterinary services were primarily found to be provided by the
Assistant Veterinary Officers (AVOs) and some AVO assistants. Normally, the AVOs are supposed to 
be in each section of EPAs but because of high understaffing levels, one AVO mans several sections. 
Thus, the coming in of the LLFs has enhanced access of the animal health services.
Over the past 12 months, an average of about 10 chickens and 4 goats had received animal health 
care per household among participants, greater than the number of livestock reported to have received 
health care (about 9 chickens and 3 goats) among non-beneficiaries.
Table 23: Number of animals that received heath care 
Type of household is your household How many 
chickens did 
receive health 
care?
How many 
goats did 
receive health 
care?
34
Participant (n=514) Mean 10.02 3.37
Comparison (n=202) Mean 9.33 2.79
Goat and chicken mortality rates amongst target producer groups’ households have been significantly 
reduced. According to PMEP document of Land O’Lakes, mortality rate is calculated by dividing number 
of goats/ chickens that die over the total number of goats by chickens that belong to the producers.This 
outcome indicator measures the extent to which the project reduced mortality among the livestock goats 
and chickens. Vaccination and deworming were some of the critical activities expected to reduce 
mortality. Additionally, promoting the adoption of good animal housing and animal feeds was also to 
help prevent mortality of livestock. 
Adopting the aforementioned formula, the endline came up with the mortality rate of 4% and 6% for 
goats and chicken, respectively. The mortality rates were 23% for goats and 57% for chickens at 
baseline while the project targeted reduction to 14% and 32% respectively. The results imply that
mortality rates have been significantly reduced due to good animal husbandry practices promoted by 
the project especially through the LLF approach. Even FGDs with participants attest that the animal 
health services have been fostered as tipped by the below quotes of female FGDs from Malomo EPA 
for chickens;
“The LLFs in this area provide drugs and vaccines to chickens especially the ones that are sick or 
feared sick. Mostly, we are satisfied with these services because the health of chickens is improving. 
Of course, how to access the money to pay for the service fee is not that easy for many of us. We 
have not noticed any chick dead over the past 12 months”
“The LLFs provide vaccines and drugs to our goats whenever the animals are sick. They also advise 
us not keep goats in wet khola to prevent some diseases that come because of wet condition. We are 
quite satisfied with the services because our goats look healthy now than before this project started. 
When goats are treated, we pay for such service at K100 per goat treated. However, we do not see 
this as a challenge because the money enables the LLFs to buy another set of vaccines and 
drugs”.
However, an isolated incident at Nachisaka EPA was noted whereby unexpected negative 
consequences from the project occurred. A government staff reported that about 186 chickens died 
soon after distribution to beneficiaries. The then unknown outbreak was reported by the KIIs and FGDs 
to have been spread to other chickens in the community, aggravating the incident. Actions were 
undertaken, whereby Land O’Lakes’ animal health expert worked hard to diagnose the outbreak though 
it did not work. It was also reported that samples were submitted to Lilongwe at the Livestock 
Department for laboratory analysis but the outbreak was equally not diagnosed. This led to speculations 
that the problem could have been stress on the animals due to long distance travel though this could 
not explain how it got spread to other chickens. However, either way, it is recommended that future 
projects minimise this enigma by sourcing chickens near the distribution area to avoid long distance 
travel and importation of outbreaks in the area of impact. Land O’Lakes understood that the project 
intended to bring positive impact and not vice versa, thus, the households affected were compensated. 
On the sources of money for paying animal health services, it was noted that more participants (32.2%) 
indicated to use money from the VSLA than the comparison (1.3%). While only 2.2% of participants 
sold livestock to get money to pay for animal health services, 4.0% comparison did the same. 
35
Furthermore, about 14% of participants and 4% of comparison indicated to use money from small scale 
business. Interestingly, fewer participants (24.9%) did casual labour than the comparison (45.3%) to 
pay for livestock services. Finally, more participant respondents (29.3%) got money from selling crops 
than comparison (25.3%). See Table 24.
The results indicate that the project has had impact on the participants because of the following:
 
• They are now taking advantage of VSLA income and investing it in their livestock business. 
• Fewer of the participants sell livestock anyhow. This was corroborated in one of the key 
informant interviews with LLF who said that since livestock business training, they no longer 
sell livestock anyhow; they first need to plan. This is confirmed since more participants relied 
on small-scale business to pay for the services than the comparison.
• More households are using the savings for enhancing animal farm enterprise development
• Fewer participants now rely on casual labour as a source of money for paying services but 
rather on selling crops and other aforementioned sources. This could mean they are 
increasingly relying on VSLAs and farming, thus becoming more resilient than comparison. 
Table 24: Source of money for animal health services 
Source of money for animal health services Type of respondent 
Participant
(n=514)
Comparison
(n=202)
VSLA 32.2% 1.3%
Sold livestock 2.2% 4.0%
Household savings 1.8% 1.3%
Proceeds from small businesses 13.9% 4.0%
Casual labour 24.9% 45.3%
Selling crops 29.3% 25.3%
The majority of participants (55.1%) rated their animal health service provider (i.e. LLF) as very good, 
followed by those that rated theirs as excellent (20.9 %), average (12.6%), poor (4.1%) and very poor 
(7.2%). This implies that about 75% of participants regarded their animal health provider as either 
excellent or very good. Comparing with the non-participants, the majority rated slightly lower (about 
65% rated theirs either very good or excellent). Notably, the midline reported that 89% rated the LLFs 
as either excellent or very poor, refer to Table 25. Despite that the baseline did not report in this format, 
their FGDs revealed that the services were offered by community animal health workers (CAHWs) who
have limited skills and keep on referring back to the already insufficient AVOs. Thus, this gives an idea 
on how the respondents could have quantitatively rated the CAHWs.
Table 25: Rating of animal health service provider
How do you rate overall 
work of the LLF or any 
animal health service 
provider?
Midline Endline 
n=192 Participant
n=459
Comparison
n=103
Very poor 2.4% 7.2% 14.6%
Poor 1.2% 4.1% 5.8%
36
Average 7.1% 12.6% 15.5%
Very good 31.2% 55.1% 49.5%
Excellent 58.2% 20.9% 14.6%
 Total 100% 100.0% 100.0%
Furthermore, Table 26 indicates that participates rated their animal health provider better in most of the 
aspects, including cost, customer care, frequency, training, than non-participants. The differences could 
be attributed to the intensive trainings that the LLFs went through in the L4R project.
Table 26: Rating of LLFs in terms of price, customer care, frequency of service and training
Type of respondents On a rate 
of 1 to 10 
how can 
you rate 
the work 
of LLF in 
terms of 
price?
On a rate of 1 
to 10 how can 
you rate the 
work of LLF in 
terms of 
customer 
care?
On a rate of 1 to 
10 how can you 
rate the work of 
LLF in terms of 
frequency?
On a rate of 1 to 
10 how can you 
rate the work of 
LLF in terms of 
training?
Participant 
(n=514)
Mean 10 8.72 9.78 10.0
Comparison 
(n=202)
Mean 10 6.94 7.90 8.43
FGDs indicated that participants acknowledge the work conducted by the LLFs, indicating that they 
treat their animals, administer vaccinations and deworming services. The participants indicated that this 
makes them have healthy animals unlike before when chickens could wipe out due to New Castle and 
goats could easily die of diseases. The challenge mentioned was how to pay for the services, otherwise, 
the services are said to have helped improve the situation by reducing cases of animal death. Below is 
a quote from goat male farmers in Chipuka EPA: 
“They [LLFs] also provide vaccines and drugs at a fee of MWK600 [$0.9] per goat and MWK30
[$0.04] per chicken”
According to KII notes, the major criterion used to select the LLFs was literacy. All the LLFs indicated 
that they were chosen because they are able to read and write. Furthermore, they also indicated that 
their commitment to development work prompted community members to nominate them. The LLFs 
are excited to serve in their communities since they have learnt quite a lot on livestock husbandry. They 
also feel proud to see communities experiencing increased livestock asset base leading to improved 
households. Ultimately the fee that members pay is the ultimate motivator. Below is a quote from one 
of the LLFs;
“Apart from knowing how to take care of animals, I also sell livestock drugs such as Abendazle and 
Pirazine. As for the community livestock is really multiplying and are protected from diarrhoea”.
Some of the challenges encountered are that at the beginning, community members were not 
demanding the services but with time, demand surged. One of the female LLF from Nachisaka indicated 
that communities have negative perception on women having to castrate their animals hence she did 
not offer the service. Below is a sample of the charges:
• Vaccinating a chicken MWK30 ($0.04) per Chicken
37
• Deworming a Chicken MWK500 ($0.7)per teaspoon
• Deworming a goat MWK250 ($0.4) per one drug
The most popular services are deworming and vaccination. Net monthly income for LLFs is $10.01
(10.58 female and 9.69 male) against the target in the project life of $50. According to the LLFs, all the 
topics in which they were trained in were useful. Furthermore, the most difficult topic was on how to 
administer the right dosage of drugs. According to the LLFs, they preferred if L4R had increased days 
of training so that topics like injection of drugs are covered. The significant challenges that LLFs are
facing are poor attendance and limited understanding of participants due to low literacy. The problems 
are mitigated by imposing a penalty on the absentees and training at a slow pace respectively.
Lastly, all the LLFs indicated plans to continue offering the services after L4R to support their 
households and help their communities. AVOs and AEDOs also pledged to continue implementing the 
project in the absence of Land O’Lakes. The below quote from Malomo EPA AVO is typical of what 
other government staff indicated:
“I will continue facilitating the trainings because it is my job and I will be backstopping 
L4R. In addition to that farmers are organised such that whenever there is a problem 
they visit our officers. L4R will help in vaccination and deworming. There are minor 
cases like Newcastle; they just work hard in vaccination. The main problem that we 
deal with such as ORF, they can’t do it because it requires injection”.
4.3.3.7 Record keeping 
Another improved practice promoted was record keeping. This is imperative, especially as small-scale￾farming is increasingly being commercialised. Only about 12% of the participants kept records, far 
better than 3% of the comparison. The finding is also better than the 6.7% reported at baseline and 
8.6% at midline. While change has taken place, it is not very significant. Generally, there is normally 
low uptake of record keeping among small-scale farmers partly due to high illiteracy levels which affect 
how they comprehend and perceive it in terms of its relevance to their immediate farming needs. Of 
the participants who kept records, 90.2% were on production, 26.8% on animal health, 14.6% on sales 
and the rest were not sure of what records they kept. All the comparison responded who kept records 
indicated to keep on production, 66.7% on sales while none kept on animal health despite being very 
critical.
According to FGDs, participants confessed to have received record keeping trainings and practising 
what they learnt. Some of the records mentioned are as follows: date of birth, mating and conception. 
Others indicated that they are not practising because of the following reasons:
• They report to LLFs who keep records so they do not see any reason for keeping the same as 
well.
• Some of them indicated that they are busy with other things, so they are fine as long as they 
remember the things which could be kept in the records.
• Few indicated that they do not know how to keep them.
The aforementioned assertions reveal that despite being trained, the perception on the significance of 
financial records among majority of the participants leaves a lot to be desired and suffered because it 
was not a priority to them.
38
4.3.4 Village Savings and Loans Associations
The project worked with 150 VAs to facilitate formation of 300 VSLAs. Of the groups, 65% are 
functioning properly, surpassing the 50% targeted. According to PMEP, functioning VSLAs are those 
that have constitutions and by-laws, hold regular meetings, collect member contribution on time and 
collect repayments and internal loans on time. 
Monitoring information reveal that of the targeted 6,000 households (3,000 FHHs) earmarked for 
training in savings and loans association, 5,817 (2, 640 males and 3,177 females) were trained. While 
the project targeted US$30,000 as amount saved in the VSLAs, US$108,178 was actually saved at the 
end of project life. 
In terms of membership to VSLAs, the study showed that 97.0%of the participants (99.2% females and 
93.3% males) sample belonged to VSLA groups which were being facilitated by LOL in the project 
impact areas while only 58.1% indicated to belong to VSLAs in the comparison areas. During the 
baseline, over half of all respondents (56.4%) expressed that a member of their household had money 
in a VSLA. The difference could be attributed to mobilisation of farmers, capacity building, monitoring 
and follow ups by Village Agents (VAs) initiated in the L4R project. 
Similar results were noted at district level. The endline reported that 96.6% of the participant sample 
belonged to VSLA in Dowa while 99.2% of the participants belonged to VSLA in Ntchisi. Comparing the 
foregoing findings to the baseline; Dowa reported 46% while Ntchisi was 68%. Thus, there has been a 
great increase in the number of members participating in VSLA at district level, more especially for 
Dowa. In both districts, women form a greater proportion of the membership of VSLA than men. 
While participants had an average savings of MWK31, 594.75 ($45), comparison had MWK18, 312.64
($26) in VSLAs. The former surpasses not only the comparison but also amount of savings reported at 
baseline which was MWK27, 614 ($39). 
4.3.4.1 Access to loans
The majority (88%) of participants had accessed loans from VSLAs in the last 12 months, which was 
more than the comparison group (81%); this was not reported at baseline. This shows that there is 
expectedly high access to loans among the members of VSLAs in both categories of respondents since 
they do not require capital as opposed to commercial banks; this is the very reason the VSLAs are 
promoted. While each household (whether participant or non-participant) had accessed loans 3 times 
on average, participant household had accessed more than twice amount of comparison (MK40, 
185/$57 participant a versus MK15, 389/$22 comparison). 
On the question of how the respondents rated accessibility of loans before and after L4R, 43% said that 
it was better after L4R than before. About 25% rated it to as just better while 7% though nothing had 
change and about 25% were not able to rate (did not understand what to do). Furthermore, on the ability 
to recover from unexpected shocks, 39% indicated that they are very much better now than before. 
About 26% indicated that recovery from unexpected shocks is just better. On the same, about 22% did 
not understand how to rate.
Table 27: Access to loan after L4R VSLA
How do you rate access to 
loans now as compared to
before L4R VSLA? (n=406)
Option Response 
Same 7.6%
Better 25.1%
Much better 43.6%
Don’t know 23.6%
39
Total 100%
Though the majority of the participants benefit and access credit facility from the VSLAs, there are some 
that are not accessing the facility. Reasons for failure to access to credit included (n=39): in Dowa, high 
interest rates (15.8%), inadequate funds (47.4%), and other reasons (36.8%). In Ntchisi, high interest 
rates (10.0%), short repayment period (5.0%) inadequate funds (15.0%) and other reasons (70.0%). 
Many participant households which collect loans from VSLAs use it for household consumption (44.2%) 
followed by those that use to start a business (28.9%) and the rest were mentioned by few participants 
refer to Table 28 for details. Nevertheless, there was slightly better allocation of loans to agriculture 
among the participants (investing in crops-5.8%; chicken purchase-1.6%; livestock health-2.6%; 
purchase of other livestock-0.5%) than the comparison respondents (investing in crops-1.3%; chicken 
purchase-1.3%; livestock health-0.0%; purchase of other livestock-0.0%). In addition, VSLA savings 
were also used in similar manner save for inclusion of school fees, seed and chemical fertilisers. 
Despite the quantitative findings reporting lower figures on use of loans in livestock, FGDs and KIIs 
revealed that the significant number of participants use money from the VSLA to buy livestock. 
Table 28: Use of VSLA loans 
What do you use the loans from VSLA for? Participant
(n=190)
Comparison
(n=78)
Invest in crop farming 5.8% 1.3%
Chicken purchase 1.6% 1.3%
Livestock health 2.1% 0.0%
Purchase of other livestock 0.5% 0.0%
Household consumers 44.2% 32.1%
Business start up 28.9% 42.3%
Use on social events 25.8% 12.8%
Agriculture equipment 5.8% 0.0%
House construction/repair 5.8% 9.0%
Other 4.2% 14.1%
On those that use either VSLA loan or savings on food majority (about 74%: 85.7% FHH and 64.8% 
MHHs) use it to buy maize, a national proxy indicator for food security. Such finding inform on the impact 
that the project has made on the food security, especially of the FHHs. Some of the food items on which 
the VSLA income is spent as shown in Table 29 are as follows: meat (18.6%); fish (16.5%) and eggs 
(8.2%). As noted from Table 29, generally fewer comparison respondents mentioned the food stuffs 
than the participants. This might imply that the foodstuffs are unaffordable to them and thus their diets 
appear less diversified as compared with the participants. 
Table 29: Use of VSLA money on food
If money used on food, what kind of 
food?
Type of respondent 
Participant (n=194) Comparison (n=49)
Maize 74.2% 63.3%
Other cereals 2.1% 2.0%
Legumes 6.7% 0.0%
Meat 18.6% 10.2%
Eggs 8.2% 4.1%
Fish 16.5% 8.2%
Vegetables 4.1% 0.0%
40
Other foods 3.6% 26.5%
4.3.4.2 Village Agents
The project met its target of identifying and building capacity of 150 VAs which were required to service 
the 300 VSLAs. The VAs have trained a total of 5,817 individuals and served about 30.000 individuals 
according to monitoring data. The community members participating in VSLAs rated the performance 
of VAs highly. The performance and delivery of services to the VSLA was rated as excellent by 40.6% 
of the participants surveyed, very well by 32.2%, average by 22.2% and bad by 5%. As community 
based trainers, VAs are adequately providing financial trainings to the community members as 
envisaged. Use of VAs has led to the expansion of VSLAs. VAs train VSLAs, eliminating the need for 
long-term external technical support. 
The criteria for selecting VAs were reported to be similar with the LLF. The VA had to be literate and 
interested in development work. The VAs also feel good and motivated to serve their communities in 
the enhancement of VSLAs. The VAs reported to have experienced impacts in their households during 
the project period. The impact has also been made on VSLA members. The below quotes best 
illustrates how resilient the VA and member households have become:
“I have bought maize, livestock, seed, fertilizer and meeting household basic needs such as 
soap and relish, The money is used after been cashed from the bank. For example, last year I 
had K74 000 and other members use this money as a capital for different businesses, others 
use it for school fees and others use it to buy farm inputs”.
“My household had 8 Chickens before VSLA but now we have 18 Chickens. When I 
earned the money last year, MWK19, 000 [$21], I bought 10 Chickens. Other farmers 
earned more than me e.g. MWK75, 000 [$107] and used the money to buy fertilizers, 
seeds and livestock”
The VAs indicated to have gone through trainings under the L4R where among other topics mentioned 
were as follows: Shares; insurance; emergency; business plan development; report writing; importance 
of VSLA; how to deposit money in the group; loans and interests. The VAs reported to be satisfied with 
the content presentation and materials. The most useful topics were depositing money and business 
plan because they were colossally deficient in terms of knowledge and skills of the former and are able 
to know what goes in and out of the farming business due to the latter. The VAs faced challenges in 
administering topics and facilitating adoption of interest, group entry fee and emergency fees. For 
instance, it took time for VSLA members to understand that interest would be given to not only those 
who borrow the money but also others who have shares even though they did not obtain loans. What 
the VAs thought could have been improved in the L4R project was provision of trainings on marketing, 
and facilitating linkages of the producer groups to markets.
Such immense benefits of the VSLAs inspire them to continue their roles; all the VAs consulted 
indicated that demand of their services is very high and that they are willingness to carry on their duties 
beyond the life of the project.
4.3.4.3 Bank account ownership
About 17.5% of participants owned bank accounts against 8.5% of the comparison. The percent of the 
participants is slightly higher than at the baseline (17.2%). Possibly, those savings might be overflowing 
from the VSLA activities. On average, the participants have savings in their bank accounts amounting 
to MWK35, 235.35 ($50) and the comparison is MWK23, 623.33 ($34). The saving culture is among 
41
both male and female. Men have an average of MWK37, 166.75 ($53) in bank, while women have 
savings with the bank of an average of MWK30, 600.00 ($44). 
4.3.4.4 Improved business practices 
Another assignment for the VAs was to train VSLA members on improved business practices 
concerning VSLAs, measured by participation of measured by participation in VSLAs or saving in banks 
and keeping of financial records. The endline reveals that 26.7% of participant households (27.2% 
female and 26.3%) practiced the improved business practices, substantially lower than the targeted 
75% though well above the 8.6% (10.9% male and 8.1% females) at midline and probably very much 
well above the baseline not reported. The deficit is largely due to low adoption of financial record 
keeping which is not a surprise among the many lowly educated farmers. Part of this deficit may also 
be the underachievement in training household members in household economics reported in the 
following section. 
The FGDs concurred with the quantitative findings that few farmers keep records because of the 
reasons that they are busy with other endeavours hence they do not need to do the same. Thus, as 
much as they were trained, the perception remains largely negative among majority, possibly due to 
low education levels.
4.3.4.5 Household economics
L4R also focused on training the participants on household economics. According to PMEPof the Land 
O’Lakes, the indicator measured household members’ exposure to household enterprise trainings at 
community level. The project planned to drill household members (both men and women) in: skills 
building and knowledge transfer approach focusing on seasonal income and expenditures, basic 
business skills (including financial literacy and the concepts of profitability, cash flow, savings, loans 
and record-keeping); household economics (including planning for the health and nutrition of family 
members); the success of on-farm enterprises; and the protection of assets. Monitoring data indicates 
that only 10,360 (5,543 females and 4,818 males)were trained, against the 18,000 (9,000 females and 
9,000 males targeted. Interestingly, this indicates that more women were trained as from the results, 
hence empowering them for gender balance.
Furthermore, the endline asked if the respondents had ever received training in household enterprise 
planning and development. About 37% of participants (n=407) indicated to have received it while the 
comparison had slightly lower percentage of households receiving the same kind of trainings (34%, n= 
88). The comparison group could have reported much lower than the 34% because majority of 
respondents in this category did not answer this question because they had no idea about it as indicated 
in the sample size that responded. When probed further on what kind of trainings received; a larger 
proportion of participants reported to have received various kinds of trainings than comparison as shown 
in Table 30. While the proportion difference between the participants and comparison was not very 
significant on enterprise selection, more pronounced differences were noted on food usage (11.5% 
participants and 0.0% comparison), business plan development (26.6% participant and 6.5% 
comparison) and other practices (17.3% participants and 6.5% comparison. This means that the 
participants not only had higher proportion of adopters of household economics but also a wide variety 
of skills than the comparison which reported significantly only on enterprise selection.
Table 30: Household economics
Type of training Percent of cases
Participant (n=514) Comparison (n=202)
Enterprise selection 77.0 63.5
Food usage 11.5 0.0
42
Business plan development 26.6 6.5
Other practices 17.3 6.5
Note: the percentages do not add up to 100 because it was a multiple response question.
The VA KIIs remembered largely to have trained participants on savings, business plan development, 
buying of shares, marketing of livestock, setting of business goals and making of cash flows. FGDs with 
participants stressed that the project taught them how to treat livestock farming as business.
4.3.4.6 Coping mechanisms 
The survey asked the participants how they deal with shocks. Many (43.1%) of the respondents 
indicated that they obtain a loan from the VSLA as a coping strategy. Other participants (11.4%) use 
money they saved in the VSLA, while others resort to casual labour (16.3%) and selling crops (11.7%). 
Only 5.1% sold goats (refer to Table 31). It is noted when compared with the comparison that more 
participants relied on VSLAs than comparison respondents. This indicates that VSLAs have played a 
role in enhancing resilience of households. As for the comparison, majority rely on the casual labour 
which might be an indicator for dependence and vulnerability. 
Table 31: Coping mechanisms when unexpected expenditure occurs
Coping mechanisms Participants (n=369) Comparison (n=114)
Use money saved in the VSLA 11.4% 2.6%
Obtain loan from the VSLA 43.1% 35.1%
Sell goats 5.1% 5.3%
Sell chickens 6.0% 1.8%
Sell other livestock assets 0.5% 0.9%
Beg from kin 0.5% 0.0%
Casual labour 16.3% 39.5%
Sell crops 11.7% 12.3%
Other 5.4% 2.6%
4.3.4.7 Saved earnings from the business to VSLA
A considerable number of participants sampled save money from their businesses into the VSLA. Asked 
on how often they saved money from the business to VSLAs, 28% indicated to have done many times, 
35% several times, 21.3% once or twice, while only 14.8% never. This means that about 85% of the 
households had saved their money from the business to VSLA at least once. Looking at the results in 
Table 32, more participants had saved slightly more times than comparison respondents. 
Table 32: Saved earnings from the business to VSLA
Saving frequency Participant (n=263) Comparison (n=50)
Never 14.8% 20%
Once or twice 21.3% 4.0%
Several times 35.0% 54.0%
Many times 28.9% 22.0%
43
4.3.4.8 Times of saving earnings from the livestock to VSLA
Livestock is providing a source of income to the participants. The participants are using VSLA as a 
model to save earnings from livestock sale. Twenty three percent (23.9%) pointed out that on several 
occasions they have saved funds earned from livestock in VSLA (refer to Table 33). During the baseline, 
there was no one who was saving their livestock earnings in the VSLA. The project has enabled the 
participants to own livestock which they are able to sell thereby becoming more economic resilient. The 
VSLA is enabling the participants to embrace the saving culture.
Table 33: Times of saving earnings from the livestock to VSLA
Response Participant (n=218) Comparison(n=21)
Never 49.5% 66.7%
Once or twice 20.6% 33.3%
Several times 23.9% 0.0%
Many times 6.0% 0.0%
4.3.5 Household decision making 
Men dominate decision making regarding household expenditure as indicated by about 70% of the 
participants sampled, versus 53% in the comparison. Comparison households made more joint 
decisions on household expenditures than the participant households (32.2% versus 16.7%). The 
baseline reported qualitatively, that men also dominated decision making. However, women FGDs as 
reported in the baseline indicated that sometimes it varies, with women making more decisions on 
smaller livestock such as chickens than men.
The survey also asked participants about who made their decision on purchase of goats and chickens 
before and after the project. The results show that in more households, the women make the decision 
to purchase goats (79.4%), while it is the men that make the decision to purchase chickens (67.5%). 
This is surprising as a goat is a more expensive purchase. The proportion of households where the 
woman made the decision to purchase chickens did increase substantially after participation in the 
project (18.2% versus 3.2%), while it remained about the same for goats.
Conversely, more households indicated that women make the decision about the slaughter of chickens 
(69.8%), while men make the decision on the slaughter of goats (80.6%). KIIs also underlined that 
women participation and empowerment have been enhanced, thus, a considerable number of women 
is now making decisions in some aspects as highlighted by Table 34. 
