REBUILDING 
LIVELIHOODS AND 
RESILIENCY IN 
ZIMBABWE
Mid Term Evaluation of the Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in 
Zimbabwe Project - 674-A-00-10-00002-00
(January 17, 2010 – November 30, 2013) 
Prepared by 
Tawedzegwa Musitini & Lifa Jacob Mazibuko 
Disclaimer: The content of this report is the sole responsibility of the Consultants 
and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of Land O’Lakes Zimbabwe, USAID, 
NADF or any other individual or organization that is affiliated to Land O’Lakes 
International Development. 
ii
Table of Contents 
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................ii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................iv
List of Figures ............................................................................................................ v
Appendices ................................................................................................................ v
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................. vi
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... vii
Executive Summary ................................................................................................. viii
USAID and their Objectives .............................................................................. viii
Background to Dairy in Zimbabwe ..................................................................... viii
Background to smallholder milk production in Zimbabwe........................................ix
The ZDL Project Background ...............................................................................ix
Food and Nutrition Security at HH level Impact ...................................................... x
Component 1 Dairy Production, Collection, and Processing- Results ......................... xi
Preventative Animal Health and Rangeland/Fodder flow Management ..................... xii
Gender and Environmental Considerations ......................................................... xiii
Project design, implementation and achievements ............................................... xiii
Evaluation of processes that affect achievement of project outputs ....................... xiv
Evaluation of project sustainability and beneficiary rating ..................................... xiv
Next Steps for Expanded support to Dairy Industry: ............................................ xiv
Section 1: Background and Objectives .......................................................................... 1
1.1 Background information ................................................................................ 1
1.2 Purpose of the assignment ............................................................................. 1
1.3 Methodology and approach used. .................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Data Sources ......................................................................................... 2
1.3.2 Site Selection ......................................................................................... 3
1.3.3 Household survey data collection .............................................................. 3
1.3.4 Collection and analysis of qualitative data .................................................. 4
1.4 Household demographics ............................................................................... 4
Section 2: Evaluation of project progress ...................................................................... 5
2.1 Food and Nutrition Security at HH level ........................................................... 5
2.1.1 Months of Household Food Provisioning (MHFP) .......................................... 6
2.1.2 Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) ................................................ 7
2.1.3 Milk consumption at household level ......................................................... 8
iii
2.2 Dairy Production, Collection, and Processing .................................................... 8
2.2.1 Volume and value of milk produced by farmers........................................... 8
2.2.2 Milk delivery at MCCs .............................................................................. 9
2.2.3 Milk sales .............................................................................................10
2.2.4 Annual farmer pay-out ..........................................................................11
2.2.5 Milk not delivered to the MCC ................................................................. 12
2.2.6 Income from milk sales .........................................................................12
2.2.7 Profitability of the dairy cow in lactation ..................................................13
2.2.8 Employment Creation ............................................................................13
2.2.9 Adoption of new technologies ................................................................. 14
2.2.10 Access to savings clubs and loans .........................................................15
2.2.11 Sources of borrowed funds ...................................................................16
2.2.12 Uses of borrowed funds .......................................................................17
2.3 Preventative Animal Health and Rangeland/Fodder flow Management ................17
2.3.1 Fodder production .................................................................................17
2.3.2 Veterinary Intervention .........................................................................18
2.3.3 Grazing of dairy cows ............................................................................19
2.3.4 Type of grass used for feeding dairy cows ................................................20
2.4 Donkey Traction and Transport .....................................................................21
2.4.1 Transportation of milk to the MCC ...........................................................21
2.4.2 Gross margin per donkey in traction ........................................................22
2.5 Gender Considerations ................................................................................22
2.5.1 Purchase of dairy inputs ........................................................................22
2.5.2 Decision about using income ..................................................................23
2.5.3 Gender relationship in herding cattle .......................................................23
2.5.4 Gender relationships of family members in milking cattle ...........................24
2.6 Environmental consideration in the ZDL project ..............................................24
2.6.1 Drainage systems and water sources .......................................................24
2.6.2 Composts locations and water sources.....................................................25
2.6.3 Disposal of chemical waste products .......................................................25
2.7 Cost benefit Analysis...................................................................................26
2.7.1 Payback period .....................................................................................26
2.7.2 The Benefit Cost Ratio ...........................................................................27
3.1 Project Design ............................................................................................27
iv
3.2 Project Implementation ...............................................................................28
3.3 Project Achievements as of 30 September 2012 .............................................29
Section 4: Evaluation of processes that affect achievement of project outputs .................32
4.1 The MCC / MPA Methodology ........................................................................32
4.2 The Revolving Fund ....................................................................................32
4.3 Community Livestock Workers (CLWs) ..........................................................33
4.4 Linkage with the private sector ...............................................................33
4.5 Beneficiary training in business management .................................................33
4.6 Beneficiary selection ...................................................................................33
4.7 Linkage with the National Dairy Farmers Association .......................................34
Section 5: Evaluation of sustainability of project outcomes ............................................34
5.1 Conditions necessary for sustainable use of the assets ....................................34
5.1.1 Ensuring ownership of the project by the communities ..............................34
5.1.2 Linkages to government departments ......................................................35
5.1.3 Project to be implemented in an environmentally sustainable approach .......35
5.2 Conditions that threaten sustainability of development projects ........................36
5.2.1 Provision of extension support services ....................................................36
5.3.2 Access to markets .................................................................................37
5.3.3 Macroeconomic environment ..................................................................37
Section 6: Beneficiary rating of the project ..................................................................37
Section 7: Lessons Learnt .........................................................................................38
Section 8: Conclusion and Recommendations ..............................................................40
Annexes ..................................................................................................................42
List of Tables 
Table 1: Summary of HH Survey Sample. ..................................................................... 3
Table 2: Household demographics ................................................................................ 5
Table 3: Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) segregated by location ....................... 8
Table 4: Summary of milk deliveries and farmer pay-outs before and after the ZDL project
..............................................................................................................................10
Table 5: Status of milk not delivered to the MCC per day, per farmer .............................12
Table 6: Uses of income from dairy sales ....................................................................12
Table 7: Gross Margin for a cow in lactation ................................................................13
Table 8: Percentage of farmers with access to savings clubs other than those managed by 
MCCs......................................................................................................................16
Table 9: Farmers with access to donkey/bicycle transport .............................................21
v 
Table 10: Gross Margin /donkey per month ................................................................. 22
Table 11: Project Achievement as at 30 September 2012. .............................................29
List of Figures 
Figure 1: Milk production trend in Zimbabwe (1980 – 2011) ...........................................ix
Figure 2: Total milk volumes delivered to the MCCs (2009 – 2012) ................................. xi
Figure 3: Household Food Adequacy Levels ................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Percentage of Households of with inadequate food supplies ............................... 6
Figure 5: Percentage of Households with no months of food insecurity segregated by 
