MADAGASCAR 
LIVESTOCK EXPANSION AND STABILITY (LIVES) PROGRAM 
FINAL EVALUATION 
FINAL REPORT 
 September 2017
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
i 
CONTENTS 
1 CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
1.1 Description of program LIVES ................................................................................................................ 9
1.2 Context of the intervention zone .......................................................................................................... 10
1.2.1 Beahitse ........................................................................................................................................... 10
1.2.2 Maroarivo Ankazomanga ................................................................................................................. 11
1.2.3 West Ankazomanga ......................................................................................................................... 11
2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 12
2.1 Goal of the evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Evaluation criteria ................................................................................................................................ 12
2.3 Methodology and data collection tools ................................................................................................. 13
2.3.1 Qualitative part................................................................................................................................. 13
2.3.2 Quantitative part .............................................................................................................................. 16
2.3.3 Success-stories ............................................................................................................................... 18
2.3.4 Data control ..................................................................................................................................... 18
2.4 Data analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 19
2.5 Limits of the methodology .................................................................................................................... 19
3 SOCIO – DEMOGRAPHICS DATA .............................................................................................................. 20
3.1 Demographic profile of households ...................................................................................................... 20
3.1.1 Households structures ..................................................................................................................... 20
3.1.2 Marital statuses ................................................................................................................................ 21
3.1.3 Head of household educations’ level ............................................................................................... 22
3.2 Socio-economic characteristic of households ...................................................................................... 23
3.2.1 Economic activities .......................................................................................................................... 23
3.2.2 Agriculture........................................................................................................................................ 25
3.2.3 Animal husbandry ............................................................................................................................ 26
4 PERFORMANCE OF THE LIVES PROGRAM ............................................................................................. 28
4.1 Relevance ............................................................................................................................................ 28
4.1.1 Program adequacy to needs of beneficiaries ................................................................................... 28
4.1.2 Alignment of the Program to the development issues to the intervention zone ............................... 30
4.1.3 Conclusion on the relevance ........................................................................................................... 30
4.2 Efficiency and impact ........................................................................................................................... 31
4.2.1 Achievement level of outputs ........................................................................................................... 31
4.2.2 Main results ..................................................................................................................................... 33
4.2.3 Appreciation of the actors ................................................................................................................ 41
4.2.4 Factors having influenced the effectiveness of the Program ........................................................... 43
4.2.5 Outcomes ........................................................................................................................................ 43
4.2.6 Changes at the community level ...................................................................................................... 62
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
ii 
4.2.7 Conclusion on effectiveness and impact.......................................................................................... 63
4.3 Sustainability ........................................................................................................................................ 64
4.3.1 Capacities of structures ................................................................................................................... 64
4.3.2 Local appropriation .......................................................................................................................... 67
4.3.3 Factors that may affect the sustainability of the Program ................................................................ 67
4.3.4 Conclusion on durability ................................................................................................................... 67
4.4 Gender ................................................................................................................................................. 68
4.4.1 Evolution of the gender issue .......................................................................................................... 69
4.4.2 Stakeholder assessment of gender mainstreaming ......................................................................... 72
4.4.3 Gender conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 72
5 LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................................................................................... 73
5.1 Program design .................................................................................................................................... 74
5.2 Implementation of the program ............................................................................................................ 76
6 FINAL SITUATION OF PROGRAM LIVES INDICATORS ............................................................................ 77
7 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................. 81
8 SUCCESS STORIES .................................................................................................................................... 83
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
iii 
ACRONYMS AND ABREVIATIONS 
ACE : Agent Communautaire d’Elevage
ACF : Action Contre la Faim
ACSA : Agent Communautaire de Santé Animale 
CIREL : Circonscription de l’Elevage
CDM : Chef de Ménage
CLW : Community-based Livestock Worker 
DRAE : Direction Régionale de l’Agriculture et de l’Elevage 
FCSA : Fonds Communautaires de Santé Animale
FGD : Focus Group Discussion
FHH : Female Head of Household 
HDDS : Household Dietary Diversity Score
HHS : Household Hunger Scale
INSTAT : Institut National de la Statistique
LIVES : Livestock Expansion and Stability Project 
LLF : Lead Local Farmer
LOL : Land O’Lakes
MHH : Male Head of Household
OFDA : Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance 
PSAEP : Programme sectoriel, agriculture, élevage et pêche
SCA : Score de Consommation Alimentaire
SDA : Score de Diversité Alimentaire
USAID : United States Agency for International Development 
WPC : Water Point Committee
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
iv 
LIST OF APPENDIX 
Appendix 1 : Request for Proposals (RFP) ............................................................................................................ 87
Appendix 2 : Household questionnaire .................................................................................................................. 95
Appendix 3 : Interview and FDG .......................................................................................................................... 109
Appendix 4 : Workshop presentations ................................................................................................................. 131
LIST OF TABLE 
Table 1 : Standards notation of evaluation criteria ................................................................................................ 13
Table 2 : Key informants category ......................................................................................................................... 15
Table 3 : List of fokontany of focus group location done per fokontany ................................................................. 15
Table 4 : List of investigated Fokontany ................................................................................................................ 16
Table 5 : Households repartition, average size according to head of household gender ...................................... 20
Table 6 : Repartition of the sample according to the size of household and according to head of household gender
 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 21
Table 7 : Education level of the head of household ............................................................................................... 22
Table 8 : Rainfall progress from 2014 to 2017 in districts intervention of LIVES ................................................... 28
Table 9 : Achievement level of outputs .................................................................................................................. 31
Table 10 : Livestock progress during the last twelve months ................................................................................ 38
Table 11 : Progress of the size of livestock before and after the program ............................................................. 39
Table 12 : Level of realization of the outcomes ..................................................................................................... 44
Table 13 : Provenance of different kinds of food given to the small ruminants ...................................................... 49
Table 14 : Changes observed by households in livestock management ............................................................... 50
Table 15 : Comparison of the duration of the lean period 2014/2015 and 2016/2017 ........................................... 56
Table 16 : Basic food of household by period ........................................................................................................ 56
Table 17 : Frequency of meals taken by period ..................................................................................................... 57
Table 18 : Decision-making mechanism according to strategies adopted by households ..................................... 58
Table 19 : Proportion of the animals’ sale of at the beginning and end of the lean season ................................... 59
Table 20 : Food consumption score by gender of head of household ................................................................... 59
Table 21 : Level of quality and quantity of food consumed .................................................................................... 60
Table 22 : Household responsibility for livestock management ............................................................................. 69
Table 23 : Taking responsibility on Livestock ........................................................................................................ 69
Table 24 : Evolution of the gender issue in decision-making related to livestock .................................................. 71
Table 25 : Reasons for Domestic Violence ............................................................................................................ 71
Table 26 : Reasons for domestic violence according to Women ........................................................................... 72
LIST OF FIGURE 
Figure 1 : Sample repartition per commune .......................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2 : Age pyramid .......................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3 : Marital statuses of the head of household ............................................................................................. 22
Figure 4 : Reading ability of the head of household .............................................................................................. 23
Figure 5 : Household repartition according to the main activity ............................................................................. 24
Figure 6 : Households repartition according to the main activity and according to the head of household ........... 24
Figure 7 : Households repartition according to the secondary activity ................................................................... 25
Figure 8 : Appreciation of the agriculture production on 2017 ............................................................................... 25
Figure 9 : Main issues linked with agriculture ........................................................................................................ 26
Figure 10 : Ownership rate of farm animal according to the head of household ................................................... 26
Figure 11 : The average size of livestock per species and according to the head of household ........................... 27
Figure 12 : Average size of livestock per species and according to the commune ............................................... 27
Figure 13 : Opinions of beneficiaries on the relevance of the Program LIVES ...................................................... 29
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
v 
Figure 14 : Adoption rate of the planning of pasture management ........................................................................ 34
Figure 15 : Adoption rate for food storage for animals .......................................................................................... 34
Figure 16 : Adoption rate of the use of agricultural sub products .......................................................................... 35
Figure 17 : Adoption rate of the planning for the watering of animals.................................................................... 35
Figure 18 : Adoption rate of the local construction of animal husbandry ............................................................... 36
Figure 19 : Adoption rate of the improvement of food of the animals .................................................................... 36
Figure 20 : Adoption rate of the deworming and/or vaccination ............................................................................ 37
Figure 21 : Adoption score of the package of the technic for goats ....................................................................... 37
Figure 22 : Adoption score of the package of the technic for sheep ...................................................................... 38
Figure 23 : Adoption score of the package of the technic for Chicken ................................................................... 38
Figure 24 : Main causes of the decrease of livestock ............................................................................................ 39
Figure 25 : Proportion of households using the services of CLW .......................................................................... 40
Figure 26 : Appreciation of the CLW services at the goat’s farmers ...................................................................... 40
Figure 27 : Appreciation of the CLW services at the sheep’s farmers ................................................................... 41
Figure 28 : Appreciation of the CLW services at the chicken’s farmers ................................................................. 41
Figure 29 : Appreciation of the effectiveness of the program by beneficiaries ...................................................... 42
Figure 30 : Types of assistance on animal husbandry received ............................................................................ 42
Figure 31 : Support organism per type of assistance on animal husbandry .......................................................... 43
Figure 32 : Change brought by the program according to the beneficiaries’ perception ....................................... 45
Figure 33 : Acquisition of the new competencies .................................................................................................. 46
Figure 34 : Proportion of households built local for animals .................................................................................. 47
Figure 35 : Proportion of food types for chicken .................................................................................................... 48
Figure 36 : Provenance of food given to chicken ................................................................................................... 48
Figure 37 : Proportion by type of food given to small ruminants ............................................................................ 49
Figure 38 : Observed change in the practice of agriculture ................................................................................... 50
Figure 39 : Comparison of animal market value during baseline and final evaluation ........................................... 51
Figure 40 : Projection of animal market value progress during lean period with the baseline ............................... 51
Figure 41 : Reasons for the sale of animals .......................................................................................................... 52
Figure 42 : Percentage change in HHS indicators by gender of head of household ............................................. 53
Figure 43 : Percentage of changes in households that did not have food due to lack of resources during the last 30 
days ....................................................................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 44 : Percentage of changes in households where a member could not eat at night during the last 30 days
 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 45 : Percentage of changes in households where a member could not eat during the day and night during 
the last 30 days ..................................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 46 : Comparison of the rainfall during the season of culture (mm) ............................................................. 54
Figure 47 : Comparison of the number the month covered by production 2014/2015 and 2016/2017 .................. 55
Figure 48 : Proportion of household food supply ................................................................................................... 55
Figure 49 : Proportion of households by household dietary diversity scores ......................................................... 57
Figure 50 : Strategies adopted by households ...................................................................................................... 58
Figure 51 : Comparison of strategies adopted by households 2014/2015 and 2016/2017 .................................... 58
Figure 52 : Types of water source for domestic use .............................................................................................. 60
Figure 53 : Duration of supply by type of water source ......................................................................................... 61
Figure 54 : Responsible for water supply .............................................................................................................. 61
Figure 55 : Proportion of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries who used the services of CLW .............................. 62
Figure 56 : Evolution of disease-related mortality rates by type of animal ............................................................. 62
Figure 57 : Appreciation by beneficiaries of durability ........................................................................................... 64
Figure 58 : Appreciation of women’ situation ......................................................................................................... 68
Figure 59 : Women's decision-making in the step of farm management ............................................................... 70
Figure 60 : Program constraints identified by beneficiaries ................................................................................... 73
Figure 61 : Program strengths identified by beneficiaries ...................................................................................... 74
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
6 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
LIVES program (or Madagascar Livestock and Stability) is a project which has been implemented by Land O’Lakes 
since September 2015, funded by Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) of the U.S. Agency 
for International Development (USAID). The project supports household within the communes in the southern part 
of Madagascar, including Ankazomanga, Maroarivo and Beahitse, to strengthen their animal husbandry assets to 
increase the resilience in the communities and households and their capacity to resist shock and stresses. The 
project is structured around three components:(i) the practice of improved animal husbandry based on capacity 
reinforcement of producer groups, (ii) Extended livestock of animal husbandry that consist of the animal supply for 
producer groups (and to the improved health, incorporated in components I and iii), and (iii) Improved access to 
the health service for animal. thanks to the community agents’ implementation of animal husbandry, it can respond 
to the producer needs in terms of animal health proximity service. The project particularly implements animal health 
agents at the level of each fokontany where the project build capacity f of the beneficiaries on the subject of animal 
husbandry, distribute small ruminant and chicken, and rehabilitate water points for animals. The project ends in 
2017 and this final evaluation measures the project’s performance and draws lessons that can be useful for the 
future. 
The target area of LIVES comprises of three communes of Ankazomanga, Maroarivo and Beahitse, located in the 
southern part of Madagascar, within the South West Region. It includes semi – arid climate area characterized by 
water scarcity. The area is exposed to many recurring natural hazards, such as dryness, cyclones and locust 
invasion. Those risks, with agro climatic characteristics less favorable for agriculture, condition the life style and the 
livelihood strategies of households. People live mainly on rainy subsistence agriculture associated with extensive 
animal husbandry. The population is prone to the chronic food insecurity because of the less favorable production. 
The evaluation methodology was based on qualitative and quantitative analysis of several criteria to evaluate the 
global performance of the project. The data collection combined several tools, including a survey with 338 
household beneficiaries, interviews with the key informants, focus group discussion, and finally document review, 
particularly project reports and monitoring and evaluation documents, including the baseline study and the mid￾term evaluation. The evaluation methodology was mainly limited by the difference of the period in which the 
collection too place compared to the baseline study. Given this constraint, these results must be interpreted with 
care. 
Relevance 
LIVES goal is to strengthen households’ resiliency to the shocks and stresses and chose to focus on the strategy 
of improving animal husbandry. Given that animal husbandry plays a key role on strategies of the population to 
cope with food insecurity and to others type of shocks, obviously, the project meets the priority needs of the 
population. This view is confirmed by all stakeholders, including the administration, traditional local authorities, 
projects and programs intervene on Ampanihy and Betioky districts, as well as by beneficiaries themselves. 
The project aligns as well to the development issues in the intervention zone. In fact, the fight against food insecurity 
is among the government's priorities. Furthermore, the development of small ruminant breeding is also becoming 
an important issue for many production regions of Madagascar, particularly the South. Considering these 
considerations, it seems that the project is relevant. 
Effectiveness 
Most of targets of different indicators were reached, in many cases largely surpassed. In relation with intermediate 
outcome that relates to the improved husbandry practices, the project was able to train 2, 206 households among 
the 2, 000 planned, giving an execution rate of 110%. These trainings covered many topics, such as pasture 
management, feeding, housing, watering, and health care. The results of the survey indicate that the adoption and 
effective enforcement of these techniques vary according to the considered topic. The improvements around animal 
health are the most widely adopted by beneficiaries while those around feeding are less adopted. The highest 
adoption rate concern chicken farming. These results are explained in large part by the food shortage context, 
where the households have only low margins on feeding, but higher on animal health. 
Project activities also included rehabilitating seven water points which reached 994 households compared to the 1, 
000 planned, or 99% of desired results. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
7 
Concerning the intermediate result related to the livestock growth, the project could distribute 8, 918 animals, in 
which 1, 568 small ruminants and 7, 350 chicken within 1, 960 households. The goal was to distribute 9, 000 
animals to the 2,000 households, and we can consider that targets were nearly reached. This translated into a rise 
of livestock within 57% of households comparing to the situation before the project. These results were obtained 
despite of rainfall conditions deterioration that pushes households to sell their animal to survive. 
The third intermediate result concerns improving access to animal health services. The project strategy is based 
on the training and equipping for CLWs. At the end of the project, 49 CLWs were trained and equipped against 49 
planned, representing 1 for each fokontany. Those CLW provided services to 3, 047 households. 
The project has faced problems, especially on animals’ distribution due to suppliers’ interruptions. The population’s 
education level was also a constraint, as the desired level of education for CLWs’ selection had to be scaled down. 
That constraint has impacted on information passaging between CLWs and veterinarians. Finally, the input 
distribution is made difficult because of the enclave. 
Despite this, the project could bring appropriate solutions to overcome the constraint, by adopting its strategy 
depending on context and by establishing partnerships with other actors. Actors’ appreciation in comparison with 
the project effectiveness is entirely positive. Viewing different elements that was developed before, LIVES program 
has proved very effective. 
Impacts 
Besides beneficiaries’ assessment and palpable effects of the improved access to water on life conditions of women 
in some villages, the impact of the project on the living standard of people, on food security, on the vulnerability of 
households, are not yet fully felt by the beneficiaries. The delays for chicken distribution, the adaptation period of 
small ruminants makes that slows the process of giving birth, the harmful consequences of drought during of the 
two last years on the population resilience are all factors that contributes to the delay of impacts. It was reported 
during the interview with key informants that almost all farmers are still consuming animals that died from an 
unknown cause, even though sensitization and trainings about handling of these animals was carried out. Moreover, 
these factors were accentuated by the short duration of the project which did not permit to bring the necessary 
adjustments already recommended by the mid – term evaluation. 
However, the changes already visible should be noted at the level of communities and the project intervention areas 
in general and particularly the beneficiary farmers. Those changes are attributed to the project assets. This 
increased the positive appreciation of beneficiaries and the immediate effects already seen on the animal 
husbandry behavior and on the livestock. For example, some farmers that we met with during the evaluation 
confirmed mortality rate reduction of small ruminants, especially goats. The effects of the project, by considering 
these risks and hypothesis will probably be felt after three to four cycles for small ruminants, or after about two 
years. 
In view of this information, the mission evaluates the impact of the project as important. 
Sustainability 
The sustainability of the actions undertaken by the project is closely related to the level of perception of impacts by 
beneficiaries and the community; an action has the chance to be sustainable when beneficiaries feel the importance 
of these effects. From that definition, the sustainability can be evaluated based on those following analyzed 
indicators from interviews: 
1. Beneficiaries will continue to apply suggestions and instructions of CLWs and LLFs outside the project; 
2. Farmers recognize the usefulness of FCSA in the operation of the supply system of immunization and 
wormer. In many organizations, members agree to oversee those who have difficulty to contribute to be 
able to regularly order within veterinary; 
3. The willingness of actors (project, community, authority…) to maintain the system in place (for example: 
networking of ACEs) is a sustainability index of the proximity counselling work. 
The water point rehabilitation impacts on the society functioning in general were very palpable. Otherwise, the risks 
that could compromise this sustainability exist and deserve to be considered: the influence of the social aspect into 
the groups (FCSA, WCP…), the climate change effects… 
In summary, given the impact of the project still less perceptible, the probability of sustainability of actions is 
average. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
8 
Gender 
In a global way, important changes have been observed about the place of women in society. If women didn’t have 
the right to public speaking previously, currently due to different work meetings as part of the FSCA, women have 
the possibility to express freely. The same applies to the project choice to integrate women on different structures 
put in place by the project, which seems pertinent to the extent that it allows women to: 
 gain required knowledge to develop animal husbandry; 
 mobilize women (even the non- beneficiaries) to apply innovative technical practices promoted by the 
project; 
 Allow women to manage independently from men (men that are sometimes linked with traditions) 
generating activities adapted to their own needs and to the needs of their family. 
In view of this information, the project brought an important impact on the improvement of gender equity within the 
society, a change that is seen by beneficiaries as firm acquisitions. 
Lesson learned and recommendations 
Several factors have affected the project performance, negatively or positively. The most important are agro climatic 
conditions characterized by extended drought since 2015, which leads the South into critical food situation that can 
mitigate or dilute the project effects and may have influenced behaviors of the population. Another crucial factor 
is the education level of beneficiaries that limits the success of the project. Effectively, the difficulty of less educated 
beneficiaries to assume fully key roles such as CLWs was one of the limitations of the project and can threaten its 
sustainability. 
According to beneficiaries’ opinions in general, the critical constraint of the program is the duration of 
implementation period, considered as too short and the technology sharing with 22% of proportion of responses 
and 20% respectively. In fact, for the improvement of animal husbandry technology for the category of person in 
which the level of education is relatively weak and households face high intensity of stress and shock linked with 
food insecurity. A long duration is needed to get more results. 
The main recommendations are as follows: 
 Focus support and distribution of animals on small ruminants, which are better able to meet the objectives 
of the program 
 Strengthen input distribution channels and set up cold chains 
 On the technical side, adapt training content to local constraints. Animal health aspects are very relevant 
and need to be pursued. The aspects concerning the improvement of animal feed must be adapted to not 
constitute an additional constraint for households, given the scarcity of food and agricultural by-products 
 Networking and strengthening animal health workers, including CLWs, ACSAs and ACEs 
 Incorporate other complementary activities in small ruminant livestock production, such as forage shrubs 
and support to agriculture 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
9 
1 CONTEXT 
Madagascar is a country regularly confronted with wide variety of catastrophes. Whatever part of the year, it is not 
rare that at least one Malagasy region is confronted by a natural disaster. The National Strategy for Disaster 
Management (SNGRC) identified four major natural hazards to which the country is confronted: cyclones and 
tropical storms, floods, drought, and locust invasions. 
The drought is a recurrent risk that touches particularly the South of the country. The South, the poorest area of 
Madagascar, suffers food insecurity, which affect between 1/3 and 2/3 of the local population from time to time. 
The deep south suffers also from high temperatures (20 – 25°C), low precipitation and severe wind. This has been 
intensified in the last years, aggravating the difficulty about harvest. The warm and arid climate prevents crop 
diversification, and water resources and forestry appear among the most degraded in Madagascar. The drought is 
often the origin of famine, the most recent has started in 2014 and endures until now. The impact of these natural 
disasters on human dimension is important, causing death, population movement, and chronic malnutrition 
especially for kids, and decapitalization of the population, enhancing their vulnerability. 
Locust invasion represents a periodic risk as well and has happened every year in the last thirty years. These 
invasions are caused by gregarious locusts which are grouped, migratory and resistant. The persistence of solitary 
locust within optimal condition development during three months successively, determines their inevitable 
gregarization. The endemicity and reproduction zone is mainly located in the Southern part of the country, whereas, 
invasions are susceptible to touch areas in the South, West and Center of the country. These invasions cause 
major damage on agriculture. According to a report by the FAO, the locust invasion involved the loss around 40% 
of the corn crops in South West Region in 2014. 
The combination of these risks, reinforced by climate change, explain the very uncertain food situation of a large 
section of the population. According to FAO, in 2015, around 1.8 million persons, representing 46% of population 
in eight regions of the country are on food insecure. Among them, more than 450, 000 persons (12% of the 
population) confront severe food insecurity. The highest rate of food insecurity is located within the regions of 
Androy, Anosy (district of Amboasary) and South West (districts of Betioky and Ampanihy) in the southern part of 
the country, where 380,000 persons or 30% of the population are affected. The critical situation in the south is 
caused by the significant decrease of food crops production during the successive agricultural campaigns on 
2012/2013, 2013/2014 and 2014/2015. This year, rain all deficiency during the last trimester 2014 caused major 
disruption of the farm year 2014/2015, according to the food supply assessment and food security mission on 2015. 
To face this situation, the south population base their livelihood on agro – pastoral system, combining food – crop 
production with extensive animal breeding. If agriculture remains the main income source, animal husbandry plays 
a particularly important role in the southern part of Madagascar. Zebu and goats have essential functions in customs 
and local traditions. The ownership of an important livestock is a sign of social success and animals’ accumulation 
is a goal of life of the Malagasy population, to the point where animal husbandry in the southern part of Madagascar 
is often qualified “contemplative”. Beyond its sociocultural functions, animal husbandry is also essential for risk 
management. In fact, the accumulated livestock during the harvest period can be used to resell during the hunger 
season and chronic food problems, and rebuild during the next seasons. However, because of the recurrence of 
shocks and the demographic pressure on cultivable lands, this cyclic decapitalization has been stepped up and 
decreased the assets of households year by year, and thus, their capacity to deal with shocks. 
1.1 Description of program LIVES 
The program LIVES or Madagascar Livestock Expansion and Stability was implemented by Land O’Lakes since 
September 2015, with funding from the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) of the United States Agency 
of International Development (USAID). The program aims to support households within the communes of 
Ankazomanga, Maroarivo and Beahitse, in the Southern part of Madagascar, to reinforce their animal husbandry 
assets to increase communities and households’ resiliency and their ability to deal with shock and stressors. The 
program worked within 49 fokontany inside the target communes that rely mainly on rainfed agriculture and animal 
husbandry for their subsistence. The program was planned to last 18 months but in the end, lasted 24 months. 
LIVES aims to use a community-based approach to directly work with 2,000 vulnerable households (reaching 
20,000 persons in total) to promote the expansion and maintenance of small livestock to increase the capacity of 
vulnerable households to adapt to shocks. Specifically, the program has 3 components: 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
10 
Improved animal husbandry practices: LIVES will facilitate the training and the capacity building of 49 producer 
groups, that will split by themselves into sub - groups “small ruminants” and “chicken” (98 sub-groups in total). 
Members of those groups will be trained on animal husbandry, marketing techniques, and group management 
training, all by integrating households around women empowerment, including joint decision–making and control 
of livestock and income by women. The training will be assured by training of trainers’ approach where lead 
producers will be trained and will in turn train the other members of their group. LIVES will work as well with 
producers to help them to rebuild key facilities of animal husbandry, such as water points and enclosures. 
Livestock Expansion: Initially, LIVES planned to distribute goats or chicken to around 1,200 households, and 
establish a transfer system in which producers that receive animals will pass the progeny to others group members. 
All the 2,000 members should receive goats or chicken by the end of the program. However, given the relatively 
short implementation time, the system was not feasible, and LIVES instead directly distributed animals to all 
households. 
The improved access to the health service for animal: LIVES will equip and train 49 community livestock 
workers (CLWs) on the diagnostic of animal health and treatment, and to link them with veterinarians in the district 
and private sector input suppliers. The CLWs will provide as well as animal health services to the members and 
their groups, as well as other members in the community. 
1.2 Context of the intervention zone 
Located on the crystalline plain of the “Mahafaly plateau”, the three intervention communes of the LIVES program: 
Beahitse in Ampanihy District, Maroarivo Ankazomanga and Ankazomanga West of the Betioky District, in the 
Atsimo Andrefana Region. The zone is characterized by sub – arid climate, rocky soil naturally calcareous with low 
water infiltration and a high depth of ground water, up to 200 meters. The hydrographic network is dominated by 
Onilahy River that is distinguished by a long period of low water, up to eight months a year, and by a particularly 
irregular flow. 
The Atsimo Andrefana Region is different from other regions in Madagascar by its semi-arid climate. It’s a region 
of plateau and plain that is part of the Sahelian region. The three communes are living in the sub – arid climate with 
temperate winters marked by two seasons: a hot, rainy season from November to April, and a dry season from May 
to September. However, the local population composed three main seasons: 
 A hot and humid season (Asara) from December to March. 
 A fresh and dry season (asotry or tivalantao) from April to July. 
 The hot and dry season (faosa) from August to November. 
According to the data of the meteorology service in 2012, the average temperature is 24°C and the annual average 
precipitation is around 400 to 450 mm on the mahafaly plateau. 
The low rainfall, the strong evapotranspiration, and the limestone nature of the bedrock contribute to the scarcity of 
water sources in the zone. The water points are rare and most of them dry up during the dry season. The low rainfall 
and the irregularity of their repartition, both during rainy season and from year to year, jeopardize many crops. In 
this way, due to the poor quality of the soil and the water deficit, the agricultural possibilities are highly limited. Also, 
the population practice agro-pastoral production system associate with extensive breeding and extensive 
subsistence agriculture and to the recession cropping wherever possible. Besides the drought, the zone is touched 
by recurrent natural risks, such as locust invasion and cyclones. The three communes, all like the ensemble of the 
great south, regularly suffer serious food insecurity problems. 
Climatological and geologic characteristics of the zone promote a plant formation of dry forest dominated by thorny 
shrubs and the kily (Tamarindus indicus) on one side, and savannas with grasses predominate on the other side:
Ahidambo (Heteopagon contortus), Vero (Hyparthenia rufa) with woody elements such as Sakoa (Poupartia caffra). 
Finally, the vegetation is characterized by the important presence of the Raketa (Ficus Sp.). That coverage is widely 
benefiting animal husbandry, offering simultaneously pasture and a natural protection against theft. 
1.2.1 Beahitse 
The main town of Beahitse commune, crossing by the national road 10, located around 80 kilometers from Betioky 
and 75 kilometers from Ampanihy. The commune is subdivided into 29 fokontany and has a population of 28,181 
in 2015 according to the data of the CSB II of Beahitse. Among the three-commune intervention zone of LIVES, 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
11 
Beahitse is the most populated. Due to the presence of national road 10, connecting the main town Betioky and 
Ampanihy, commercial activities are the most developed within this commune. 
1.2.2 Maroarivo Ankazomanga 
The commune of Maroarivo Ankazomanga is part of Betioky District of and currently counts 13 fokontany with a 
population of 11, 481, according to the official data of the commune. It is located fifty kilometers off the coast and 
at the west of the protected area of Tsimanampetsotse. The commune is connected by a road of provincial interest, 
hardly passable during rainy season. Comparing with the commune of Beahitse, the commune of Maroarivo 
Ankazomanga is much more enclaved. 
1.2.3 West Ankazomanga 
The commune of Ankazomanga West is part of Betioky District. It is located at the North of the commune of 
Maroarivo Ankazomanga, connected to the same road. The shoreline is located less than 50 kilometers off the 
main town of the commune, and many trade services come from Toliara or Saint Augustin have the habit to buy 
goats and chicken in Ankazomanga West during market day. The Commune has 5,814 inhabitants in 2015, 
according to the official data. It is the least populated among the three interventions communes of LIVES. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
12 
2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 
2.1 Goal of the evaluation 
This final evaluation focuses on the relevance of the program approach, the effectiveness of implementation in 
achieving the expected results and the sustainability of program activities and results. More specifically, the final 
evaluation aims to: 
 Assess the relevance of the strategies implemented by Land O'Lakes International Development in the 
program in the context of Madagascar; 
 Assess the degree in which the project has reached its goal, results and projected targets and explain 
gaps by 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 
 Identify the best practices, lesson learned and recommendations that should be adopted by Land O’Lakes 
for the similar resiliency program in Madagascar or elsewhere in Africa; 
 Identify and document at least three success stories of the beneficiaries of the program; 
 The evaluation will ensure good documentation of experiences and achievement related to different model 
and approaches developed by the Program, to the implementation of strategies, results and products of 
the Program and that was naturally part of success criteria of the Program. 
The results of the evaluation are intended to be used by different stakeholders for decision – making for up-scaling 
or replication. Lessons learned will capitalize during the program design and implementation of similar projects. 
This Evaluation is focused on the implementation period of the Program from 2015 to 2017. 
2.2 Evaluation criteria 
To evaluate the Program performance, each criterion was examined in detail, according to series of key questions, 
according to four conventional evaluation criteria of the program, namely: 
 The relevance of the program, that means the adequacy of objectives to the problems that it was supposed 
to solve and the physical environment and politics in which it has taken place; 
 The effectiveness and impact, that means the contribution of the project in reaching the results and 
achieving the specific goal, and the effect of the program on its environment; 
 The gender which examines particularly how the program addresses differences between men and 
women, regarding especially decision making, access to resources, use of assets, and household’s 
strategies about food security; 
 The sustainability, which means the sustainability of results and effects of the program. 
Additional questions were added to these initial questions for better understanding of mechanism in which the 
program, its approach and its strategy, affected its beneficiaries. Evaluation questions were divided into specific 
questions according to the encountered needs during the mission. The set of data collection tools obtained basic 
information to answer the evaluation questions. 
Recommendations were directly linked to the analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the program, throughout 
these criteria and evaluation questions. 
The evaluation of the program was done through quantitative and qualitative criteria. 
 Quantitative variables were analyzed as the progress of key indicator values before and after the program, 
as an average and median value. For example, how the mortality of small ruminants’ before and after the 
program. Each quantitative variable was disaggregated according to different criteria, to be chosen 
according to the relevance: per commune, per sex, per activity, per education level, per age, and so on. 
 Qualitative variables were analyzed as proportion: for example, “45% of beneficiaries estimated that the 
impact of the program on their food security is very important”. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
13 
 Established indicators by the program on its Monitoring and Evaluation system (strictly speaking 
performance indicators of the program and global indicators of Land O’Lakes) were analyzed in the same 
manner as quantitative variables, with the observation if the target was reached, not reached or exceeded. 
Finally, for overview of the entire program, each evaluation criterion was noted as follow. 
Table 1 : Standards notation of evaluation criteria 
Criteria Status Explanation 
Relevance Relevant The Program respond to local priorities and to the needs of beneficiaries 
Not relevant The Program is not lined up to local priorities and/or doesn’t respond to 
the needs of beneficiaries. 
Effectiveness Very satisfying No deficiencies
Satisfying Only minor deficiencies were detected 
Moderately satisfactory Moderate deficiencies were detected 
Moderately unsatisfactory Less important deficiencies were detected 
Unsatisfactory Important deficiencies were detected
Efficiency Very high None detected deficiencies 
High Only minor deficiencies were detected
Moderately high Moderate deficiencies were detected
Weak Less important deficiencies were detected
Very weak Important deficiencies were detected
Sustainability Probable Negligible risks 
Moderately probable Moderate risks
Moderately improbable Important risks
Improbable Serious risks
Impact Important Impacts touch many people or extended area 
Average Impacts touch average number of people or moderate extended area. 
Negligible Impacts touch very weak number of people or restricted area 
2.3 Methodology and data collection tools 
The goal of the evaluation is to collect information that will establish the value of indicators of the program, and to 
analyze many key aspects of the program to be able to help draw lesson and recommendations for similar 
interventions. To this end, the adopted methodology included both quantitative and qualitative data collection. 
This approach hinges around data collection at two levels: institutional and communal. Specific tools were used for 
each level and according to the information need. 
2.3.1 Qualitative part 
Qualitative information types were collected thanks to combination of many tools: 
 Document review process 
 Interview within key informants 
 Focus group discussions 
2.3.1.1 Literature review process 
A documentary review was conducted (i) to acquire a precise understanding and detailed information of the 
program, its intervention logic, its approaches and its strategy; (ii) to have an objective view of the context of the 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
14 
intervention of the program, particularly problematic in which the program is supposed to provide responses, and 
(iii) development issues concerning treated thematic, at local level, regional and national; corollary to that, its permit 
to capitalize available pertinent information, particularly those concerning beneficiaries. The evaluation precise 
information already available permitted to better focus on data collection and avoids collecting usefully data already 
existing. 
The literature review process is categorized as follow (non-exhaustive list): 
Program documents 
This category incorporates all documents related to the program, including: 
 The specific program documents that detailed the program’s rationale, the choice of beneficiaries, the 
strategy and approaches, partnerships, and program’s goals; this information was reviewed to understand 
mainly the relevance and the consistency of the program. 
 The logical framework that visualizes the mechanism with which the program planned to reach its goals, 
throughout intermediate objectives and results, as well as activities and respective tasks, timeframes and 
concerned entities; that information permitted the team to analyze the relevance, the consistency and to 
estimate if the program was generally realistic. 
 Monitoring and evaluation documents, including indicator system defining each indicator and methods of 
calculation, the baseline that permit to calculate the obtained progress from the initial situation for each 
indicator, periodic follow – up reports, that helped to visualize obtained change over time. 
 Financial documents that permitted to examine the way with which resources were calculated, mobilized 
and used; those elements are at the basis of efficiency analysis. 
 Diverse documents including periodic reports, end of the program reports, case studies, and so on. 
Documents and statistics on the context 
Those documents helped to understand the context and the general situation of the intervention zone and 
beneficiaries, problems, constraints, opportunities and issues related to the treated domain by the program. Those 
documents permitted the team to identify and establish links between program’s goals and the population’s 
problems for the relevance and consistency analysis. This category includes: 
 Statistics at local level (fokontany, commune, district), regional and national. 
 Monographs 
Development Framework Documents 
This category permitted the team to identify priorities on development matter, at each level, that was helped to 
examine if the Program’s goals were aligned with communal priorities or sectors. That category includes: 
 CTD’s development plans. 
 Sectorial strategies, particularly the PNAN and the National Program of Rural Development (PNDR) 
However, it is noted that development plans weren’t available at commune levels.
2.3.1.2 Interviews with key informants (KII) 
Interviews were mainly qualitative information gathering tools. Qualitative information helped to provide additional 
context to quantitative data and permitted the team to collect advices, opinions and recommendation, which are 
critical information for evaluation matter. Interviews were handled by means of developed interview guides 
depending on the respondents. Interview guides took shape of open questions that only offer reference points for 
the discussion, but the general principle was going in depth for interesting and relevant questions during the 
discussion. Data from interviews was transcribed on analytical framework that was elaborated during the validation 
of evaluation methodology. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
15 
The following table summarizes the number of interviewed persons by informants’ category. 
Table 2 : Key informants category 
Informant Type Number 
Mayors KII 3
President of Fokontany KII 6
Proponents on traditional power KII 6
CLW KII 12
LLF KII 6
WPC KII 6
FCSA KII 6
Veterinaries KII 2
Technical services KII 3
Program LIVES KII 7
Other projects KII 4
Source: Final Evaluation of Program LIVES, 2017 
2.3.1.3 Focus Group Discussions (FGD) 
Focus group discussions are tools for qualitative information collection at the community level. The goal of this 
exercise was to collect beneficiaries’ perceptions on the program, from a community perspective, as well as 
recommendations. Information such as the program impact, are difficult to perceive because, on one side, impacts 
hold on the long term, and then difficult to perceive right after the end of the Program, and on the other hand, noted 
changes can be the combination of several interventions. It is difficult on that effect to attribute in formal way the 
impact of the intervention for only this program. It is on these conditions that group discussions are important to 
identify changes or sign of noted change since the Program implementation. 
Focus group discussions were led by a guide which listed the main topics and discussion subjects. The guide 
remains open, the group discussion principle is to generate the exchange and reflection of participants to obtain 
maximum information. 
Diverse tools were used according to discussion conduct: brainstorming, causal relationships, scoring, and so on. 
Data issues from group discussions are also transcribed on the elaborated analysis framework at the end. 
Table 3 : List of fokontany of focus group location done per fokontany 
Type Thematic Fokontany 
Women (beneficiaries)  Relevance of the program 
 Program effectiveness 
 Gender 
 Recommendations 
 Ankandy 
 Vovomena 
 Ankilitoka 
 Beahitse Centre 
 Ambory 
 Maroarivo
 Men (beneficiaries)  Relevance of the program 
 Program effectiveness 
 Gender 
 Recommendations 
 Ankandy 
 Ankazomanga Ouest 
 Besely 
 Behombe 
 Marofototse 
 Maroarivo 
None beneficiaries  Relevance of the program 
 Gender 
 Recommendations 
 Ankandy 
 Ankazomanga Ouest 
 Agnena Sud 
 Ranoabo Sud 
 Maroarivo 
 Maroarivo Antanandava 
Source: Final evaluation of the Program LIVES, 2017 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
16 
2.3.2 Quantitative part 
a Sampling 
The sample size was calculated according to the following formula, based on the information provided by the 
program: 1,960 beneficiary households. 
n = D * Zα² * p (1-p) / d² 
Where: 
 n : minimum sample size required by sampling
 D : Sampling effect 
 Zα: Score corresponding to the desired confidence level. For a confidence interval of 95%, Zα is 1.96 
 p: Estimated value of the indicator in terms of proportion in decimal form during the survey. 
 d : Normalized margin of error 5%
Since the sample of beneficiaries were selected from a list, the value of the factor "p" is equal to 1 (the sampling 
universe is made up entirely of beneficiaries). According to this method, the sample size was 321 households. By 
adding an adjustment factor of 5% for non-response, and rounding the figure, the final sample size was 360 
beneficiary households for all three intervention communes of the program. 
Quantitative data was effectively collected throughout investigation within sampling of 360 households randomly 
chosen among beneficiaries. 
In total, the repartition of the sampling by commune was the following: 
 Beahitse: 250 (74%) 
 Marorarivo Ankazomanga: 43 (13%) 
 Ankazomanga West: 45 (13%) 
2.3.2.1 Selection of fokontany and sampling per fokontany 
The evaluation survey was carried out in the same fokontany that were selected during the baseline survey. That 
permitted the team to establish relevant comparisons and data disaggregation per fokontany. The total sampling 
was proportionally allocated to the size of the population in each fokontany. The more the fokontany is populated, 
the higher number of beneficiaries sampled. Based on that method, the list of the fokontany and the number of the 
investigated household are detailed below. 
Table 4 : List of investigated Fokontany 
Commune Fokontany Number of 
households 
Proportion 
(%) 
BEAHITSE Agnena Centre 18 5,32
Agnena Sud 15 4,43
Ambatomainty 6 1,77
Analasarotse 26 7,69
Andremba Centre 7 2,07
Ankandy 3 0,88
Ankaratihy 9 2,66
Ankasy 8 2,36
Ankilitoka 9 2,66
Beahitse Centre 26 7,69
Behombe 13 3,84
Belamoty Nord 7 2,07
Belamoty Sud 4 1,18
Besely 9 2,66
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
17 
Commune Fokontany Number of 
households 
Proportion 
(%) 
Bevala 19 5,62
Marofototse 9 2,66
Marovotse 6 1,77
Ranoabo Haut 15 4,43
Ranoabo Nord 17 5,03
Ranoabo Sud 10 2,95
Sainta 14 4,14
ANKAZOMANGA OUEST Ankazomanga Ouest 17 5,03
Miogo 5 1,47
Vombao 5 1,47
Vovomena 16 4,73
MAROARIVO 
ANKAZOMANGA 
Ambory 10 2,95
Andremba Mihaga 6 1,77
Andremihory 7 2,07
Maroarivo Ankazomanga 13 3,84
Maroarivo Antanandava 9 2,66
Source: Final evaluation finale of the Program LIVES, 2017 
2.3.2.2 Household selection 
Household beneficiaries were randomly chosen from a list of all beneficiaries of the program. 
2.3.2.3 Selection of the investigated persons 
For each selected household, each person that fulfills these criteria was investigated: 
 Person that practice animal husbandry and take decisions on the production system and the use of 
products; typically, it is the head of household. 
 Person responsible for the daily management of household, particularly the food. 
 If the above two were different people, the survey was conduct for one and then the other, depending on 
the questions. 
2.3.2.4 Quantitative data collection tools 
The quantitative survey was conducted using a digital survey questionnaire. The digital survey questionnaires 
included skips that allowed the questions to be directed according to whether the respondent was a beneficiary of 
the Program or not. Other issues were common to beneficiaries and not beneficiaries. The quantitative survey 
covered several themes divided into several sections, including: 
 Section A : Household Identification 
 Section B : Socio demographic characteristic of household 
 Section C : Agriculture 
 Section D : Animal husbandry 
 Section E : Small ruminants and chicken 
 Section F : Food security 
 Section G : Gender 
 Section H : Program LIVES 
The corresponding themes are based on themes during the initial baseline for the program. They permit the 
evaluation to note different changes during the program implementation and the perception of investigated 
beneficiaries on the program. 
2.3.2.5 Conception of the digital survey question on tablet 
The questions were coded and scanned as digital copy for use on the tablet. The main functionality of digital 
questionnaire is: 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
18 
 Skip pattern that permit to pass and directly display corresponding questions according to responses. 
 Automatic filter that doesn’t accept some types of character (digital or text) or some values (for example, 
the entry field of “Age” cannot accept a value upper 
three characters or one value under 15) on the entry 
area. 
 Supervisory questions that display a message when 
answers are inconsistent or contradictory, and resend 
the question. 
 Formulas that automatically did some types of 
calculation. 
 An auditor that displays unfulfilled required fields, and 
do not allow the validation until all required field are 
fulfilled. 
 A timer that registers the beginning and the end of the survey. 
These functionalities minimize error risks during the entry. The filled questionnaire can be verified and directly 
modifiable on the form, the checking was done after each day of survey. Then, taped data was exported as XLS 
format at each end of week to check the survey progress. After the pre – test, the digital questionnaire were 
corrected on site and checked before the finale validation. 
2.3.2.6 Interviewer training 
The training of the interviewers enabled them to familiarize themselves with the logic of the data collection tools, 
the types of information to be collected, the handling of the tablets and the overall approach and the attitude to be 
adopted during the surveys: interviewer training on the data collection, the methods of information collection, the 
manipulation of tables and the global approach. 
The training was used to outline the objectives of the mission, the methodology and the context of the area of 
intervention. Apart from the "Generalities" section, training was organized separately for interviewers and qualitative 
investigators.
2.3.2.7 Test of the questionnaire 
As planned, a questionnaire test was organized to identify the possible inconsistencies, redundancies or errors, as 
well as to validate the general organization of the questionnaire. After the test, 
the questionnaire was corrected depending on the suggestions of interviewer 
and the team of the program. 
The test was organized within the Commune of Tsianisiha that is located at 
40 km of the city of Tulear, on the National Road Number 9 during the day of 
July 12, 2017. That Commune was chosen for its accessibility. Furthermore, 
the context of the commune presents similarities with the intervention 
communes of LIVES, especially on the socio-cultural plan and on economic 
activities. An initial contact with local authorities for the test organization was done. In total, 24 households were 
interviewed for the test, and permitted to identify the points to be improved. 
After the test, one day was set aside for receiving feedback of interviewer and exchanges to improve the 
questionnaire. Finally, the application was updated based on these observations, then double checked. 
2.3.3 Success-stories 
Three case studies were conducted to illustrate how the program activities touched beneficiaries. The case studies 
were identified after a discussion with the team. These studies focused on three cases that were deemed interesting 
in terms of result, or presenting specificities that deserve to be broadcasted. Success stories are presented in the 
Appendix. 
2.3.4 Data control 
The data control was done on many levels: 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
19 
1) During the development of the questionnaire, the structure and the validity of forms was checked thanks 
to simulations and tests. Interviewers provided their suggestions that served to improve the structure, the 
question logic and the questionnaires manipulation. 
2) During the data collection, at the end of each working day, each filled form on tablet was checked together 
by the supervisor and interviewer before the validation. When data were incomplete or inconsistent, 
interviewers contacted the investigated person, together with the supervisor. However, the digital form of 
the questionnaires allowed minimizing risks of errors. 
3) After data extraction, the validity is checked with statistic tests. 
These staged controls ensured valid and quality data, by eliminating errors and various bias. 
2.4 Data analysis 
Data on tablets was extracted and converted to Excel format for analysis in XLSTAT and interpretation. 
Quantitative data was tabulated based on indicators to be calculated. The main tools of statistical analysis used 
were: 
 The descriptive statistics for the simple calculations: Average, Median, percentage, standard division, 
variance, and so on. 
 The linear regression for the identification of correlation (for example, correlation between the size of 
livestock herds and the consumption score, or between gender and income, and so on.) 
 The covariance analysis (ANCOVA) for the identification of the multiple correlations (example: factors that 
influence the food consumption score) 
 Discriminant factor analysis (DFA) for household typology considering many variables. 
These types of analysis made it possible to highlight effects that are often not perceived by the actors. Tables and 
treatment protocols were provided to the Program at the end of the collection. Finally, the qualitative data was 
transcribed into analytical frameworks that meet the various evaluation criteria and questions.
2.5 Limits of the methodology 
The principle of an evaluation is based on comparison of beneficiaries’ situation before and after the program. For 
this purpose, the methodology minimized the difference that can be linked to the context. This way, the evaluation 
methodology referred to the survey methodology baseline to make data comparable. 
However, several constraints were faced and should be taken into account in the interpretation of the evaluation 
results: 
1. First, the evaluation period didn’t correspond with the survey baseline. In fact, the baseline study was 
conducted around October and November 2015 that correspond at the beginning of the hunger season 
and during which food problems of households are most important. In contrast, the final evaluation was 
conducted in July, a period where food problems are less potent compared with the end of the year. 
Furthermore, in the program intervention zone, the months July and August correspond with the harvest 
period of some cultures (beans, black eyes peas and other legumes) that affect the food security of 
households. Thus, the evaluation considered those factors to better interpret the results. 
2. Then, the Atsimo Andrefana region faced different risks during the program implementation, namely, a 
long period of drought followed by heavy precipitation that impacted on the production condition, and 
reinforced the food insecurity situation. That situation is susceptible to skew the effects of the program 
that was taken account in data analysis and on the interpretation of the evaluation results. 
3. Furthermore, delays on animal distribution were noted that influenced some impacts of the program at 
beneficiary level, like the rate of the adoption of improved animal husbandry techniques. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
20 
3 SOCIO – DEMOGRAPHICS DATA 
This section describes the main demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the sample. While these 
characteristics are not directly related to the Program, they can broaden the scope of understanding of how the 
program affects beneficiaries and communities, and possibly identify correlations for lessons learned in the 
formulation of broader recommendations: for example, the relationship between household size and food security, 
the links between the head of household and the performance of livestock, etc. 
Descriptive and analytical information reported here are useful for the analysis of the program performance and 
can help users of the evaluation results to better understand the complex interactions between the program 
contexts. They can offer new perspectives on the conception of new strategies in the future. 
3.1 Demographic profile of households 
The investigation was carried within 360 beneficiaries of the 3 LIVES intervention communes. Of 52 fokontany that 
form the 3 communes, 30 fokontany were chosen. The sample per Fokontany was determined by the selection 
method proportional to the population. In that way, the sample reflects the repartition of the population. The 
repartition of the sample per commune is illustrated by the figure below. 
Figure 1 : Sample repartition per commune 
Source: Final evaluation of the Program LIVES, 2017 
3.1.1 Households structures 
The number of people living in the households surveyed varies from 1 to 20, with an average size of 6 persons per 
household. This value is significantly higher than the national average of 4.6 in 2012-13 according to the INSTAT 
demographic data and the average of the Atsimo Andrefana Region which is 4.8 according to the same source. 
Note that the average household size is lower for female-headed households. The number of people living in a 
household can affect productivity in rural areas, as labor is one of the main factors of production but can also be a 
factor of vulnerability to food insecurity, since each member represents a mouth to feed. It should be noted that the 
average household size reported here is the same as that obtained from the baseline survey.
Table 5 : Households repartition, average size according to head of household gender 
HH gender % Average size of 
household 
FHH 19,8% 5,8
MHH 80,2% 6,8
Examining the distribution of the sample by size of household per unit, it should be noted that households with 6 to 
10 persons are the most numerous. Depending on the type of head of household, members of female-headed 
households are generally somewhat smaller, which may suggest that some male household members are 
permanently absent, which is quite common in the area intervention program, considering the tradition that sends 
adult men to work elsewhere.
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
21 
Table 6 : Repartition of the sample according to the size of household and according to head of 
household gender 
 Size of household FHH MHH Aggregate 
1-5 55,2% 38,7% 42,0%
6-10 37,3% 49,8% 47,3%
11-15 7,5% 10,3% 9,8%
16-20 0% 1,1% 0,9%
Total 100% 100% 100%
This observation is confirmed by examining the age pyramid: men aged from 15 years and more are significantly 
less numerous than women in the same household in an age group, if their proportions are more or less to be close 
for other age groups. The FGD further outlined that a family will often send men working in other districts or other 
regions to help provide for family needs, by sending money periodically that will be accumulated little by little under 
the form of livestock. 
Figure 2 : Age pyramid 
3.1.2 Marital statuses 
Examination of the marital status of the sample emphasizes the predominance of tradition, and only a very small 
proportion of those surveyed are legally married. It is also remarked that if a man is present in the household, he 
always remains the leader. Indeed, no married woman, whether legally or in a traditional way, has the status of 
head of household. The majority of women household heads are separated from their spouses. 
Furthermore, the head of household living separately or divorced from their spouse constitute 15.7% of the sample, 
which in Madagascar is a value relatively elevated within a society highly attached to the tradition. In fact, the FGD 
explained that it is often a strategic choice between a couple to stay separated. Men, even married, continue to 
work elsewhere, all by providing his family needs and by sending money. Men would often migrate to provide for 
their family. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
22 
Figure 3 : Marital statuses of the head of household 
3.1.3 Head of household educations’ level 
This indicator designates the highest education level reached by the head of household. In this way, 74% of the 
head of households of the sample doesn’t have any level, that means never went to school, which is very high 
compared with the national rate of 37% and at the rate of Atsimo Andrefana region that is 55%1
. 
By considering the gender of the household head, we note that women are most privileged in terms of education, 
with a proportion significantly weaker of the category “No level” and higher proportions for each other level of 
education. 
Table 7 : Education level of the head of household 
Level of education FHH MHH Ensemble 
No level 64% 76% 74%
Primary 22% 16% 18%
Secondary 1st cycle 10% 5% 6%
Secondary 2nd cycle 3% 2% 2%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Reading ability is a component of the literacy indicator, as defined by INSTAT. This indicator considers persons 
over 15 years of age who can read, as well as those who are still in school and have reached at least the third year 
of primary school. This second criterion does not apply to our case. By comparing with educational attainment, this 
indicator may show whether the respondent had the opportunity to learn to read outside the school. The comparison 
of the two indicators shows that the proportion of those who have no education and those who cannot read are the 
same, as shown in the table below. Thus, according to the results of the survey, the population of the LIVES 
intervention area has no opportunity to learn to read outside the school. 
 