Table 34: Household decision making 
Aspect Men Women Both Children
% (those in brackets are for comparison)
Household expenditure 69.5 (53.0) 13.6 (13.4) 16.7 (32.2) 0.2 (1.5)
Decision to purchase chicken before LOL 88.3 3.2 8.5 -
Decision to purchase chicken now (after LOL) 67.5 18.17 13.8 -
Decision to purchase goats before LOL 17.4 76.0 6.6 -
Decision to purchase goats after LOL 17.0 79.4 3.5 -
Decision to slaughter chicken 29.6 (25) 69.8 (75) 0.5 (0) -
Decision to slaughter goats 80.6 (86) 19.4 (13.5) - -
Decision on intra-household allocation after 
chicken is slaughtered
11.5 (10.7) 88.3 (89.3) 0.3(0) -
Decision on intra-household allocation after 
goat is slaughtered
34.0 (46.2) 66.0 (53.8) - -
44
4.3.6 Food security impact
L4R further aimed at improving food and nutrition security situation of the vulnerable households. The 
results from the final evaluation indicate that the household dietary diversity score increased for 
participants after the project to 4.03 at endline from 3.3 at baseline, and 3.3 in the comparison group 
(Table 35).
While most households consumed grain, roots and tubers at both final evaluation and baseline (91.3%
and 100% respectively), the consumption of dairy (33% versus 21.3%), organ meat (12.8% versus 
1.3%), eggs (5.5% to 19%) and flesh foods (5.5% to 16.7%) increased greatly. Interestingly, participant 
households were more likely to consume the following more than the comparison group: dairy (22.1% 
versus 9.7%), organ meat (12.8% versus 2.2%) and flesh foods (16.7% versus 7%). There was also a 
slight difference in consumption of eggs (19.0% versus 16.2%), but not as expected with the chicken 
farmers having more access to eggs (Table 36).
Table 35: Household Dietary Diversification Score
Household Dietary Diversification Scores (HDDS)
Baseline
(N=385)
Midline
(N=180)
ENDLINE
Comparison
(n=202)
Participant
(n=514)
Participants by sex
MHH
(n=352) 
FHH
(n=162) 
3.3 3.3 3.3 4.03 3.99 4.15
Table 36: Food Groups consumed in the past 24 hours
Food Group Baseline
(N=385)
Midline
(N=180)
Endline
Household Type Participants’ Sex
Participants
(n=514)
Comparison
(n=202)
MHH
(n=352)
FHHs
(n=162)
grain, roots and 
tubers
100% 99.7% 91.3% 94.6% 93.9% 88.8%
other fruits and 
vegetables
21.3% 17.0% 33.0% 37.8% 35.3% 32.2%
Dairy 2.9% 4.9% 22.1% 9.7% 20.6% 14.5%
organ meat 1.3% 1.8% 12.8% 2.2% 10.7% 7.9%
Eggs 5.5% 4.6% 19.0% 16.2% 16.2% 22.4%
flesh foods 5.5% 14.3% 16.7% 7.0% 13.6% 15.0%
vitamins A rich 
vegetables
76.0% 81.8% 42.3% 36.8% 43.9% 34.1%
45
vegetables and 
fruits
46.4% 65.2% 39.0% 34.1% 39.9% 32.7%
legumes and 
nuts
45.6% 40.2% 39.6% 35.7% 43.9% 27.1%
Fats 42.1% 32.4% 45.6% 26.2%
4.3.7 Households that hired labour
Malawi L4R also aimed at creating vibrant livelihood within the targeted areas. Apart from impacting on 
the direct beneficiaries, the project desired to spill-over to the whole communities through creation of 
employment opportunities. To understand this effect, a question was asked to project participants to 
establish if they hired any person in their livestock business. Findings (Table 37) show that only 10% of 
project participants hired someone in their livestock business. This can be attributed to the fact that 
most animals distributed through the project have not yet multiplied thereby demanding less labour and 
not providing enough to hire labour. However, the project has strong potential to create more 
employment opportunities once the livestock asset base has expanded. 
Table 37: Job creation in impact areas
Were you or any member of the household hired any one to work on your livestock 
business
Baseline Midline Endline
Category Participants’ Job 
Creation by Gender
Comparison
(n=202)
Participants
(n=514)
Male
(n=334)
Female
(n=180)
No 100% 89.5% 90.4% 88.0%
Yes 0% 10.5% 9.6% 12.0%
As indicated in Table 38, further analysis of job creation by the project showed that the beneficiaries 
hired an average of 2 individuals, who worked for an average of 4 hours per week with an average of 4 
months per annum. Again, if the livestock asset base improves due to improved access to veterinary 
services and adoption of good husbandry practices, more job opportunities will be created in the impact 
areas. 
Table 38: Summary statistics on job creation by the project
Summary statistics for job creation by project’s participants (n=54)
Minimum Maximum Mean SD
Number of people hired 1 7 1.94 1.449
Hours per week worked by hired labor 1 20 4.33 3.902
Months per annum worked by hired labor 1 8 4.34 1.858
4.3.8 General impact from participant perspective 
Participants were asked to directly give their perception on the change that they experienced as a result 
of the L4R on income, food security and soil fertility. Generally, a considerable number of households 
experienced positive impact. With reference to Table 39, about 30% of the participants indicated to 
have experienced improved soil fertility while about 29% and 11% experienced improved food and 
46
nutrition and increased income respectively. The perception of the females on the impact is slightly 
different from males. This could be attributed to the fact that men dominated in decision making and 
thus would experience more benefits than women. Nonetheless, those that indicated “don’t know” were 
substantial (30.4%) with women being in high proportion (47.4%). Probably, the women might have 
relatively been “shy” to give their opinion which is normal in the communities where the study was 
undertaken. If this was not the case, the findings were likely going to be different. Similar trend is also 
noted in Table 40 for goat impact and Table 41 for egg production impact. On another note, it is very 
likely that the majority will experience more tangible impact in future as the livestock proliferate, with 
emphasis on goats which take more time to reproduce than chickens. 
KIIs and FGDs were more revealing and in-depth in describing the impact that the project has made. 
Many households are food resilient now: income from chickens is used by some households to buy 
maize; manure from the livestock is used to fertilize maize, a food security crop. Some of the income 
from the livestock, especially chickens, is used for schooling of participant children. To other 
households, mere presence of the livestock is for general security used during eventualities and social 
activities such as funeral, sicknesses, visitors and cerebrations. 
Table 39: Impact of chicken farming on household livelihood since joining L4R
Impact Sex of the L4R participant
Male (n=247) Female (n=135) Total (n=382)
Increased income 13.4% 6.1% 11.0%
Improved food and nutrition 28.3% 28.9% 28.5%
Improved soil fertility 37.2% 17.0% 30.1%
Don’t know 21.1% 47.4% 30.4%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Table 40: Impact of goat farming on household livelihood since joining L4R project
Impact Sex of the L4R participant
Male (n=250) Female (n=153) Total (n=402)
Increased income 34.8% 29.6% 32.8%
Improved food and nutrition 10.0% 9.9% 10.0%
Improved soil fertility 35.6% 15.8% 28.1%
Don’t know 19.6% 44.7% 29.1%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Table 41: Impact of egg production on household livelihood since joining L4R project
Impact (n=271) Sex of the L4R participant
Male (n=157) Female (n=114) Total (n=271)
Increased income 17.8% 3.5% 11.8%
Improved food and nutrition 14.6% 13.2% 14.0%
Easy access to relish 31.2% 18.4 25.8%
Don’t know 36.3% 64.9% 48.3%
Total 100% 100% 100%
47
4.3.8.1 The most important livestock species
The endline evaluation further probed the perception of participants on the most important livestock 
types amongst the livestock species that the L4R project was promoting, it has been noted that goat is 
ranking high as most important animal species as indicated by 45.3% of participants. Chicken is the 
second most important livestock species after goats (40%). Cattle and other livestock in total appealed 
to about 15% of the participants. However, there were differences as to what is more important in the
districts between goats and chicken. In Dowa, about 48.1% of the respondents considered goat most 
important while in Ntchisi, chicken was pointed out to be the most important livestock species with 
51.0% indicating so (Table 42).
Table 42: The most important livestock for household livelihood 
Animal Species (n=448) %Case
Chicken 40%
Goat 45.3%
Cattle 8.9%
Other 5.8%%
Total 100%
4.4 Efficiency of the project 
Through KIIs and project reports, the endline endeavoured to address issues on efficiency of the project. 
Generally, the key question under this was whether resources and activities provided by the L4R 
program were distributed or carried out in a timely manner. Internally, activities that were provided by 
Land O’ Lakes were reported to be done in accordance to the schedule. 
Government staff who participated in the project also generally indicated that whenever they were to 
facilitate trainings, support resources (food, financial and material resources) were timely provided to 
them. Whenever, there were challenges, the government staff indicated that L4R addressed them 
swiftly.
However, the major challenge was on distribution of livestock. The suppliers engaged had limited 
capacity to supply up to standard livestock, particularly chickens. It was reported that majority of 
chickens supplied were not declared fit whenever inspected by Land O’Lakes personnel. For instance, 
government KI from Nachisaka EPA indicated that out of 1000 chicks, only 200 would be selected. 
This, according to monitoring reports, led to pulling out of suppliers after getting first payment. Below 
is a quote from one KI from Bowe EPA:
“All resources were provided timely except a supplier who delayed to deliver chickens”
Furthermore, L4R staff indicated that the whole management of the project was sound, enabling 
efficiency of operations. The suppliers were reported to have provided only goats timely; chickens were 
not. However, Land O’Lakes was up to date with the ground and that it duly adjusted its procurement 
approaches and procedures to ensure that all who were supposed to receive livestock, actually 
received. For instance, it engaged more suppliers for synergism. 
Lastly, another essential component of the project that underpinned cost-effectiveness is the 
enhancement of farmer to farmer extension linkage. The LLF and VA models were able to reach out to 
300 producers groups and beyond with their services. Had it been all these services were provided by 
48
L4R staff alone, they could not only require more financial resources but also human, material and time 
resources. 
4.5 Gender mainstreaming findings based on KIIs 
KIIs generally supported the quantitative findings that gender mainstreaming was ample in the project. 
The L4R approach to gender equality and gender equity ensured balanced involvement of men and 
women. It stressed much that women should be considered for active participation in the project. 
Women, who mostly lag behind especially on leadership, were fully engaged. It was highlighted that 
the LLFs and VAs substantially comprised women. Interestingly, men who hardly joined VSLAs before 
the project were also reported to participate under the same. However, more men than women are still 
found in goat producer groups despite with the latter beginning to join goat keeping. Below is one of the 
quotes:
“We could see a good number of women benefitting from the livestock in this project. In the past, 
men dominated in keeping goats, but now the numbers are twisting.”
Furthermore, the project has also managed to improve balanced decision making as far as men and 
women are concerned; women are now able to make decisions at household level because they are 
empowered. For instance, the project deliberatively empowered women by providing 60% of the 
distributed chickens to women, according to L4R staff. 
4.6 Key weaknesses and strengths of the project
Based on both the quantitative and qualitative findings of the endline, the evaluation team came up 
with both key weaknesses and strengths of the project. 
4.6.1 Weaknesses 
Three key weaknesses were identified in the project. The ultimate weakness of the project was its short 
project lifespan (23 months) considering the huge volume of activities and the impact the project 
endeavoured to achieve. A significant number of activities relied on building capacity and promoting 
adoption of appropriate animal husbandry practices and savings. According to diffusion theory on 
adoption of technologies, it takes time for over half of potential adopters to adopt because in a 
population, only about a quarter are innovators or people who quickly adopt new innovations. Therefore, 
23 months might not have been ample time to fully watch how majority adopted the useful practices 
such as chick care and record keepingwhich according to the endline recorded relatively low levels of 
adoption. 
The approach of training of government officers (AVOs and AEDOs) was not appealing to some of the 
government stakeholders. The project did not have special workshop or extension officer focused 
classroom trainings for government staff. Instead, L4R staff just engaged the government staff as co￾facilitators of farmer trainings when they equally lacked capacity especially in the VSLA aspect. 
Resultantly, the extension workers reported that they felt embarrassed to learn together with farmers 
who normally tap expertise from them. 
Lastly, the project experienced livestock supply challenges; livestock were sourced outside localities 
hence travelled long distances which made them suffer fatigue. Thus, despite the rigorous checks by 
the L4R experts, some of the livestock died soon after being handed over to farmers with one of the 
factors mentioned as stress. The Nachisaka high chicken mortality as observed from KIIs and LOL
might also be attributed to this in accordance to some reports from KIIs from the EPA.
49
4.6.2 Strengths 
The project was also noted to possess unique strengths that future projects need to embrace.The first 
strength was appropriate targeting. The approach was just effective. As stakeholders narrated during 
KIIs, the approach managed to sieve serious farmers from “fortune seekers”. When households in the 
impact area heard that there would be distribution of livestock, they used to turn up in large numbers. 
Such people were said to have included those looking for hand-outs as promoted by some NGOs in the 
area. However, many gave up when they heard that they would have to build raised khola and redeem 
the livestock. This only left the serious ones. 
Another notable strength in the approach of the project worthy replication in future was on intensifying 
capacity building first before distribution of the livestock or allowing LLFs/VAs commencework. Usually, 
a lot of NGOs rush to implement distribution. With L4R, it could be expected that given the 23 months 
for implementation, distribution of livestock would be rushed. However, the opposite took place so that 
capacities of the recipients and facilitators are sufficiently built so they could take care of the livestock 
distributed. 
Furthermore, distributing livestock to those that already have livestock was a good idea because they 
had threshold capacity to manage livestock. One of the government KIIs indicated that Action Aid had 
distributed chickens non-selectively in TA Msakambewa, even to those households that had no 
chickens and appropriate khola. Resultantly, the majority of the beneficiaries instantly sold the chickens 
to communities in TA Chiwere who were better off and had capacity to manage the livestock. Thus, the 
project misfired. Therefore, L4R has proved that targeting those that already have livestock is a best 
approach because it increases asset base and resilience to shocks.
In KIIs and FGDs, some farmers and government officers complained of not being given enough money 
for lunch allowance whenever L4R offered training. For sustainability, this was one of the strong areas 
of the project because it will be easier for government to continue offering trainings after getting used 
to the situation. In TA Malmo, a AVO indicated that World Vision Malawi used to give livestock farmers 
hefty allowances and as a result, the farmer did not attend functions of government or other 
organisations that do not offer or offer little money.
KIIs revealed that the project highly engaged government staff and local governing structures such as 
EPA staff, ADCs and local leaders. Government and local structures are permanent and thus were able 
to provide input in the programming; they will also be crucial for sustainability in the absences of the 
project.
Another strong area of the project is that it concentrated on a relatively small area and selected few 
beneficiaries for receiving livestock. While the majority of NGOs reach to implement in a wide range of 
district with the same funding, L4R was in two districts in selected communities. For instance, projects 
that work in many districts usually that distribute one livestock for each household which end up being 
sold because of insignificance, the project worked to distribute tangible numbers of livestock (4 hens 
and two does). The concentration on a reasonable area might also have led to reduction in expenses 
on travel. 
Finally, engaging LLFs and VA was the ultimate strength for enhancing farmer-to-farmer extension 
linkage necessary for sustainability. Presently, government, the key extension provider reports that 
extension officer to farmer ratio is 1:3500 yet the acceptable ratio is 1:700. Reports indicate 40% of 
positions for government field extension workers are not filled. Therefore, in this context, it makes sense 
to rely on the farmer-to-Farmer advisory service. What the L4R project has done that is has not been 
done before is extensively building capacity of the LLFs and VAs and inspiring them to take up the 
challenge. As reported from the KIIs with them, they are more than excited to continue in the absence 
of L4R.
50
5 CONCLUSIONS 
The goal of the project was to build resilience of disaster prone communities in Dowa and Ntchisi to 
withstand climatic and economic shocks. Such a project was noted to be very relevant to Malawi’s 
context and the needs of the beneficiaries due to the devastating effects of climate change experienced 
which prompt calls to diversify farming by promoting livestock. Malawi’s agricultural policies and 
strategies embrace livestock as one of the commodity priority areas. In building resilience of the 
communities, the project employed two main extension approaches namely LLFs and VAs. 
To begin with, the project successfully identified and built the capacity of 150 LLFs to provide training 
and animal health services to 7,277 goat and chicken producers in 300 livestock groups. The project 
distributed one cock and 4 hens per household to 1,111 households and two does to 675 households. 
Each LLF was also given a buck for servicing does within the jurisdiction of the LLF. Through the LLFs, 
the project targeted 26,000 animals to be benefiting from or affected by livestock activities yet the actual 
number of animals reached is 90,294; 12,417 goats and 73,766 chickens. The difference is substantial 
and thus, it is an enormous achievement. 
The majorityof farmers are practicing improved animal husbandry and feed techniques which embraces 
the following practices: improved housing; improved feeding; animal health: improved breeding 
practices; and record keeping: about 72.4% (71.6%MHH and 74.1% FHH) of the participants applied 
at least 3 of the 5 practices, slightly lower than the 75% targeted in the project. Interestingly, more 
proportion of FHH practiced the improved husbandry practices than MHHs. This indicator is considered 
to be achieved because the difference is not significant. Furthermore, the percentage is far much above
the baseline values (4%) and comparison respondents (24.8%). 
About 65% of chicken farmers are practicing raised khola while about 63% of goat farmers are practicing 
raised khola. This is a huge leap from baseline (7.7% and 21.5% chicken and goat respectively). 
Despite that adoption of raised khola was a pre-requisite for the farmer to receive a livestock, field 
testimonies from FGDs indicated that farmers have now embraced raised khola due to observed 
benefits. 
The majority of farmers are providing supplementary feeding to their livestock. It was noted from the 
study that 75.1% of the participants provide supplementary feed to goats as compared to 63.5% of 
comparison and 21.9% at baseline. On chicken, it was noted that 73.4% provide supplementary feed 
to chickens, compared to 70.5% of the comparison households and 48.7% at baseline. Interestingly, 
more female participants provide supplementary feeding than male participants. Furthermore, the study 
has shown that 30.3% of the chicken producer participants practiced chick care,higher compared with 
midterm review (22.4%) and baseline (insignificantly practiced). On animal health service, 92.1% of 
participants had used the animal health services in the previous months while fewer comparison 
households (43%) had actually used animal health services from elsewhere. Lastly, only about 12% 
of the participants kept records, far much better than 3% of the comparison the 6.7% reported at 
baseline and 8.6% at midline.
The LLFs have reached out to more livestock producer group members’ households, done more 
treatments and supported more animals than planned in the project life target. They have reached to 
11,626 households well above the 4500 targeted. In the process, they have provided a total of 147,692 
treatments (target was 25,000) to 90,294 animals for 40,250 producer group members according to 
monitoring information. Nearly 87.1% of the participants acknowledged that LLFs served their 
households with veterinary services in their households in the past12 months. This is a significant 
achievement of the target of project life (75%). During the baseline, veterinary services were accessible 
to only 61.3% of the sampled households. About 85% of participants regarded their LLFs as either 
51
excellent or very good. Comparing with the non-participants, the majority rated slightly lower (about 
65% rated theirs either very good or excellent). Goat and chicken mortality rates amongst target 
producer groups’ households have been significantly reduced to 4% and 6% at endline from 23% and
57% at baseline respectively. The findings are far much higher below what the project targeted (14%
for goats and 32% for chicken). Interestingly, the LLFs are excited to continue performing after the 
project.
The project worked with 150 VAs whose capacities were built to facilitate formation of 300 VSLAs and 
train members in household economics. Of the groups, 65% are functioning properly (thus able to serve 
its members appropriately and submitting reports) according to monitoring data. This has surpassed 
the 50% targeted by the end of project life. Of the targeted 6,000 households earmarked for training in 
savings and loans association, 5,817 VSLA members were trained. While the project targeted a total 
of US$30,000 as amount loaned and saved in the VSLAs, US$108,178 was actually loaned and saved 
at the end of project life. About 26.7% of households (27.2% female and 26.3%male) practiced the 
improved business practices, well above the 8.6% (10.9 male 8.1% females) at midline. However, of 
the 18,000 set to receive household economics trainings, only 10,360 actually received. 
In terms of membership to VSLAs, the study showed that 97.0% of the participants (99.2% females and 
93.3% males) sample belonged to VSLA groups which were being facilitated by LOL in the project 
impact areas. During the baseline, over half of all respondents (56.4%) belonged to VSLA. While 
participants had an average savings of MK31, 594.75 in VSLAs, comparison had MK18, 312.64. The 
former surpasses not only the comparison but also amount of savings reported at baseline which was 
MK27, 614.00. More participants (88%) had accessed more loans than non-participants (81%) over the 
past 12 months. Benefits reported on VSLAs include using loans and savings for buying maize, 
livestock, seed, fertilizer and meeting household basic needs.
The good performance of the VSLA groups could be attributed to the services offered by the VAs. The 
participants rated the performance of the VAs as excellent by 40.6% of the participants surveyed, very 
well by 32.2%, average by 22.2% and bad by 5%. The VAs also indicated to continue servicing their 
communities to satisfy the high demand for their services.
A significant percentage of households has embraced improved business practices though lower than 
expected. About 27% of participant households (27.2% female and 26.3%) practiced the improved 
business practices, substantially lower than the targeted 75% thoughwell above the 8.6% (10.9% male 
and 8.1% females) at midline and probably much lower at baseline. The deficit is largely due to low 
adoption of financial record keeping which is not a surprise among the many lowly educated farmers. 
Part of this deficit may also be the underachievement in training household members in household 
economics where only 10,360 (5,543 females and 4,818 males) were trained, against the 18,000 (9,000 
females and 9000 males) targeted. Interestingly, this indicates that more women were trained as from 
the results. 
The percentage of households which have experienced increased asset base has sharply increased 
and surpassed the targeted. The endline reports that 77.2% of the participant households (76.5% MHH 
and 78.4% FHH) experienced increase in livestock asset base over the project period. This is slightly 
above the project target of 75%. The midline reported 43% (48%MHH and 38%), indicating that the 
livestock asset base sharply increased from end last year to the end of the project. Average livestock 
asset base per participant household increased by 70% (MWK105, 594 /$150.85 at endline and 
MWK61, 933/$110.2 at baseline). Livestock asset base increased in the project due to the following: 
the improved practices and use of animal health services that helped to reduce mortality and promote 
reproduction;the distribution of animals directly; and the increase in savings that enabled them able to 
52
invest in their livestock. All the aforementioned parameters have improved in practice from the baseline. 
Furthermore, 75.3% of the households had viable flock size of chicken (5 hens), slightly higher than 
69% at baseline but lower than the 90% targeted in the project life span. About 37% of households had 
viable herd/flock size of goats (4 does), higher than the 15% at baseline and 26% comparison but 
slightly lower than the 40% targeted in the project life span. 
The impact from the increased asset base and VSLA activities has spilled over to food security. The 
results from the final evaluation indicate that the household dietary diversity score increased for 
participants after the project to 4.03 at endline from 3.3 at baseline, and 3.3 in the comparison group. 
While most households consumed grain, roots and tubers at both baseline and final evaluation (91.3%
and 100% respectively), the consumption of dairy (33% versus 21.3%), organ meat (12.8% versus 
1.3%), eggs (5.5% to 19%) and flesh foods (5.5% to 16.7%) increased greatly. Furthermore, about 30% 
of the participants indicated to have experienced improved soil fertility while about 29% and 11% 
experienced improved food and nutrition and increased income respectively. Such benefits when 
validated with qualitative data indicate that the participants are better than before and as compared to 
non-participants in terms of coping with climatic and economic shocks. For instance, during months of 
food deficit, loans or savings from VSLAs are used to buy food. Likewise, income from livestock is also 
invested in VSLAs for security just as money from VSLAs is also invested. Other participants also 
indicated to use the income from VSLA in farming, such as buying inputs to grow maize. Therefore, 
participant households are more resilient than before.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 
The following are the recommendations for future projects:
1. The project was implemented for only 23 months yet some of the objectives required more time 
so that adoption is reasonably judge pursuant to diffusion of innovations theory. While it is 
easier for farmers to adopt relatively familiar initiatives such as it was with VSLAs, it is difficult 
for majority of farmers to adopt new initiatives such as chick care, Chick care is crucial to fast 
multiplication of poultry and the low rate of adoption (23.9%) needed to be improved. Likewise, 
expensive technologies like raised goat khola also require farmers to have ample time so that 
they make judicious decisions regarding adoption of these. Therefore future project could 
consider being for three years so that the first year is for the laggards to watch and adopt in the
second year.
2. The KII and FGDs revealed that farmers there were livestock supplier challenges which could 
be attributed to lack of capacity of vendors and sourcing from distant markets. It was learnt in 
the project that some livestock died due to stress and some unknown causes that even affected 
other chickens not in the program. It is thus recommended that livestock should source locally 
near the area it will be distributed. This is to reduce long travel and brining in new infection in 
an area.
3. In terms of supplementary feeding, the majority (90%) use maize bran. This is an indication 
that the other feeds may not be easy to find. It is recommended that future project provide 
more lessons on locally available feeds such as cabbages and other leafy vegetables.
4. The results show a significant percentage of participants who approved to be happy with 
delivery of services by VA to the VSLAs. This is another area that requires intensification. 
53
5. Future projects should consider conducting training needs assessment on not only farmers but 
also government structures and other local governing structures for founding sustainability. 
This recommendation is made based on the interviews with government staff. 
6. LLFs provide basic animal husbandry practices but do not go as far as injecting animals. 
However, reports from government staff (KIIs) indicated that some LLFs still inject animals 
despite not being allowed to do so as per the archaic Livestock Act. To the contrary, FGDs 
indicated that farmers could have loved this improved access to services extent to injection 
services. Perhaps LOL may take this as a point for initiating policy discussions considering 
that vacancy rates for AVOs is significantly high, at least 40% and that ratio of AVO to farmer 
is about 1:3500 when the recommended is supposed to be about 1:700.
7. The employment of LLFs and VAs was very instrumental in reaching out to more farmers with 
farmer to farmer advisory service. It is recommended that these be applied in future projects. 
What was very innovative in this project was the LLFs paid service. Experiences of lead 
farmers are that they complain that they are not paid and that they rely on hand-outs-training 
allowances. However, with this project, the service fees have be inspirational to the LLFs as 
opposed to majority of lead farmers who are motivated by training allowances. However, the 
VA was observed to work on voluntary basis yet there is potential for VA to also be paid from 
the group members. This model was tried by Catholic Relief Services (CRS) under the phased 
out Wellness and Agriculture and Life Advancement (WALA) project implemented in disaster 
prone areas. Under this, the VA was dubbed Private Service Provider (PSP). He/she earned 
monthly income from the VSLAs, ensuring sustainability of project. 
54
ANNEX 1: SUCCESS 
STORIES
1. Money in a box: “Para-vet model” mitigates widowhood
Losing a husband is one of the nightmares no single woman wishes to dream about. The situation is 
even worse if the husband is the sole breadwinner of the household. Apart from the emotional stress, 
the departure of the husbands exposes the household to income and food security vulnerability thereby 
condemning the household towards “absolute poor”. 
Yes! This is a common trend… But NOT with Nelesi Chimombo! A mother of five daughters, Nelesi 
lost her husband in 2006 when most of her children were just young and demanding stable source of 
money for good wellbeing. Despite her hardworking spirit in farming, life was really unbearable as she 
could not afford to pay for school fees when three of her daughters got to secondary school.