location ..................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 6: Percentage change in milk consumption at household level for MPA members ...... 8
Figure 7: Average Volumes and values of milk produced by farmers at each location .......... 9
Figure 8: Status (Changes) in farmer milk sales after the ZDL implementation. ...............11
Figure 9: Average annual farmer payout disaggregated by MCC before and after the ZDL 
implementation. .......................................................................................................11
Figure 10: Percentage of households that created employment after the ZDL project. .......14
Figure 11: Proportion of farmers trained in and adopting new technology ........................15
Figure 12: Sources of borrowed funds. ........................................................................16
Figure 13: Uses of borrowed money ...........................................................................17
Figure 14: Average area (in Ha) under fodder production per farmer ..............................18
Figure 15: Sources of Veterinary Intervention for HH. ...................................................19
Figure 16: Methods of grazing dairy cows ....................................................................20
Figure 17: Type of grass used to feed dairy cattle ........................................................20
Figure 18: Use of donkeys for milk transportation ........................................................21
Figure 19: Decision making in the purchase of dairy cows .............................................22
Figure 20: Decision making on the use of income from dairy cows. ...............................23
Figure 21: Gender responsibility on herding cattle ........................................................23
Figure 22: Gender roles in milking cows ......................................................................24
Figure 23: Percentage of Households with cow shades of a certain distance from the water 
source ....................................................................................................................25
Figure 24: Distances of compost from the water source ................................................25
Figure 25: Chemical disposal methods ........................................................................26
Figure 26: Respondents rating of the programme .........................................................38
Appendices
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference (TOR) .......................................................................43
Appendix 2: List of Persons and Organizations Consulted ..............................................49
Appendix 3: Household questionnaire .........................................................................50
Appendix 4: Key Informants’ Guidelines......................................................................70
Appendix 5: Focus Group Discussion Guide..................................................................75
vi
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ABS Accounting Bureau System 
AGRITEX Agricultural Technical and Extension Services 
AI Artificial Insemination 
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome 
DA District Administrator 
DZL Dairy Board Zimbabwe (Private Limited) 
FGD Focus Group Discussion 
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization 
FTLRP Fast Track Land Reform programme 
GPA Global Political Agreement 
GoZ Government of Zimbabwe 
HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score 
HH Household 
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus 
IR Intermediate Result 
Kg Kilogram 
LPD Livestock Production Department 
MAHFP Months of Adequate Household Food Provision 
M & E Monitoring and Evaluation 
MCC Milk Collection Centre 
MTE Mid Term Evaluation 
MPG Milk Producer Group 
NADF National Association of Dairy Farmers 
CLW Community Livestock Worker 
NGO Non-Governmental Organization 
NR Natural Region 
RDC Rural District Council 
SADC Southern African Development Community 
TB Tuberculosis 
TOR Terms of Reference 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
WHO World Health Organization of the United Nations 
USD United States Dollar 
ZLD Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe 
vii 
Acknowledgements 
The consulting team would like to thank the Land O’Lakes and NADF staff working on the 
ZDL program for the time they invested in this evaluation. We are particularly grateful to 
the M & E Specialist, Cathrine Mashayamombe, and the M & E Assistant, Ozias Mombo, and 
the rest of the project team, for providing endless support and patience in finding key 
information and linking us with the wide-range of key informants and participants. We also 
appreciate the extensive comments we received from David Harvey (Country Manager, 
Zimbabwe) Steve Aversa (Country Representative, Madagascar) and Daniel Dianga 
(Regional M & E Specialist). Our heartfelt gratitude goes to the Administration and Finance 
Manager, Spencer Ngoma for excellently assisting with the administrative component of the 
work. We also appreciate the enumerators that accompanied us in the field and were pivotal 
in the collection of evaluation data; Silas Masawi, Sign Gwapedza, Tapiwa Muzenda, 
Munyaradzi Matovore, Rosemary Bovore, Rumbidzai Thoma, George Mapope and Pedzisai 
Mandizvidza. Without their help, we would not have been able to collect the quantity and 
exceptional quality data that we did. Special thanks to the Land O’Lakes field staff for 
arranging all the meetings we requested and also taking the time to engage in a critical 
analysis of the ZDL program. 
We appreciated the opportunity to meet with those professionals, community leaders, 
communities and local delivery partners who gave freely of their time to discuss the 
program performance and share their ideas on the ZDL program and food security in their 
respective districts. Their input provided valuable insight for this report. 
The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this report are entirely those of 
the authors. Every effort was made to ensure the accuracy and validity of the findings and 
conclusions contained in this report. However, errors and gaps in the analysis are possible. 
We take responsibility for any and all such omissions or inaccuracies. 
Tawedzegwa Musitini 
Lifa Jacob Mazibuko 
November 2012 
viii 
Executive Summary 
USAID and their Objectives 
Since January 17, 2010, Land O’Lakes International Development has been implementing 
the Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe (ZDL) Project. Initially, the project 
was to be completed in January 2011, but it was later extended by an additional two years 
in May 2011 up to May 31, 2013. A further extension up to November 30, 2013 was later 
granted after realizing that there were some outstanding issues to be fulfilled. This project 
was initiated with the objective of supporting USAID/Zimbabwe’s Assistance Objective 3: 
Livelihoods Restored and Maintained/Economy Stabilized and Growing and Assistance and 
Objective 4: Increased Income and Employment Generated by the Agricultural Sector by 
contributing to the following IRs and sub IRs: 
 IR 3.2: Basic Economic Activity and Livelihoods, Income Generation, and 
Employment 
o Sub-IR 3.2.1: Improved Livelihoods, Income Generation, and Employment. 
 IR 4.1: Increased Agricultural Production 
o Sub-IR 4.1.1: Contract Farming and Out grower Schemes Strengthened 
It was expected that the significant gains from dairy in terms of income, improved food 
security and improved asset base that had been demonstrated regionally could be replicated 
in Zimbabwe. 
Background to Dairy in Zimbabwe 
Zimbabwe had once been a major milk producer and exporter of milk throughout the SADC 
region, peaking at approximately 260 million liters in 1990. During the same period, several 
Zimbabwean Companies exported milk and purchased other milk producing companies 
regionally. However, Zimbabwe has faced a decline in agricultural production, for nearly a 
decade between the late 1990s and 2008 due to a complex combination of socio-economic, 
political and environmental factors. This has negatively affected the ability of many dairy 
farmers to remain in viable milk business. Sadly, by 2008 the total annual milk volume was 
less than 35 million liters, and many milk processing plants in the country had been shut 
down. The country was thus running at less than 30% of installed capacity. 
The signing of the Global Political Agreement (GPA) in September 2008 which led to the 
formation of an “all inclusive government” and the subsequent dollarization of the economy 
in February 2009 saw a recovery in many sectors of the economy. However, the large scale 
agricultural productive base which had been eroded by the Fast Track Land Reform 
Programme (FTLRP) saw large scale dairy farmers decreasing from 423 in 2000 to less than 
120 in 2012 (ZADIT, 2012). Currently, Zimbabwe is importing more than 60 million litres of 
milk annually. 
This is part of desperate efforts which are done to meet the increased consumer demand. 
There is therefore need to provide a lasting solution to a unique situation for smallholder 
producers to meet this demand. Fig 1 below summarizes the annual milk production trends 
in Zimbabwe from 1980 to 2011. 
ix
Figure 1: Milk production trend in Zimbabwe (1980 – 2011) 
Background to smallholder milk production in Zimbabwe 
The small holder dairy sector started to be developed in earnest since 1980 as a poverty 
alleviation tool and a method to raise farm incomes, improved nutrition and employment in 
rural areas. Numerous “schemes” had been set up in the 1990s often with subsidies to 
cover running costs, and administered by government departments. During this period, a 
total of 35 sites were set up nationally. Whilst a few are currently operating, the majority of 
them never ever opened. The private sector saw such projects as a social corporate 
responsibility rather than viable business that could supply quality products. Many of the 
site selection criteria did not take into account markets, or where dairy farmers were 
located so often requiring substantial subsidies in transport and running costs of the 
centers. With the hyperinflation of the 2000s, nearly all the centers stopped functioning as 
the subsidies could no longer be paid and markets imploded. The year 2009 saw seven 
centers reopening via EU Stabex fund, which was administered by NADF. This approach has 
been criticized for focusing more on production of milk than on markets linkages and center 
financial management. 
The ZDL Project Background 
In the Zimbabwean context, the challenge of reducing food insecurity for vulnerable people 
and helping them recover from economic meltdown most usually means helping 
communities to cope better with the risk of drought and diversify of their livelihoods. Less 
than 20% of the country’s total estimated irrigation capacity is currently being utilized and 
the most frequent cause of food deprivation is the failure of rain-fed crops on smallholder 
farms (AGRITEX, 2011). Moreover, because virtually all Zimbabwean farmers grow maize as 
their staple food, variability in rainfall is particularly dangerous and exposes a great many 
households to food insecurity. Other causes of food insecurity in Zimbabwe relate to the 
high unemployment rates following the hyperinflation period, migration of young people 
x 
overseas and other generally adverse economic conditions that are mirrored in the high 
rural and urban poverty rates. 
