MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE FY 13 
FOOD FOR PROGRESS FEED ENHANCEMENT 
FOR ETHIOPIAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT 
PHASE II (FEED II)
Final Report
SUBMITTED TO: ACDI/VOCA
SUBMITTED BY:
ICOS CONSULTING PLC
FEBRUARY 2016
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Program: Food for Progress
Agreement Number: FCC-663-2013/039-00
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2013
DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was
prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s views expressed in this publication do not
necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Government.
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov
ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ATA Agriculture Transformation Agency
CFM Concentrated Feed Manufacturing
CSA Central Statistical Agency
DA Development Agent
DC District of Columbia
EC Ethiopian Calendar
ETB Ethiopian Birr
FEED Feed Enhancement for Ethiopian Development Project
FGD s Focus Group Discussions
GTP Growth and Transformation Plan
ILRI International Livestock Research Institute
KGs Kilograms
LMD Livestock Market Development
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
NGO Non-GovernmentalOrganization
SHF Smallholder Farmers
SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples State
ToT Training of Trainers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
% Percent
& And
e.g. Example
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Objectives of the Evaluation ............................................................................................ 2
1.3. Evaluation Methodology .................................................................................................. 2
2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1. Effectiveness .................................................................................................................... 3
2.2. Relevance ....................................................................................................................... 36
2.3. Sustainability .................................................................................................................. 38
2.4. Efficiency ........................................................................................................................ 41
2.5. Project Management and Partnership........................................................................... 42
2.6. Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................................................. 43
2.7. Enabling and Constraining Factors................................................................................. 44
2.8. Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................. 47
3. CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................................48
3.1. Conclusions..................................................................................................................... 48
3.2. Recommendations......................................................................................................... 50
ANNEXES...........................................................................................................................................................................................................52
1
1. BACKGROUND
1.1. Introduction
Ethiopia has the largest livestock population in Africa, and raising livestock is a major 
livelihood activity and source of income for a majority of the population. However, 
livestock productivity is one of the lowest in the world largely due to livestock feed 
resources being inadequate in both quantity and quality. The Feed Enhancement for 
Ethiopian Development Project – Phase II (FEED II) has been funded by the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food for Progress Program and has been implemented 
by ACDI/VOCA since September 2013. The project is a three-year intervention designed to 
increase livestock productivity through developing the animal feed sector.
FEED II field implementation began with an intensive baseline survey conducted in 
February and April 2014 to set benchmarks for outcome level indicators against which 
progress could be measured and the impact of the project assessed. Following the baseline 
survey, the project launched implementation in four regional states of the country 
(Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR and Tigray).
The ultimate goal of FEED II is to increase the incomes of Ethiopian smallholder livestock 
producers by improving access to, and use of consistent, affordable, high quality animal 
feed that can support greater livestock productivity and efficiency. To sustainably increase 
the incomes of Ethiopian smallholder farmers in project target areas, FEED II aims to 
increase the productivity of livestock and poultry by 15% by developing the animal feed 
sector and expand trade of agricultural products in the livestock and poultry sector by
15%. These objectives are to be achieved through four Intermediate Results (IRs), which 
address availability, access, knowledge about and utilization of feed resources.
FEED II project implementation covers four regions – Amhara, Tigray, Oromia and SNNPR –
where over 80% of the country’s livestock population resides. Within these regions, the 
project works in 39 woredas and 186 kebeles. It also works with a total of cooperative 
unions, which are the key entry and scalability points through which the project is 
implemented.
As FEED II is now over halfway through project implementation, ACDI/VOCA contracted
ICOS Consulting PLC to conduct design and conduct a mid-term evaluation of the project.
2
This report presents the findings of the FEED II project mid-term evaluation that was 
conducted in the months of October and November 2015.
1.2. Objectives of the Evaluation
The midterm performance evaluation is part of the project formative process intended to 
provide an independent examination of the overall project progress and constraints related 
to implementation and effectiveness of the project interventions. It is also to draw lessons 
and generate recommendations for changes in programmatic approach and interventions 
to meet outcome and impact level targets. The specific purposes of the mid-term evaluation 
are to:
i. Review and take stock of the implementation environment:
ii. Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation approaches and 
methods;
iii. Assess whether targeted beneficiaries are receiving services and benefiting as 
expected;
iv. Assess whether the project is on track to meet its goals and objectives;
v. Assess the relevance of approaches and activities in relation to the goal and 
objectives of the project;
vi. Review the project-level results framework and assumptions;
vii. Identify measures/mechanisms for sustainability put in place by the project;
viii. Document initial lessons learned; and
ix. Recommend modifications or corrective actions that may be necessary in order 
to achieve targets and goals.
1.3. Evaluation Methodology
The mid-term evaluation of the FEED II project was conducted in a participatory and 
consultative manner based on the standard evaluation criteria such as relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and lessons learned. The key evaluation questions 
that the mid-term evaluation addressed under each evaluation criteria and other 
evaluation tasks can be seen in the Terms of Reference presented in Annex 6. Three 
woredas from each region (12 in total representing close to 31% of the total) were visited 
for the mid-term evaluation. A multi-stage sampling technique was applied in the selection 
of project unions, woredas, kebeles and primary cooperatives and smallholder farmers. 
The sampling process started with the selection of cooperative unions using purposive 
sampling technique and in consultation with ACDI/VOCA. Those three FEED II unions that 
implemented everything including feed manufacturing were included in the sample. Eight 
of the 12 FEED I unions that reside around the selected FEED II unions and project woredas 
were also visited by the field team. The list of selected FEED II and I unions is presented in 
Annexes 4 and 5. Following the selection of FEED II unions, three woredas were selected 
under the Unions randomly. The list of these selected 12 woredas is presented in Annex 4. 
Two project kebeles were selected under each sample project woreda (in total 24 kebeles) 
by applying purposive sampling technique and in consultation with woreda level focal
3
persons. In each of the selected kebeles, the evaluation team consulted smallholder farmers 
and Development Agents (DAs) and other relevant stakeholders. A systematic sampling 
technique was applied to select direct beneficiary smallholder farmers. Two group 
discussions were conducted with beneficiary small holder farmers of each selected kebele: 
one with men beneficiaries and another with women. The evaluation team also identified 
and consulted some indirect beneficiaries that were followers of model farmers.
The mid-term evaluation was predominantly qualitative though some attempts were made 
to support it with some quantitative findings. Both primary and secondary sources of data 
were consulted. The evaluation team reviewed key secondary documents, including FEED 
II project documentations; national and regional policy and strategy documents; statistical 
reports, and other relevant. Primary data was gathered through interview from 133 key 
informants from several stakeholders, including USDA, project staff, relevant government 
offices from federal to local government levels and others. Forty-eight focus group 
discussions (FGDs) involving 217 women and 239 men smallholder farmers were also 
conducted (discussions with men and women farmers held separately). The evaluation 
team also conducted observations to see the status of nursery sites, feed manufacturing 
activities at unions and backyard production initiatives of farmers. Some success or case 
stories were also documented. Finally, each field team deployed to each intervention 
regions made presentations to share preliminary findings and observations with 
ACDI/VOCA regional staff, representatives from government, unions and other 
stakeholders. The qualitative data was analyzed thematically. Any quantitative primary 
data and others that were captured from secondary documents were presented to
supplement and complement qualitative findings.
2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In this section of the report, the findings of the mid-term evaluation are presented based on 
the standard evaluation criteria such as effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, sustainability 
and so on.
2.1. Effectiveness
The progress made against the project goals and objectives as well as each of the four 
intermediate results areas or outcomes are presented in this sub-section of the report.
2.1.1. Progress Against Project Goals and Objectives
The ultimate goal of FEED II is to increase the incomes of Ethiopian smallholder livestock 
producers by improving access to, and use of consistent, affordable, high quality animal
4
feed that can support greater livestock productivity and efficiency. To sustainably increase 
the incomes of Ethiopian smallholder farmers in project target areas, FEED II aims to i) 
increase the productivity of livestock and poultry by 15% by developing the animal feed 
sector: and ii) expand trade of agricultural products in the livestock and poultry sector by
15%. These objectives are to be achieved through four Intermediate Results (IRs), which 
address availability, access, knowledge about and utilization of feed resources. Although 
project achievements to date on the two objectives and four intermediate results have not 
been measured through survey at this stage, progress made so far on the objectives and 
result areas is presented below based mainly on analysis of qualitative data.
One of the objectives of the project was to increase productivity of livestock and poultry by
15%. Percent increase in unit productivity of fattened cattle, poultry and milk were the 
three indicators that were identified to measure progress on this objective.
Many stakeholders indicated that the project’s contribution to increased livestock 
productivity and income of farmers is yet to come. They argue that livestock development 
and productivity improvement initiatives take time to bear fruits. As a result, they argued 
that it is too early to evaluate the impact of the project on income and productivity 
considering the fact that the project was implemented for the last two years. “Success of the 
activity in terms of farmers’ revenue increment is yet to come,” a key informant from 
Woreda Livestock Office, Amhara Region said. Nevertheless they agree that the 
foundation work has been undertaken successfully which will increase livestock
productivity of farmers.
As much as the number of stakeholders that believe that measuring the project’s impact on 
livestock productivity is too early to talk about, there are many others that already 
witnessed improvements in productivity. A key informant from Region Livestock 
Department was quoted as saying “The farmers have achieved increments in dairy 
production which is attributed to the project implementation. More specifically, the 
farmers’ use of Alfalfa feed contributed to improvements in milk production.” Another key 
informant from Woreda Livestock Development and Animal Health Office, 
Amhara Region, also said “Although it is inappropriate to judge the project’s impact on 
productivity in such a short period, we have observed that some farmers have achieved an 
increase in milk yield as a result of feeding improved forages.” An official from 
Woreda Agricultural Office also indicated that he observed milk yield increment from 6 to
10 liter/day/cow as a result of feeding cows with dairy concentrate ration. Similarly, a 
development agent from Woreda said that due to improved feeding practice, 
farmers have obtained 2 litters of additional milk per day.
5
Smallholder farmers that participated in group discussions also reported that the project 
has already increased their livestock productivity. Farmers from Soyama kebele in Becho 
Woreda (Oromia Region), for example, indicated that project intervention increased their 
milk production, improved body condition of their animals and reduced fattening period. 
Some quantitative data gathered from beneficiary farmers that participated in FGDs also 
corroborated qualitative findings. As shown in Table 1 below, compared with the baseline 
milk productivity of 1.53 liters per cow per day, a notable improvement was observed 
during the past three years as evidenced by a per cow productivity of 4 liters at the time of 
the mid-term evaluation. The reported average milk per cow was also considerably higher 
than the national average 1.32 liters per cow per day milk yield reported in the 2012/13
Agricultural Sample Survey (CSA, 2013)
1. In addition, smallholder farmers seem also to 
have increased their livestock headcount. Poultry holdings per household, for example, 
increased from 5.75 at baseline to 9.1 at the time of the mid-term evaluation. Sheep and 
goat holdings has also increased from less than 4.5 at baseline to 6.8 at mid-term 
evaluation. Cattle holdings increased from 4.3 at baseline to 5.0 at mid-term evaluation 
time. It is, however, important to note that smallholder farmers with financial capacity and 
access in some areas have already started to reduce the number of their livestock by 
replacing local breeds with improved cross-breeds so as to improve their productivity.
Table 1: Livestock ownership and milk productivity
Region Description N
Number 
of 
Poultry
Number of 
sheep and 
goat
Number of 
cattle
Average number of 
Liters of Milk 
Produced per Cow 
per Day
Tigray
N
Average
Oromia N
Average
Amhara N
Average
SNNP
N
Average
National N
Average
114
110
108
126
458
114 114 114 58
13.5 15.3 5.8 3.1
110 110 110 85
6.5 4.0 5.5 4.1
106 107 108 60
6.0 3.9 5.5 2.8
123 122 126 107
9.8 4.1 3.4 5.4
453 453 458 310
9.1 6.8 5.0 4.1
Source: Small survey administered on smallholder farmers that participated in FGDs
1 Central Statistical Agency (CSA). Agricultural Sample Survey: Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics
(Private Peasant Holdings). Volume II. 2012/13 [2005 E.C.]
6
Many stakeholders also stated that farmers that have been engaged in animal fattening 
earned more income and improved their livelihood. Some smallholder farmers that 
participated in one of the FGDs from Kebele of Laelay Maychew Woreda reported 
that the project helped them increase their per-cow milk production by 3 liters. Some of 
them also managed to get a profit of Birr 1000 to 3000 within three months of fattening 
activity. Two smallholder farmers from the same woreda also reported that they managed 
to deposit Birr 10,000 from its poultry production.
The project’s impact of livestock productivity was not also restricted to model farmers or 
direct beneficiaries. There were indications that such productivity improvements were also 
experienced by follower farmers. Some follower farmers that adopted technologies and 
techniques transferred by their model farmers were able to increase their productivity. A 
follower farmer who lives in kebele in Becho Woreda (Oromia Region) indicated 
that milk yield of his cow increased when he starts using improved forage. He produces 
about 8 liters milk yield per day from his cow, sells 5 liters to the nearest town and uses the 
rest 3 liters milk for home consumption.
The case story presented below may showcase how the project support turned the life of a 
woman farmer around in SNNPR.
, who is 42 years old and lives in Chencha Woreda, SNNP
region, is the one of women smallholder farmers that achieved 
outstanding performance within a short period of time following 
FEED II project support. What makes different from most 
women in her village is her conviction towards pursuing a better 
economic life. Unlike the women in her village, she works closely 
with the agricultural extension workers, listens to their advice, is 
open to learning new ways of farming and applies with confidence 
in terms of getting better products as the result of the new 
agricultural techniques and technology. This has transformed her 
life for good and made her a role model for all the women in her 
village. used to have very small income which she generated 
by selling crops and fruits.
The main assistances provided to like other beneficiaries
included training, technical support, and improved forage seed 
and seedlings. She also attended experience sharing visit 
organized by the project which was an opportunity for her to see 
the best practices and success achieved by other smallholder 
farmers. Having received the above technical and capacity 
building support, started planting animal feeds in her 200 
m2 crop land. She used to feed her cows by investing Birr 100 per 
day on average. After planting the improved forage, she was able 
to save the money that she used to spend to buy animal feeds and 
managed to generate Birr 19,700 income from surplus feed.
improved forage plantation
site
7
sold the local cows and bought improved breeds. Having one improved cow rather than 3 local cows, 
according to her, is advantageous as it saves animal feed and space while getting similar amount of milk. 
acquired five improved cows. She gets 20 litter per day per cow (100 liters from 5 cows). At a selling
price Birr 13 for one liter of milk, she earns Birr 1300 per day from sale of milk. was also recognized as
the best modelsmallholder farmer.
While many stakeholders agree that the project has started increasing livestock 
productivity, there are also other stakeholders that argue that the improvement was 
negligible. The major reasons mentioned by these stakeholders revolved around the fact 
that smallholder farmers still rely on local breeds that provide limited opportunities to 
improve their productivity. As a result, their use of improve animal feeds and feeding 
techniques has not increased their productivity. Besides, a considerable number of 
smallholder farmers that experienced increased productivity following the project support 
indicated that their lack of access to central markets to sell their livestock products at 
reasonable prices didn’t allow them to increase their income. To quote some key 
informants:
“The amount of milk the cows yield per liters per day has not improved yet. Unless hybrid or 
cross-breed cows are made available to the farmers, it would be difficult to improve 
productivity even though more is being done on the forage production. However, fattening is 
going very well and many farmers are increasingly engaging in it.” A development Agent at
Kebele in Guto Gida Woreda, Oromia Region.
“We have managed to produce an additional milk of 3 liters/cow. Unfortunately, however, 
there is no market for our products. Some of us that are engaged in animal fattening are also 
being challenged by the current drought, which forced everybody to be a seller that brought 
down the price.” Smallholder farmers that participated in group discussion from
Kebele, Kafta Humera Woreda, Tigray Region).
INTERMEDIATE RESULT-1: Improved quality of land and water 
resources
Under the first result area, the project targeted to cover 6,000 hectares of land to forage, 
half of it on degraded land with the aim to improve quality of land. Project progress reports 
showed that the project has managed to cover 2,624.4 hectares of land to forage up until 
September 2015 without including plot of land covered by nursery sites established on 
degraded land that often cover 1.5 to 3 hectares of land. The reported figure consisted of 
communal land that were eroded or otherwise degraded, which included rehabilitation of
100 hectares of hill side in SNNPR; forage plantations and rehabilitation of 70 hectares of 
gully and eroded land Amhara region; and forage plantation in 75 hectares of communal 
grazing land in Tigray region.
8
In those project areas where the degraded land rehabilitation was implemented, key 
informants indicated that the planting initiative has served dual purposes: rehabilitating 
degraded land and providing quality feed to nearby farmers. A development agent from 
Chencha woreda (SNNPR), for example, considered the project very successful in 
supporting smallholder farmers to rehabilitate degraded land. According to him, apart from 
planting forage, the project has also built fences around degraded land to reduce further 
degradation that could be caused by animals, which, in some areas, halted soil erosion. To 
quote some key informants:
“The project identified a highly degraded land dissected with gullies for reclamation by 
planting selected forage plants that helped halt soil erosion and at the same time provide 
animal fodder for cut-and carry uses by the community. This activity was successfully 
implemented and the achievement in terms of recuperating the degraded land and fodder 
development was magnificent. The rehabilitated land is now serving as a model to scale up the 
approach in other degraded areas.” Official from Woreda Agriculture Office, 
Amhara Region.
“In the past two years about 16.7 hectare of degraded land in the four kebeles has been 
covered with improved forage plants. As a result, the condition of the land has improved, and 
the forage plant is protecting soil erosion and further degradation has stopped in the area. 
But more effort is needed to cover more such land in forage.” Government Official from
Woreda Animal Production and Forage Development Office, SNNP Region.
The project’s efforts to rehabilitate degraded land through forage planting was undertaken 
by organizing farmers to build soil conservation structures; providing seeds and planting 
materials of different fodder species that were planted along the conservation structures; 
and organizing experience exchange visits to other areas with successful similar activities. 
The training provided by the project has also increased farmers’ awareness on land 
protection from degradation. Some farmers have even made terraces in order to protect 
their land from soil erosion. Beneficiary farmers near the degraded land selected for 
rehabilitation have been increasingly participating in conservation activities. They have 
also been benefiting from the forage grown at degraded lands in their areas. As the forage 
developed at degraded lands are providing additional animal feed for nearby farmers, it is 
contributing to the decrease in grazing pressure on existing pastures and rangelands. To 
quote some key informants:
“Assisted by the project, organized farmers have built soil conservation structures on a 
degraded area of about 4 hectares. Half of the area has been planted with selected forage 
species such as Napier and Desho grass so as to stabilize conservation structures and at the 
same time provide animal feed. Farmers have started to clip these grasses that they share and 
feed their animals kept tethered at home.” Woreda Livestock Development and 
Animal Health Head, Amhara Region.