1
 INSTAT / ENSOMD, 2012 - 2013 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
23 
Figure 4 : Reading ability of the head of household 
3.2 Socio-economic characteristic of households 
This section discusses the main socio-economic characteristics, mainly economic activities. This information, 
although not part of the Program's own indicators, is important for analyzing the overall changes to which the 
Program has contributed. The socioeconomic characteristics of households necessarily influence, directly or 
indirectly, the effects and impacts of the Program. An analysis of the possible links between the Program 
performance and these characteristics will help in the reflection and design of new models of intervention in the 
future. 
3.2.1 Economic activities 
The respondents were asked to cite their economic activities and rank them in order of importance according to the 
time spent on the activity and the income reported by the activity. This approach helps to understand the 
population’s logic, which does not necessarily devote its time to the most lucrative activity.
On average, the number of the active members within the household exercising an economic activity is 2.9. This 
number varies in function of the sex and the head of household, represent 2.1 within households having woman at 
the head, and 3.1 with a man at the head. This results in a 
dependency ratio of 0.36 for woman heads and 0.45 for male 
heads. 
The clear majority of households participate in more than one 
economic activity, those who participate in only one economic 
activity represent less than 1% of those surveyed. At the sample, 
this category is represented exclusively by women. That situation 
can be interpreted as access is more difficult to the productive 
capital (lands, livestock, grazing, and so on) for women, which 
explain that they are more prone to participate in only one activity. 
In fact, like everywhere in Madagascar, the rural population tries 
to minimize risks by diversifying activities and income sources. 
Naturally, agriculture is by far the most predominant activity, either in terms of time or in terms of income. The 
animal husbandry is the second activity, followed by the daily work in terms of income generating activity. In 
contrast, if we consider the consecrated time into the activity, the order reverses for those two activities. These 
information show that agriculture remain the main activity and occupied a significant portion of the activity time of 
the largest number (80.3%) even if it’s not the main income sources for the important proportion of population 
(45.6%). At reverse, if the animal husbandry is the first occupation only 4.7% of households, that activity is the first 
income source for 18.3% of households. 
64.2%
76.4% 74.0%
28.4%
21.4% 22.8%
7.5% 2.2% 3.3%
FHH MHH Aggregate
Can't read Can read Basic
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
24 
Those data show the weight of food risk on the population’s logic. The self-production is the main supply sources 
on food and the population prioritize agriculture, even though this is not necessarily the most profitable activity. The 
importance of animal husbandry on the livelihood means, that activity can provide income which doesn’t require 
huge investment in terms of time. The following figure illustrates these points. 
Figure 5 : Household repartition according to the main activity 
By considering the gender of the head of household, the difference first concern the proportion of households 
having agriculture as main occupation in terms of time: this is in fact much higher on men. Then, we note that men 
have also larger number to exercise the daily work or seasonal as main activity, and women are more prone to do 
trading activity. Concerning the animal husbandry, there is less difference. These points especially show that 
besides the global trend, namely the predominance of agriculture, there is some form of share of activities types, 
or quite “primary activities” in function of gender. The figure below illustrates these findings. 
Figure 6 : Households repartition according to the main activity and according to the head of household 
The animal husbandry is the second economic activity of a great majority of households, either in terms of 
occupancy time (83.9%) or generated income (64.4%), as illustrated by the following figure. Then the agriculture 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
25 
rank on second of secondary activities. De facto, the combination agriculture/ animal husbandry is only present on 
anecdotal manner. 
Figure 7 : Households repartition according to the secondary activity 
3.2.2 Agriculture 
Agriculture is dominated by subsistence crops. The main crops are cassava, corns, cowpea, sweet potatoes and 
peanut. The practiced agriculture is pluvial type, totally depending on precipitations. 
Concerning the land status, 98.2% declared to be the owner of land that they cultivate, the rest are sharecroppers 
or farmers’ ex gratia. If the land insecurity is not a crucial challenge as within other regions of Madagascar, 
interviews with Mayors and the FGD revealed the privileged family have access into the most fertile soil, that highly 
impacts the capacity to face the food insecurity. 
Households are not happy with the harvest season of 2017. Only 3% of surveyed households estimate that the 
crop is “average” compared to the last five years, and the rest are projected as “weak” or “very weak”, as illustrated 
by the following figure. 
Figure 8 : Appreciation of the agriculture production on 2017 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
26 
This is mainly due to the declines in precipitation in 2016 and 2017, according to meteorological data. It is important 
to emphasize this factor, which will inevitably have an impact on agricultural production and on the food situation 
of the households in the LIVES intervention area, and beyond the program beneficiaries. 
In addition to rainfall data, household sentiment confirms that drought is the main problem in the decline of the crop. 
In addition to water-related problems, the locust invasion also affects a large proportion of farmers. The following 
figure illustrates the main problems related to agriculture, reported by the households surveyed. 
Figure 9 : Main issues linked with agriculture 
3.2.3 Animal husbandry 
This section described the main characteristics of animal husbandry as practiced by beneficiaries during the 
investigation for the final evaluation. The description of this business sector is important for the understanding of 
the evaluation results, considering its place in the LIVES Program. Detailed characteristics here reflect the animal 
husbandry in general, without focusing on aspects linked with LIVES, which are discussed here but treated in more 
specific manner and more detailed in a dedicated section. 
At the time of the evaluation, each household in the sample has at least one farm animal. Chicken farming that is 
more frequent, followed by goat, zebu, sheep and finally, turkey. MHHs mostly have farm animals, and more 
specifically oxen and goats. Sheep farming concern only 13% of households. That is explained especially by the 
fact that this activity is taboo within many ethnicity lineage of mahafaly. 
Figure 10 : Ownership rate of farm animal according to the head of household 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
27 
The figure below summarizes the average size of livestock herds according to the considered species and by the 
gender of HH (head of household). Results show the difference quite marked on the average number of animals 
possessed by households according to the gender of HH. The size of livestock herds is higher within households 
MHH, particularly for small ruminants. 
Figure 11 : The average size of livestock per species and according to the head of household 
Less difference is noted if the average size of the livestock is disaggregated per commune. The size of bovine 
population is weaker in Maroarivo, comparatively with two other communes. However, the low proportion of 
households having zebu doesn’t permit to draw any conclusion concerning this remark. 
Figure 12 : Average size of livestock per species and according to the commune 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
28 
4 PERFORMANCE OF THE LIVES PROGRAM 
This section treats the program LIVES performance and detailed responses on different questions and sub 
questions of each evaluation criterion. Reported data in this section come from the combination of quantitative 
sources (investigation within households) and qualitative (documentary review, interviews and focus groups). 
4.1 Relevance 
These criteria examine if the program responds to the beneficiaries’ needs, if it lines up with local priorities and if 
the approach is adapted to local conditions and to social norms. It also analyzed how the program is articulated 
with respect to other interventions and if it brings added value. The relevance criteria highlight especially upstream 
aspects of the implementation, particularly its conception in response to problematic that it treats and in relation 
with the context of the intervention zone. Reported results in this section combined several data sources, namely 
documents, quantitative survey and interviews. 
4.1.1 Program adequacy to needs of beneficiaries 
For reminder, the Program LIVES aims to support households within communes of Ankazomanga, Maroarivo and 
Beahitse, to reinforce their farming assets to increase the communities’ and households’ resiliency and their 
capacity to resist shocks and stresses. 
In the South of Madagascar, including the three intervention communes of LIVES, drought and rainfall variability 
constitute the main risk for the local population. The term drought designated “the natural phenomenon that happen 
when rainfalls was considerably lower to the registered normal level and that leads the severe imbalances of 
harmful hydrological to the production system of land resources”. For this zone, drought constitutes covariant risk, 
that means collective and territorial risk that induced since the beginning of the 20th century a long series of food 
crisis. That variability is still recently confirmed, particularly with only 93.4 mm of precipitation on the first year of 
implementation of the Program (2016) in the District of Betioky and the commune of Beahitse, while the previous 
year (2015), precipitations was 377 mm. 
Table 8 : Rainfall progress from 2014 to 2017 in districts intervention of LIVES 
 Rainfall (mm) 2014 2015 2016 2017 
Ampanihy 156,1 377 93,4 98,9
Betioky 369,7 706,8 398,7 370,4
Source: IFVM Betioky, 2017 
Furthermore, animal husbandry has an essential role on the local risk management mechanism: accumulated 
livestock during the harvest period is slowly sold during the hunger season and reconstituted during the next 
seasons. According to the data of the reference study, the integrality of households in the program intervention 
zone breeds chicken, whereas 43% breed goats and 28% sheep. According to the same data, purchases of foods 
in the hunger period are far from the main reason of the sale of animal: 59% of goats, 73% of sheep and 65% of 
chicken sold are to acquire food. It is then undeniable that the program basic logic, throughout its theory of change 
is totally justified and relevant, considering the context and the population needs in the intervention zone. 
Surveyed households mostly confirmed that the program is very relevant, connected by the way that it responds to 
their priority needs. In this case, more than 83% of surveyed beneficiaries provided positive answers concerning 
the relevant of the program, as illustrated on the figure below. We note as well that opinions are shared, whatever 
the commune of residence or the gender of answering. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
29 
Figure 13 : Opinions of beneficiaries on the relevance of the Program LIVES 
Local authorities of the three communes agree that the program was relevant considering the farmers’ needs and 
the local context. Those authorities outlined that the program respect norms and communities’ regulations and 
respond to the local needs in view of the important status of animal husbandry in the population daily life. They 
didn’t receive any claim or negative reactions of beneficiaries. They judge the community approach as very good 
and the place given to women as particularly appropriate. Mayors of the three communes as well as many LLF 
reported many persons as well as non-beneficiaries that wish to be part of producer groups, which witness the 
interest that the program generated. 
Technical services, namely the DRAE has in the same way, confirmed the fact that the program brings appropriate 
response related to the main problems of the target population, namely the food insecurity. The strategy of the 
Program LIVES is judged as appropriate because it is to reinforce strategies that households are always 
implementing, with or without exterior help. 
I.R.1 Improved animal husbandry practices 
In comparison with this intermediate result, the situation before the program implementation demonstrated that the 
clear majority of the population practice traditional animal husbandry for the small ruminants and for chickens. The 
planned management of pastures and the construction of enclosures are the only “techniques” seen quite frequently 
at the farmers of small ruminants. Some farmers build shelter for chicken from the insect screen, especially in 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
30 
Ankazomanga West and Maroarivo Ankazomanga. According to the baseline report, “The food is almost exclusively 
based on pastures (small ruminants) and the free range (chicken), with very little supplementation. Reproduction 
is not controlled and livestock management is often limited to upholding ratio between male and female”. This high 
predominance of traditional techniques shows that the technical aspects are one of the critical points to be improved 
to develop animal husbandry, which confirms the relevance of the program if we consider that intermediate result. 
This remark was confirmed during interviews, particularly the regional office responsible of animal husbandry and 
the conscription (Ampanihy and Betioky). The efforts of technical services, from the outset, focused on the increase 
in performance of animal husbandry. According to the Regional Director (DRAE), that is becoming still more 
imperative since the country committed to the exportation of goat meat, with the establishment of slaughterhouses 
with international standard in Tulear, Fort Dauphin and Ihosy since 2014. Those districts of Betioky and Ampanihy 
are among the main supply basins on small ruminants. 
I.R.2 Livestock Asset Base Expanded 
The repetition of shocks, climate types or others, on the intervention zone of LIVES lead communities and 
households to develop a strategy based on livestock accumulation. However, the capitalization is becoming cyclic 
and intensified, and in the long term, households can’t properly reconstruct their capital to face to the risks and 
shocks. Hence, households in the Southern part of Madagascar are becoming dependent on outside assistance. 
In those circumstances, the strategy of LIVES to increase the animal capital of beneficiaries will be 
particularly relevant. That observation is confirmed by the all actors and beneficiaries. 
I.R.3. Access to increased animal health services 
Even if zootechnical performances improved, diseases and health problems still constitute the main cause of death. 
The weakness of the veterinary reach, in relation with isolation and the small means given to representative 
veterinarians don’t permit farmers to overcome its constraints. Accordingly, the strategy and activities of LIVES for 
this component, based on the community agents’ implementation at the level of fokontany able to provide basic 
veterinary care to the farmers are appropriate. Representative veterinarians particularly affirm that this approach 
will extend the coverage and subsequently improve animal health. 
4.1.2 Alignment of the Program to the development issues to the intervention zone 
The fight against food insecurity is on the list of priorities of the Ministry in charge of agriculture and animal 
husbandry, throughout its sector program (PSAEP), and to which line up with the development plan of the Atsimo 
Andrefana Region. LIVES’s strategy contribute on three goals of PSAEP, namely: (i) Rational and sustainable 
exploitation of production areas and resource exploitation, (ii) Constant raise of the productivity and the promotion 
of competitive production systems, (iii) contribute towards food and nutritional security and the risks reduction. That 
sector plan, as well as the regional development plan identifies furthermore the animal husbandry as a main 
potentiality of the region. According to the DRAE, the strategy of LIVES line up with its national orientations, that 
reaches toward the animal husbandry development of small ruminants and chicken of regions with dry climate in 
Madagascar. Moreover, several organizations adopted similar strategies in the South of Madagascar; those are 
FAO, ADRA, CRS, ACF, PIC and CASEF. National orientation on the matter of development of animal husbandry 
of small ruminants follow on among the increase of international demand on goat and sheep meat. Madagascar 
has recently a slaughterhouse that meets international standards (a slaughterhouse already functioning in Ihosy 
since 2015, a slaughterhouse in Tulear since 2014, a slaughterhouse project in Fort Dauphin since 2014). 
The implication of public services on the program, particularly technical services (animal husbandry and veterinaries 
services) on the program illustrate its contribution on development issues of the intervention zone, as well as its 
appropriation by institutional actors. 
Finally, it is useful to outline that the three communes didn’t dispose any communal development plan during the 
evaluation, and not any reference at the communal level couldn’t establish. 
4.1.3 Conclusion on the relevance 
The LIVES program, with the goal to reinforce households’ resilience towards shock and stresses, had chosen to 
develop a strategy based on improving animal husbandry. Since animal husbandry has a crucial role in the 
population strategy to face food insecurity and other types of shocks, it is undeniable that the program responds to 
priorities of the population. This assertion is confirmed by all stakeholders, including the administration, traditional 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
31 
local authorities, other projects and programs that implement in the district of Ampanihy and Betioky, as well as 
beneficiaries themselves. 
The program lines up as well to development issues in the intervention zone. In fact, the fight against food insecurity 
is among the priorities of the State: furthermore, the development of animal husbandry of the small ruminants is 
also becoming an important issue for many producer regions in Madagascar, particularly the South. 
In the light of these considerations, it seems that the program is very relevant. 
4.2 Efficiency and impact 
The efficiency criteria analyses the way « outputs » or products were transformed into « outcomes » or results. The 
fundamental question to measure the efficiency is: “Did the Program di what it is supposed to do?” To do that, these 
following points will be examined: 
 The achievement level of products; 
 The contribution of the product into results. 
4.2.1 Achievement level of outputs 
The achievement level of outputs is illustrated on the following table, based on annual reports of the Program. 
Table 9 : Achievement level of outputs2
# Indicator name Unit Disaggregation 
Value
Realization Baseline Mid 
term 
Final 
Evaluation Target 
USAID / OFDA GOAL
1 
Number of animals 
benefiting from or 
affected by livestock 
activities 
Number 
Total 0 36 578 61 830
17 000
364%
Animals 
Goats / Sheep 0 21 047 24 717 824%
Chickens 0 15 531 37 113 265%
2 
Number of people 
benefiting from 
livestock activities 
Number 
Total 0 12 148 22 917 20 000 114%
Sex Male 0 5 859 11 200 10 000 112%
Female 0 6 289 11 717 10 000 117%
INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1.1: Animal husbandry practices improved
8 
Number of households 
with access to 
rehabilitated water 
points 
Number 
Total 0 906 994 1 000 99%
Sex 
Male-headed 0 679 745 500 149%
Female-headed 0 227 249 500 50%
9 Number of water 
points rehabilitated Number 
Total 0 0 7 6 117%
Commune
Ankazomanga 0 0 3 2 133%
Maroarivo 0 0 2 2 100%
Beahitse 0 0 2 2 100%
10
Percentage of female 
members in assisted 
producer groups 
Percentage
Total 0 57% 57% 50% 115%
Commune
Ankazomanga 0 59% 59% 50% 118%
Maroarivo 0 58% 58% 50% 117%
Beahitse 0 56% 56% 50% 112%
11
Number of food 
security private 
enterprises (for profit), 
producer 
organizations, water 
user associations, 
women’s groups, trade 
and business 
associations, and 
community based 
organizations 
receiving USG 
assistance 
Number Total 0 104 107 49 218%
12
Number of individuals 
who have received 
USG supported short￾Number 
Total 0 2 108 2 206 2 000 110%
Sex Male 0 899 952 1 000 95%
Female 0 1 209 1 254 1 000 125%
 