Taken together, these strategic and practical considerations suggest that the main objective 
for an income-based food access program like ZDL is to prevent vulnerable but viable 
households from requiring food assistance during the next drought or other economic crisis. 
To achieve this result, Land O'Lakes is focused on long-term access elements of food 
security. Through a unique value chain approach, Land O’Lakes is looking to improve rural 
incomes from dairy production and goat production (the goat production focus was not part 
of the extended program). The program specifically targets households who live close to 
existing milk centers with the prospect that they will eventually become resilient to external 
shocks, and cope more easily with negative trends and seasonality. By increasing farmer 
capacity to earn greater income through informal and formal milk marketing, and 
maximizing livestock product yields, program beneficiaries are expected to be less 
dependent over the long-run on variations in traditional crop production and raise 
incomes. The program not only increases household access to food through income 
earnings, but also by increasing the consumption of milk by household members and other 
dairy revenue streams, and by providing manure that can be used to fertilize up to about 
1ha of maize per year or for vegetable gardens around the house. This was in addition to 
the use of dairy male calves for beef and / or draught power. 
The project aims to build the livelihoods and promote food security of farmers through 
interventions in the livestock and dairy value chains. The project components currently in 
the project and activities under this project include;
i. Component 1: Dairy Production, Collection, and Processing-linking smallholder dairy 
farmers to milk markets. 
ii. Component 2: Increased Capacity in Preventive Animal Health and Rangeland 
Management – improving access to animal health and on farm fodder production. 
iii. Component 3: A Donkey Transport Pilot Project to develop donkey traction in support 
of the dairy production. 
iv. There was a fourth component of goat production but this was not funded in the 
extension and so not part of this evaluation. 
Food and Nutrition Security at HH level Impact 
The Majority of the beneficial households (88%) reported that they have adequate supplies 
of basic food all year round while some 12% reported that they experience occasional 
shortages in some months of the year. Food insecurity is usually experienced between 
January and March of each year. The average Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) 
for this survey was 7.6 meaning to say that on average targeted households consumed at 
least 7 out of the 12 food groups within a 24 hour period. This figure is slightly higher than 
the 7.2 score at baseline. There is a general increase in milk consumption (66.7%) across 
all the sites visited. Increases were mainly attributed to increase in production which is 
directly attributed to the project. People tend to consume more milk when production is 
higher than when production is lower. Dairy cows are normally milked twice per day and 
most of the afternoon production is either consumed at home or sold in the local markets. 
xi
Component 1 Dairy Production, Collection, and Processing- Results 
The survey show that, milk delivery at MCCs has increased by 672% from an average of 
11,754 liters in June 2009 to an average of 90,762 liters in September 2012 (Fig 2). 
Figure 2: Total milk volumes delivered to the MCCs (2009 – 2012) 
Many farmers do not deliver all the milk to the MCCs since for many it is technically 
impossible to have more than one trips to the MCC due distance challenges while, others 
just choose to keep some of the milk for other uses. On an average day, a farmer keeps 2.2 
liters per day of his/her production, 1.1 liters are consumed by the household, 0.7 liters are 
used to feed the calf, 0.3 liters are sold in the local markets and 0.1 liters are given to 
relatives, friends and neighbors. About half (49.8%) of the income from milk sales is used 
for purchasing staple food. The other uses include purchasing agriculture inputs (12.2%), 
paying for school fees (10.2%) and purchasing groceries (11.4%). 
An average mixed / exotic breed results in a gross margin of about USD85 per month while 
a local breed has a gross margin of about USD19 per month. Although local breeds are 
profitable, their returns are too low to justify a viable business investment. 
On average 60% of the farmers reported hiring at least one person on a full time basis after 
the launch of the ZDL project. Although such laborers sometimes assist with other duties at 
the farm, their main duty is to assist with the dairy enterprise which is the reason why they 
were hired. 
Every household interviewed acknowledged receiving several business trainings as well as 
trainings in new technologies from Land O'Lakes and partners and more than 90% of the 
farmers have proceeded to adopt the trained technologies on their farms. The business 
trainings have improved efficiency and financial accountability at farm level. Partnership 
between NADF and Land O'Lakes has improved the effectiveness of the trainings and the 
general success of the ZDL project. 
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
VOLUME OF MILK IN LITRES
MONTH
2009
2010
2011
2012
xii 
Milk marketing. At the assembly or bulking level, the project seeks to increase the 
quantity of raw milk supplied by smallholder farmers to rural milk collection centers (MCCs) 
for onward sale to dairy processors, or local processing and onto other buyers. 
As mentioned earlier smallholder dairy had a subsidized past with a social rather than a 
business focus the running of the MCCs without subsidies and qualified staff was a major 
area of weakness. MCCs needed a complete change in focus away from social goals to a 
core responsibility as a marketing center to provide farmers a secure and remunerative 
outlet for their surplus milk. Land O'Lakes/NADF has had to invest considerable time and 
resources in working with existing MCCs and helping to rehabilitate other centers completely 
from the ground up. Technical assistance has focused in particular on business management 
and the running of the centers, quality analysis (introduction of platform tests) and 
installation of cooling tanks and other dairy hygiene equipment needed for small farmers to 
compete in the formal market. 
The program’s quality control and other technical assistance is important and appears to be 
making excellent progress, these investments coupled with the other fundamental aspects 
of market development, including training in business management and cooperative 
principles have assisted several MCCs turn the corner from loss to profit. Several MCCs had 
been struggling with deep management problems and lack the capacity to prepare a 
realistic business plan that is focused on the core responsibility of a marketing center, which 
is to provide farmers a secure and remunerative outlet for their milk. 
The ZDL’s market development work at times is also being complicated by elaborate 
arrangements at the MCC level including promises that the marketing center will manage 
various types of revolving funds, group procurement of inputs, and artificial insemination 
services. Because little distinction is usually made between the farmer group and MCC, 
these centers are also variably regarded by different stakeholders as a focal point for 
nutrition clubs and awareness building on prevention and care of HIV/AIDS. These 
development goals are each important, but must not get in the way of the center’s primary 
marketing function and other fundamentals of good business management. 
Considerable efforts and focus has been put on MCC management and development of 
systems including financial management and the provision of business development services 
like the Accounting Bureau System (ABS). These have had success in assisting MCC 
management and board to change their focus. 
Preventative Animal Health and Rangeland/Fodder flow Management 
Findings from the survey indicate that farmers across different sites grow an average of 0.7 
ha of fodder. At baseline, no one was producing fodder. 
Every farmer interviewed acknowledged that they are using better veterinary intervention 
methods than before the ZDL project. Although there are several sources of veterinary 
extension advice which include the government departments, NGOs, Community Livestock 
Workers (CLWs) and private veterinarians, many farmers (more than 60%) are treating 
their animals on their own. 
xiii 
Farmers use a mixture of grazing methods for feeding their dairy cows; the most common 
being paddock grazing (35.6%), followed by zero grazing (20.3%), and open range 
(16.8%). Almost half of the farmers (44.1%) use cultivated pastures while a significant 
number (38.8%) use natural pastures and only 16.7% use purchased dairy feed for feeding 
their cows. 
Farmers use different modes of transport to carry milk from their farms to MCCs, ranging 
from cars, public transport, scotch carts, bicycles and donkeys. Although farmers 
acknowledged that using donkeys to transport milk to the MCCs was both cheaper and 
sustainable, only 6.2% of the farmers were actually using donkeys for milk transportation. 
The average gross margin for a donkey in traction is USD30 per month. The use of donkeys 
for carrying milk becomes difficult when distances are long (more than 10 km). 
Gender and Environmental Considerations 
The involvement of women and youth in key ZDL activities will help guarantee that project 
outcomes are sustainable. Currently 33% of the benefitting households are female whilst 
28% of MCC/MPA committee members were female. In many cases decisions about the 
purchase of dairy inputs are generally made by both husband and wife (46.7%), wife alone 
(24.5%) and husband alone (19.6%). It was also noted that decisions about using money 
from milk sales are generally made by both male and females together (50.2%). 