9
“Two beneficiary kebeles are mountainous and has degraded places. The farmers in this area 
have started utilizing the degraded land for forge development. As many of the selected 
farmers are not situated in mountainous places, however, the performance in improving 
degraded land by the farmers is limited.” Experts from Woreda Livestock and 
Food Process and Forage Development Office, SNNPR)
As part of its aim to improve quality of land, the project has also been facilitating 
sustainable forage production at smallholder farmers’ lands. Indeed, forage production at 
smallholder farmers’ backyards and mainlands accounted for a larger proportion of the
2,624.4 hectares of land covered to forage up until September 2015 through the project 
support. Considerable number of farmers indicated that availability of animal feed has
increased over the past two years due to their engagement in improved forage production 
at their lands. The increased animal feed that was made possible with the project’s support
has helped them conserve forage during a time of year when it is plentiful for feeding at a 
later time when feed is in short supply. Many farmers indicated that the use of improved
forage has increased their livestock productivity. Apart from providing additional forage, 
farmers’ increased engagement in improved forage plantation in their backyard and 
sometimes in their main land has also contributed to improvements in the quality of land 
through reduction in soil erosion and other mechanisms. This was also widely recognized 
by stakeholders across the intervention areas. A key informant from Woreda
Agriculture Office, Tigray Region, for example was quoted as saying:
“As rehabilitation of degraded lands required a lot of resources, the project didn’t implement 
any activities on degraded land in our area. But the project indirectly supported the 
improvement of degraded land by facilitating the planting of different forage crops at farmers’ 
backyard and crop land.”
The case story presented below could also illustrate how the project helped a farmer to 
produce improved forage while rehabilitating his land.
is one of the beneficiaries of the FEED II 
project where he received forage seeds and vegetative 
materials in addition to the trainings on how to grow 
them. He lives in Laelay Maychew woreda, kebele 
in Tigray region. On the basis of the trainings and material 
supports obtained from FEED II project, he planted the 
forage seeds and vegetative materials. The training 
provided by the project also helped learn how to 
grow more productive forages in his backyard. As his land 
was near the small river (as shown in the pictures below), 
soil erosion around the river bank/side was a big problem.
Right after the training from FEED II 
project, he planted forge seeds like Alfalfa, 
Sesbania, Elephant grass, Desho grass and 
Cowpea on the river bank. Apart from 
reducing soil erosion, the forage is serving 
as a best substitute to other animal feeds. He 
also found the forage highly productive to 
fatten cattle. He also noticed that the forage 
plants protected his land from further 
degradation/soil erosion that used to be the 
case especially during the rainy season.
10
Sesbania and elephant grass plantation
Sesbania and elephant grass 
plantation with a closer view
Considering the fact that the less than 50% achievement made by the project during the 
first two years of implementation on the first intermediate result area, it can be said that it 
would be less likely for the project to achieve the three years target. The project’s 
intervention on degraded land rehabilitation was not also evenly implemented across the 
project woredas/kebeles, which might be due to unavailability of degraded land in some 
areas, high resource requirements of degraded land rehabilitation, and other related issues. 
As degraded land rehabilitation is undertaken on communal lands, the project had to also 
engage in lengthy consultations with the community and other stakeholders, which might 
also have contributed to the slow progress. In sum, while the evaluation team recognizes 
that the foundation work undertaken by the project may accelerate its performance on the 
result area, much needs to be done to achieve the target in the remaining project period.
Intermediate Result-2: Improved/Increased use of agricultural 
techniques and technologies
Under the second result area, the project aimed to increase use of agricultural techniques 
and technologies by farmers and unions through the development of feed ingredient supply 
chain, feed manufacturing enterprises and sustainable forage production. The findings of
the mid-term evaluation are presented below under each of these major initiatives.
2.1. Feed ingredient supply chain development 
The project planned to increase availability of improved inputs by developing the feed 
ingredient supply chain. In this regard, the project provided in-kind and/or cash grants 
disbursed to feed in-gradient supply chain actors. Technical assistance was also provided 
to 15 (out of the overall three years target of 20) feed ingredient supply enterprises and 
other input and service providers. The project has also trained 18 mechanics drawn from 
universities and unions to repair feed manufacturing equipment.
The project has also strengthened the feed ingredient supply chain and service sector by
11
supporting local manufacturers to develop their capacity to manufacture, maintain and 
repair various types of equipment commonly used in the processing of livestock feed. In 
this regard, the project technically supported and granted three (out of the three target of 
four) manufacturers to design and manufacture prototype feed manufacturing equipment. 
Prototypes were also manufactured by the grantees. Grantees were also very appreciative 
of the project support. They indicated that the support has helped them to build their 
capacity and manufacture machines. One of the grantees consulted for the mid-term 
evaluation also stated his readiness to take more order for the feed manufacturing 
machines from the project and other stakeholders. The grantee is also planning to 
strengthen its capacity by collaborating with other companies.
FEED II project has also trained 18 (above the three years target of 16) mechanics drawn 
from universities and unions to repair feed manufacturing equipment. The training was
considered vital by unions and other stakeholders to ensure availability of maintenance 
skills that they needed for their feed manufacturing machines. Involvement of universities 
in the training was also a good strategy to ensure continued supply of such training
services in the future. Many unions, however, still fear that they may not be able to keep 
trained mechanics due to staff turnover. Hence, continued access to such training services 
is suggested. Future training initiatives may need to consider involvement of technical and 
vocational training colleges from the project intervention areas for sustained access to such 
training services.
Linkages between private sector feed ingredient suppliers and feed manufacturing 
enterprises were also created with the project support. Unions consulted for the mid-term 
evaluation indicated that the established linkage enabled them have access to regular 
supply of ingredients. As a result of the strengthened input supply system, production and 
productivity of manufactured feed has increased. Nevertheless, the cost of ingredients has 
remained high which also forced unions to offer their formulated at higher prices that are 
unaffordable to most farmers. Besides, although there were improvements in supply, feed 
manufacturing plants are still being challenged by unavailability of ingredients that they 
need for feed formulation. Unions may also need to be supported to replace existing 
expensive ingredients used for formulated feed production with locally available and 
cheaper inputs.
As part of the ingredient supply chain development initiative, FEED II provided capacity 
building support for Ethiopian Animal Feed Industry Association and Veterinary Drug and 
Animal Feed Administration and Control Authority so that they could deliver the required 
services to the feed sector. The project also strengthened feed quality control and 
standards enforcement mechanisms by providing training and supporting staff of the 
Veterinary Drug and Animal Feed Administration and Control Authority, and Ethiopian 
Animal Feed Association to participate in the American Annual Feed Administration 
Conference that was held in Atlanta, United States, which was found supportive to regulate 
the qualities of animal feeds in the country. The project has also been supporting the 
Ethiopian Meat and Dairy Technology Institute to collect, analyze and distribute 
transaction data from feed and livestock industries.
12
2.2. Feed manufacturing enterprise development 
Baseline findings showed that farmers rarely used factory formulated or concentrated 
animal feed. Lack of access and availability as well as high cost of such feed were the factors 
behind the limited utilization. Against this backdrop, the project exerted much effort to 
create access to, increase availability and improve affordability of manufactured feed by 
supporting cooperative unions to establish and/or expand feed manufacturing enterprises 
as described in the previous section.
FEED II project targeted to establish 12 new union-owned feed manufacturing plants. 
Accordingly, FEED II signed agreements with the new 12 unions to establish feed 
manufacturing enterprises. FEED II also signed grant agreements with the existing 12 feed 
manufacturing unions that were established under the FEED I project to help them expand 
their businesses.
The project provided training to 30 staff drawn from FEED II Unions to establish and 
operate feed manufacturing enterprises. The training topics covered included commercial 
feed manufacturing and feed formulation, business plan development and recordkeeping. 
FEED II also facilitated and organized both International and local experience sharing visits 
to 30 and 102, respectively, participants drawn from unions, government line offices. FEED 
II Unions were also provided or are to be provided with grants for feed manufacturing 
equipment, transportation to their sites, installation, shed construction and training of 
mechanics.
Until September 2015, the FEED II project has established four new feed manufacturing 
enterprises at four cooperative unions. In addition, establishment of feed manufacturing 
plants at six other unions were in progress while it was at early stage for the other two. The 
fact that establishment of the feed manufacturing plants at FEED II unions is at different 
stages was also observed by the evaluation team. In some areas such as Bekoji and Woliso 
(Oromia region), the construction of the shade/building that will house the manufacturing 
machinery is 40% to 50% completed. In Guto Gida and Gibe Didesa Unions in in Oromia 
region, and Admas Union in Amhara region, the shade construction has been completed 
and installation of the machinery was being or expected to be undertaken at the time of the 
field visit. The construction of shade is also yet to start in one of the unions in SNNPR 
visited by the evaluation team.
13
Figure 2: Shades construction status at three FEED II unions in Oromia Region
Shade construction status at
Liben Union
Shade construction status at
Galama Union
Shade construction status at
Gibe Didesa Union
FEED II has also continued capacitating the feed manufacturing enterprises established 
with the FEED I project support. FEED II also signed grant agreements with the existing 12 
feed manufacturing unions that were established under the FEED I project to help them 
expand their businesses. The project also provided technical support in business plan 
development and marketing. Management and other staff of unions received training on 
different topics and participated in experience sharing visits organized by the project. The 
project facilitated business to business workshops for feed manufacturing unions to help 
them promote their products to their existing and potential customers.
Through the FEED II project support, FEED I Unions were also able to increase their 
capacity utilization. Daily production has increased considerably during the past two years. 
Daily feed production at Enderta Union (Tigray region), for example, has increased from 42 
quintals per day two years ago to 120 quintals per day at present. Licha union has also 
managed to increase its daily feed production from 20 quintals per day to 80 quintals at 
present. “Under Feed I the production was less than 30% percent of actual capacity. At 
present the daily production on average reached 80 quintals. FEED II project played 
important roles in facilitating access to ingredients and creating awareness among farmers 
and other stakeholders on manufactured products. The mill is now able to manufacture 
various feeds,” feed manufacturing , , SNNPR, said. The 
recent drought experienced by the country has also created greater demand for 
concentrated feed, which is expected to increase their revenue and profit from feed 
production. Attracted by the growing demand, many unions expressed their desire to 
expand their plant capacity. Wonji Union’s (Oromia Region) feed production, for example, 
has approved purchase of better manufacturing machine that can produce 20 quintals per 
hour as presented in Box 1 below.
14
Box 1: Wonji Union, Oromia Region
The Wonji Area Sugar Cane Growers’ Cooperatives Union has
a total of about 26,000 smallholder members registered under
32 primary cooperatives. They have about ETB 17 million 
capital. Moreover the union has 7000 hectares of land for 
sugar cane production. The Union is engaged in animal feed 
formulation and distribution, agricultural input distribution, 
buying and selling of crops to surrounding market with fair 
price to stabilize the market. The manufacturing unit of the 
Union has been working on ration formulation for dairy, 
fattening and poultry. The feed mill is formulated from wheat 
bran, cotton seed, limestone, salt, molasses, noug cake, maize, 
vitamin and minerals.
Formulated feed
The technical, sales and profit of the enterprise has increased 
due to support of FEED II in terms of training, grant and
market linkage. The feed manufacturing unit currently 
produces about 111,000 kg per month, up from about 45,000 
kg per month before two years. The formulated feed at feed
manufacturing unit is also used as source of feed for fattening
farm of the union.
The union has budgeted ETB one million to purchase better 
manufacturing machine which can produce 2000 kg per hour. 
The unions have strong financial and human capacity to 
sustain the feed manufacturing and increase the involvement 
of the union in feed business. They have a computer data base 
in which cost of input, cost of production, revenue and profit 
are stored and analyzed.
Feed manufacturing expansion project 
shade construction
Some of FEED I unions supported by FEED II project visited by the evaluation team 
reported that they made a profit from their feed manufacturing business. As shown in 
Table 2 below, average monthly profit made by FEED I unions ranged from Birr 8,000 to 
Birr 80,000.
15
Table 2: Daily production and monthly profit of FEED I Unions Visited by the Evaluation Team
Name of 
union
Daily Production (in 
quintals)
Current
Monthly
Profit
Customers
Before 
Two 
Years
At 
present
Wonji
2 17 42 Not 
provided
Small holder farmers, surrounding urban dairy 
and fattening farms, commercial dairy and
fattening farms from different area and non￾member primary cooperatives. It has two retail 
shops as well.
Ambo NA NA NA NA
Wodera 12 80-100 20,650 Dairy production cooperatives are the main 
customers followed by agricultural R and D
institutions and primary cooperatives.
Merkeb 48 110 8,000 Union shareholder farmers, research 
institutions, milk producers- individuals and 
cooperatives, those engaged in fattening 
activities.
Sidama
Eltu
20 80 32,000 Union members and non-embers, private milk 
processors, government research centers, and 
cattle fattening enterprises
Licha 20 80 50,000 to
80,000
Farmers, private commercial enterprises, 
government institutions such as agricultural
research centers
Wolwalo 20-35 75 67,500 Dairy production cooperatives and individual 
farmers that are reached through primary
cooperatives.
Enderta 42 120 21,0003 Different unions, primary cooperatives, 
smallholder farmers, private commercial dairy 
farms and institutions such as Wukro TVET and
Tigray Development Association.
Source: Union and feed manufacturing plant managers
The project also linked these unions with suppliers of ingredients and customers of 
formulated feed. Unions were supported to raise awareness and demonstrate concentrated 
feed to potential users of the concentrated feed. As a result, awareness on and recognition 
of manufactured feed is increasing from time to time due to various demonstration and 
popularization activities of the project. Moreover, the FEED II project has supported FEED I 
unions to expand their customer base. There have also been positive changes in 
distribution channels used by unions. Enderta Union
, for example, said “Before the support of FEED II project, the market channels for
selling of manufactured feed were very limited. FEED II project created market demand by
2 The daily production capacity of the feed manufacturing plant at Wonji Union was calculated by dividing the monthly production data 
obtained in kilograms (45,000KGs per month production before two years and 111,000 KGs per month production at present) by 26 assumed 
working days per month (excluding Sundays).
3
This was determined by dividing the Birr 500,000 profit generated by the union during the past two years by the number of 
months (24).
16
linking our union with other new unions and buyers.” An Official of Region
Cooperative Promotion Agency was also quoted as saying:
“The unions used to be operating below capacity due to lack of good promotion activities when 
they started production. Some produced feed stayed for longer periods of time in store due to 
lack of market and awareness. Currently, the problem of the market is solved due to promotion 
activities undertaken with the help of FEED II project. The unions also started advertising their 
products to various stakeholders to solve the market problem.”
The FEED I unions channel a portion of their manufactured feed through their member 
primary cooperatives. In addition, unions sell their feed products to private commercial 
enterprises, research institutions, and others stakeholders from their store. Some Unions 
such as Wodera Multipurpose Farmers’ Cooperative Union have also offered credit 
facilities for primary cooperatives and delivers their feed products directly to some clients 
that make larger orders. The fact that unions are working with their member primary 
cooperatives to channel their feed products is an encouraging development to make the 
product accessible to farmers. Overall, however, marketing of feed is still mainly limited to 
the place of production.
The project has also helped many of the FEED I unions to diversify their feed production to 
be used for various types of livestock. As a result, some unions that used to focus on 
production of feed for fattening and dairy production are now able to produce feed for 
poultry production. FEED II Unions that have started concentrated feed production also 
maintain proper records pertaining to their feed manufacturing business.
The project has undertaken commendable work in creating farmers’ awareness about 
formulated feed. Most farmers consulted for the mid-term evaluation confirmed their 
awareness and expressed their strong desire to buy and use them. Indeed, many farmers 
stated that they are looking forward to buying the formulated feed from their respective 
unions when they start production, which also shows awareness about the source of 
formulated feed. Women smallholder farmers that participated in one of the FGDs 
conducted in Guto Gida Woreda (Oromia region) said, “We are aware of concentrated 
animal feed but we do not have access to this product. We are expecting supply from the 
feed processing enterprise established at the union in the near future.” This shows that the 
project was successful in creating awareness so that farmers would be able to use the 
formulated feed when they have the capacity to do so. Even so, overall market awareness 
about the values of using formulated feed is still a challenge though demand for feed is 
currently increasing due mainly to shortage of feed brought about by the drought.
Although the project has increased actual and potential feed manufacturing capacity in the 
project areas, data gathered from smallholder farmers and key informants revealed that 
much has not changed in terms of accessibility, affordability and availability of 
concentrated feed in the project areas. Smallholder farmers that participated in many of the
17
FGDs stated that use of concentrated feed has remained limited due to lack of access and 
high price. Farmers from kebele in Dega Temben Woreda (Tigray Region), for 
example, stated that as feed shortage is a critical problem in the area, some of them have 
been using concentrated feed. However, they considered the feed inaccessible and 
unaffordable to most farmers. Development agents from Tigray region also had similar 
assessments. “The use of concentrated feeds has been very limited since it is not accessible 
in the nearby areas and it is not affordable to farmers. Farmers that tried to buy such feed 
had to get it from Mekele (regional capital city),” of one of the Kebeles in Dega Temben 
Woreda, Tigray Region, said. These views of the smallholder farmers and the DA were also 
the views of most farmers and other stakeholders consulted by the evaluation team.
The fact that FEED I unions have limited production capacity and FEED II unions have not 
started production is probably the major reasons that farmers were not able to access such 
feed. Availability and access to concentrated feed for farmers in the target areas is, 
however, expected to increase when all the unions in which feed manufacturing 
enterprises are established start production and expand their distribution mechanisms. In 
other words, the project has increased current and potential availability of formulated feed 
through the establishment of feed manufacturing plants at cooperative unions. The fact 
that the feed manufacturing plants are established at unions has also paved the way for 
improved access to such feed by farmers in the future. Some improvement in accessibility 
of such feed were also observed as some of the FEED I unions supported by the FEED II 
project have started distributing their feed products to smallholder farmers through their 
primary cooperatives.
The price of concentrated feed has remained too high for most farmers to afford. Indeed, 
the price of concentrated feed has almost doubled during the past two years. A key 
informant from Licha Union, for example, stated that the per-quintal price of concentrated 
feed has increased from Birr 380 in 2013 to Birr 500 in 2015. In some areas, a quintal of 
concentrated feed is being sold for over Birr 600. As a result, most smallholder farmers 
cannot afford to buy feed produced by the unions. The high price was largely associated 
with the high ingredient costs that are beyond the control of the project as well as unions to 
influence. The price of inputs is also increasing from time to time.