The little money she earned through subsistence farming 
was just enough for household upkeep and life maintenance
and was not enough to pay for the school fees. Definitely 
this was one of the saddest moments of her life. 
“Because I did not have money for school fees, I lost my first 
three children to early marriages”. She narrates as tears 
lingered in her eyes. 
That sad story is history now. Nelesi is now a Para-Vet 
Agent for Chisomo Chicken Group of Chipuka EPA in 
Ntchisi district. The Land O’Lakes rewarded her hard work 
and dedication by giving her this role under the Land 
O’Lakes Livestock for Resilience Project.
Through this role, Nelesi was trained in numerous aspects 
of animal health so that she should be providing animal 
health services to her fellow farmers on a fee-per-service 
arrangement. Additionally, she was linked to private veterinary input and service providers where she 
gets constant supplies of drugs and other veterinary inputs. 
However, Land O’Lakes gave her a start-up “Vet Box” that contains basic tools for her job such as hoof 
clippers, weigh band, overalls, drums, trochar (bloat knife), tag applicator, and an artificial insemination 
kit just to mention a few.
Nelesi is providing veterinary services to more than 150 livestock farmers despite that her chicken group 
has 18 members only. 
“All this is money!” she says as she smiles. “In the month of April-2016 alone, I got MK 22,000 (US$35) 
through vet services. This small box is like my gold mine” 
When asked on how she utilizes this money, Nelesi did not hide her delight to say that she is now 
paying school fees for her fourth-borne daughter who is now in form three. 
Figure 2: Nelesi with her daughter
55
“I am able to meet household needs and able to have surplus to pay for school needs of my remaining 
two children. Never again will I lose my daughters to early marriages” She narrates her story while 
embracing her vet- box.
However, despite that the Para-Vet Model was based on fee-per-service, Nelesi says her priority is to 
ensure that animals in her vicinity are in good health rather than just concentrating on money alone.
“For instance, this year I vaccinated more than 500 chickens against Newcastle on a condition that I 
got paid when farmers have harvested groundnuts. This cannot happen with private veterinarians yet it 
has helped to save chickens.” She finishes her story while smiling. 
 
56
2. Height magic: raised goat kraal (khola) increases livestock asset base for chimwemwe
The question lingers: how can a kraal increase herd size? This is a very fascinating story of 
Chimwemwe Mikili, a Livestock Lead Farmer for Sagonja Goat Group in Chipuka EPA-Ntchisi district 
of central Malawi. 
The story started in 2014 when Land O’ lakes, through the L4R project identified Chimwemwe to be the 
Livestock Lead Farmer for a group of fellow goat farmers in her village. The nomination did not just 
come. 
Chimwemwe performed outstandingly in a 
series of numerous screening methods that 
LOL subjected to her. She is just a special 
breed of women who resist to be pulled back by 
their gender status.
However, Chimwemwe did not know about 
opportunities that lie ahead after she 
successfully became a Livestock Lead Farmer. 
Neither was she aware that her involvement in 
the L4R project would be a gateway to finding 
a solution to the problem of stagnating livestock 
asset base due perpetual animal mortality of at 
least 6 goats per year. 
Among other numerous project interventions, Chimwemwe was trained in best animal husbandry 
practices, household economics, animal health, collective marketing, household economics and group 
dynamics, just to mention but a few. 
Nevertheless, among all the trainings Chimwemwe shall always live to cherish construction of raised 
kraals as a break-through to her goat farming. After being trained on the benefits of a raised kraal, she 
constructed her own with technical support from LOL project staff. 
Then the rain season came when Chimwemwe expects to lose almost half of her herd size making it to 
stagnate at four goats for the past 5 years. To her surprise, NO goat died in the 2014/15 rain season. 
That’s when she realized it was the design of her previous kraal that predated on her goats. 
Due to its design, floor kraals are difficult to clean, are moist and they create a haven for build-up of 
diseases a situation which is worsened during rainy season. This is never the case with the raised 
kraals. 
During a visit to her house, Chimwemwe was all smiles as she testifies that, “I never experienced any 
death of goats in the previous season. This has doubled my livestock asset base. For the first time I 
have 12 goats in my kraal and I expect the number to increase more” 
 
Figure 3: Chimwemwe in front of her raised goat kraal
57
3. L4R Transforms Akimu Kawaye’s household
Akimu Kawaye has nothing but kind words for L4R project. A 47 year old farmer from Kawaye village, 
Mwangala Village Development Committee in Bowe Extension Planning Area, he is a member of 
Chimvano Chicken Producer Club.
He joined the project in 2014 and received five chickens (four hens and one cock) upon satisfying the 
selection criteria like building a raised kraal. He recalls the time he only had two chickens which could 
not sustain her livelihoods. Coupled with poor husbandry practices and perpetual occurrence of 
Newcastle disease, his flock size stagnated below viable size of 5 hens.
“Life was hard during the times of dry spells when we experience little harvest. I had to sell labour and 
household items to survive.” He laments his ordeal as if it is printed in his mind.
But now, Akimu’s household is singing a different song; the additional five chickens combined with good 
husbandry practices that he learnt under L4R have phenomenally multiplied the chicken flock to 15.
“The chickens are now productive unlike in the past because we have learnt a lot about taking good 
care of chickens. Our chickens are vaccinated every three months while in the past this never happened 
thus they were wiped out by Newcastle disease.” Akimu said while grinning.
Asked if the chickens are just for prestige, Akimu laughed off and then recalled how his household was 
cushioned from hunger by selling some of the chickens to buy maize for feeding his household earlier 
this year. His household sold seven chickens at an average price of K1000 [$1.43] during lean period. 
Not only is the money used for food but also in education. His three children in secondary school also 
get pocket money from the sale of the chickens.
The increased flock size has also tremendously increased the number of eggs being produced. 
Furthermore, he also easily collects manure from raised chicken and goat kraal which he applies in 
maize field. In this year alone, after applying chicken and goat manure alongside chemical fertiliser in 
his maize field, he managed to harvest 10 full ox-carts of maize. 
“I would like to thank Land O’Lakes for fulfilling their promise of giving us chickens and services because 
in the past some organizations came and promised us the same but they did not fulfil their promise.”
He Said. 
In addition to chicken production, Akimu said that L4R also taught them about saving money through 
VSLAs locally dubbed Banki Mkhonde. Despite the he joined VSLA in December 2014, by the end of 
2015 he received MK30, 000 ($43). This money was partly used to buy fertilizer for his maize field while 
the other was used to buy food for the household.
58
Figure 4: Maize produced using manure from chicken and fertiliser from VSLA 
Apart from that, his membership to VSLAs has helped him to obtain loan for investing in chicken 
production. He borrowed MK5, 000 ($7) for buying wire for building his 1m by 1m box for caring for 
chicks.
This year he has bought about 10 shares equivalent to K5, 000 ($7). He is expecting to get K100, 000
($143) from the savings by the end of the year. 
According to Akimu, though the project had a short duration, it has lifted his household andmany others 
to better deal with climate change enigmas of poor harvests and droughts largely through the increased 
livestock asset base. 
 
 
 
 
 
59
4. Age does not matter: Of proper goat husbandry and VSLAs
It seems it was a matter of choice for L4R project participants to become resilient or not. In the village 
of Kawaye, Bowe Extension Planning Area, there is a man, 83, by the name of Chakazonda Yafeti who 
opted for his household to become resilient largely through the VSLA and application of goat manure 
to his tobacco and maize. 
Chakazonda, a member of Takondwera Goat Producer Club, received two goats in July, 2015. Before 
the project, he only had two goats at his home. Chakazonda proudly said that he now has six goats 
because the animals he received have now re-produced. 
He could not hide his joy but to say it out that the project has helped him a lot on how to take good care 
of goats, keeping goats in raised kraals to avoid predators like hyenas and also to protect goats from 
being attacked by worms. 
Beside the benefits, Chakazonda said that he is now able to collect a lot of manure from his kraal now 
as compared with the past. He applies the manure to his farm to raise yields.
For the past year, he did not sell any goat because he is now looking at goat farming as business and 
that before selling, there is a need for proper planning to maximise profits. Thus, he is planning that 
when the goats multiply further, his life will never be same again after he starts selling. 
“I would like to thank Land O’Lakes for the initiatives which they have brought in our area. We now 
know how to take good care of goats and report problems when they arise to lead farmers who come 
and administer drugs”. Chakazonda said.
He continued thanking Land O’Lakes for letting them know that goat farming is a business, teaching 
them how to feed their goats with groundnut haulms, and ultimately keeping goats in raised kraals. 
Chakazonda can now note the difference in the health of his goats as in the past they used to get ill
more often than now. The disease incidences such as diarrhoea and pneumonia have been significantly 
reduced because they live in clean kraals since urine and droppings fall beneath the rack. 
Figure 5: Chakazonda with his raised goat kraal and tobacco harvest
60
The use of VSLA is also one of the quick returns initiatives which L4R project has brought in his area.
He joined VSLA group in 2014 December and by the end of financial year of its group, he received 
MWK23, 000 ($33) from his savings. December is usually a month when his food runs out and also 
when he needs to apply top dressing fertilisers in his maize and tobacco. He bought a bag of fertilizer 
to apply in his maize and tobacco field and the rest of the money was used to buy food. 
Chakazonda has also seen the advantage of VSLAs when it comes to addressing social emergencies. 
Last year [2015] he borrowed MWK6, 000 ($8.6)) from the group to use it for the funeral of his elder 
brother and this year (2016) he borrowed MWK2, 000 ($2.9) to take his sick child to the hospital. 
Currently, he holds 37 shares in his group which are equivalent to MWK18, 500 ($26.4). At this rate, 
he is expected to harvest over MK30, 000 ($43) from the VSLAs by the end of the year, a nearly 50% 
improvement from the previous year.
“I would like to thank Land O Lakes for bringing the idea of VSLAs in our community because this 
programme helps my family when we need help mos.” Confessed Chakazonda.
Figure 6: Chakazonda proudly displaying his VSLA shares for 2016
61
5. Thank you L4R, am better now than before-Says Angelina, a widow
Angelina Kazingani comes from Lichere village in Bowe EPA, Dowa district. She is one of members of 
Kalangamfiti Goat Producer Group in Lichere Village Development Committee. She has 7 children 
whose ages range from 9 months to 19 years old. After her husband died, Angelina decided to join the 
goat producer group with the hope of finding options for taking care of herself and the children. 
Kazingani received 2 does from Land O’Lakes in 2015 but now she boats of 5 goats. She attributes the 
phenomenal multiplication of the goats to good husbandry practices learnt through the L4R project such 
raised kraal, administering of anti-worm drugs and appropriate feeding practices. 
Angelina Kazingani has been participating in VSLA since 2015. Using money borrowed from the VSLA, 
she became entrepreneurial. She ventured into a business of buying and selling cloth (zitenje) to her 
local market. Angelina makes enough profit to keep her household going.
“For every bundle of 20 pieces, I make a profit of MK5, 000 [$7] which is quite enough for me to take 
care of my children.” Angelina confessed.
It seems entrepreneurship is in Angelina’s blood. During harvest period, she also buys soybeans at 
about MK250 ($0.36) per kg and sells to National Smallholder Association of Malawi (NASFAM) at 
MK300 ($0.43) per kg. Again, she started this business using money from VSLA introduced by Land 
O’Lakes.
Apart from the general upkeep of the household, Angelina has bought a set of chairs and a table from 
the business. Additionally, she has also bought one goat at MK7, 000 ($10), three bags of fertiliser at 
MK22, 000 ($31) each, and cupboard at MK20 000 ($29). Angelina Kazingani challenges that she is 
better off now than before.
“I am strong now because I am able to get things that I did not have before, and I do not see any 
challenge with the fees for animal health services” Emphasised Angelina. 
Figure 7: Angelina and her raised kraal for goats
62
ANNEX 2: EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS
Evaluation criteria Evaluation Questions
Relevance /
Appropriateness
• To what extent has the program design and implementation met the 
needs of the participants, and is appropriate for the context of Dowa 
and Ntchisi districts of Malawi?
• How well aligned is the program strategy and activities with the 
Government of Malawi’s agricultural and economic development 
policies, programs, and priorities?
• Are the established targets realistic given the current program context
• What improvements could have been made to the design and/or 
implementation to improve appropriateness?
Effectiveness/ Impact • How have the intended target participants (i.e. livestock households, 
VSLA group members, community livestock workers, etc.) participated 
in program activities?
• To what extent has the program distributed livestock to targeted 
beneficiaries? What have been the challenges and successes for both 
goats and poultry?
• What has been more effective at increasing herd size: Livestock 
transfer of goats or chickens or improved animal health and decreased 
mortality through improved animal husbandry practices and access to
animal health services?
• What impact did the program activities have on the specific program 
participants? To what extent have the animal husbandry and 
household economics trainings led to application of improved livestock 
husbandry and business practices
• Have households used income from livestock as business activities to 
develop other business ventures (i.e., do they sell livestock to buy 
tobacco and sell at the auction, do they use livestock sales to invest in 
other small businesses such as mandasi selling or running a market 
stall in the village)?
• How effective were the community livestock workers in providing 
training and animal health services to other participants?
• How profitable were the community livestock workers?
• How access to animal health has services changed livestock health? 
• How effective were the village agents in training other participants, and 
leading the VSLA? 
• To what extent has increased access to financial services through 
VSLAs led to changes in savings, spending, and investment in 
business activity for the participants? 
• How have participants used their savings from the VSLA?
• Are participants using savings from the VSLA to invest in livestock 
activities?
• How has participation in the project (applying improved practices, 
participating in VSLA, receiving livestock, etc.) led to an increase in 
livestock asset base and an increased food security (measured 
through months of food self-sufficiency and dietary diversity, and ability 
to withstand shocks)?
• Are households better prepared to respond to shocks and respond to 
household needs during the hunger/lean season? 
• Collect a minimum of five (5) success stories covering the program’s 
main participants, with photos and personal testimony and quantitative 
data to support the success stories for:
63
 o CLWs (one female and one male);
 o VSLA members (1 female);
 o Successful chicken and goat producers (1 
male; 1 female)
Efficiency • Were the resources and activities provided by the L4R program distributed 
or carried out in a timely manner? What were some of the challenges and 
how did Land O’Lakes overcome these issues? What are some examples 
of program success?
• Which components were most critical and/or effective in achieving program 
objectives and intermediate results? What aspects of the program were 
particularly ineffective? Why?
Sustainability • What mechanisms have been put in place to ensure sustainability of 
program activities and results?
• Carefully analyze key project activities, diagnose which ones could be 
sustainable after funding ends. This will include, but not be limited to:
-Are participants likely to continue using improved animal husbandry and 
business techniques?
-Are participants likely to continue to keep livestock as a resilience 
mechanism? 
-Are CLWs likely to continue to provide animal health services?
-Are CLWs able to access drugs and medications needed to continue 
providing animal health services?
-Are VSLAs likely to continue functioning?
• What are the major factors influencing the achievement or non￾achievement of the sustainability of the program and/or its activities?
• What more could the program have done to ensure sustainability of the 
project activities and benefits?
Gender Equality and
Equity • How did the project address the constraints faced by women in the 
livestock value chain? What did the program do well, what could the 
program have done better?
• Did the L4R approach to gender equality and gender equity ensure 
balanced involvement of women and men in all program activities?
• Is there a difference in how male and female headed households handle 
income from livestock activities (differentiated by goat and chicken 
activities)?
• Have the outcomes of the project differed between men and women?
• How or in what manner? If so, what could the project have done 
differently to ensure that equal benefits accrued to both women and 
men?
64
ANNEX 3: LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS INTERVIEWED
Name Position Sex Organisation District 
Prof Timothy Gondwe PAC member M PAC Lilongwe
Taiwani Chiyombo L4R Staff-Livestock specialist M LOL Dowa
Maxwell Sulian L4R Staff-Ass. Business & 
marketing
M LOL Dowa
Inga Mulenga L4R-Livestock Specialist M LOL Dowa
Francis Mhango DALHIDO M DAO Ntchisi
Homester Nyirenda AEDO F Nachisaka EPA Dowa
Lewis Kumwenda AVO M Malomo EPA Ntchisi
Clifford Chisenga AEDC M Bowe EPA Dowa
Benjamin Chokolonga AEDC M Malomo EPA Ntchisi
J.E. Nyirongo AEDO M Malomo EPA Ntchisi
Braiko Simchimba AHSA M Bowe EPA Dowa 
Happy Kamanga AVO M Nachisaka EPA Dowa 
Harold Kachingwe AEDC M Bowe EPA Dowa 
Beatrice Kalipinde AEDO F Chipuka EPA Dowa
Grace Makuta VA F Nachisaka EPA Dowa
Gloria Masaya VA F Nachisaka EPA Dowa
Edina Kanyoni VA F Nachisaka EPA Dowa
Francisco Pepuzani VA M Chipuka EPA Ntchisi
Alice Kamakoka VA F Nachisaka EPA Dowa 
Eladi Kachola VA M Bowe EPA Dowa 
Monalisa Thokozani VA F Nachisaka EPA Dowa 
Thokozani Julius VA M Bowe EPA Dowa
Peter Gwedemu VA M Malomo EPA Ntchisi
Alinesi Tchalosi VA F Malomo EPA Ntchisi
Welokisi Chikuni VA M Bowe EPA Dowa 
Ireen Lemison LLF F Nachisaka EPA Dowa
Marktonnex 
Mapondera
LLF M Nachisaka EPA Dowa
Lazaruss 
Msakambewa
LLF M Nachisaka EPA Dowa
Sainet Tesi LLF M Nachisaka EPA Dowa
Milton Chikalamo LLF M Bowe EPA Dowa 
Francis Kachingala LLF M Malomo EPA Ntchisi
Jubele Chimanja LLF M Chipuka EPA Ntchisi
Sosten Phiri LLF M Bowe EPA Dowa
Foster Saka LLF M Bowe EPA Dowa 
65
ANNEX 4: END OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE DATA TABLE (PDT)
Indicator Name Unit Disaggregation Baseline Endline
Year Value Target Actual
1 Number of animals benefiting from or 
affected by liv estock activ ities
Numb
er
Total 2014 0 26,000 90,294 Animal
Goats 0 8,640 12,417 
Chicken 0 16,750 73,766 
Cattle 0 610 445 
2 Number of people benefiting from 
liv estock activ ities
Numb
er
Total 2014 0 30,000 40,250 Sex
Male 0 14,700 20,125 
Female 0 15,300 20,125 
3 Number of v eterinary interv entions, 
treatments or v accinations 
administered
Numb
er
Total 2014 0 25,000 147,692 Interv ention
Dew orming 0 3,900 26,643
Vaccinatio
n 
0 19,300 115,392
4 Number of animals treated or 
v accinated
Numb
er
Total 2014 0 18,000 72,266 Animal
Goats 0 3,000 6,979 
Chickens 0 14,400 72,266 
Cattle 0 600 445 
5 Number of people new ly receiv ing 
financial serv ices or continuing to 
receiv e financial serv ices due to 
USAID/OFDA support
Numb
er
Total 2014 0 4000 4,837 Sex
Male 0 2,000 2,021
Female 0 2,000 2,816
6 Percentage of financial serv ice 
groups supported by USAID/OFDA 
that are functioning properly
Perce
ntage
2014 0% 50% 65%
7 Total USD amount channeled into 
the program area through sub-sector 
activ ities 
Dollar 
($)
None 2014 0 0 0
8 Percent of households that hav e an 
increase in their liv estock asset base
Perce
nt
Total 2014 0 75% 77.2% Sex
Male-head 2014 0 75% 77%
Fem –
head
2014 0 75% 78%
9 Percent of female headed 
households that hav e an increase in 
their liv estock asset base
Perce
nt
None 2014 0 75% 78%
10 Percent of households w ith v iable 
herd/flock size (participants that 
receiv e v ouchers and other project 
activ ities) 
Perce
nt
Both (Sex)
Total 2014 59% 65% 74%
Goats 2014 15% 40% 37%
Chickens 2014 69% 90% 75%
MHH
Total￾MHH
2014 62% 65% 57%
Goats 2014 16% 35% 38%
Chickens 2014 73% 95% 76%
F
H
H 
Goats 2014 14% 40% 36%
66
Indicator Name Unit Disaggregation Baseline Endline
Year Value Target Actual
Chickens 2014 61% 90% 74%
11 Percent of female-headed 
households w ith v iable herd/flock 
size (participants that receive 
v ouchers and other project activ ities)
Perce
nt
Total-FHH 2014 54% 65% 55%
Goats 2014 14% 40% 36%
Chickens 2014 61% 90% 74%
12 Number of households that utilize 
their v ouchers to purchase animals Numb
er
Total 2014 0 2000 1,786 Type
Goats 2014 0 500 675
Chickens 2014 0 1500 1,111
13 Number of households that receive 
v ouchers to purchase animals 
through the project
Numb
er
Total 2014 0 2000 1,786 Typ e 
Goats 2014 0 500 675
Chickens 2014 0 1500 1,111
14 Percent of households that are 
apply ing improv ed animal husbandry 
and feed techniques
Perce
nt
Total 2014 0 75% 72% Sex
Male-head 2014 0 75% 72
Fem-head 2014 0 75% 74
15 Number of indiv iduals trained in 
animal husbandry and management Numb
er
Total 2014 0 6000 7,277 Sex
Male 2014 0 3000 3,553
Female 2014 0 3000 3,724
16 Number of producer groups formed 
and/or strengthened
Numb
er
2014 0 300 300
17 Percent of female members in 
assisted producer groups
Perce
nt
None 2014 0 50% 52%
18 Number of Answ er Plots established Numb
er
None 2014 0 8 10
21 Goat and chicken mortality rate 
amongst target producer groups’ 
households
Perce
nt
Animal
Goat 2014 23% 14% 4%%
Chicken 2014 57% 32% 6%%
22 Net monthly income of Liv estock 
Lead Farmers (para-v ets) from 
prov iding animal health serv ices
Amou
nt
Total 2014 0 $50 $10.01 Sex
Male 2014 0 $50 $9.69 
Female 2014 0 $50 $10.89 
23 Percentage of households serv ed by 
Liv estock Lead Farmers (para-v ets) 
that giv e fav orable rev iew s of their
ex perience
Perce
nt
Total 2014 0 75% 87% Sex
Male 2014 0 75% 88%
Female 2014 0 75% 84%
24 Number of households serv ed by the 
Liv estock Lead Farmers (para-v ets)
Numb
er 
2014 0 4500 11,626
25 Number of trained Liv estock Lead 
Farmers (para-v ets) prov iding 
animal health serv ices to 
households
Numb
er
Sex 2014 0 150 150
26 Number of Liv estock Lead Farmers 
(para-v ets) equipped and trained in 
animal health serv ices and animal 
husbandry and management
Numb
er
Total 2014 0 150 138 Sex
Male 2014 0 96 72
Female 2014 0 54 66
27 Amount ($) sav ed and loaned in the 
VSLAs
Amou
nt ($)
None 2014 $0 $30,000 $108,178
28 Percentage of households that are 
apply ing improv ed business 
techniques
Perce
nt
Total 2014 0 75% 27% Sex
Male-head 2014 0 75% 26%
Fem –head 2014 0 75% 27%
67
Indicator Name Unit Disaggregation Baseline Endline
Year Value Target Actual
29 Number of indiv iduals trained on 
sav ings and loans Numb
er
Total 2014 0 6000 5,817 Sex
Male 2014 0 3000 2,640
Female 2014 0 3000 3,177
30 Number of indiv iduals receiv ing 
household enterprise training Numb
er
Total 2014 0 18000 10,360 Sex
Male 2014 0 9000 4,817
Female 2014 0 9000 5,543
68
ANNEX 5: TOOLS USED
Tool 1: Household questionnaire
MALAWI LIVESTOCK FOR RESILIENCE
FINAL EVALUATION 
TOOL 1: INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE WITH HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD OR PARTICIPANT
SECTION 1: IDENTIFICATION
Respondent Interviewer No. Data Entry Clerk Field Number:
L 4 R L 4 R L 4 R
[Office Use Only] [Allocated] 
[Supervisor Use Only]
Name of Supervisor
Household back-checked? Questionnaire checked by:
Yes 1 [Supervisor signature]
No 2 
Interview Results Completed 1
Partially completed 2
Other [Specify]:
MALONJE
Muli bwanji. Dzina langa ndi------------------------------, ndipo ndachokera ku IfESOR. Tikupanga kafukufuku wa anthu omwe 
akhala akupanga nawo chitukuko cha ulimi waziweto, mmaboma a Ntchisi ndi Dowa. Pakupanga kafukufuku ameneyu 
tikufuna tidziwe maganizo a anthu omwe akhala akupanga chitukuko chimenechi, maka momwe chayendera. Zimenezi 
tili ndi chikhulupiriro chakuti ziwathindizira a Land O Lakes pomwe akupitiliza kuthandizira mdera lino.
Kutengapo mbali m’kafukufukuyu n’kosaumiriza, chotero mulindi ufulu onse kusatero. Banja lanu lasankhidwa pakati 
pamabanja ena omwe ali kuno. Zomwe mundiuze zithandiza kuti tidziwe zamomwe chitukukochi chayendera. China 
chilichonse chimene mundiuze chidzasungidwa mwachinsinsi zedi. Zomwe munene zithandiza pa kukonza ndi kulemba 
zotsatira zakafukufukuyu koma sizidzapelekedwa kwa munthu wina aliyense moti palibe uyo akadziwe kuti ndinu amene 
mudandiuza zimenezi. Panthawi ino kodi muli ndi funso lina lili lonse likhudza kafukufukuyu. 
Ndinu okonzeka kuti ndiyambe kucheza nanu?
Interviewer: Proceed with interview only if answer is positive.
Afinsidwe mafunso pokhapokha ngati avomera kutero Yes (Eya) No (Ayi)
Time interview started [Interviewer: Enter hour and minute, use 24 hr. clock]
Nthawi yoyambila kucheza.
Hour Minute
[Interviewer: Fill in the information below.]
Village 
Association 
Village Development Committee (VDC)
Traditional Authority (TA)
District Dowa 1
Ntchisi 2
EPA Bowe 1
Nachisaka 2
69
Chipuka 3
Malomo 4
Interviewer Name 
Day Month Year
Date of interview 
1. What is your name please 
Kodi dzina lanu ndinu ndani? 
[Interviewer: Write name in the space provided]_____________________________________________
Type of Household (Circle One) 1. Participant 2. Comparison
PARTICIPANT ONLY
Name of Producer Group
Type of Producer Group (circle one) 1. Goat 2. Chicken
Name of Livestock Lead Farmer
Did you receive livestock from the project? 1. Yes 2. No
If yes, what type? 1. Goat 2. Chicken
When did you receive? 1. Goat: Month_______________ 
Year________________
 
2. Chicken: Month______________ 
Year_______________
COMPARISON ONLY
How many goats do you own? Number:
How many chickens do you own? Number:
[Interviewer: During the interview, if a respondent firmly refuses to answer any question, write “refused” in the 
answer space and continue to the next question](sonyezani ngati munthu wakana kuyankha funso) 
BEGIN INTERVIEW
SECTION 1: Household Demographic Characteristics
2. Sex of respondent: [Interviewer: Enter the sex of the respondent in the box provided]
Female (Mzimayi) 1
Male (Mzibambo) 2
70
3.