2
 These outputs are based on reporting as of June 2017, which is what was available at the time of the final evaluation. The 
project lasted until September 2017, so final numbers may be different. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
32 
# Indicator name Unit Disaggregation 
Value
Realization Baseline Mid 
term 
Final 
Evaluation Target 
term agricultural 
sector productivity 
training (producer 
households) 
INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1.2: Livestock Asset Base Expanded 
13
Number of households 
that receive livestock 
through the program 
Number 
Total 0 1 023 1 960 2 000 98%
Sex of HH Male 0 947 1 679 1 000 167%
Female 0 123 281 1 000 28%
Total MHH 0 900 1 679
MHH Goats / sheep 0 669 669
Chickens 0 231 1 010
Total FHH 0 123 281
FHH Goats / sheep 0 66 66
Chickens 0 57 215
14
Number of animals 
that households 
receive through the 
project 
Number 
Total 0 3 296 8 918
9000 99% Animals 
Goats / sheep 0 1 568 1 568
Chickens 0 1 728 7 350
INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1.3: Access to animal health services increased
17 Number of households 
served by CLWs Number 
Total 0 1 357 3 047
3 000 102% Sex Male-headed 0 1 159 2 705
Female-headed 0 198 342
18
Number of CLWs 
providing services to 
households 
Number 
Total 0 49 49
49 100% Sex Male 0 31 34
Female 0 18 15
19
Number of CLWs 
equipped and trained 
in animal health 
services, animal 
husbandry and 
management 
Number 
Total 0 49 49
49 100,00% Sex 
Male 0 32 34
Female 0 17 15
Most fixed targets were reached, perhaps largely exceeded. The program was very effective to touch households 
and target animal by the activities. The number of animals that benefited from the program activities largely 
exceeded the target. The LIVES activities touched not only the animals of direct beneficiaries but also households 
which are not members of the farmers’ association. Interviews with CLWs reveal that they provide their services to 
all population, not just participants. The partnership of CLWs with veterinarians and with technical services 
reinforces their legitimacy and contributes as well to these results. Likewise, the implementation of a supply chain 
of inputs permit them to answer to most of the population’s needs for health animal services. To capitalize that, the 
two veterinarians and the DRAE envisage extending the mandate of CLWs toward the immunization of bovine. 
However, the program faced many difficulties concerning 
gender. In this way, the number of women head of household 
of targeted household for the indicator 8 (Number of 
households with access to rehabilitated water points) and the 
indicator 19 (Number of CLWs equipped and trained in animal 
health services, animal husbandry and management) was not 
reached. For the indicator 13, we can suppose that the fixed 
target, namely 1, 000 households with woman at the head 
receiving animals, was ambitious enough. In fact, according to 
the demographic data, the three intervention communes’ count 
45, 000 inhabitants, either around 7, 500 households, and 
which include 95% are touched by acute food insecurity or moderate. According to the survey baseline, 18.3% of 
the head of household are women, it’s correspond 1, 350 households. Therefore, it would be difficult to touch 1, 
000 households headed by women, either 76%. Finally, the program directly touched 21% of women head of 
households and 29% men head of household. Despite that, the list of beneficiaries of the Program show that women 
are more numerous (Indicator 10 “Percentage of female members in assisted producer groups “). In fact, many 
women among beneficiaries are not head of household. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
33 
4.2.2 Main results 
4.2.2.1 Intermediate Result 1: Improved animal husbandry practices 
The program LIVES conducted training on improved husbandry practices within 2, 206 households. The initial target 
of 2, 000 households is largely exceeded. These activities are on the line of the first intermediate result entitled 
“IR.1 Improved animal husbandry practices “ 
The realization of this intermediate result was estimated by examining the adoption rate within beneficiaries of each 
of these following improved technics: 
 Planning on pasture management (except for chicken) 
 Storage of food for animals 
 Use of local for animal husbandry (enclosure or hen house) 
 Use of sub – agriculture products and post-harvest 
 Planning for watering the animals 
 Immunization and/or animal disinfestation 
To make sure the attribution at LIVES, the household is considered to adopt the technique following the intervention 
of LIVES, if they gather these following requirements: 
1) The household apply the technique 
2) The household started to apply the technique after the training conducted by the program 
3) The household apply the technique for the first time 
These following results are results of survey within beneficiaries. We will note that, concerning goats, the reported 
numbers here are to be interpreted with care and are not necessary representative considering the restraint number 
of goat’s farmers among the randomly selected beneficiaries. The illustrated proportions on the figures represent 
the concerned beneficiaries by the considered animals and not the sample. For example, the proportions of the 
category “Goat” only consider households that farm goats. 
The planning on the pastures management was adopted by 23. The 6% of beneficiaries were concerning the goats 
and 9.1% for the sheep. The adoption rate of this technique is largely high at the MHH. According to the FGD men, 
each farmer had a precise planning on the pasture management as well as that is not deposit on an animal 
husbandry book. Generally, pastures belong to the lineages and their exploitation is communitarian. The close 
family conducted together to the pastures their livestock and the gardening is guaranteed by turn by children of 
each family, which requires that the planning will be already established. The same, the pasture of the 
transhumance, which consists moving the livestock throughout the year in many pasture zones, push farmers to 
plan their management. Finally, FGDs noted that some households start trying to reduce the livestock moving by 
bringing foliage at the level of hamlet, it is because of the fear of livestock theft. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
34 
Figure 14 : Adoption rate of the planning of pasture management 
Concerning the food storage, the adoption rate varies a lot according to the considered species. The rate is highest 
for the goats, and then for chicken and the rate are lowest is observed for sheep. Differences are also noted 
according to the head of household gender, with an increasingly marked adoption to the men, except concerning 
chicken. 
Figure 15 : Adoption rate for food storage for animals 
The use of agricultural sub products for animals’ food is illustrated by the figure below. The adoption rate of that 
technique is quite high for chicken (46.1%) with high value to the men. For the goat, the adoption rate is 28.4% and 
9.1% for sheep. These differences explained especially by the fact that the ruminants are more selective, whereas, 
chicken can valorize wide range of agri-sub-products. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
35 
Figure 16 : Adoption rate of the use of agricultural sub products 
The adoption rate is as well quite high for the planning for watering the animals, except for the goats. The differences 
according the head of household gender are quite slight. According to the FGD and the interview with the WPC, 
the water point’s rehabilitation by LOL, as well as, broadly speaking, the best management of water points including 
the implemented infrastructures by other actors (Bush Proof, ACF) encouraged farmers to plan the watering of 
animals. 
Figure 17 : Adoption rate of the planning for the watering of animals 
According to data of the baseline survey, very few farmers build specific shelters for animals. Generally, the small 
ruminants are parked with zebu, frequently in a shelter on hedge or on “raketa”. Some farmers sleep with their 
livestock in the forest and move the place where shelter is every night, to not being located. Most villagers don’t 
have chicken or specific shelter for livestock. Before all the chicken were perched under trees to tamarind, near the 
village. For households, chicken is more secure on trees (against theft and nocturnal predators) than on shelters 
and that system moving away animals from house permit to avoid infestation by parasites and the ticks. Only chicks 
with their mother are kept warm in a basket at home. 
During the evaluation, it was noted violation but especially throughout the survey data that the construction of local 
animal husbandry dedicated is much more widespread, particularly the chicken houses. According to the results, 
76.4% of beneficiaries disposing chicken houses. The conception of shelters is more advanced if we compare with 
pre-program, because it is wooden locations or in twigs, often with separated compartments and a small fenced 
yard. For the small ruminants, it is a shelter in twigs of on bright hedges. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
36 
Figure 18 : Adoption rate of the local construction of animal husbandry 
The food improvements consist the supplement contributions in addition to those animals find themselves during 
their free paths. For chicken, it is often its corn or cassava, and occasionally the termite. For the small ruminants, 
the farmers give especially the cassava. However, it must be outlined that the households don’t give these 
supplements except during the harvest period. During the data collection for the evaluation, most of investigated 
households couldn’t continue these contributions. 
Figure 19 : Adoption rate of the improvement of food of the animals 
The disinfestation consists to the periodic deworming (in principle every three months) as well as for the small 
ruminants and for the chicken. The immunization concern only the chicken: it is immunization against the 
“kopokopoke” (avian cholera) and the fowl plague alias (Gumboro disease). According to the veterinary of Betioky, 
the immunization of small ruminants is not yet indispensable in view that no coal or tuberculosis case was detected 
for these animals. In contrast, the “manatsinay” that is a disease caused by an intestinal parasite is the main cause 
of death. Those explain the weaker rate adoption observed to the small ruminants, while the chicken is concerned 
as well as by the disinfestation and the immunization. The interviews with the CLWs and the FGDs report 
unanimous manner that farmers, even non beneficiaries are completely convinced about the efficiency of these 
treatments, view their spectacular effect on the health of animals. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
37 
Figure 20 : Adoption rate of the deworming and/or vaccination 
By examining these adoption rates, several findings emerged: 
 The improvements concerning animal health are more massively adopted by beneficiaries. On one side, 
the effects of the treatments are seen very quickly and 
convince the farmers easily. On the other hand, these 
are already more or less accustomed and sensitized on 
immunization that are mandatory for zebus, and don’t 
show any reluctance. Finally, the treatments are 
relatively sparsely binding as well as in terms of time 
than distance thanks to the proximity of the CLWs. 
 The improvement concerning the food are the less 
adopted. They are specially limited by the availability of 
food, which is the main issue of households. Farmers’ logic is not oriented to the animal husbandry 
performance but rather on risk management, that explain in part their reluctance. 
 The uppermost adoption rate concerns the chicken farming. Several reasons can be advanced to explain 
that situation. Firstly, women are responsible for the most activities of the chicken farming; or, their 
permanent presence at the village permits them to spend time for animals. Then, it seems that for the 
ruminants, farmers had more difficulty to adopt the improvements apart from the health care: in fact, the 
possibilities of food supplements are limited view animals’ diet,, and the shelter is not systematic valid 
taking into account of animal husbandry mode semi – nomadic (transhumance) on some breeders. 
The following figures illustrate the adoption scores, the number of technical improvements adopted by the 
beneficiaries, on the seven package improvements (six for chickens for which pasture management is not 
applicable). Only households that have adopted at least one technique are considered. Thus, the proportion of 
households that have adopted the package is 9.8% for goats, 11.9% for sheep and 4.4% for chickens. A large 
proportion of households adopt between 3 and 5 improvements. 
Figure 21 : Adoption score of the package of the technic for goats 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
38 
Figure 22 : Adoption score of the package of the technic for sheep 
Figure 23 : Adoption score of the package of the technic for Chicken 
4.2.2.2 Intermediate Result 2: Increased asset base 
The program distributed 8918 animals, including 1568 small ruminants and 7350 chickens from 1960 households. 
According to the program document, the objective was to distribute 9000 animals to 2000 households, and the 
targets could be considered to have been met. This activity falls within the scope of the intermediate result "IR.2 2: 
Increased asset base". 
Beneficiaries were asked to give their assessment of the evolution of their livestock during the last twelve months. 
The responses show that more than half of the beneficiaries report an increase in livestock over the last twelve 
months. There is a strong contrast between the appreciation of agricultural production and that of livestock. 
Considering that the climatic conditions have been bad and that this has affected agricultural production, it can 
already be assumed that the livestock increase noted here is at least in part related to the LIVES Program. It should 
also be noted that the situation is very similar among households, whatever the type of head of household. 
Table 10 : Livestock progress during the last twelve months 
 Progress FHH MHH Ensemble 
Highly increased 4,5% 1,9% 2,4%
Increased 53,0% 56,3% 55,7%
Remain the same 6,1% 6,7% 6,5%
Decreased 28,8% 30,4% 30,1%
Highly decreased 7,6% 4,8% 5,4%
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
39 
Therefore, a significant 35.5% of households noted a decrease in livestock. The main reasons for the decline in 
this category of households are shown in the figure below. In fact, the sale of animals following a shock (physical, 
economic, social, etc.) is the main reason for the decline in the stock of small ruminants. The disease is the main 
cause of loss in terms of chicken. These results also highlight the very important role of livestock and especially 
small ruminants in the shock absorptive mechanisms implemented by households. 
Figure 24 : Main causes of the decrease of livestock 
The evolution of the average size of the herd in the household before and after the program varies considerably 
according to the species. The socioeconomic conditions of the household and consumer demand largely influence 
this development. The shocks and stresses intensity related to the agroclimatic condition of the last two seasons 
conditioned mainly a decrease in the average size of the chickens in the zone. 26% decrease is observed in this 
respect compared to the data collected during the baseline, since chicken is easier to sell compared to small 
ruminants. This reduction is not considered to be a loss due to the rearing condition given the adoption rate in 
improved chicken technique. 
For small ruminants, the increase is consistent with baseline. However, it should be borne in mind that the two 
studies were carried out at different times, which significantly influence the results: the baseline survey was carried 
out during the lean period (November), while the evaluation was carried out at the beginning of welding (July). 
Moreover, the deterioration of the rainfall conditions has certainly influenced the survival of the herd. However, one 
can rely on the perceptions of households, a large part of which estimates that the size of the livestock has 
increased over 12 months 
Table 11 : Progress of the size of livestock before and after the program 
Sectors 
BASELINE FINAL EVALUATION GAP 
FHH MHH Aggregate FHH MHH Aggregate 
Goats 3,2 8 7,2 6,3 10,88 10,2 41,7% 
Sheep 0,9 6,2 5,2 4,1 11,46 9,89 90,2%
Chicken 28,9 31,4 31 20,73 23,67 23,1 -25,5%
4.2.2.3 Intermediate Result 3: Improved access to animal health care services 
According to the report of the program, 49 CLW was trained, equipped and operational. These CLW could provide 
services within the 3, 047 households that include then the households the none direct beneficiaries of the program. 
Among those beneficiaries, the use of services of the CLW was massive, as illustrated by the following figure. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
40 
Figure 25 : Proportion of households using the services of CLW 
Households were asked to assess the services provided by the CLWs. The responses show that the assessments 
are very positive, and a large part of the farmers express their intention to continue using the services of the CLWs, 
which is a sign of the sustainability of the system in place. The following figures illustrate these opinions, depending 
on the species and the type of HH. 
By disaggregating the results by species, it should be noted that the percentage of people who still report reluctance 
to use CLW services the next time is quite high, at 20%, compared to other species. The reason was not asked in 
the survey, but focus group discussions suggest that the use of outside services for chicken is not very common 
for the population: priority is given to zebu and then to small ruminants, given the resources to be spent in terms of 
money and time. On the other hand, the beneficiaries have not yet passed through the period of the major epizootics 
(avian cholera and Gumboro disease) which is around October - November, and it is possible that a party does not 
yet see the interest of to take care of chickens. 
Figure 26 : Appreciation of the CLW services at the goat’s farmers 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
41 
Figure 27 : Appreciation of the CLW services at the sheep’s farmers 
Figure 28 : Appreciation of the CLW services at the chicken’s farmers 
4.2.3 Appreciation of the actors 
In general, 89% of beneficiaries are satisfied with the program. Indeed, the improvement of livestock management 
is one of the main concerns of households. The program implementation coinciding with an intensive lean period 
encourages rapid adoption of the technologies proposed by the program. It should be noted that 8% of the 
beneficiaries did not give an answer, which can be interpreted as an indication of dissatisfaction, although it cannot 
be affirmative. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
42 
Figure 29 : Appreciation of the effectiveness of the program by beneficiaries 
To get more precise idea on the LIVES contribution on the obtained results, the assistance and the support actors 
specific to the animal husbandry was discussed during the survey. The considered assistance here incorporates 
all actors that intervene on the three communes, including LIVES. 
The types of assistance the most frequent are the training, the technical supervision, animal’s provision and for the 
small ruminants and for the chicken. Some households declare to have benefited from other supports, such as the 
communication of the donation on materials and inputs. None of the households received any financial support. 
Figure 30 : Types of assistance on animal husbandry received 
LIVES is the main supplier of service mentioned by the beneficiaries. However, note the presence of other projects 
that are intervening or intervene as well on the sector, particularly AVSF, ACF and ASOTRY. Finally, the presence 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
43 
of public services is very weak. The DRAE explain the situation like the consequence of the lack of means in its 
disposition, but as well by the fact that, due to the presence of actors like LIVES, the public services focus more 
their efforts on the commune that doesn’t benefit any assistance. 
Figure 31 : Support organism per type of assistance on animal husbandry 
In conclusion, we can consider that the reported effects are the convergence of the initiatives of several actors, 
but the contribution of LIVES is by far the most important. 
4.2.4 Factors having influenced the effectiveness of the Program 
The program on its implementation faced constraints linked to animal distribution. The failure of the service provider 
of the chicken transport had brought impacts on the health of animals. The distributed animals are in most cases, 
in the state of physical weakness and other are already carrying diseases. The adaptation of welcome 
environmental was then difficult, having induced huge mortality of animals. Furthermore, at the contact of new 
animals carrying diseases, the transmission on healthy animals not yet immunized was inevitable. That situation 
was the origin of the extermination of livestock at some villages. 
Despite the partnership between the CLW and the veterinaries, the distributions of inputs face difficulties view of 
the isolation of the localities. The existence of the cold chain is particularly critical for the transport and the 
conservation of the vaccines. The program could bring response to these constraints, by negotiating the use of cold 
installations, implemented by ACF and AVSF. However, the Mayor of Maroarivo and the veterinary of Betioky 
revealed that often, these installations are used at other purpose: recharging of the cellphone, films projection. 
The very low level of education in the area is a barrier for stakeholders in the selection of CLWs. A level of education 
of secondary cycle was recommended during the assembly of the program for the CLW according to the wishes of 
the Sanitary Vets in charge of the zones. The observation on the ground of the level of the people aged between 
15 and 50 years did not allow to respect this criterion of selection. Indeed, only the 3% can occupy the position. 
Criteria adjustments were made according to the existing situation in the localities in agreement between the 
program team, the Health Veterinarians and the community. For CLWs with low levels of education, difficulties were 
encountered in the completion of the reports required for the supply of livestock inputs and the activities carried 
out. 
4.2.5 Outcomes 
This section describes and analyzes mainly the changes observed with the beneficiaries and the area of 
intervention and to which the program contributed. At this stage, it is not yet possible to talk about impacts, given 
that the program's interventions have been very recent. However, several changes at both the beneficiary and 
community levels were examined. The data and analyzes reported here combine qualitative and quantitative 
sources. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
44 
The themes analyzed in this section focus on livestock, food security and income. The issue of gender, which is an 
important dimension of the program, is addressed in a specific section. 
4.2.5.1 Level of realization of the outcomes 
Table 12 : Level of realization of the outcomes 
# Indicator name Unit Disaggregation 
Value 
Réalisation 
Baseline MID 
TERM 
Final 
Evaluation Target 
USAID / OFDA GOAL 
3 
Number of veterinary 
interventions, treatments or 
vaccinations administered3
Number 
Total 0 12792 66 098
21 000
 
 
 
 
315%
 
 
 
 
Intervention
Deworming 0 6 656 33 649
Vaccination 0 2 501 9 079
Dip 0 0 0
Treatment 0 3 635 21 591
4 Number of animals treated 
or vaccinated Number 
Total 0 8 502 52 939
14 000 378%
Animals 
Goats / Sheep 0 4 792 29 322
Chickens 0 3 710 23 412
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE 
5 Average value of livestock 
assets 
Percent 
(MGA) 
Total 310 403 284 538 456 061
403,524 
(30%)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
113%
Sex 
Male￾headed 
Total 310 387 284 534 369 852
Goats 157 750 155 560 333 490
Sheep 98 303 81 865 69 334
Chickens 54 334 47 109 95 618
Female￾headed 
Total 126 165 215 407 207 696
Goats 58 465 166 290 167 805
Sheep 16 800 13 504 33 918
Chickens 50 900 35 613 82 916
6 
Prevalence of households 
with moderate or severe 
hunger 
Percent 
Total - moderate 67% 59% 26% 42% 
(-25%)
 
 
 
 
 
164%
Sex 
Male-headed 66% 59% 27%
Female-headed 72% 56% 22%
Total - severe 4% 4% 0%
Sex 
Male-headed 5% 4% 0%
Female-headed 4% 4% 2%
INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1.1: Animal husbandry practices improved 
7 
% of farmers and others 
who have applied improved 
technologies or 
management practices 
because of USG 
assistance 
Number 
Total 0 89% 77%
75% 102%
Sex 
Male-headed 0 91% 78%
Female-headed 0 76% 74%
INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1.3: Access to animal health services increased 
15 
Small ruminants and 
chicken mortality rate 
among target producer 
groups’ households 
Percent 
Total 18% 28% 16% -25% 8%
Animals 
Goats / Sheep 14% 16% 11% -25% 12%
Chickens 28% 33% 27% -25% 4%
16 
Percentage of households 
served by CLWs that give 
favorable review of their 
experience 
Percent 
Total 0% 81% 88% 75% 117%
Sex 
Male-headed 0% 80% 88% 75% 117%
Female-headed 0% 85% 89% 75% 119%
 