Many farmers and key informants indicated that adoption of formulated feed may not go 
well even when it is accessible unless the feed is offered at much lower prices and/or 
mechanisms are created to link farmers with central markets to sell their livestock 
products at better prices. A key informant from Enderta Multipurpose Cooperative Union 
said “The price of the feed is relatively high, as a result, most smallholder farmers cannot 
afford to buy the feed produced by the union, which is also due to the high price of 
ingredients. The farmers cannot afford the feed mainly due to lack of appropriate market to 
sell their dairy products.” This is suggests that increased livestock productivity through use 
of better animal feeds or other technologies may not translate into increased income of 
farmers. A farmer from kebele in Machakel woreda was quoted as saying “Market 
value of milk is too low to cover cost of production. For example a liter of milk is sold at
18
local market for six Birr while the same quantity of bottled water is worth 12 Birr.” 
Discouraged by the local market prices, smallholder farmers in some areas rather used 
their livestock products such as milk for home consumption. The fact that unions’ feed 
manufacturing plants have limited production capacity even when they operate at full 
capacity may not also allow them to achieve economies of scale and reduce their cost of 
production that could finally be passed on to farmers in the form of lower selling price.
2.3. Sustainable Forage Development 
Sustainable forage production was one of top priorities of the project in the past two years 
with the aim to increase livestock productivity. In this regard, the project has supported the 
establishment/development of 14 (out of the three year target of 16) union-based forage 
nurseries that produce seeds and seedlings for improved forage production. The project 
assisted the establishment/development of the nursery sites with training, and technical 
assistance as well as provision of parent seed and seedlings. Moreover, the project supplied 
financial and in-kind supports for constructing fences and store. It also provided tools, 
irrigation pump, accessories and others necessary for cultivation. It is also the project that 
pays the salary or provides top-ups for the site staff. Furthermore, the project capacitated
95 union staff and government extension agents on nursery management. It also organized 
domestic learning exchange visits for 164 forage production stakeholders.
Some nurseries have now become sources of seeds and seedling, thus reducing the 
dependency on the project and government. Many stakeholders appreciated the project’s 
effort to build local capacity to produce improved forage seeds and seedlings. The woreda 
governments are also the ones that are running the nursery sites which is vital for their 
sustainability. Indeed, some of the nursery sites that the project has been supporting were 
established by the government several years ago. However, the nursery sites are situated in 
a small plot of land. Most stakeholders consulted for the mid-term evaluation indicated that 
the sites have very limited capacity to meet the growing demand for forage seeds owing to 
the increased awareness created by the project. Hence, the need to expand the existing 
nursery sites while establishing new ones in various woredas and kebeles has been 
strongly suggested by stakeholders for sustainable improved forage development.
“The nursery site is providing forage seeds to farmers free of charge with the aim to create 
awareness on the need to use improved varieties. It is meeting some 20 percent of their current 
demand. The site is cultivating seeds on 1.5 hectare of land for the four beneficiary kebeles 
which is inadequate. Up to 5 hectare of land is needed to cover the demand of the whole 
beneficiaries. As the seeds are provided for free with the aim of creating awareness, we cannot 
talk about affordability. However, in addressing sustainability the intervention needs adequate 
financial support from including the government, as well as assigning of a permanent staff at 
woreda level who has the capacity to fully supervise the activity. Moreover, strong and 
continuous awareness creation activity on farmers needs to be made to make them obtain the 
seed on payment.“ Kebele, SNNPR.
Most of the nursery sites visited by the evaluation team are under unions while their 
operation is managed by livestock/forage experts from the woreda agriculture and/or
19
livestock agency offices. A nursery site manager or other government staff are managing 
the sites with technical and financial support from the project. The role of unions in 
nursery operation and management is very limited though there were some variations. 
Recognizing the limited involvement of unions in nursery activities, some woreda 
governments even started to allocate budget for the site. A key informant from Machakel 
Woreda (Amhara region) was quoted as saying “…as the Union does not know what is going on 
at the nursery site. Realizing the impending problem, the Woreda Agriculture Office has allocated a 
budget to run the nursery activities.” The fact that many nursery sites are located far away from 
the unions was identified as a factor behind the limited involvement of unions in nursery 
management. Unions may not also be strongly motivated to involve in nursery site 
operations as they may not directly benefit from it, at least for the time being, as many of 
the nursery sites that have started production have been distributing their produces to 
farmers free of charge. There are, however, exceptions. The nursery site under Ambericho 
union in SNNPR is one of those exceptions that have started generating income by selling 
seeds and seedlings to the project itself as illustrated below.
The nursery site under Ambericho Union in SNNPR was 
established in June 2014 on three hectares of land 
provided by the kebele. It obtained the seed from the
project through Ambericho union. The site has been
distributing the seed free of charge to the beneficiary 
farmers. But it also sold to ACDI/VOCA for its operation 
in Gurage zone and Sidama zone. The nursery site sold 
forage seeds and seedlings to the project and generated 
Birr 80 thousand, of which the Union got Birr 16,000.
The site was established through the financial and 
technical support provided by the project. Nine laborers 
are employed and are paid by the project. The project
provided variety of seeds that were suitable for the
area/location. The major challenge to the nursery site is 
the shortage of water. According to the site manager, 
farmers have high demand for the product. As many of 
the farmers in the woreda own improved livestock breed, 
they have high demand for the feed, which is beyond the 
capacity of the nursery site.
Although unions are not that involved in the affairs of nursery sites, most of them seem to 
see the potential of nursery sites to improve availability of improved forage to farmers over 
the long term. They expressed strong interest to embrace and support the nursery sites 
when the project phases out. The training provided by the project to union staff on nursery 
site management has also enhanced their capacity to manage nursery sites.
Guto Gida Woreda Nursery Site (Oromia Region), for example, said “I gained 
practical and theoretical knowledge on the preparation and production of forage seeds. 
Moreover, I am now able to identify which seed is better adapted to which weather
condition and ecological system of the woreda.” However, several stakeholders, including 
union staff and managers, argued that unions lack technical capacity to manage the 
nurseries and ensure their continuation. Some of the Unions consulted for the evaluation 
also acknowledged their limitations and even suggested additional support to further
strengthen their capacity in forage development. Considering the capacity gaps and limited
20
involvement of unions in the affairs of nursery sites, some key informants also suggested 
the need to either strengthen unions to have all the necessary capacities needed to fully 
own and run the sites or hand over to the woreda agriculture offices by ensuring that the 
government commits some budget and staff to run the nursery sites.
Regional variations were observed in regards to the capacity and operation of nursery 
sites. In Oromia, Amhara and SNNPR areas, some nursery sites were found relatively in 
better position to produce forage seeds and seedlings. Some farmers in those areas have 
sourced their forage seeds from the nurseries free of charge. In Oromia region, smaller 
nursery sites were even replicated around farmers training centers to serve as 
demonstration sites and produce additional seed and seedlings to meet the ever growing 
demand for such materials.
Ghibe Didessa Union Nursery Site nursery site is found 
about 8km away from Nekemte City. According to
, the nursery site receives inputs from the Ghibe
Dedessa Union (supplied by the project). Among these 
inputs fertilizers, different kinds of forage seeds and 
working equipment (water pump) are some of them. The
project also provided financial, training and technical
supports to the site manager. At the time of visit, the site 
has not started selling seeds/seedlings to customers. As a 
result, no revenue is recorded. But it multiplied and 
distributed small amount of seeds to the farmers through 
the Development Agents. Rhodes Grass
The nursery site is being managed by the woreda 
livestock agency. Currently, farmers are users of seeds 
and seedlings produced at the site. It currently uses the 
project’s vehicle to distribute its produces. The nursery 
site also lacks store to keep the produced seeds, and 
equipment such as Pick axe or “Doma”, Shovel or “Akafa” 
are found in small numbers. According to the nursery
the demand for the seeds and seedlings 
produced by the site is high and growing from time to 
time that the nursery site cannot satisfy. Rhodes and Desho Grass
In Tigray region, the two nursery sites visited by the evaluation team have not started 
producing and/or distributing seeds and seedlings to farmers. There are also some nursery 
sites in the other three regions that have not started production. The quality of parent 
forage seeds supplied by the project to some nursery sites was identified as one factor that 
delayed production and distribution of seeds in some areas. In one of the nursery sites, it 
was learned that the Alfalfa seed planted at the site for around ten months has not reached 
for harvesting although it was expected to do so in four months’ time. Some of the forage 
seeds like pigeon pea were not also found as productive as expected in some project areas. 
Shortage of water has also been another major challenge to produce seeds and seedlings at 
nursery sites. Lack of sustainable source of income to the nursery sites and shortage of 
seed supply in the market are other major challenges to sustain the nursery sites. In one of 
the unions visited by the evaluation team, employees of the nursery site have not been paid 
their salaries for over three months.
21
As part of its sustainable forage development initiative, the project has also planned to 
support establishment of 28 forage related enterprises to engage in commercial forage 
production. Progress reports showed that the project (until September 2015) has screened 
and shortlisted potential grantees, and signed agreement with four enterprises to establish 
commercial forage production related enterprises. Three more enterprises were also in 
pipeline to sign agreement. These commercial enterprises are expected to contribute to 
increased and sustainable forage production in the country. Although the evaluation team 
recognizes the work undertaken by the project, however, progress made to achieve the 
target set on this output indicator has been slow and would require strengthened effort to 
achieve it.
FEED II project has also facilitated sustainable forage development by supporting 
improved forage production at smallholder farmers’ backyards and mainlands. This was 
undertaken by providing training, seeds and seedlings, and technical support. Until 
September 2015, progress reports showed that the project trained 20,211 (27.9% female) 
smallholder farmers on sustainable forage development. These farmers were reached 
through provision of training of trainers to 107 government extension agents and other 
relevant experts on forage plot establishment and maintenance. Woreda forage experts and 
extension agents have also been providing on-site technical support for farmers in the 
plantation of their forage seeds and planting materials. Project progress reports also 
showed that the FEED II project procured and distributed 40,503 kilograms (KGs) seeds 
and 2,015,850 seedlings during the first one and a half years of its implementation. Target 
smallholder farmers have received different improved forage varieties that included 
Elephant grass, Desho grass, Rhodes, Alfalfa, Fodder beat, Oats, Vetch and Sesbania.
As presented under Intermediate Result Area 1 of this report, the project has facilitated 
improved forage development in 2,624.4 hectares of land until in the first half of the project 
implementation period. Data gathered through interviews and observations from farmers 
and other stakeholders showed that farmers have planted improved forage varieties in 
their backyard and, in some cases, in their main crop land. Women farmers that 
participated in one of the FGDs from Chencha Woreda (SNNPR) said “We have applied all 
the knowledge and skills that we gained from the training and experience sharing visits 
organized by the project. We have already started feeding our cows with mixed feed and 
planted improved forage on our land.” Smallholder farmers (both male and female) from 
kebele in Dega Temben Woreda (Tigray Region) also stated that they have been 
applying the skills and knowledge that they obtained through the project to improve their 
forage development practices. The farmers planted different forage species at their 
backyard and started feeding their animals. Many farmers also indicated that the milk yield 
performance of dairy cows has increased when improved forage was fed. Animals are also 
said to have become healthier. As a result, the income from sale of livestock products has 
increased after intervention. The case story presented below further illustrates some of
these trends.
22
, 55, from Kebele in Kedida 
Gamela Woreda (SNNPR), is married and have five kids. He 
completed 10th grade education and is farming on a 0.75 hectare
of land. Prior to FEED II intervention, he used to allocate all of his
land to crop production. He also used to feed his six cattle (all are 
improved breeds) using the available small grazing land as well 
as by providing crop residue, leaves of fruits, and purchased 
industrial by-products particularly furishka and noug cake. He 
recalled that the feed was not enough and, as a result, milk 
productivity was about 4 to 5 liters per cow per day.
He was one of the first round trainees of the project. Since he was 
very much convinced, he decided to allocate half of his crop land 
to forage production and started to grow seven feed varieties. He
was able to feed his cattle the improved feed and immediately
obtained better results. He now, on average, gets 16 liters of milk 
per cow per day and sales milk, butter, and cheese in addition to 
the increased home consumption. He has even sold surplus forage 
he produced to others. The additional income obtained through 
the improved operation helped him buy more household assets 
and pay school expenses of his children. Encouraged by the 
improved result, he has a plan to engage in cattle fattening and 
more diary production activitiesin the future.
Some farmers have cultivated the different seed varieties on their main crop land. Among 
different varieties of forage plants, those that have high biomass such as elephant grasses 
are widely cultivated in the different project areas visited by the evaluation team. However, 
the adaptation of some forage plants such as Rhodes grass in some areas was poor, though 
delays in plantation might have contributed to that. Some farmers argued that the project 
has promoted limited forage varieties, which didn’t give them the opportunity to select 
those varieties that are suitable to their land. Even so, the increased awareness about 
improved forage has motivated many farmers to give due attention to animal feed and 
allocate more plots of land for forage production. Some farmers have also expressed their 
interest to multiply and supply improved forage seeds to the market. Indeed, few of them 
have already produced surplus improved forage seeds and generated income by selling the 
surplus to other organizations. An official from Woreda Agriculture and Rural 
Development Office said “Some farmers have multiplied planting materials and sold for a 
good sum of money. For example, a farmer who participated in farmer-to-farmer 
experience sharing visits multiplied Desho grass and sold root splits for Birr 15,000 to a 
non-governmental organization (NGO).”
“We have applied what we learned. We learned how to establish improved forages, and feed 
with improved feed trough that we constructed. We have realized that feeding improved 
forages increases milk yield. To some extent our cows increased milk yield when we fed them 
improved forages. Milk yield increase recorded from 1.5 liter to 2 liters per cow per day. There 
is also reduction in wastage of feedstuff as a result of using improved feed troughs. However, 
the amount of forage we produce on small plots is not adequate to cover feed demand. We 
have shortage of forage seed and land, and there is lack of water for irrigation. There is also 
lack of productive dairy and poultry breeds.” Smallholder farmers from Kebele in 
Guagusa-Shikudad Woreda (Amhara Region).
23
“Our livelihood is directly dependent on livestock. Our land is used for food crops production. 
Moreover, the productivity of the available pasture land is very poor and the main source of 
feed was crop residue which is poor in terms of quality. As a result there was a shortage of 
animal feed in our kebele. Our knowledge on improved animal feeding and management was 
also not satisfactory. Since the project implementation, however, we have started cultivating 
and scaling up the production of improved forage and obtained additional source of feed. We 
now give better attention for animal feeding, housing, cleaning and health management. As a 
result the productivity and body condition of the animals improved. The milk yield increased 
by 2-3 KGs per cow per day, mortality (of animals) has declined and market price of the 
animals increased due to improvement in their body condition. Our income from livestock is 
also increasing.” (Smallholder farmers from Kebele in Tiyo Woreda of Oromia Region).
Improved forage cultivated by farmers is also serving as additional source of feed for 
livestock in many areas. Some farmers store the feed for dry season feeding and multiply 
the seed for next season. Smallholder farmers from Kebele in Guto Gida Woreda 
(Oromia Region) that participated in one of the group discussions, for example, reported 
that they learned detailed procedure on improved forage production such as land 
preparation, harvesting, storage and feeding. They have also received and cultivated 
different variety of forage plants. The cultivated improved forage has reduced shortage of 
livestock feed and served as additional source of feed to the farmers.
, 35, is married and a mother of six children. She lives in Dalocha Woreda in SNNPR. She has not 
attended any formal education. As a rural woman she is responsible for the whole household activities as well 
as managing the cattle, backyard cropping, and assisting her husband in farming activities. Prior to attending 
the FEED II training she did not have any idea about the various types of feeds and the way livestock needs to 
be fed. She was one of the female farmers trained in the first round on forage preparation, feeding 
management, and record keeping. She was very convinced about the benefits of improved feed preparation 
and feeding management put forward in the training. Hence, she immediately applied the knowledge and skills 
that she gained from training. She planted the forage seed in her backyard-an area estimated to be one-tenth 
of a hectare. She applied both mono cropping and inter-cropping with sorghum. Through better feeding 
technique of the harvested forage, she was able to fatten four cattle and sold them for Birr 33,000. She claimed 
that due to the improved forage preparation and feeding technique, she was able to get a great return which 
was more than three times of what she would have earned with the traditional approach.
The project has been largely distributing forage seeds and planting materials through 
unions and woreda agriculture offices starting from the second year of the project 
implementation. However, there were also cases where the project distributed forage seeds 
and seedlings directly through development agents bypassing unions and woreda 
agriculture offices. This, according to the key informants, created difficulties to some 
woredas to fully keep track of project activities. There are also no strong mechanisms to 
ensure DA’s accountability as to whether they distributed the seeds and materials to the
24
farmers. It is true that DAs get the signature of farmers when they provide the seeds and 
planting materials and provide a copy of that to the woreda agriculture office. However, 
mechanisms to verify whether the DAs have fully distributed the seeds and materials they 
took from the woreda to the farmers have remained weak. The evaluation team didn’t also 
see the value added from involvement of unions in seed distribution as they are not playing 
any roles in facilitating and tracking whether the feed has reached to the farmers.
The project has successfully increased farmers’’ awareness of improved forage 
development and created greater demand. Although the project is not expected to supply 
seeds needed by all farmers, the shortage of the seeds and planting materials, however, has 
remained the major concern of most farmers to engage in sustainable forage development. 
Model farmers also rarely reproduce their own forage seeds and share some with follower 
farmers. Some key informants argued that farmers might not have been well educated to 
reproduce their own seed based on the seeds distributed by the project for the first time. 
This is not, however, to deny the fact that some farmers have managed to produce seeds 
that went beyond their need and generated additional income. Some even suggested the 
need for the project to buy their seeds and supply to other farmers that have not received 
any seed. The fact that some seeds such as Alfalfa are more expensive seems to have 
encouraged some farmers sell the seeds rather than share their produces with other 
farmers for free. In some areas, farmers were not also able to grow the forage that they 
planted as the land was not suitable. In other drought affected areas, the planted forage 
seeds did not grow at all due to lack of rain. To make matters worse, it is often inaccessible 
and expensive for farmers to buy improved forage seeds from the market. Delays in 
distribution of forage seeds and planting materials was also identified as another challenge 
for farmers to grow forage and reproduce their own seeds. There are also others in areas 
such as Humera (Tigray) where some farmers didn’t even get any forage seeds. These 
challenges have urged farmers to expect or request additional seeds and planting materials 
from the project.