Are you the head of the household? 
Kodi inu ndiye mutu wabanja lino? 
[Interviewer: If yes, proceed to Q8. If no, ask Q4-7]
No Yes
[SKIP to Q8]
Don’t 
know
0 1 9
[Interviewer: If the answer to Q3 is no, read the following: 
Since you are not the head of household I would like to ask you a few questions about the head of 
household. 
Poti mwanena kuti sindinu mutu wa banja lino ndifuna mundiuzeko izi]
4a. What is the sex of the household head? Kodi amene ali mutu wa banja lino ndi wamuna kapena wakazi?
Male abambo 1
Female amayi 2
Not applicable 99
4b. What is the age of the household head? Kodi zaka za mutu wakhomo lanu ndi zingati?
[Interviewer: Record the answer in the space provided. If the respondent does not know his/her 
age, record 999 in the space, if not applicable, write n/a]
5. Is the head of household married? Nanga iwowo kodi ali pa banja?
Married ali pabanja 1
Single(never married) sanakwatilepo/sanakwatiwepo 2
Single (Divorced) adasudzulidwa 3
Single (Widowed) wamasiye 4
Single (separated) sakhalira pa modzi 5
Not applicable 99
6. What is the highest level of education the head of household completed? 
Kodi iwo amene ndi mutu wabanjalino odaphunzira mokwanira motani? [Code from answer. Don’t read 
options]
No formal schooling Siwodapiteko kusukulu 0
Informal schooling only (including Koranic schooling) Odaphunzira maphunziro a Tchalitchi/katukumeni, 
kapena Korani 1 
Some primary schooling. Odaphunzirako sukulu ya pulayimale koma sodamalize 2
Primary school completed. Odamaliza sukulu yaku pulayimale 3
Some secondary school / high school. Odapitako ku sekondale koma sodalimalize 4
Secondary school / high school completed Odamalize sukulu waku sekondale 5
Post-secondary qualifications, other than university e.g. a diploma or degree from a technical college. 
Odapitako ku univesite, ku kolegi, ndipo ali ndi Dipuloma 6 
Some university. Odapitako ku univesite 7
University completed Odamaliza ku univesiti 8
Post-graduate. Maphunziro apamwamba 9
Don’t know . Sindikudziwa 99
Not applicable 997
71
Intentionally Left Blank
7. What is the main occupation of the head of household? Kodi iwo amene ndi mutu wabanja lino 
amagwira ntchito yanji? (Ngati anapuma pantchito) (If unemployed, retired or disabled] What was his/her 
last main occupation?) Ntchito yomaliza yomwe anagwira, yinali ntchito yanji? [Do not read options. 
Code from responses.]
Never had a job. Siodagwireko ntchito 0
Agrarian 
Subsistence farmer (produces only for home consumption) Omangulima kuti apeze chakudya 
chapakhomo pawo basi 1 
Peasant Farmer (produces both for own consumption and some surplus produce for sale) Ndi mlimi 
wang’ono koma amalima chakudya chapakhomo komanso chogulitsa 2 
Commercial Farmer (produces mainly for sale) Amalima ndi cholinga chogulitsa 3
Farm worker. Amagwira ntchito m’minda ya anthu ena 4
Worker
Fisherman. Msodzi 5
Trader / Hawker / Vendor. Ali ndi wokala, kapena ndi venda 6
Miner. Amakumba kapena kupwanya miyala 7
Domestic Worker / Maid / Char / House help. Amagwira ntchito zanyumba za anthu ena 8
Armed Services/ Police / Security Personnel Ndi a polisi, kapena ndi msilikali, kapena ndi komunite polisi 9
Artisan / skilled manual worker in the formal sector. 10
72
Amagwira ntchito zomwe adachita kuphunzira, ndiye amagwira kumakampani
Artisan / skilled manual worker in the informal sector. 
Amagwira ntchito zomwe adachita kuphunzira, koma amagwira kumudzi konkuno 11
Clerical Worker. Amagwira ntchito ya ukalariki 12
Unskilled manual worker in the formal sector. Amagwira ntchito yomwe sadapitire kusukulu koma, 
amagwira ku kampani 13
Unskilled manual worker in the informal sector. 
Amagwira ntchito yomwe sadapitire kusukulu ndiye amagwira kumudzi konkuno 14
Professional
Businessperson (works in company for others). Amapanga buzinesi, ndiye amapananga pamodzi ndi 
anzawo
15
Businessperson (Owns small business of less than 10 employees) 
Amapanga buzinesi, komanso adalemba anthu ena osa pitilira 10 16
Businessperson (Owns large business of 10 or more employees) 
Amapanga buzinesi, komanso adalemba anthu ena opitilira 10 17
Professional Worker (e.g., lawyer, accountant, nurse, engineer, etc.) 
Amagwira ntchito yopitira ku Univesite ( monga woweruza milandu, wowerengera za ndalama, nesi, ya 
injiniya)
18
Supervisor / Foreman. Ndi a Folomani 19
Teacher Aphunzitsi 20
Government Worker Amagwira ntchito ku Boma 21
Retail worker Amagwira ntchito mu golosale ya anthu ena 22
Other
Student Mwana wa sukulu 23
Housewife / Works in household Mzimayi wapakhomo, amene samapita kuntchito kwina kuli konse 24
Other Zina, tsimikiza[Specify]: 
Don’t know Sindikudziwa[DK] 999
Not applicable 99
NOW LET US TALK ABOUT YOU: PANO NDIKUDZIWENI INUYO
8. How old are you? Kodi muli ndi dzaka zingati? [Interviewer: Record the answer in the 
space provided. If the respondent does not know his/her age, record 999 in the space]
9. Are you married? Kodi ndinu wokwatira?
Married Wokwatira 1
Single(never married) sadakwatirepo 2
Single (Divorced) Adakwatira koma adasiyana ndi amuna kapena akazi 3
Single (Widowed) Adakwatira koma amuna kapena akazi adamwalira 4
Single (Separated) Adakwatira koma adalekana 5
10. What is your main occupation? Kodi mumagwira ntchito yanji? (If unemployed, retired or disabled 
ngatisadagwirepo ntchito, adapuma pantchito kapena adalumala ) What was your last main occupation? 
Ntchito yawo yeni yeni, yomaliza yinali yotani) [Do not read options. Code from responses.]
Never had a job Sadagwirepo ntchito 0
Agrarian 
Subsistence farmer (produces only for home consumption) Amangolima kuti apeze chakudya
chapakhomo pawo basi
1
Peasant Farmer (produces both for own consumption and some surplus produce for sale) 2
Commercial Farmer (produces mainly for sale) 
Ndi mlimi wang’ono koma amalima chakudya chapakhomo komanso chogulitsa
3
73
Farm worker. Amagwira ntchito m’minda ya anthu ena 4
Worker
Fisherman. Msodzi 5
Trader / Hawker / Vendor. Ali ndi wokala, kapena ndi venda 6
Miner . Amakumba kapena kupwanya miyala 7
Domestic Worker / Maid / Char / House help. Amagwira ntchito zanyumba za anthu ena 8
Armed Services/ Police / Security Personnel. Ndi a polisi, kapena ndi msilikali, kapena ndi komunite polisi 9
Artisan / skilled manual worker in the formal sector. 
Amagwira ntchito zomwe adachita kuphunzira, ndiye amagwira kumakampani
10
Artisan / skilled manual worker in the informal sector. 
Amagwira ntchito zomwe adachita kuphunzira, koma amagwira kumudzi konkuno
11
Clerical Worker. Amagwira ntchito ya ukalariki 12
Unskilled manual worker in the formal sector. 
Amagwira ntchito yomwe sadapitire kusukulu koma, amagwira ku kampani
13
Unskilled manual worker in the informal sector. 
Amagwira ntchito yomwe sadapitire kusukulu ndiye amagwira kumudzi konkuno
14
Professional
Businessperson (works in company for others). Amapanga buzinesi, ndiye amapananga pamodzi ndi 
anzawo
15
Businessperson (Owns small business of less than 10 employees). 
Amapanga buzinesi, komanso adalemba anthu ena osa pitilira 10
16
Businessperson (Owns large business of 10 or more employees). 
Amapanga buzinesi, komanso adalemba anthu ena opitilira 10
17
Professional Worker (e.g., lawyer, accountant, nurse, engineer, etc.)
Amagwira ntchito yopitira ku Univesite ( monga woweruza milandu, wowerengera za ndalama, nesi, ya 
injiniya)
18
Supervisor / Foreman. Ndi a Folomani 19
Teacher. Aphunzitsi 20
Government Worker. Amagwira ntchito ku Boma 21
Retail worker. Amagwira ntchito mu golosale ya anthu ena 22
Other
Student Mwana wa sukulu 23
Housewife / Works in household . Mzimayi wapakhomo, amene samapita kuntchito kwina kuli konse 24
Other Zina, tsimikizani [Specify]: 
____________________________________________________
POST 
CODE
Don’t know . Sindikudziwa[DK] 999
11. What is the highest level of education you have completed? [Code from answer. Do not read options]
No formal schooling Sadapiteko kusukulu 0
Informal schooling only (including Koranic schooling) 
Anaphunzira maphunziro a Tchalitchi/katukumeni, kapena Korani 1 
Some primary schooling. Anaphunzirako sukulu ya pulayimale koma sanamalize 2
Primary school completed Anamaliza sukulu yaku pulayimale 3
Some secondary school / high school. Anapitako ku sekondale koma sanalimalize 4
Secondary school / high school completed Anamalize sukulu waku sekondale 5
Post-secondary qualifications, other than university e.g. a diploma or degree from a technical 
college.
Anapitako ku univesite, ku kolegi, ndipo ali ndi Dipuloma
6 
Some university Anapitako ku univesite 7
University completed Anamaliza ku univesiti 8
Post-graduate Maphunziro apamwamba 9
Don’t know Sindikudziwa [Do not read] 999
74
12. Are you able to read and write? Kodi mumatha kuwerenga ndi kulemb?
No Ayi 0
Yes Inde 1
13. I would like you to tell me the names of people living in your household? 
Ndimafuna nditadziwa mayina ndi zaka zakubadwa za anthu amene amakhala munyumba 
yanuyi? 
[Exclude respondent]
Name of member Dzina la munthu
Age Zaka 
zakubadwa
Sex Mwamuna/Mkazi
School 
attendance 
Amapita 
kusukulu 
kapena ayi
Female 
Mkazi
Male
Mwamuna
No 
Ayi
Yes 
Inde
1 2 0 1
1 2 0 1
1 2 0 1
1 2 0 1
1 2 0 1
1 2 0 1
1 2 0 1
1 2 0 1
1 2 0 1
1 2 0 1
1 2 0 1
1 2 0 1
14. How many household members in total? 
Onse alipo angati? [Count above and include respondent]
15. How many rooms are in your dwelling house? 
Kodi nyumba yanu ili ndi zipinda zingati? 
[Interviewer: this is including the living room]
Number:_______
16. What is the main material of wall in dwelling house? 
Kodi nyumba yanu munamangira chani? [Interviewer: Please observe, don’t ask]
Burnt brick Njerwa zowotcha 1
Unburnt brick Zidina/Mdindo 2
Cement block Mabuloko ya simenti 3
Mud Matope ndi mitengo 4
Wood Mitengo 5
Straw/bamboo Msungwi 6
Tin Zitini 7
Plastic Mapulasitiki 8
75
Other Zina, tsimikizani (specify)___________ 9
17. What is the main material of roof on main structure? 
Kodi nyumba yanu munafolera ndi chani? [Interviewer: Please observe, don’t ask]
Tiles Matayilosi 1
Iron sheets Malata 2
Wood Mitengo 3
Plastic Mapulasitiki 4
Grass Udzu 5
Asbestos 6
Other Zina tsimikizani (specify)__________________________ 9
18. What is the main material of floor on main structure?
Kodi munyumba mwanu pansi pake munayikapo chani? [Interviewer: Please observe, don’t ask]
Mud/sand Dothi/Mchenga 1
Cement Simenti 2
Tiles Matayilosi 3
Wood Mitengo 4
Other Zina, tsimikizani (specify)_____________ 9
19. What type of toilet does your house have? Kodi muli ndi chimbudzi chamtundu wanji?
None. Ndilibe chimbudzi 0
Flushing toilet. Chimbudzi chamadzi 1
Compost toilet. Chimbudzi chomwe timakolola manyuwa 3
Pit latrine with slab Chimbudzi chokumba chomwe chili ndi silabu 4
Pit latrine without slab Chimbudzi chokumba chomwe chilibe silabu 5
Other, Zina, tsimikizani 9
20. What is your household’s main source of water?
Kodi malo amodzi enieni amene anthu amnyumba mwanu muno amakatungako madzi ndi 
kuti/oti
Piped water Pa mmipopi ya gulu 1
Hand pump/borehole Pa mpopi wa gulu 2
Dug well Pa chitsime chokumba 3
River/pond stream kumtsnje waukulu kapena waung’ono,padamu 4
Other Kwina, tsimikizani (specify )___________________________________ 9
Don’t Know (sakudziwa) 999
21. How far is the main source of water from your household?
Kodi nthawi mumatenga nthawi yayitali bwanji kuti mukafike kukatunga madziko ndi 
kubwerako?
Within premises Sitichedwa kokhala/pakhomo/papuloti. 1
Neighbours premise Sitichedwa pokhala kwa anzathu anyumba yinayo. 2
Less than 2 km away (less than 20 minutes) Timayenda mtunda wa 2Km, kupita ndi 
kuchokera 4 
More than 2 Km away (20 minutes or more) Timayenda mtunda wapitilira 2Km, kupita ndi 
kuchokera 5 
Don’t Know (sakudziwa) 999
76
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ASSESTS: ZACHUMA NDI KATUNDU WAPANYUMBA PANU
Intentionally Left Blank
22. What were the sources of income and amounts earned for your household for the past 12 
months? 
Kodi mu miyezi 12 yapitayi, munagwiritsa ntchito njira zanji zopezera ndalama?
[Interviewer: Circle all that apply and record amount obtained. Indicate Don’t Know if the interviewee 
does not know amount]
Source of income
Njira yopezera ndalama
Amount of 
money obtained 
per annum
Kuchuluka kwa 
ndalama(MK)
Source of income 
Njira yopezera ndalama
Amount of 
money obtained 
per annum
Kuchuluka kwa 
ndalama (MK)
Farming (Crops) Ulimi 
wa mbeu
1 Hawker Wokala 8
Piece work (Ganyu) 2 Firewood selling. 
Kugulitsa nkhuni
9
Formal Employment. 
Kuchokera kuntchito 
yolembedwa
3 Moulding bricks 
Kuumba njerwa
1
0 
Land rents. 
Kubwereketsa munda
4 Charcoal selling 
kuotcha ndi kugulitsa 
makala
1
1 
Equipment hire. 
Kubwereketsa 
zipango monga 
pulawo
5 Livestock rearing. 
Kusunga ziweto
1
3 
Pension Penshoni 6 Fishing Usodzi 1
4
Remittance. Kulandira 
ndalama kuchokera 
kwa ana kapena 
abale amene ali 
kutauni
7 Other Zina, tsimikizani
(specify)
1
5 
23. What is the total amount of money obtained for the past 12 months? 
Mu miyezi 12 yapitayi, munapeza ndalama zingati? 
[Interviewer, sum up the total on your own!]
MK__________
77
24. Does your household own any of the following items? 
Kodi panyumba panu pano muli ndi katundu wotani? [Interviewer: Circle all that apply]
YES NO
Radio Wayilesi 1 0
Mobile phone Foni yam’manja 1 0
Sofa Mipando ya Sofa 1 0
Bed Kama(Bedi) 1 0
Mattress Matilesi 1 0
Solar panel Sola Panelo 1 0
Plough Khasu la Ng’ombe (Pulawo) 1 0
Bicycle Njinga yakapalasa 1 0
Storage barns for animals (khola) Khola la ziweto 1 0
Storage barns for food or fodder Nyumba yosungula chakudya cha 
ziweto 1 0 
Oxcart Ngolo 1 0
Hoe Khasu 1 0
Treadle pump. Thiledo Pampu 1 0
LIVESTOCK ASSET BASE: ZA ZIWETO
Now let us look at livestock assets that you have. Pano tiyeni tikambirane zokhudza za ziweto zanu.
25. A. 
What 
type of 
livesto
ck do 
you 
have? 
Kodi 
muli 
ndi 
ziweto 
zanji, 
panyu
mba 
panu 
pano?
B. How many of 
those are local or 
improved?
Kodi mwaziweto 
zimenezi ndi 
zingati zomwe zili 
zamakolo komanso 
zachizungu
C. How did you originally acquire the majority of 
these? 
Kodi ziweto zimene muli nazo munazipeza 
bwanji?
Livestock 
type 
Mtundu wa 
ziweto
Total 
Kuchul
uka 
kwake
Local 
Zamak
olo
Improve
d 
Zachizu
ngu 
Acquisition type[Multiple response]
Njira yopezera ziweto
ChickensT
otals 
Nkhuku 
zonse
Cocks A 
tambala 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
9
9
Hens 
Zathazi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
9
9
Chicks 
Anapiye 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
9
9
78
Goats 
totals 
Mbuzi 
zonse 
Adult Bucks 
Mbuzi 
zazimuna
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0 
9
9 
Adult Does 
Mbuzi 
zazikazi
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0 
9
9 
Kid Bucks 
Ana a 
mbuzi 
amuna
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0 
9
9 
Kid Does 
Ana a 
mbuzi akazi
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0 
9
9 
Other 
animals
Pigs 
Nkhumba 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
9
9
Cattle 
Ng’ombe 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
9
9
Sheep 
Nkhosa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
9
9
Rabbits A 
Kalulu 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
9
9
Pigeons 
Nkhunda 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
9
9
Other 
Zina, 
tsimikizani
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0 
9
9 
Key: 
1 
Purchased before joining Land O’Lakes 
Producer Group. Ndinagula ndisanalowe 
mugula la Land O Lakes.
6 Received as gift. Ndianalandira ngati 
mphatso
2 
Purchased after joining Land O’Lakes Producer 
Group Ndinagula nditalowe mugula la Land O 
Lakes. 
7 Inherited. Ndinapatsidwa kuchokera 
kumtundu wathu
3 Received from Land O’Lakes 
Ndinalandira kuchokera ku Land O Lakes 8 Purchased – for comparison group ONLY
4 Government Kuchokera ku Boma 9 Other, Zina tsimikizani (specify)
5 Received from other NGO. 
Ndinalandira kuchokera ku bungwe lina 10 Born on Farm
99 Not Applicable 
26. Have you or any member of your household received voucher(s) from the Land O’Lakes 
project to redeem any livestock? 
Kodi m’banja mwanu muno munalandilako voucher ya ziweto kuchokera kwa a land o lake?
[Only for Participants, NOT Comparison. For Comparison, skip to 32]
79
No Ayi 0 [SKIP TO 
32]
Yes Inde 1
Not Applicable 99 [SKIP TO 
32]
27. Have you or any member of your household redeemed any livestock using the vouchers 
obtained from the project? 
Kodi inuyo kapena wina aliyense amene amakhala m’nyumba mwanu muno adayamba 
waombola ziweto kudzera m’njira ya Voucher? [Only for participants, for comparison go to 32]
No Ayi 0 [SKIP to 32]
Yes Inde 1
Not Applicable 99 [SKIP TO 
32]
28. When did you receive the livestock? 
Kodi munalandira ziweto zanuzo liti? 
Month Mwezi___________Year 
Chaka___________
Circle if Not Applicable
29. How many Livestock did you or any member redeem? 
Kodi munaombola ziweto zingati m’njira yakuombola ndi voucher?
Type of livestock Mtundu wa 
ziweto
Number of livestock Nambala ya Ziweto
Male Zazimuna Female Zazikazi Total Zonse 
Pamodzi
Goats Mbuzi
Chickens Nkhuku
Not Applicable 99 [SKIP TO 32]
30. Did your received livestock have any offspring? 
Kodi ziweto zomwe manalandirazo zinayamba kuswana?
No Ayi 0 [SKIP TO 
32]
Yes 
Inde
1
Not Applicable 99 [SKIP TO 
32]
31. How many offsprings did they produce and how many are alive now? 
Kodi ndi ana angati omwe adabadwa, nanga ndi angati omwe akanali ndi moyo panopa?
Type of livestock 
redeemed 
Mtundu wa ziweto zomwe 
munaombola
Offsprings produced
Ana a ziweto omwe 
abadwa 
Offsprings alive now
Ana a ziweto omwe 
akadali ndi moyo
Male 
Amuna
Femal
e 
Akazi
Male 
Amuna
Femal
e 
Akazi
No offspring 
born from 
this species
Goats Mbuzi 997
Chickens Nkhuku 997
Not Applicable 99 [SKIP to 32]
80
32. Over the past 12months, has your household purchased any goats or chickens?
Mu miyezi 12 yapitayi panyumba panu pano munagula mbuzi komanso nkhuku zingati? 
[If no to all, SKIP TO 35]
No Ayi Yes 
Inde
Goats(s) Mbuzi 0 1
Chicken(s ) Nkhuku 0 1
33. If yes, how many were purchased Ngati munagula, munagula zingati?? 
Male a Tambala Female Zazikazi/Ma 
thandzi
Total Zonse pamodzi
Goats Mbuzi
Chickens Nkhuku
Not applicable 99 [SKIP TO 35]
34. What were the sources of income for the purchase? 
Kodi ndalama zomwe munagulira ziwetozo munazipeza bwanji? [circle all that apply]
VSLA loans Banki nkhonde 1
Farm crop harvests Nditagulitsa zokolola 2
Sale of other household asset Nditagulitsa katundu wina wa nyumba 3
Household savings Ndalama zomwe timasunga ngati banja 4
Sold other livestock Ndinagulitsa ziweto zina 5
Remittances Ndinalandira ndalama kuchokera kwa abale akutauni 6
Loans from other sources (loan sharks, banks, family, friends etc.) 
Ndinatenga ngongole ku banki, kwa abale, anzanga 7 
Other (specify) Zina fotokozani 9
Not applicable 99
35. Generally, how have you been utilising the livestock herds that you keep on your farm over the 
last 12 months? 
Kodi ziweto zomwe mwakhala mukusungu pakhomo panu pano, mu miyezi 12 yapitayi 
mwazigwiritsa ntchito yanji? [Multiple response question but not applicable if having no livestock]
Option Chickens 
Nkhuku
Goats 
Mbuzi
Cattle 
Ng’ombe
Sheep
Nkhosa
Pig 
Nkhumba
Food Kudya 1 1 1 1 1
Sale Kugulitsa 2 2 2 2 2
Funeral Kupha pa 
maliro 3 3 3 3 3 
Church Ku Tchalitchi 4 4 4 4 4
Chieftaincy Pazaufumu 5 5 5 5 5
Prestige Chonyadira 6 6 6 6 6
Security (savings), 
Chokonzekera ngozi 
zakudza mwadzidzi
7 7 7 7 7 
Manure Manyuwa 8 8 8 8 8
Celebrations 
Zisangalaro 9 9 9 9 9 
Not Applicable/don’t 
own 
99 99 99 99 99
81
36. Over the past 12 months, did you slaughter goats/chickens for consumption at home? Kodi 
miyezi 12 yapitayi, mwaphako chiweto china chilli chonse, kuti mudye pakhomo panu pano?
No Ayi 0 [SKIP TO 
39]
Yes Inde 1
37. If yes, how many livestock did you slaughter for home consumption in the past 12 months? 
Ngati munapha, munapha ziweto zingati, mu miyezi 12 yapitayi?
[Interviewer: WRITE the number 0 if they own the animal, but didn’t slaughter for home consumption. 
If animal type not owned, indicate not applicable.] 
Male 
Zazimun
a
Fema
le 
Zazik
azi 
Total 
zons
e 
pamo
dzi
Not 
applicabl
e 
Goats Mbuzi 99
Chickens Nkhuku 99
38. In what months do you often slaughter the livestock? 
Kodi ndi miyezi yiti yapachaka yimene mumakonda kupha ziweto? [Circle all that apply]
January 1 July 7
February 2 August 8
March 3 September 9
April 4 October 10
May 5 November 11
June 6 December 12
No specific month/anytime want to 13
Not applicable [SKIP TO 39] 99
39. Over the past 12 months, did you slaughter goats/chickens for some function? 
Kodi mu miyezi 12 yapitayi, munaphako mbuzi kapena nkhuku, kukhudzana ndi chikondwerero 
kapena zochitika zina? [SKIP to 42 if no slaughtering was done, indicate N/A if animal type not 
owned]
Yes Inde No Ayi Not 
applicable
Goats Mbuzi 1 0 99
Chickens Nkhuku 1 0 99
40. Which function(s) did you slaughter the livestock for? 
Ndi zochitika zanji zomwe munaphera ziweto? 
Fun
eral 
Malir
o
Wedd
ing 
Ukwa
ti
Chieftai
ncy 
Ufumu
Church 
Tchalit
chi
Guest 
Alendo
Firebreak 
making 
around 
graveyard 
(Dambule) 
Kukonza ku 
manda
Christm
as
Khirisim
asi
Othe
r 
NA
82
G
oa
ts 
M
bu
zi
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 99
Chi
cke
ns 
Nkh
uku
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 99
41. How many were slaughtered for the function? 
Kodi munapha ziweto zingati?
Male Zazimuna Female 
Zazikazi
Total Zonse 
pamodzi NA
Goats Mbuzi 99
Chickens Nkhuku 99
42. Over the past 12 months, how has egg production increased? 
Kodi mu miyezi 12 yapitayi, kayikiridwe kwa mazira ndi nkhuku zanu kwachuluka motani? 
[Only chicken farmers, skip to 43 if don’t own chickens]
A lot Kwambiri 1
Little Pang’ono 2
Same Sikunasinthe 3
Decreased Kwatsika 4
Not Applicable (Not chicken farmers) 99 
43. Over the past 12 months, did your household consume eggs? 
Kodi mu miyezi 12 yapitayi m’nyumba mwanu mwadyako mazira?
Yes Inde 1
No Ayi 0 [SKIP TO 
45]
44. How often has your household been consuming eggs over the past 12months? 
Kodi miyezi 12 yapitayi, mwadya mazira mowirikiza motani?
Never Sitinadyeko 1
1-2 times per year 2
1-2 times per month 3
1-2 times per week 4
3or more times a week 5
Not applicable 99
45. What are the problems facing livestock production in the area? 
Kodi ndi mavuto anji omwe mukukumana nawo paulimi waziweto mdera lanu lino?