3
 These indicators, tracked with monitoring data, use information as of June 2017, which was the latest available to the final 
evaluation. Final values may be different, as the project ended in September 2017. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
45 
4.2.5.2 Beneficiaries' perception of observed change 
The findings on the general change at the level of the households brought by the program are important according 
to the 84% of the beneficiaries. 
Figure 32 : Change brought by the program according to the beneficiaries’ perception 
It is at the level of female-headed households that changes are most observed with 85% compared with 84% in 
male-headed households. These changes relate particularly to livestock husbandry, improved gender issues and 
resilience to food shocks and stresses. 
Practice and performances of animal husbandry 
The observations made by the evaluation team and the results of the interviews highlighted significant changes in 
local practices at the end of the program, particularly at the level of the program direct beneficiaries. Indeed, the 
97% said they had acquired new skills in breeding behavior on small ruminants and chickens. 
However, the degree of ownership of these techniques by beneficiaries who have adopted one or a few 
improvements in their livestock management while making the necessary adaptations depends on the capacity and 
the available resources. This is particularly true of male-headed households with a higher resource mobilization 
capacity of 97% versus 94% of women. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
46 
The following figures show the proportions of households that have acquired new skills according to the 
municipalities and the type of household. 
Figure 33 : Acquisition of the new competencies 
Following the training and to the capacity building conducted by the program, the change the most significant are: 
 The construction of livestock pens for chicken and ruminants 
In general, the observed changes consist in the hen house improvement to keep chicken at night. For most 
beneficiary breeders, chicken is left free during the day and placed in wooden huts at night. Only a few breeders, 
most of whom are LLFs or CLWs, keep the animals day and night in a farmyard. Difficulties are related to the cost 
of maintaining these animals, because livestock producers have to bring in all the nutriment needs (food and water) 
have been put forward as the main constraint in the application of these technical improvements. 
For small ruminants, almost all breeders keep them on pasture during the day with cattle. During the night, only a 
few LLFs chose to separate small ruminants from cattle by placing them in specific parks. This choice is dictated 
by the cramped space near the residential dwelling to construct parks for small ruminants. 
The survey results show a low rate of building enclosures for small animals. Surroundings 43% of households have 
enclosures. This proportion is especially low for female-headed households compared to male-headed households 
with rates of 31% and 47% respectively. 
The effects perceived by breeders relate to the reduction of the mortality rate of the animals due to the attack of 
predators, a better follow-up of the animals on the health and reproductive aspects as well as better management 
of the food and the watering. The adoption or not the beneficiaries of these technical improvements depends largely 
on the acceptance of the financial capacity of the household and the availability of labor. The breeders' appropriation 
of the new techniques is determined by the need to isolate the animals to provide supplementary foods, especially 
for chicken. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
47 
Figure 34 : Proportion of households built local for animals 
 Vaccination and deworming of animals 
Immunization is by far the technique introduced by the program which has reached the largest number of adopters. 
8% of households have introduced vaccination into the management of their livestock. Several factors that 
contributed to this adoption were cited during the interviews. Indeed, the vaccination services offered by the CLW 
are accessible by all, by the beneficiaries of the program through the community grouping. Secondly, the cost of 
vaccination is within the reach of most beneficiaries. Finally, because of the awareness-raising activities carried out 
by the program and the LLFs, the beneficiaries trust the CLWs who are also agents from the community. In fact, 
issues relating to cattle breeding and small ruminant farming remain very sensitive and difficult to access for 
individuals outside the family. 
It was found that among those who have their animals vaccinated, some are unconvinced or reluctant about the 
effectiveness of deworming or cannot afford the use of the CLW deworming service, resulting a rate of deworming 
of 45%. 
A difference was also observed between small ruminants and chicken. The proportion of vaccinated chicken is 
20%, which is higher than that of small ruminants for which vaccination is not practiced according to data collected 
from CLWs. This is because the effects of chicken diseases, like koropoke, are more devastating with a mortality 
rate of up to 90%. Conversely, small ruminant farmers are more interested in systematic deworming that chicken 
farmer. The results of deworming practices show 33% for chickens and 53% for small ruminants. The main reason 
for the high morbidity due to parasite infestation of young goats or menatsinay was the interviewees. 
 The food supply 
Generally, chicken feed on food residues, crop residues, green plants and insects in surrounding the houses. 
Owners rarely add supply of food; as far as watering is concerned, no special system exists for chicken. Animals 
are satisfied with kitchen waste water and stagnant rainwater. 
Within the framework of its activities, the program has been involved in the animal feed improvement through the 
provision of a food supplement. In this sense, beneficiaries are unconvinced by the implementation of training and 
accompanying measures (by calculating cost-benefit) and are also confronted with problems of access to raw 
materials necessary to produce food compounded or not. Breeders believe that it is not a priority to provide a food 
surplus to small ruminants and chicken if they are in free riding. Only those who have built specific housing for their 
animals should resort to daily food intake. In addition, some of the beneficiaries encountered believe that the 
deworming action is sufficient to improve breeding in terms of growth and weight gain. Compared to access to raw 
materials, most farmers distribute, apart from food residues, semolina and / or corn bran and dry cassava, to 
chickens, especially those that are young. Almost all adopters of improved diet are LLF with some members of 
associations. A link between improved farmyard production and the need to feed animals kept permanently was 
observed. 
The following figure show the proportion of the food types for the chicken. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
48 
Figure 35 : Proportion of food types for chicken 
The feed given to chickens, other than green materials, and insects are largely purchased by households. Only 
19.9% of all the food come from household production. Despite the acquisition of training on improved feeding, they 
have difficulty in applying knowledge in view of problems related to basic supply and the food and economic 
situation of the household. 
Details of the source of the feed given to the chickens are summarized in the following table. 
Figure 36 : Provenance of food given to chicken 
Type Purchase Gathering Household None 
determine
Production Donation 
Sorghum 80% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20%
Corn 86% 0% 0% 0% 14% 0%
Cassava 50% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0%
Rice 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Agricultural by product 75% 0% 0% 0% 26% 0%
Green material 0% 38% 0% 63% 0% 0%
Insects 0% 4% 0% 97% 0% 0%
Other supply 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Others 0% 0% 6% 94% 0% 0%
Aggregate 45% 2% 1% 31% 20% 1%
Goats and sheep are content of plant resources from herbaceous and shrubby plants on natural pastures during 
their journey, as well as crop residues after harvest. Watering is done late in the day in the water points installed 
specifically for animals, the level of household well or also along the rivers. The changes observed in food-related 
practices are minimal and concern mainly the valorization of crop residues and tedding. 20.2% of goat farmers and 
2.3% of supported sheep farmers made improvements in feeding. The main reason cited by the beneficiaries 
encountered concerns the need for labor to find fresh grass during the rainy season. 
In fact, the overlapping of the green fodder cutting period for willowing and large-scale agricultural work results in 
competition in terms of labor with prioritization for agriculture. Moreover, the current livestock size with annual 
variations does not yet require the use of supplementary feeding. In this respect, the number of animals during the 
dry period coinciding with the period of lean and hungry is at the lowest level, which does not justify the use of 
fodder for the moment. 
The following figure shows the proportion of food types for small ruminants. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
49 
Figure 37 : Proportion by type of food given to small ruminants 
Unlike chickens, the food supplied to small ruminants is mostly pasture with 52.8%. For this type of farming, food 
is rarely bought with a proportion of 4.7%. Other foods other than green materials are generally derived from 
production. The persistence of drought has favored the use of non-productive plants, hence the high response rate 
on the use of by-products. For prepared foods derived from production, they follow up the acquisition of know-how 
on the feed requirements of animals. 
Table 13 : Provenance of different kinds of food given to the small ruminants 
Aliment Bought Gathering Pastures Production Households None 
determine 
Cassava 8,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 91,7% 0,0%
Green material 0,0% 30,9% 6,4% 0,0% 0,0% 62,7%
Agricultural by product 25,0% 0,0% 0,0% 75,0% 0,0% 0,0%
Prepared food 28,6% 0,0% 0,0% 71,4% 0,0% 0,0%
Others 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 9,1% 90,9%
Aggregate 4,7% 21,6% 52,8% 4,5% 15,5% 0,9%
Genetic improvement was a technical aspect to which the program provided support for the degeneration of the 
local sheep race. In its approach, the program facilitated the installation of males at the LLF level to promote 
crossbreeding with local race females. Interviews and focus groups with goat beneficiaries highlighted constraints 
on the adoption of this technique. As the proportion of households that have adopted the small ruminants in stalling 
is less, the genetic cross is difficult to enforce. Indeed, the wandering of cattle makes it more difficult to detect heat 
but also to prevent mating with the male of the herd. Thus, only the goats of the LLF benefit directly from the 
advantages of the breeders’ installation. This difficulty in tracking goats during their journey is accentuated by the 
fact that it is usually young boys, that is, a few who do not have specific knowledge of reproductive management 
(they have not benefited from training), which are involved in the guard of livestock. 
For the chicken, surely improvements of the race due to the introduction of variety from other regions are always 
probable face to a degree of consanguinity quite high, but an evaluation of an eventual genetic improvement is 
determined. 
Compared to these constraints, the livestock management booklet arrangement of beneficiary households is 
limited, with only 24.8% of beneficiary households for small ruminants and 10.6% of beneficiary households for 
chickens. 
 Income sources 
The improvement of the households’ income sources is particularly linked with the progress of the ability to invest 
on the household income. As it was mentioned on the paragraph “economic activity of household”, the practice of 
agricultural is the first households’ income sources followed by animal husbandry. Investments was done on the 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
50 
improvement of agricultural conduct and extension of the exploitation with the respective proportion 28% and 27% 
of households respectively, followed by the decrease of the animals’ mortality rate and then the increase of the 
number of animals sold. Despite these investments, a deficit of production, around 2/3 was registered because of 
the lack of rainfall, according to the interviews. 
The following figure summarizes the immediate change notices by beneficiaries according to the practice of 
agriculture. 
Figure 38 : Observed change in the practice of agriculture 
According to the information obtained, the most important investment in agricultural activities because of the 
actions taken is not related to whether it is a household headed by women or by men. 
For livestock production, the most important change concerns the improvement of livestock management and is 
observed on 87% by households. Improving Animal Health was made by 75% of households and the extension of 
operations by 58% of households. 
The following table illustrates the changes observed by households in livestock management. 
Table 14 : Changes observed by households in livestock management 
Impacts on animal husbandry FHH MHH Agrégat 
Extension of the exploitation 55,2% 58,7% 58,0%
Exploitation of the new field 10,4% 8,5% 8,9%
Improvement of animal husbandry conduct 86,6% 87,1% 87,0%
Material acquisition for animal husbandry 3,0% 2,6% 2,7%
Improvement of the health of animal 67,2% 76,8% 74,9%
Improvement of trading 4,5% 7,0% 6,5%
Others 0,0% 1,1% 0,9%
N 67 271 338
As for the market value of small ruminants and chickens within households, an increase of 47% is observed in the 
set. This increase is especially high in female-headed households, which account for 65%, compared with 19% for 
men. The market value of goat has increased of 187% in female-headed households and 111% in men-headed 
households. On the other hand, a 30% decrease is observed for the income generated by sheep in men-headed 
households. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
51 
Figure 39 : Comparison of animal market value during baseline and final evaluation 
The projection of the animals’ market value evolution compared to the same period (baseline period and lean 
period) tends towards a low overall trend of 12%. The situation is mainly due to the decrease of the price decline 
among the breeders during this period as every year. De-capitalization for food supply is one of the factors in the 
decline in value. 
Evolution is the same as at present, according to the animals’ types and the household head gender. The following 
figure shows the trend of evolution to the lean period for this season. The values shown in the figure may be reduced 
depending on the size of the lean period experienced by households. 
Figure 40 : Projection of animal market value progress during lean period with the baseline 
The evolution of values is also influenced by consumer demand and the needs of potential markets. Currently, with 
the increase in the price of zebu meat and speculation about the opening of goat meat exporting companies, 
households tend to abandon the exploitation of sheep and encourage the exploitation of goats. 
The reason why animals are sold have changed between the periods of the baseline implementation and the final 
evaluation. The results do not really reflect the situation of households during the lean season. It is important to 
mention that the intention to sell animals during the baseline period tends to increase the sale for purchasing food. 
The following figure summarizes the sales patterns according to the data collection periods. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
52 
Figure 41 : Reasons for the sale of animals 
Apart from the purchase of food, households sell the animals essentially for the improvement of the exploitation, 
whether the activities of the breeding or those of the agriculture. Nevertheless, there is a gradual decline in this 
trend over the evaluation period. 
 Food security 
Food security analysis includes technical elements (including food and water, etc.) that can influence the nutritional 
status of an individual. 
The improvement of the program beneficiaries’ food situation is one of the performance indicators in the evaluation 
of the program impact. The objective is to reduce HHS by 25% at the end of the program. 
Comparing the indicator of baseline and final evaluation of the HHS shows food safety improvement of situation in 
general households during the investigation period. The proportion is very high for male-headed households 
compared to female-headed households with 53.5% and 43.2%, respectively. 
The HHS indicators during the evaluation period show a great difference from the results obtained during the 
construction of the baseline: 
 For households that did not have food due to lack of resources during the last 30 days: the proportion of 
households affected decreased by 37.6% overall compared to the results obtained during the construction 
of the baseline, in which 40% for female-headed households and 37.2% for male-headed households. 
 For households where a member has not been able to eat at night during the last 30 days: an increase in 
the proportion of affected households by 9.8% compared to baseline data was recorded. It relates 
particularly households headed by men with an increase of 12% against a decrease of 1.2% for 
households headed by women. 
 For households where a member could not eat day and night during the last 30 days: the proportion of 
households headed by men affected increased by 4.4%, while a household headed by women a decrease 
of 0.9% is noted. 
Analysis of the data obtained from the households interviewed show an increase in the category of households with 
acceptable food security of 45% compared to the period 2014-2015. This comparison does not consider the period 
of realization of the baseline and the final evaluation. Indeed, the baseline conducted itself during full lean period 
while the final evaluation at the beginning of the lean period. 
The following figures illustrate the evolution of HHS indicators according to the type of head of household in the 
program area. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
53 
Figure 42 : Percentage change in HHS indicators by gender of head of household 
Figure 43 : Percentage of changes in households that did not have food due to lack of resources during 
the last 30 days 
Figure 44 : Percentage of changes in households where a member could not eat at night during the last 
30 days 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
54 
Figure 45 : Percentage of changes in households where a member could not eat during the day and night 
during the last 30 days 
An analysis of the food situation of the zone and of households over a period of 12 months is therefore necessary 
to evaluate the trend of the evolution. 
The appreciation of agricultural production has deteriorated according to the 97% of households surveyed. Climate 
conditions in the area in 2016/2017 particularly illustrate the households’ inability to secure productive capital linked 
to agriculture and the activities they need to live. Indeed, according to the socio-economic characteristics of the 
households, 54% of the income of households comes from agriculture. 
Households headed by women are more affected by the decline in production, with 98.4% of the households and 
96.7% of men. This decrease is mainly due to the decrease in precipitation in the area during the growing period. 
According to meteorological service data, the normal precipitation of the intervention area of the program is 500mm 
during the growing season. The difference between normal precipitation and rainfall over the 2015/2016 season is 
200mm and 195mm for the 2016/2017 season. 
Figure 46 : Comparison of the rainfall during the season of culture (mm) 
The decline in rainfall and the decrease in production have affected the household food reserve. Data from 
household surveys show an increase of 31% of households no longer able to store food from production for a period 
of 3 months at or about 82% of households. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
55 
Figure 47 : Comparison of the number the month covered by production 2014/2015 and 2016/2017 
In relation to these situations, the household food supply currently tends towards the purchase of foods. Indeed, 
during the period 2016/2017, the proportion of households using the sale is 54.6% compared to 26.7% only for the 
consumption of food produced by production. This consumption is spread out from March to June and until July 
2017. The 90% of the foods bought come mainly from the districts of Betioky and Ampanihy according to the 
retailers in the localities. 
Consumption of harvesting products such as Raketa, moky and Kily is more widespread between November 2016 
and February 2017. 
Figure 48 : Proportion of household food supply 
The comparison of the duration of the lean period shows a very long period of 9 months currently against 5 months 
on average during the realization of the baseline. Indeed, while the duration of the lean period for the 51% of 
households is 1 to 3 months in 2014/2015, it affects only 12.8% of households only for the period 2016/2017 
(decrease of 75%). For households affected by a lean period of more than 3 months, a 78% increase is observed, 
of which 38% in 2014/2015 and 86% in 2016/2017 for women-headed households and 51% in 87% for male￾headed households. 
This period of leaning may increase in 2017/2018 if the amount of rain received remains low. The following table 
illustrates this. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
56 
Table 15 : Comparison of the duration of the lean period 2014/2015 and 2016/2017 
Lean period Juil Août Sept. Oct. Nov. Déc. Janv. Févr. Mars Avr. Mai Juin 
Beginning 
2014/2015 4,8% 3,0% 5,0% 36,7% 29,4% 13,1% 0,8% 1,0% 0,0% 0,3% 2,8% 3,3% 
Beginning
2016/2017 17,2% 23,4% 13,8% 19,7% 15,2% 4,8% 4,5% 0,8% 0,0% 0,6% 0,0% 0,0% 
End
2014/2015 2,3% 3,8% 2,3% 3,3% 0,3% 3,3% 5,1% 47,0% 29,5% 2,8% 0,5% 0,0% 
End
2016/2017 0,0% 0,6% 3,1% 6,8% 2,3% 10,7% 14,4% 33,0% 24,2% 3,4% 0,8% 0,8% 
The lower production also affected the main household staples. Consumption of cereals is 20% overall during the 
lean period during the baseline, compared with only 4% now. The strategy of households to address the problems 
of basic food supplies thus tends towards the consumption of cheaper and available products such as tubers. A 
68% increase in households consuming tubers is observed compared to the baseline period of 47%. Findings on 
this increase are not related to the type of head of household. 
Normally, consumption of cereals (mainly maize) has clearly changed over the baseline period. The proportion of 
households with the possibility to consume has increased by 44% currently against 40% in 2014/2015. This is also 
observed on cassava consumption with 33% in 2014/2015 and 51% currently. 
The following table shows the evolution of the proportion of households according to the types of basic foods 
between the baseline and the final evaluation. 
Table 16 : Basic food of household by period 
Basic food BASELINE Final evaluation Evolution 
FHH MHH Aggregate FHH MHH Aggregate FHH MHH Aggregate
Normal 
period 
Rice 9,0% 8,1% 8,3% 2,6% 0,2% 0,7% -6,4% -7,9% -7,6%
Maize 31,2% 32,0% 31,8% 44,6% 43,5% 43,7% 13,4% 11,5% 11,9%
Cassava 33,5% 32,6% 32,7% 48,3% 51,0% 50,5% 14,8% 18,4% 17,8%
Sweet potato 19,0% 20,8% 20,5% 0,7% 1,6% 1,4% -18,3% -19,2% -19,1%
Others products 7,2% 6,6% 6,7% 3,7% 3,8% 3,8% -3,5% -2,8% -2,9%
Lean 
period 
Rice 2,1% 0,5% 0,8% 0,4% 0,1% 0,1% -1,7% -0,4% -0,7%
Maize 18,6% 19,1% 19,0% 4,1% 3,9% 4,0% -14,5% -15,2% -15,0%
Cassava 39,4% 40,1% 39,9% 64,5% 68,4% 67,7% 25,1% 28,3% 27,8%
Sweet potato 8,5% 6,3% 6,7% 0,2% 0,4% 0,3% -8,3% -5,9% -6,4%
Others products 31,4% 34,0% 33,5% 30,8% 27,2% 27,9% -0,6% -6,8% -5,6%
The analysis of the number of meals taken by households in normal period and during the lean period also reflects 
deterioration in the household food situation. Indeed, in normal period, the 65.7% of households had access to 3 
meals a day during the baseline; a decrease of 12.9% is currently observed. This decrease is in the order of 19.6% 
for female-headed households and 11.4% for male-headed. 
The intervention of different institutions on the food security scheme in the area has resulted in a positive trend 
compared to the number of meals eaten per day per household. An increase in three meal times per day affects 
19.6% of households compared to baseline results and 42.7% for twice a day. The following table illustrates the 
evolution of the number of meals taken per day by households. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
57 
Table 17 : Frequency of meals taken by period 
Percentage of households by number of meals BASELINE FINAL EVALUATION
FHH MHH Aggregate FHH MHH Aggregate
Normal 
period 
3 times 70,7% 64,6% 65,7% 51,1% 53,2% 52,8%
2 times 29,3% 35,4% 34,3% 46,6% 44,5% 44,9%
Other frequencies 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 2,2% 2,3% 2,3%
Lean 
period
3 times 1,3% 0,3% 0,5% 21,1% 19,9% 20,1%
2 times 9,3% 11,0% 10,7% 45,5% 55,4% 53,4%
Other frequencies 89,3% 88,7% 88,8% 33,4% 24,7% 26,5%
The Household Diet Diversity Score (HDDS) is used as an indirect indicator of household food access. Low dietary 
diversity was observed in all households during the last 24 hours. Indeed, only 3% of households have an 
acceptable diversity of foods, of which households headed by women are higher, at 4.5%, compared with 1.5% for 
households headed by men. 
Figure 49 : Proportion of households by household dietary diversity scores 
The adaptation strategies identified during the baseline are measures used to manage and minimize the risk of 
chronic food insecurity or recurring situations. These strategies to address food insecurity have also evolved into 
temporary strategies to reduce or minimize the effects of a stressful event or an adverse situation where food 
access is disrupted abnormal. According to the categorization during the baseline, the evolutions are as follows: 
 Reduce the amount of daily meals: increase by 5%; 
 Reduce the number of daily meals taken: 12% increase; 
 Borrow food from family, friends and shopkeepers: 2% decrease; 
 Consume cheaper foods: 29% increase; 
 Eating wild food: 16% decrease; 
 Sell livestock: increase of 3%; 
 Sell household assets: 18% decrease; 
 Migrate to district, regional or national capitals: increase of 4%; 
 Other strategies: decrease by 2%. 
The following two figures illustrate the evolution of the various strategies adopted by households. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
58 
Figure 50 : Strategies adopted by households 
Figure 51 : Comparison of strategies adopted by households 2014/2015 and 2016/2017 
The decision on these strategies adopted to deal with the food problem concerns generally man and woman. This 
analysis is particularly relevant for mixed households. Decision-making involving husband and wife involve about 
60% of the cases currently for 80% during the implementation of the baseline. 
The results of the analysis also show that there has been a significant increase in the decision-making process 
taken by the male or female alone in the strategy to be adopted. This situation illustrates the deterioration of the 
food situation of households, leading to disparity in decision-making within households. 
Table 18 : Decision-making mechanism according to strategies adopted by households 
PRISE DE DECISION 
BASELINE FINAL EVALUATION 
Together Woman Men Together Woman Men 
Consume cheaper foods 100,0% 0,0% 0,0% 61,6% 32,0% 6,4%
Borrow food 61,2% 29,5% 9,3% 54,0% 35,0% 11,0%
Reduce the frequency of meals 85,9% 9,4% 4,7% 63,5% 30,7% 5,7%
Reduce the amount of meals 66,6% 23,9% 9,6% 56,3% 36,9% 6,8%
Consume wild foods 75,0% 11,7% 13,3% 64,7% 22,4% 12,9%
Sell household assets 73,9% 3,8% 22,3% 75,2% 10,9% 13,9%
Sell livestock 83,7% 8,1% 8,1% 70,2% 11,5% 18,3%
Migration 100,0% 0,0% 0,0% 63,2% 10,5% 26,3%
Other solution 71,4% 14,3% 14,3% 33,3% 0,0% 66,7%
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
59 
The sale of animals for the agriculture practice affects about 7% of households having both small ruminants and 
chickens, 35% and 7% for households with only respectively as small ruminants and chickens. Sales are made 
between November and February. 
The sale of animals’ mainly small ruminants and chickens for the purchase of food during lean periods is practiced 
according to the duration of the lean period and the types of animals in possession of the households. The 
households most affected by the sale of animals during this period are those with a lean period beginning between 
July and September and ending between January and March. It concerns about 40% of households 46%, 43% and 
30% respectively for households with chickens only, households with small ruminants and chickens, and 
households with only small ruminants. 
Table 19 : Proportion of the animals’ sale of at the beginning and end of the lean season 
Lean period Beginning Juil - 
Sept 2016 
Beginning Oct - 
déc 2016 
Beginning Janv - 
mars 2017 
Household with 
small ruminants 
and chickens 
End July - Sept 2016 1,40%
End Oct - dec 2016 21,40% 2,90%
End Jan - march 2017 42,90% 25,70% 1,40%
End April - june 2017 4,30%
Household 
owning only 
small ruminants 
End July - Sept 2016
End Oct - dec 2016 17,40%
End Jan - march 2017 30,40% 43,50% 8,70%
End April - june 2017
Household with 
only chickens 
End July - Sept 2016 5,90%
End Oct - dec 2016 14,90%
End Jan - march 2017 45,50% 29,70% 2,00%
End April - june 2017 2,00%
The increase in households classified as "poor" food consumption score of 30.7% is generally seen in relation to 
the baseline period. It is the same for both types of household. It shows the difficulty of access to food and the low 
availability of food in the area. The situation is likely to worsen as households enter the lean season, especially 
during the first quarter of 2018. 
Table 20 : Food consumption score by gender of head of household 
FCS 
BASELINE FINAL EVALUATION 
Evolution 
FHH MHH Aggregate FHH MHH Aggregate 
Poor 21,3% 11,0% 12,9% 53,1% 41,4% 43,6% 30,7%
Average 46,7% 55,4% 53,8% 39,1% 49,2% 47,3% -6,5%
Diversified 32,0% 33,6% 33,3% 7,8% 9,4% 9,1% -24,2%
N 75 345 420 64 266 330
The trend in the level of quality and quantity of food consumed by households mainly follows the analyzes carried 
out in relation to HHS, HDDS, FSC and the duration of the lean season. The results obtained show a 28% increase 
in the proportion of households with a food profile "poor in quality and quantity" compared to the period of the 
baseline. 
Households headed by women are most concerned with an increase of 32% against 27% for households headed 
by men. For households categorized in the food profile "acceptable amount and average quality", the proportion 
decreased from 19% to 20% for households headed by men and only 15% for women. This situation is the long￾term impact of the activities carried out by stakeholders in food security in the area where women are the main 
beneficiaries. 
The following table illustrates the comparison of the different profiles in terms of quality and quantity of foods 
consumed by households during the implementation of the baseline and currently. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
60 
Table 21 : Level of quality and quantity of food consumed 
FOOD DIVERSITY 
BASELINE FINALE EVALUATION 
FHH MHH TOTAL FHH MHH TOTAL Evolutiion 
Poor quantity and quality 12,0% 6,4% 7,4% 44,1% 33,1% 35,3% 27,9%
Poor quantity and average quality 9,3% 4,6% 5,5% 5,9% 8,3% 7,8% 2,3%
Quantity limited and poor quality 9,3% 7,2% 7,6% 0,0% 8,3% 6,6% -1,0%
Quantity limit and average quality 37,3% 47,8% 46,0% 33,8% 35,3% 35,0% -11,0%
Quantity limit and diverse quality 0,0% 0,3% 0,2% 2,9% 3,0% 3,0% 2,8%
Acceptable quantity and poor quality 0,0% 0,3% 0,2% 0,0% 0,4% 0,3% 0,1%
Acceptable quantity and average quality 24,0% 25,2% 25,0% 8,8% 5,6% 6,3% -18,7%
Acceptable quantity and diversified quality 8,0% 8,1% 8,1% 4,4% 6,0% 5,7% -2,4%
The supply of water for domestic use is one of the factors allowing the assessment of the situation of access to 
drinking water for households or even for the whole zone. The various actions in the water point’s creation are very 
widespread. The water supply sources of the 40% of households are made up of wells fitted with human pumping 
equipment. They are generally granted by the support structures involved in the zones and the quality of the water 
is considered drinkable. The 54% households use wells that are not equipped. The 6% of households source from 
unprotected sources such as ponds, springs and rivers. 
Figure 52 : Types of water source for domestic use 
The duration of drinking water supply to reduce the risks associated with losses and quality for uncovered 
containers should mainly be less than 30 minutes from home. In all types of source, the 56% of households benefit 
from the respectable duration of water supply. The situation of the 80% of households using pedal or manual pumps 
mainly reflects an improvement in the drinking water supply situation. 
The distance between the house and the protected source penalizes the 6% of the households whose time needed 
for the supply is more than 1 hour. It is also decisive in the frequency of supply and therefore the quality of the 
water stored at home. Indeed, the proportion of households who buy from protected wells with human traction and 
whose frequency is more than once in the same day is 57%, of which 59% for households headed by women and 
57% for men. It should be noted that access to drinking water concerns households living in localities benefiting 
from the support of institutions working in the water sector. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
61 
Figure 53 : Duration of supply by type of water source 
Water supply for domestic use is allocated to 40% overall for women. This attribution differs according to the type 
of household head. For households headed by women, responsibility for water supply is attributed to young people 
in 68% of cases, compared with only 38% of households headed by men. This situation reflects the mobilization of 
working people in the household to support the management of daily tasks with households headed by women. 
Figure 54 : Responsible for water supply 
The water purchase concerns about 47% of households, of which 57% for households headed by women and 44% 
for men. These proportions show the difficulty for households headed by women in direct source supply because 
95% of these households do not have access to transportation such as wheelbarrows or carts. The purchase price 
of water varies from 50 to 300 ariary per bucket of 15 liters and from 100 to 700 ariary per 20 liters can depending 
on the distance from the source. A monthly participation of 200 ariary concerns about 27% of the households using 
the community managed source. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
62 
4.2.6 Changes at the community level 
Support from LLFs to program beneficiaries in improving livestock management was identified as an important 
achievement of the program. Besides the direct beneficiaries of assistance from LLF, the entire community also 
benefits, not to mention that the improvement of livestock management. In most cases, even if breeders have not 
been able to acquire animals from the program, they attend the training sessions provided by the FLL and put into 
practice the technical knowledge acquired. It was also found that some of the non-beneficiaries started to vaccinate 
their animals following advice from the LLF and the availability of veterinary inputs to the CLW. 
For CLWs, almost of qualitative and quantitative interviews discussed the importance of establishing CLWs in 
animal health at the community level. The CLWs as intermediary technicians of veterinary facilitate the supply of 
veterinary products but also provide the services of vaccination and small care. Since the beginning of the program, 
the number of non-beneficiaries who have applied for CLW intervention has increased progressively. 
Figure 55 : Proportion of beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries who used the services of CLW 
Because of these changes, significant impacts on livestock size improvements and mortality from small ruminant 
and chicken diseases were noted. 
Figure 56 : Evolution of disease-related mortality rates by type of animal 
For chickens, it should be noted that the mortality rate recorded during the final evaluation is a cumulative value for 
the entire program intervention period. Thus, this overestimated value includes the mortality caused by the physical 
shocks caused by the transport of the imported animals but also by the mortality of the animals due to the spread 
of disease transmitted by these new animals during the first distribution. 
The absence of strict accompaniment as the quarantine of animals and unpredictable factors mentioned above 
which chicken providers face, resulting in the loss of the entire herd to some breeders or even for the destination 
village of these animals through the transmission of diseases. This situation results the loss of chickens in the 
beneficiary households. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
63 
4.2.7 Conclusion on effectiveness and impact 
Considering the different elements developed previously, the LIVES program has proven effective. Most of the 
targets of the various indicators have been met, or even largely exceeded. Compared to intermediate result 1, 
which relates to the improvement of husbandry practices, the program could train 2206 households out of the 2000 
planned, it means a realization rate of 110%. The training covered a range of topics including pasture management 
and feeding, livestock housing, watering and health care. The survey results show that the adoption and effective 
implementation of these techniques vary depending on the considered topic. Improvements in animal health are 
the most widely adopted by beneficiaries, while those on food are the least adopted. The highest adoption rates 
are for chicken farming. These results are largely explained by the context of food shortages, which implies that 
households have only a small margin for progress in improving food, while health care by the majority. The program 
also resulted in the rehabilitation of seven water points, affecting 994 of the 1000 households, or 94% of the results. 
For the intermediate result 2 on the increase in livestock, the program could distribute 8918 animals, including 1568 
small ruminants and 7350 chickens from 1960 households. According to the program document, the objective was 
to distribute 9000 animals to 2000 households, and the targets could be considered to have been met. This resulted 
in an increase in livestock numbers in 57% of households compared to the initial situation. These results were 
obtained despite the deterioration in rainfall conditions that induced households to sell their animals to survive. 
The intermediate result 3 concerns the improvement of access to animal health services. The program strategy in 
relation to this result is based on the training and equipment of the CLWs. At the end of the Program, 49 CLWs 
could be trained and equipped out of the 49 planned, means 1 per fokontany. These CLWs have been able to 
provide services to 3047 households, thus including non-direct beneficiaries of the program. 
The program has encountered difficulties in the distribution of animals, due to failures at the level of suppliers. The 
level of population education is also a constraint, as the desired level for the selection of CLWs has been lowered. 
This constraint has impacted the flow of information between CLW and veterinarians. Finally, the distribution of 
inputs has been made difficult because of the isolation. 
Despite this, the program has been able to provide appropriate solutions to overcome constraints, adapting its 
strategy to the context and building partnerships with other stakeholders. The assessment of the actors in relation 
to the effectiveness of the program is generally positive. 
In concrete terms, in addition to the assessments of the beneficiaries and the palpable effects of improving access 
to water on the living conditions of women in certain villages, the program's impact on the population's standard of 
living, food security, on the vulnerability of households, not yet very sensitive by the beneficiaries. 
Delays in the chicken distribution, the adaptation period for small ruminants, which has resulted in some of the 
chicken not having yet given birth, the adverse impact of the last two years of drought on the resilience of the 
population, insecurity, are factors that have contributed to lag in the assessment of impacts. 
It was reported during interviews with key informants that almost all breeders still consume dead animals from an 
unknown cause, even though sensitization and training to reduce the disease transmission through manipulation 
of these animals have already been carried out. More so, these factors have been accentuated by the short duration 
of the program, this has not made it possible to make the necessary adjustments already recommended by the 
mid-term evaluation. 
However, it is important to note the changes that are already perceptible at the level of the communities and the 
program intervention areas in general and of the beneficiary farmers. These very early changes should be made 
on the assets of the program. Added to this is the positive assessment of beneficiaries and the immediate 
observable effects on livestock management and livestock. As an illustration, some breeders met in the context of 
the assessment mission confirmed a reduction in the mortality rate of small ruminants especially kids 80% before 
the arrival of the program to 10% currently. The effects of the program, considering all these risks and assumptions, 
will probably be felt after three to four cycles for small ruminants ie after about 2 years. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
64 
4.3 Sustainability 
The compilation of quantitative data from household interviews revealed a tendency for respondents to have a high 
probability that actions and their effects would be perennial and perceptible over time. 
Figure 57 : Appreciation by beneficiaries of durability 
A slight difference in the assessment of the program's actions sustainability by beneficiaries was observed at the 
level of the three intervention communes. This trend is correlated with the involvement of local actors but also with 
the appropriation of the beneficiaries of the activities implemented. 
Compared to the respondent's gender-based appreciation, women think more than the achievements of the 
program will remain beyond its lifespan. This reflects the importance of women's involvement in the implementation 
of the program but also significant changes in terms of taking responsibility. In other words, since women have 
been specifically supported, they are safer to succeed. 
4.3.1 Capacities of structures 
The analysis of the program sustainability results is based in part on an assessment of the structures put in place 
to achieve the predefined objectives. 
4.3.1.1 LLF 
The LLFs as a technical support facility for breeders are supposed to be functional even after the start of the 
program. Analysis of the data gathered from data collection shows that the current technical capacities of the FLLs 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
65 
should be considered as an irreversible asset. Thus, the continuity of the transfer of competences, from the LLF to 
the members of the community will be assured. 
In addition, the relevance of the advisory function and the effectiveness of FLL activity that can be measured 
through the beneficiary’s satisfaction with the services provided by the latter could be perceived as a sign of 
acceptance and sustainability of the advisory structure. However, interviews with LLFs during the appraisal mission 
and most the focus groups of beneficiaries and even non-beneficiaries expressed the duration of support for the 
counsellors as too short. The concerns of these interviewees revolve around the ability of the LLF to work without 
the support of LIVES but also in their capacity to meet new needs (management of grazing, watering up in the face 
of climate change ...). The low level of schooling of most LLFs could be the main cause. 
The networking of LLFs, which has already been raised by the program beneficiaries during the mid-term 
evaluation, is also a means of ensuring the perpetuation of the activities of these agents. However, most focus 
groups and FLL interviews did not mention such a consolidation initiative. 
4.3.1.2 CLW 
The compilation of data from the program and data collected in the field during the final evaluation demonstrates 
the interest of the targeted communities in CLW. 
The lack of a structure to support producers in addressing the recurring problems of animal health justifies the 
importance of CLWs in a context of inaccessibility of animal health services and veterinary inputs. The provision of 
vaccines and deworming products by veterinary in both districts increases the confidence of livestock breeders in 
CLWs. The availability of these products at the local level encourages livestock farmers to seek the services of 
these agents in the diseases prevention and treatment. However, the interview with the Betioky veterinarian 
revealed the existence of an informal supply system. Street vendors sell low-priced veto products at the level of the 
communal markets and the authenticity and effectiveness of these products are unreliable. CLWs supply 
themselves to these illicit traders, because they can buy the required quantity / dose (unlike the official outlets 
where the products are bought per bottle). This failure quality, to which the absence of a cold chain for conservation 
is added, has been identified as a cause of animal mortality, especially at an early age, and has an impact on 
livestock confidence in CLW and even on the importance and effectiveness of vaccination and deworming. 
The effectiveness of the service and its sustainability depends on the technical capacity of the CLW agents (both 
veterinarians have raised the need to support CLWs even in the determination of vaccines and dewormers but also 
in the diagnosis of certain diseases) and the availability of the cold chain, especially in areas farther from the inputs 
distribution point such as Ankazomanga and Maroarivo (for Beahitse, the point of sale of the veterinary proxy is in 
the main town from the community). A use of the conservation facilities granted by ACF to Ankazomanga is noted 
and facilitates the function of the CLW. 
If not, they are obliged to group the demands of the breeders to be able to place orders with the veterinary, a 
process which is not always easy in view of the low purchasing power and the lack of liquidity of the farmers. 
Recommendations that support the establishment of effective coordination between CLWs and veterinarians, in 
terms of input distribution, but above all on the recovery of the cost of purchasing these inputs and on the awareness 
and identification of breeders' needs, were issued to increase the probability of sustainability of CLW services. 
On the other plan, the payment of the CLW service can be interpreted as, a factor for the perpetuation of the activity 
of these agents, but on the other hand, the certain breeders’ payment capacity even through the FCSA may limit 
access to the service and thus the service durability. The main cause of this is the socio-organizational capacity of 
the FCSA to identify member needs and recover the products cost. In other words, the failure of the FCSA has a 
significant impact on the operation of the CLW. 
The establishment of a network of community-based livestock workers, bringing together the CLIVs of the LIVES 
program and the ACSAs or ACEs of the other projects involved in the area under the supervision of the veterinary 
is also a precursor to the sustainability of the livestock keepers function in the area. However, the strengthening of 
the systematic capacity of these agents as well as the establishment of a more effective coordination system with 
mandatory veterinarians and decentralized technical structures will be prerequisites for a sustainable community 
agent function. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
66 
4.3.1.3 FCSA 
The FCSA structure was created to support breeders and CLWs. The interrelation between the two entities (FCSA 
and CLW) is therefore important. The CLW services depend to a large extent on the farmers’ needs, which can be 
measured from the funds collected by the FCSA. The operationalization of the CLWs is therefore linked to the 
financial contribution of the breeders through the FCSA. The sustainability of this structure depends on the good 
functioning of the animal health support system but also on the appropriation of the system by the community in 
general and by the livestock farmers. As a producer group, the FCSA is confronted with the challenge of 
governance: socio-organizational, conflict management, transparency in management ... Insufficient capacity 
building in this sense: financial management, socio-organizational management, leadership ... is therefore a risk of 
fragmentation of producer groups. Interviews with veterinarians and mayors, as well as focus groups of 
beneficiaries or not, confirmed this trend. The importance of the social aspect in the management of these 
organizations was also mentioned. Nearly almost all the focus groups mentioned the difficulty for the leaders to 
force the members; the two are in most cases from the same family, to pay the dues while they are in the same 
financial problem. 
Moreover, the lack of control and surveillance entities in the functioning of these organizations is also a weak point 
which threatens the sustainability of the structure and, by extension, the whole process. The mid-term evaluation 
has already recommended a linkage of CFSAs with veterinarians to facilitate the coordination of vaccination and 
care activities at the farmers’ level, a proposal that was also raised during the final evaluation mission. 
The FCSA's sustainability assessment is based on intrinsic factors that are extrinsic to the program but will have 
an impact on the functioning of this structure: 
1) The ability to pay FCSA members depends considerably on the climate situation. The case of the 
fokontany of Beomby in the commune of Beahitse is an illustration. Drought and repeated dahalo attacks 
in the fokontany resulted in the FCSA being suspended because almost all members no longer have the 
capacity to honor their contribution obligations. 
2) The FCSA official’s ability to mobilize members but also resources outside the group could be a motivating 
factor for members. The search for partnership is solicited but the managers acknowledge their weak 
negotiating and communication power. Moreover, according to the remarks of a certain number of 
members met, the dynamism of the group through the realization of joint activity outside the livestock could 
be developed to perpetuate the group. 
3) During the field data collection phase, a link between water points and members' ability to save the funds 
needed to maintain livestock was often raised by the beneficiaries. In fact, improved access to water for 
animals could be attributed to an increase in livestock and an increase in income. This increase has an 
impact on the farmers' ability to pay and their perception of the interests of animal care. 
4.3.1.4 WPC 
The beneficiaries' appreciation of LIVES efforts to improve access to water for households and their animals, and 
the relevance of this strategic choice to the problems of drinking water supply of the population and the inadequacy 
of infrastructure, it can be argued that the implementation of WPCs greatly supports the sustainable management 
of these facilities. The reinforcement of the capacities of the committee members in the management, maintenance 
and repair of water points in partnership with the Ministry of Water only reinforce this assurance of permanence of 
these facilities. Moreover, the introduction of cost recovery and depreciation through contributions and payment for 
the use of the service provided as well as the internal organizations linked to the day-to-day maintenance of these 
infrastructures are already a sign ownership of the process by the population. Almost all the households met 
accepted the payment system because they are aware of the high cost of water. This is the case of Ranoabo high 
where households pay 1,500 Ariary as a monthly contribution and 200 Ariary for the drinking trough. The 
establishment of a dina (community rule) in the management of these infrastructures (Ambatofotsy case) also 
supports their sustainability: the one that causes prejudice to the installations must pay 500 Ariary of fines and will 
be brought before the assembly of the fokontany. 
However, the interviews also highlighted the risks and constraints to which the committee and the beneficiaries are 
apprehensive. Faced with the isolation of the zones, the managers of the water points are confronted with the 
difficulty of obtaining pieces. They must go to Betioky or Ampanihy, or even to Tuléar to find someone. In this case 
(fokontany of Ambatofotsy), the water points remain unusable and the households are obliged to return to the 
former unsanitary and remote water points. In other sources of water, the temporary drying-up of the spring is 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
67 
observed especially in the afternoon. Households are obliged to wait a few minutes / hours to replenish their 
supplies. 
4.3.2 Local appropriation 
Part of the program was based on local dynamics. Indeed, because of the problems encountered in agricultural 
activities, households tend to focus on artisanal activities (for women) and on daily labour which allows them to 
earn directly money to cope with food insecurity. At the same time, in the face of the problem of access to water 
and the aridity of the soil, the development of livestock more adapted to the context is more advanced. In relation 
to these socio-economic situations and the socio-cultural and economic place of livestock in the program area, the 
beneficiaries have recognized the appropriateness of choosing to support the development of this sector. Despite 
the constraints faced by the beneficiaries and LIVES during the implementation of the predefined activities, livestock 
producers, whether beneficiaries or not, are convinced of the sustainability of the distribution of animals. 
The involvement of local actors: responsible for decentralized local authorities, traditional authorities, STDs in the 
implementation of the program has encouraged ownership of the approach, which in turn leads to a perpetuation 
of actions. The establishment of a compulsory vaccination booklet for all those who wanted to sell their animals 
(chicken and small ruminants) at the level of the communal markets (in the case of Ankazomanga commune) was 
appreciated by the beneficiaries of the program and obliged indirectly the non-beneficiaries to improve the conduct 
of the breeding. This initiative of the municipality was decided to compensate for the upsurge of the epidemic 
diseases that systematically occur in the region. 
The synergy of action between the various actors involved in the LIVES intervention area provides an assurance 
of the future sustainability of the project effects. Current and past projects and actors in the area, such as the 
ASOTRY project, the ACF NGOs and the BUSH PROOF NGO, are both relaying and complementary structures to 
the local initiatives already developed. For example, the capitalization of community-based livestock workers (CLW, 
ACSA, ACE) by projects operating in the zone represents a considerable advantage for the valorisation of the 
profession of community support workers and, in other words, the process sustainability. The same applies to 
collaboration between CLWs and mandated veterinarians, but also to the willingness of the latter to take over the 
strengthening of the CLW's capacities beyond the program, which could be considered as a factor in the 
sustainability of actions. 
4.3.3 Factors that may affect the sustainability of the Program 
Socio-economic and technical elements that can influence the sustainability of the program's actions were identified 
during the data collection: 
 The drought that has affected the region since 2015 has had a major impact on animal resources, 
especially small ruminants, which are the assets mobilized to face the kere. The reduction and even the 
annihilation of the livestock is strongly to be feared in case of insufficiency of rain to boost the agriculture 
 The social and cultural place given by society to the zebus could have an impact on the actions of the 
program to promote the breeding of small ruminants and chicken, assets easily mobilizable to face the 
vagaries and shocks. A tendency to sell chickens to be replaced by small ruminants and small ruminants 
by oxen was observed. However, zebu preserved for funerary rites are rarely mobilized to meet the 
household's current needs. As a result, the objective of improving living conditions measured from 
indicators of reduced lean season and increased income will not be achieved. 
 Supporting stakeholders, veterinarians, in facilitating access to essential veterinary products but also in 
upgrading community agents is essential for the sustainability of the animal health system. The same 
applies to the FCSA, which requires ongoing assistance from local authorities: town halls, notables, etc. 
 The development of post-program activities is part of a regional development strategy. The development 
of goat and sheep farms considered as a carrier chain would only be beneficial for livestock farmers 
supported by LIVES. The presence of growth centers and increased local, national and international 
demand will only benefit the region and increase farmers' interest in them. 
4.3.4 Conclusion on durability 
The sustainability of the actions undertaken by the program is closely linked to the level of perception of impacts 
by beneficiaries and the community. Action is likely to be sustainable when beneficiaries feel the importance of 
these effects. From this definition, sustainability can be assessed based on the following few indicators analysed 
from the interviews: 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
68 
1. Beneficiaries will continue to apply the advice and instructions of CVWs and LLFs beyond the program; 
2. Breeders recognize the value of the FCSA in the functioning of the vaccine and deworming system. In 
most the organizations, the members manage to take care of those in difficulty to contribute to be able to 
pass orders regularly to the veterinarian; 
3. The will of the actors (project, community, authority ...) to maintain the system set up (for example: the 
networking of ACEs) is an indication of the perennial nature of the proximity consultancy business. 
4. The impacts of the water point’s rehabilitation on the functioning of society in general have been very 
palpable and the actions undertaken will remain functional. 
Some risks that could compromise this sustainability exist and deserve to be considered: the influence of the social 
aspect in the groups (FCSA, WCP ...), the effects of climatic changes, etc. 
In summary, given the even less perceptible impact of the program, the probability of sustainability of the actions 
is average. 
4.4 Gender 
The general assessment of the situation of women in intervention tends to evolve according to the interviews and 
the FG. 71% of responses during this assessment confirm that the situation of women has improved. The program's 
overall strategy to empower women by empowering them to manage income-generating activities independently, 
specifically chicken farming, has been highly appreciated by beneficiaries. This situation is favoured by the difficulty 
of households in relation to activities related to agriculture (due to lack of rain) and the decrease in crops. Moreover, 
this improvement in the situation of women combines their integration as an animal health agent (CLW), a role 
reserved for men. 
Figure 58 : Appreciation of women’ situation 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
69 
4.4.1 Evolution of the gender issue 
4.4.1.1 Sharing of responsibilities 
 At the household level 
The program has significantly improved the issue of gender equity on some aspects of farm management. The 
effects of sensitization by the program to improve women's access to financial, material and decision-making 
management were palpable. 
On the practice of livestock in general, the analysis of the data collected clearly show a part of responsibilities of 
the young and the women in the exploitation management. This share is illustrated by a women high participation 
of 58% overall and 56% in households headed male. It is mainly manifested in the women participation in the hen 
houses construction. For young people, their responsibility focuses mainly on the collection and conservation of 
animal feed. 
Table 22 : Household responsibility for livestock management 
Step 
YOUNG Women 
FHH MHH Aggregate FHH MHH Aggregate 
Planning on Pasture Management 11,9% 18,5% 17,2% 62,7% 61,3% 61,5% 
Collection and storage of animal food 65,7% 60,5% 61,5% 40,3% 43,5% 42,9%
Construction enclosures, hen house 34,3% 29,9% 30,8% 79,1% 72,7% 74,0% 
Watering animals 58,2% 53,1% 54,1% 68,7% 59,8% 61,5% 
Medical care of animals 11,9% 5,2% 6,5% 76,1% 55,4% 59,5%
Sale 1,5% 0,7% 0,9% 59,7% 42,8% 46,2% 
Compared to the programs supported by the program, responsibility is generally attributed to men for small 
ruminants and to women for chickens. At the level of households headed by male, women's participation is only 
9% for goat, 3% for sheep and 74% for chicken. This situation shows the specificity of the animals’ market value. 
Women’s’ responsibility on small ruminants is also increasing according to the interviews and FDG. It illustrates a 
step in the men consciousness on the women participation in activities reserved for men. 
In some cases, male participation in the management of chicken farming was noted and assessed by women as a 
disadvantage. In the mahafaly society, men usually deal with money from the animals’ sale. Women fear that men 
will take over the income generated by chicken farming, intended to be managed specifically by women. 
Table 23 : Taking responsibility on Livestock 
Species Women Men Men and 
Women 
Young 
Goats FHH 93,5% 6,5% 0,0% 0,0%
MHH 8,7% 89,1% 1,6% 0,5%
Aggregate 21,0% 77,1% 1,4% 0,5%
Sheep FHH 90,0% 10,0% 0,0% 0,0%
MHH 3,0% 97,0% 0,0% 0,0%
Aggregate 23,3% 76,7% 0,0% 0,0%
Chickens FHH 92,2% 2,0% 2,0% 3,9%
MHH 74,2% 22,1% 2,8% 0,9%
Aggregate 77,6% 18,3% 2,6% 1,5%
 At the community level 
The women’s valorisation of in the various structures set up by the program (LLF, CLW, ACSA, and WCP) was an 
important achievement of the program. In a society based on traditional and conservative management of social 
hierarchies, the program choice to give place to women was a major challenge. Women's technical capacities have 
been improved and the different taboos relating to livestock (prohibited for women from stinging a ruminant, large 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
70 
or small, forbidding women to enter a pen for ruminants ...) have been overcome without interfering in local 
governance. 
According to the FDGs and the interviews, the women integration in the program implementation is encouraging 
for the improvement of the breeding practice and could have impact in the other activities. Moreover, the availability 
of women in the community compared to men, who are generally forced to move far from their homes to meet the 
household needs, is largely responsible for the evolution of women's awareness of the practice of women, in general 
and towards other responsibilities within the community. 
Concerning representation at the societal level, public speaking for the kabary (discourse) in a ritual setting will not 
be allowed yet, but women have the right to speak at community meetings more awareness-raising activities. 
4.4.1.2 Decision making 
The assessment of the evolution of women's decision-making within households is currently changing according to 
the results of the surveys. Indeed, considering the decision of women has improved according to the 58% of the 
respondents. 
Figure 59 : Women's decision-making in the step of farm management 
About the exploitation of small ruminants and chicken, a 26% change in women's decision-making is observed 
along the stages of exploitation compared to the data collected during the baseline. This development is mainly 
observed in relation to the exploitation of small ruminants mainly on the feeding and use of the income generated 
by the animals. On the other hand, the intensity of the shocks and stress linked to the reduction of agricultural 
productions led to the inclusion of men in the exploitation of the chicken. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
71 
Table 24 : Evolution of the gender issue in decision-making related to livestock 
Steps 
BASELINE EVALUATION 
Together Woman Man Together Woman Man 
Goats Purchasing 
broodstock 
39,6% 4,4% 56,0% 33,7% 6,9% 59,4%
Feeding 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 47,0% 12,0% 41,0%
Taking care 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 50,5% 7,7% 41,8%
Health 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 36,7% 6,7% 56,7%
Sales 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 47,1% 6,4% 46,5%
Incomes use 60,4% 0,0% 39,6% 62,3% 15,1% 22,6%
Sheep Purchasing 
broodstock 
38,0% 3,3% 58,7% 28,1% 0,0% 71,9%
Feeding 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 46,9% 12,5% 40,6%
Taking care 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 50,0% 9,4% 40,6%
Health 0,0% 0,0% 100,0% 18,8% 0,0% 78,1%
Sales 26,1% 0,0% 73,9% 37,5% 0,0% 56,3%
Incomes use 22,8% 0,0% 77,2% 50,0% 9,4% 34,4%
Chicken Purchasing 
broodstock 
19,7% 54,5% 25,8% 29,7% 48,9% 18,3% 
Feeding 0,0% 74,2% 25,8% 37,4% 51,1% 11,0%
Taking care 0,0% 73,9% 26,1% 41,6% 44,7% 12,8%
Health 0,0% 70,4% 29,6% 37,9% 45,2% 17,4%
Sales 13,0% 54,5% 32,5% 41,6% 40,2% 10,5%
Incomes use 13,0% 60,6% 26,4% 49,3% 36,1% 6,8%
4.4.1.3 Domestic Violence 
The results obtained on violence are difficult to compare with baseline data. Given the fears of those surveyed 
during the baseline that respondents do not benefit from the program's support and subsidies, respondents tend to 
give positive answers about the non-existence of spousal violence. 
According to the answers obtained, 63% of the respondents mentioned that there is no domestic violence in their 
household, 69% for men and 58% for women. Violence is most pronounced in relation to the denial of sexual 
intercourse between men and the neglect of children by women. The proportion of violence due to argumentation 
is the lowest with a response rate of 6.5% overall, illustrating the active participation of women in decision-making 
within households. 
Table 25 : Reasons for Domestic Violence 
BASELINE FINAL EVALUATION 
No Yes No answer None No Yes No answer None
According to men 
To go out without permission 72,30% 0,00% 27,10% 0,60% 69,1% 14,8% 0,7% 15,4%
Neglecting children 74,50% 0,00% 24,90% 0,60% 69,8% 14,1% 0,7% 15,4% 
Arguing 76,00% 0,00% 23,40% 0,60% 76,5% 6,7% 1,3% 15,4% 
Refusing sexual relations 63,40% 4,30% 31,70% 0,60% 61,7% 16,1% 6,7% 15,4%
Burning food 71,70% 0,00% 27,70% 0,60% 65,8% 13,4% 5,4% 15,4% 
According to women 
To go out without permission 76,00% 0,00% 23,40% 0,60% 57,7% 9,0% 4,8% 28,6%
Neglecting children 76,00% 0,00% 23,40% 0,60% 57,7% 10,1% 3,7% 28,6% 
Arguing 76,00% 0,00% 23,40% 0,60% 60,3% 6,3% 4,8% 28,6% 
Refusing sexual relations 76,00% 0,00% 23,40% 0,60% 52,9% 7,4% 11,1% 28,6%
Burning food 76,00% 0,00% 23,40% 0,60% 59,3% 6,9% 4,8% 29,1% 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
72 
According to the answers obtained, 63% of the respondents mentioned that there is no domestic violence in their 
household, 69% for men and 58% for women. Violence is mostly related to the denial of sex by men and the neglect 
of children by women. The proportion of violence due to argumentation is the lowest with a response rate of 6.5% 
overall, which may reflect the active participation of women in decision-making within households. 
Table 26 : Reasons for domestic violence according to Women 
BASELINE EVALUATION FINALE 
No Yes No answer None No Yes No answer None
To go out without permission 76,00% 0,00% 23,40% 0,60% 57,7% 9,0% 4,8% 28,6% 
Neglecting children 76,00% 0,00% 23,40% 0,60% 57,7% 10,1% 3,7% 28,6%
Arguing 76,00% 0,00% 23,40% 0,60% 60,3% 6,3% 4,8% 28,6% 
Refusing sexual relations 76,00% 0,00% 23,40% 0,60% 52,9% 7,4% 11,1% 28,6% 
Burning food 76,00% 0,00% 23,40% 0,60% 59,3% 6,9% 4,8% 29,1%
4.4.2 Stakeholder assessment of gender mainstreaming 
According to the stakeholders, gender mainstreaming in the implementation of the program represents a relatively 
high participation rate of women compared to other programs or projects that have worked in the area, especially 
in relation to livestock. A woman is more valued in relation to food or health security issues for these projects. The 
enhancement of women's educational attainment has made it possible for women to participate fully in the 
implementation of the program, according to the results of the interviews. 
Scaling up of the strategies adopted by the program is recommended for programs and projects working on the 
same theme as LIVES and whose socio-economic conditions of households are relatively more or less similar. 
4.4.3 Gender conclusion 
There have been significant changes in the place of women in society. If women do not have the right to speak in 
public, at present, because of the different workshops held within the framework of the FCSA, women can express 
themselves freely. The same applies to the program choice to integrate most women into the various structures set 
up by the program, which seems to be relevant insofar as it has enabled women: 
 have the knowledge to develop livestock; 
 mobilize women (even non-beneficiaries) to apply the innovative techniques provided by the program; 
 to enable women to manage, independently of men (men who are sometimes linked by traditions), 
generating activities adapted to their own needs and the needs of their families 
Based on this information, the program has made a significant impact on the improvement of gender equity in 
society, which is perceived by beneficiaries as an irreversible achievement. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
73 
5 LESSONS LEARNED 
Several factors influenced the performance of the Program. The most important are agro climatic conditions 
characterized by prolonged drought since 2015, which has led to a critical food situation in the south that has 
mitigated or diluted the probable effects of the Program and has undoubtedly influenced the behaviour of the 
population. Another critical factor is the educational attainment of the beneficiaries of the program. The difficulty in 
finding beneficiaries sufficiently educated to fully assume key roles such as CLWs has been one of the limitations 
of the Program and can threaten its sustainability. 
According to the opinions of the beneficiaries in general, the major constraints of the program are the duration of 
implementation and the sharing of technologies with a proportion of responses of 22% and 20% respectively. To 
improve livestock technology for categories of people with a relatively low level of education and households facing 
high levels of stress and shock due to food insecurity, longer implementation time is needed to have more results. 
The following figures illustrate the proportions of the responses according to the constraints observed. 
Figure 60 : Program constraints identified by beneficiaries 
The technique of transmitting on livestock management is a major asset for the program. The participation of 
specialists in livestock farming and their knowledge of the socioeconomic conditions of the area have resulted in 
positive results despite current household conditions. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
74 
Figure 61 : Program strengths identified by beneficiaries 
5.1 Program design 
1) The relevance of the livestock support model is indisputable, as this is in line with the strategies and 
livelihoods of the population in intervention. In the context of the South of Madagascar, the population 
seeks above all to accumulate capital quickly convertible in cash in case of shock. Typically, the household 
tries to hoard livestock as part of the crop and all the savings throughout the year. During the lean season, 
households begin to sell animals for food, and replenish livestock at the next season's harvest. Extensive 
livestock farming is particularly suitable in this context, in that this system involves very little expenditure. 
Ruminant farming is the most suitable and appreciated by households, due to the rusticity of the animals, 
on the one hand, but also to the diet of animals which does not compete with human food. Under these 
conditions, it appears that the breeding of small ruminants, particularly goats, is the most suitable. 
2) The technical model must take account of these main constraints implied by the scarcity of foodstuffs. On 
the one hand, improved animal health, and vaccination against kopokopoke (avian cholera), is totally 
beneficial, drastically reducing mortality and consequently improving livestock survival and therefore 
productivity. On the other hand, however, the concept of improving chicken breeding with enclosure 
construction is debatable. Indeed, this requires the addition of food to compensate for the "loss of 
earnings" related to the enclosure of the animals. In other words, the breeder must buy food mainly based 
on corn bran and cassava for chickens. Accelerating animal growth through improved husbandry practices 
is in line with the household saving strategy, as the resources invested in the practice accumulate in 
livestock. However, from an economic point of view, dietary supplementation is not profitable in a context 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
75 
where food is scarce and expensive, and chicken prices fluctuate enormously throughout the year and are 
at a minimum during the lean period, during which households are obliged to sell. Moreover, the fact of 
having to buy food from animals is hardly accepted by most of the most vulnerable households, which 
naturally prioritize the purchase of food for the family or animal savings. 
3) The distribution of animals to the beneficiaries as well as the overall activities of the Program have 
produced positive results and an improvement in the food situation of the targeted households, despite 
the various factors that have negatively or positively affected them. By analysing the data and information 
collected, and based on simple calculations, the minimum number of adult goats allowing households to 
meet their food needs on a perennial basis is 4 to 5 females: 
i. Under normal husbandry conditions and with the assumption that the animals are 
vaccinated and dewormed in a systematic manner, a goat has 2 kids in a little more than 
a year (except in rare cases of doubles). 
ii. A goat begins to reach sexual maturity around the age of 8 to 9 months. 
iii. On this basis, in one year 4 goats will spawn 8 other goats of reproductive age, making 
a total of 12 adult goats. 
iv. Under current production conditions, a household of 7 to 8 people will have to sell at 
least 8 goats in a year, in addition to the chickens, to meet basic food needs, leaving a 
core of 4 goats to reconstitute the herd for the following year. 
A greater number than 4 or 5 head will thus leave a surplus which will allow the herd to grow each year, 
while a smaller number will mean that all the livestock will be consumed and will have to be reconstituted 
each year. Other factors may affect this cycle of hoarding / decapitalization, including an agricultural "good 
season" that will reduce the lean season and subsequently the number of animals sold. 
4) The time allocated for the implementation of the program is too short to assess the actual effects and 
impacts of the activity. Of course, performance and sustainability indices are observable, but social factors, 
shocks, hazards and stresses that may jeopardize the continuation of activities are also to be taken into 
consideration. The interval between the distribution of livestock assets and the end of the program (the 
final evaluation period) does not allow for the measurement of the effects of livestock increases on food 
security. As a result, most goats distributed have not yet given birth, and the few recorded commercials 
are limited to the sale of animals, especially young people, to meet pressing needs to cope with shocks 
diseases, funeral, etc. 
5) These activities implementation program was based on structures organized to accompany the producers: 
CLW, LLF, FCSA, WPC, etc. Interviews with beneficiaries and some key informants in the context of 
evaluation mission highlighted the too short a duration of the program for the capacity building of these 
technical and organizational structures and the provision of the necessary tools for post-program 
operation. The recommended duration of support for a community structure at the farmer level extends 
over several years or even ten years or more. The risk of non-perpetuation of the activities undertaken is 
thus high especially as the transfer of competence through the existing local structures (veterinary proxy, 
commune, STD ...) is not yet effective. By way of illustration, the opinions of the two veterinarians are 
diametrically opposed on the viability of the CLWs but also on their ability to continue the support after the 
program. Moreover, the existence of an illegal parallel structure of supply of veterinary inputs and the 
existence of CLW which wanted to vaccinate cattle (strictly reserved for veterinary surrogates) are all 
factors which could favour the cessation of collaboration between the two parties. The Betioky veterinarian 
also raised the lack or inadequacy of control from the CLWs, which may be due to a low level of 
competence of CLW to group the needs of members, lack of tools adapted to collect orders or to a failure 
of the payment and collection system via the FCSA. 
6) The overall approach of the Program has proven to be effective in addressing gender issues. The Program 
has sought to overcome the traditional sharing of responsibilities between men and women over livestock. 
While traditionally women take care of the chicken and men take care of ruminants, the program has 
distributed the same number of small ruminants and chickens to male beneficiaries and female 
beneficiaries. Moreover, the use of certain criteria for the choice of CLWs favored women. One of these 
criteria was that CLWs were often present in their fokontany, which favoured women, as men were 
generally more mobile. 
As a result, women were relatively numerous (51%) to be selected as CLW and no significant difference was noted 
both in their ability to meet breeders' needs and in their consideration of these women CLWs, compared to men. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
76 
5.2 Implementation of the program 
Animal health is a critical factor that can have a significant impact on program performance. To this end, the 
establishment of CLWs was crucial and made it possible to improve the overall health status of the animals and 
reduce the mortality associated with the main diseases, in particular kopokopoke (avian cholera) for chickens and 
menatsinay (monéziosis ) for small ruminants. Failure to comply with certain animal health rules, the observation 
of a quarantine period controlled by a veterinarian before the introduction of a relatively large livestock from another 
district was the cause of mortality for the chickens. Several beneficiaries also reported that these animals brought 
disease that affected indigenous livestock. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
77 
6 FINAL SITUATION OF PROGRAM LIVES INDICATORS4
 