Surprisingly women are more involved (23.3%) in individual decision making process than 
men (18.8%). Most females who were involved on their own were unmarried. Children and 
other household members are rarely involved (less than 10%) in the decisions about 
money. Youth are more involved in cattle herding than other household members with 
46.2% of surveyed households indicating the duty is reserved for them. In some cases, men 
(17.6%) and women (10.9%) are also involved with cattle herding. In many families, 
milking is generally carried out by youth (35.6%) and adult males (22.4%). Women are 
generally not involved in such roles (10.9%). 
It is desirable that cow shades, composts and milking parlors be located at least 8m from 
the water sources to avoid contamination. Most of the shades (56.4%) are located more 
than eight meters from the water sources, some 31.4% are located between 3 – 8 meters 
from the water sources whilst only 12.2% are located within three meters from the water 
source. A significant amount of people (58.6%) located their composts at a distance of more 
than eight meters from the water source while some 33.3% were located within a distance 
of 3 – 8 meters from the water source. Small portions (8.1%) of the composts were located 
with a distance of 3 meters from the water source. Most of the waste chemicals are either 
thrown in the toilets (55.4%), burnt (24.5%), or buried under ground (16.6%). Only 1.3% 
is thrown onto the open ground. 
Project design, implementation and achievements 
The ZDL project was designed to allow empowerment through training, market linkages and 
technical support. The design is such that communities actively participate in the project 
rather than being passive recipients of a foreign idea. The MCC / MPA methodology entrusts 
xiv 
the MCC committee members to make all the major decisions about their operations 
thereby making this approach sustainable in the medium to long term. Project 
achievements include; increases in the milk produced, marketed and consumed, increases 
in the area under fodder, as well as increases in annual farmer payouts. 
Evaluation of processes that affect achievement of project outputs 
Unlike other approaches, the MCC methodology allows farmers to access cheaper inputs and 
bulk the milk for better markets. The MCC /MPA methodology also allow farmers to manage 
the project through committees. This is more sustainable in the long run. The revolving fund 
for feed and cows also enables farmers to take the project more seriously. This is different 
from relief interventions which are usually for free. Training of CLWs complement 
government efforts as well as enhancing project sustainability through presence of trained 
personnel in the area. The project is also linked to the private sector for sustainability. 
Beneficiaries of this project are selected based on willingness as well as ability to 
participate. Training in business management and new technologies is also done to equip 
dairy farmers with new information. 
Evaluation of project sustainability and beneficiary rating 
Although the beneficiaries of the project were not directly involved in the project design, 
they were actively involved in the planning and implementation of the project. This is a 
critical condition necessary for the sustainable development of dairy projects. This 
approach enhanced ownership and community maintenance of the project assets both of 
which emerged as fundamental requirements for sustainability. However, MCC management 
committees still required further capacity building to prepare for management of the project 
after program termination. Some threats to the sustainable development of dairy projects 
were identified and they included; inadequate extension support, natural resource 
degradation, inadequate markets, droughts and political instability. Sadly, most of the 
threats to sustainability are external in the sense that farmers are not directly responsible 
for them. In spite of all these limitations, the project is highly rated by both beneficiaries 
and stakeholders. More than 80% of the farmers are either satisfied or highly satisfied with 
the project approach. 
Next Steps for Expanded support to Dairy Industry: - 
1. Expansion of Milk center network – The MTE has found that incomes of 
smallholders can be substantially increased by their integration into the dairy value 
chain and it has been demonstrated that this is a cost effective investment. The 
number of existing centers that could effectively generate surplus milk and are 
located to supply markets are limited. So a way of spreading this effective way of 
increasing incomes to new areas and sites could be identified with the private sector 
involvement, filling in the so called milk pockets/sheds. 
2. Development of support services – ZDL has started the process of working with 
private sector service providers to assist in the better targeting of smallholder dairy 
farmers. This could be further developed especially in technical advice and financial 
services. 
xv
3. Improved productivity and farm management – The focus on farm level 
business management and improving productivity is never over and the challenges 
on improving farmers’ competitiveness in the high cost Zimbabwe environment. 
Focus on farm grown feeds and fodder is essential to improve competiveness plus 
basic farm management skills. 
4. Processor Competiveness improvements - In addition to getting the 
fundamentals of MCC management right, these new centers also require market 
linkages with formal sector processors. By working directly with small and medium￾scale processors to improve their quality control systems and develop new product 
lines this is key to a vibrant dairy industry. To understand the importance of this, it 
is first necessary to recognize that Zimbabwe is currently a net dairy importer. This 
means the best way to increase the competitiveness of local production is to improve 
on the price and/or quality of local supplies. By improving small and medium dairy 
processors testing of milk/products it would be possible to take a very significant 
step towards this objective by reducing wastage in the marketing system and by 
guaranteeing quality milk is used to produce the type of local products that can 
compete with imports at the highest end of the domestic market. The support could 
be provided to dairy processors would enabled there to be built a direct market 
relations between the smallholder groups that USAID is targeting and the assisted 
firms. At least three processors have so far established, or are in the process of 
establishing, direct market linkages with participating farmer groups. Would these 
new market linkages have developed without Land O’Lakes’ support? This 
hypothetical question is, of course, difficult to answer, but it is worth noting that 
each of the companies mentioned specifically commented that they were worried 
about the quality of smallholder milk and would have been reluctant to buy from 
these farmers without first working on the platform testing of milk improvements 
that Land O’Lakes helped to install. With this in mind, it appears that USAID would 
do well to continue and even expand its work at the processor level, but with a clear￾cut focus on building long-term linkages and even business partnerships between 
new MCCs and interested processors. 
5. Promotion of Milk and Dairy Products - Local milk promotion campaigns and the 
link with nutritional program would assist in further developing and expanding the 
market for local milk products. The private sector has been innovative in switching to 
long life products to combat the short falls in the cold chain, however further 
promotion for consummation of milk is required to increase milk consumption for the 
current 5 liters per person per year to 20 liters per person per year recommended by 
the World Health Organization of the United Nations (WHO). 
1 
Section 1: Background and Objectives 
1.1 Background information 
Zimbabwe faced a decline in agricultural production for nearly a decade between the late 
1990s and 2008 due to a complex combination of socio-economic, political and 
environmental factors. Various factors have contributed to the decline, some of which are a 
constrained policy environment, lack of or limited access to affordable agricultural inputs, 
reduced extension support and climate change variability. This has negatively affected the 
ability of many farming households to access sufficient levels of food through their own 
production and/or normal market channels. The result was widespread chronic food 
insecurity particularly in the rural communities. The population living in rural areas is 
estimated at 65 to 70% which includes the most vulnerable section of the population. 
Unaffordable and unavailable inputs set within the context of unfavorable climatic factors 
and policy constraints continue to lead to poor yields in the agriculture sector. Recent macro 
level economic policy changes, which were introduced at the beginning of 2009, such as the 
introduction of the US dollar and the liberalization of trade restrictions, has resulted in a 
significant shift in approaches to ‘livelihood recovery’ strategies and the re-vamping of the 
once thriving rural markets. 
Among the affected sectors is the dairy sector which, prior to 2000, was driven by large 
scale commercial farmers who were producing enough milk for the local market as well as 
exporting surplus milk and other dairy products. Milk production plunged from an all-time 
annual high of 260 million liters to the current 51 million liters annually1
. The production 
falls far short of the demand estimated at 180 million liters. Since January 2010, Land 
O’Lakes, with partner NADF, has been implementing the Rebuilding Livelihoods and 
Resiliency in Zimbabwe (ZDL) project, in Manicaland, Mashonaland East, Masvingo, 
Midlands and Matabeleland South Provinces of Zimbabwe. This USAID-funded project aims 
to build the livelihoods and promote food security of farmers through interventions in the 
livestock and dairy value chains. The program activities focus on assisting vulnerable 
households, particularly women-lead households, to increase milk production; rebuild the 
goat, cattle and dairy herds through pass-on schemes; improve rangeland/fodder flow 
management and preventative animal health services, stimulate market linkages between 
value chain actors, and promote use of donkey draught power in dairy production. 