No problem palibe vuto lina lili lonse 0
Death of animals (adults) Kufa kwa ziweto zazikulu 1
Death of animals (offspring) Kufa kwa ana a ziweto 3
Unavailability of vaccines/drugs Kusapezaka wakatemera waziweto 2
Cannot afford cost of vaccines/drugs Kudula kwa katemera waziweto 4
Lack of affordable supplementary feed Kusowa kwa chakudya chaziweto chowonjezera cha 
mtengo wabwino
5
Low reproduction rates (e.g. animals not producing offspring as frequently as I think they can) 
Kasaberekana kwa ziweto monga momwe timafunira
6
Disease outbreaks. Matenda a ziweto 7
Thieves Akuba 8
83
Other (Speficy) _______________________ 99
Now I will ask you about crop harvests and your adaptation to climate change. 
46. This year has been a poor rainy season and the harvest may suffer. What methods do you use to 
respond to poor harvests? 
Kodi mvula yikavuta monga momwe yinavutila chaka chino, mumagwiritsa ntchito njira zanji 
pofuna kupeza chakudya? [Circle all that apply]
Do casual labour (Ganyu) 1
Reduce food portion Kuchepetsa chakudya chomwe timadya 2
Sell livestock assets Kugulitsa ziweto 3
Beg Kupemphetsa 4
Receive remittance Kulandira kuchokera kwa abale akutauni 5
Borrow food from a neighbour 6
Small scale irrigation 7
Don’t sell/reduce amount sold from harvest 8
Trading of Crops 9
Other(specify) Zina, fotokozani_______________________________________ 10
47. How did you deal with the situation before Land O’Lakes activities? 
Kodi ndi njira zanji zomwe mumagwiritsa ntchito kupeza chakudya mvula yikavuta ndikukhala 
zokokola zochepa, pamene Land O Lakes, yisanabwere kudera kwanu kuno. 
[Only participants, circle all that apply] [If not participant, SKIP to 49]
Do casual labour (Ganyu) 1
Reduce food portion Kuchepetsa chakudya chomwe timadya 2
Sell livestock assets Kugulitsa ziweto 3
Beg Kupemphetsa 4
Receive remittance Kulandira kuchokera kwa abale akutauni 5
Borrow from a neighbour 6
Small scale irrigation 7
Don’t sell/reduce amount sold from harvest 8
Trading of Crops 9
Other (specify) Zina, fotokozani________________________________________ 10
Not applicable (not L4R participant) 
[SKIP to 49]
99
48. Can you say that you are better in adaptation to climate change on your being part of Land 
O’Lakes beneficiary as compared to before? 
Kodi panopa munganene kuti mukutha kuthana ndi mavuto omwe amadza chifukwa chakusintha 
kwa nyengo chifukwa Land O Lakes? [Only participants, circle all that apply]
Yes Inde 1
No Ayi 2
Don’t know (not sure) Sindikudziwa bwino bwino 3
Not applicable, (not L4R participant) Ine sindinali nawo mu pulojeckiti [SKIP 
to 49]
99
CAPACITY TO MAINTAIN LIVESTOCK ASSET BASE: UPANGIRI WOMWEMWALANDIRA POFUNA
KULIMBIKITSA KUKADAULO OSAMALA ZIWETO
84
49. Did you receive any livestock management training over the last 12 months? Kodi munalandira 
maphunziro ena ali wonse wokhudzana ndi kasamalidwe kaziweto, mu miyezi 12 yapitayi ?
No Ayi 0 [SKIP to 57]
Yes Inde 1
50. What type of information did you learn? Munalandira maphunziro anji [Circle all that apply]
Housing Za makola abwino aziweto 1
Not Applicable 
(99)
Breeding Zakuswana kwa ziweto 2
Animal health Zazaumoyo wa ziweto 3
Feeds and Feeding Zazakudya ndi kadyetesdwe kaziweto 4
Record Keeping Kusunga marekodi a ziweto 5
Household enterprise Njira zina ndi zina zopezera ndalama pakhomo 6
VSLA Za Banki Nkhonde 7
Other (specify) Zina, fotokozani 9
51. Who provided the trainings? 
Kodi ndi ndani amene ankapangitsa maphunziro amenewa? [Circle all that apply]
Land O Lakes 1 Not 
Applicab
le (99)
Government Aboma 2
Other NGOs apart from LOL (specify) Mabungwe ena (fotokozani) 3
Others(Specify) Ena, fotokozani 9
52. Who in the household attended the training? 
Ndi ndani wanyumba mwanumu amene anakaphunzira maphunziro amenewa?
Wife/adult female Amayi/Akazi awo 1 Not 
Applicab
le (99)
Husband Amuna awo 2
Child Mwana wanyumbamo 3
53. Which livestock species were covered during the training? 
Kodi ndi ziweto zamtundu wanji zomwe aphunzitsi anaphunzitsapo, panthawi yamaphunzirowo? 
[Circle all that apply]
Chickens Nkhuku 1
Not 
Applicab
le (99)
Goats Mbuzi 2
Cattle Ng’ombe 3
Sheep Nkhosa 4
Pig Nkhumba 5
Others (specify) Zina, fotokozani 9
54. To what extent have the trainings changed how you manage your livestock? 
Kodi maphunziro a ziweto omwe munaphunzirawo, akuthandizani bwanji pamomwe 
mumasamalira ziweto zanu?
Not at all Palibe chasintha 1 Not 
Applicab
le (99)
A little Kusintha pang’ono 2
A lot Kusintha kwahitika kwakukulu 3
Don’t know Sindikudziwa 9
55. What was the most important skill you learned as a producer over the last 12 months? 
Kodi ndi upangiri wanji waukulu womwe mwaphunzira mu miyezi 12 yapitayi, ndipo mukuupanga, 
panyumba panu?
Record keeping Kusungu marekodi 1
Not 
Applicab
le (99)
Feeding Kadyetsedwe ka ziweto 2
Animal health Zaumoyo waziweto 3
Breeding Zakuswana kwa ziweto 4
Herd/flock management Kasamalidwe kaziweto 5
85
Marketing zamalonda a ziweto 6
Not sure 7
Other (specify) Zina, fotokozani 9
56. What practices learned have you adopted? 
Kodi ndi upangiri wanji munaphunzira ndipo mukuupanga, panyumba panu? [Circle all that apply]
Record keeping Kusungu marekodi 1
NA (99)
Feeding Kadyetsedwe ka ziweto 2
Animal health Zaumoyo waziweto 3
Breeding Zakuswana kwa ziweto 4
Herd/flock management Kasamalidwe kaziweto 5
Marketing Zamalonda a ziweto 6
Other (specify) Zina, fotokozani 9
NOW IWILLASKYOUABOUTANIMALHOUSINGSTRUCTURES: ZAMAKOLAAZIWETO
57. Does your household have a raised khola for any of your animals (goats/chickens)? 
Kodi panyumba panu pano muli ndi khola lam’mwamba la mbuzi kapena nkhuku? [If no to 
chickens, skip to 62; if no to goats skip to 62. If no to all skip to 63] If Not applicable, skip to 64. 
No Ayi Yes Inde
Not applicable
(If animal species not 
owned)
Chickens Nkhuku 0 [SKIP TO 62] 1 99
Goats Mbuzi 0 [SKIP TO 63] 1 99
58. Is the raised khola being used by the animals? 
Kodi khola lam’mwambali ziweto zanu zimagonamo panopa? 
Nanga ndi ziweto zanji zomwe zikugona mukhola lamwamba?
No Ayi Yes 
Inde
NA
Goats Mbuzi 0 1 99
Chicken Nkhuku 0 1 99
59. Did you have and use a raised khola before the project for the following livestock? 
Kodi a Land O Lakes asanabwere kudera kwanu kuno, munali ndikhola lamwamba? 
Kodi kholalo linali laziweto zanji? [Only for participants]
No Ayi Yes 
Inde
Not 
applicabl
e
Goats Mbuzi 0 1 99
Chickens Nkhuku 0 1 99
Other animals Ziweto zina 0 1 99
60. How much money was spent on the construction of the khola? 
Kodi munagwiritsa ndalama zochuluka bwanji pomanga khola la mwamba? 
[Write NA in the spaces provided if not applicable]
A. Goats Mbuzi MK____________
B. Chicken Nkhuku MK____________
61. Where did you get the money for the construction? 
Kodi ndalama zomangira khola lamwamba munazipeza bwanji? [Only for participants]
Borrowed from VSL Ngongole ya banki nkhonde 1
Sold livestock Ndinagulitsa ziweto 2
Household savings Ndalama zomwe timasunga panyumba pano. 3
Proceeds from small businesses Ndalama zochokera kumabizinesi ang’ono ang’ono 4
Sold Crops 5
86
Casual Labor/Piece Work Ganyu 6
Other (specify) Zina, fotokozani 9
Not applicable 99
62. Why did you not construct a raised khola for chickens?
Kodi ndi zifukwa zanji zomwe zinakupangitsani kuti musamange khola lamwamba lankhuku? [Only for 
participants]
Cost too much Kholali limadula 1
Fear of thieves Kuopa akuba 2
Afraid of diseases Kuopa matenda a ziweto 3
Not trained Sindinaphunzitsidwe 4
Material not available Kkusowa zipangizo 5
Others Specify Zina, Fotokozani 9
Not applicable Plaibepo (Either comparison group, has khola, or don’t own chickens) 99
63. Why did you not construct a raised khola for goats? 
Kodi ndi zifukwa zanji zomwe zinakupangitsani kuti musamange khola lamwamba la mbuzi? 
[Only for participants]
Cost too much Kholali limadula 1
Fear of thieves Kuopa akuba 2
Afraid of diseases Kuopa matenda a ziweto 3
Not trained Sindinaphunzitsidwe 4
Material not available Kkusowa zipangizo 5
Others Specify Zina, Fotokozani 9
Not applicable Plaibepo (Either comparison group, has khola, or don’t own goats) 99
64. How do you house your chickens? 
Pakuti mwanena kuti simunamange khola lamwamba, nkhuku zanu zimagona kuti? 
[Ask only those that did not build improved khola]
In dwelling Mnyumba womwe timagonamo 1
Deep litter Khola Khola lapansi 2
Unroofed battery cage. Khola lawaya koma losafolera 3
Roofed battery cage Khola lawaya koma lofolera 4
Don’t own chickens 5
Other (Specify) Zina, Fotokozani 9
Not applicable Palibenso (Has raised khola) 99
65. How do you house your goats? 
Pakuti mwanena kuti simunamange khola lamwamba, mbuzi zanu zimagona kuti? 
[Ask only those that did not build improved khola]
In dwelling Mnyumba yomwe timagonamo 1
Deep litter Khola Khola lapansi 2
Don’t own goats 5
Other (Specify) Zina, fotokozani 9
Not applicable Palibenso (Has raised khola) 99
LIVESTOCK FEEDING SYSTEMS: KADYETSEDWE KAZIWETO
66. 8 What type of livestock feeding system is your household using? 
Kodi ziweto zanu mumazidyetsera pogwiritsa ntchito njira zanji? [Circle all that apply]
Goats Mbuzi Chickens Nkhuku
Free range Kuzitayirira 1 1
Tethering Kuzimangirira 2 2
Herding Kupita nazo ku ubusa/dambo 3 3
87
Semi-intensive Kuzidyetsera m’khola komanso kuzitayirira 4 4
Other (specify) Zina fotokozani 9 9
Not applicable (if type livestock not owned) 99 99
67. 9 Does your household provide supplementary feed to the following livestock? 
Kodi ziweto zanu mumazipatsa chakudya chowonjezera, pamene zabwera kuchokera kubusa?
Goats Mbuzi Chicken
Nkhuku
Yes Inde 1 1
No Ayi 0 0 [SKIP to 69]
Don’t know Sindikudziwa 99 99 [SKIP to 69]
68. 0 What type of supplementary feed do you give to your livestock? 
Kodi ziweto zanu mumazipatsa zakudya zowonjezera za mtundu wanji?
Goats Mbuzi Chickens 
Nkhuku
Maize bran Madeya/gaga 1 1
Leucaena Lukina 2 2
Salt Mchere 3 3
Homemade ration(maize bran + roasted Soya+ Fish meal+salt) 
Chakudya chomwe timapanga tokha, posakaniza zakudya izi: 
Madeya + Soya wokazinga+ Ufa wopangidwa kuchokera ku nsomba+ 
Mchere
4 4
Fish meal only Ufa wopangidwa kuchokera ku nsomba 5 5
Roasted soya only Soya wokazinga 6 6
Clean water Madzi woyera 7 7
Chick growers marsh Chakudya chogula, chokulitsa anapiye 8 8
Other (specify) Zina Fotokozani_____________________________ 9 9
Not Applicable 99 99
69. 1 During the last growing season, have you or any member of household grown fodder? 
Kodi munyengo ya mvula yapitayi alipo wina aliyense panyumba panu amene anadzala udzu kapena 
mitengo yimene ziweto zimadya?
Yes Inde 1
No Ayi 0 [SKIP to 71]
Not Applicable 99 [SKIP to 71]
70. 7 If yes, which crops and on what land? 
Kodi ndi udzu wanji, kapena mitengo yanji yomwe munadza ngati chakudya chaziweto, komanso malo 
ake anali akulu bwanji?
Crops Land 
size 
(acres)
Did you feed your 
goats with fodder?
Yes---------------1 
No----------------0
Leucaena (No local name) Lukina 1
Sesbaniasesban 2
Silver leaf (kamamatila wa silver) 3
Green leaf (Kamamatila wobiliwila) 4
Soya plant Soya 5
Other (specify)_____Zina fotokozani 9
Not Applicable 99
71. Does your household plan to grow fodder this coming season? 
Kodi inuyo kapena wina aliyense panyumba panu pano ali wokonzeka kudzala udzu kapena mitengo 
yimene ziweto zimadya munyengo ya mvula yomwe yikubwerayi?
88
Yes Inde 1
No Ayi 0 [SKIP TO 73]
72. If yes, how much land do you plan to allocate to the fodder 
production next season? 
Ndimalo akulu bwanji amene mwakonzeka kudzalapo chakudya 
cha ziweto
Acres:___ Not 
Sure
(9)
NA (99)
CHICK CARE: KUSAMALIRA ANAPIYE
73. Have you or any member of your household practiced chick care in the last 12 months? 
Kodi inuyo kapena wina aliyense panyumba panu pano, amene wagwiritsa ntchito njira zanji zosamalira 
anapiye, mu miyezi 12 yapitayi?
Yes Inde 1
No Ayi 0 [Skip to 83]
Don’t know Sindikudziwa
99
[Probe more. If 
doesn’t know Skip to 
83]
74. What type of chick care does your household provide? 
Kodi ndi njira zotani zomwe mumagwiritsa ntchito posamalira anapiye?
Deep litter Njira yakhola lapansi koma loyikamo utuchi kapena zinthu zina 1
Basket Kugwiritsa ntchito mitanga/madengu/zitete 2
Other (Specify) Zina fotokozani 9
Not Applicable 99
75. How many chicks were raised through chick care in the last 12 
months? 
Kodi ndi anapiye ochuluka bwanji amene mwasamalira pogwiritsa 
njira zaukadaulo mumiyezi 12 yapitayi?
Number: 
______
Not 
sure 
(9)
Not 
Applica
ble (99)
76. On average, after how many days after birth, do you put your 
chicks in a chick care? 
Kodi pongoyerekeza, pamapita masiku angati, pamene anapiye 
abadwa, musanawapatse chisamaliro choyenera, chaukadaulo?
Days:
_____
Not 
sure 
(9)
Not 
Applica
ble (99)
77. For how many weeks do your chicks stay in a chick
Care? 
Kodi anapiye amakhala masabata angati muchisamaliro 
chaukadaulo?
Weeks:
____
Not 
sure 
(9)
Not 
Applica
ble (99)
78. How many weeks does it take for the hen whose
chicks are put in a chick care to start laying eggs again? 
Kodi nkhuku wayikazi/thadzi yomwe anapiye ake ayikidwa 
pachisamaliro chaukadaulo, yimatenga masabata angati 
yisanayambe kuyikiranso mazira?
Weeks: 
____
Not 
sure 
(9)
Not 
Applica
ble (99)
79. What type of feed do you give your chicks while in care? Kodi anapiye womwe ali pachisamliro, 
mumawapatsa zakudya zanji?
Home-made chicken Chakudya cha anapiye chopangidwa pakhomo 1
Chick marsh Chakudya cha anapiye chogula 2
Growers march Chakudya cha nkhuku zomwe zikukula, koma chogula 3
Roasted marsh Chakudya chankhuku chochita kukazinga 4
Maize bran Madeya 5
Fish meal Ufa wopangidwa kuchoka ku nsomba 6
89
Water Madzi 7
Other (specify) 8
Don’t Know 9
Not Applicable 99
80. How many chicks died while in chick care, in the last 12 months? 
Kodi ndi anapiye angati omwe anafa ali muchisamaliro, mu iyezi 12 
yapitayi?
Number: 
___
Not 
sure 
(9)
NA (99)
81. How many chicks died after you removed them from chick care in the 
last 12 months? 
Kodi ndi anapiye angati omwe anafa atachotsedwa muchisamaliro, mu 
miyezi 12 yapitayi?
Number: 
___
Not 
sure 
(9) NA (99)
82. Before you started practicing chick care, for every 10 chicks that were 
born, how many could die before reaching the age of 8 weeks? 
Musanayambe kutsatira njira yachisamaliro cha anapiye, pa anapiye 10 
ali wonse, ndi angati amene ankatha kufa pasanafike masabata 8?
Number: 
___
Not 
sure 
(9)
NA (99)
83. Why are you not practicing chick care ?
Ngati inuyo simukutsatira njira yachisamaliro cha anapiye, ndizifukwa zanji zomwe zikukupangitsani 
zomenezi?
Expensive Ndi njira yodula 1
Not trained Sindinaphunzitsidwepo 2
Not interested Ndilibe nazo chidwi 3
Require a mentor 
Zimafunika munthu wakuti akuphunzitse, komanso azikutsatira 4
Do not trust chicken care Sindimazikhulupirira za njira yimeneyi 5
Too lazy to practice. Ndimagwa nazo ulesi 6
Don’t know chick care 7
Other (specify) Zina, fotokozani 9
Is Practicing Chick care / Not applicable 99
MARKETING: ZAMISIKA YA ZIWETO
84. What would be an ideal number of adult chickens and goats for you to 
start selling regularly and not when you have an immediate or urgent 
need for cash? 
Kuti mudzitha kugulitsa nkhuku kapena mbuzi pafupipafupi, 
mukuganiza kuti pafunika mutakhala ndi nkhuku kapena mbuzi 
zikuluzikulu zingati?
Number of adult chickens 
Nambala ya nkhuku 
zikuluzikulu______
Number of adult goats 
Nambala ya mbuzi 
zikuluzikulu _______
85. Did you sell any of the following over the last 12 months? Kodi mu miyezi 12 yapita, mwagulitsako 
mbuzi kapena nkhuku kapena mazira? Ndiziweto ziti zomwe mwagulitsako? [Skip to 94 if no sale at all]
Yes No
Goats Mbuzi 1 0
90
Chickens Nkhuku 1 0 [If no to 
all 3, 
SKIP to 
94]
Eggs Mazira
1 0 
86. Who mainly decides on selling any of the livestock? 
Kodi ndi ndani amene amapanga chiganizo chogulitsa ziweto panyumba panu pano?
Goat Mbuzi Chicken Nkhuku Eggs Mazira
Not Applicable if nothing 
was sold
(99)
Male Abambo 1 2 3
Female Amayi 1 2 3
Joint Tonse pamodzi 1 2 3
Not owned 9 9 9
87. Who mainly decided how to utilise the proceedings from the sales?
Mutagulitsa mbuzi, nkhuku kapena mazira, ndi ndani amene amatsogolera kupanga chiganizo cha 
momwe ndalama zopezeka zitagwirire ntchito pakhomo lanu?
Goat 
Mbuzi
Chicken Nkhuku Eggs Mazira
Not Applicable if nothing 
was sold
(99)
Male Abambo 1 2 3
Female Amayi 1 2 3
Joint Tonse pamodzi 1 2 3
Not owned 9 9 9
88. What is the main approach of sell? Kodi magulitsidwe anu amakhala otani?
One at a time Yimodzi yimodzi 1 Not Applicable if 
nothing was sold 
(99) Sell many at one time Kugulitsa zingapo nthawi yimodzi 2 
89. Who do you prefer to sell livestock to? Kodi mumakonda kugulitsa ziweto zanu kwandani?
Itinerant traders Kwa anthu akupha kumsika/a butchala 1 Not 
Applica
ble if 
nothing 
was 
sold 
(99)
Fellow community members Kwa anthu a mmudzi momuno 2
Structured markets Kumsika wokhazikika wa boma 3
Other (specify) Zina, fotokozani
9
90. Generally, when do you think is the best time to sell livestock? 
Kodi mukuona kwanu, nthawi yabwino yogulitsira nkhuku kapena mbuzi pachaka, ndi yitiyo?
Goats Chickens
Not 
Applicabl
e if 
nothing 
was sold 
(99)
During hunger period or when food runs out. 
Nthawi yanjala kapena pamene chakudya chatha pakhomo
1 1
When there is a need for school fees. 
Pamene pali kufunika sukulu fizi
2 2
When emergencies occur. Pamene mavuto adzidzi agwa 3 3
When prices are high. Pamene mitengo yakwera 4 4
Anytime of the year. Nthawi yina yili yonse yapachaka 5 5
Don’t own species 6 6
Other (specify) Zina, fotokozani 9 9
91. How often do you wait to sell livestock in bulk? 
Kodi zimakutengerani nthawi yayitali bwanji, pachaka, musanagulitse ziweto zambiri nthayi yimodzi?
91
Do not sell in bulk. Sindimagulitsa ziweto zambiri nthawi yimodzi 1
Once/twice a year. Kamodzi kapena kawiri pachaka 2
Several time a year. Nthawi zambiri mbiri pachaka 3
Many times. Nthawi zambiri 4
Not applicable 99
Intentionally Left Blank
92
92. For all the livestock that you sold in the last 12 months record the information below [applies only to those that sold any of the livestock]
Paziweto zonse zomwe mwagulitsako, ndi mbiri yanji mwakhala mukusunga [Write in N/A in those categories if not sold.]
How many were 
sold 
Ziweto zingati 
zinagulitsidwa
How many of these were sold as 
LIVE or MEAT 
Mwazogulitsidwa, ndi zingati 
zinagulitsidwa munjira izi:
Main 
reason for 
selling*
Chifukwa 
cheni 
cheni 
chogulitsi
ra
Where did 
you sell? ** 
Munagulitsa 
kuti
Average price per 
animal
 
Mtengo wa 
chiweto, 
pongoyerekeza
In what 
months did 
you sell 
them***
Munagulitsa 
mwezi wanji
Travel 
method****
Munayenda 
bwanji kupita 
komwe 
munagulitsa 
ziweto zanu
Travel time to the 
market (Minutes) 
Munatenga nthawi 
yochuluka bwanji 
kupita komwe 
munagulitsa ziweto
Liv
e 
Za
mo
yo
Meat
Zitaphedw
a 
ngati 
yama
Total 
zonse
pamodz
i
Chicken total 
Nkhuku zonse
A Cocks 
Atambala
B Hens 
Mathadzi
C Chicks Anapiye
Goats total 
Mbuzi zonse
D Adult bucks 
Zazikulu 
zazimuna
E Adult does 
Zazikulu zazikazi
F Kid bucks Mbuzi 
zazing’ono 
zazimuna
G Kid does Mbuzi 
zazing’ono 
zazikazi
93
*To buy food------1; To buy farm inputs-------2;To repay VSLA loan------3; Animal was ill-------4; School fees--------5; Household items other than food---------6 
To buy clothes-------7; Sick household member----------8; Other Specify----- 9 
**Farm gate; ------1; At local markets------2; Groups/association-------3; NGOs---------4; Other-----------9 (specify in cells)
** *Jan 2015----1; Feb 2015---- 2; March 2015----3; April 2015----4; May 2015----5; June 2015----6; July 2015---7; August 2015----8; September 2015-------9; October 2015------10; 
November 2015------11; December 2015------12; Jan 2016---13; Feb 2016----14; March 2016----15; April 2016----16; May 2016---17
****walk--------1; vehicle public transport-------2; bicycle-------3; motor cycle-------4; ox-cart----5; didn’t travel (sell from home) -----6; other -----9(specify in cell)
94
93. Did you sell the livestock mentioned as individual, group or both? 
Kodi ziweto zomwe munagulitsazo, munagulitsa panokha, kapena pakugulu, kapena zonse ziwiri?
Chickens 
Nkhuku
Chicks 
Anapiye
Adult 
goats 
Mbuzi 
zazikulu
Kid goats 
Mbuzi 
zazing’ono
Pigs 
Nkhumba
Sheep 
Nkhosa
Cattle 
Ng’ombe
Individual Pandekha 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Group Pagulu 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Both Zonse ziwiri 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Not applicable 
Palibepo
99 99 99 99 99 99 99
94. For those that sold eggs in the last 12 months, record the information below; 
Funso la omwe anagulitsa mazira;
[applies only to those that sold eggs, otherwise indicate n/a ]
Not applicable (99)
How many 
were sold?
Munagulitsa 
mazira angati
Main reason 
for selling*
Ndichifukwa 
chani 
munagulitsa 
mazira
Where did 
you 
sell?**
Munagulit
sa kuti 
mazirawo
Average 
price per 
egg (MK)
Pongoyerez
a mtengo 
wake 
wachikatikat
i, unali 
wotani
In what 
months did 
you sell 
them?***
Kodi 
mazira 
munagulits
a mwezi 
wanji
Travel 
method****
Munayend
a bwanji 
kupita 
kumsika 
kumene 
munagulits
ira mazira 
Travel 
time to 
the 
market 
(Minutes)
Munateng
a ntahwi 
yotalika 
bwanji 
musafike 
ku msika
Did 
you 
sell as 
indivi
dual, 
group 
or 
both**
***
Muna
gulits
a 
panok
ha 
kapen
a 
ngati 
gulu
*To buy food------1; To buy farm inputs-------2; To repay VSLA loan------3; Animal was ill-------4; School fees-----5,
Household items other than food---------6 To buy clothes-------7; Sick household member----------8; Other Specify 9
**Farm gate; ------1; At local markets------2; Groups/association-------3; NGOs------4; Other---------9 (specify in cells)
** *Jan 2015----1; Feb 2015---- 2; March 2015----3; April 2015----4; May 2015----5; June 2015----6; July 2015---7; 
August 2015----8; September 2015-------9; October 2015------10; November 2015------11; December 2015------12; Jan 2016---13; 
Feb 2016----14; March 2016----15; April 2016----16; May 2016---17
****walk--------1; vehicle public transport-------2; bicycle-------3; motor cycle-------4; ox-cart----5; didn’t travel/sell from home----6; 
other----9 (specify in cell)
***** Individual--------1; Group---------2; Both--------3
1 | Page
95. Do you keep record of your livestock production and sales? Kodi mumasunga marekodi aziweto zanu
No Ayi 0 [SKIP TO 98]
Yes Inde 1
96. What type of records do you keep? 
Kodi mumasunga marekodi a ziweto zanu otani? [Circle all that apply]
Production Azakaswedwe kaziweto 1
Animal health Azaumoyo waziweto 2
Sales Zakugulitsa kwa ziweto 3
Not applicable 99
97. Are the Records observed (Marekodi anaonedwa) Yes No N/A
Production Azakaswedwe kaziweto 1 0 99
Animal health Azaumoyo waziweto 1 0 99
Sales Zakugulitsa kwa ziweto 1 0 99
JOB CREATION: KUPEZETSA NDIKULEMBA ANTHU NTCHITO
98. Since joining L4R [Land O Lakes project], were you or any member of your household hired anyone to 
work on your livestock business? 