“The project has been providing forage seeds to farmers free of charge with the aim of creating 
awareness on the need to use improved varieties. Farmers have received on average 1 to 2 kgs 
of seed, which is not enough to apply it on a larger plot of land. For example, as much as 10 kg 
is needed to cover a quarter of hectare. The nursery site is also producing and distributing 
forage seeds to farmers in the project kebeles though it is not enough.”
Kebele in Dalocha Kebele, SNNPR.
Adoption of improved forage cultivation and other practices was also observed among 
some follower farmers though the transfer of technology and skills to follower farmers was 
generally considered slow by many stakeholders. Some follower farmers are increasingly 
adopting the technologies and techniques transferred by their model farmers, which 
improved their animal feed, and increased their livestock productivity and income. The 
case stories presented below are about follower farmers that have adopted technologies 
and techniques promoted by the project through their model farmers.
25
, a follower farmer who lives in kebele in Becho Woreda (Oromia Region), has 
gained skills and knowledge from his friend model farmer by cultivating different forage 
plants with him. He learned about land preparation for forage cultivation, seed and seedling 
management, harvesting and storage of forage plant and crop residue, silage making and urea-molasses 
treatment and efficient way of feeding animals. He has also received seeds and seedling of forage plants 
like Alfalfa, Desho grass, elephant grass and fodder beat and cultivated at backyard and cropland area. 
He said that the biomass of these forage plant is high and he is feeding his crossbred cows and local 
animals through cut and carry of green feed. In addition, he stores some amount of feed in hay shade for 
dry season.
He reported that the milk yield of his crossbreed cow has increased when he fed improved forage and 
practice better animal management. As a result, he has started selling milk, butter and cheese to the 
nearest town. In addition, he is producing additional milk for home consumption. The field team also 
observed forage plant and dairy production farm of the farmer. There are different forage varieties in the 
backyard of this farmer. He feeds his cows through cut and carry and direct grazing although direct 
grazing could significantly affect the future productivity of these improved plants. He has one high-grade 
dairy cow found in excellent condition which was also kept in good house. The owner said that the milk 
yield performance of this cow increased when he starts using improved forage. He produce about 8 kg 
milk yield per day from this cow, sell 5 liters to the nearest town and use the rest 3 liters milk for home 
consumption. The farmer stated that there is market problem for milk and he suggested small-scale milk 
processing machines to process milk in to butter and cheese so that the shelf life of the product can be 
extended.
lives in Kedida Gamela (SNNPR). The skill 
and knowledge was acquired through observation of the 
operation of the lead farmer. Improved seed was obtained from 
the lead farmer, the farmer training center, and the nursery 
site. Lack of feed and the subsequent poor milk production has 
influenced the decision to learn the new skill. It was performed 
through observation and discussion with the model farmer. The 
farmer adopted improved forage production, animal feeding,
and construction and use of feeding trough techniques. on his cultivated 
backyard forage
The follower farmer indicated that he more than doubled his milk production, fattened cattle, 
and fast growth of livestock. He said that knowledge is very important and would be good if 
more farmers get access to such training and observation.
2.4. Overall adoption and application of new techniques or 
technologies introduced by the project
The FEED II project aims to train a total of 26,463 farmers with an anticipated 70% 
adoption rate of one or more agricultural techniques and technologies by trainees. Since 
the launching of project in April 2014 up until September 2015, FEED II project, according 
to progress reports, has trained over 20,211 (27.9% women) farmers to establish and 
maintain sustainable forage plots. Training was also provided to 12,826 farmers on 
improved farm management practices as well as animal feeding and nutrition. The project 
also procured and distributed forage seeds and other planting materials. Moreover, 
experience sharing visits were organized for representatives of farmers, unions,
26
cooperatives, government experts and other stakeholders. The training was cascaded to 
farmers through the provision of training of trainers (ToT) to government experts and 
other stakeholders. Agricultural extension agents and woreda livestock experts have also 
been providing on-site technical support to farmers.
Data gathered from farmers and other stakeholders has revealed that target groups are 
increasingly applying their knowledge and adopting associated technologies. Most farmers 
that participated in group discussions indicated that they at least have adopted one 
technology promoted by the project. However, key informants’ views on the rate of 
adoption vary considerably in the different intervention areas. While some key informants 
such as DAs in few areas said that the adoption is in its initial stages, most others indicated 
that level of adoption was high. Adoption of a particular type of technology also seems to 
differ by gender. While women tended to adopt technologies relating to poultry and dairy 
production, forage development and animal feeding practices, men were more likely to 
apply fattening techniques and technologies. Adoption of forage technologies was 
considered limited among those farmers that produce cash crops or have less reliance on 
livestock.
The “model farmer” approach utilized by the project was also found effective to expand the 
reach of its training and technologies. Through farmer-to-farmer experience sharing visits 
the nearby farmers are also increasingly adopting the techniques and technologies 
promoted by the project. The one-to-three or one-to-five (even sometimes one-to-ten) 
approach is facilitating the transfer. A development agent from one of the kebeles visited in 
SNNPR, for example, indicated that around 60% of the model farmers have transferred 
their knowledge and skills to other follower farmers. The follower farmers’ rate of adoption 
is also expected to increase when model farmers fully experience the benefits. However, 
the rate of knowledge and technology transfer to follower farmers was found generally 
slow.
The training of trainers (ToT) approach was also found very appropriate and effective to 
build local capacity and ensure the provision of sustained access to techniques and 
technologies promoted by the project. Several government experts, union staff and other 
stakeholders were capacitated. To quote key some key informants:
“The TOT approach at different level is the best strategy to sustain the intervention impacts. 
The TOT, participatory approach adopted by the project, and the experience sharing visits 
organized and conducted for beneficiaries, government and union staff were important to 
sustain project activities and results. On top of that, strong sense of ownership has been 
created.” Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office, SNNPR.
“The ToT provided by the project was effective and is an approach that we support. The 
training provided by the project changed the attitude of farmers as evidenced by their 
allocation of valuable arable land to forage. The adoption rate of agricultural technologies is 
pretty fast.” ( Region Livestock Development Agency ).
27
Several factors have hindered model and follower farmers’ adoption of techniques and 
technologies promoted by the project. These include shortage of improved forage seeds 
and seedlings; distribution of less adaptable forage seeds; limitations in timely distribution 
of forage seeds; inaccessibility and unaffordability of formulated feed; lack of market for 
dairy products; high poultry mortality; unavailability of improved dairy and poultry 
breeds; dependency syndrome among some farmers; land shortage; lack of capital; lack of 
integrated package of agricultural technologies; drought and lack of access to water; weak 
follow-up and on-site support; and others.
Some limitations identified in relation to the organization and management of individual 
training sessions also hindered technology adoption. The major weakness identified by 
many stakeholders was the delays between training sessions that often led to planting of 
forage seeds after the raining season is almost gone. As the gap between training sessions 
widens, some farmers tended to forget the skills and knowledge they gained from the 
previous training sessions. The delay in delivery of some training has also resulted in late 
planting of forage. Stakeholders also advised the need for participatory training schedule 
preparation to synchronize their respective plans and reduce potential delays. The need to 
undertake post-training evaluation to measure its effectiveness was also another weakness 
identified to the project by most stakeholders. Besides, the inadequate follow-up and 
supervision after the delivery of the training sessions was consistently mentioned as a key 
limitation to the project. Some smallholder farmers also complained about the time 
allocated for the trainings. They indicated that two to three days are not enough for them to 
understand and conceptualize the skills. Use of local language in the delivery of training 
was also suggested by some key informants and farmers.
Intermediate Result-3: Improve farm management
Results from the baseline survey indicated that 64 percent of respondents did not have any 
idea which livestock and poultry feed ingredient reduces the incidence of milk fever and 
soft egg shells, respectively. A third of respondents did not know on what basis the decision 
should be made in selecting the best business for investment. Baseline survey results also 
indicated that, improved practices such as recordkeeping, baling, urea treatment of crop 
residues, and supplementation with urea molasses lick blocks; silage making and feeding 
factory formulated feed were rarely used.
The project implemented several activities to promote on-farm feeding practices. Progress 
reports showed that the project provided training of trainers (ToT) for 452 (out of the 700 
three years target) government livestock experts, union staff and extension agents in 
improved farm management practices as well as livestock nutrition and feeding 
management, business plan development, and record keeping. Following the TOT, FEED II 
project provided on the same topic to 12,826 (48% of the three years target) smallholder
28
farmers until September 2015. The training sessions included theoretical/classroom 
sessions and practical demonstration and field visits. The practical sessions included 
feeding trough construction, silage making and urea treatment. Project progress reports 
also showed that 120 smallholder farmers have participated in domestic exchange visits.
The findings of the mid-term evaluation has also revealed that farmers use cut and carry
system to feed green forage plants that they planted in their backyard or main land and 
store some amount for dry season feeding. They have also started better way of storing 
crop residue to reduce wastage and maintain quality by keeping in shelter to avoid direct 
exposure to sun. Smallholder farmers from Kebele (Becho Woreda, Oromia Region) 
that participated in FGDs indicated that they have cultivated the improved forage seed 
varieties provided by the project on the backyard and main crop lands, and use cut and 
carry system to feed green forage plants and store some for dry season feeding. Women 
smallholder farmers from Kebele (Tigray Region) also indicated that they have 
implemented zero grazing after the project intervention. They also practice stall feeding 
and feed three times per day. The farmers are also feeding straws by mixing green forage.
Many farmers consulted for the mid-term evaluation also indicated that the project has 
improved their knowledge of modern animal feed management and animal production. 
Their attitude has changed in favor of improved forage utilization and feeding techniques 
and the trend is encouraging. There were noticeable improvements in animal feeding and 
management such as construction and use of improved feeder troughs and regularly 
conserving forage as hay. Construction and use of improved feeding troughs has also 
reduced wastage of feeds. Farmers are also increasingly giving more attention to animal 
feeding, housing, cleaning and health management. “We learned how to feed with improved 
feed trough that we constructed. As a result, there was reduction of feed wastage. We have 
observed an increase in the milk yield of our cows due to improved feeds and feeding 
techniques,” smallholder farmers from Kebele in Guagusa-Shikudad Woreda, 
Amhara Region, said.
Farmers’ increased awareness and knowledge on poultry and livestock nutrition and 
animal management has encouraged them to take important decisions such as replacing 
local breeds with improved ones and keeping a small number of cattle and chicken. Some 
farmers that participated in group discussions reported that they sold their local breed 
cattle and chickens and replaced them with improved ones. As a result, their milk and egg 
production and productivity has increased. “We have replaced local chickens with 
improved breeds that give one egg per day which is better than the local chicken that often 
give one egg in three days,” farmers from Kebele in Dalocha Woreda, SNNPR, 
said. An official from Agricultural and Rural Development Office also said that 
there was increased tendency of smallholder farmers to use improved hybrid cows rather
29
than having many local cows which he considered an unexpected positive outcome of the 
project. However, there is serious shortage of improved cattle and poultry breeds in the 
project woredas. An Official from Woreda Livestock Development Agency (Oromia 
Region) considered lack of improved dairy cattle and absence of NGOs' working on dairy 
cattle improvement a major challenge to technology transfer and adoption. The majority of 
farmers consulted for the evaluation suggested importance of integrating dairy cattle 
genetic improvement activities in the animal feed technology packages promoted by the 
project in order to bring about significant changes in their income and livelihood
One of the beneficiaries of the 
project from Tiyo Woreda 
(Oromia Region) received 
improved chicken breeds 
from the agricultural 
research center. The project 
provided the beneficiary with 
Alfalfa seed that the farmer 
cultivated and used to feed 
poultry as depicted in the 
picture.
In sum, data gathered from smallholder farmers and other stakeholders revealed that 
many farmers have adopted some of the on-farm feeding techniques promoted by the 
project. Indeed, many stakeholders identified animal feeding management as the second 
most adopted technology next to improved forage development. Even so, there were better 
adoption of some techniques over others introduced by the project. Many farmers 
practiced the knowledge they gained through the project such as construction of improved 
trough, urea-molasses treatment and silage making activities. They have started feeding 
their animal through cut and carry system rather than communal grazing. However they 
could not continue urea-molasses treatment and silage making practices due to shortage of 
inputs. Shortage of inputs for animal feed preparation such as plastic sheet for silage 
making were identified as a challenge to technology adoption. Because of unavailability of 
molasses, farmers in many areas were not also able to practice urea treatment. This might 
indicate that some of the knowledge and technologies shown to farmers cannot be 
sustainable. Record keeping was the least practiced technique promoted by the project.
“The adoption rate of record keeping and business planning is very low,” Official from 
Woreda Livestock Development Agency was quoted as saying. Other project resource 
persons also indicated that record keeping for technical and farm management activities 
has not been going on as expected despite continued efforts.
In terms of achieving the targets set for indicators identified to measure progress on the 
third result area, the project has been progressing well in regards to training of 
government extension agents trained in improved farm management practices as well as
30
animal feeding and nutrition (by training 452 out of the three years target of 700, which is
65% rate of achievement). Close to half (48%) of the target number of farmers were also 
trained in improved farm management practices as well as animal feeding and nutrition 
during the first one and a half years of implementation. However, progress made on the 
rest of the indicators such as number of farmers that benefited from domestic experience 
sharing visits (36%), and number of media outreach products developed and distributed
has been slow or negligible.
Intermediate Result-4: Improved management of buyer/seller 
groups within the trade sector
Under the fourth result area, the project’s progress and achievement is presented focusing 
on formulated feed, and expansion of feedlot, poultry, dairy and fattening enterprises.
4.1. Formulated feed 
As explained under the second result area, the project has increased the actual and 
potential supply of formulated feed during the past two years. As depicted in Figure 1 
below, there was remarkable increase in concentrated feed production during the past two 
years. In 2013 (baseline), total production of concentrated feed by union-owned feed 
manufacturing enterprises was 25,918.73 quintals. Comparison of the baseline with 
quantity of concentrated feed manufactured in the first three quarters of 2015 alone shows 
that feed manufacturing has almost doubled reaching 51,542.47 quintals. The sharp 
increase in 2015 may be mainly due to the high demand for such feed due to serious 
shortage of feed caused by the drought in many areas. The full year production in 2015 is 
expected to be much larger as demand for manufactured feed is increasing from time to 
time.
Figure 1: Unions Feed Enterprises CFM Trends (2011 to 2015)
31
The grants and capacity building support provided by the FEED II project was instrumental 
to the increased capacity utilization. The increased production of formulated feed at FEED I 
unions is also a testimony that the union-owned feed manufacturing enterprises have 
applied improved management practices promoted by the project. Linkages established by 
feed manufacturing enterprises with input suppliers and formulated feed customers has 
also increased trade in the animal feed sector. Most FEED I unions were able to increase 
their feed production capacity utilization by regularly buying ingredients from suppliers. 
Linkages established with feed customers have also increased demand for and sale of
formulated feed, and diversified customer base of FEED I unions.
4.2. Introduction and Expansion of Feedlot, Poultry and Dairy
Enterprises
FEED II project has targeted to establish 30 feedlot, poultry or dairy enterprises over the 
project period. This was meant to be achieved by providing training to cooperatives and 
union staff in business management, and improved nutrition and feeding practices. The 
project also planned to organize experience sharing visits. Provision of in-kind and cash 
grants was also the other activity identified to expand feedlot, poultry and dairy 
enterprises.
The project’s progress in introducing and expanding 30 feedlot, poultry or dairy 
enterprises has been slow. It is true that the project undertook some important 
preparatory works such as announcing a request for application to invite potential and 
interested enterprises to apply for grants, and screening and selecting applicants. Up until
32
September 30, 2015, progress reports showed that the project signed agreement with six 
such enterprises while five were in progress. Monitoring reports also showed that 165 (out 
of the 420 three years target) feedlot, poultry or dairy enterprise stakeholders benefited 
from domestic learning exchange visits. The project put off training of 92 cooperative and 
union staff in business planning and improved nutrition and feeding practices to the third 
year of its implementation.
Considering the progress made so far, it may be difficult for the project to achieve the 
target set under this result area. But the fact that important preparatory activities have 
been taken care of in the past may facilitate the process of establishing or expanding 
feedlot, poultry and dairy enterprises. The evaluation team also found the activity very 
important considering the fact that the lack of market for livestock products is a major 
problem experienced by most farmers in all project woredas. The establishment and 
expansion of these enterprises could create linkage for farmers with central markets so 
that they can sell their livestock products at better prices. Doing so will also facilitate 
technology adoption such as use of concentrated feed, and other improved animal feeding 
practices promoted by the project. The evaluation team also observed strong interest from 
some livestock and poultry enterprises/cooperatives to work with the project. Some of 
them are involved in collecting raw milk from farmers/members and selling to other
processors or mass consumers such as universities.
Crosscutting Issues: Gender
The FEED II project took gender as a cross-cutting issue. It aims to ensure that at least 30% 
of its beneficiaries are women. Gender disaggregated data has also been gathered to track 
progress towards the target. Analysis of progress reports revealed that, on average, close to
29% of the project beneficiary smallholder farmers were women. The project also 
supported livestock enterprises in which women are members or fully own the enterprises.
In many project woredas visited by the evaluation team, the participation of women has 
increased remarkably during the second year of project implementation. Women 
beneficiaries were more involved in dairy and poultry production while their involvement 
in animal fattening and other activities was considered low. They were also considered 
successful in dairy and poultry production. Women also have better participation in forage 
development and improved feeding management. “We observed that the performance of 
women participants on feed preparation and utilization was better than men,” an expert 
from Woreda Agriculture Office, SNNPR, said. As women are growing improved 
forage varieties in their backyards, the amount of time they used to spend for livestock feed 
collection is reduced. A key informant from Woreda Agriculture office was quoted as
33
saying “Women have concern for animal welfare. Besides they have realized that forage 
produced from the backyard reduces their work load.” In addition, participation in the 
project has also increased women’s engagement in income generating activities.
In some project woredas visited by the evaluation team, there was a tendency to focus on 
women from women-headed households. Women from men-headed households were not 
given much attention particularly during the first year of implementation. Some project 
kebeles even mentioned the unavailability of adequate number of women-headed 
households as a reason for not being able to increase the number of women beneficiaries as 
much as they wanted. The need to involve women from men-headed households is 
currently getting attention. “The participation of women in the first year was low which 
was due to unavailability of female headed households in selected villages. But in the 
second year of project implementation the number increased considerably by mobilizing 
the community and involving married women too,” the Woreda 
Livestock Development Office (Oromia Region) said. Indeed, the participation of women 
from men-headed households is facilitating adoption of technologies promoted by the 
project. Men smallholder farmers from Kebele in Dalocha Woreda (SNNPR) 
that participated in group discussions, for example, said:
“Before women (our wives) participated in the training offered by project, they didn’t agree 
with what we do about decreasing the number of our livestock, purchasing of improved breeds 
and growing improved forage. But after the training they have become very active and 
supportive of the improved practices. Besides, they are better than men in practicing their 
knowledge and producing better results.”