# Indicator name Indicator 
type Unit Disaggregation 
Value 
Distance from 
Baseline Mid-term Target Final 
Evaluation Target 
USAID / OFDA GOAL 
1 Number of animals benefiting from or affected by 
livestock activities Output Number 
Total 0 36 578 61 830
17 000 +44 830 Animals Goats / Sheep 0 21 047 24 717
Chickens 0 15 531 37 113
2 Number of people benefiting from livestock 
activities Output Number 
Total 0 12 148 22 917 20 000 +2 917
Sex Male 0 5 859 11 200 10 000 +1 200
Female 0 6 289 11 717 10 000 +1 717
3 Number of veterinary interventions, treatments or 
vaccinations administered Outcome Number 
Total 0 12 792 66 098
21 000
+45 098
 
 
 
 
Intervention 
Deworming 0 6 656 33 649
Vaccination 0 2 501 9 079
Dip 0 0 0
Treatment 0 3 635 21 591
4 Number of animals treated or vaccinated Outcome Number 
Total 0 8 502 52 939
14 000 +38 939 Animals Goats / Sheep 0 4 792 29 322
Chickens 0 3 710 23 412
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE 
5 Average value of livestock assets Outcome Percent 
(MGA) 
Total 310 403 284 538 456 061 403,524 
(+30%)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
+52 537 Sex 
Male￾headed 
Total 310 387 284 534 369 852
Goats 157 750 155 560 333 490
Sheep 98 303 81 865 69 334
Chickens 54 334 47 109 95 618
Female￾headed 
Total 126 165 215 407 207 696
Goats 58 465 166 290 167 805
Sheep 16 800 13 504 33 918
 
4
 Project outputs tracked by monitoring were updated based on June 2017 information provided by the project. The final monitoring values may be different, as the project lasted until September 2017, while the final 
evaluation was due before then. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
78 
# Indicator name Indicator 
type Unit Disaggregation 
Value Distance from 
Baseline Mid-term Target Final 
Evaluation Target 
Chickens 50 900 35 613 82 916
6 Prevalence of households with moderate or 
severe hunger Outcome Percent 
Total – moderate 67% 59% 26% 42% (-
25%)
 
 
 
 
 