Chilowereni muchitukuko chaza ulimi wa ziweto womwe a Land O Lakes akulimbikitsa, inuyo kapena 
munthu wina aliyense wapa nyumba panu, adalemba munthu wina ntchito kuti athandizire pa buzinezi 
yanu woweta ziweto?[Participants Only] [ Non participant, SKIP to 104]
Yes Inde 1 Not applicable
No Ayi 0 [Skip to 102] (99)
99. How many people did you hire? 
Kodi munalembapo anthu angati
Male Abambo______________
Female Amayi______________
Not Applicable
(99)
100. How many hours did a person work for 
you in a week? 
Kodi anthu amene munawalembawo 
munthu aliyense amagwira mawola 
angati pasabata?
Hours: Mawola____________ Not Applicable
(99)
101. How many months per annum do you 
hire them? 
Kodi yinali miyezi yingati yimene 
munali ndi anthu antchito, pachaka?
Months:_________ Not Applicable
(99)
ACCESS TO ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICES: KUPEZEKA KWA CHITHANDIZO CHA ULANGIZI/UPANGIRI WA 
ZIWETO
102. Name the Land O Lakes Livestock Lead Farmer responsible for 
providing animal health service trainings in your group? 
2 | Page
Kodi mlangizi wammudzi wa ziweto, amene amadzakulangizani, ndi 
ndani?
[Interviewer, this question is strictly for participants, for comparison 
group, write N/A and SKIP to 104]
103. In the last 12 months has the Lead Farmer provided veterinary services in your community? 
Kodi mlangizi ameneyu, mu miyezi 12 yapitayi, anabwera pakhomo panu pano kudzakulangizani 
zokhudzana kasamalidwe kaziweto?
Yes Inde 1
No Ayi 0
Not applicable Palibepo 99
104. In the last 12 months, have you or any member of your household used animal health services for any of 
your animals from any animal health provider? 
Kodi mumiyezi 12 yapitayi, inuyo kapena wina aliyense wanyumba mwanu, walandirapo chithandizo 
chokhudzana ndikasamalidwe kaziweto?
Yes Inde 1 [SKIP to 
106]
No Ayi 0
105. Why did any of your livestock not receive any animal health care service? 
Kodi ziweto zanu zitadwala simunalandire chithandizo chifukwa chani? [Circle all that apply]
Cost Kudula kwa chithandizo 1
Distance Kutalikira kwa malo kumene chithandizo chimapezeka 2
Don’t trust LLFs Sindimakhulupirira a alangizi a mmudzi a ziweto 3
Don’t believe that drugs work Sindimakhulupirira kuti mankhwala omwe amaperekedwa 4
Services not available Chithandizocho sichipezeka 5
Other (specify) Zina, fotokoza 9
Not applicable (used veterinary/animal health care services) 99
106. In the last 12 months, how many of your livestock received health care treatment? 
Kodi mwaziweto zanu zonse ndizingati zomwe zinalandira chithandizo zitadwala, mumiyezi 12 yapitayi? 
[Count each chicken once; Read out the animal]
Number: 
Nambala
Not applicable (animal not 
owned/didn’t seek services)
Chickens Nkhuku 99
Goats Mbuzi 99
Cattle Ng’ombe 99
Sheep Nkhosa 99
Pigs Nkhumba 99
107. What were the sources of money used to pay for animal health services? 
Kodi ndalama zolipirira chithandizo cha ziweto zanu, mumazipeza bwanji? [circle all that apply]
VSLA Banki nkhonde 1
Sold livestock Kugulitsa ziweto 2
Household savings Ndalama zomwe timasunga pakhomo pathu pano 3
Proceeds from small business Ndalama zopezeka kuchokera kumabizinezi ang’ono ang’ono 4
Casual Labor Ganyu 5
Selling Crops 6
3 | Page
Other (specify) Zina, fotokozani 9
Not applicable Palibepo 99
108. How many times were you or any household member visited by the LLF or any animal hearth 
service provider over the last 12 months? 
Kodi mlangizi wa mudzi, waziweto, wakuyenderani kangati mumiyezi 12 yapiatayi?
No. of 
times 
Kangati:
______
109. How do you rate the overall work of the animal health service provider? 
Mungandiuze zamagwiridwe a ntchito a mlangizi wa ziweto, wamudzi mwanu muno?
Very poor Mosalongosoka kwambiri 1
Poor Mosalongosoka 2
Average Mwapakatikati 3
Very good Bwino kwambiri 4
Excellent Moposera muyezo 5
110. On a rate of 1 to 10, ten being the highest rate, how can you rate the work of LLFs in terms of prices charged; 
customer service and frequency of services?
Pa mulingo wapakati 1 ndi 10, kodi mlangizi waziweto yemwe amakuyenderani, mundamupatse mulingo 
wanji? [Participants only]
Price Mtengo wake Rate: Can’t rate (19)
Not applicable 
if non 
participants
(99)
Customer Service Wogula malonda Rate: Can’t rate (19)
Frequency of services 
Kuwirikiza kwakupereka ulangizi waziweto Rate: Can’t rate (19)
Quality of trainings offered 
Mmene amapangitsira maphunziro Rate: Can’t rate (19)
111. In the last 12 months, have any of your livestock died of any cause, not including slaughter? 
Kodi mumiyezi 12 yapitayi, ziweto zanu zafapo, ndizifukwa zina osati kuchita kupha?
Yes Inde 1
No Ayi 0 [Skip to 
114]
112. How many livestock died? 
Zafa zingati? [Write ‘0’ if that category of animal didn’t die but they own]
Male 
Zazimuna
Female 
Zazikazi
Total
Zonse 
pamodzi
Not applicable 
(don’t own)
Chickens total Nkhuku zonse
Adult Chickens Nkhuku zikuluzikulu 997
Chicks Anapiye 997
Goats total Mbuzi zonse
Goats Mbuzi zikuluzikulu 997
Kid goats Mbuzi zazing’ono zing’ono 997
Not applicable (NOTHING DIED) 99
113. What were the causes of the death? Kodi ndi zifukwa ziti zomwe ziweto zanu zinafera?
Chicken # Chickens Goats Mbuzi # Goats 
4 | Page
Nkhuku dead dead
Disease and parasite Matenda ndi tizilombo 1 1
Vehicle Kugundidwa 2 2
Malnutrition Kunyentchera 3 3
Theft Akuba 4 4
Predation Afisi kapena zilombo zina zolusa 5 5
Drought Chilala 6 6
Floods Madzi wosefukira 7 7
Other (specify) Zina, fotokozani 9 9
Don’t own species 19 19
Didn’t die (not applicable) 99 99
VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS’ CAPACITY TO PLAN, SAVE AND MITIGATE RISK : 
KUTHEKERA KWA MABANJA KUTHA KUONA TSOGOLO, KUSUNGA NDALMA NDIKUTHA 
KUBWERERANSO PAMENE PACHITIKA NGOZI ZADZIDZI
114.
Are you a member of a VSLA group supported by Land O’Lakes? 
Kodi inu ndi mmodzi mwa anthu amene ali nayo mmgulu la Banki Nkhonde, yimene a Land O Lakes 
amathandizira?
Yes Inde 1
No Ayi 0
115.
Do you belong to any other VSLA groups in the community? 
Kodi inuyo ndi membala wa Banki Nkhonde, kapena bungwe lina lili lonse?
Yes Inde 1
No Ayi 0 [SKIP to 
133]
Not applicable 99
116.
What is the name of your VSLA group? 
Dzina lagulu la banki nkhondelo, ndi chani?
[Write N/A if non applicable] 
Name:_____________________________
117.
What position do you/household member hold in this VSLA group? 
Inuyo kapena munthu wina aliyense munyumba mwanu, ali ndi udindo wanji, mugulu la banki nkhonde?
Ordinary member Membala 1
Treasure Msungi chuma 2
Chairperson Mkhala pampando 3
Secretary Mlembi 4
Money counter Wowerengera ndalama 5
Other (specify) Zina, fotokozani 9
Not applicable Palibepo 99
118.
How much savings do you have at your VSLA group? 
Muli ndi masheya angati ku banki nkhonde? [Write N/A if non applicable] MWK:__________
119.
Have you ever accessed a loan from the VSLA over the past 12 months? 
Kodi mwatengako ngongole ku banki nkhonde, mumiyezi 12 yapitayi?
5 | Page
Yes Inde 1 [SKIP to 121]
No Ayi 0
Not applicable Palibepo 99
120. If not, why? Ngati, simunatengeko ngongole kubanki nkhonde, ndi chifukwa chani?
High interest rate Kukula kwa chingola dzanja 1
Short repayment period Nthawi yobwezera ngongole ndiyayifupi 2
Inadequate funds Ndalama ndizosakwanira ku Bankiko 3
Was denied for petty reason Anandikaniza popanda zifukwa zokwanira 4
Other (specify) Zina, fotokozani 9
Not applicable 99
121.
How many times have you taken loan from the VSLA in the last 12 months? 
Mwatengapo ngongole ku banki nkhonde, kangati mu iyezi 12 yapitayi?
[Write N/A if non applicable ]
No. of times: 
_____________
122.
How much money did you borrow from the VSLA? 
Mwatengapo ngongole ku banki nkhonde, wochuluka bwanji?
[Write N/A if non applicable ]
MWK:____________
123.
How much interest is paid on the principal? 
Chiwongola dzanja chinali chochuluka bwanji? 
[Write N/A if non applicable ]
Interest (%) _________
124.
Have you finished repaying the loan? 
Kodi munamaliza kubweza ngongoleyo?
Yes Inde 1
No Ayi 0
Not applicable Palibepo 99
125.
What do you use the savings from VSLA for? 
Kodi ndalama zomwe mumalandira kuchokera ku banki nkhonde, mumazigwiritsa ntchito yanji? 
[Circle all that apply]
Goat Purchases Kugula mbuzi 1
Chicken purchases Kugula nkhuku 2
Livestock health Kupezera chithandizo chachisamaliro cha ziweto 3
Purchase of other livestock (apart from goats & chicken) 
Kugula ziweto zina kupatula mbuzi ndi nkhuku
4
Household consumers (i.e. food purchase) Kugulira zinthu zapakhomo monga zakudya 5
Business start-up Kuyambira buzinezi 6
Use it on social events (e.g funeral) Kugwiritsa ntchito zamudzi monga maliro 7
Agricultural equipment Kugulira zipangizo za ulimi 8
House construction or repair Kumangira kapena kukonzera nyumba 9
School fees Kulipira sukulu fizi 10
Seeds Kugula mbeu 11
Fertiliser Kugula feteleza 12
Other (specify)___Zina, Fotokozani___________ 99
Not applicable Palibepo 997
6 | Page
126.
What do you use the loans from VSLA for? 
Kodi ngongoleyo munatenga kuti mupangire chani? [Circle all that apply]
Invest in crop farming inputs Kugula zipangizo za ulimi 1
Goat Purchases Kugula Mbuzi 2
Chicken purchases Kugula Nkhuku 3
Livestock health Kupezera chithandizo chachisamaliro cha ziweto 4
Purchase of other livestock (apart from goats & chicken) Kugula ziweto zina kupatula mbuzi ndi nkhuku 5
Household consumers (i.e. food purchase) Kugulira zinthu zapakhomo monga zakudya 6
Business start-up Kuyambira bizinezi 8
Use it on social events (g.g funeral) Kugwiritsa ntchito zamudzi monga maliro 9
Agricultural equipment Kugulira zipangizo za ulimi 10
House construction or repair Kumangira kapena kukonzera nyumba 11
Other (specify)__Zina fotokozani____________ 99
Not applicable Palibepo 997
127.
If money used on food, what kind of food? 
Ngati ndalamayo mumagwiritsa ntchito kugula chakudya, ndi chakudya chanji? [Circle all that apply]
Maize Chimanga 1
Other cereals Mbeu zina zamugula la chimanga 2
Legumes Mbeu zamugulu la nyemba 3
Meat Nyama 4
Eggs Mazira 5
Fish Nsoma 6
Vegetables Masamba 7
Other (specify) zina, fotokoza__________________________________________ 9
Not applicable Palibepo 99
128.
If money used on business, to what extent is the business progressing? 
Ngati ndalamayo mumagwiritsa ntchito kuyambira mabizinezi, buzinezizo zikuyenda bwanji?
Running very well Zikuyenda bwino kwambiri 1
Running well Zikuyenda bwino 2
Just surviving Pang’ono pang’ono 3
Poorly performing Zikulowa pansi 4
Stuck zayima 5
Not applicable Palibepo 99
129.
What are the coping mechanisms when unexpected expenditure occurs? 
Kodi mukakhala kuti ndalama zanu zatha mwadzidzi, mumagwiritsa ntchito njira zanji, kuti mukhalenso ndi 
ndalama?
Use money saved in the VSLA. Kugwiritsa ntchito ndalama za banki nkhonde 1
Obtain loan from VSLA kutenga ngongole ku banki nkhonde 2
Sell goats Kugulitsa mbuzi 3
Sell chickens Kugulitsa nkhuku 4
Sell other livestock assets Kugulitsa ziweto zamtundu wina 5
Beg from kin, friends and well-wishers Kupempha kuchokera kwa abale, ndi ena akufuna kwabwino 6
Casual Labor Ganyu 7
Sell/Trade Crops 8
Other (specify) Zina, fotokoza 9
7 | Page
Not applicable Palibepo 99
130.
How often have you saved earnings from the businesses to VSLA? 
Kodi ndi nthawi zochuluka bwanji zomwe mwasunga ndalama zanu zomwe mwapeza kudzera ku bizinezi, ku 
Banki nkhonde? [Only applies to those who started business]
Never Sindinasungepo 1
Once or twice Kamodzi kapena kawiri 2
Several times Nthawi zambiri 3
Many times Pafupipafupi 4
Not applicable Palibepo 99
131.
How often have you saved earnings from the livestock businesses to VSLA? 
Kodi mwasungapo ndalama zochuluka bwanji kuchokera kubizinezi ya ziweto ku banki nkhonde?
Never Sindinasungepo 1
Once or twice Kamodzi kapena kawiri 2
Several times Nthawi zambiri 3
Many times Pafupipafupi 4
Not applicable Palibepo 99
132.
Who largely decides on the household on how to use dividends or loans from VSLA? 
Kodi pakhomo panu pano ndi ndani amene amakhala ndi udindo pandalama zomwe mwapeza kudzera 
kubizinezi kapena bank nkhonde?
Male Abambo 1
Female Amayi 2
Both Onse pamodzi 3
Joint household decision including children 4
133.
Do you have a bank account? 
Kodi munatsegula akaunti ku Banki?
Yes Inde 1
No Ayi 0 [SKIP to 
143]
134.
How much savings do you have with the bank? 
Panopa muli ndi ndalama zingati ku Banki MK____________ Not Applicable
(99)
135.
Have you ever obtained a loan from the bank? 
Kodi munayamba mwatengako ngongole ku Banki?
Yes Inde 1
No Ayi 2 [SKIP to 140]
136.
Over the past 12 months, how much loan have you accessed 
from the bank? 
Mumiyezi 12 yapitayi mwatengako ngongole ku banki?
MK____________ Not Applicable
(99)
8 | Page
137.
How much interest was charged for your last loan access 
from the bank? 
Kodi pangongole yomwe munatengako, yinali ndi chiwongola 
dzanja chokwana bwanji?
Interest (%)________ Not Applicable
(99)
138.
Did you obtain the loan(s) as a group or individual? 
Kodi ngongole yimene munatengayo, yinali yagulu kapena ya 
inu nokha?
Not Applicable
(99)
Individual Pandekha 1
Group Pagulu 2
Both Zonse limodzi 3
139.
How do you rate the following comparing to now and before L4R VSLA? 
Kodi mukuona kuti pali kusintha kotani pa zinthu zotsatirazi mmene mudalowa nowo mu pulojekiti ya Land 
O’Lakes [for participants only]
Much 
worse 
Zoyipiratu
Worse 
Zoyipa
Same 
Chim
odzi 
modzi
Better 
Zasinth
a 
Much Better 
Zasintha 
kwambiri
Don’t know 
Sindikudziwa
Not 
Applica
ble
(non￾particip
ants)
Accessibility to loans 
Kapezekedwe kangongole 1 2 3 4 5 99 999
Annual income earnings 
Kupeza kwa ndalama kwa 
pachaka
1 2 3 4 5 99 999
Dealing with unexpected 
shocks 
Kuthana ndi mavuto akudza 
madzidzi
1 2 3 4 5 99 999
140.
Have you ever received training in household enterprise planning and development?
Kodi munalandirako maphunziro a ukadaulo wantchito zotukula khomo lanu?
Yes Inde 1
No Ayi 0 [SKIP to 
142]
9 | Page
FOOD SECURITY: 
143. Were there any months, in the past 12 months, in which you did not have enough food to meet your 
family’s needs? This includes any kind of food from any source, such as own production, purchase or 
exchange, food aid, or borrowing. 
Kodi yilipo miyezi yina mkati mwachaka yomwe munapezeka kuti mulibe chakudya pakhomo panu pano? 
Ichitu ndi chakudya chomwe mwalima nokha, kapena mwagula, kapena, munalandira, kapena 
munabwereka?
Yes Inde 1
No Ayi 0 [SKIP 148]
144. How many months do the food stocks 
take before they run out? 
Kodi panatenga miyezi yingati 
chakudyachi chisanakuthereni?
|________________| months Miyezi Not Applicable
(99)
145. Which were the months in the past 12 months when you did not have enough food to meet your family’s 
needs? Kodi ndi miyezi yiti yomwe munakhala ndi chakudya chosakwanira pa banja panu?
[Circle all the months the household has no food]
June 2015 1 December 2015 7
Not Applicable
(99)
July 2015 2 January 2016 8
August2015 3 February 2016 9
September 2015 4 March 2016 1
0
141.
Which practices have you received training in? 
Ndizinthu ziti zomwe munalandirapo maphunziro? [Circle all that apply]
Enterprise selection Kusnankha zichitika pakhomo 1
Not Applicable
(99)
Food usage Kasungidwe kachakudya 2
Business plan development Mapangidwe a ndondomeko zoyendetsera mabizinezi 3
Other(specify)_______Zina, fotokozani 9
142.
How do you rate the performance of your VA?
Kodi mlangizi wa zabanki nkhonde mungayike pamulingo wotani, molingani ndi momwe amagwirira ntchito?
Very poor Sakhonzako 1
Not Applicable
(99)
Average Pakatikati 2
Very good Amagwira bwino 3
Excellent Amagwira bwino zedi 4
Not applicable Palibe 99
10 | Page
October 2015 5 April 2016 1
1
November 6 May 2016 1
2
146. What was the major reason for having inadequate food? Kodi kwenikweni ndizifukwa zanji zomwe 
zinakupangitsani kuti musakhale ndi chakudya chokwanira? [One option only-probe]
Drought Ng’amba 1
Not Applicable
(99)
Illness of HH member Kudwala kwa munthu mmodzi wapabanja lanu 2
Floods Madzi wosefukira 3
Irregular rains Kabweredwe kamvula koduladula 4
Crop pest and diseases Matenda a mbeu ndi tizilombo 5
Criminal acts Za ambanda 6
Livestock diseases Matenda a ziweto 7
Erosion Kukoloka kwa nthaka 8
High food prices Kukwera kwa mitengo ya zakudya 9
High cost of farm inputs Kukwera kwa mitengo yazipangizo za ulimi 1
0
Employment problems Kusowa kwa ntchito 1
1
Death Imfa 1
2
Theft Umbava 1
3
Too many guests who ate all the food 1
4
Other Zina, fotokozani 9
9
147. What coping mechanisms did you use to respond to the food shortages? [circle all that apply]
Kodi mukakhala kuti chakudya chakutherani, mumagwiritsa ntchito njira zanji kuti mupeze chakudya?
Reduced amount of food eaten at meal times 
Banja lanu lidachepetsa kaphikidwe ndi kadyedwe kachakudya ndi cholinga chakuti mukhale ndi 
chakudya chokwanira 
1 
Reduced the amount of meals eaten per day Kuchepetsa nambala yanthawi yokudya 2
Consumption of wild fruits 
Kudya zakutchire monga: zipatso, zikhawo n’cholibga choti mukahle ndi chakudya chokwanira 3 
Reduced expenditure on non-food purchases 
Kuchepetsa kagwiritsidwe kandalama zomwe timagulira katundu amene sakhudzana ndi chakudya 4 
Sold or traded any household assets to purchase food 
Banja lanu lidagulitsa katundu wa mnyumba wina, kuti mupeze ndalama zoti mugulire chakudya 
chokwanira
5 
Traded any household assets to get food Kusinthitsa katundu wina wanyumba ndi chakudya 6
Eat nsima from maize cobs Kudya nsima kuchokera kuchimanga chakuti sichinakhwime 7
Piece works ganyu 8
Crop Trading 9
Other (specify) Zina, fotokozani 19
Don’t have food shortages/Not applicable 99
148. Has the household diet been affected by any changes to production following joining Land O’Lakes’s 
Livestock for Resilience project? 
11 | Page
Kodi kadyedwe komanso zakudya zanu pakhomo lanu lino kasintha, chifukwa chakuti makololedwe anunso 
asintha chibwerereni bungwe la Land O Lakes mdera lanu lino? [participants only]
No Ayi 0
Yes Inde 1
Not applicable Palibepo [Non participants] 99
149. How has the diet changed?
Madyedwe anu asintha bwanji?
It has Improved Apita patsogolo 1
It has worsened Abwerera mbuyo 2
It has not changed Sanasinthe 3
Not applicable Palibepo [Non participants] 99
150. Looking back over the past 12 months before joining Livestock for Resilience project, how do you rate your 
ability to do the following now? 
Pobwerera mbuyo miyezi 23 yapitayi, musanalowe mu chitukuko cha ziweto chomwe akulimbikitsa a Land O 
Lakes, kuthekera kwanu kochita zinthu izi kwasintha bwanji? [Only for participants! Read out response options] 
Much 
worse 
Zoyipiratu
Worse 
Zoyipa
Same 
Chimodzi 
modzi
Better 
Zasin
tha
Much 
Better 
Zasinth
a 
kwambi
ri
Don’t 
know 
Sindiku
dziwa
NA
99
7 
A Provide enough food for 
your family? Chakudya 1 2 3 4 5 99
B Feed the children 
Kudyetsa ana 1 2 3 4 5 99
C Feed with balanced diets 
including (meat, eggs, 
dairy)? Kudya zakudya 
zamagulu 6
1 2 3 4 5 99
D Feed livestock products 
(meat, eggs, dairy) to the 
marginalised such Young 
children, elderly, 
PLHIV/AIDS?Kuwapatsa 
chakudya choyenerera 
maka zamgulu lanyama 
anthu wodwala nthawi 
yayitali komanso ana
1 2 3 4 5 99
12 | Page
Intentionally Left Blank
151. Please describe the foods (meals and snacks) the households ate or drank yesterday during the day 
and night. Start with the first food or drink of the morning. 
Tandifotokozerani zazakudya zomwe zinadyedwa pakhomo panu pano dzulo kuyamba mmawa kufikira 
madzulo, komanso zakumwa zomwe zinamwedwa. 
[Ask this question to women, Please don’t ask men! Therefore, if it’s a man write NA in the spaces provided and 
skip 154]
Breakfast 
Kadzutsa
Snack 
Zongotolatola
Lunch 
Nkhumaliro
Snack 
Zongotolatola
Supper Mgonero Snack 
Zongot
olatola
152. [When the respondent has recalled all meals, please fill in the table of food groups below. Mark “1” if any 
item belonging to the food group appears above. After finishing, probe: for any food groups not 
mentioned, ask the respondent if any food item from this food group was consumed-Also ask this 
question women only] 
Pamene woyankha wakumbukira zakudya zomwe zinadyedwa pakhomopo dzulo lake, lembani mu tebulo 
lili munsili, magulu a zakudya. Ndipo lembani 1, ngati zakudya zomwe zatsulidwa pamwambapo, zikugwa 
mugulu lina lake mu tebuloli. Mukatha apa, mfunseni amene mukucheza naye, zazakudya zina zamgulu 
ena , kuti atchule zakudyazo. Funsoli, ayankhe amayi wokha
Food GroupGulu lazakudya Food Item zakudya Response:
No-----0 
Yes----1
Grain, roots and tubers Rice, maize (nsima), sorghum, millet, potatoes, cassava, 
wheat, Irish potato, bread
Other fruits & vegetables Banana, papaya, oranges, pumpkin, squash
13 | Page
Dairy Milk (including powdered milk) butter, yoghurt, cheese
Organ meats Offals, liver, hearts, 
Eggs Eggs
Flesh foods Goat, beef, lamb, chicken,
Vitamin A rich green vegetables Chisoso, mnkhani, luni, bonongwe
vegetables & fruits Cabbage, carrots, chilli
peppers, mangos, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, watermelon
Legumes & nuts Soya beans, beans, pigeon
peas (daal) , groundnuts
(peanuts), peas, chicken peas,
bambara nuts lentils,
Fats Margarine, Cooking Oil, Blue Band, Palm oil, fats, or butter 
added for cooking
Not applicable 99
153. Could you please tell me how many days in the past week your household has eaten the following 
foods? Kodi ndi kangati musabata yathayi, pomwe banja lanu linadya zakudya zomwe 
nditatchulezi? 