Some government officials suggested the need to reconsider the target set to further 
increase women participation. An official from Region Livestock Development 
Agency, for example, said “The project needs to revise the target it sets for women 
participation. We hope that it takes gender issues seriously and increases the percentage 
allocated for women participation. I believe that the fact that the 30% target for women 
participation is a hindering factor.” Given that women are in charge of the major household 
and farming activities in many areas, reconsidering the 30% project’s target may be 
appropriate so as to ensure that its skills and technology transfer are being provided to the 
right person (women) in the household. Besides, the project’s standardized approach to 
women’s participation may need to be revisited considering some variations among 
regions on the roles of women. In other words, there may be a need to conduct context 
specific gender analysis for each region taking into account livestock and poultry 
holding/ownership customs and caregiving norms in the areas.
34
Participation of women, however, is being challenged by several factors. Women’s work 
load and responsibilities at home such as child care, cooking and cleaning has remained a 
big challenge for them to participate in the project. Norms and traditions are still hindering 
full participation of women in training, experience exchange visits and other project 
activities. Husbands have remained dominant and, as a result, women have little role in 
important decision making processes such as selling fattened animals, entering into loan 
agreements and use of income generated by the household. In some areas, women also fear 
that owning expensive farm assets such as cross-breed cows would be risky as their 
animals could be stolen. Some women that participated in group discussions also indicated 
that their neighbors have become a hindrance to their participation in the project. 
Neighbors consider women participation in the project a waste of time. This attitude of 
neighbors has also challenged knowledge and skills transfer as their followers, who are 
often their neighbors, don’t take them seriously. This may suggest the importance of wider 
community awareness. Limited economic capacity of women is also another factor that 
hindered their participation in the project as they have weak resource ownership and 
financial capacity to buy necessary agricultural equipment and improved livestock breeds. 
Women particularly from women-headed households often rent out their land to other 
male farmers. Besides, women generally have limited ownership of land and other 
productive assets, which also constrained their adoption of technology and techniques 
promoted by the project.
“We encouraged women’s participation in the training and lobbied for gender equality to 
overcome any opposition they face from their husbands is overcome. However, after training, 
some women have had difficulty to implement forage technologies. This is because land owned 
by female-headed households is often rented out on product share basis to men who have 
limited or no land of their own. As a result, those women do not have decision making power 
on what to plant on the land as the tenants are the ones that make the decision. Tenants also 
usually choose food crops that can be consumed by humans rather than animals. This has 
affected adoption of technologies by women.” (Official from Woreda Agriculture 
Office, Amhara region).
Male dominated culture seems also to have influenced development agents’ decision in 
selecting beneficiaries of the project as they sometimes unintentionally incline towards 
men. The place in which the training is delivered has also challenged the participation of 
women in project activities. Women tended not to attend or participate in training sessions 
that are conducted far away from their areas of residence. In addition, some women 
indicated that they were not able to attend training sessions as all their children are in
school.
Crosscutting Issues: Contribution to the Feed the Future
Initiative
35
Ethiopia is a focus country of Feed the Future, the U.S. Government’s global hunger and 
food security initiative. Through Feed the Future, the United States is supporting Ethiopia’s 
own priorities for agriculture-based economic growth by strengthening strategic crops, 
agricultural commodities and livestock value chains, promoting private sector engagement, 
increasing access to credit, targeting relevant research and development efforts for inputs 
such as seeds and fertilizers, and improving market access. Under Feed the Future, the U.S. 
also strengthens its overall approach by integrating activities and initiatives that address 
cross-cutting issues of nutrition, climate change, private sector development, humanitarian 
assistance, governance and gender.
FEED II project is highly aligned with many of the goals, objectives and activities of USAID 
Ethiopia Feed the Future initiatives. In particular, the FEED II project was found highly 
contributory to the livestock and dairy component of the Feed the Future initiative with 
which the US government is supporting the Government of Ethiopia’s Agricultural Growth 
Plan (AGP) by improving smallholder incomes and nutritional status through investments 
in selected livestock value chains. Feed the Future initiative under its AGP-Livestock 
Market Development aims to generate increased productivity and competitiveness of 
livestock value chains, benefiting both male and female smallholders. Improving animal 
feed is one of the strategies identified by the program to improve smallholder income. The 
goals and objectives of FEED II project focus on improving smallholders’ income by 
increasing their livestock productivity and trade in the livestock sector. The project has 
been promoting improved agricultural techniques and technologies and capacitating 
smallholder farmers to improve their livestock productivity. Many farmers have adopted 
those techniques and technologies and managed to increase their livestock production 
(dairy, fattening, poultry and so on). Farmers have grown improved forage feed in their 
backyard, improved their animal feeding and management practices, and increasingly 
replaced local breeds with improved breeds which are key elements of the livestock value 
chain development. FEED II has increased availability of improved animal feed and 
strengthened the animal feed sector by supporting and capacitating the different actors 
ranging from government to smallholder farmers and their cooperatives to associations to 
the private sector. The project has also supported the establishment and operation of 
formulated animal feed manufacturing at cooperative unions to increase availability, access 
and affordability of such improved feeds to smallholder farmers. It has also supported the 
establishment of improved forage nursery sites in the different intervention areas to build 
local capacity and ensure availability of improved seeds and seedlings to smallholder 
farmers.
Through the Feed the Future, the United States is supporting Ethiopia’s AGP-Livestock 
Market Development with the aim to address adaptation to climate change—especially in 
areas with rainfall deficits—by introducing activities and practices to protect livelihoods in
36
the livestock sector. In this regard, FEED II project was engaged in rehabilitating degraded 
land by planting improved forage seeds that not only rehabilitated the land and reduced 
further degradation but also increased availability of improved animal feed to nearby 
communities. Forage trees planted at smallholders’ backyards and some nursery sites 
established with the project support are also on degraded lands that contribute to land
quality improvement and sustainable management of the environment.
2.2. Relevance
Ethiopia has a significant number of livestock. Estimates made by the Central Statistical 
Agency based on its 2012/13 Agricultural Sample Survey4 showed that Ethiopia has a total 
cattle population of about 53.99 million. The report also showed that about 25.5 million 
sheep and 24.06 million goats are also estimated to be found in the country. The total 
poultry population at country level is estimated to be about 50.38 million. Although the 
country has a huge number of livestock headcount, livestock productivity, however, has 
remained very low. A shortage of affordable and nutritious feed is one of the major 
constraints for Ethiopia’s livestock sector. Use of improved forage and concentrated feeds 
is very low. According to 2012/13 survey findings, green fodder (grazing) is the major type 
of feed (about 57.49 percent) followed by crops residue that is 29.61 percent. Hay and by￾products were also used as animal feeds that comprise about 7.05 and 0.91 percent of the 
total feeds, respectively. Moreover, very small amount of improved feed (only 0.22 percent) 
was used as animal feed and other types of feed that accounted for about 4.72 percent were 
also used in the country. Own holdings are the major source of all types of feeds for the 
majority of the holders during the reference period. The major part of the livestock feed 
(78%) comes from the natural pasture.
According to the 2015-2020 Ethiopia Livestock Master Plan5, the high cost and low 
availability of good quality animal feed from forage and fodder is one of the major 
constraints, if not the most critical constraint, to increasing productivity of livestock in 
dairy farms and feedlots, improved family and specialized poultry, and smallholder mixed 
crop-livestock and extensive livestock production systems. In light of this, the 
government’s overall strategy for the agriculture sector as indicated in the first and second 
Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP I & II) is boosting livestock productivity of 
smallholder farmers. The government has also developed a five-year strategic roadmap 
with a vision to increase the number and productivity of livestock in the next five years 
(2016-2020). Limited access to land for production of forage seed and forage; inadequate 
and poor access to quality forage seed and cuttings; and poor extension and training for 
planted forage were identified as major challenges to realize the vision. To address these
4 Central Statistical Agency (CSA). Agricultural Sample Survey: Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics
(Private Peasant Holdings). Volume II. 2012/13 [2005 E.C.]
5
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). 2015. Ethiopia Livestock Master Plan: Roadmapsfor Growth and
Transformation (2015-2020)
37
challenges, the government plans for policy interventions to make land available to 
investors for forage seed and forage production; establishment of a forage seed industry; 
and forage seed production and certification. The FEED II project was also designed and 
implemented to address the challenges to livestock productivity in the project woredas as 
identified in the national roadmap. In recognition of its alignment with government policies 
and strategies, the federal and regional government agencies also signed cooperation 
agreement with the project.
The 2015-2020 Ethiopia Livestock Master Plan also recognized shortage and unavailability 
of quality purchased concentrate feed and roughage; and lack of effective feed quality 
control and standards enforcement mechanisms as critical specific challenges to dairy 
productivity and strategized to deal with the challenges by making land available for 
commercial forage production by investors; enforcing feed quality standards, quality 
monitoring and control; promoting the establishment of flour mills to make more 
concentrate ingredients available; and promoting domestic production of cooking oil to 
replace the importation of cooking oil, and limiting or banning the exportation of oilseeds 
that affect availability of concentrate feeds. In this regard, the FEED II project was also 
found well aligned and highly relevant to the execution these government strategies. The 
project supported the establishment and expansion of feed manufacturing at cooperative
unions, which will have substantial contribution to livestock production and productivity in 
the regions. Regions such as Amhara have also enacted proclamation against free grazing. 
As improved forage supply is a necessary condition for the proclamation to meet its 
objectives, the project fills some percentage of the feed deficit created by the proclamation 
against free grazing. “Feed scarcity being the major constraint to livestock productivity in 
the region, FEED II Project activities are supportive of the government initiative and policy 
on this issue,” an Official from Region Livestock Development Agency said.
The woredas in which the project is being implemented were also considered appropriate 
as they are among those woredas with higher potential for dairy production. Most 
importantly, livestock being the major source of livelihood for most smallholder farmers in 
the project woredas, the project was well received by farmers. Poor livestock productivity 
and limited availability of animal feed were among the biggest challenges of target 
beneficiary farmers. Smallholder farmers from Becho Woreda said “Livestock is a source of 
food, draught power and income for farmers in the area. There was scarcity of animal feed 
due to shortage of land and poor quality of available feed (crop residue). Thus, the project 
support is in line with our priority needs.” Considering smallholder farmers’ limited access 
to land for production of forage seed and forage, the project promoted backyard forage 
cultivation, and equipped farmers with the knowledge and skills needed to improve their 
forage growing systems. The project also provided improved seeds and vegetative 
materials to model farmers that helped them understand the value of using improved 
forage and obtain additional sources of feed. The capacity building support provided to the 
farmers has also enabled them to utilize their feed efficiently and properly feed and 
manage their animals. Alongside the promotion of improved forage at smallholder farmers, 
the project has also established forage nursery sites that are being and will serve as 
sources of forage seed and seedlings to model and follower farmers over the long-term.
38
2.3. Sustainability
Sustainability was considered both in the project design and implementation. The TOT 
training delivery approach, for example, can be considered an appropriate strategy to 
sustain the intervention results. The project has built strong local capacity particularly at 
region, woreda and local government levels. Indeed, it was those government staff that 
participated in ToTs that ultimately cascaded the training to smallholder farmers. This 
shows that local capacity has been enhanced to ensure continued provision of activities and 
services started by the project. Besides, the project trained relatively larger number of 
farmers that could influence even other smallholder farmers to practice the agricultural 
technologies and techniques promoted by the project.
The fact that the project was implemented in a participatory manner has also enhanced 
ownership among beneficiaries and government counterparts. Indeed, the project was 
implemented using the existing government structure. This has increased their ownership 
and desire to sustain project activities and outcomes. Increasing livestock productivity of 
smallholder farmers is one of the priorities of the government. In most government offices 
visited by the evaluation team, officials demonstrated commitment to provide the 
necessary support to sustain project activities over the long-term. A DA from one of the 
project kebeles in Amhara Region was quoted as saying:
“I cannot predict the sustainability of activities especially at smallholder farmer level. 
At institutional level, however, sustaining the project activities as they are is not a 
problem. Most of the project activities are basically government activities for so long in 
the past, the difference being the approach, intensity of implementation and finance 
allocations. This implies that the activities will continue by the Woreda Agriculture 
Development Office.”
Sustainability of project activities and results, however, may vary by type of project activity 
or result. Many stakeholders indicated that project activities such as manufacturing of 
concentrate feed, improved forage development, animal feeding practices, improved 
poultry and fattening production are more likely to be sustainable. Farmers are 
increasingly demonstrating adoption of many improved technologies promoted by the 
project by planting improved forage seeds in their backyard, engaging in dairy, fattening 
and poultry production. An expert from Daga Tembern Woreda (Tigray Region) was 
quoted as saying “Forage growing system, improved fattening, dairy and poultry 
productions are more sustainable and transferable than others.”
Some stakeholders argued that some project activities such as dairy production and 
record-keeping initiated/supported by the project may not be as sustainable as others. The 
fact that local breeds are not able to respond much to improvements in their feed is 
becoming a disincentive for some farmers to sustain their improved forage development 
activities. In addition, lack of market to sell dairy products at reasonable prices is also 
another factor that is challenging farmers engaged in dairy production. An official from 
Woreda Livestock Development and Animal Health Office, for example, said “In
39
the absence of improved cattle breeds, dairy production activities with local breeds are
least sustainable.”
The activities and services promoted by the project at cooperative unions are likely to be 
sustainable, thought there are variations. As Unions were established to serve their farmer 
members, their leadership was found very committed to sustain established feed 
manufacturing plants so as to improve access and availability of such feed to their 
members. The unions that have been supported by the project have also strong financial 
resource capacity to sustain the feed manufacturing business. Indeed, some unions have 
allocated some budget to establish wheat flour manufacturing in the future so that it can 
supply raw material for the livestock feed enterprise. The unions have also experience in 
distribution agricultural input to primary cooperatives and farmers. These capacities, 
experiences and networks are crucial to distribute their feed outputs to the smallholder 
farmers and to sustain the feed plant. The production of concentrated feed through unions 
will also contribute to smallholder farmers’ access to animal feed when their own forage 
production is exhausted.
However, it is important to note that Unions that were supported by both FEED I and II 
projects are relatively in stronger position to sustain their feed manufacturing business and 
deal with the challenges. Some FEED I unions are also taking measures to expand the feed 
manufacturing plant to meet the growing demand. Union management has also been 
capacitated to better manage their feed business which would be instrumental to its 
sustainability. They also have the understanding that the price of concentrated feed is high 
and needs to be dealt with to make it affordable to their members and other smallholder 
farmers. In some unions, complementary plants such as flour production are being 
constructed that could enable them to produce feed at lower cost using the by-product of 
their flour plant.
FEED II unions, on the other hand, may be vulnerable to changes and challenges. Their 
capacity to manage their feed business has not been tested as they have not started 
production. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the FEED I unions were able to increase 
their production and profit as well as capacity to manage their business by FEED II project 
support. By the same token, it is likely that FEED II unions will require continued support 
to better sustain and expand their business. Even so, both government and unions seem to 
agree that the unions will be able to sustain their feed business without the project support 
as it capacitated them very well. Indeed, many union leaders stated that improving 
livestock productivity and animal feed was their Unions’ important area of intervention 
even before the FEED II project support. Government officials also pledged their continued 
support to sustain the project activities at unions. “The unions must undertake their 
activities properly but when they face a problem, the government will always be with them 
to solve their problems. When the project phases out, the government will take the 
responsibility to continue the union activities in a sustainable manner,” an Official from
Region Cooperative Promotion and Market Development Agency said.
The fact that the project supported animal feed value chain actors and promoted linkage is 
believed to contribute to sustainability of some of the project activities/results. The
40
support provided to local feed mill manufacturers will, for example, contribute to 
sustainable access to such machineries probably at much lessor cost local sources. The 
project has also capacitated other supply chain actors in the livestock development sector. 
The capacity building support provided to Ethiopian Feed Industry Association, and 
Veterinary Drug and Animal Feed Administration and Control Authority is vital to better 
deal with feed quality issues and provide necessary support to unions. A sample of the 
feeds produced by the unions was also tested for quality. These preventive actions will 
contribute to sustainability of feed production at unions and mechanisms to test quality 
should be strengthened in the future as any issue related to the feed can challenge the 
continuation of feed production activities. The project has also connected unions with input 
suppliers and buyers. As a result, they are able to get necessary ingredients to utilize their 
production capacity. Moreover, efforts were exerted to link unions with some buyers and 
promote their feed products to potential buyers. Smallholder farmers have also been 
sensitized to understand the importance of using concentrated feed to improve their 
productivity. All these activities are paying off by increasing demand. This trend is expected 
to increase in the future as well.
Considering the fact smallholder farmers have small landholdings and allocate very small 
plot of land for forage production, the development of nursery sites apart from providing 
forage seed to farmers enhances multiplication and sustainable local access to forage seeds 
and seedlings. In some areas in Oromia region, improved forage varieties are cultivated 
around farmers training center (FTC) of selected kebeles. The additional site is being used 
as a site of demonstration for farmers and source of improved forage seeds which can 
reduce the burden from main nursery site. This also created much awareness about forage 
seeds among farmers. Most importantly, the amount of seed and seedlings that are being 
produced in these woredas has increased.
Sustainability of project activities and results is and will, however, be constrained by the 
following risks/challenges:
i. Unavailability and high cost of feed ingredients: Unavailability and costly nature 
of inputs used to manufacture concentrated feed has remained to be a major 
challenge for unions to produce as much as they wanted and reduce the cost of feed 
to farmers. FEED II unions are also very much concerned about the unavailability 
and cost of ingredients. At the current formulated feed prices, most smallholder 
farmers are not able to buy and utilize such feeds.
ii. Weak livestock value chain development and narrow focus: Many stakeholders 
argued that the project is too focused to adequately improve productivity and 
income of the smallholder farmers. One of the reasons farmers are not able to afford 
concentrated feed is because the price they charge for their livestock products is 
very low due to lack of access to markets. On the supply side, limited access to 
improved animal breeds did not also encourage farmers to effectively engage in 
forage production as well as use of concentrated feed as using those imporved 
forage/feeds on local breeds was not found cost effective.