+16%
Sex Male-headed 66% 59% 27%
Female-headed 72% 56% 22%
Total – severe 4% 4% 0%
Sex Male-headed 5% 4% 0%
Female-headed 4% 4% 2%
INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1.1: Animal husbandry practices 
improved 
7 
% of farmers and others who have applied 
improved technologies or management practices 
as a result of USG assistance 
Outcome Number 
Total 0 89% 77%
75% +2% Sex Male-headed 0 91% 78%
Female-headed 0 76% 74%
8 Number of households with access to 
rehabilitated water points Output Number 
Total 0 906 994
1 000 -6 Sex Male-headed 0 679 745
Female-headed 0 227 249
9 Number of water points rehabilitated Output Number 
Total 0 0 7
6 +1 Commune 
Ankazomanga 0 0 3
Maroarivo 0 0 2
Beahitse 0 0 2
10 Percentage of female members in assisted 
producer groups Output Number 
Total 0 57% 57%
50% +7% Commune 
Ankazomanga 0 59% 59%
Maroarivo 0 58% 58%
Beahitse 0 56% 56%
11 
Number of food security private enterprises (for 
profit), producer organizations, water user 
associations, women’s groups, trade and 
business associations, and communitybased 
organizations receiving USG assistance 
Output Number Total 0 104 107 49 +58
12 Output Number Total 0 2 108 2 206 2 000 +206
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
79 
# Indicator name Indicator 
type Unit Disaggregation 
Value Distance from 
Baseline Mid-term Target Final 
Evaluation Target 
Number of individuals who have received USG 
supported short-term agricultural sector 
productivity training (producer households) 
Sex 
Male 0 899 952
Female 0 1 209 1 254
INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1.2: Livestock Asset Base 
Expanded 
13 Number of households that receive livestock 
through the program Output Number 
Total 0 1 023 1 960
2 000 -40
Sex of HH Male 0 947 1 679
Female 0 123 281
Total MHH 0 900 1 679
MHH Goats / Sheep 0 669 669
Chickens 0 231 1 010
Total FHH 0 123 281
FHH Goats / Sheep 0 66 66
Chickens 0 57 215
14 Number of animals that households receive 
through the project Output Number 
Total 0 3 296 8 918
9 000 -82 Animals Goats / Sheep 0 1 568 1 568
Chickens 0 1 728 7 350
INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1.3: Access to animal health 
services increased 
15 Small ruminants and chicken mortality rate among 
target producer groups’ households Outcome Percent 
Total 18% 28% 16%
-25% -23% Animals Goats / Sheep 14% 16% 11%
Chickens 28% 33% 27%
16 Percentage of households served by CLWs that 
give favorable review of their experience Outcome Percent 
Total 0% 81% 88%
75% +13% Sex Male-headed 0% 80% 88%
Female-headed 0% 85% 89%
17 Number of households served by CLWs Output Number 
Total 0 1 357 3 047
3 000 +47 Sex Male-headed 0 1 159 2 705
Female-headed 0 198 342
18 Number of CLWs providing services to 
households Output Number Total 0 49 49 49 0
Sex Male 0 31 34
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
80 
# Indicator name Indicator 
type Unit Disaggregation 
Value Distance from 
Baseline Mid-term Target Final 
Evaluation Target 
Female 0 18 15
19 
Number of CLWs equipped and trained in animal 
health services, animal husbandry and 
management 
Output Number 
Total 0 49 49
55 -6 Sex Male-headed 0 32 34
Female-headed 0 17 15
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
81 
7 RECOMMENDATIONS 
The following recommendations were formulated considering the views and suggestions of the different stakeholders 
consulted but also the assessment made by the evaluator based on the data and information collected. 
1) Strengthen the program achievement. The assessment of program activities beneficiaries and their effects on 
improving the living standards of vulnerable households can be interpreted as indicators of program 
performance. On the one hand, the animals’ distribution, despite the technical constraints in its execution is the 
most visible result of the program. The effects of distribution are not fully measurable due to several factors: the 
lack of water that has continued over the last two years has had a major impact on agricultural production and 
household savings. Livestock of several vulnerable families have been wiped out, including LIVES animals to 
deal with famine. The resumption of the distribution, in the hope of a "good season" cultural and which will allow 
the farms to reconstruct the assets of breeding is proposed. The calculation of the movement (numerical growth 
of livestock and number of animals sold in a year) and the necessary capital will determine the number of 
animals to be distributed (Cf Lessons learned). 
The setting up of local structures to accompany the breeders in the improvement of the breeding was also of 
great importance. The capacity building of these local structures (CLW, LLF, FCSA, WPC) will only directly 
support producers in applying more efficient techniques. Conflict management, socio-organizational 
management, financial management for the FCSA; strengthening of simple diagnostic and disease 
management techniques and the use of a database (demand forecasting and vaccine supply) for CLWs are 
technical issues raised by those concerned as missing skills and deserves support. For LLFs, the consolidation 
of experiences gained during the program and local knowledge and practices should be pursued to have 
context-specific approaches to optimize outcomes and ownership. 
2) Further support CLW's procurement system and linking them to proxy veterinarians 
The health surveillance system through the provision of CLWs in partnership with the veterinary surrogates of 
the two districts was effective in reducing the mortality rate of animals due to diseases. At present, the CLWs 
are already in place and functioning, but the distance of certain villages with the chief town of districts, the 
motivation of these agents, the absence of means of transport and conservation (cold chain) are limiting factors 
in the development of the activity and deserve to be addressed in depth. It was found that the sustainability of 
the program's actions largely depends on the effectiveness of these CLWs. A better synergy of action between 
CLW and veterinarians should be discussed. The search for a system accepted by all to facilitate the acquisition 
of products by CLW without prejudice to the activities of the veterinarian is imperative. This involves involving 
all stakeholders in the system: beneficiaries, FCSA, CLW, LLF, town hall, veterinarians. 
In terms of product conservation, the valorisation of existing devices left by other projects / programs such as 
refrigerated equipment and ACF photovoltaic systems (and for which an agreement in principle has been 
obtained) for the storage of vaccines. In this sense, the involvement of municipalities in the negotiation and 
control of these infrastructures is necessary 
3) Extend the activities to improve access to household water 
Based on the data collected, the management activities of the existing water points are by far the most 
appreciated achievements of the beneficiaries. Requests were systematically expressed during the focus 
groups and interviews for the development of water points or the construction of new infrastructures. In addition 
to the importance of water for the vital needs of households in the program area, its economic function has also 
been confirmed. The development of income-generating activity around water points by women's vegetable 
growing was observed. The integration of livestock and agriculture around access to water will be developed 
for optimization of facilities. This approach is in line with the requests expressed to support the FCSA in the 
search for common activity to revitalize the organization 
4) Developing genetic improvement by setting up a feeding station for small ruminants and strengthening the heat 
detection technique 
5) Reflect on the relay structure that can take over the support of community workers by involving more local 
authorities in the technical aspects of the program. This will encourage consideration of the Program's support 
and support for sustainability. Regular recycling of CLWs is required in collaboration with veterinarians, 
considering the participation of local leaders and traditional holders of power. This should be an improvement 
for future programs. 
6) In agroclimatic and socio-cultural conditions like those in the LIVES intervention area, prioritize the distribution 
of goats, as far as possible. The goats have the advantage of being rustic and whose breeding cycle is short. 
Their diet does not compete with human food, making them highly appropriate in a food-insecure environment. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
82 
Most of the suggestions made by stakeholders, including beneficiaries, also go in this direction. Finally, it is 
necessary to consider the overall economic context, including the growing demand for goat meat, both 
nationally and internationally. 
7) Integrate the plantation of fodder shrubs such as the jujube tree. In ruminant farming, forage availability is 
indeed a crucial and limiting aspect. The establishment of a sylvopastoral system combining jujube (or tamarind) 
and ruminants provides other benefits, including protection of the environment, soil fertility management and 
the possibility of exploiting other activities income-generating activities, beekeeping. This strategy is particularly 
advocated by the technical services. 
8) Improved feeding of chickens is not very relevant if household food access is not assured. Under these 
conditions, the "technical package" should be adapted to the context, and the use of other sources such as 
termites should be promoted. Also, the improvement of health is very relevant and particularly crucial for the 
survival of the livestock. 
9) Distribute the animals outside the lean season and ideally during the harvest period, during which households 
are at the maximum of their financial capacity and are more able to apply more rigorously the skills acquired 
through training. This also has the advantage of having adult animals or offspring during the lean season. The 
quarantine period must be enforced by the suppliers, both in the collection area and in the distribution area. 
This will limit tied losses during transport and before distribution. 
10) In the design of the Program, there are a minimum number of animals, below which the livestock cannot be 
reconstituted considering sales during the lean season. A minimum of 4 to 5 goats (females) for a household 
of 6 people is recommended for future interventions. 
11) Integrate agriculture into program design. This is the main source of income for households. Agriculture 
assistance is advocated by stakeholders and beneficiaries. It will limit the loss-making sales of animals over 
part of the lean season. This was not done systematically during the implementation of LIVES. It would also be 
useful for some aspects of training to be synchronized with seasonal calendars, such as the valuation of 
agricultural by-products. 
12) At the management level, provide greater flexibility to staff on the ground to solve problems. Interviews with key 
informants revealed occasional problems related to the availability of funds. 
13) Improve communication between different stakeholders, veterinarians and CLWs. The passage of information 
between them is very important to overcome the risk of epizootic outbreaks and improve the planning of 
interventions. 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
86 
APPENDIX 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
95 
Appendix 2 : Household questionnaire 
IDENTIFICATION DU MENAGE 
Pour commencer j’aimerais savoir les informations sur la localisation administrative de votre ménage. 
Nom de l’Enquêteur
Est-ce que vous ou un membre de votre ménage avez reçu un 
appui auprès du Programme LIVES ? 
Si NON, fin de l’enquête 
OUI 
NON 
Code ménage /_____/_____/_____/
Code individu /_____/_____/_____/_____/
District
Commune
Fokontany
Hameau
Date d’enquête /____ /_____/2017/
Heure de début /_____h_____mn/
Nom du répondant
Votre âge s’il vous plait ? /_____/_____/
Sexe du répondant Masculin 
Féminin 
Savez- vous lire ? Ne sais pas lire 
Un peu 
Sais lire 
Quel est votre niveau d’éducation (scolaire) ? Aucun niveau 
Primaire 
Secondaire 1er cycle 
Secondaire 2nd cycle 
Supérieur 
Quelle est votre relation avec le chef de ménage ? Chef du ménage 
Epouse 
Enfant 
Parent 
Proche 
Autres à préciser ……………… texte
Nom du chef de ménage
Vous appartenez à quelle ethnie ?
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
96 
CARACTÉRISTIQUES DU MÉNAGE 
Si le répondant est le chef de ménage, passez à la question B.05. 
Le chef de ménage est – il de genre masculin ou féminin ? Masculin 
Féminin 
Quel âge a le chef de ménage ? /_____/_____/
Quel est le niveau d’éducation du chef de ménage ? Aucun niveau 
Primaire 
Secondaire 1er cycle 
Secondaire 2nd cycle 
Supérieur 
Est-ce que le chef de ménage sait lire ? Ne sais pas lire 
Un peu 
Sais lire 
Quelle est la situation matrimoniale du Chef de ménage ?
Si la réponse est égale 3, 4 ou 5, allez à B.07
Marié(e) légal(e) 
Marié(e) selon la tradition 
Vivant séparément / divorcé 
Veuf ou veuve 
Célibataire 
Autre à préciser …………………… texte 
Quel âge a l’époux ou l’épouse du Chef de ménage ? /_____/_____/
Votre ménage pratique quelle religion ? Christianisme
Musulman 
Athée 
Traditionnel 
Autre…………………texte 
Combien de personnes vivent dans le ménage ? /_____/_____/
Pourriez – vous me dire s’il vous plaît, le nombre de personnes de chaque 
sexe par tranche d’âge vivant dans le ménage ? 
Homme Femme
Moins de 5 ans
5 ans - 14 ans 
15 ans – 24 ans 
25 ans – 59 ans 
60 ans et plus 
/_____/_____/
/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/
/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/ 
Combien de personnes exercent une activité économique dans votre 
ménage ? 
Homme Femme
Moins de 15 ans
15 ans -24 ans 
25 ans - 59 ans 
60 ans et plus 
/_____/_____/
/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/
/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/ 
Quelles sont les activités économiques exercées par les membres de ménage ?
Pour chaque activité, pourriez-vous estimer le temps accordé pour chaque activité pendant une semaine par rapport aux autres activités ? 
METTEZ EN ORDRE D’IMPORTANCE CES ACTIVITES en termes de revenu généré (1 = la PLUS IMPORTANTE, 2 = la deuxième, et ainsi de suite jusqu’à 9 
= la MOINS IMPORTANTE, s’il y a lieu)
Activités Classement par ordre d’importance
(en terme de temps) 
Classement par ordre d’importance
(en terme de revenu généré) 
Agriculture /_____/ /_____/
Elevage /_____/ /_____/
Exploitation minière /_____/ /_____/
Artisanat /_____/ /_____/
Charbonnier/forestier /_____/ /_____/
Commerce /_____/ /_____/
Travail journalier/ occasionnel /_____/ /_____/
Travail salarié permanent /_____/ /_____/
Industrie/ transformation /_____/ /_____/
Autres activités ………………… Texte /_____/ /_____/
Votre toit est fait en quoi ? 1. Chaume
2. Tôle en fer 
3. Tôle en étain 
4. Bois 
5. Tuiles 
6. Feuilles végétales 
7. Autres (spécifier) 
/_____/
/_____/ 
/_____/ 
/_____/ 
/_____/ 
/_____/ 
/_____/ 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
97 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
98 
AGRICULTURE 
Cette partie concerne l’agriculture, nous aimerions avoir des informations sur les questions suivantes : 
Est – ce que votre ménage pratique 
l’agriculture ? 
Si NON, Aller à la partie D
OUI 
NON 
Si oui, quel est le statut des parcelles que 
vous exploitez ? 
Statut Nombre de 
parcelles 
Appartenant au ménage 
En location (métayage ou fermage) 
Utilisation gratuite d’un terrain d’autrui 
OUI /___/ NON /___/
OUI /___/ NON /___/ 
OUI /___/ NON /___/ 
/_____/_____/
/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/ 
Comment évaluez-vous votre production 
durant la saison 2016 – 2017 
Si 1, 2 et 3, Aller à la partie D
Très bonne
Bonne 
Moyenne 
Faible 
Très faible 
Si 4 (faible) et 5 (très faible), quels sont les 
problèmes que vous avez rencontrés ? 
Types 
Sécheresse
Manque d’eau 
Inondation 
Criquet 
Vol sur pieds 
Autres à préciser ………………….. 
OUI /___/ NON /___/
OUI /___/ NON /___/ 
OUI /___/ NON /___/ 
OUI /___/ NON /___/ 
OUI /___/ NON /___/ 
OUI /___/ NON /___/ 
ELEVAGE 
Nous allons maintenant parler de l’élevage 
Votre ménage élève quelle espèce d’animaux actuellement ? Précisez le 
nombre de chaque espèce? 
OUI 
NON
Espèces Nombre adulte Nombre jeune Nombre obtenu par LIVES 
Bovins 
Porcins 
Caprins 
Ovins 
Poulets 
Canards 
Dindes 
Apiculture (Nombre de ruches) 
/_____/_____/_____/
/_____/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/_____/ Plus de 9 mois 
/_____/_____/_____/ Plus de 9 mois 
/_____/_____/_____/ Plus de 6 mois 
/_____/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/_____/
/_____/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/_____/ 0 à 9 mois 
/_____/_____/_____/ 0 à 9 mois 
/_____/_____/_____/ 0 à 6 mois 
/_____/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/_____/ 
/_____/_____/_____/ 
Pouvez- vous me dire le nombre total selon le sexe des animaux que vous possédez actuellement ?
Espèces Age Nombre Race
Total Male Femelle Local Importé
Caprins Adultes /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Jeunes /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Ovins Adultes /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Jeunes /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Poulets Adultes /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Jeunes /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Combien sont issus des animaux octroyés auprès du programme LIVES ?
Caprins Ovins Poulets
Adultes Jeunes Adultes Jeunes Adultes Jeunes
/___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
En quelle période vous avez reçu les animaux auprès du programme LIVES ?
Espèces Date (mois / année) Male Femelle
Caprins /___/___/ /___/___/___/___/ /___/___/ /___/___/
Ovins /___/___/ /___/___/___/___/ /___/___/ /___/___/
Poulets /___/___/ /___/___/___/___/ /___/___/ /___/___/
Avez-vous déjà bénéficié d’une quelconque assistance pour cette filière ? Et par qui ? Durant les trois dernières années (à partir de 
2015) 
Espèces
Liste déroulante 
OUI 
NON 
Assistance technique
En chiffre de 1 à 7 
Par qui ?
En chiffre de 1 à 6 
Bovins OUI /___/ NON /___/ Formation 
Encadrement technique 
Dotation en animaux 
/___/, /___/, /___/ Services techniques publics
Projet/Programme 
Secteur privé 
/___/, /___/, /___/
Porcins OUI /___/ NON /___/ /___/, /___/, /___/ /___/, /___/, /___/
Caprins OUI /___/ NON /___/ /___/, /___/, /___/ /___/, /___/, /___/
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
99 
Ovins OUI /___/ NON /___/ Dotation d’intrants /matériels 
Appui financier 
Autre à préciser …………. texte 
/___/, /___/, /___/ Bouchers
Projet LIVES 
Autres à préciser …………. 
texte 
/___/, /___/, /___/
Poulet OUI /___/ NON /___/ /___/, /___/, /___/ /___/, /___/, /___/
Canard OUI /___/ NON /___/ /___/, /___/, /___/ /___/, /___/, /___/
Dinde OUI /___/ NON /___/ /___/, /___/, /___/ /___/, /___/, /___/
Apiculture OUI /___/ NON /___/ /___/, /___/, /___/ /___/, /___/, /___/
Est-ce que les jeunes participent aux activités liées à l’élevage ? 
OUI 
NON 
Si OUI, les quelles ? 
Est-ce que les femmes participent aux activités liées à l’élevage 
? 
OUI 
NON 
Si OUI, les quelles ? 
Planning sur la gestion des pâturages /_____/ Planning sur la gestion des pâturages /_____/
Ramassage et conservation des aliments pour les animaux /_____/ Ramassage et conservation des aliments pour les animaux /_____/
Construction enclos, poulaillers…… /_____/ Construction enclos, poulaillers…… /_____/
Abreuvement des animaux /_____/ Abreuvement des animaux /_____/
Soins médicaux des animaux /_____/ Soins médicaux des animaux /_____/
Vente /_____/ Vente /_____/
Autres à préciser………………………………………texte/_____/ Autres à préciser………………………………………...texte /_____/
Comment évaluez-vous l’ensemble de votre cheptel au cours de 
ces 12 derniers mois ? 
Si réponse = 1, 2, 3, sauter D10. 
A fortement augmenté 
A augmenté 
Resté le même 
A diminué 
A fortement diminué 
Si 4 (a diminué) et 5 (a fortement diminué), quels sont les problèmes les plus marquants que vous avez rencontrés ?
Espèces Types de problèmes
Bovins /_____/ Vols 
Maladies 
Chocs physiques 
Ventes après chocs au sein du ménage 
Sécheresses 
Inondations 
Autres à préciser ………………………….texte 
Porcins /_____/
Caprins /_____/
Ovins /_____/
Poulet /_____/
Canard /_____/
Dinde /_____/
Apiculture /_____/
Combien de progénitures issus des animaux du programme LIVES ont été relativement nées ou écloses ? Chiffre
Espèces Male Femelle Total
Caprins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Ovins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Poulets /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Vous avez obtenu combien d’animaux issus du programme LIVES jusqu’à maintenant (vivant jusqu’au stade adulte) ? Chiffre
Espèces Male Femelle Total
Caprins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Ovins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Poulets /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Quelles sont les impacts du Programme LIVES sur votre élevage ?
Case à cocher 
Extension de l’exploitation /_____/
Exploitation de nouvelles filières /_____/ 
Amélioration de la conduite d’élevage /_____/ 
Acquisition de matériel pour l’élevage /_____/ 
Amélioration de la santé animale /_____/ 
Amélioration de la commercialisation /_____/ 
Autres /_____/ 
Rien /_____/ 
 COMMERCIALISATION ET VENTE 
Cette partie traite spécifiquement la commercialisation et la vente. 
Qui prend la décision sur les différentes étapes d’élevage ?
Homme 
Femme 
Ensemble
Espèces 
Achats géniteurs Alimentation Entretien Santé Vente 
L’utilisation des 
revenues des 
ventes. 
Caprins /_____/ /_____/ /_____/ /_____/ /_____/ /_____/
Ovins /_____/ /_____/ /_____/ /_____/ /_____/ /_____/
Poulets /_____/ /_____/ /_____/ /_____/ /_____/ /_____/
Qui prend la grande responsabilité sur la gestion de l’élevage ?
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
100 
Caprins /_____/ Homme 
Femme 
Jeunes 
Autre à spécifier ……….. Ovins /_____/
Poulets /_____/
A combien évaluez-vous le prix actuel moyen d’un animal ? 
Male Femelle 
Caprins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ Ar /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ Ar
Ovins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ Ar /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ Ar
Poulets /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ Ar /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ Ar
Si vous appréciez votre taille de cheptel actuellement par rapport aux trois dernières années, elle a ?
Caprins /_____/ Fortement augmentée 
Augmentée 
Restée la même 
Diminuée 
Ovins /_____/ Fortement diminuée 
Poulets /_____/
Dans l’ensemble de l’élevage, combien sont vendus durant les 12 derniers mois ?
Espèces Jeunes Raison de la vente Adultes Raison de la vente
Caprins /___/___/___/ /___/ et /___/ /___/___/___/ /___/ et /___/
Ovins /___/___/___/ /___/ et /___/ /___/___/___/ /___/ et /___/
Poulets /___/___/___/ /___/ et /___/ /___/___/___/ /___/ et /___/
Raison de la vente 
Pour acheter de la nourriture 
Pour acheter des intrants pour l’élevage ou l’agriculture 
Pour le paiement des frais de scolarité 
Pour acheter des vêtements 
Pour des us et coutumes 
Pour résoudre les problèmes liés à des chocs au sein du ménage 
Autres…………………………………. 
Durant les 12 derniers mois, donnez le nombre d’animaux vendus par mois 
Espèces juil-16 à sept-16 oct-16 à déc-16 janv-17 à mars-17 avr-17 à juin-17
Caprins 
Ovins
Poulets
A partir de 2015, comment évaluer vous l’évolution du nombre d’animaux que vous avez vendus ?
Caprins /___/ Fortement augmentée 
Augmentée 
Restée la même 
Diminuée 
Ovins /___/ Fortement diminuée 
Poulets /___/
Qui sont les principaux acheteurs ?
Espèces Type 1 % sur la vente Type 2 % sur la vente Type d’acheteurs
Caprins /___/ /___/___/___/ /___/ /___/___/___/ Type 1
Eleveurs 
Collecteurs 
Bouchers 
Hôteliers ou restaurateurs 
Autres à préciser 
Type 2
Eleveurs 
Collecteurs 
Bouchers 
Hôteliers ou restaurateurs 
Autres à préciser 
Ovins /___/ /___/___/___/ /___/ /___/___/___/
Poulets /___/ /___/___/___/ /___/ /___/___/___/
Dans l’ensemble de l’élevage, combien sont consommés durant les 12 derniers mois ?
Espèces Male Femelle Total
Caprins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Ovins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Poulets /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Durant les 12 derniers mois, donnez le nombre d’animaux consommés ? 
Espèces juil-16 à sept-16 oct-16 à déc-16 janv-17 à mars-17 avr-17 à juin-17
Caprins 
Ovins
Poulets
A partir de 2015, comment évaluer vous l’évolution du nombre d’animaux que vous avez consommés ?
Caprins /___/ Fortement augmentée 
Augmentée 
Restée la même 
Diminuée 
Ovins /___/ Fortement diminuée 
Poulets /___/
Dans l’ensemble de l’élevage, combien sont offerts pour les évènements familiaux et sociaux durant les 12 derniers mois ? 
Espèces Male Femelle Total
Caprins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Ovins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Poulets /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Dans l’ensemble de l’élevage, combien sont morts durant les 12 derniers mois ? 
Espèces Male Femelle Total
Caprins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Ovins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Poulets /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
101 
Durant les 12 derniers mois, donnez le nombre d’animaux morts ? 
Espèces juil-16 à sept-16 oct-16 à déc-16 janv-17 à mars-17 avr-17 à juin-17
Caprins 
Ovins
Poulets
Dans l’ensemble de l’élevage, combien sont morts due à des maladies durant les 12 derniers mois ? 
Espèces Male Femelle Total
Caprins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Ovins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Poulets /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Durant les 12 derniers mois, donnez le nombre d’animaux morts causés par de la maladie ? 
Espèces juil-16 à sept-16 oct-16 à déc-16 janv-17 à mars-17 avr-17 à juin-17
Caprins 
Ovins
Poulets
A partir de 2015, comment évaluer vous l’évolution du taux d’animaux morts ?
Caprins /___/ Fortement augmenté
Augmenté 
Resté la même 
Diminué
Ovins /___/ Fortement diminué 
Poulets /___/
Quelles sont les causes de la mortalité des animaux jusqu’au stade adulte ? 
METTEZ EN ORDRE D’IMPORTANCE (1 = la PLUS IMPORTANTE, 2 = la deuxième, et ainsi de suite jusqu’à 6 = la MOINS 
IMPORTANTE, s’il y a lieu) 
Causes de la mortalité Caprins Ovins Poulets
Maladies /___/ /___/ /___/
Prédation /___/ /___/ /___/
Alimentation /___/ /___/ /___/
Abreuvement /___/ /___/ /___/
Choc physique /___/ /___/ /___/
Autres à préciser …….. texte /___/ /___/ /___/
Dans l’ensemble de l’élevage, combien sont volés ou perdus durant les 12 derniers mois ? 
Espèces Male Femelle Total
Caprins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Ovins /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Poulets /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/
Durant les 12 derniers mois, donnez la proportion des animaux volés ou perdus ? 
Espèces juil-16 à sept-16 oct-16 à déc-16 janv-17 à mars-17 avr-17 à juin-17
Caprins 
Ovins
Poulets
A partir de 2015, comment évaluer vous l’évolution du taux d’animaux volés ou perdus ?
Caprins /___/ Fortement augmenté
Augmenté 
Resté la même 
Diminué
Ovins /___/ Fortement diminué 
Poulets /___/
Par rapport à l’alimentation, en quoi se compose-t-elle ?
Espèces Aliment base 1 Aliment base 2 Aliment base 3 Aliment base 4
Type Source Type Source Type Source Type Source 
Caprins 
Ovins
Poulets
Par rapport aux Techniques / technologies
Caprins 
Types 
Si la réponse est oui, mettez 1 Si la 
réponse est non, mettez 0
a- Utiliser vous ces techniques 
/ technologie 
b- Avez-vous commencé à utiliser après 
la formation dispensée par le programme 
c- Est-ce que c’est la première fois 
que vous utilisez cette technique / 
technologie 
Planning sur la gestion de pâturage 1
0
1
0
1
0
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
102 
Stockage d’aliment (foins, pailles, 
fanes,…)
1
0
1
0
1
0
Construction de local d’élevage 1
0
1
0
1
0
Utilisation de sous-produits agricole /post￾récolte 
1
0
1
0
1
0
Planning pour l’abreuvement des animaux 
au cours de l’année 
1
0
1
0
1
0
Amélioration de l’alimentation (apports 
d’aliments préparés) 
1
0
1
0
1
0
Vaccination et déparasitage 1
0
1
0
1
0
Ovins 
Types 
Si la réponse est oui, mettez 1 Si la 
réponse est non, mettez 0
a- Utiliser vous ces techniques 
/ technologie 
b- Avez-vous commencé à utiliser après 
la formation dispensée par le programme 
c- Est-ce que c’est la première fois 
que vous utilisez cette technique / 
technologie 
Planning sur la gestion de pâturage 1
0
1
0
1
0
Stockage d’aliment (foins, pailles,
fanes,…) 
1
0
1
0
1
0
Construction de local d’élevage 1
0
1
0
1
0
Utilisation de sous-produits agricole 
/post-récolte 
1
0
1
0
1
0
Planning pour l’abreuvement des 
animaux au cours de l’année 
1
0
1
0
1
0
Amélioration de l’alimentation 
(apports d’aliments préparés) 
1
0
1
0
1
0
Vaccination et déparasitage 1
0
1
0
1
0
Poulets 
Types 
Si la réponse est oui, mettez 1 Si la 
réponse est non, mettez 0
a- Utiliser vous ces techniques / 
technologie 
b- Avez-vous commencé à utiliser 
après la formation dispensée par le 
programme 
c- Est-ce que c’est la première 
fois que vous utilisez cette 
technique / technologie 
Stockage d’aliment (foins, pailles, 
fanes,…) 
1
0
1
0
1
0
Construction de local d’élevage 1
0
1
0
1
0
Utilisation de sous-produits agricole 
/post-récolte 
1
0
1
0
1
0
Amélioration de l’alimentation 
(apports d’aliments préparés) 
1
0
1
0
1
0
Vaccination et déparasitage 1
0
1
0
1
0
Quelles technologies ont été les plus ou moins faciles à adopter ? 
Espèces Techniques / technologies (METTEZ EN ORDRE DE 1 : PLUS FACILE – 7 : MOINS FACILE) chiffre
Caprins Planning sur la gestion de pâturage /___/
Stockage d’aliment (foins, pailles, fanes,…) /___/
Construction de local d’élevage /___/
Utilisation de sous-produits agricole /post-récolte /___/
Planning pour l’abreuvement des animaux au cours de 
l’année 
/___/
Amélioration de l’alimentation (apports d’aliments préparés) /___/
Vaccination et déparasitage /___/
Ovins Planning sur la gestion de pâturage /___/
Stockage d’aliment (foins, pailles, fanes,…) /___/
Construction de local d’élevage /___/
Utilisation de sous-produits agricole /post-récolte /___/
Planning pour l’abreuvement des animaux au cours de 
l’année 
/___/
Amélioration de l’alimentation (apports d’aliments préparés) /___/
Vaccination et déparasitage /___/
Poulets Stockage d’aliment (foins, pailles, fanes,…) /___/
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
103 
Construction de local d’élevage /___/
Utilisation de sous-produits agricole /post-récolte /___/
Amélioration de l’alimentation (apports d’aliments préparés) /___/
Vaccination et déparasitage /___/
Selon vous, quels sont les services offerts par CLWs ? (Plusieurs réponses possibles) Etes- vous satisfaits de ses services ? Si 
non, pourquoi ? (plusieurs réponses possibles) 
Services offerts
METTEZ EN ORDRE D’IMPORTANCE LES 
MESURES PRISES (1 : PLUS IMPORTANT – 7 : 
MOINS IMPORTANT) 
En êtes-vous satisfaits des CLWs? Raisons 
METTEZ EN ORDRE D’IMPORTANCE LES 
RAISONS (1 : RAISONS PRINCIPALES – 5 
: MOINS IMPORTANT) 
Caprins /__/ Aucune
/__/ Bien respecter les règles d’hygiène 
/__/ Avoir un système de gestion des animaux morts 
/__/ Vacciner les animaux 
/__/ Déparasiter 
/__/ Recourir aux services vétérinaires 
/__/ Sans réponse 
/__/ Autres à préciser ……………………texte 
Pas du tout, je ne veux plus collaborer 
avec lui 
Moyennement, j’hésite encore pour la 
prochaine fois 
Oui et je vais toujours lui demander son 
service. 
Pas d’avis 
/__/ Manque de professionnalisme
/__/ Coûts des services offerts 
/__/ Disponibilité du CLWs 
/__/ Pas d’avis 
/__/ Autres à préciser……………………texte 
Ovins /__/ Aucune
/__/ Bien respecter les règles d’hygiène 
/__/ Avoir un système de gestion des animaux morts 
/__/ Vacciner les animaux 
/__/ Déparasiter 
/__/ Recourir aux services vétérinaires 
/__/ Sans réponse 
/__/ Autres à préciser ……………………texte 
Pas du tout, je ne veux plus collaborer 
avec lui 
Moyennement, j’hésite encore pour la 
prochaine fois 
Oui et je vais toujours lui demander son 
service. 
Pas d’avis 
/__/ Manque de professionnalisme
/__/ Coûts des services offerts 
/__/ Disponibilité du CLWs 
/__/ Pas d’avis 
/__/ Autres à préciser……………………texte 
Poulets /__/ Aucune
/__/ Bien respecter les règles d’hygiène 
/__/ Avoir un système de gestion des animaux morts 
/__/ Vacciner les animaux 
/__/ Déparasiter 
/__/ Recourir aux services vétérinaires 
/__/ Sans réponse 
/__/ Autres à préciser……………………texte 
Pas du tout, je ne veux plus collaborer 
avec lui 
Moyennement, j’hésite encore pour la 
prochaine fois 
Oui et je vais toujours lui demander son 
service. 
Pas d’avis 
/__/ Manque de professionnalisme
/__/ Coûts des services offerts 
/__/ Disponibilité du CLWs 
/__/ Pas d’avis 
/__/ Autres à préciser……………………texte 
Est-ce que vous avez rencontré des difficultés d’accès pour bénéficier des services vétérinaires/CLWs ?
oui 
non 
Sans réponse 
Si oui, quelles sont les 
raisons de ces difficultés ? 
/__/ Coût
/__/ Distance 
/__/ n’a pas connaissance de l’existence 
/__/ qualité de produits ou de services offerts 
/__/ pas de confiance 
/__/ Autres, ……………………......................……………………... 
/__/ Sans réponse 
Est-ce que vous pensez que les services donnés par les services vétérinaires / CLWs sont adaptées aux besoins de la population 
? 
oui 
non 
Sans réponse
Est-ce que vous pensez que les services donnés par les services vétérinaires / CLWs seront pérennes et peut être adoptés par les 
autres personnes non bénéficiaires? 
oui 
non 
Sans réponse
Avez- vous un point d’eau spécifique pour vos animaux ? Type
Caprins oui 
non 
Ovins oui 
non 
Poulets oui 
non 
Est-ce que vous tenez un carnet de bord ou d’exploitation pour votre élevage ?