1.2 Purpose of the assignment 
The purpose of the assignment is to critically and objectively review the project activities, 
the implementing environment and to assess whether targeted beneficiaries are receiving 
services as expected, and that the project is on track to meeting its stated goals and 
objectives. Furthermore, the mid-term evaluation is an opportunity to document lessons 
and discuss necessary modifications to effectively and efficiently meet the stated goals and 
objectives. Specifically, the midterm evaluation of the Land O’Lakes intervention focused on 
the following performance factors: 
 Evaluation of project progress 
 Evaluation of project design, implementation and achievements, 
 
1
 ARDA Dairy Development Programme (DDP) 
2 
 Evaluation of processes that affect achievement of project outputs 
 Evaluation of sustainability of project outcomes 
 Evaluation of beneficiary rating of project services 
 Documenting lessons learnt 
 Suggesting recommendations for the remaining period of the project 
1.3 Methodology and approach used 
The evaluation was conducted in October 2012 following a work schedule developed by the 
consulting team in conjunction with Land O’Lakes Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Team. 
The review was undertaken in a participatory manner, working intimately with the Land 
O’Lakes M&E team, program staff and stakeholders to document program effects and 
lessons learnt. The evaluation team comprised of two external consultants2
, and eight 
enumerators. The two consultants participated in stakeholder meetings, focus group 
discussions and key informant interviews whilst the enumerators were involved with the 
administration of the household interviews with the guidance of the team leader. 
1.3.1 Data Sources 
The consulting team reviewed several project documents and reports compiled during the 
project implementation period. Secondary information was complemented and put into 
context through information gathered directly from site visits, key informant interviews, 
stakeholders, participants and focus group discussions. Sources of secondary information 
included project design documentation, quarterly reports and baselines surveys, among 
others. From the review of existing monitoring data and periodic assessments conducted by 
Land O’Lakes, the extent to which the project was able to meet its expected results was 
determined. Qualitative sources provided program orientation, directly informed the report, 
identified key informants and served to guide the agenda of key informant interviews. Key 
informants provided extensive and invaluable information regarding all aspects of the 
project implementation, results and coordination with other efforts. 
To complement existing data, primary data collection was conducted through household 
interviews, focus group discussions and key informant interviews. Broadly, the quantitative 
survey objective was to understand how the ZDL project increased household resilience with 
regards to poverty reduction, income creation and food security. The household interview 
was designed to explore issues related to dairy management, fodder production, milk 
transportation, milk marketing and management of MCCs. Random sampling criteria were 
used to allow for an unbiased selection of survey respondents and for the results to be 
generalized at program level. A dominantly closed-ended, pre-coded questionnaire was 
designed, pre-tested, modified and then used to collect household data. The five main 
sources of data for the evaluation could therefore be summarized as: 
i. Analysis and review of secondary data 
ii. Review of project progress reports 
iii. Household survey data 
 
2
Tawedzegwa Musitini – Team Leader and Lifa Jacob Mazibuko- Dairy Specialist
3 
iv. Stakeholder deliberative dialogue using focus group discussions and key informant 
interviews 
v. Direct observation of dairy cows, fodder and MCCs 
1.3.2 Site Selection 
During the field visits made to ten MPAs, focus group discussions were held and household 
interviews were conducted and the summarized information is presented in the Table 1 
below. The evaluation visited eight districts, Makoni, Mutasa, Chipinge, Wedza, Seke, 
Gokwe, Masvingo and Goromonzi. The districts, location/s to be sampled were selected 
using the simple random sampling method. 
Table 1: Summary of HH Survey Sample. 
Province District
Name of 
MCC
No of 
FGDs
HH Interviews
Active 
members
Non 
active 
members Total
Manicaland
Makoni Sangano 2 13 4 17
Makoni Dowa 2 10 2 12
Mutasa Hauna 2 23 7 30
Chipinge Rusitu United 2 15 4 19
Chipinge Mayfield 2 79 25 104
Mashonaland 
East
Wedza Wedza 2 23 7 30
Goromonzi Chikwaka 2 26 4 30
Seke Marirangwe 2 15 4 19
Midlands Gokwe Gokwe 2 28 8 36
Masvingo Masvingo Hamaruomba 2 14 11 25
TOTAL 8 10
20 243 
(75.5%)
79 
(24.5%) 322*
* initially, the sample size was supposed to be 370 but could not be reached because there were fewer people who 
were still active members of MPA’s and delivering milk to the MCC’s. Although non active members were targeted, 
reaching them was constrained. Farmers tend to divorce themselves from active participation in MCC /MPA projects 
when their cows are dry. 
1.3.3 Household survey data collection 
The survey targeted both active (75.5%) and non-active (24.5%) MPA / MCC members. 
Active members were those who had at least one cow in lactation by the time of the survey 
while non-active members were those MPA / MCC members who were not milking any cow 
by the time of the survey. Composition of non-active members comprised of those cows had 
dried up and some beneficiaries of revolving fund loan facility whose cows had not yet 
produced. A two stage sampling strategy was employed to select MPA /MCCs and 
households. The first stage was the selection of MPA’s and the second stage was the 
selection of households. MPAs / MCC were purposively selected while households were 
selected using simple random sampling. During selections of MPAs /MCCs efforts were made 
to involve sites that were at different levels of development and to include sites that were 
4 
distributed in different agro ecological zones. After data was collected, captured and 
cleaned, frequencies and descriptive data were generated and interpreted. This information 
was triangulated with other information sources like quarterly management reports and 
secondary data to answer the study questions and draw conclusions. 
1.3.4 Collection and analysis of qualitative data 
Focus group discussions (FGD) were used to obtain views of groups of stakeholders and the 
key informant interviews were used to obtain individual views of certain individuals in 
isolation. Specific objectives of the FGDs were to: 
 Measure community perceptions on project design and monitoring and their level of 
engagement in implementation. 
 Understand the ZDL project components in detail and skills transferred to the target 
households. 
 Assess the contribution of the ZDL project to household income and food security. 
 Determine the sustainability of the ZDL project towards enhancing household income 
and food security. 
At each of the 10 sites visited, two FGDs (one for males and another one for females) were 
held with about 10 participants (MCC members who regularly supply milk to the center). 
FGD participants were randomly selected from MCC registers using a simple random 
sampling methodology. Detailed interviews using semi-structured checklists were conducted 
with key informants. 
1.4 Household demographics 
Household demographics are useful in the analysis of households’ vulnerability status, 
access to income and food security. Female, elderly and child-headed households tend to be 
more vulnerable and exposed to risk compared to male headed households. There are 
marginal differences in household demographic characteristics by location. The majority of 
the interviewed households are male-headed (ranging from 51.6% male-headed households 
in Wedza to 84.6% in Mayfield). Table 2 illustrates household demographic characteristics 
by project site (MCC). Most of the milk producers were middle aged male-headed 
households. On average, young people (less than 35 years of age) are not so much involved 
in the project. There is no age or any other restriction whatsoever in joining MPA’s but from 
observations, existing members are those that joined the MPA’s at their inception in the 
1980’s and those under the age of 35 were by then very young. In most instances, those 
who wish to join MPA’s have to pay certain fees to compensate for costs met by existing 
members for certain developments like purchase of generators and construction of 
buildings. As a result, most youths will find it difficult to join because of such prohibitive 
costs. In addition to that, there has not been a deliberate attempt to lure youths into joining 
MPA’s either by existing members or independent organizations. 
5 
Table 2: Household demographics 
Although 25% of the interviewed households were male headed, 33% of the actual 
beneficiaries were females. This shows that some of the female beneficiaries came from 
families where the household head is male. From the results, we also noted that 26% of 
respondent households cared for a chronically ill person. This shows a fair representation 
and inclusion in development projects; of households that are caring for HIV and AIDS 
infected persons as well as those with other diseases like diabetes, TB and other chronic 
diseases. 