41
iii. Drought and limited access to water: The current drought in Ethiopia has 
hampered improved forage seed production at nursery sites and smallholder 
farmers. As a result, farmers in some areas are not able to observe changes brought 
about by the improved forage seed. Besides, the fact that some nursery sites are not 
able to produce seed and seedlings due to lack of water could also mean that 
sustained access to forage seed supply will be curtailed.
iv. Unavailability of forage seeds and improved livestock breeds: Unavailability of 
forage seed, improved cattle and poultry breeds is challenging technology adoption 
and sustenance of farmers’ forage production activities in many areas. “Shortage of 
seed supply is challenging sustainability of forage production as farmers would 
know the benefits and sustain it as long as the supply exists,” a
Kebele, Becho Woreda, Oromia Region, said. Lack of access to improved cattle and 
poultry breeds and central markets have reduced the benefit smallholder farmers 
could have gotten from improved forage production. To many stakeholders, the 
improved forage production enabled by the project would make economic sense if it 
is used on improved animal breeds.
v. Unclear ownership of nursery sites: “The fate of the nursery site is not clear as it 
is in between two organizations: woreda livestock agency and the union,” an Official 
from Woreda Livestock Development Agency, Oromia Region, was quoted as 
saying. The woreda livestock agency supports the nursery site technically and the 
union receives budget and seeds from FEED II project and transfers that to woreda 
livestock agency. Unions also seem to lack interest and knowledge about the nursery 
sites as the sites are not generating profit and are often located far away from the 
unions. Hence, many stakeholders question whether nursery sites will continue in 
the absence of clear owner and continued project support. Even so, the government 
has been highly involved in nursery site management and operation. Indeed, some 
of the nursery sites supported by the project were established and being managed 
by local government bodies. In some project areas, the woreda governments have 
allocated some budget to sustain them.
vi. Weak follow-up: Many stakeholders indicated that the project did not put much 
investment and effort on follow-up to facilitate adoption of technologies and 
techniques. To them the provision of training and materials may not guarantee 
achievement of desired results unless the project ensures that the farmers have put 
the knowledge and technologies transferred through the project into practice. The 
reliance of the project on government staff to undertake the regular follow-up was 
not found adequate to facilitate adoption of promoted techniques and technologies.
2.4. Efficiency
The FEED II project built on the learning and experiences gained from implementation of
FEED I. These lessons and experiences were instrumental in making better decisions in
42
such areas as selection of unions for feed manufacturing and others. The project has also 
benefited from ACDI/VOCA’s long years of experience working with unions and primary 
cooperatives. These learnings and experiences are believed to have contributed a lot to 
resource allocation efficiency.
The fact that the project utilized existing government structure and expertise to implement 
its activities increased its resource utilization efficiency. The project, for example, utilized 
development agents at community level to train and mentor large number of smallholder 
farmers within a short period of time. Livestock experts at woreda levels were also 
providing the necessary assistance to the project implementation. As a result, the project 
operated with limited number of staff in each region. The project does not even have 
project staff at woreda and community levels as it made use of the government structure 
and personnel. Although it has managed to achieve what it has achieved with limited 
manpower, however, the fact that the project has limited number of staff in each region 
was blamed for provision of inadequate follow-up and supervision.
The focused nature of the project also allowed coordination and resource utilization. The 
project also has competent staff with necessary technical skills that contributed to optimal 
use of resources. Some project activities such as baseline study were also undertaken 
internally which reduced the cost that could have been incurred if it was outsourced to 
external consultants.
The project sourced much of its materials from local sources. It bought the feed 
manufacturing mills from local workshops that it capacitated. Many stakeholders agree 
that the cost of feed mills could have been much higher if they were imported from abroad. 
The fact that FEED II project worked with unions was also considered an important source 
of efficiency. As unions are owned by farmers, working with them facilitated 
implementation and sustenance of some project activities. However, the evaluation team 
believes that resource utilization efficiency could have been improved if the project 
collaborated with other NGOs that are engaged in different agriculture value chain 
development areas. Overall, however, there was optimal use of project resources though 
there are opportunities for improvement.
2.5. Project Management and Partnership
The FEED II project was implemented with active participation of a range of its 
stakeholders at different levels. The project involved most of the relevant stakeholders 
from federal to local government and community levels. Indeed, the project was 
implemented based on the existing government structure. It capacitated the existing 
system and experts on feed enhancement. Apart from government stakeholders, the project 
has also involved organizations that work on livestock market development, feed 
production and other related development areas. These stakeholders were involved in 
different activities of the project ranging from project site visits to experience sharing and 
capacity building. The involvement of stakeholders has also facilitated project execution
43
and sustainability. While most stakeholders consulted by the evaluation team were happy 
with their involvement, there is a need to strengthen the collaboration and partnership 
with some federal level government agencies and NGOs implementing related programs. 
The project worked more with regional and local government stakeholders than some 
federal agencies such as the Federal Cooperatives Agency. While these federal agencies 
have confirmed that they participated in experience sharing activities, their involvement in 
other project activities was limited. Similarly, the evaluation team learned the project has 
not been collaborating with some NGOs that have been implementing related projects in 
some target woredas. In some project woreda, some NGOs have been implementing 
projects relating to value chain development, dairy production and similar others that the 
project could have partnered with to bring about greater and sustainable impact on the 
lives of farmers.
The project was well managed as evidenced by the results achieved. Teamwork has been 
widely promoted that enabled every project staff to know a lot about the project. The 
experience of project staff working with government and smallholder farmers has also 
facilitated implementation of project activities and achievement of good results. Besides, 
the focused-nature of the project has facilitated project implementation and coordination. 
Grant management of the project was also found effective and appropriate. Much of the 
project grant was managed by the project through mainly in-kind grants and cash grants 
based on completion status/progress and cost-share arrangement. The project used grant 
tracking tool to properly monitor its grants. The monetization process also went well, 
according to key informants, though the amount of resources generated from sell of the 
commodity (wheat) was a little less than anticipated.
2.6. Monitoring and Evaluation
The project have a well designed project document with results framework. A monitoring 
and evaluation operational plan with the necessary data gathering instruments was also 
prepared to guide M&E activities. Performance indicators are defined to ensure common 
understanding. Budget for project monitoring is part and parcel of the overall project 
budget although separate budget is allocated for baseline, midterm and end-term 
evaluations. Indeed, information gathered from key informants revealed that due attention 
to M&E was given by the management as evidenced by the competent staff and other 
necessary resources allocated to it. M&E. M&E activities of the project is also supported by 
sharepoint system. The system allowed smooth transfer of data from development agents 
to woreda government and then to project coordinators at regional level. The system also 
gathers data disaggregated by gender. Project staff was also trained, and capacity gaps 
identified during supportive supervision visits were also addressed. Important 
mechanisms are also in place to ensure data quality. Internal data quality audit was also 
undertaken which assessed the system and its gaps. Although minor double counting gaps 
were observed in farmers that participated in some training sessions particularly during 
the first year of project implementation, there has been much improvement with the use of 
softcopies.
44
Monitoring reports are produced at regional and project levels. Each regional coordination 
office puts together and submits monthly monitoring report in a timely manner that 
provides quantitative data and brief narrative. Project level monthly monitoring reports 
are then combined by the M&E team and used to produce semi-annual and other project 
reports. Once reporting is done, data is then entered into SharePoint system. Narrations 
and figures reported in the monthly monitoring reports are later validated after the names 
of farmers are entered into SharePoint. M&E information has also been used for decision 
making purposes. In sum, the data quality assurance mechanisms and ability of the system 
to capture, process and generate routine project information are adequate though there are 
areas that may need improvement. Top-down feedback mechanisms are not as strong as 
stakeholders expected. The project needs also to make sure that its annual work plans and 
progress reports are organized by objectives and result areas rather than major project 
activities. It is also important to assess the adequacy of regional staff to implement and 
monitor the project activities. Some of the indicator definitions may need to be 
reconsidered to ensure clarity and facilitate standardized measurement. Some indicators 
may also be inadequate to measure progress on some results, which may need 
reconsideration.
2.7. Enabling and Constraining Factors
2.7.1. Enabling factors and Opportunities
Strong government support: The project enjoyed strong government support. The 
implementation of project activities at grassroots level was undertaken mainly by government 
experts from agricultural and cooperative promotion offices. There were also cases where 
government provided financial support to complement project’s activities relating to feed 
manufacturing enterprise establishment.
Favorable government policies and structures: Improving livestock productivity of smallholder 
farmers is one of the targets of the government to reduce poverty. Available national development 
strategies and programs identified fodder improvement as a major area of intervention to improve 
livestock productivity. The existence of favorable policies helped the project enjoy strong 
government support at all levels. Availability of government structure all the way from federal to 
community levels also facilitated project implementation. The project benefited a lot from 
engagement of development agents to cascade training, create awareness, mentor farmers and so 
on. Although the project was implemented using the existing formal government structure, many 
key government officials suggested the need for the project to utilize other arrangements such as 
clusters (e.g., dairy production clusters and fattening clusters) established to facilitate technology 
implementation and marketing of agricultural products. There is also development group structure 
called “one-to-five” at kebele level that the project could use to facilitate technology promotion and 
monitoring. In some regions such as Amhara, the government is in the process of distributing three 
million layer breed poultry chickens that the project can take advantage of to address the lack of 
improved poultry breeds that is being experienced by beneficiary farmers.
45
Presence of demonstration sites: The presence of demonstration sites in each project region was 
also considered another opportunity that facilitated the hands on training in such areas as forage 
production and livestock nutrition and management. The cooperation with research centers and 
universities also allowed access quality forage seeds and vegetative materials with reduced prices 
or free of charge in some cases.
Drought and shortage of feed: The feed shortage that resulted from the drought has increased 
demand for concentrated feed in many areas. Some FEED I unions have increased their production 
and planned to increase capacity to meet the growing demand.
Presence of farmer cooperatives and unions: The fact that cooperative unions with stronger 
financial and human capacity were available in the project woredas was an important opportunity 
to promote establishment of feed manufacturing enterprises at these appropriate and farmer￾owned unions. Unions’ priorities and commitment to improve livestock productivity of their 
member farmers was also well aligned with the project initiatives that also increased their interest 
to work with the project. The presence of these organized farmer groups also provided a favorable 
environment for awareness creation, training and distribution of forage seeds and planting 
materials.
2.7.2. Constraining factors
Limited supply and high cost of ingredients and other inputs: Unavailability and high cost of 
ingredients, and lack of adequate awareness and market for manufactured feed, the major 
challenges for manufacturing formulated feed and facilitating its use by farmers. Concentrated feed 
has also remained unavailable, expensive and inaccessible for probably the majority of the farmers. 
Access to and affordability of industrial by-products such as wheat bran, noug cake and molasses is 
limited in many project areas. Those that can be found in nearby towns were also considered poor 
in quality apart from being expensive. As a result, farmers trained on urea treatment were not able 
to apply their knowledge due to unavailability of molasses. Similarly, shortage of inputs for animal 
feed preparation such as plastic sheet for silage making did not allow many farmers to put their 
training into practice. Another common challenge identified by most farmers was the unavailability 
of seeds and planting materials. Many farmers and stakeholders alike stated that adoption of these 
new and improved technologies and techniques is being challenged as farmers would sustain what 
they personally experienced, which they cannot in the absence of seeds and planting materials. 
Improved forage seeds such as Alfalfa were also difficult to find in the market apart from being 
expensive. Unavailability of electric power supply has also constrained some unions from starting 
formulated feed production.
Charities and Societies Legal Framework: The country’s legal framework for charities and 
societies challenged the transfer of two vehicles utilized for other projects to the FEED II project. 
Had the vehicles were transferred timely, according to key informants, the project could have 
avoided the need to buy new vehicles and rather utilized the money for programmatic activities.
Poverty and Illiteracy: Level of education and income was also found to facilitate or constrain 
adoption of technologies and techniques promoted by the project. Many farmers are still too poor 
to buy improved animal breeds and experience greater livestock productivity. Farmers’ limited 
purchasing power has also constrained adoption and utilization of concentrated. The fact that many 
farmers are not that educated has also affected the transfer as well as adoption of skills and 
technologies. In this regard, a development agent from (SNNPR) 
said “The best performers in technology adoption were those with better resource base and
46
education background who were able to understand the training. The least performers were those
with no or limited education and poor economic status.”
Weak follow-up and technical support: Many stakeholders seem to agree that the project did not 
provide adequate supervision, follow-up and technical support. The fact that the project doesn’t 
have its own staff at woreda and local level was mainly to blame. The shortage of budget and other 
resources such as motor cycles at woreda agriculture offices was also blamed for not providing 
adequate follow-up. The inadequate follow-up and technical support has also constrained transfer 
and adoption of technologies and techniques to farmers. Smallholder farmers that participated in 
FGDs from Kafta Humera Woreda (Tigray region) were quoted as saying “There is poor follow up 
and coordination from the woreda agriculture office or DA. The experts usually visit the farmers 
only in cases when officials came from regional or federal level. The woreda experts visited our 
farm only this week after they heard that an evaluation team was coming.”
Limited access to markets: Absence of market for dairy products is the most pronounced 
challenges which hinder the farmers from adopting some technologies. In many project areas, 
farmers indicated that they sell their livestock products at a very low price as they sell them at 
nearby towns. Discouraged by the low price, some farmers use livestock products such as milk for 
household consumption only. As farmers sell their livestock products at cheap price, they found 
adoption of improved forage uneconomical. They said that increasing livestock productivity 
without creating market linkages cannot bring about sustainable improvement in their lives. 
Smallholder farmers that participated in FGDs from Laelay Maychew Woreda (Tigray Region), for 
example, said “The market channels for our livestock products such as milk are not yet 
strengthened. As a result, we are using these products only for household consumption in an 
extravagant way.”
Unavailability of improved animal breeds: The demand of improved dairy cattle is very high in 
the project intervention areas. Many farmers and other key informants consulted for the mid-term 
evaluation indicated that growing improved forage and developing better animal feeding practices 
cannot guarantee improved productivity and income. This is because return on use of improved 
forage on local breeds is very low. Many stakeholders argued that improved forage would be cost 
effective if used on improved animal breeds. Hence, in the absence of access to improved breeds, 
productivity improvements brought about by the use of improved forage is too small to encourage 
farmers adopt techniques and technologies introduced by the project.
“It is only when animal feed technology promotion activities goes with dairy cattle genetic 
improvement activities that the project can bring significant change to livelihood of the 
farmers. As the milk productivity of local breed cows is poor, it is more economical if the 
project accompany improved forage production system with improved animal (crossbred for 
dairy).” (Smallholder farmers that participated in one of the FGDs from Becho woreda in 
Oromia region.)
High poultry mortality: In some project areas, farmers engaged in poultry production activities 
stated that they are not able to benefit as much as they would due to high poultry death. Some 
smallholder farmers commonly stated that poor access to health services for poultries has been an 
impediment to effectively engage in poultry production. They suggested the need for the project to 
work with other actors to reduce death of poultry.
Shortage of land: Farmers have a small plot of land that they often use for crop production. This
has constrained farmers’ ability to grow adequate forage that could feed their animal throughout
47
the year. Smallholder farmers that participated in one of the group discussions from kebele 
in Machakel woreda (Amhara Region) said “What should be clear is that the amount of forage we
produce from the tiny land is very limited to exploit the technology in a meaningful way. We just 
observed in a form of demonstration that improved forage does in fact increase milk yield and 
improve body condition of animals.” The challenge is more serious for female headed households 
who either have a very small plot of land by comparison or who sub-lets their lands to other men 
headed households that leaves them with no decision making power to decide on which crop to 
plant in their land.
Drought and shortage of water: As a result of the drought and shortage of water, smallholder 
farmers in some project areas were not able to adequately plant forage seeds at their backyard. 
Some nursery sites in these areas are also being challenged by shortage of water. An expert from 
Woreda Animal Agriculture Office was quoted as saying “The outcome of the project would
have been astonishing had it not been for the rain failure due to the current climate change.” The
drought has also deflated the livestock price/value in some affected woredas as many people are 
interested to sell their livestock to cope with it.
Inadequate capacity and staff turnover at unions: While the availability of relatively well 
organized farmers cooperatives and unions was a great opportunity for the project, they did not 
have adequate capacity to engage in feed manufacturing. They also had high staff turnover. As a 
result, establshment of feed manufacturing plants in the unions took some time.
2.8. Lessons Learned
One of the lessons learnt from the project implementation is that availability and cost can 
curtail the adoption of an otherwise excellent technology. Availability and cost of forage 
seeds and planting materials as well as industrial and concentrated feeds have been shown 
to be critical issues that must be addressed if the technologies promoted by the project are 
to be adopted by most farmers.
The importance of offering integrated packages of agricultural technologies and techniques 
was also another key lesson drawn from the project implementation. It was learned that 
significant livestock productivity improvement cannot be achieved without the promotion 
of improved livestock breeds and availability of improved animal feed at affordable prices. 
Farmers that adopted improved forage and animal feeding practices were not able to get a 
deserving productivity from their local breeds. The fact that improved productivity cannot 
guarantee increased income and adoption of improved techniques and technologies was 
also observed from the FEED II project implementation. Many farmers that have managed 
to increase their livestock productivity through adoption of the project promoted 
techniques and technologies did not experience similar increase in their income. This was 
because of the fact that they have no access to appropriate markets to sell their livestock 
products at better prices. As a result, many farmers didn’t find the use of improved animal 
feeds such as concentrated feed cost effective. This calls for the need to strengthen 
livestock value chain development activities or collaborate with other actors that work on 
such areas.
48
Giving farmers free seedlings or seeds seems to have reduced the farmers’ abilities to use 
other resources available at farm level, as many of them are still expecting supply of more 
seeds and planting material free of charge. While the evaluation team recognizes the great 
work undertaken by the project to create awareness and improve animal feed availability 
as well as quality in the target areas, the aim should be to move the farmers from the point 
where they are dependent on government and the project to a point where they can handle 
the technology with little or no intervention from outside their systems by producing their 
own seed and planting materials.
The fact that women in men headed households have limited decision making power has 
affected technology adoption in many project areas as women were not able to decide on 
which crop to plant in which plot of land and undertaken other activities. Even in men 
headed households, the non-involvement of women in the project hampered men’s efforts 
to put their training into practice and adopt technologies promoted by the project. Hence, 
an important lesson learned from the project implementation was the importance of 
involving both husbands and wives to increase adoption of promoted techniques and 
technologies.
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1. Conclusions
Ethiopia has huge livestock resource. Livestock is a source of food and income for farmers. 
However, livestock productivity has been very low due to scarcity of improved dairy cattle, 
animal feed, and knowledge gap on modern livestock management. Cognizant of this, 
improving livestock productivity has been one of the key development targets of the 
government and priority of farmers. In light of this, the FEED II project was found well 
aligned with national and international development priorities and the needs of 
smallholder farmers.
The project is on the right track to achieve most of its objectives and targets. But there was 
slow progress in degraded land rehabilitation; introduction and expansion of feedlot, 
poultry and dairy enterprises; and establishment of commercial forage production related 
enterprises.
The project has strengthened the feed ingredient supply chain and service sector by 
supporting local manufacturers to develop their capacity to manufacture, maintain and 
repair various types of equipment used in the processing of livestock feed. Better linkages 
between private sector feed ingredient suppliers and feed manufacturing enterprises were 
also created with the project support.