[for each food, ask what the primary source of each food item eaten that week was, as well as the second 
main source of food, if any]
Food Item Mtundu wachakudya Days eaten in the past 
week ( 0-7) Nambala 
ya masiku amene 
chakudyacho 
chinadyedwa
Sources Njira yopezera chakudyacho
Purchase--------------------------------1 
Own production----------------------2 
Traded goods/services (barter)----3 
Borrowed------------------------------4 
Received as a gift---------------------5 
Food aid--------------------------------6 
Other ----------------------------------9 
Not Applicable------------------------99
Primary (yeniyeni) Secondary 
(yina)
Maize
Rice 
Bread/wheat
Cassava /Tubers 
G/nuts, legumes & pulses 
Fish eaten as main food source
Fish powder (used for flavour only)
Red meat (sheep/goat/beef)
White meat Poultry
Vegetable, oil & fats
Eggs 
Milk and dairy products (main food)
Milk in tea in small amounts
Vegetables (including leaves)
Fruits 
14 | Page
Sweet, sugar
HOUSEHOLD DECISION MAKING KUPANGA ZIGANIZO PAKHOMO
154.Generally, who controls the following household resources/services? Kodi ndi ndani amene amatsogolera 
popanga ziganizo pazinthunzi izi? [Circle all that apply]
Type of resource. Kochokera ndalama Who Controls? Amazilamula ndi ndani
Men 
Abambo
Women 
Amayi
Boys 
Mnyamata
Girls 
Mtsikana
Land Mtunda/Munda 1 1 1 1
Crop produce Mbeu 2 2 2 2
Livestock Ziweto 3 3 3 3
Household property Katundu wa mnyumba 4 4 4 4
Income Ndalama zolowa mnyumba 5 5 5 5
Credit/loan Ngongole 6 6 6 6
Information on development 
Mauthenga wokhudza nkhani ya chitukuko 7 7 7 7 
Safe motherhood services Zakulera ndi uchembere 
wabwino 8 8 8 8 
155. Who decides how to spend the household income? 
Kodi ndi ndani amene amapereka ziganizo pamomwe ndalama zomwe zapezeka mnyumba mwanu, 
zigwiritsidwire ntchito?
Husband Abambo 1
Wife Amayi 2
Children Ana 3
Both husband and wife Onse pamodzi, amayi ndi abambo 4
156. Before Land O’Lakes’ activities, who used to make decisions on what type of animal to purchase
Bungwe la Land O Lakes lisanabwere kudera kwanu kuno, m’banja lanu ndi ndani amene amapereka 
ziganizo zofuna kugula ziweto? [For participants only] [circle one only]
Chicken 
Nkhuku
Goats 
Mbuzi
Not applicable
Male Abambo 1 2
15 | Page
Female Amayi 1 2
Joint (Both) Onse pamodzi 1 2
157. Who now makes decisions on what type of animal to purchase? 
Nanga panopa, ndi ndani amene amapanga ziganizo zamtundu waziweto womwe banja lanu likufuna 
kugula?
Chicken 
Nkhuku
Goats 
Mbuzi Not 
applicabl
e 
(99)
Male Abambo 1 2
Female Amayi 1 2
Both (Both) Onse pamodzi 1 2
158. Who currently decides the slaughtering of the following in the house? 
Ndi ndani amene amapanga ziganizo zamtundu waziweto womwe banja lanu likufuna kupha? 
[Circle all that apply]
Male 
Abambo
Female 
Amayi
Child 
Mwana
Dont Know Didn’t 
slaughter
Goats Mbuzi 1 2 3 4 99
Chickens Nkhuku 1 2 3 4 99
159. Who currently decides the intra-household allocation when the following livestock are slaughtered for 
consumption? Ndi ndani amene amapanga ziganizo zakagawidwe kanyama pamene ziweto zaphedwa pa 
banja lanu?
Male 
Abambo
Female 
Amayi
Child 
Mwana
Dont 
Know
Goats Mbuzi 1 2 3 4
Chickens Nkhuku 1 2 3 4
160. How has livestock farming impacted on your livelihood since joining the L4R project? Kodi ulimi waziweto 
wakusinthani bwanji, moyo wanu watsiku ndi tsiku, maka chilowereni mu pulojekiti ya Land O Lakes [not 
applicable to non-beneficiaries]
Increased 
income 
Zachuma 
chapakhomo 
chakwera
Improved food and 
nutrition 
Chakudya and 
thanzi zakwera
Improved soil 
fertility Chonde 
m’nthaka 
chabwerera
Don’t 
know 
Sindikud
ziwa
Other 
(specify)
Goats Mbuzi 1 2 3 99
Chicken Chicken 1 2 3 99
Eggs Mazira 1 2 3 99
161. What is the most important livestock species for your household well-being and livelihood? 
Kodi ndi ziweto zanji zomwe zili zofunikira pamoyo wanu watsiku ndi tsiku? [CHOOSE ONLY ONE]
Chicken Nkhuku 1
Goat Mbuzi 2
Cattle Ng’ombe 3
Other, Specify _________ 9
16 | Page
162.Please provide number of livestock that were born over the last 12 months. Tandiuzani ziweto zimene 
zidabadwa ndi kufa minyezi 12 yapitayi.
Livestock type No. of ____(Livestock) Births in last 12 months
Male Female
Goats
Chicken (total number)
Cattle
Pig
Rabbit
Other(specify) 
3. If there were births in the last 12 months, please provide the manner in which your livestock 
reproduce. 
Ngati panabadwa ana a ziweto, mundiuze njira imene adabadwira.
 Naturally bred 
(leave it to nature)
Purposeful breeding 
(deliberate effort to get 
livestock bred)
Not 
applicable
(99)
Goats 99
Chicken 99
Cattle 99
Pig 99
Rabbit 99
The end – thank you!!!!! Zikomo Kwambiri
[Recording finishing time]:Hours___________ Min_________________
INTERVIEWER: I hereby certify that this interview was conducted in accordance with instructions received 
during training. All responses recorded here are those of the respondent who was chosen by the appropriate 
selection method.
INTERVIEWER SIGNATURE:____________________________
17 | Page
Tool 2: FGDs with Participants 
Name:
District Name EPA Name
VILLAGE VDC Name
Facilitator Note Taker
Date Time Start Time 
End
Participants 
Name 
Sex Age Marital status Position held in 
the producer 
group
18 | Page
Instructions: As participants arrive, thank them for coming, welcome them, and engage in a friendly conversation. 
During the discussion, listen carefully to each response, and try to have a “natural” conversation with the group rather 
than following the guide line by line. Try to ensure that all participants feel comfortable in the group setting, and that 
everyone is given the chance to speak.
Introduction [When the group is complete]
Introduce yourself and the note‐taker 
Zizindikiritseni nokha kwa anthu amene abwera kuti mucheze nawo. 
Perekani zifukwa zachomwe msonkhanowo watanilitsidwa. Auzeni anthu kuti iwowo ali pazokambiranazo chifukwa 
ndi amodzi a anthu amene anali nawo mugulu la Pulojekiti ya Land O Lakes. Auzeninso kuti muzokambiranazo 
mukambirana zamapindu ndi zokhumwidwitsa zomwe iwo anakumana nazo mmene pulojekiti yinali kuyenda.
Zokambirana zanu zisapitilire, ola limodzi
Explain reasons for convening the discussion. “You are all participating in a project led by Land O’Lakes, called the 
Malawi Livestock for Resilience Project. We are here to discuss the benefits and challenges of participating in the 
project, so that Land O’Lakes can improve the project in the future”. The discussion should take about 1 hour. 
Ask participants to introduce themselves: Afunseni anthu amene abwera, adzitchule mayina awo
Agree on the norms and confidentiality of the discussion: Gwirizanani zandondomeko yamomwe zokambirana 
zitayendere. Zololedwa komanso zosaloledwa kuti zichitike pamsonkhanowo
• Session is in the form of a discussion, where everyone shares their own ideas and opinions o One person 
speaks at a time
• Feel free to speak openly, there are no right or wrong answers
• When responding to questions, leave enough time for other group members to share their thoughts 
• All members of the group should treat one another with respect, no matter if you agree with their opinion or 
not 
• All information shared in the discussion is confidential, and no one should share any information they hear 
today with anyone outside the group. 
• Please turn off or silence your cell phones during the discussion 
• Affirm (with a show of hands) that all participants are there voluntarily and know that they can withdraw from 
the group if they want to. 
• [IF TAPE RECORDING] Affirm (with show of hands) that participants agree to have the session recorded. 
Assure participants that the recording, and any notes taken from it will be confidential and only used to verify 
the notes. 
19 | Page
Participation in Producer Groups: Kukhala mmodzi mwa alimi omwe anali mugulu la pulojekiti
1. Why did you decide to join a Goat or Chicken producer groups? Kodi chinakupangitsani ndi chani kuti 
mukhala mmodzi mwa alimi omwe amaweta mbuzi kapena nkhuku, mupulojekitiyi
*if respondents are mixed, ask them to explain why they picked a goat over chicken group, or vice versa. 
2. What reason(s) do you keep Goats or Chickens? Kodi ndi chifukwa chani mumasunga mbuzi kapena nkhuku
3. Are there other producer groups available in your community? Kodi mdera lanu lino mulinso magulu ena 
amene amasunga mbuzi kapena nkhuku, kupatuka awo amene anayambitsidwa and kukhazikitsidwa ndi a 
Land O Lakes
Training Za maphunziro
4. What did you learn about improved goat/chicken husbandry from Land O’Lakes or your LLF?Kodi 
munaphunzira maphunziro anji kuchokera ku Land O Lakes kapena kwa Mlangizi wamudzi wa zaziweto 
(Lidi Fama)
5. Which topics were most useful to you? Kodi mumaphunziro anu munaphunzira zinthu ziti? Which were most 
difficult to learn? Pazimene munaphunzirazo, phunziro lobvuta kuphunzira linali lanji? How could Land 
O’Lakes/Livestock lead farmers improve the way they provide training in the future? Kodi a Land O Lakes 
kapena a Langizi a zaziweto a kumudzi (Lidi Fama) akuyenera kusintha zinthu ziti mtsogolo muno kuti inu 
mudzathandizike bwino pa ulimi wanu waziweto
Animal Housing Zamakolo a ziweto
1. Did you construct a raised (improved) animal housing structure for your goats and chickens after joining the 
project? Kodi munamanga khola lamwamba pamene munakhala mmodzi wa alimi womwe anali mugulu la 
pulojekiti? Ngati ndi ayi, perekani zifukwa Why or why not? 
2. What challenges have you faced in using a raised kraal for your goats or chickens? Kodi mwakumana ndi 
zovuta zotani pamene munayamba kugwiritsa khola lamwamba
3. What changes have you seen since you started raising your animals in raised Kraals? Kodi mwaona 
kusintha kotani chiyambireni kugwiritsa ntchito khola lamwamba la ziweto izi
a. Chickens Nkhuku
b. Goats Mbuzi
 Feeding techniques Kadyetsedwe ka ziweto
1. What type of feeding techniques for Goats and Chickens did you learn during training? Kodi 
munaphunzirako ndondomeko zotani zakadyetsedwe ka ziweto
2. Before Land O’Lakes, what feeding techniques for goats and chicken were you using? Pulojekiti kapena a 
Land O Lakes, asanabwere, munkadyetsa bwanji ziweto zanu
3. What feeding techniques for goats and chickens are you currently practicing? Why and why not? Panopa 
mukudyetsa bwanji ziweto zanu, nanga ndi zifukwa zanji mukutsatila ndondomeko yakadyetsedwe kaziweto 
kameneko?
Chick Care Kasamalira Anapiye
1. How do you take care of your chicks? Kodi anapiye anu mumawasamalira bwanji? Have you changed this 
20 | Page
since joining L4R? Kodi kapena mwasintha masamilidwe a anapiye cholowereni mugulu la anthu a 
mupulojekiti ya Land O lakes ? Kodi mwasintha chifukwa chani, nanga ngati simunasinthe, ndi chifukwa 
chani simunasinthe? Why or why did you not change your management of chicks? 
2. What changes have you seen in the chicks, if you adopted new techniques? Mwaona kusintha kotani 
chiyambireni kusamalira anapiye anu munjira zamakono zomwe munaphunzitsidwa
3.
Animal health Za zaumoyo wa ziweto
1. What services are provided by your LLF in your area? Kodi alangizi a ziweto a mudzi mwanu uno (Lidi Fama 
wa ziweto) amakupatsani upangiri wotani, ndipo pazinthu ziti?
2. Do you utilize animal health services through your LLF? Why or why not? What services do you utilize? 
Kodi mumagwiritsa ntchito ulangizi kapena upangiri womwe amakupatsani mlangizi waziweto? Ngati 
simugwiritsa ntchito, ndi chifukwa chani, simutero
3. Have the services been satisfactory from your opinion? Why or why not? Kodi ulangizi ndi upangiri 
wochokera kwa mlangizi waziweto wamudzi, wakhala wokwanira kapena woperewera, mmene mukuonera 
inu?
4. What challenges do you face in accessing animal health services from the trained LLF? Kodi mumakumana 
ndi mavuto otani kuti mupeze upangiri kapena ulangizi kuchokera kwa mlangizi waziweto wamdera lanu?
5. What changes have you seen on your animals since you started treating your animals under the project? 
Kodi mwaonapo kusintha kotani paulimi wanu waziweto chiyambireni kusamalira ziweto zanu munjira 
zomwe mumaphunzira kudzera mupulojekiti?
6. Have you been affected by mortality of kids and chicks over the past 12 months? What were the causes of 
the death? Kodi anapiye anu kapena tiana tambuzi zanu zafako, mu miyezi 12 yapitayi, ngati zafako, zifukwa 
zake ndi zotani
7. Has increased livestock caring activities changed time spent on doing other tasks such as child care, food 
preparation and household chores, farming, income generating activities? Kodi kusintha kwanu kwa mmene 
mumasamalira ziweto, kwapangitsa kuti nthawi yomwe mumakhala nayo pakusamalira ana, kukonza 
chakudya chanu, ulimi, komanso ntchito zina zokubweretserani ndalama pakhomo?
Record Keeping Masungidwe a Marekodi
1. Do you keep livestock records on: Kodi mumasunga marekodi pa izi:
a. on animal births and deaths? Why or Why not? Masiku akubadwa, ndi pamene ziweto zafa, ngati 
simumasunga, ndi chifukwa chani
b. animal health and sales of livestock? Why or why not? Umoyo waziweto, komanso mmene 
mwagulitsira ziweto, ngati simumasunga, ndi chifukwa chani
c. livestock products? Why or why not? Zinthu zina zochokera kuziweto monga mkaka ndi zina, ngati 
simumasunga, ndi chifukwa chani
Livestock Marketing Zamisika ya ziweto
1. Have you sold any goats or chickens in the past 12 months? Kodi mwagulitsako mbuzi komanso nkhuku 
mu iyezi 12 yapitayi
2. How have you marketed your Chickens and Goats this year? Kodi munagulitsa ziwetozanuzo munjira 
yotani?
21 | Page
3. For what reasons did you sell a goat, chicken or eggs? Kodi munagulitsa mbuzi, kapena nkhuku kapena 
mazira, chifukwa chani?
4. When do you sell your livestock? Munagulitsa ziweto zanu kuti?
5. Who in the household normally makes the decision on when to sell goats or chickens in the house? Has 
this changed as a result of joining L4R? Kodi ndi ndani amene amatsogola popanga ziganizo zamomwe 
mugwiritsire ndalama zomwe mwazipeza mutagulitsa, ziweto? Kodi mchitidwe umene wasintha chifukwa 
chakubwera kwa pulojekiti ya Land O lakes
Financial Services Kupeza upangiri komanso mfundo zokhutsa zazandalama
1. What household enterprise development topics have you been trained on? Kodi ndi zinthu zanji zomwe 
mwaphunzirapo zokuthandizirani pachitukuko chpakhomo panu?
2. Have you changed any of your financial practices after the training? Which ones? Why or why not? Kodi 
njira zanu zamomwe mumayendetsera zazachuma zanu kwasintha pamene munapita kumaphunziro 
azachuma? ngati simunasinthe, ndi chifukwa chani
3. Are you involved in a VSLA in your community? Why or why not? Kodi inu ndi mmodzi mwa iwo amene ali 
mugulu la Banki Nkhnde/ Ngati ayi, ndi chifukwa chani?
4. What do you use the money saved in the VSLA for? Kodi ndalama zomwe mwasunga kudzera ku Banki 
Nkhnde mumazigwiritsa ntchito yanji?
5. How does your household decide how to use the money saved in the VSLA? Kodi banja lanu limapanga 
bwanji ziganizo zamomowe mutagwiritsire ndalama zomwe mwapeza kuchokera ku Banki Nkhonde?
6. What do you use loans from the VLSA for? Mukatenga ngongole ku Banki Nkhonde, ndalamazo, 
mumagwiritsa ntchito pachani, kapena mumazitanI?
6. Has anyone started a business using funds from the VSLA? What type of business? Why did you select the 
business you did? How is the business doing? Kodi alipo amene pabanja panu anayamba bizinezi pogwiritsa 
ntchito ndalama zochokera ku banki nkhonde, bizinezi yanji, nanga anasankhilanji bizinezi yimeneyi, 
nangano bizineziyo yikuyenda bwanji?
7. How has participation in the VSLA changed your household spending practices? Kodi kukhala mmodzi mwa 
anthu amene ali mu banki Nkhonde, kwasintha bwanji momwe mumagwiritsira ndalama pakhomo panu
Livestock product consumption: kudya nyama ndizinthu zina zochokera ku ziweto
1. Have you consumed any of your livestock or their products in the last year? If yes, what? When and how 
often? Kodi mwadyako nyama, kapena zakudya zina zili zonse zochokera kunyama monga mkaka, 
muchaka chathachi/ Ngati ndi inde, ndi zakudya zanji? Linali liti, komanso mwadya pafupipafupi bwanji?
2. How do you decide when to slaughter livestock for consumption? When do you typically consume your 
livestock? Kodi mumapnaga bwanji ziganizo zofuna kupha ziweto zanu kutimudye pakhomo lanu? Kodi 
makamaka mumakonda kupha ziweto zakuti mudye pakhomo panu liti, mchaka?
3. Who decides/decided when to consume your livestock? Kodi ndi ndani amene amapanga chiganizo chakuti 
uphe ziweto pakhomo panu
4. Since joining L4R, has your chicken egg production increased? Chikhalireni mmodzi mwa alimi apulojekiti, 
kodi kayikiridwe kamazira kankhuku zanu kakwera?
5. If yes, what do you do with these eggs? Ngati ndi inde, mazira mumapanga nawo chani?
22 | Page
Resilience Kudzipirira kungozi zakudza mwadzidzi
1. This year has been a poor rainy season and the harvest may suffer. What methods do you use to respond 
to poor harvests? Chaka chimenechi mvula yinali yosadalika (siyinabwere bwino), ndipo zikuonetsa kuti 
zokolola zikhala zochepa/ Kodi zikachitika chonchi mumagwiritsa ntchito njira zanji kuti mupeze chakudya 
chapakhomo panu?
2. What does your household do when food is scarce? Pakhomo panu mumatani chakudya chikachepa How 
has this changed since joining L4R? Kodi zimene zasintha chifukwa chapulojekiti ya Land O Lakes
3. Since joining L4R, do you feel your household is more able to survive during the hunger season? Why? 
Kodi chikhalireni mmodzi wa alimi a mupulojekiti, mukuona kuti banja lanu likumakhala ndikuthekera 
kosavuta pofuna kupeza chakudya chapakhomo?
4. How does keeping livestock affect money spent on health care? Kodi kusunga ziweto kumakhudzana bwanji 
ndi ndalama zomwe mumagwiritsa ntchito pazaumoyo wa anthu apakhomo panu?
5. How has involvement with L4R affected your role in the community? Kodi kukhala mmodzi wa alimi a 
mupulojekiti, zakhudza bwanji kutengako mbali kwanu pazinthu zochitika mmudzi mwanu?
6. What are the main things that income from livestock activities enabled you to purchase? (Probe any changes 
in food purchase) – specify type of food Kodi mwagula katundu kapena zinthu zanji, ndi ndalama zomwe 
mwakhala mukupeza kuchokera kukugulitsa ziweto?
7. How has participating in L4R affected your ability to do the following as compared to before: Kodi kukhala 
mmodzi wa alimi a mupilojekiti, kwathandizira bwanji pa zinthu izi:
a. Expand livestock herd? Kuonjezera ziweto zomwe munali nazo
b. Meet own food needs for staple foods? Kapezedwe kanu ka chakudya chapakhomo panu
8. Are there any long term benefits for joining L4R? What are they? Kodi pali mapindu anji apulojekitiyi omwe 
ndi akuti adzaoneka mpaka mtsogolo? Mapindu amenewa ndi ati?
Sustainability Kukhalitsa kwa Chitukuko
9. What improved livestock practices will you continue to use after the project? Why? What improved practices 
will you not continue? Why not? Kodi ndi ukadaulo wanji womwe mwaphunzira ndipo mudzapitiliza 
kugwiritsa ntchito ngakhale pulojekiti yitatha? Mudzapitiriza chifukwa chani? Nanga ndi ziti zimene 
simudzapitiriza, nanga ndi chifukwa chani simudzapitiriza?
10. Do you think you will continue to use the services of the Lead Livestock farmer in your area? Kodi mukuona 
kuti mudzapitilizabe kulandira ndikupeza ulangizi kuchokera kwa alangizi aziweto (Lidi fama) wa mdera 
lanu?
11. Do you think the VSLAs likely to continue functioning? Why or why not? Kodi mukuona kuti Banki Nkhonde 
yitha kupitirirabe kugwira ntchito? Ngati singapitirire, ndi chifukwa chanji, singatero?
12. Do you think you will remain a member of your producer group? Why or why not? Kodi inu mudzapitirira 
kukhalabe membala wa Pulodusa gulupu?
13. What purpose do you see your producer group serving your community? Kodi mukuona kuti Pulodusa 
gulupu yimathandiza bwanji dera lanu?
Livestock Distributions Kagawidwe ka ziweto
23 | Page
1. What do you think about the system that L4R used to determine which households received livestock? 
Munganenepo chani zanjira zomwe a Pulojekiti amatsatira pogawa ziweto, maka pakasankhidwe ka iwo
amene akuti alandire ziweto?
Remaining questions– only ASK for those that received livestock Mafunso a anthu womwe analandira ziweto
2. What do you think about the voucher system of livestock distribution the project used? Kodi munganenepo 
chani pa njira ya ma Vocha, yomwe yimagwiritsidwa ntchito pogawa ziweto?
3. How do you plan to use the livestock you received? Kodi ziweto zomwe munalandira muzigwiritsa ntchito 
yanji?
4. How has receiving livestock changed your household’s wellbeing? Kodi kulandira ziweto kwasintha bwanji 
umoyo wanu watsiku ndi tsiku?
24 | Page
Tool 3: Key Informant Interview: Government Staff
Name:
Position:
1. What has been your role in the implementation of Malawi L4R project? 
2. What did you like about L4R activities and approach? 
3. What aspects of activities and approach do you think could have been improved?
4. To your knowledge, are there objectives and activities of the project which have been very relevant in meeting 
participants’ needs? If so why? 
5. Are there objectives/activities of the project which have been inappropriate in addressing needs? If so why? 
6. Were there any challenges faced during your engagement with L4R project staff? How were you able to 
address these challenges? 
7. Please describe any best practices/lessons learned during the implementation of the project? 
8. What improvements should be incorporated in future project design to make it more responsive to 
chicken/goat producers?
9. From your understanding, what impact did the program activities have on the specific program participants?
10. What L4R activities helped households become more resilient to shocks? 
11. Were there any expected or unexpected negative consequences or impacts resulting from the program and/or 
its activities? If yes how were they remedied?
12. If you participated in direct implementation, were resources from the project provided timely?
13. What parts of the project activities or benefits do you expect will be sustained by the beneficiaries after the 
project? What mechanisms have been put in place to ensure sustainability of program activities and results?
14. What parts of the project activities or benefits do you expect the beneficiaries to struggle to sustain after the 
project? 
15. What more could the program have done to ensure sustainability of the project activities and benefits?
16. Do you have any ideas on how the government can continue some of the activities/benefits after the project 
duration? What & How?
17. From your experience and as compared to other projects, did the L4R approach to gender equality and gender 
equity ensure balanced involvement of women and men in all program activities?
25 | Page
Tool 4: for Key Informant Interviews with LLFs
Name:
Position:
District Name EPA Name
VILLAGE VDC Name
Facilitator Note Taker
Date Time Start Time 
End
Choice as LLFs
1. Why were you selected to service your community as Livestock Lead Farmer? Kodi inuyo anakusankhani kuti 
mukhale mlangi waziweto mdera lanu lin, chifukwa chani?
2. How do you feel to be a Livestock Lead Farmer? Kodi mumamva bwanji, pamene inuyo muli mlangizi waziweto 
wadera lanu?
3. Generally, how has your work impacted you and other farmers in livestock production and marketing since you 
started this work? What have been positive impacts? What have been negative impacts? Kodi kukhala mlangizi 
waziweto kwakukhudzani bwani pakhomo panu, komanso kwakhudza bwanji masamalidwe a ziweto mdera 
lanu komanso magulitsidwe aziweto? Kodi ndizabwino zanji zomwe zachitika, komanso zoyipa zanji?
TrainingsZa maphunziro
4. What did you learn about improved goat/chicken husbandry from Land O’Lakes? Kodi munaphunzirapo zotani 
zokhudzana ndi kasamalidwe kabwino ka mbuzi komanso nkhuku kuchokera kwa a Land O Lakes
5. Which topics were most useful to you? Which topics were more difficult to you? Kodi ndi mfundo ziti 
mumaphunziro amene a Land O Lakes anapangitsa, zomwe zinali zofunikira, nanga ndi ziti zomwe zinali 
zovuta kuzimva?
6. How can you describe the quality of these training from Land O Lakes Trainers? Kodi munganenepo chani 
zamaphunziro womwe a Land O Lakes akhala akupangitsa
a. Content Tsatanetsatane wake
b. Presentations Maphunzitsidwe ake
c. Materials Ziphunzitsidwazo mamvekedwe ake
7. Are there any topics you would have liked to receive more information or that should have been included in 
your training? Kodi pali zina zamfundo zomwe munaphunzira zomwe mungafune mutapatsidwa zina zosamitsa 
26 | Page
mfundo zimene, kapena ndi mfundo zina ziti zomwe mukanakonda mutaphunzitsidwa?
8. How could Land O’Lakes improve the way they provide training in the future? Kodi a Land O lakes, akuyenera 
kusintha chani pamomwe amaperekera kapena kupangira maphunziro awo?
9. When training farmers, what topics were the most beneficial to farmers? Why? Which topics were difficult to 
train farmers in? Why? How could Land O’Lakes have supported you differently in covering these topics? Kodi 
pakuphunzitsa alimi, ndi mfundo ziti zomwe zinali zofunikira? Kodi ndi mfundo ziti zomwe zinali zovuta 
kuphunzitsa, Nanga ndi chifukwa chani? Kodi a Land O Lakes, akanakuthandizani bwanji, pamene mfundo 
zammaphunzirowa zimaphunzitsidwa?
10. What challenges do you face when delivering trainings to project beneficiaries? Kodi mumakumana ndi mavuto 
otani pamene mumapangitsa maphunziro a alimi womwe anali amodzi iwo amene anali mugulu la alimi a 
pulojekiti?