Section 2: Evaluation of project progress 
2.1 Food and Nutrition Security at HH level 
The evaluation assessed the household food and nutrition security for the MCC/MPA 
beneficiaries. First to be considered was the household food access which is defined as the 
ability to acquire sufficient quality and quantity of food to meet all household members’ 
nutritional requirements for productive lives. The survey computed the household food 
adequacy status during the past twelve months. Most of the households (88%) reported 
that they have adequate supplies of basic food year round and only 12% of the households 
reported that they experience some shortages in some months of the year (Fig 3). 
Name of 
MCC
Gender of HH Head
HH Head 
Mean Age 
(years)
HH with 
Chronically Ill Member
Male 
(%)
Female 
(%) (%) Households
Sangano 81.2 18.8 60.4 25
Dowa 83.3 16.70 59.9 8.3
Chikwaka 63.3 36.7 57.4 13.3
Mayfield 84.6 15.4 55.5 28
Rusitu United 73.7 26.3 55.9 5.3
Hauna 76.7 23.3 53.3 23.3
Hamaruomba 68 32 61.2 44
Gokwe 68.6 31.4 58.0 34.3
Marirangwe 78.9 21.1 55.2 31.6
Wedza 51.6 48.4 61.8 38.7
Average 74.5 25.5 57.2 26.0
6 
Figure 3: Household Food Adequacy Levels 
2.1.1 Months of Household Food Provisioning (MHFP) 
The evaluation survey also computed the percentage of households with some months of 
food insecurity. Although most of the people (more than 90%) are generally food secure, 
there are some (less than 4%) who occasionally experience months of food insecurity (Fig 
4). This usually happen between January and February of each year. 
Figure 4: Percentage of Households of with inadequate food supplies 
The evaluation also assessed the household months of inadequate food supplies segregated 
by MCC. Households in Hauna and Gokwe reported consistent supplies of food all year 
round, while households in all the other MCCs reported sufficient food supplies for 80% of 
the year (Fig 5). This suggests that beneficiary households are generally more food secure 
than the general population3
. In spite of the general production challenges, successful 
households become food secure by being able to buy food from those with excess 
 
3
The Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment (2012) reported that about 30% of the rural population are food 
insecure and therefore require food assistance to survive. 
88
12
Adequate
Inadequate
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Oct 11 Nov 11 Dec 11 Jan 12 Feb 12 Mar 12 Apr 12 May 12 Jun 12 Jul 12 Aug 12 Sep 12
percentage
Month
7 
production. However, MCC beneficiary are more food secure than the general population. 
Moreover, households from more successful MCCs are generally more food secure than 
households from less successful sites. Whist those MCC beneficiaries face challenges for 
about two to three months, the general population in Zimbabwe faces acute food shortages 
for about three to five months. 
Figure 5: Percentage of Households with no months of food insecurity segregated 
by location 
2.1.2 Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) 
The survey also assessed the Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) which is calculated 
by summing the number of food groups consumed in the household over the 24 hour recall 
period. The HDDS is the sum of the following 12 food groups (cereals, white roots and 
tubers, vegetables, fruits, meat, eggs, fish and other sea foods, pulses, milk and milk 
products, oils, sweets and spices). The HDDS is meant to provide an indication of household 
economic access to food, thus items that require household resources to obtain, such as 
condiments, sugar and sugary foods, and beverages are included in the score. The dietary 
diversity scores facilitate the assessment of changes in diet before and after an intervention 
(improvement expected). The average HDDS for this survey was 7.6, meaning to say that 
on average targeted households consumed at least 7 out of the 12 food groups within a 24 
hour period. This figure is slightly higher than the 7.2 score at baseline. There is no 
significant difference in HDDS across locations (Table 3). 
81
92
100
84 81
90 87 84
100 96
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
percentage
Name of MCC
8 
Table 3: Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) segregated by location 
Name of MCC Mean HDDS Minimum HDDS Maximum 
HDDS
1. Sangano 7.9 5.00 10.00
2. Dowa 8.2 6.50 10.00
3. Hauna 7.8 5.00 12.00
4. Rusitu United 7.8 3.50 12.00
5. Mayfield 7.3 2.00 11.50
6. Wedza 7.8 4.00 12.00
7. Chikwaka 7.7 4.50 11.50
8. Marirangwe 7.5 5.00 11.00
9. Gokwe 7.9 5.00 12.00
10. Hamaruomba 7.1 4.50 11.00
Average 7.6 2.00 12.00
2.1.3 Milk consumption at household level 
There is a general increase in milk consumption (66.7%) across all the MCCs visited. 
However, some 24.5% of the farmers indicated that their milk consumption has not 
changed as a result of the ZDL project, while 8.8% indicated a decrease (Fig 6). Increases 
were mainly attributed to increase in production which is directly attributed to the project. 
People tend to consume more of a product when production is higher than when production 
is lower. 
Figure 6: Percentage change in milk consumption at household level for MPA members
2.2 Dairy Production, Collection, and Processing 
2.2.1 Volume and value of milk produced by farmers 
This section summarizes the average volume of milk produced by farmers at each location 
between October 2011 and September 2012. This includes all the milk produced including 
that consumed at home, given to friends/relatives and sold in the local markets. A closer 
66.7
24.5
8.8
increased
not changed
decreased
9 
analysis of this section shows that a significant volume of milk (about 30%) is not delivered 
to the MCCs (Fig 8). This accounts for milk that is usually milked in the afternoon that is 
often used for other things (Table 5).
Figure 7: Average Volumes and values of milk produced by farmers at each location 
2.2.2 Milk delivery at MCCs 
Land O’Lakes is currently working with fifteen sites, seven of which were previously working 
with the Stabex 95 programme. This is a European Union (EU) project that assisted dairy 
projects between before the ZDL intervention. Of those that were not under the Stabex 95 
project, two (Chikwaka and Rusitu United) had completely closed doors, citing viability 
problems. Unlike the Stabex approach which was predominantly humanitarian, the Land 
O’Lakes approach is developmental, paying particular attention to business training and long 
term development. Currently, all the fifteen MCCs are managing to meet the center running 
costs and they are up to date with farmer pay-outs. The number of farmers delivering milk 
to the MCCs at any given time has increased for all centers (Table 3). Most of the 
indigenous breeds are milked for a maximum of four months per cycle; therefore it is not 
possible for every farmer to be delivering milk throughout the year. There is also a 
significant (about 70%) increase in the average farmer pay-out per month across all 
locations (Figure 8). 
344
156
451
225 204
260
199
502
604
224
$172
$78
$226
$112 $102 $130 $100
$251
$302
$112
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700 volume/value per month
Name of MCC
Volume/Mont
h
Value/month
10
Table 4: Summary of milk deliveries and farmer pay-outs before and after the ZDL 
project 
Name of 
MCC
BEFORE THE ZDL PROJECT CURRENT (WITH ZDL 
INTERVENTION)
% 
Increas
e in 
farmer 
pay￾outs
No of 
Farmers 
delivering 
milk to 
the 
MCC/peri
od
Total milk 
delivered 
to the MCC 
in 
litres/mon
th
Averag
e 
farmer 
monthl
y pay￾out 
(USD)
No of 
Farmers 
delivering 
milk to 
the 
MCC/peri
od
Total milk 
delivered 
to the MCC 
in 
litres/mon
th
Averag
e 
farmer 
monthl
y pay￾out 
(USD)
Sangano 16 4,680 132 20 7500 188 42.4
Dowa 0 0 0 14 3600 117 **
Hauna 4 480 72 17 3300 116 61.2
Rusitu 
United
0 0 0 33 5500 75 **
Mayfield 0 0 0 80 9060 68 **
Wedza 17 2400 65 23 4500 107 64.6
Chikwaka 0 0 0 33 6000 91 **
Marirangwe 23 10400 208 26 24000 424 103.8
Gokwe 30 6000 150 37 8500 172 14.7
Hamaurom
ba
13 1820 77 17 6400 207 168.8
** Could not be computed due to absence of baseline data 
2.2.3 Milk sales 
Findings from the evaluation show that 62.4% of the farmers indicated an increase in the 
volume of milk sold during the ZDL project while 32.3% and 5.3% reported no change in 
sales and a decrease in sales respectively (Fig 8). Milk sales changed due to project 
intervention and include both sales at the MCCs and other sales. Many farmers indicated 
that they are more comfortable selling their milk to the MCC than other markets because 
MCC markets are more predictable in terms of payments and deliveries. Producers whose 
farms are far from the MCC (more than 10 km), however, find it difficult to deliver their 
afternoon output to the MCC and therefore they end up selling elsewhere. 