49
Forage development activities undertaken on degraded land and farmers backyards or 
main lands through the project support has rehabilitated the land and provided quality 
animal feed to nearby farmers. Considering the less than 50% achievement recorded 
during the past two years, however, much needs to be done to achieve the target in the 
remaining project period. The same is also true to achieve targets set for establishment of 
commercial forage production related enterprises, and introduction and expansion of 
feedlot, poultry and dairy enterprises.
The project is on track to achieve the target set to establish/develop nursery sites. Some 
nurseries have now become sources of seeds and seedling, thus reducing the dependency 
on the project and government. However, the nursery sites are situated in a small plot of 
land and have limited capacity to meet the growing demand for forage seeds owing to the 
increased awareness created by the project.
Farmers’ knowledge and adoption of many of the techniques and technologies promoted by 
the project is going very well. The project has successfully increased knowledge as well as 
adoption of improved forage development and animal feeding practices. As a result of the 
project intervention, availability of additional improved animal feed has improved in the 
project intervention areas. Farmers have also applied their knowledge and improved their 
animal feeding systems in such a way that provide nutritious feed, reduce feed wastage, 
increase their productivity. Farmers have also developed sense of ownership of the project 
activities and demonstrated their strong commitment to continue what has been started by 
the project. The transfer of knowledge and technologies by model farmers to follower 
farmers was, however, generally slow.
The targets set to establish 12 new union-owned feed manufacturing enterprises, and 
enhance the capacity of existing 12 enterprises are on track. The project has increased 
current and potential availability of formulated feed. The fact that the feed manufacturing 
plants are established at farmer-owned unions has also paved the way for improved access 
to such feed by farmers in the future. The project was also successful in increasing 
awareness and demand for formulated feed. Most farmers consulted for the mid-term 
evaluation confirmed their awareness and expressed their strong desire to buy and use 
them. However, inaccessibility and unaffordability of concentrated feeds have remained 
major obstacles for smallholder farmers to use them. Much change has not been observed 
in use of concentrated feed among beneficiary farmers. While shortage and costly nature of 
feed ingredients is mainly to blame for the higher price of formulated feeds, the lack of 
appropriate markets for farmers to sell their livestock products has also hindered use of 
formulated feed. Hence, if the issues of availability and cost of inputs concentrated feed are 
not addressed, these technologies would unlikely be adopted.
50
Adoption of technologies and techniques promoted by the project has improved livestock 
productivity and started to increase income of smallholder households. Although the 
project’s ultimate objective of increasing income of target beneficiaries may be achieved at 
the end of its implementation, however, continued adoption of techniques and technologies 
promoted by the project may be challenged as the increased productivity achieved through
the project may not be reflected in the farmers’ income.
3.2. Recommendations
Based on the findings of the evaluation and conclusions made above, the following 
recommendations have been made.
Recommendation for intermediate result 1 to 4:
i. Strengthen efforts to achieve the target set to develop forage on degraded land and 
farmers’ backyards; and strengthen support to commercial forage development 
firms so as to accelerate implementation of planned activities and achievement of 
targets.
ii. As increasing forage production may not necessarily guarantee increased livestock 
productivity and income, collaborate with other NGOs that implement livestock 
market value chain development programs to create synergy and bring about 
sustainable change in the livelihood of target smallholder farmers.
iii. Strengthen support to private livestock enterprises to build their capacity to 
effectively buy dairy products from farmers and sell to dairy processers and the 
central market. Support Unions and their member primary cooperatives to engage 
in milk processing to serve as a bridge between agro-processors and farmers.
iv. Strengthen efforts to move the farmers from the point where they are dependent on 
government and the project to a point where they can handle the technology with 
little or no intervention from outside their systems. Efforts, for example, should be 
strengthened to overcome this constraint by training and encouraging farmers and 
farmer groups to produce and use their own seeds.
v. Support expansion of the existing nursery sites to meet the growing demand for
forage seeds and seedlings.
vi. Properly transfer nursery sites either to the unions or the woreda agriculture office.
Considering the reality on the ground, transferring the nursery sites to the woreda 
government and advocating for budget allocation would be feasible and 
appropriate. If nurseries are to be kept under unions, the technical capacity of 
unions needs to be enhanced to effectively manage the nurseries.
vii. Undertake post-training evaluation activities so as to ensure whether the capacity 
building activities achieved the desired purpose. Besides, training schedule needs to
51
be developed with the participation of the various stakeholders to reduce potential 
delays. It is also important to strengthen farmer-to-farmer exchange visits and hold 
annual farmers’ day to demonstrate successful achievements of farmers so as to 
increase adoption.
viii. Strengthen follow-up and technical support at smallholder farmer level to increase 
adoption of technologies and techniques. This may be undertaken by strengthening 
the regional team to closely work with woreda and kebele level government staff, 
and facilitating joint supervisions (with government).
ix. Explore opportunities to make price of concentrated feed affordable and accessible 
to smallholder farmers. Developing mechanisms to replace costly ingredients with 
other local resources whenever possible may be one of the considerations. It is also 
vital to further strengthen linkages among the feed value chain actors.
x. Establish mechanisms to help farmers that produce forage seeds sell their produce 
and earn income. This will also increase supply of forage seeds that are highly 
demanded by other farmers. Unions or primary cooperatives may be ideal 
organizations to facilitate trade of forage seeds among farmers.
Recommendations for women empowerment
xi. Strengthen efforts to both husband and wife, consider variations in women roles in 
different project areas and create wider community awareness to increase women 
participation.
Recommendations on project management and partnership/collaboration
xii. Strengthen collaboration with government agencies particularly at federal level by 
involving them in supportive supervision and sharing of information about the 
project’s progress. In connection with this, the project needs to document the 
project strategies and approach, lessons learned and experiences gained so far and 
share that with government stakeholders at all levels and other stakeholders to 
inform policy and programmatic decision making, and scale up its achievements. 
Indeed, considering the strategic importance of the project, addressing 
sustainability risks and scaling up the implementation of project activities in other 
regions, woredas and kebeles should be given much attention in the remaining life 
of the project.
General recommendations for a follow‐on project
xiii. The Evaluation Team recommends that USDA provide follow‐on funding for a 
minimum of another three years to sustain and scale up project activities and 
results.
52
ANNEXES
53
Annex 1) List of Key Informants Consulted
S.N Name Position Region Woreda Town Kebele Telephone
1.
54
S.N Name Position Region Woreda Town Kebele Telephone
55
S.N Name Position Region Woreda Town Kebele Telephone
56
S.N Name Position Region Woreda Town Kebele Telephone
57
S.N Name Position Region Woreda Town Kebele Telephone
58
S.N Name Position Region Woreda Town Kebele Telephone
59
S.N Name Position Region Woreda Town Kebele Telephone
/
60
S.N Name Position Region Woreda Town Kebele Telephone
61
S.N Name Position Region Woreda Town Kebele Telephone
62
S.N Name Position Region Woreda Town Kebele Telephone
63
S.N Name Position Region Woreda Town Kebele Telephone
64
Annex 2) List of Men Farmers that Participated in Group Discussions
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
65
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
66
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
67
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
68
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
69
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
70
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
71
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
72
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
73
Annex 3) List of Women Farmers that Participated in FGDs
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
74
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
75
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
76
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
77
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
78
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
79
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
80
S.N NAME REGION WOREDA KEBELE
81
Annex 4) List of Project Woredas and Unions Visited for the Mid-Term
Evaluation
Regions FEED II Unions Zones Woredas Town
Unions are
Located
SNNPR Ambericho Kenbata
Tenbaro
Kedida Gamela Duramie
Melik Silte Dalocha Worabie
Gamo Gofa Gamo Gofa Chencha Arbaminch
Oromia Liben Soth West
Shewa
Becho Weliso
Galema Arsi Tiyo/Bekoji Bekoji
Gibe Didesa East Wellega Guto Gida Lekemt
Amhara Admas Awi Kosober/Dangila Kosober
Gozamin East Gojjam Machekel Debremarkos
Megenagna South Gondar Farta Debretabor
Tigray Geter Adwa
MCU
Central Laelay Mychew Adwa
Debre Asa MCU South East Dega Temben Temben
Setit Humera Western Kafta-Humera Humera
Annex 5) List of FEED I Unions Visited/Consulted
Region Name of FEED I 
Union
Zone Location
SNNP Sidama Elito Sidama Hawassa
Licha Hadiya Hadiya Hossana
Amhara Merkeb West Gojjam Bahir Dar
Wodera North Shewa Debreberhan
Oromia Ambo West Shewa Ambo
Wonji East Shewa Wonji
Tigray Enderta Southeast
Tigray
Mekele
Wolwalo Eastern Adigrat
82
Annex 6) Terms of Reference
Scope of Work (SoW) for Mid-Term Evaluation
ACDI/VOCA, FEED II PROJECT 
June, 2015
1. Background:
Ethiopia has the largest livestock population in Africa, and raising livestock is a major livelihood 
activity and source of income for a majority of the population. However, livestock productivity 
is one of the lowest in the world largely due to livestock feed resources being inadequate in 
both quantity and quality. The Feed Enhancement for Ethiopian Development Project – Phase II 
(FEED II) is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food for Progress 
Program and has been implemented by ACDI/VOCA since September 2013. The project is a 
three-year intervention designed to increase livestock productivity through developing the 
animal feed sector.
FEED II field implementation began with an intensive baseline survey conducted February-April
2014 to set benchmarks for outcome level indicators against which progress could be measured 
and the impact of the project assessed. Following the baseline survey, the project launched 
implementation in four regional states of the country (Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR and Tigray). 
FEED II is now more than halfway through project implementation and hence, ACDI/VOCA 
would like to invite external consulting firms to bid to design and conduct a mid-term 
evaluation of the project.
1.1. Project Description
1.1.1. FEED II Goal and Objectives
The ultimate goal of FEED II is to increase the incomes of Ethiopian smallholder livestock 
producers by improving access to, and use of consistent, affordable, high quality animal feed 
that can support greater livestock productivity and efficiency. To sustainably increase the 
incomes of Ethiopian smallholder farmersin project target areas, FEED II aims to:
Increase the productivity of livestock and poultry by 15% by developing the animal feed 
sector: and
Expand trade of agricultural products in the livestock and poultry sector by 15%.
83
These objectives are to be achieved through four Intermediate Results (IRs), which address 
availability, access, knowledge about and utilization of feed resources.
IR-1: Improved quality of land and water resources:
Results from the baseline survey indicated that 30 percent of the interviewed households 
cultivated an average of 101.2m2 of forage land in the year preceding the survey.
During its implementation period, FEED II has worked towards improving land resources 
through increased forage planting to rehabilitate degraded farm lands. Areas to be planted to 
forage were identified by woreda livestock experts and agricultural extension agents. 
Moreover, backyard areas which are generally marginal, degraded land and not able to be used 
for crop production were used to develop forage crops. In some cases intercropping of forage 
with maize and other crops was done. In some cases intercropping of forage with maize and 
other crops was done. The project plans to plant a total of 6,000 hectares to forage, half of it on 
degraded land rehabilitated through forage development.
IR-2: Improved the use of agricultural techniques and technologies:
Results from the baseline survey indicated that some feed technologies were consistently 
practiced by FEED II beneficiaries, including cut and carry, feeding troughs to feed animals, hay 
making and providing easy access to water. However, improved practices such as 
recordkeeping, baling, urea treatment of crop residues, and supplementation with urea 
molasses lick blocks; silage making and feeding factory formulated feed were rarely used.
Since the launching of project field activities in April 2014, FEED II has trained over 10,000 
farmers in enhanced animal feed and production technologies, including improved forage￾growing systems, use of manufactured feed and improved fattening, dairy and poultry 
production. To support the implementation of these trainings and sustainable forage 
production, the project procured and distributed forage seeds and other planting materials. 
Moreover, experience sharing visits were conducted for representatives of farmers. Agricultural 
extension agents and woreda livestock experts provided onsite technical support to farmers. 
The project plans to train a total of 26,463 farmers during the life of the project with an 
anticipated 70% adoption rate of one or more agricultural techniques and technologies by 
trainees.
The project also created access to manufactured feed through support of agricultural 
cooperative unions to establish feed manufacturing enterprises. Ten of the 12 cooperative 
union-based feed manufacturing units in FEED II’s operational regions established under FEED I
84
are functioning and 12 new ones established under FEED II will soon begin manufacturing 
livestock and poultry feed. FEED II is technically and financially supporting all these union-based 
feed manufacturing enterprises.
IR-3: Improve farm management:
Results from the baseline survey indicated that 64 percent of respondents did not have any 
idea which livestock and poultry feed ingredient reduces the incidence of milk fever and soft 
egg shells, respectively. The correct answer, limestone, was known by less than 5 percent of 
those surveyed. In addition, over 50 percent of those surveyed said that they did not know 
what type of information is needed to determine whether they were achieving profits or losses 
in their livestock activities.
To respond to this lack of knowledge, the project is developing the capacity of smallholder 
farmers, and demonstrating improved management of their various livestock-sector 
commercial activities including livestock production, forage production/conservation, 
manufacturing feed, and marketing of related products such as livestock, poultry, milk and 
feed. FEED II has been organizing trainings on livestock nutrition and feeding management, 
business plan development and recordkeeping. Farmers have also been participating in regional 
exchange visits to share experiencesfrom model farmers.
IR-4: Improved management of buyer/seller groups within the trade sector:
The project focus for this intermediate result is on commercial enterprises, whether 
cooperative/union or completely private sector based, which the FEED II project helped 
establish and /or enhance. Results from the baselines survey indicated that there was little 
return on investments in the livestock sector before the project began implementation. 
However, FEED II is building the capacity of cooperatives and unions to improve their 
operational and financial management, and has been organizing trainings in business plan 
development, recordkeeping and marketing. It has also been facilitating business-to-business 
workshops to promote products and establish sustainable market linkages. All of these 
activities have baseline values, indicators and targets which are presented in the FEED II 
Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP).
In general, the FEED II project is results based in its approach and designed with a detailed 
conceptual framework that shows the causal relationship from lower level activities and 
outputs to higher level intermediate results and outcomes. FEED II envisions that increasing the 
availability of good quality feed complemented by improved feed management practices would 
bring about healthier and more productive livestock, increasing profitability and income from
85
livestock products and related activities for smallholders. Hence, FEED II heavily emphasizes 
developing the livestock and poultry feed sectorsto increase incomes of smallholders.
1.2. Crosscutting Issues
FEED II considers a number of crosscutting issues during project implementation, classified as 
crosscutting technical and implementation themes. Crosscutting technical themes include: 
gender; climate change and adaptation and the Feed-the-Future initiative. Crosscutting 
implementation themes include: monetization, monitoring and evaluation, private sector and 
institutional capacity building and collaboration with other development activities and grants.
1.3. Geographic Implementation Areas and Beneficiaries of FEED II
FEED II project implementation covers four regions – Amhara, Tigray, Oromia and SNNPR –
where over 80% of the country’s livestock population resides. Within these regions, the project 
works in 39 woredas and 186 kebeles. It also works with a total of 28 cooperative unions (12 
from FEED I and 16 new ones for FEED II), which are the key entry and scalability points through 
which the project is implemented. In each of the regions, the project works with a total of 
seven unions (3 old and 4 new) and at least 27,099 direct and 162,594 indirect beneficiary, 
smallholder farmers across the four regions.
1.4. Purpose and Scope of the Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE)
The midterm performance evaluation is part of the project formative process intended to 
provide an independent examination of the overall project progress and constraints related to 
implementation and effectiveness of the project interventions. It is also to draw lessons and 
generate recommendations for changes in programmatic approach and interventions to meet 
outcome and impact level targets, if needed.
The purposes of the MTE are to:
 Review and take stock of the implementation environment:
 Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation approaches and methods;
 Assess whether targeted beneficiaries are receiving services and benefiting as expected;
 Assess whether the project is on track to meet its goals and objectives;
Assess the relevance of approaches and activities in relation to the goal and objectives of 
the project;
 Review the project-level results framework and assumptions;
86
Identify measures/mechanismsfor sustainability put in place by the project;
Document initial lessons learned; and
Recommend modifications or corrective actions that may be necessary in order to achieve 
targets and goals.
2. Key Mid-Term Evaluation Questions
Main evaluation questions are organized around the standard evaluation criteria of relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability as follows:
Relevance:
o What development problems in Ethiopia does the FEED II project address?
o What are the assumptions and hypothesis about agricultural development problems in
Ethiopia?
o Is the project design appropriate for the cultural, economic, social and political context 
in which it works? Is the project addressing the priority needs of the project 
beneficiaries?
o What is the relevance of the project within Ethiopia’s policy, program and legislative
environment?
o To what extent are the project activities aligned and supportive of existing government 
initiatives and policies or other relevant donor funded programs?
o Is the project’s results framework consistent and relevant with the data/findings from
project implementation to date? 
Effectiveness:
o To what extent has the project measured volume and value of sales?
o Is the project on track to achieve its goals and objectives? If not, why (e.g., change in the 
implementation environment and /or other factors that challenge ongoing validity of 
the underlying assumption and results framework)?
o Are expected services and support reaching intended beneficiaries?
o Do beneficiaries continue to perceive technologies, management practices and 
knowledge promoted by the project as meeting needs they consider to be important 
and appropriate for their circumstance? What are the indications of acceptability and 
effectiveness of these interventions?
o Is the training approach (i.e., ToT followed by smallholder level training and exchange 
visits) effective and efficient? What are farmers’ perceptions about the project￾promoted technologies and practices?
87
o What unexpected results (negative or positive) have been realized and why did they 
occur; i.e., what lessons can be learned from these results to date?
o FEED II is endeavoring to target at least 30% women as beneficiaries, improving their 
knowledge and access to enhanced techniques, methodologies and financial resources 
that will ensure their opportunities for livelihood and income improvement are as equal 
to men as possible. Are women benefiting from implementation of project activities to 
the extent expected? If not, why?
o What are the external factors or conditions that could hinder or are hindering the 
achievement of the project’s results? What can /could the FEED II project do to address 
these?
o Are there existing opportunities to enhance effectiveness and broaden impact that the 
project is not, but should, be taking advantage of?
o The project is aiming to establish half of its sustainable forage activities on reclaimed 
land, thus contributing to climate change and adaptation (CCA). Is the project making 
expected progress against this reclaimed land target?
o FEED II has a $3.5 million grant fund and has thus far awarded over 100 grants to 
cooperative unions, private enterprises and government agencies. How effectively are 
grants being managed? What changes are needed, if any?
o Is the project collaborating with FtF partners and measuring results against its FtF
indicators?
o What recommendations can be made so as to increase the likelihood of achieving goals 
and objectives on time; improve resource use, and enhance beneficial impact on 
beneficiaries?