Caprins oui 
non 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
104 
Ovins oui 
non 
Poulets oui 
non 
SECURITE ALIMENTAIRE 
Cette partie concerne les questions sur la disponibilité alimentaire et la diversité alimentaire 
Si le répondant est une femme : pas de changement sur cette section 
Si le répondant est un homme : Il est préférable de discuter avec la femme du chef de ménage. Si ce n’est pas 
possible il est nécessaire de remplacer par une femme adulte dans le ménage. 
Si une femme adulte n’est pas disponible dans le ménage : veuillez indiquer qu’il n’y pas de répondant approprié 
dans le ménage 
Est-ce qu’il y a une femme âgée de 15 à 49 ans dans 
votre ménage qui peut répondre à quelques questions, 
s’il vous plaît ? Une autre répondante est disponible 
dans le ménage (femme en âge de procréer) ? 
oui 
non 
Si OUI poser à elle les questions suivantes, Si NON, sauter à F8 
Nom du répondant
Votre âge s’il vous plait ? /_____/_____/
Savez- vous lire ? Ne sais pas lire 
Sais lire 
Quel est votre niveau d’éducation (scolaire) ? Aucun niveau 
Primaire 
Secondaire 1er cycle 
Secondaire 2nd cycle 
Supérieur 
Quelle est votre relation avec le chef de ménage ? Chef du ménage 
Epouse 
Enfant 
Parent 
Proche 
Autres à préciser ……………… texte
Veuillez décrire tous les aliments (repas, gouter et collations) que vous avez mangés et bus hier dans la journée et la nuit à la 
maison et en dehors de la maison. Commencer avec le premier aliment mangé ou bu le matin. Minimum Dietary Diversity Woman 
GUIDE
Riz (grains ou transformés) 
Maïs (grains ou transformés) 
Manioc (entiers ou transformés) 
Autres racines et tubercules (patate douce, pomme de terre, igname) 
Poisson (poisson, crustacé, mollusque) 
Viande blanche (volailles) 
Porc 
Viande rouge (petits ruminants, zébu) 
Viande sauvage 
Abats 
Œufs 
Légumineuses lentilles (Haricot, pois, lentilles, soja, etc.) 
Légumes (carottes, oignons, tomates, etc.) 
Légumes à feuilles vertes 
Huile (Huiles, matières grasses, beurre clarifié, beurre) 
Fruits frais 
Sucre / produits sucrés (Sucre, produits sucrés, miel) 
Lait / produits laitiers 
Condiments (Épices, thé, café, sel, poudre de poisson, petites quantités de lait 
pour le thé, etc.) 
Petit déjeuner + autres Gouter ou collation Déjeuner + autres Gouter ou collation Diner + autres Gouter ou collation
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Citer /_____________/ 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
105 
Au cours des 7 derniers jours, combien de jours votre ménage a consommé ?
Types aliments chiffre Source 1 Source 2 Type de source
Riz, maïs, mil, autres céréales…… /___/ /___/ /___/
Achats 
Propres productions 
Emprunts 
Trocs 
Don 
Aide alimentaire 
Manioc, patates douces, pommes de terre, autres plantes à tubercules, plantains /___/ /___/ /___/
Haricots, pois, arachides…. /___/ /___/ /___/
Légumes, légumes à feuilles /___/ /___/ /___/
Fruits /___/ /___/ /___/
Viande de bœuf, viande de poulets, viande de porc, viande de chèvres, moutons… /___/ /___/ /___/
Produits laitiers /___/ /___/ /___/
Sucre, miel…. /___/ /___/ /___/
Huile, graisse, beurre…. /___/ /___/ /___/
Épices, piments, poivre, carry…. /___/ /___/ /___/
La période de soudure débute et 
se termine en quel mois pour 
votre ménage ? 
Juillet 2014 – Juin 2015
/___/___/ à /___/___/ 
Et 
/___/___/ à /___/___/ 
Juillet 2015 – Juin 2016
/___/___/ à /___/___/ 
Et 
/___/___/ à /___/___/ 
Juillet 2016 – Juin 2017
/___/___/ à /___/___/ 
Et 
/___/___/ à /___/___/ 
Quelle est la base de l’alimentation de votre ménage (votre principale nourriture) durant les 12 derniers mois ?
Juil. Août Sept. Oct. Nov. Déc. Janv. Févr. Mars Avr. Mai Juin
/___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/
Types :
Riz 
Maïs 
Manioc
Patate douce 
Autres à préciser……………………texte 
Quelles sont les sources d’approvisionnement de votre aliment de base durant les 12 derniers mois ?
Types Juil. Août Sept. Oct. Nov. Déc. Janv. Févr. Mars Avr. Mai Juin
Source 
1 /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ 
/___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/
Source 
2 /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ 
/___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/
Source 
3 /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ 
/___/ /___/ /___/ /___/ /___/
Issus de la production
Achat 
Don de la famille ou des voisins proches 
Emprunt
Don auprès des institutions 
Autres à préciser………………. texte 
Combien de fois par jour vous prenez de repas durant les 12 derniers mois ?
Juil. Août Sept. Oct. Nov. Déc. Janv. Févr. Mars Avr. Mai Juin
Fréquences 
3 fois 
2 fois 
Autres fréquences à préciser 
Votre production destinée à l’autoconsommation peut recouvrir combien de mois ? 
Juillet 2014 – Juin 2015 /___/___/ Juillet 2015 – Juin 2016 /___/___/ Juillet 2016 – Juin 2017 /___/___/
Quelle stratégie adoptez- vous pour faire face au problème d’insuffisance en matière de nourriture ? 
et qui prend la décision ?
Prise de décision
Consommer les nourritures moins chères 
oui 
non 
Homme
Femme 
Ensemble 
Emprunter de la nourriture 
oui 
non 
Homme
Femme 
Ensemble 
Diminuer le nombre de repas par jour 
oui 
non 
Homme
Femme 
Ensemble 
Diminuer la quantité pour chaque repas 
oui 
non 
Homme
Femme 
Ensemble 
Consommer des aliments de cueillette 
oui 
non 
Homme
Femme 
Ensemble 
Vendre les biens du ménage 
oui 
non 
Homme
Femme 
Ensemble 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
106 
Vendre des animaux 
oui 
non 
Homme
Femme 
Ensemble 
Migration 
oui 
non 
Homme
Femme 
Ensemble 
Autre solution à préciser
oui 
non 
Homme
Femme 
Ensemble 
Au cours des 6 derniers mois avez-vous reçu de l’aide alimentaire ? oui 
non 
Si oui, de la part de qui ? Mois 
Famille, amis /___/ /___/___/
Communauté /___/ /___/___/
Commerçants /___/ /___/___/
ONG (locale/internationale) /___/ /___/___/
Collectivité /___/ /___/___/
Communautés religieuses /___/ /___/___/
Gouvernement /___/ /___/___/
Nations Unies /___/ /___/___/
Autres à préciser /___/ /___/___/
A propos de la disponibilité d’aliment dans le ménage
Durant les 12 derniers mois, est-ce qu’il y a des mois où les besoins alimentaires de 
votre ménage n’ont pas été satisfaits ?
oui 
non 
Si oui, Pendant le(s)quel(s) de ces 12 mois avez-vous cette difficulté ? 
Ecrire « 1 » pour le(s) mois où la famille n’arrive pas à satisfaire ses besoins alimentaires 
Ecrire « 0 » si le contraire, à la fin on fait la somme 
Mois 
Note 
chiffre Raisons 
juil-16 /___/ Réponse
A. Sècheresse 
B. Inondations 
C. irrégularité de la pluie 
D. Maladies et insecte des plantes 
E. Maladies des animaux 
F. Augmentations des prix des aliments 
G. Augmentations des prix intrants pour 
l’exploitation 
H. Chômage 
I. Maladie de l’un des membres des ménages 
J. Décès de l’un des membres des ménages 
K. Perte à cause de vol des ressources à 
l’exploitation 
L. Autres actes criminelles 
M. Erosion et ensablement 
N. Autres …………texte 
août-16 /___/
sept-16 /___/
oct-16 /___/
nov-16 /___/
déc-16 /___/
janv-17 /___/
févr-17 /___/
mars-17 /___/
avr-17 /___/
mai-17 /___/
juin-17 /___/
Somme /___/___/ chiffre
Au cours des 30 derniers jours, est ce que votre ménage n’a pas pu manger faute 
de manque de ressource ? 
oui 
non 
Si oui, quelle fréquence 
Rare (1 à 2 fois) 
Souvent (3 à 10 fois) 
Toujours (plus de 10 fois) 
Au cours des 12 derniers mois, est ce que votre ménage n’a pas pu manger faute 
de manque de ressource ? 
oui 
non 
Si oui mois de 
/___/___/ et /___/___/ 
Au cours des 30 derniers jours, est ce qu’un des membres du ménage a couché 
sans manger ? 
oui 
non 
Si oui, quelle fréquence 
Rare (1 à 2 fois) 
Souvent (3 à 10 fois) 
Toujours (plus de 10 fois) 
Au cours des 12 derniers mois, est ce qu’un des membres du ménage a couché 
sans manger ? 
oui 
non 
Si oui mois de 
/___/___/ et /___/___/ 
Au cours des 30 derniers jours, est ce qu’un des membres du ménage n’a pas 
mangé la journée et la nuit ? 
oui 
non 
Si oui, quelle fréquence Rare (1 à 2 fois) 
Souvent (3 à 10 fois) 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
107 
Toujours (plus de 10 fois)
Au cours des 12 derniers mois, st ce qu’un des membres du ménage n’a pas 
mangé la journée et la nuit ? 
oui 
non 
Si oui mois de 
/___/___/ et /___/___/ 
APPROVISIONNEMENT EN EAU 
De quelle source d’eau s’approvisionne votre ménage ? Et combien de mois ?
(Plusieurs réponses possibles)
Combien de temps prend la distance entre votre 
maison et le point d’approvisionnement en eau à 
usage domestique ? 
Eau courante 
Pompe à pédale ou manuelle 
Puits 
Mare 
Rivière / source 
Autres (spécifier) ……………………texte 
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
Nombre mois 
/___/___/ 
/___/___/ 
/___/___/ 
/___/___/ 
/___/___/ 
/___/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
0 - 30 Minutes 
30 - 60 minutes 
1 heure - ½ journée 
½ à 1 journée 
Plus de une journée 
Autres à préciser …………texte 
Combien de fois par jour ?
1 fois
2 fois 
3 fois 
Plus de trois fois
Quel est le mode de gestion de ces points d’eau ? 
Communautaire
Privé 
Etat 
Autres à préciser……………………texte 
/___/
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
Qui est-ce qui s’occupe d’approvisionner l’eau ?
Plusieurs réponses possibles Comment transportez-vous de l’eau ? 
Les garçons 
Les filles 
Les femmes 
Les hommes 
Employés 
Autres à préciser……………………texte
/___/
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
A pied 
Charrette 
Voiture 
Autres à préciser 
Avez-vous l’habitude de payer l’eau ? oui /_____/ non /_____/ 
Par seau 
Par bidon 
Autres à préciser …………………… texte
oui /_____/ non /_____/
oui /_____/ non /_____/ 
oui /_____/ non /_____/
Prix par unité /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ Ar 
Prix par unité /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ Ar 
Prix par unité /___/___/___/ /___/___/___/ Ar 
GENRE 
Comment évaluez-vous cotre situation [ou la situation de la femme dans cette ménage] actuelle par rapport à la prise de décision 
au sein du ménage par rapport il y a 3 ans ? 
Très améliorée
Moyennement améliorée 
Reste-la même 
Nettement dégradée
Dégradée 
A quelles circonstances vous croyez que votre mari ou l’ensemble du ménage prend en compte votre décision ? 
Financière
Sociale 
Education 
Discipline des enfants 
Gestion de ménage 
Autres à préciser 
/___/
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
/___/ 
Parfois un mari est contrarie  ou en colère a  cause de certaines choses que fait sa femme. A  votre avis, est-il légitime qu'un mari 
frappe ou batte sa femme dans les situations suivantes 
Si elle sort sans le lui dire ? Oui
non 
Sans réponses 
Si elle néglige les enfants ? Oui
non 
Sans réponses 
Si elle argumente avec lui ? Oui
non 
Sans réponses 
Si elle refuse d'avoir des rapports sexuels avec lui ? Oui
non 
Sans réponses 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
108 
Si elle brule la nourriture ? Oui
non 
Sans réponses 
Autres, précisez : Oui
Sans réponses 
PROGRAMME LIVES 
Maintenant nous allons parler du programme LIVES 
En général, comment appréciez-vous le projet ?
Très bien 
Bien 
Moyen 
Mauvais 
Très mauvais 
Sans réponses 
Avez-vous acquis de nouvelles compétences pendant le projet ?
Oui
non 
NSP
Sans réponses 
Comment jugez-vous en général la pertinence de la mise en œuvre du programme par rapport à vos besoins ?
Très Pertinent 
Moyennement pertinent 
Peu pertinent 
Pas pertinent 
Sans réponses 
Comment jugez-vous en général la qualité de la mise en œuvre du programme ?
Très satisfaisant
Satisfaisant 
Moyennement satisfaisant 
Moyennement insatisfaisant 
Insatisfaisant 
Très insatisfaisant 
Sans réponses 
En général, quels ont été les impacts auprès de votre ménage ?
Très important
Important 
Minime 
Négligeable
Sans réponses 
Est-ce que le programme a eu un impact positif au sein de la communauté pouvant être répliqué dans d’autres zones ou régions ?
Probable 
Moyennement probable 
Moyennement improbable 
Improbable
Sans réponses 
En général, quelles sont les contraintes pour le programme durant la mise en œuvre du programme ?
Durée 
Technique 
Personnel 
Autres à préciser 
ne sais pas 
Sans réponses 
En général, quels sont les atouts pour le programme durant la mise en œuvre du programme ?
Durée 
Technique 
Personnel 
Autres à préciser 
ne sais pas 
Sans réponses 
Quelles sont vos recommandations en générales pour une meilleure réussite d’un tel programme ?
Quels sont les impacts du Programme LIVES sur vos activités agricoles ? Extension de l’exploitation /_____/
Exploitation de nouvelles filières /_____/ 
Amélioration de la conduite culturale /_____/ 
Acquisition de matériel agricole /_____/ 
Achats d’intrants agricoles de meilleure qualité /_____/ 
Autres /_____/ 
Rien /_____/ 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
109 
Appendix 3 : Interview and FDG 
GUIDE D’INTERVIEW TENANT DE POUVOIR TRADITIONNEL 
Nom du répondant
Contact 
Position
Localisation
Interviewer
Début de l’entretien
Fin de l’entretien 
 Salutation 
 Présentation de l’intervieweur 
 Présentation succincte du programme et du but de l’entretien 
 Explication de la confidentialité de l’entretien 
 Présentation de la structure de l’entretien 
 Durée : 1 heure au maximum 
Critères Questions clés
Pertinence
5 min 
 A votre avis, est-ce que les activités de LIVES respectent les principes de base de la communauté 
(us, coutume, dina, règle sociale, …) ? 
 Est-ce que les activités de LIVES tiennent vraiment compte des attentes de la population dans 
votre localité ? Expliquez svp. 
Efficacité
10 min 
 Comment les bénéficiaires apprécient-ils les activités conduites ? Les interventions ont-elles 
touché les bénéficiaires ciblés ? 
 Quelle est votre appréciation par rapport aux activités du Projet dans votre localité ? 
 Est-ce qu’il y a des recommandations spécifiques pour la mise en œuvre d’activités similaires 
pour atteindre les objectifs dans l’avenir ? 
Impact
15 min 
 Quels sont les changements que vous avez constatés sur la pratique de l’élevage, la reproduction 
et la santé animale depuis l’intervention de LIVES ? Comment ? 
 Est-ce qu’il y avait des impacts inattendus relatifs à l’intervention de LIVES ? (Pousser pour les 
impacts négatifs et positifs) Quelle est l’importance de ces signes de changements perçus par les 
bénéficiaires ? 
 En particulier, est-ce que le projet a impliqué des changements sur les règles de vie 
communautaire (us, coutumes, etc.) ? 
 Qu’est-ce que vous pouvez encore faire pour que les activités de LIVES apportent des impacts 
dans votre localité ? 
Genre
10 min 
 Est-ce que les interventions de LIVES ont des impacts différents aussi bien pour les hommes que 
pour les femmes ? Si oui, pourriez-vous citer des exemples concrets ? 
 Est-ce qu’il y a un changement notable par rapport à la situation des femmes dans votre 
circonscription ? et peut-on attribuer ces changements au Programme ? 
Pérennisation 
10 min 
 Selon l’approche actuelle de LIVES, est-ce que la pérennisation est- elle probable après la fin du 
projet ? 
 Quels sont les facteurs susceptibles de menacer la durabilité des effets et des impacts du Projet ? 
 Est-ce que vous pouvez suggérer des actions pour assurer la pérennisation des activités de 
LIVES ? 
Autres 
remarques 
5 min 
 D’autres points qui méritent des réflexions ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
110 
GUIDE D’INTERVIEW CLW 
Nom du répondant
Contact 
Position
Localisation
Interviewer
Début de l’entretien
Fin de l’entretien 
 Salutation 
 Présentation de l’intervieweur 
 Présentation succincte du programme et du but de l’entretien 
 Explication de la confidentialité de l’entretien 
 Présentation de la structure de l’entretien 
 Durée : 1 heure au maximum 
Critère Questions clés
Pertinence
5 min 
 Est-ce que l’appui en santé animale et la pratique de l’élevage que vous avez offert aux ménages 
a bien répondu à leurs attentes ? {Si oui, comment ? Si non, pourquoi pas ?} Donner des exemples 
SVP 
 Est-ce que vos services vous semblent adaptés au contexte socioculturel ? {Si oui, comment ? Si 
non, pourquoi pas ?} Prendre par exemple le « tabou de l’utilisation d’aiguilles »
 Quels sont les services les plus demandés à votre niveau ? Donner des estimations 
Efficacité
10 min 
 Pouvez-vous donner l’évolution du nombre d’éleveurs qui demande vos services durant la mise 
en œuvre du projet ? 
 Est-ce que vous arrivez à répondre à la plupart des besoins de la population ? Autrement, 
comment faites-vous ? 
 Quelles sont les difficultés que vous avez rencontrées lors de l’exercice de vos fonctions ? 
Comment faites-vous pour les surmonter ? 
 Comment appréciez-vous la collaboration avec le projet LIVES ? En particulier, comment 
appréciez-vous l’approche du projet, notamment l’aspect formation ? 
Efficience
10 min 
 Est-ce que vous pensez que votre compétence est suffisante pour répondre aux principaux 
besoins de la population en matière d’amélioration de l’élevage et de la santé animale ? Si non, 
quels sont les aspects qui auraient dû être renforcés ? 
 Est-ce que vous estimez que vous êtes assez nombreux pour couvrir la zone qui vous est 
attribuée ? Est-ce que vous pensez que le temps de mise en œuvre du projet a été suffisant ? Si 
non, expliquer pourquoi ? 
Impact
10 min 
 Quels sont les changements positifs ou négatifs que vous avez constatés sur la santé, la 
reproduction des animaux et les pratiques des éleveurs, liés à votre participation à LIVES 
 Est-ce qu’il y avait des impacts inattendus du programme ? (Pousser pour les impacts négatifs et 
positifs) 
Genre
10 min 
 Est-ce que vous avez remarqué des contraintes à l’accès aux services des CLWs dans votre zone 
d’intervention ? (Donner des exemples : questions des ressources financières des femmes, leurs 
prises de décision, leur temps disponible pour chercher les services, etc.) 
 SI LA PERSONNE EST UNE FEMME 
 Est-ce que vous avez noté des contraintes liées à votre sexe, dans l’exercice de vos fonctions ? 
Si oui, lesquelles (Illustrer) ? Comment faites-vous pour surmonter ou contourner cela ? 
Durabilité  Est-ce que vous allez continuer à fournir des services en matière de santé animale et d’élevage, 
après que le projet LIVES ait pris fin ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
111 
Critère Questions clés
10 min  Avez-vous des projets dans le court ou le moyen terme, en matière de fourniture de services aux 
éleveurs ? Lesquels ? 
 Comment comptez-vous valoriser davantage les compétences et les expériences acquises dans 
le cadre du projet LIVES ? 
 Pensez-vous que le Est-ce que tu peux suggérer des actions pour assurer la pérennisation des 
activités de LIVES ? 
Autres
5 min 
 Autres choses à ajouter ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
112 
GUIDE D’INTERVIEW CTD (Maires) 
Nom du répondant
Contact 
Position
Localisation
Interviewer
Début de l’entretien
Fin de l’entretien 
 Salutation 
 Présentation de l’intervieweur 
 Présentation succincte du programme et du but de l’entretien 
 Explication de la confidentialité de l’entretien 
 Présentation de la structure de l’entretien 
 Durée : 1 heure au maximum 
Critères Questions clés
Pertinence
10 min 
 A votre avis, est-ce que les activités de LIVES sont cohérentes avec les enjeux et les politiques de 
développement initié au niveau de votre circonscription ? 
 Le Programme s'articule-t-il correctement avec les actions mises en œuvre par d'autres acteurs de 
développement ? Existe-t-il des actions de coordination sur les mêmes thèmes traités par les différents 
intervenants ? 
 Est-ce que les activités de LIVES tiennent vraiment compte des attentes de la population dans votre 
localité ? Expliquez svp. 
 Est-ce que les activités de LIVES peuvent –être utiles aux éleveurs dans l’amélioration de la pratique 
de l’élevage, de santé animale et la reproduction dans votre localité ? (Si oui, comment ? Si non, 
pourquoi pas ?) 
Efficacité
15 min 
 Selon vous, les activités prévues par le projet LIVES ont-elles été réalisées ? Quels sont les facteurs 
externes qui ont permis d’avoir ces résultats ou ont constitué d’obstacles pour l’atteinte des objectifs ? 
 Quelles synergies et complémentarités avec des acteurs externes ont été mises en place ou manquées 
dans l’atteinte de l’objectif ? 
 Comment les bénéficiaires apprécient-ils les activités conduites ? Les interventions ont-elles touché les 
bénéficiaires ciblés ? 
 Quelle est votre appréciation par rapport aux activités suivantes dans votre localité : 
 les CLWs ? 
 les LLFs ? 
 par le FCSA ? 
Impact
10 min 
 Quels sont les changements que vous avez constatés sur la pratique de l’élevage, la reproduction et 
la santé animale depuis l’intervention de LIVES ? Comment ? 
 Est-ce qu’il y avait des impacts inattendus relatifs à l’intervention de LIVES ? (Pousser pour les impacts 
négatifs et positifs) Quelle est l’importance de ces signes de changements perçus par les bénéficiaires 
? 
Genre
10 min 
 Est – ce que les approches adoptées par le CLWs, LLFs, FCSA étaient efficaces vis-à-vis de la 
considération des femmes éleveurs dans votre localité ? Si oui, comment ? si non, proposez des 
alternatives 
 Est-ce que les interventions de LIVES ont des impacts différents aussi bien pour les hommes que pour 
les femmes ? Si oui, pourriez-vous citer des exemples concrets ? 
 Est-ce qu’il y a un changement notable par rapport à la situation des femmes dans votre 
circonscription ? et peut-on attribuer ces changements au Programme ? 
Pérennisation  Selon l’approche actuelle de LIVES, est-ce que la pérennisation est- elle probable après la fin du 
projet ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
113 
Critères Questions clés
10 min  La stratégie de sortie a-t-elle prévu un ancrage institutionnel ? Dans quelles mesures le Programme 
est-il intégré dans les structures institutionnelles/ organisationnelles locales ? 
 Le Programme a-t-il permis un renforcement des capacités locales et une autonomisation des 
structures relais ? 
 Quels sont les facteurs susceptibles de menacer la durabilité des effets et des impacts du Projet ? 
 Est-ce que vous pouvez suggérer des actions pour assurer la pérennisation des activités de LIVES ? 
Autres remarques
15 min 
 D’autres points qui méritent des réflexions ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
114 
GUIDE D’INTERVIEW FOND COMMUN POUR LA SANTE ANIMALE (FCSA) 
Nom du répondant
Contact 
Position
Localisation
Interviewer
Début de l’entretien
Fin de l’entretien 
 Salutation 
 Présentation de l’intervieweur 
 Présentation succincte du programme et du but de l’entretien 
 Explication de la confidentialité de l’entretien 
 Présentation de la structure de l’entretien 
 Durée : 1 heure au maximum 
Critère Questions clés
Pertinence
10 min 
 Est-ce que vous pensez que le FCSA peut être utile aux éleveurs à l’amélioration de la pratique de 
l’élevage, de santé animale et de la reproduction dans votre localité ? (Si oui, comment ? Si non, 
pourquoi pas ?) 
 A votre avis, est-ce que les activités de LIVES respectent les principes de base de la communauté 
(us, coutume, dina, règle sociale,…) ? expliquez svp 
Efficacité
10 min 
 Est-ce que le FCSA représente effectivement des intérêts par rapport à la sécurisation alimentaire 
des ménages ? Comment ? Si non, pourquoi ? 
 D’après vos observations, est-ce que les paysans sont convaincus que l’adhésion au FCSA 
contribue à l’amélioration de la pratique de l’élevage ? 
 Est-ce que le FCSA a besoin d’appuis pour améliorer son efficacité ? Si oui, veuillez les citer ? 
Impact
15 min 
 Quels sont les impacts en termes de biens et en termes de sécurité alimentaire au niveau des 
ménages, liés à vos activités ? 
 Est-ce qu’il y a eu des impacts inattendus relatifs à la mise en place du FCSA par rapport à la 
pratique de l’élevage et la sécurité alimentaire des ménages ? (Pousser pour les impacts négatifs 
et positifs qui n’étaient pas attendus.)
Genre
10 min 
 Est-ce que vos activités ont des impacts différents aussi bien pour les hommes que pour les 
femmes ? Si oui, pourriez-vous citer des exemples concrets ? 
 SI LA PERSONNE EST UNE FEMME 
 Est-ce que vous avez noté des contraintes liées à votre sexe, dans l’exercice de vos fonctions ? 
Lesquelles (Illustrer) 
 Comment faites-vous pour surmonter ou contourner cela ? 
Durabilité
10 min 
 Pensez-vous que vous allez continuer à fonctionner, après que le projet LIVES ait pris fin ? Si non, 
quelles sont les conditions pour cela ? 
 Avez-vous des projets dans le court ou le moyen terme, en matière de développement des FCSA ? 
Lesquels ? 
 Est-ce que vous pouvez suggérer des actions pour assurer la pérennisation des activités de LIVES ? 
Autres
5 min 
 Autres choses à ajouter ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
115 
GUIDE D’INTERVIEW LIVESTOCK LEADER FARMER (LLF) 
Nom du répondant
Contact 
Position
Localisation
Interviewer
Début de l’entretien
Fin de l’entretien 
 Salutation 
 Présentation de l’intervieweur 
 Présentation succincte du programme et du but de l’entretien 
 Explication de la confidentialité de l’entretien 
 Présentation de la structure de l’entretien 
 Durée : 1 heure au maximum 
Critère Questions clés
Pertinence
10 min 
 En tant que LLFs, est-ce que les activités de LIVES résolvent les problèmes liés à la 
reproduction et la santé animale matière d’élevage dans les zones d’intervention de LIVES 
? Si, oui comment ? Si non, pourquoi ? 
 Est-ce que vos attributions en tant que LLF avec LIVES correspondent aux besoins des 
éleveurs dans votre localité ? (Si oui, comment ? Si non, pourquoi pas ?) 
 A votre avis, est-ce que les activités de LIVES respectent les principes de base de la 
communauté (us, coutume, dina, règle sociale,…) ? expliquez svp 
Efficacité
15 min 
 Est-ce que les formations en matière d’élevage sont-elles adaptées par rapport à la pratique 
d’élevage ? 
 Selon vos constats sur le terrain, quelles sont les pratiques/techniques d’élevage que le 
programme a beaucoup de difficulté à transmettre à ses bénéficiaires ? 
 Quelles sont vos suggestions pour améliorer la vulgarisation de la nouvelle technique, les 
appuis techniques et sanitaires octroyés aux éleveurs ? (Contenu technique des formations, 
de l’utilité, de la praticité des formations, de l’approche pédagogique de formation, et des 
logistiques, …) ? 
Impact
15 min 
 En tant que LLF dans ces localités, quels sont les changements significatifs en matière de 
pratique d’’élevage (chèvres, moutons, poulets) après l’intervention de LIVES dans les zones 
d’intervention du LLF ? (Formation sur les nouvelles technologies, appui sur la santé animale, 
dotation des animaux) Comment ? Si non, pourquoi ? 
 Quels sont les changements positifs ou négatifs que vous avez constatés sur la santé, la 
reproduction des animaux et les pratiques des éleveurs liés à votre participation à LIVES ? 
 Est-ce qu’il y avait des impacts inattendus du programme ? (Pousser pour les impacts 
négatifs et positifs) 
Genre
5 min 
 Est-ce que les interventions du LLF ont des impacts différents aussi bien pour les hommes 
que pour les femmes ? Si oui, pourriez-vous citer des exemples concrets ? 
 SI LA PERSONNE EST UNE FEMME 
 Est-ce que vous avez noté des contraintes liées à votre sexe, dans l’exercice de vos 
fonctions ? Si oui, lesquelles (Illustrer) ? Comment faites-vous pour surmonter ou contourner 
cela ? 
Durabilité
10 min 
 Pensez-vous que vous allez continuer à appliquer les formations que vous avez acquises, 
après que le projet LIVES ait pris fin ? 
 Comment comptez-vous valoriser davantage les compétences et les expériences acquises 
dans le cadre du projet LIVES ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
116 
Critère Questions clés
 Est-ce que vous pouvez suggérer des actions pour assurer la pérennisation des activités de 
LIVES ? 
Autres
5 min 
 Autres choses à ajouter ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
117 
GUIDE D’INTERVIEW MINISTERE 
Nom du répondant
Contact 
Position
Localisation
Interviewer
Début de l’entretien
Fin de l’entretien 
 Salutation 
 Présentation de l’intervieweur 
 Présentation succincte du programme et du but de l’entretien 
 Explication de la confidentialité de l’entretien 
 Présentation de la structure de l’entretien 
 Durée : 1 heure au maximum 
Critères Questions clés
Pertinence
10 min 
 A votre avis, est-ce que les activités de LIVES respectent et correspondent aux politiques de 
développement et particulièrement à la politique en matière d’élevage dans la région ? 
 Est-ce que les activités de LIVES tiennent vraiment compte des attentes de la population dans votre 
localité ? Expliquez svp. 
Efficacité
15 min 
 Selon vous, les activités mises en œuvre ont-elles été atteintes ? Quels sont les facteurs externes qui 
ont permis d’avoir ces résultats ou ont constitué d’obstacles pour l’atteinte des objectifs ? 
 Quelles synergies et complémentarités avec des acteurs externes ont été mises en place ou manquées 
dans l’atteinte de l’objectif ? 
 Est-ce qu’il y a des recommandations spécifiques pour la mise en œuvre d’activités similaires pour 
atteindre les objectifs dans l’avenir ? 
Impact
10 min 
 Est-ce que le Ministère a constaté des changements significatifs en matière de la pratique de l’élevage 
(poulets, chèvres, moutons) après l’intervention de LIVES dans ces zones d’intervention ? (formation à 
la nouvelle technologie d’élevage, appui sur la santé animale, dotation des animaux) Comment ? Si non, 
pourquoi ? 
 Est-ce qu’il y avait des impacts inattendus relatifs à l’intervention de LIVES ? (Pousser pour les impacts 
négatifs et positifs) Quelle est l’importance de ces signes de changements perçus par les bénéficiaires ? 
Genre
5 min 
 Est – ce que les approches adoptées par le projet étaient efficaces vis-à-vis de la considération des 
femmes éleveurs dans votre localité ? Si oui, comment ? si non, proposez des alternatives 
 Est-ce que les interventions de LIVES ont des impacts différents aussi bien pour les hommes que pour 
les femmes ? Si oui, pourriez-vous citer des exemples concrets ? 
Pérennisation 
10 min 
 Selon l’approche actuelle de LIVES, est-ce que la pérennisation est- elle probable après la fin du projet ? 
 La stratégie de sortie a-t-elle prévu un ancrage institutionnel ? Dans quelles mesures le Programme est￾il intégré dans les structures institutionnelles/ organisationnelles locales ? 
 Quels sont les facteurs susceptibles de menacer la durabilité des effets et des impacts du Projet ? 
 Est-ce que vous pouvez suggérer des actions pour assurer la pérennisation des activités de LIVES ? 
Autres 
remarques 
5 min 
 D’autres points qui méritent des réflexions ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
118 
GUIDE D’INTERVIEW OPERATEURS 
Nom du répondant
Contact 
Position
Localisation
Interviewer
Début de l’entretien
Fin de l’entretien 
 Salutation 
 Présentation de l’intervieweur 
 Présentation succincte du programme et du but de l’entretien 
 Explication de la confidentialité de l’entretien 
 Présentation de la structure de l’entretien 
 Durée : 30 minutes au maximum 
FOURNISSEURS D’INTRANTS ET MATERIELS 
 Est-ce qu’il y a une collaboration entre vous et le programme LIVES ? Cette collaboration concorde-t-elle 
à votre politique commerciale et favorise votre activité ? 
 La mise en œuvre du programme a-t-elle une répercussion sur positif sur la conduite d’élevage dans la 
zone ? 
 Selon vous, comment appréciez-vous l’évolution de votre vente durant les trois dernières années 
concernant les intrants et matériels nécessaires pour l’élevage des petits ruminants et poulets dans votre 
zone ? 
 Est-ce qu’on peut parler d’impacts positifs sur l’évolution de votre vente ? Peut-on attribuer ces résultats 
au programme ? 
 Est-ce que ces résultats a conduit à une évolution de nombre de fournisseurs dans a zone en générale ? 
 Est-ce que vous croyez l’approche adoptée par LOL perdure à la fin du programme ? 
 Selon vous, le Programme a-t-il permis un renforcement des capacités locales et une autonomisation des 
structures relais ? 
 Quels sont les facteurs susceptibles de menacer la durabilité des effets et des impacts du Programme ? 
 Quelles sont les recommandations que vous prodiguez aux futurs initiateurs de programme similaire pour 
plus d’impact pour la communauté ? 
 Est qu’il y des points dont on mérite de discuter dont le programme n’a pas pu analyser ou mettre en 
œuvre pour le bon développement de l’élevage de petits ruminants et du poulet ? 
ACTEURS DE COMMERCIALISATION 
 Comment évaluez-vous l’évolution de votre activité durant les trois dernières années ? 
 Avez-vous constaté des changements par rapport à la quantité et à la qualité des animaux mis en vente 
par les éleveurs ? 
 Ces changements ont-ils des répercussions positives sur votre clientèle ? 
 Le prix des produits est-il différent pour les mêmes produits entre ces zones durant la collecte et la vente ? 
 Quelles sont les différences existantes sur les produits entre la zone d’intervention du programme par 
rapport aux autres zones de collectes ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
119 
GUIDE D’INTERVIEW AUTRES PROJETS ET PARTENAIRES 
Nom du répondant
Contact 
Position
Localisation
Interviewer
Début de l’entretien
Fin de l’entretien 
 Salutation 
 Présentation de l’intervieweur 
 Présentation succincte du programme et du but de l’entretien 
 Explication de la confidentialité de l’entretien 
 Présentation de la structure de l’entretien 
 Durée : 30 minutes au maximum 
Critère Questions clés
Généralités
5 min 
 Pouvez-vous présenter brièvement votre projet : objectifs, cibles, zones d’intervention, activités, etc. 
Cohérence et 
coordination 
10 min 
 Est-ce qu’il existe un dispositif de coordination avec les autres projets qui ont les mêmes cibles / 
objectifs que vous ? 
 Est-ce que vous partagez des informations avec les autres projets, en particulier le projet LIVES ? 
 Est-ce que vous partagez des expériences avec les autres projets ? 
Pertinence
5 min 
 Quelle est, à votre connaissance, la valeur ajoutée du projet LIVES par rapport à votre propre projet 
ou aux autres projets antérieurs ou en cours ? 
 Quelles sont les innovations du projet LIVES, de votre point de vue ? 