11. How do you overcome the challenges? Do you get enough support from Land O’Lakes? What type of support 
would you have liked to receive? Kodi mavuto amene mumakumana nawowa mumathana nawo bwanji? Kodi 
mumalandira chithandizo chokwanira kuchokera ku oland O Lakes? Nanga mumalandira chithandizo chotani?
12. What positive things have happened in your community following the delivery of the training topics to them? 
Kodi mdera lanu lino mwachita zinthu zabwino zotani kudzera kumaphunziro komanso mfundo zamaphunziro 
amene mwakhala mukupangitsa?
Animal health Umoyo wa ziweto
13. Who are your customers? LFP group members or other people from within the community you serve? Kodi ndi 
anthu ati amene amalandira chithandizo ndi upangiri kuchokera kwa inu. 
14. Why do people access your services? Have people stopped accessing your services? Why do you think this 
is? Kodi mukuona kuti anthu amabwera kwa inu kudzalandira chithandizo kapena upangiri chifukwa chani? 
Kodi panopa anthu anasiya kubwera kudzalandira upangiri kapena chithandizo kwa inu? Ngati zili choncho, 
mukuona kuti anthu asiya chifukwa chani/
15. How much in Malawi Kwacha are you charging for the following services? How were these prices set? Do you 
think these prices need to change? Why or why not? Kodi anthu mumawalipilitsa ndalama zingati akabwera 
kudzalandira chithandizo/ Kodi miteno yimeneyi munatsata ndondomeko yanji, poyikhazikitsa? Kodi nanga, 
mukuona kuti pangakhale pofunikira kuyisintha? Ngati sipofunikira kusintha, chifukwa chani?
a. Vaccinating a chicken Mteongo wapereka katemera wankhuku
b. Deworming a Chicken Mtengo wopereka mankhwala a njoka zam’mimba kunkhuku
c. Deworming a Goat Mtengo wopereka mankhwala a njoka zam’mimba ku mbuzi
d. Castrating a Goat Mtengo wothenera mbuzi
e. Dipping a Goat Mtengo wosambitsa mbuzi
f. Other Mitengo yina, fotokozani
16. What are the most common services people are looking for? Why do you think this is? Kodi ndi ukadaulo wanji 
womwe anthu amaufuna pafupipafupi kuchokera kwa inu, nanga, mukuganiza ndi chifukwa chani, zili chonchi?
17. What challenges do you face in your animal health services business? Kodi mwakumana ndi mavuto wotani 
pa bizinezi yanu wopereka ukadaulo komanso upangira pakasungidwe kaziweto kwa anthu?
18. What benefits have you seen since you started this business? Kodi mwapeza mapindu anji, kuchokera ke 
bizinezi yimeneyi?
27 | Page
19. What future plans do you have for your business? Kodi muli ndi malingaliro otani amtsogolo muno wokhudza 
bizinezi yanu?
20. Do fellow livestock producers adequately articulate demand for animal health services Kodi anzanu ena amene 
alinayo mugulu la alimi aziweto, amatha kulongosola bwinobwino zachithandizo chomwe akufuna paulimi 
wawo waziweto/
Financial Services
21. Are you participating in VSLA activities? If yes why or if not, why not? Kodi inu ndi mmodzi mwa anthu amene 
ali mu banki Nkhonde? Ngati inde, chifukwa chani, ngati ayi, ndi chifukwa chani?
22. Does the VSLA services connected to animal health business? If so how Kodi za banki nkhonde 
zimakhudzanako ndi bizinezi yopereka upangiri kapena ukadaulo pakuweta kwa ziweto?
23. How have you linked with the VA in providing your LLF services, if at all? Kodi mumalumikiza bwanji zaulangizi 
wa za banki nkhonde ndi ulangizi wa zaziweto?
Sustainability 
24. Are you going to continue to be LLF after this project in offering training and animal health services? If yes, 
how and why? If no, why? Kodi pamene pulojekiti yikutha, inu mupitiliza kukhala mlangizi wa zulimi wa ziweto 
wamdera lanu? Ngati mutapitilize, ndichifukwa chani? Nanga ngati simupitiliza, ndi chifukwa chani?
25. Where will you get your inputs (drugs, vaccines, supplies)? What challenges do you expect to face in acquiring 
inputs? How will you overcome this?
Kodi zinthu ngati mankhwala a ziweto muzizipeza bwanji? Kodi mukuona ngati muzikumana ndi mavuto anji 
womwe muzikumana nawo mtsogolo muno ? Kodi mukuona kuti mutha kumathana nawo bwanji mavuto 
amenewa?
28 | Page
Tool 5: Key Informant Interview with key Project Staff 
Name:
Position:
Appropriateness of the project 
1. What has been your role in the implementation of Malawi L4R project? Kodi udindo wanu wakhala wotani 
mupulojekiti ya Land O Lakes?
2. Which stakeholders did you work with and what was their level of engagement? Kodi magwira ntchito ndi 
magulu ati a anthu mupulojekiti yimeneyi? Nanga maguluwo amagwira ntchito yanji?
3. Are there objectives and activities of the project which have been very relevant in meeting participants 
needs? If so why? Kodi ndi magawo ati a pulojekiti womwe akhudza kwambiri zosowa za anthu omwe anali 
alimi a mupulojekiti?
4. Are there objectives/activities of the project which have been inappropriate in addressing needs? If so why? 
Kodi pali magawo ena a mupulojekiti omwe sanali wofunikira kweni kweni, ngati ndi choncho, ndi chifukwa 
chani?
5. Were there any challenges faced during the implementation of the project? How were you able to address 
these challenges? Kodi panali zovuta zanji zomwe munakumana nazo pamene pulojekitiyi 
yimayendetsedwa? Kodi nanga mavuto amenewa muanthana nawo bwanji?
6. Please describe any best practices/lessons learned during the implementation of the project? Perekani 
maphunziro amene mwatengapo kapena kutorako kuchokera kupulojekitiyi
Please probe based on the following issues; Kambani nawo anthu pa mfundo izi. Wonetsetsani kuti 
mwakhazikika komanso mwatsndika kwambiri pamfundo zimenezi
• Program approach (i.e. livestock procurement, vouchers, producer groups, livestock lead 
farmers, VSLs) Mobilizing the participants? Mayendetsedwe a pulojekiti mokhudzana ndi: 
kagulidwe kaziweto, zamavocha, zamagulu a limi, alangizi a ziweto, za banki nkhonde, 
kosonkhanitsa anthu pamodzi.
• Attendance of participants? Kupezeka kwa anthu 
• Participants understanding the information? Kumvetsetsa kwa anthu mumaphunziro
• Participants adopting the techniques? Anthu kuyamba kugwiritsa ntchito zimene aphunzira
• Encouraging community participation? Kulimbikitsa anthu kutengapo mbali
• Encouraging government participation? Kulimbikitsa boma kutengapo mbali
• Linking participants to markets/inputs? Kulumikizitsa alimi kumisika
7. Any suggestions on how the project could have been designed better? Mungaperekeko mfundo zotani 
zomwe zikanathandizira kuti pulojekiti yichitike munjira yina yabwino kuposera mmene yachitikira panopa?
Effectiveness 
29 | Page
8. How have the intended target participants (i.e. livestock households, VSLA group members, community 
livestock workers, etc.) participated in program activities? How was the participation like among different 
vulnerable groups? Kodi mukuona kwanu mukuona kuti anthu amene amaayenera kufikiridwa (alimi a 
ziweto, anthu a Banki Nkhonde, alangizi akumudzi a zaziweto), anafikiridwa? Kodi nanga anthu amene ali 
pachiwopsyezo chamoyo, anafikiridwa bwanji ndi pulojekitiyi?
9. What have been the challenges and successes for both goats and poultry? Kodi ndi mavuto komanso 
zopambana zanji zomwe zinalipo pa ulimi wa mbuzi komanso nkhuku?
10. In your opinion, what has been more effective at increasing herd size: Mumaganizo anu, mukuona njira 
yomwe yachulutsa ziweto ndi iti:
• Livestock transfer of goats or chickens. Kuperekedwa kwa ziweto, mbuzi komanso nkhuku
• or improved animal health and decreased mortality through improved animal husbandry practices 
Kupezeka kwa upangiri ndi ulangizi wa ziweto, komanso kuchepa kwa kufa kwa ziweto.
• and access to animal health services? Kupezeka kwa ulangizi
11. What L4R activities helped households become more resilient to shocks? Why do you think these were the 
most beneficial? Kodi ndi zochitika ziti za mupulojekitiyi zomwe mukuona ngati zathandizira kuti anthu 
akhale ndikuthekera kothana ndi mavuto akudza mwadzidzi? Kodi mukuganiza kuti zimenezi zinali 
zofunikira chifukwa chani?
12. Are there any internal factors (selection criteria, participation of women, location/province) that influenced 
the ability of the program to meet the projected targets and outcomes? Kodi panali zinthu zina zamkati kati 
mwapulojekityi (kasankhidwe ka alimi, kutengapo mbali kwa azimayi, malo womwe pulojekitiyi yimachitikira) 
zomwe zinathandizira kuti zolinga zapulojekitiyi zikwaniritsidwe mosavuta?
13. Are there any external factors (selection criteria, participation of women, location/province) that influenced 
the ability of the program to meet the projected targets and outcomes? Kodi panali zinthu zina zakunja kwa 
pulojekityi (kasankhidwe ka alimi, kutengapo mbali kwa azimayi, malo womwe pulojekitiyi yimachitikira) 
zomwe zinathandizira kuti zolinga zapulojekitiyi zikwaniritsidwe mosavuta?
14.
15. Were there any expected or unexpected negative consequences or impacts resulting from the program 
and/or its activities? If yes how were they remedied?Kodi pali zinthu zina zomwe zinali zoyipa zomwe 
zinachitika kamba ka pulojekitiyi? Ngati ndi inde, munathana nazo bwanji zinthuzi?
16. What improvements could have been made to the program’s design or implementation that would have 
improved the results Kodi ndi zinthu ziti zimene zikanathandizira kuti pulojekitiyi yikhale yopambana 
kwambiri?
Efficiency
17. Were the resources and activities provided by the L4R program distributed or carried out in a timely manner? 
What were some of the challenges and how did Land O’Lakes overcome these issues? What are some 
examples of program success? Kodi kattundu ndi zipangizo zomwe amapereka a Land O lakes, 
simaperekedwa munthawi yake? Kodi panali mavuto otani mkatikati mwapulojekitiyi, nanga a land O Lakes 
amathana nawo bwanji?
18. Which components were most critical and/or effective in achieving program objectives and intermediate 
results? What aspects of the program were particularly ineffective? WhKodi ndi zigawo ziti za pulojekitiyi 
zomwe zinali zofunikira kwambiri kukukwaniritsidwa kwa zolinga za pulojekitiyi zamsanga msanga? Kodi 
30 | Page
nanga ndi zigawo ziti za pulojekitiyi zomwe sizinachitke bwino kweni kweni, nanga ndi chifukwa chani?
19. Please describe any challenges you (or your team) has faced in the management of the project? How have 
you addressed these challenges? Kodi inuyo kapena gulu lanu linakumana ndi mavuto anji pamene 
mumayendetsa pulojekitiyi? Nanga zimenezi mumathana nazo motani?
20. Please describe any practices/lessons learned in project management in implementing the project? Kodi ndi 
maphunziro anji womwe mwapeza pamene mumayendetsa pulojekitiyi?
Sustainability 
21. What parts of the project activities or benefits do you expect will be sustained by the beneficiaries after the 
project? What mechanisms have been put in place to ensure sustainability of program activities and results? 
Kodi ndi magawo ati a pulojekitiyi womwe mukuona atha kupitirira.
22. Are participants likely to continue using improved animal husbandry and business techniques? i.e. Kodi 
mmene mukuoneramo, mukuona kuti alimi amene akhala ali mu pulojekitiyi apitiliza kugwiritsa nzeru ndi 
upangiri pakasamilidwe kaziweto, umene aupeza kuchokera mu pulojekitiyi?
• Are participants likely to continue to keep livestock as a resilience mechanism?; Kodi alimi 
apitiliza kusunga ziweto ngati njira yimodzi wothana ndi mavuto akudza mwadzidzi?
• Are LLFs likely to continue to provide animal health services? Kodi mukuona kuti alangizi 
akumudzi aziweto, apitiliza kupereka ulangizi kwa anthu?
• Are VSLAs likely to continue functioning? Kodi ma Banki Nkhonde apitilira kugwirabe ntchito?
23. What parts of the project activities or benefits do you expect the beneficiaries (farmers, LLFs, VAs) to 
struggle to sustain after the project? Kodi ndi zigawo ziti za pulojekiti zimene anthu atavutikane nazo 
kuzipitiliza, pamene pulojekitiyi kutha?
24. What are the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the sustainability of the 
program and/or its activities? Kodi ndi zinthu ziti zimene zingapangitse kupitilira kwazimene zimachitika 
mupulojekiyi, kupitilira kapena kusapitilira?
25. What more could the program have done to ensure sustainability of the project activities and benefits? Kodi 
pulojekitiyi yimayenera kupanga zinthu ziti, kuti kupitilira kwa zimene zimachitidwazo kusayime?
Gender issues
26. How did the project address the constraints faced by women in the livestock value chain? What did the 
program do well, what could the program have done better? Kodi mavuto a azimayi mupulojekitiyi, 
amathetsedwa bwanji? Kodi ndizinthu ziti zomwe pulojekiti yinachita bwino, nanga ndi ziti zimene pulojekiti 
siyinachite bwino
27. Did the L4R approach to gender equality and gender equity ensure balanced involvement of women and 
men in all program activities? Kodi mmene zimachitikira pakuonetsetsa kuti pasakhale kusiyana pakati pa 
azimayi ndi azibambo, mupulojekitiyi, zinathandiza kuti zimenezi zikwaniritsidwe?
31 | Page
Tool 6: Key Informant Interviews with Village Agent
Name:
Position:
District Name EPA Name
VILLAGE VDC Name
Facilitator Note Taker
Date Time Start Time 
End
Choice as VA
1. Why were you selected to service your community as Village Agent? Kodi inuyo munasankhidwa bwanji kuti 
mukhale Malngizi wa za mabanki Nkhonde
2. How do you feel to be a Village Agent? Kodi mumamva bwanji kukhala mlangizi wa banki Nkhonde
3. Generally, how have your work impacted on you and other farmers in livestock enterprise or livelihood 
development Kodi mmene muoneramo ntchito yanu yaulangizi wa zaBanki nkhonde, wakhudza bwanji umoyo 
wa anthu kudera lanu lino?
Trainings Za maphunziro
4. What did you learn about savings and business from Land O’Lakes? Kodi munaphunzira zotani zokhudza za 
kusunga ndalma ndi mabizinezi
5. Which topics were most useful to you? Which topics were more difficult to you? Kodi mumaphunziromo ndi 
mfundo ziti zomwe zinali zofunika kwambiri kwa inu, komanso ndimfundo ziti zinali zovuta kuzimvetsa
6. How can you describe the quality of these training from Land O Lakes Trainers? Kodi munganenepo zotani
a. Content Tsatatanetsatane wake
b. Presentations Maphunzitsidwe ake
c. Materials zamkati mwamaphunzirowo
7. How could Land O’Lakes improve the way they provide training in the future? Kodi a Land O Lakes 
akuyeneraka kusintha zinthu ziti kuti maphunziro awo adzikkhala wothandiza?
8. What topics did you cover with your farmers since learning from Land O Lakes? Kodi mwaphunzitsa ziti ziti 
alimi womwe inuyo mumawafikira?
9. Which topics were more difficult for you to teach? Kodi ndi mbali yiti kapena mfundo ziti mumaphunzirowo 
32 | Page
zomwe zinali zovuta kuphunzitsa?
10. What challenges do you face when delivering trainings to project beneficiaries? Kodi mamukumana ndi 
mavuto otani pamene mukuphunzitsa?
11. How do you overcome the challenges? Do you get enough support from Land O’Lakes? Kodi mavuto amene 
mumakumana nawowa, mumathana nawo bwanji? Kodi mumalandira chithandizo chokwanira kuchokera ke 
Land O Lakes
12. Did group members ask for training in additional topics? What were these? Were you able to support their 
request? Where did you get the information to support the training? Kodi magulu a alimi amene mumagwira 
nawo ntchito, amapemphako maphunziro apadera, pambali pazimene mumawaphunzitsazo? Nanga zimene 
ankapemphazo ndi ziti? Nanga inuyo mumatha kuwathandiza? Nanga mfundo zowathandizira mumazipeza 
bwanji?
13. Have you resolved any challenges? Give examples of how resolved challenges. Kodi mavuto onse munathana 
nawo? Perekani zitsanzo
14. What positive things have happened in your community following the delivery of the training topic to them? 
Kodi ndi zinthu ziti zabwino zomwe zachitika mmudzi mwanu muno chifukwa chakuti inuoy mwapereka 
upangiri ndi maphunziro
Financial services
15. How are VSLA services helping communities? Kodi ma banki nkhonde akuthanizira bwanji mdera lanu lino?
16. How can you explain the demand for VSLA services in your area? Are fellow colleagues able to articulate 
demand than before the project? Kodi mungafotokoze bwanji zamapempho womwe mumalandira wokhudza 
za ma banki nkhonde mdera lanu lino? Kodi anzanu kapena alimi womwe inuyo mumawayendera, amatha 
kufotokoza bwino bwino za zomwe akufuna kuposa panthawi yomwe pulojekitiyi kunalibe?
17. How has participation in the VSLA changed your fellow farmers? Kodi umoyo wamamembala agulu la banki 
nkhonde wasintha bwanji? What do VSLA members normally use loans from the VLSA for? Kodi anthu 
akatenga ngongole kuchokera ku banki nkhonde, ndalamazo amagwiritsira ntchito yanji?
18. What do VSLA members normally use end of year savings for? Kodi nanga ndalma zomwe anthu amagawana 
pakutha kwacha za banki nkhonde, amazigwiritsa ntchito yanji?
19. Have you ever come across people who have used money saved or borrowed in the VSLA on: Kodi inuyo 
mwaonapo kapena kumva kuti anthu agwiritsa ntchito ndalama za banki nkhonde mu njira izi:
a. Livestock purchases? Kugula ziweto
b. Livestock health? Kugula mankhwala a ziweto
c. Crop inputs? Kugula katundu wa ulimi monga feteleza
d. School fees? Kulipira sukulu
e. Food? Kugula chakudya
f. What kind of food? Chakudya chanji?
20. What role does the VSLA savings/loan serve in a household’s coping strategy? What would a household do 
if they did not have access to loans through the VSLA? Kodi mabanki nkhonde amathandizira bwanji, pankhani 
yakupirira kumavuto akugwa mwadzidzi pabanja? Kodi pakanakhala kuti kulibe ma banki nkhonde, bwenzi 
mabanja akugwiritsa ntchito njira zanji kuti athandizike pamavuto akugwa mwadzidzi?
33 | Page
21. Why do you think VSLA largely comprise women? Who decides expenditure of the income? Kodi ndi chifukwa 
chani mamembala ambiri amabanki nkhonde amakhala azimayi? Kodi ndi ndani amene amapereka ziganizo 
zamomwe ndalama zopezeka pakhomo, zigwiritsidwire ntchito?
22. Has the decision on how to spend money shifted or become balanced as a result of the project. 
Kodi ndondomeko yopereka ziganizo zamomwe ndalama zopezeka pakhomo, zigwiritsidwire ntchito, zasintha 
bwanji, ciyambireni chitukuko cha ziweto?
34 | Page
ANNEX 6: TERMS OF REFERNCE
Malawi Livestock for Resilience Final Evaluation
Requests for Proposals
Executive Summary
This document contains the Request for Proposals (RFP) for conducting a final evaluation of Land O’Lakes’ Livestock 
for Resilience (L4R) project currently implemented in Dowa and Ntchisi Districts of Malawi, funded by the Office of 
Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) Of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Land 
O’Lakes is issuing this RFP to solicit applications from potential evaluation teams to conduct the final evaluation. This 
document includes background information on the OFDA-funded L4R program, the desired methodology, including 
objectives and illustrative questions, the timeframe for conducting the final evaluation and a list of the deliverables. 
This document also contains information about the type of expertise that Land O’Lakes seeks for this activity and 
guidance on how to submit a proposal to conduct the final evaluation. All proposals are due to Land O’Lakes by 
Monday, March 28, 2016 at 5pm local time. Questions about the RFP are due by Friday, March 18th, 2016 at 5pm 
local time. 
Background
In July 2014, Land O’Lakes was awarded a 23-month project called Malawi Livestock for Resilience (L4R) with funding 
from the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) under the United States Agency for International Development 
(USAID). The goal of the project is to build the resilience of disaster-prone communities in Central Malawi to withstand 
climatic and economic shocks. The project works in 10 wards in Dowa and Ntchisi Districts where farmers rely mainly 
on rain-fed crops, including maize and tobacco, to earn cash and to feed their families.
L4R uses a community-focused approach to work with a target of 6,000 vulnerable households (reaching 30,000 people 
in total) to promote the expansion and maintenance of small livestock assets to facilitate a shift toward more diversified 
livelihoods and increase the capacity of vulnerable households to adapt to shocks. Specifically, the project has four 
components:
Expand Livestock Asset Base: L4R is distributing locally available goats and chickens to a target of 2,000 households 
(500 to receive goats and 1,500 to receive chickens). As of the end of December 2015, the project had distributed 
goats to 418 households and chickens to 190 households.
Increase Capacity to Maintain Livestock Asset Base: L4R is facilitating the formation and capacity building of 
producer groups. The members of these groups are trained in livestock husbandry, improved breeding, marketing 
techniques, and group formation and management. The trainings are provided through the training of trainers approach 
where 150 producers, or Livestock Lead Farmers (LLFs) were selected for training from the project and those producers 
in turn trained the other members of their producer group. As of December 2015, the project had formed 300 producers 
groups, trained 150 LLFs, who in turn trained 7,277 producer group members. .
Improve Capacity and Access to Animal Health Services: L4R is equipping and training the same 150 LLFs in 
animal health preventative health, disease diagnosis and treatment, and is linking them to private sector input and 
public animal health service providers. The LLFs provide animal health services to members of their producer groups 
and the immediate community. As of the end of December 2015, 150 LLFs have been trained, with 138 currently 
providing services. The CLWs have provided animal health services to 11,202 both producer group and non-producer 
group households.
Improve Capacity of Households to Plan, Save, and Mitigate Risk: L4R, through 150 trained village agents, is 
35 | Page
training three members from each targeted household in household economics, risk mitigation and planning, and 
business practices. The project is also providing capacity building to households to establish village savings and loans. 
As of December 2015, 2,673 individuals had received household enterprise training.
Objectives of the Evaluation
The final evaluation will assess the appropriateness of the program approach, effectiveness of the implementation in 
achieving the expected results, and sustainability of the program activities and outcomes. Specifically, the final 
evaluation will meet the following objectives:
• Assess the appropriateness of the strategies employed by Land O’Lakes in the program given the Malawian 
context; 
• Assess the degree to which the project has met its projected goals, objectives, outcomes and targets and 
explain deviations using an evidence based approach; (see Appendix 2 for a list of the key indicators) 
• Provide an objective description of the overall effectiveness and sustainability of the program and its various 
activities; 
• Identify key strengths and weaknesses of the program 
• Identify key lessons learned and recommendations which should be adopted by Land O’Lakes for similar 
resilience programs in Malawi or elsewhere in Africa 
Desired Methodology
The final evaluation methodology and data collection tools will be similar to that of the baseline and midterm review, 
so that the end of program evaluation data and results may be compared with baseline and midterm data and results. 
The final evaluation should use both quantitative and qualitative methods, including but not limited to: a household 
survey and focus group discussions with program participants, and key informant interviews with CLWs, VAs, L4R 
staff, key leaders, government officials, and other relevant stakeholders. The household survey sample should be 
selected randomly from the project participants and the sample size should ensure a representative sample with a 
95% significance level with a 5% confidence interval. The sample frame is currently 7,277 goat and chicken producer 
households, of which 840 have received chickens and 674have received goats, as of March 7, 2016. 
Note that the baseline data was collected from the general population, before the participants were selected. In order 
to compare the populations effectively, the contractor should utilize a regression analysis to account for differences 
in key attributes of the samples.
The consultant will propose the methodology according to the above criteria and finalize it in consultation with Land 
O’Lakes.
Scope of Work
The contractor will be expected to take the lead in the methodology design, data collection, analysis and interpretation 
of the evaluation with consultation and input from Land O’Lakes project staff. The selected contractor will implement 
the following activities:
• Review of Documents: Undertake review of the L4R project documents and other relevant documents 
including, but not limited to, the following: 
• Project agreement with USAID/OFDA 
• The L4R Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (PMEP) 
• Baseline report & data collection tools 
• Mid-term report & data collection tools 
• Quarterly Reports submitted by Land O’Lakes to USAID/OFDA; 
• Any other program documents which will enable the final evaluation team to get acquainted with the 
36 | Page
program 
• Relevant Government of Malawi reports and documents for background information and establishing the 
socio-economic and political context in which the L4R took place. 
Refinement of methodology and data collection tools: Based on the methodology and data collection tools from 
the baseline, mid-term, as well as the current monitoring tools, the contractor, in close collaboration with the Land 
O’Lakes, will do the following: 
• Develop a methodology for the final evaluation, including a sampling frame, sampling technique and sample 
sizes for both quantitative and qualitative surveys.
• Revise the tools and create any new tools necessary to answer the evaluation questions. 
• Based upon a reading of the program documents, propose any additional topics or issues for analysis in the 
final evaluation. 
• Submit implementation report and data collection tools to Land O’Lakes for review and incorporate feedback 
in final version. 
Field Data Collection 
• Plan and coordinate the necessary logistics to collect the data in accordance with the selected methodology. 
• Pre-test, edit, translate (if needed), finalize and reproduce the survey instruments. o Recruit, train and orient 
field interviewers and enumerators.
• Carry out the fieldwork using own transportation, including household survey, focus group discussion with 
farmers, and key informant interviews with key project participants: CLW/Lead Farmers, Village Agents, 
Government Officials, Local Leaders, Land O’Lakes program staff, etc. 
Data entry, analysis and reporting 
• Enter, clean, synthesize, analyze, and interpret data from both the quantitative surveys and the qualitative 
studies using approved statistical packages.
• Prepare and submit data set(s) with relevant documentation to Land O’Lakes
• Prepare a draft final evaluation report addressing the objectives and questions of the final evaluation 
outlined in this RFP and recommendations on the L4R project for potential similar future project for review 
by Land O’Lakes staff and stakeholders. 
• Develop a Power Point presentation of evaluation findings, present and submit to Land O’Lakes and 
stakeholders. 
• Based on the feedback from project participants, stakeholders, Land O’Lakes program staff and technical 
advisory staff based in the USA, prepare a final evaluation report that includes any revisions required to 
meet the comments and suggestions provided during the feedback process
37 | Page