Efficiency:
o Are the projects strategies/activities efficient in terms of financial and human resources 
in relation to their outputs and outcomes?
o Are project resources being used efficiently for implementation of project activities?
o Are results desirable, affordable, replicable, sustainable and scalable?
o Is FEED II cooperating /collaborating with other development activities to try to 
optimally use resources and maximize impacts?
Sustainability:
o What steps has the project taken to address the sustainability of the project activities?
o Which project activities/ initiatives are most likely to be sustainable and transferable to 
relevant local institutions, communities, cooperatives, businesses before the project 
ends?
88
o Is the project able to leverage additional financial resources from the government, 
private sector or other projects, donors or partners? If so, please describe how this has 
been accomplished?
o What additional steps need to be taken in order to improve the chances for 
sustainability of the activities and benefits derived from the project activities?
o Do beneficiaries perceive benefits of project activities being sustainable beyond the life 
of the project? What factors do they see as key to sustainability?
o What recommendations can be made so as to improve chances for sustainability of 
activity derived benefits?
3. Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) Methodology
The evaluation will take a retrospective and prospective approach in the process of engaging 
targeted respondents. It will be mainly qualitative in design and participatory in approach, but 
will also include a review of secondary and project monitoring data to answer some of the basic 
evaluation questions. Hence, the evaluation methodology will employ the following major data 
collection techniques.
3.1. Desk Review:
The first methodology to be used will be a desk review, which will ensure the evaluators have a 
good basic understanding of the project before implementing other aspects of the evaluation. 
Key project documents, including the proposal: cooperative agreement, PMP, semi-annual and 
other regular reports, training and review meeting proceedings, baseline survey report, 
agreements with line offices and grantees, planning and field trip reports, grants 
documentation and M&E database will be part of the review to help the evaluation team better 
understand the context in which the project operates. Information from the desk review, will 
also serve as the basis to design data collection instruments for the evaluation field work.
3.2. Analysis of Other Secondary Data:
This data includes project databases, feed manufacturing union sales data, forage seed 
distribution lists, woreda level forage and livestock data and other regional and national 
livestock and assessment data that can be reviewed, summarized and analyzed in relation to 
the evaluation questions and will provide additional context for primary data collection.
3.3. Key Informant Interviews:
The evaluation team will interview USDA representatives both in Washington, DC (via telecom) 
and in Ethiopia as well as implementing partners, national and local government partners, 
project beneficiaries (cooperatives, unions, smallholder farmers, nursery managers, ingredient
89
and equipment suppliers, equipment manufacturers, feed industry association, etc.) and other 
stakeholders. The evaluation team will develop different interview checklists to use depending 
on the key information to be interviewed.
3.4. Observations:
The evaluation team will visit and observe to determine the existence and functioning of feed 
mills and other equipment forage seed development nursery sites and backyard forage 
production, livestock enterprises provided by and/or developed with assistance from FEED II.
3.5. Focus Group Discussions:
The evaluation team will conduct focus group discussions in each selected site to obtain 
detailed, qualitative information from direct project beneficiaries on their perceptions, 
understanding and benefits they have derived from the project. Separate discussions will be 
organized with men and women to facilitate their equal and full participation in the discourse. 
The consulting firm will propose the methods to be used for selecting focus group participants.
3.6. Case Studies (History of Change):
The evaluation team will explore and document one or two cases as examples of project 
impact. These case studies will tell what happened when, to whom, and with what 
consequences.
Since FEED II is being implemented across four regions, the evaluation team will need to 
develop a sample of project sites, beneficiaries, stakeholders (key informant interviews), field 
observations and focus group discussions to use. Therefore, the consulting firm is expected to 
propose sampling/selection techniques to be used for this purpose to ensure development of 
accurate, relevant, confident and reliable findings and recommendations.
4. Quality Assurance
The evaluation team will develop a quality assurance mechanism to ensure the collected 
information and evaluation product is of the highest quality. If the expected standards are not 
met, the evaluations team/consulting firm will, at its own expense, make the necessary 
amendmentsto bring the evaluation products to the required quality level.
5. Evaluation Team Composition/Qualifications
The team leader is required to have strong expertise and experience in designing and 
conducting program evaluations. He/she must also have an agricultural and livestock
90
background with extensive experience in livestock, strong analytical and communication skills, 
extensive evaluation experience, and an understanding of the livestock value chain, including 
knowledge of the farmer/cooperative/union functional relationship, operational environment 
and feed manufacturing industry.
MTE team leader (TL) will coordinate between program management and MTE team 
members and ensure the overall quality of the MTE. S/he will assure the achievement of 
approved evaluation plan and the rigors of the evaluation methods employed by the other 
team members, as well as take the lead in evaluating the overall project management, the 
integration of activities, and the quality and usefulness of the project M&E systems.
 The TL shall work with project management on MTE planning and logistics; assign
responsibilities and provide support to the other MTE team members; and organize and 
facilitate team interaction.
The TL is responsible for compiling and delivering the final report and other evaluation 
outputs and coordinating MTE team responses to the feedback on the draft report.
The TL also will spearhead the process to validate the initial observations and 
interpretations and to plan in-country presentations to program stakeholders.
S/he should possess strong evaluation management skills and prior experience in 
successfully leading evaluation teams.
It is highly desired that team members also have knowledge of Ethiopia agricultural and 
livestock policies, including the five-year, Growth and Transformation Plan and draft Livestock 
Master Plan. The team should also include a member with a gender in development or at least 
a sociological background.
5.1. Desired qualifications and responsibilities of the team members
The table below provides key qualification and responsibilities of the team members.
Position Required Qualifications Responsibilities
Team leader Significant formal education at the post 
graduate level in a field relevant to 
evaluation (e.g. program evaluation,
statistics, anthropology, applied research, 
sociology, etc.) Applicants that do not hold 
a graduate degree in a related field should 
document relevant formal education.
 Extensive experience in agricultural and 
livestock, including knowledge of the 
farmer/ cooperative/union functional 
relationship, operational environment and
Organize and lead the overall 
evaluation design and implementation;
Assure a thorough review and analysis 
of available secondary data by the 
appropriate team member(s),
Lead the selection of a purposively￾selected sample of activity sites and 
outputs for primary data collection
Assure adequate triangulation and 
validation of findings;
Lead the collection and analyses of
91
feed manufacturing industry.
 Extensive experience using mixed methods 
of investigation (qualitative and 
quantitative) in developing countries.
 Strong critical analysis and report-writing 
skills
 Excellent verbal and written communication 
in English
 Knowledge of the conceptual framework of 
food security and nutrition and experience 
in food security programming is highly 
desirable.
 Previous experience working in rural 
Ethiopia or East Africa region will be 
preferred
primary and secondary data to
evaluate the program’s M&E processes 
and the integration of program sectors 
and activities;
Assure that 1) final report presentation 
is logical and presented in a way that 
clearly separatesfindings, conclusions, 
and recommendations, are based on 
evidence presented in the report
Ensure timeliness and quality of all 
products/activities required to 
complete this evaluation
Lead the development and 
modification of the data collection 
tools, as appropriate.
Ensure that translations of 
forms/documentation are accurate
Submit all the documents related to 
the study (filled questionnaires, 
electronic versions of the collected 
data, training manual, fieldwork logs, 
etc.)
Technical specialists Advanced degree in a relevant academic 
field including agriculture, public health,
nutrition, gender, natural resources 
management, rural development, women’s 
studies, or conflict mitigation
 Demonstrated extensive use of high level 
skills and methods of qualitative research 
and evaluation in his/her technical sector in 
developing countries
 Previous experience working in rural 
Ethiopian or East Africa region will be 
preferred
 Excellent verbal and written 
communication in English required
Lead the collection and analyses of 
primary and secondary technical data
related to his/her technical field,
Prepare and respond to feedback for 
all sections of the MTE report related 
to his/her sector.
5.2. Project responsibilities
FEED II Project management will be responsible for the following:
Facilitate meetings between the MTE team and USDA, local government, partners, 
beneficiaries, other stakeholders;
92
Provide administrative and logistics support to the MTE team, such as scheduling 
appointments with stakeholders and coordinating with partners. FEED II will make 
available one vehicle and driver to the MTE team for the duration of the field work.
Provide consultants with background documents, reports, data and other materials such 
as those listed below
Provide available data on all components required by the MTE team, such as human 
resources, M&E systems and financial managementstructures.
Lists of activity locations, identifying the type(s) of activities at each location, and the 
dates of implementation, numbers of direct and indirect beneficiaries.
Maps showing the project area with administrative boundaries, roads, markets, food 
distribution points, activity sites, partner office, lodging, livelihood or ecologic zones, 
etc.
Approved proposal narrative and relevant attachments and documentation of approved 
modifications
All monthly, and semi-annual reports
Annual survey reports
Baseline report and reports from all research conducted for the project’s benefit (e.g. 
formative research, barrier analyses, gender analyses, market analyses…)
Project monitoring tools and manuals
Complete M&E plan/PMP
Login and password to access to project database and a detailed description of the data 
base
Examples and lists of recipients of all types of routine monitoring reports
A current organ gram of project staff (with names and phone numbers for incumbents
and notation of vacancies) showing supervision/management lines
Detailed Implementation plan and guidelines
The evaluation team will review key project and other documents, including but not 
limited to:
 Technical proposal
 Cooperative agreement
 Annual work plans
 USDA evaluation policy
 Grants documentation
 Quarterly review meeting proceedings
 ACDI/VOCA Gender Policy
 M&E and learning operational plan
 Gender Analysis, Strategy and Integration Plans
93
 Ethiopia Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP), 2010/11-2014/15, Ministry of
Finance and Economic Development (MoFED) (2010).
 Ethiopia Agriculture Sector Development Plan
 Draft Ethiopia Livestock Master Plan
6. Deliverables and Timeline
The following deliverables are expected from the evaluation team:
Inception Report – This report focuses on methodological and planning aspects and will be 
considered the operational plan of the evaluation. It will present the evaluation methodology 
including data collection tools. It will also present the division of tasks amongst team members 
as well as a detailed timeline for the evaluation fieldwork and for a stakeholders’ consultation.
Including:
evaluation methodology
roles/responsibilities of each team member
protocols and instruments for data collection and analyses
evaluation itinerary
statement of limitations of the methods and potential effects on results
Validation Workshop – To validate the findings of the draft report, the evaluation team will 
conduct validation workshops both at regional level during data collection and preliminary 
analysis and finally at national level. Representatives of key partners/stakeholders, including 
USDA, the feed industry association, union leaders, private enterprises in the sector and 
government representatives will take part in the workshop.
Evaluation Report- The evaluation report will present the findings, limitations, conclusions and 
recommendations of the evaluation as per the agreed outline of the report. Findings should be 
evidence-based and relevant to the evaluation objectives. The evaluation findings and 
conclusions should be presented for different levels of beneficiaries, including smallholder 
farmers, unions and other direct beneficiaries. There should be a logical flow findings to 
conclusions and from conclusions to recommendations. Recommendations will be action￾oriented, practical and specific.
a) Comprehensive report written in English and not to exceed 35 pages excluding title page, 
table of contents, glossary of terms and acronyms, acknowledgements, executive summary 
(not more than 2 pages), photos, footnotes, endnotes and annexes, and including the 
following components:
Background (brief)
Evaluation purpose and objectives
94
Evaluation methods (details may be put in annex)
Findings related to each key evaluation question
Discussion and conclusions
Recommendations, with prioritization based on their potential impact on project 
implementation and results, their feasibility in application and resource 
requirements.
Annexes
b) Electronic files of the clean (final) qualitative (and potentially some quantitative) data 
collected.
Brief Evaluation Report - A two-page brief of the evaluation that will summarize the evaluation 
report and serve to enhance dissemination of its main findings.
Table-1: Activities, Timeline and Responsibilities
Activities Date Responsible
Phase I: Preparation
Provide introductory briefing on FEED II including expectations 
and requirementsfor the evaluation
Provide background materialsfor the evaluation team
Desk review, initial consultations and drafting of the inception 
report (including methodology, quality assurance techniques, 
evaluation fieldwork and detail planning)
Develop information field work (including arrangement of 
meetings, field visits, etc.)
Meet with USDA representatives
Present, submit and obtain approval of inception report from
FEED II and HQ management
August 2015
“ 
“
“ 
“
“ 
“
FEED II
“
Evaluation team
“ 
“
“
Both
Phase II: field work
Data collection
Interviews/discussions with key stakeholders, project site 
visits, etc.
Data compilation and analysis
Organize regional validation workshop for stakeholders
Receive feedback
Aug/September2015 Evaluation team
Phase III: Validation workshop
Organize regional and national validation workshops
Present preliminary findings of the mid-term evaluation
Receive feedback from stakeholders
Late 
September/Early 
October
FEED II 
Evaluation team 
“
Phase IV: Reporting
Incorporate feedback from stakeholders and FEED II meeting
Develop draft evaluation report
October 2015 Evaluation team
95
Present draft report to FEED II
Finalize evaluation report
Develop brief evaluation report
Submit final report
Phase IV: Dissemination report
Final evaluation report dissemination
Recommendation implementation and follow-up
October 2015 FEED II
7. Ethical Guidelines
Every member of the evaluation team must adhere to ethical guidelines as outlined in the 
American Evaluation Association’s Guiding Principles for Evaluators. A summary of these 
guidelines is provided below. A more detailed description can be found at
http://www.eval.org/p/cm/id/fid=51
1. Systematic Inquiry: Evaluators conduct systematic, data-based inquiries.
2. Competence: the evaluation team possesses the education, abilities, skills and 
experience appropriate to undertake the tasks proposed in the evaluation. Evaluators 
practice within the limits of their professional training and competence, and decline to 
conduct evaluations that fall substantially outside those limits. The evaluation team 
collectively demonstrates cultural competence.
3. Integrity/Honesty: Evaluators display honesty and integrity in their own behavior, and
attempt to ensure the honesty and integrity of the entire evaluation process.
4. Respect for People: evaluators respect the security; dignity and self-worth of 
respondents, program participants, clients, and other evaluation stakeholders, 
evaluators regard informed consent for participation in evaluation and inform 
participants and clients about the scope and limits of confidentiality.
5. Responsibilities for General and Public Welfare: Evaluators articulate and take into 
account the diversity of general and public interests and values that may be related to 
the evaluation.
6. Required Content of the Proposal
The consulting firm’s proposal must include, but is not limited to the following sections and 
information:
Background- this should include a description of the firm and details of its expertise and 
experience in carrying out similar evaluation activities.
Comments/Suggestions on the SoW – particularly if the firm feels there are aspects that need 
to be changed for them to implement and exceptionally good evaluation.
Evaluation Methodology
96
o Evaluation Approach
o Techniques Employed in Selection of Sites, Participants and Key Informants
o Compilation and Analysis Techniques
Proposed timeframe for the overall evaluation process, including validation workshop
Presentation Outline for the Validation Workshop
Outline of the final Midterm Evaluation Report
Cost of the Evaluation, excluding Validation Workshop
Evaluation Team Composition, including Descriptions of Credentials and CVs of proposed
Members
8. Instruction for Proposal Preparation
The selection committee made up of staff from ACDI/VOCA will evaluate the Offerors based 
upon their written technical and cost proposals. Each section will be evaluated according to the 
criteria for evaluations below. Offerors are expected to examine the specifications and all 
instructions in the SOW. Failure to do so is at the Offeror’s risk. Interested Offerors must 
provide the following:
8.1. Capability and Technical Experience statement
Demonstrate capabilities and technical experience by providing the following: (Illustrative only;
insert detail and page numbers for any item selected)
a. Organization Overview: 1 page description of firm;
b. Capabilities Statement: 1 page description of relevant capacities and experience;
c. Three past Performance referencesfrom similar evaluations
d. Project Approach: a detailed proposal explaining how the firm intends to achieve the 
expectations set forth in section II (the attached SOW documents), including 
specifications of any data collection equipment required. This proposal should include 
the following:
Evaluation approach
Proposed methodology
Detailed implementation plan
Outline of activities/task to be completed
8.2. Project Staffing
Identify the project staffing and the time each will spend on this activity. Include no more 
than a half-page bio-sketch for each individual considered essential for the successful 
implementation of this contract. Staff proposed must possess the required qualification and 
be able to conduct the responsibilities outlined in the SOWs. The Team leader should be
97
responsible of overseeing the implementation of both of the SOWs in order to ensure 
consistency in implementation of methodology and reporting of findings. The Team Leader 
should have significant formal education at the post graduate level in a field relevant to 
evaluation, extensive experience using mixed methods of investigation and leading 
performance evaluations. The Technical Specialists should have an advanced degree in a 
relevant academic field and demonstrated experience using high level skills and methods of 
qualitative research and evaluation in their technical sector in developing countries.
8.3. Cost Proposal
Offerors will submit a proposed budget and budget notes with their proposals in a separate, 
sealed envelope (or separate file, if submitting via email) labeled “Budget Proposal.” 
Separate budgets and detailed budget notes should be prepared for each of the SOWs in 
the templates provided. The proposed budgets will have sufficient detail to allow 
evaluation of elements of costs proposed. The budget line items in the attached template 
are included as examples. The Offeror should adapt th line items to most accurately reflect 
the costs included in their proposa. Budgets should be submitted in the currency in which 
your organization is located and will be paid; please label your budget with the name of the 
currency. ACDI/VOCA reserves the right to request any additional information to support 
detailed cost and price. The budget notes should provide a narrative breakdown of all costs 
included in the budget. Offerors must indicate if their budget includes or excludes any Value 
Added Tax (Vat),
8.4. References
Please include three client references and contact information. References should have worked 
with your organization within the past two years in connection with the countries or regions 
(and if possible, subject matter) applicable to this RFP.
9. Solicitation Process
Once the SOW is advertised to both international and local audiences on different Monitoring 
and Evaluation websites including the American Evaluation Associations’ website, the Offerors 
must prepare a formal proposal as indicated in section 8 and sent to the contact person at 
ACDI/VOCA. The submitted proposals will be reviewed against the criteria for evaluation 
defined below and rated on their ability to satisfy the requirements stated in this SOW 
document. a preferred offeror will be chosen and formally notified. ACDI/VOCA will be 
negotiating and the selected Offeror, if endorsed will begin work on the mid-term evaluation.
Table- 2 Proposal evaluation Criteria
98
Evaluation Criteria Maximum Score
Approach, Strategy, Methodology 25
Key Staff and Quality Control Mechanisms 25
Company Capabilities 20
Past Performance/References 20
Experience/Presences of Offeror in Region of Country 10
Cost Proposal (Reasonable and Complete) -