11
Figure 8: Status (Changes) in farmer milk sales after the ZDL implementation.
2.2.4 Annual farmer pay-out 
The evaluation also compared average annual farmer pay-outs per location before and after 
project implementation. There is a constant increase in the amount of money that has been 
received by farmers at each MCC (Fig 9). Highest figures were recorded in Gokwe, where 
each farmer receives an annual average pay-out of USD 2,648 and lowest figures were 
reported in Sangano where a single farmer gets an annual average pay-out of USD 1,136. 
Gokwe has a distinct advantage of having a Dutch trained LPD extension worker who has a 
very high accreditation amongst the villagers and MPA members. The Gokwe MCC also 
processes the milk into high value products such as yoghurt, lacto and naturally soured milk 
thereby giving more value to the members. 
Figure 9: Average annual farmer payout disaggregated by MCC before and after the ZDL 
implementation.
62.4
32.3
5.3
increased
not changed
decreased
$900
$0
$864
$0 $0 $0
$780
$1,500
$1,800
$924
$1,136
$1,746
$1,411
$2,074 $2,214
$1,506
$1,284
$1,836
$2,648
$1,560
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000 average annual payout per farmer
Name of MCC
before
implementat
ion
12
2.2.5 Milk not delivered to the MCC 
It was noted during the evaluation that farmers do not deliver all the milk to the MCCs. 
Many farmers are not able to have more than one trip to the MCC due to distance, while 
others just choose to keep some of the milk for other uses. On an average day, a farmer 
keeps 2.2 liters per day of his/her production, 1.1 liters are consumed by the household, 0.7 
liters are used to feed the calf, 0.3 liters are sold in the local markets and 0.1 liters are 
given to relatives, friends and neighbors (Table 5). Most of the transport modes used by 
farmers make it difficult to travel to the MCC twice per day. The distances travelled also 
make it difficult to use donkeys and bicycles for two trips per day. 
Table 5: Status of milk not delivered to the MCC per day, per farmer 
Name of MCC
litres 
consumed 
by the 
household
litres used 
to feed 
calves
litres 
sold in 
other 
markets
litres 
given to 
others
Total
Sangano 1.1 1.2 0.0 0.1 2.4
Dowa 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.8
Hauna 1.1 1.2 0.3 0.1 2.7
Rusitu United 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.8
Mayfield 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.4
Wedza 1.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 1.8
Chikwaka 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.1 3.9
Marirangwe 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.3 1.9
Gokwe 1.9 1.5 0.2 0.0 3.6
Hamaruomba 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.3
Average Total 1.1 0.7 0.3 0.1 2.2
2.2.6 Income from milk sales 
About half (49.8%) of the income from milk sales is used for purchasing staple food. The 
other uses include purchasing agriculture inputs (12.2%), paying for school fees (10.2%) 
and purchasing groceries (11.4%). Income from milk sales is not generally used for 
expenses such as clothing (1.5%). Most of the dairy farmers focus more on dairy than other 
agricultural practices such as crop farming; thus, it is unsurprising that the bulk of their 
income is used for purchasing the staple cereals. Other uses include transport, funeral costs 
and entertainment (Table 6). 
Table 6: Uses of income from dairy sales 
Use of income % of total
Purchase staple food 49.8
Purchase of non-staple food / Groceries 11.4
Education / School fees 10.2
Purchase of agricultural inputs 12.2
Clothing 1.5
Others 14.4
13
2.2.7 Profitability of the dairy cow in lactation 
The evaluation also assessed the returns from a dairy cow in lactation. Survey results show 
that an average exotic / mixed breed which is fairly managed produces an average of 8 
liters in the dry season and 12 litres per day in the wet season (averages 10 litres). This 
translates to about 300 litres per month/cow which is sold at an average price of USD0.5 
per liter or about USD150 per month. Transport costs vary from place to place, with some 
farmers using bicycles, motor bikes, scotch carts, cars, donkeys etc. In many places, 
farmers bulk the milk in order to share transport costs to the MCC. Exotic breeds are more 
profitable and viable than local breeds (Table 7). 
Table 7: Gross Margin for a cow in lactation 
. 
EXOTIC / MIXED BREED INDIGENOUS BREED
ITEM Amount 
(USD)
ITEM Amount (USD)
INCOME(300 l 
@USD0.5/Liter)
150 INCOME(90 l 
@USD0.5/Liter)
45
LESS EXPENSES LESS EXPENSES
Dairy meal (50kg) 24 Dairy meal -
Silage (maize, banagrass, 
etc)
15 Silage (maize, banagrass, 
etc)
10
Dipping chemicals (100mls) 5 Dipping chemicals 1
Cleaning material 1 Cleaning material 1
Dry cow therapy (1 set) 1 Dry cow therapy 1
Casual Labor 10 Casual Labor 10
Transport 9 Transport 3
Total Variable Costs 
(TVC)
65 Total Variable Costs 
(TVC)
26
Monthly Gross Margin 
(Income less VC)
85 Monthly Gross Margin 
(Income less VC)
19
2.2.8 Employment Creation 
The evaluation also assessed the number of jobs that were created under the ZDL project. 
This indicator measures the program’s progress in creation of sustainable employment and 
related income. The program is addressing this through provision of assets in the form of 
dairy cattle for the farmers to improve milk productivity which in turn increases milk 
volumes at MCCs, thus increasing employment at farm level and MCC level. On average 
60% of the farmers reported hiring at least one person on a full time basis after the launch 
of the ZDL project. Although such laborers sometimes assist with other duties at the farm, 
their main duty is to assist with the dairy enterprise including milking the cow, feeding the 
cow, caring for the calf and transporting milk to the MCC (Fig 10). This is in addition to 
several people who were hired on a short time basis for other enterprises. Employment was 
14
also created at MCCs formally closed and now operating. The number of people employed 
by each MCC has also slightly increased from an average of two to the current average of 
three. As expected, more jobs are created in areas where farmers are getting more returns 
per dollar invested i.e. Gokwe (82.1%) and Sangano (75%). 
Figure 10: Percentage of households that created employment after the ZDL 
project. 
2.2.9 Adoption of new technologies 
All the households interviewed acknowledged that they were trained several times on the 
use of new/improved technologies by Land O’Lakes, NADF or the Livestock Production 
Department (LPD). The trainings covered a number of subjects including record keeping, 
calf rearing, nutrition management, fodder production, dairy management, Artificial 
Insemination (AI), and animal health. More than 90% of the farmers have proceeded to 
adopt the trained technologies on their farms (Fig 11). This was made easier by the 
presence of Community Livestock Workers (CLWs) who complement the government and 
NGO extension systems in delivering livestock related extension. Adoption of AI is still low 
relative to other new technologies that are considered to be very critical for the dairy 
business. It is through the adoption of technologies such as AI that the purity of dairy 
breeds among smallholder farmers can be improved. The ZDL project has trained and 
commissioned community livestock workers that were trained to implement AI. Many 
farmers claim that previous attempts to use AI have not produced the expected results; 
therefore some farmers are not confident in the use of the technology. As long as improved 
pure breeds are allowed to mix with other animals, chances are very high that the purebred 
characteristics will eventually be lost. 
75
50 53.3
32.8 36.5
46.7
73.3
63.2
82.1
37.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
% of HH creating employment
Name of MCC
15
Figure 11: Proportion of farmers trained in and adopting new technology 
2.2.10 Access to savings clubs and loans 
Every farmer interviewed (100%) acknowledged to have access to the Cattle Bank Facility 
as well as other savings clubs at the MCC/MPAs such as cans and buckets loans, feed loans 
etc. However, generally, farmers in most of the places visited do not have access to savings 
clubs other than the CBF and other facilities at MCCs. Whilst places like Dowa, Gokwe and 
Hamauromba have no access such savings clubs at all, the same savings clubs are more 
visible in Chikwaka (36.7%) and Sangano (31.3%). Surprisingly, some farmers in areas 
with no formal savings clubs still access loans though at lower scale (Table 8). 