Durabilité
5 min 
 Est-ce que ça intéresserai votre projet de connaître les enseignements du projet LIVES ? Comment 
cela pourrait vous aider à améliorer vos stratégies, vos approches ou plus globalement le 
développement et la sécurité alimentaire dans la zone ? 
Autres
5 min 
 Autres choses à ajouter ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
120 
GUIDE D’INTERVIEW STAFF LIVES ET LOL 
Nom du répondant
Contact 
Position
Localisation
Interviewer
Début de l’entretien
Fin de l’entretien 
 Salutation 
 Présentation de l’intervieweur 
 Présentation succincte du programme et du but de l’entretien 
 Explication de la confidentialité de l’entretien 
 Présentation de la structure de l’entretien 
 Durée : 1h30 au maximum 
Critère Questions clés
Pertinence
15 min 
 Comment avez-vous défini les objectifs, les stratégies et les cibles du projet ? Quelles ont été les 
entités impliquées dans l’élaboration du projet ? 
 A votre connaissance, est-ce qu’une expérience similaire au projet LIVES a été déjà mise en œuvre 
auparavant, dans une autre zone ou dans un autre pays ? Si oui, quels ont été les principaux 
enseignements tirés ? 
 Suivant vos expériences avec LIVES, sont-ils adaptés par rapport à la réalité sur terrain les points 
suivants : 
 Les plannings d’intervention 
 Les approches en formation 
 Les appuis techniques 
 Les procédures administratives et financières 
 Les matériels 
 Les outils de collectes de données. 
 La gestion et les prises de décision 
 (Si oui, comment ? Si non, pourquoi ? (les contraintes à expliquer?) 
 Selon votre appréciation, est-ce que les objectifs du projet vous ont semblé réaliste, trop ambitieux 
ou pas assez ? 
 L’organigramme de l’équipe opérationnelle de LIVES est-il adapté par rapport à l’atteinte des 
objectifs du projet ? 
Efficacité
15 min 
 Quels sont les grands défis pour le transfert de compétences et l’adoption de nouvelle technique 
d’élevage ? 
 Formation des éleveurs 
 Réhabilitation des points d’eau 
 Voucher (pass-on) : distribution 
 Identification et formation des CLWs 
 Quels étaient les défis/contraintes que le projet LIVES a rencontrés concernant la mise en œuvre 
de ses activités (ressources matérielles, humaines, financières) ? Quelles mesures avez-vous 
adopté par rapport à cela ? 
 Est-ce que les partenaires (notables, autorités, administrations publiques, autres projets de 
développement) ont collaboré avec l’équipe de LIVES ? Si oui, comment ? Si non, pourquoi ? 
 Selon votre perception, y-a-t-il d’autres choses/activités que le programme aurait dû faire pour avoir 
plus de résultats ? De quoi s’agit-il ? 
 Est-ce que le système de suivi évaluation est adapté selon vous ? Est-ce que ce système vous a 
aidé dans la prise de décision en cours de mise en œuvre du projet ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
121 
Critère Questions clés
 Quels sont les aspects qui selon vous auraient pu être améliorés dans la mise en œuvre du projet ? 
 Quels sont les actions de coordination avec les autres acteurs (autorités, autres partenaires) ? 
Efficience
15 min 
 Est-ce que vous pensez que la compétence a été suffisante pour répondre aux besoins dans la mise 
en œuvre du projet ? Si non, quels sont les aspects qui auraient dû être renforcés ? 
 Selon vous, est ce que le calendrier de mise en œuvre du projet vous a paru réaliste pour mettre en 
œuvre les activités et atteindre les objectifs ? Si non, expliquer pourquoi ? 
 Selon vous, aurait-il été possible que le projet ait de meilleurs résultats avec les mêmes moyens ? 
Si oui, expliquer comment 
Impact
15 min 
 Quels sont les changements positifs ou négatifs que vous avez constatés sur la santé et 
reproduction des animaux liés à votre participation à LIVES ? 
 Est-ce que vous avez remarqué des changements dans les pratiques des bénéficiaires depuis votre 
collaboration avec le projet LIVES ? 
 Quels sont les impacts en termes de biens et en termes de sécurité alimentaire au niveau des 
ménages, que vous avez constaté ? 
 Est-ce qu’il y a des impacts inattendus relatifs à l’intervention de LIVES ? (Pousser pour les impacts 
négatifs et positifs) 
 Selon votre perception, y-a-t-il d’autres choses/activités que le programme aurait dû faire pour avoir 
plus d’impacts ? De quoi s’agit-il ? 
Genre
10 min 
 Est – ce que les approches générales de LIVES sont efficaces vis-à-vis de la considération des 
femmes éleveurs dans les zones d’intervention ? Si oui, comment ? 
 Est-ce que les interventions de LIVES ont des impacts différents aussi bien pour les hommes que 
pour les femmes ? Si oui, pourriez-vous citer des exemples concrets ? 
 Quelles mesures spécifiques avez-vous pris pour améliorer la participation des femmes au sein du 
projet ? (Exemple, ciblage des bénéficiaires, sélection des partenaires comme les CLW, WCP, etc.) 
Durabilité
15 min 
 Selon l’approche actuelle de LIVES, est-ce que la pérennisation est- elle probable après la fin du 
projet ? Expliquer la stratégie de sortie du projet 
 Est-ce que vous pensez que les structures mises en place (associations de producteurs, formateurs, 
CLWs, WCP, etc.) sont suffisamment autonomes pour fonctionner sans le projet (examiner les 
aspects, compétences, organisationnel, financier) 
 Comment comptez-vous valoriser et diffuser les principaux acquis du projet et les résultats de 
l’évaluation ? 
 Au sein de LOL 
 Au niveau de la zone d’intervention 
 Vis-à-vis des partenaires (bailleurs de fonds, autorités, communautés, autres partenaires) 
 Y-aurait-il d’autres activités/stratégies que le programme devrait adopter pour assurer la pérennité 
de ses interventions ? 
 Au stade actuel, avez-vous déjà des perspectives de réplication, de mise à l’échelle ou d’adaptation 
du projet LIVES (dans la même zone, dans d’autres zones, dans d’autres pays, etc.) 
Autres
5 min 
 Autres choses à ajouter ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
122 
VETERINAIRES 
Position
Localisation
Interviewer
Début de la réunion
Fin de la réunion
Nombre de participants
 Salutation 
 Présentation de la mission 
 Présentation succincte du programme et du but de la réunion 
 Présentation de la structure de l’entretien 
 Durée : 1 heure au maximum 
Pertinence (5 min) 
 Est-ce que les activités de LIVES répondent aux besoins des problèmes liés à la reproduction et à la santé 
animale en matière d’élevage dans les zones d’intervention de LIVES ? Si, oui comment ? Si non, 
pourquoi ? 
 L’existence des CLW, paysans leaders répond-elle au besoin de la politique de développement de 
l’élevage ? 
 Quels sont les contraintes liées à la fourniture d’intrants et de produits vétérinaires dans votre zone ? 
Efficacité (15 min) 
 Selon vous, les activités du programme ont été elles conduites de manières efficaces ? Comment ? 
 Selon vos constats sur le terrain, quelles sont les pratiques/techniques que le programme a beaucoup de 
difficulté à transmettre à ses bénéficiaires ? 
 Quelles sont vos suggestions pour améliorer la vulgarisation de nouvelles techniques et sanitaires 
octroyés aux éleveurs ? (Curricula de formations, de l’utilité, de la praticité des formations, de l’approche 
pédagogique de formation, l’aspect logistique, …) 
 L’application des nouvelles techniques a été elle effective dans votre localité ? Quels sont les résultats 
que vous avez constatés ? citer des exemples 
 Le système mis en place et la collaboration avec le projet présente-t-il des lacunes dans votre activité 
actuelle ? 
 Comment évaluez-vous l’efficacité des formations obtenues sur la conduite d’élevage en 
général conduisant à une augmentation de taux de fréquentation des services vétérinaires ? justifier les 
réponses 
Impacts (15 min) 
 Quels sont les changements que vous avez constatés à l’adoption des nouvelles techniques durant les 
renforcements de capacités octroyés par LIVES (élevage poulet, chèvres, moutons) sur la conduite 
d’élevage ? 
 Est-ce qu’il y avait des impacts inattendus relatifs à l’intervention de LIVES ? (Pousser pour obtenir les 
impacts négatifs et positifs) 
 Selon votre perception, y-a-t-il d’autres choses/activités que le programme aurait dû faire pour avoir plus 
d’impacts ? De quoi s’agit-il ? 
Genre (10 min) 
 Est – ce que les approches du projet étaient efficaces vis-à-vis de la place des femmes dans la société 
en général et dans votre localité en particulier ? Si oui, comment ? si non, proposez des alternatives 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
123 
 Est-ce que les interventions de LIVES ont des impacts différents aussi bien pour les hommes que pour 
les femmes ? Si oui, pourriez-vous citer des exemples concrets ? 
Pérennisation (10 min) 
 Quelles sont vos appréciations de la durabilité des activités mises en œuvre par le programme après son 
retrait ? quels sont les obstacles et les atouts ? 
 Selon l’approche actuelle de LIVES, est-ce que la pérennisation est- elle probable après la fin du projet ? 
 Est-ce que la mise en place des FCSA, des CLW peut-elle perdurer dans le temps ? si non pourquoi ? 
 Quels sont les défis/contraintes pour assurer la pérennité des interventions du projet notamment en 
matière de santé animale ? 
 Pourriez-vous donner des recommandations afin d’améliorer la collaboration avec le CLWs ? et pour 
assurer l’opérationnalisation à long terme du FCSA ? 
Quelles sont vos recommandations par rapport à la réalisation d’un tel programme afin d’avoir plus d’efficacité, 
d’impact et pour sa durabilité ? (5 min) 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
124 
GUIDE D’INTERVIEW WATER POINTS COMMITEES 
Nom du répondant
Contact 
Position
Localisation
Interviewer
Début de l’entretien
Fin de l’entretien 
 Salutation 
 Présentation de l’intervieweur 
 Présentation succincte du programme et du but de l’entretien 
 Explication de la confidentialité de l’entretien 
 Présentation de la structure de l’entretien 
 Durée : 1 heure au maximum 
Critère Questions clés
Pertinence
10 min 
 Est-ce que l’appui en matière de gestion des points d’eau a bien répondu à des besoins de la 
population ? {Si oui, comment ? Si non, pourquoi pas ?} Donner des exemples SVP 
 Est-ce que vos activités vous semblent adaptés au contexte socioculturel ? {Si oui, comment ? Si 
non, pourquoi pas ?} 
Efficacité
10 min 
 Est-ce que vous avez réalisé l’ensemble des activités qui ont été prévues à votre niveau ? Si non, 
lesquelles et pourquoi ? 
 Quels rapports entretenez-vous avec les autres acteurs impliqués dans le projet, en particulier les 
autorités locales, les éleveurs et les autres usagers de l’eau ? 
 Quelles sont les difficultés que vous avez rencontrées dans la gestion des points d’eau ? Qu’est-ce 
que vous avez fait pour les surmonter ? 
 Comment appréciez-vous la collaboration avec le projet LIVES ? En particulier, comment appréciez￾vous l’approche du projet, notamment l’aspect renforcement des capacités ? 
Efficience
5 min 
 Est-ce que vous pensez que votre compétence est suffisante pour répondre à vos responsabilités 
dans la gestion des points d’eau ? Si non, quels sont les aspects qui auraient dû être renforcés ? 
Impact
10 min 
 Quels sont les changements positifs ou négatifs liés à votre participation à LIVES que vous avez 
constatés sur : 
 la santé et reproduction des animaux? 
 en termes de biens et en termes de sécurité alimentaire au niveau des ménages, lié à vos activités ? 
 Est-ce qu’il y avait des impacts inattendus du programme ? (Pousser pour les impacts négatifs et 
positifs) 
Genre
10 min 
 Est-ce que vous avez remarqué des contraintes à l’accès aux points d’eau dans votre zone 
d’intervention ? (Donner des exemples) 
 Est-ce que les femmes ont pu bénéficier de l’amélioration de l’accès aux points d’eau aussi bien que 
les hommes de LIVES ? {Comprendre pourquoi ou pourquoi pas} 
Durabilité
10 min 
 Selon l’approche actuelle de LIVES, est-ce que les activités des WPC seront pérennisées après la 
fin du projet en Septembre 2017 ? 
 Pensez-vous que les WPC continueront à fonctionner et à assurer leur rôle, après que le projet LIVES 
ait pris fin ? 
Autres
5 min 
 Autres choses à ajouter ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
125 
GUIDE FOCUS GROUP FEMME 
Position
Localisation
Interviewer
Début de la réunion
Fin de la réunion
Nombre de participants
 Salutation 
 Présentation de la mission 
 Présentation succincte du programme et du but de la réunion 
 Présentation de la structure de l’entretien 
 Durée : 1 heure au maximum 
Pertinence (10 min) 
 Selon vous, est-ce que le programme LIVES répond et est adapté aux besoins de la communauté et pour 
les femmes en général ? 
 La promotion et l’appui à l’élevage des petits ruminants et des poulets ont-ils apporté des réponses 
appropriées à vos problèmes prioritaires et à vos ambitions ? 
 Les formations octroyées par LIVES ou LLFs pour les femmes éleveurs correspondent aux besoins en 
élevage ? 
 L’existence des techniciens (CLW, vétérinaire, paysans leaders) répond-elle à vos besoins et à vos 
attentes durant la mise en œuvre du programme ? 
 Selon vous, est-ce que le programme s’appuie sur les dynamiques locales et particulièrement pour les 
femmes ? 
Efficacité (10 min) 
 Est-ce que vos attentes au programme ont pu atteintes durant la mise en œuvre ? Lesquelles ? 
 Selon vous, les activités du programme ont été elles conduites de manières efficaces ? Comment ? 
 Comment évaluez-vous l’efficacité des formations obtenues sur la conduite d’élevage en général ? Est￾ce que le partage d’information a été abordable pour les participants ou est ce qu’il y avait des blocages 
ou des contraintes ? justifier les réponses 
 La mise en place du FCSA est-elle nécessaire pour votre élevage ? Comment ? 
 Comment appréciez-vous l’efficacité de la collaboration avec les CLW, Vétérinaires, paysans leaders par 
rapport à la santé animale ? Quels sont les problèmes que vous avez constatés durant ces périodes ? 
 L’application des nouvelles techniques a été elle effective dans votre localité ? Quels sont les résultats 
que vous avez constatés dans votre exploitation et au sein du ménage ? citer des exemples 
Impacts (10 min) 
 Quels sont les changements que vous avez constatés à l’adoption des nouvelles techniques durant les 
renforcements de capacités octroyés par LIVES (élevage poulet, chèvres, moutons) sur la conduite 
d’élevage ? Témoignages des effets positifs et négatifs si possibles 
 Est-ce que vous avez constaté des changements sur le plan économique de la localité et du ménage suite 
à la mise en œuvre du projet ? Quel type ? 
 Est-ce que vous avez constaté des changements sur le plan sécurité alimentaire de la localité et du 
ménage suite à la mise en œuvre du projet ? quel type ? 
 Est-ce que les interventions de LIVES ont des impacts différents aussi bien pour les hommes que pour 
les femmes ? Si oui, pourriez-vous citer des exemples concrets ? 
 Est-ce que vous pensez que l’adhésion des femmes à des associations contribue à la sécurisation 
alimentaire des ménages ? Comment ? Si non, pourquoi ? 
 D’après vous, dans quelle mesure les activités de LIVES pourraient contribuer à faire face aux périodes 
de soudures et aux risques naturels (sécheresse, famine, invasion acridienne…) ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
126 
 Est-ce que vous avez constaté des changements sur le plan social de la localité et du ménage suite à la 
mise en œuvre du projet ? quel type ? 
Genre (10 min) 
 Est – ce que les approches du projet étaient efficaces vis-à-vis de la place des femmes dans la société 
en général et dans votre localité en particulier ? 
 Est-ce que les interventions de LIVES ont des impacts différents aussi bien pour les hommes que pour 
les femmes ? Si oui, pourriez-vous citer des exemples concrets ? 
 Est-ce que vous pensez que l’adhésion des femmes à des associations favorise l’intégration de la question 
dans la vie associative et des impacts positifs au sein du ménage ? Comment ? Si non, pourquoi ? 
Pérennisation (10 min) 
 Quelles sont vos appréciations de la durabilité des activités mises en œuvre par le programme après son 
retrait ? quels sont les obstacles et les atouts ? 
 Quelles seront les stratégies adoptées par les ménages et les femmes d’après programme sur le court 
terme ? Et sur le long terme ? 
 Est-ce que la mise en place des FCSA, des CLW peut-elle perdurer dans le temps ? si non pourquoi ? 
 Selon vos expériences, quels sont les points à améliorer pour que les associations des femmes 
contribuent à la sécurité alimentaire ? 
 Pourriez-vous donner des recommandations afin d’améliorer la collaboration avec le CLWs ? et pour 
assurer l’opérationnalisation à long terme du FCSA ? 
Quelles sont vos recommandations par rapport à la réalisation d’un tel programme afin d’avoir plus d’efficacité, 
d’impact et pour sa durabilité ? (10 min) 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
127 
GUIDE FOCUS GROUP HOMME 
Position
Localization
Interviewer
Début de la réunion
Fin de la réunion
Nombre de participants
 Salutation 
 Présentation de la mission 
 Présentation succincte du programme et du but de la réunion 
 Présentation de la structure de l’entretien 
 Durée : 1 heure au maximum 
Pertinence (10 min) 
 Selon vous, est-ce que le programme LIVES répond et est adapté aux besoins de la communauté en 
général ? 
 La promotion et l’appui à l’élevage des petits ruminants et des poulets ont-ils apporté des réponses 
appropriées à vos problèmes prioritaires et à vos ambitions ? 
 Les formations octroyées par LIVES ou LLFs pour les éleveurs correspondent aux besoins en élevage ? 
 L’existence des techniciens (CLW, vétérinaire, paysans leaders) répond-elle à vos besoins et à vos 
attentes durant la mise en œuvre du programme ? 
 Selon vous, est-ce que le programme s’appuie sur les dynamiques locales ? 
Efficacité (10 min) 
 Est-ce que vos attentes au programme ont pu atteintes durant la mise en œuvre ? Lesquelles ? 
 Selon vous, les activités du programme ont été elles conduites de manières efficaces ? Comment ? 
 Comment évaluez-vous l’efficacité des formations obtenues sur la conduite d’élevage en général ? est-ce 
que le partage d’information a été abordable pour les participants ou est ce qu’il y avait des blocages ou 
des contraintes ? justifier les réponses 
 La mise en place du FCSA est-elle nécessaire pour votre élevage ? Comment ? 
 Comment appréciez-vous l’efficacité de la collaboration avec les CLW, Vétérinaires, paysans leaders par 
rapport à la santé animale ? Quels sont les problèmes que vous avez constatés durant ces périodes ? 
 L’application des nouvelles techniques a été elle effective dans votre localité ? quels sont les résultats 
que vous avez constatés dans votre exploitation et au sein du ménage ? citer des exemples 
Impacts (10 min) 
 Quels sont les changements que vous avez constatés à l’adoption des nouvelles techniques durant les 
renforcements de capacités octroyés par LIVES (élevage poulet, chèvres, moutons) sur la conduite 
d’élevage ? Témoignages des effets positifs et négatifs si possibles 
 Est-ce que vous avez constaté des changements sur le plan économique de la localité et du ménage suite 
à la mise en œuvre du projet ? quel type ? 
 Est-ce que vous avez constaté des changements sur le plan sécurité alimentaire de la localité et du 
ménage suite à la mise en œuvre du projet ? quel type ? 
 Est-ce que les interventions de LIVES ont des impacts différents aussi bien pour les hommes que pour 
les femmes ? Si oui, pourriez-vous citer des exemples concrets ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
128 
 Selon vos expériences, quels sont les mesures ou points à améliorer pour que le regroupement des 
paysans ou des associations contribuent à la sécurité alimentaire ? 
 D’après vous, dans quelle mesure les activités de LIVES pourraient contribuer à faire face aux périodes 
de soudures et aux risques naturels (sécheresse, famine, invasion acridienne…) ? 
 Est-ce que vous avez constaté des changements sur le plan social de la localité et du ménage suite à la 
mise en œuvre du projet ? quel type ? 
Genre (10 min) 
 Est – ce que les approches du projet étaient efficaces vis-à-vis de la place des femmes dans la société 
en général et dans votre localité en particulier ? 
 Est-ce que les interventions de LIVES ont des impacts différents aussi bien pour les hommes que pour 
les femmes ? Si oui, pourriez-vous citer des exemples concrets ? 
 Est-ce que vous pensez que l’adhésion des femmes à des associations favorise l’intégration de la question 
dans la vie associative et des impacts positifs au sein du ménage ? Comment ? Si non, pourquoi ? 
Pérennisation (10 min) 
 Quelles sont vos appréciations de la durabilité des activités mises en œuvre par le programme après son 
retrait ? quels sont les obstacles et les atouts ? 
 Quelles seront les stratégies adoptées par les ménages et les femmes d’après programme sur le court 
terme ? Et sur le long terme ? 
 Est-ce que la mise en place des FCSA, des CLW peut-elle perdurer dans le temps ? si non pourquoi ? 
 Selon vos expériences, quels sont les points à améliorer pour que les associations des femmes 
contribuent à la sécurité alimentaire ? 
 Pourriez-vous donner des recommandations afin d’améliorer la collaboration avec le CLWs ? et pour 
assurer l’opérationnalisation à long terme du FCSA ? 
Quelles sont vos recommandations par rapport à la réalisation d’un tel programme afin d’avoir plus 
d’efficacité, d’impact et pour sa durabilité ? (10 min) 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
129 
GUIDE FOCUS GROUP NON BENEFICIAIRE 
Position
Localisation
Interviewer
Début de la réunion
Fin de la réunion
Nombre de participants
 Salutation 
 Présentation de la mission 
 Présentation succincte du programme et du but de la réunion 
 Présentation de la structure de l’entretien 
 Durée : 1 heure au maximum 
Programme LIVES (5 min) 
 Connaissez-vous le Programme LIVES ? Pouvez-vous décrire brièvement ce que fait le programme ? 
 Connaissez-vous des personnes de votre entourage qui ont bénéficié de ce programme ? 
Pertinence (10 min) 
 Selon vous, est-ce que le programme LIVES répond et est adapté aux besoins de la communauté et pour 
les femmes en général ? 
 Pensez-vous que la promotion et l’appui à l’élevage des petits ruminants et des poulets apportent des 
réponses appropriées aux problèmes prioritaires de votre communauté ? 
 A votre connaissance, est-ce que le programme s’appuie sur les dynamiques locales et particulièrement 
pour les femmes ? 
 Est-ce que vous pensez qu’un tel projet aide au développement de votre communauté ? Comment ? 
Efficacité (10 min) 
 Avez-vous constaté que les bénéficiaires du Programme ont appliqué de nouvelles techniques 
d’élevage ? 
 Avez-vous noté que les bénéficiaires ont pu améliorer leur élevage de petit ruminants et de volailles ? De 
quelle manière ? Si ou, est-ce que vous pensez que cela est lié aux activités du Programme LIVES ? 
 D’après vous, est-ce que la mise en place des CLW peut aider ? Comment ? 
 D’après vous, est-ce que la mise en place d’un fond commun pour la santé animale (FCSA) peut aider ? 
Comment ? 
 Comment appréciez-vous la gestion des points d’eau mis en place par le Projet ? 
 Avez-vous noté un quelconque problème dans la collaboration entre les différentes parties prenantes du 
Programme LIVES ? 
 A votre connaissance, est-ce que le projet a été positif ? Est-ce que c’est une réussite ? Expliquez 
pourquoi 
Impacts (10 min) 
 Quels sont les changements que vous avez remarqués chez les bénéficiaires du Programme, en matière 
d’élevage ? 
 Est-ce que vous avez noté des changements dans les conditions de vie des ménages bénéficiaires de 
votre connaissance ? 
 Est-ce que vous avez constaté des changements sur le plan économique de votre localité suite à la mise 
en œuvre du projet ? Quel type ? 
Final Evaluation of the Program LIVES 
F i n a l R e p o r t 
130 
 Est-ce que vous avez constaté des changements sur le plan sécurité alimentaire de votre localité suite à 
la mise en œuvre du projet ? quel type ? 
 Est-ce qu’il vous est arrivé de recourir aux services des CLW ? Si oui, pour quelles raisons et comment 
appréciez-vous le résultat ? 
 Est-ce que vous bénéficiez des points d’eau mis en place par LIVES ? Si oui, comment appréciez-vous 
cela ? 
 Quels sont les principaux impacts du projet chez vous, même si vous n’êtes pas des bénéficiaires directs 
(creuser les effets positifs et négatifs : gestion des pâturages et des points d’eau, gestion de la santé 
animale, effets sur les prix des animaux, etc.) 
 D’après vous, dans quelle mesure les activités de LIVES pourraient contribuer à faire face aux périodes 
de soudures et aux risques naturels (sécheresse, famine, invasion acridienne…) ? 
 Est-ce que vous avez constaté des changements sur le plan social de votre localité suite à la mise en 
œuvre du projet ? quel type ? 
Genre (10 min) 
 Selon vous, est – ce que les approches du projet étaient efficaces vis-à-vis de la place des femmes dans 
la société en général et dans votre localité en particulier ? 
 Selon vous, est-ce que les interventions de LIVES ont des impacts différents aussi bien pour les hommes 
que pour les femmes ? Si oui, pourriez-vous citer des exemples concrets ? 
 Est-ce que vous pensez que l’adhésion des femmes à des associations favorise l’intégration de la question 
dans la vie associative et des impacts positifs au sein du ménage ? Comment ? Si non, pourquoi ? 
Pérennisation (10 min) 
 Est-ce que vous pensez que les résultats du Projet perdureront ? Pourquoi ? 
 Pourriez-vous donner des recommandations afin d’améliorer la collaboration avec le CLWs ? et pour 
assurer l’opérationnalisation à long terme du FCSA ? 
Quelles sont vos recommandations par rapport à la réalisation d’un tel programme afin d’avoir plus d’efficacité, 
d’impact et pour sa durabilité ? (5 min)