94 95.2 95 94.6 94 92
85
92.5 91
96
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
percentage
New technology
 Adoption
Training
16
Table 8: Percentage of farmers with access to savings clubs other than those 
managed by MCCs 
Name of MCC Percentage of households 
with access to a savings 
club
Percentage of 
households that 
borrowed money in the 
last 12 months
Sangano 31.3 31.3
Dowa 0 8.3
Hauna 3.3 3.3
Rusitu 5.3 10.5
Mayfield 11.5 10.7
Chikwaka 36.7 26.7
Wedza 6.5 3.3
Marirangwe 5.3 0
Gokwe 0 0
Hamaruomba 0 0
2.2.11 Sources of borrowed funds 
Half (50%) of the farmers do not have access to funds through borrowing (Fig 10). Farmers 
who access loans normally get them from banks (18%), friends / neighbor (14.8%), and 
savings clubs (11.5%). Loans through sources such micro finance institutions and relatives 
are not very common among the project areas. Savings clubs are not as popular as 
expected though they have a potential to improve the business status of dairy farmers 
countrywide. The recent macro-economic instability of 2000 – 2008 is one of the reasons 
why people are not confident with the savings clubs. 
Figure 12: Sources of borrowed funds. 
11.5
18
1.6 1.6
14.8
1.6
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
percentages
Source of borrowed funds
17
2.2.12 Uses of borrowed funds 
Borrowed funds are mainly used for purchasing agriculture inputs (37.9%) and paying 
school fees (24.1%). People do not normally borrow money for social and luxury reasons 
(Fig 13). 
Figure 13: Uses of borrowed money 
2.3 Preventative Animal Health and Rangeland/Fodder flow Management 
2.3.1 Fodder production 
Although none of the beneficiaries reported growing fodder crops at baseline, findings from 
the survey indicate that farmers across different sites grow an average of 0.7 ha of fodder 
(Fig 14). Highest averages were recorded in Gokwe (1.14 ha), Marirangwe (0.94 ha) and 
Rusitu (0.99 ha) whilst lowest figures were reported in Dowa (0.46 ha), Hamauromba 
(0.53ha) and Hauna (0.58 ha). This indicator tracks successful adoption of technologies and 
management practices in an effort to improve agricultural productivity, agricultural water 
productivity, sustainability, and resilience to climate impacts. 
3.4
6.9
3.4 3.4
6.9
37.9
24.1
13.8
.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
food health funeral social avoid
selling
assets
agric inputs school fees unspecified
uses
Percentage
Use of borrowed money
18
Figure 14: Average area (in Ha) under fodder production per farmer 
2.3.2 Veterinary Intervention 
Every farmer interviewed acknowledged that they are using better veterinary intervention 
methods than before the ZDL project. Although there are several sources of veterinary 
extension advice which include the government departments, NGOs, Community Livestock 
Workers (CLWs) and private veterinarians, many farmers (more than 60%) are treating 
their animals on their own (Fig 15). There is a general shortage of livestock and dairy 
related extension support in Zimbabwe; therefore many dairy farmers have resorted to 
providing their own support. CLWs are proving to be a reliable supplement to government 
extension but when it comes to specialized interventions, many farmers are still skeptical 
about their ability to execute the job efficiently. Land O’Lakes has gone a long way in 
reducing the impacts of staff shortages by training and recruiting more CLWs. 
0.58
0.46
0.58
0.99
0.87
0.68
0.78
0.94
1.14
0.53
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
average hectares under forage 
Name of MCC
19
Figure 15: Sources of Veterinary Intervention for HH. 
2.3.3 Grazing of dairy cows 
Farmers use a mixture of grazing methods for feeding their dairy cows; the most common 
being paddock grazing (35.6%), followed by zero grazing (20.3%), and open range 
(16.8%). Paddock grazing was more common within the small-scale commercial farmers in 
areas such as Marirangwe, Hamauromba, Sangano and Dowa where farmers have access to 
larger pieces of land than their counterparts in the communal areas. Farmers in the 
communal areas generally use communal grazing systems. Across all the areas, efforts were 
being made to restrict improved dairy breeds to zero grazing. This will minimize the chances 
of being impregnated by breeds which are not dairy animals. Fig 16 below summarizes the 
methods of grazing dairy cows used by the project beneficiaries. 
14.6 14.3 9.8
35.8
9.7
10.6
9
2.1 4.9
40.6
73.9 74.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
vaccinations dipping deworming
percentage
Veterinary intervention
Farmer
CLWS
Other Vet
Dept of Agric
20
Figure 16: Methods of grazing dairy cows
2.3.4 Type of grass used for feeding dairy cows 
Almost half of the farmers (44.1%) use cultivated pastures while a significant number 
(38.8%) use natural pastures and only 16.7% use fodder for feeding their dairy cows (Fig 
17). Fodder is mainly used for feeding improved breeds while natural pastures are used for 
local breeds. 
Figure 17: Type of grass used to feed dairy cattle - %
16.8
35.6 20.3
5.8
8.1 13.4
open range
paddock grazing
zero grazing
open range and paddocking
open range and zero grazing
paddocking and zero grazing
38.8
44.1
16.7
Natural pasture
Cultivated pasture
Fodder
21
2.4 Donkey Traction and Transport 
2.4.1 Transportation of milk to the MCC 
Farmers use different modes of transport to carry milk from their farms to MCCs, ranging 
from cars, public transport, scotch carts, bicycles and donkeys. The mode of transport used 
depends on the distances travelled, the quantity of milk to be carried and cost. Farmers who 
travel long distances (more than 20km) find it expensive and sometimes uneconomic to 
transport their milk to the MCC, especially if quantities are low. Whist dairy cows are usually 
milked twice per day (morning and afternoon), farmers living farther than 15 km from the 
MCC usually fail to supply milk in the afternoon, thereby reducing the subsequent farmer 
pay-out. 
Figure 18: Use of donkeys for milk transportation 
Land O’Lakes has been promoting the use of donkeys to transport milk to the MCCs. 
Although farmers acknowledged that using donkeys to transport milk to the MCCs was both 
cheaper and sustainable, only 6.2% (Table 9) of the farmers were actually using donkeys 
for milk transportation. Using donkeys becomes a challenge if distances are farther than 10 
km. If a farmer decides to deliver milk twice per day, it means one donkey has to travel a 
distance of up to 40 km per day which is may not be practically possible. 
Table 9: Farmers with access to donkey/bicycle transport 
% of total
Yes 6.2
No 93.8
TOTAL 100
22
2.4.2 Gross margin per donkey in traction 
The evaluation also made attempts to calculate the profitability and sustainability of using 
donkeys to carry milk to the MCC. The maximum that a good donkey can carry per day is 
40 litres, which translates to USD40 /month at an average price of USD0.04 for transporting 
a litre /day. Although this translates to a positive Gross Margin, the transaction does not 
justify a viable business transaction. Assuming that the person who travels with the donkey 
to the MCC is paid a salary of say USD60 per month, there may not be profit from this 
transaction (Table 10). 
Table 10: Gross Margin /donkey per month 
Amount (USD)
Income / month (25 days x 40 litres/day x USD0.0.04/liter) 40
Cost (Maintenance, chemicals /labor) 10
Gross Margin 30
2.5 Gender Considerations 
The evaluation also assessed the gender issues that may affect the successful 
implementation of the ZDL project. The successful integration of people-centered 
considerations in the ZDL project depends most on who participates in decision-making. The 
involvement of women and children in key activities will help guarantee that project 
outcomes are sustainable. The gender analysis outlines the basic questions that are relevant 
in the integration of gender considerations. 
2.5.1 Purchase of dairy inputs 
In many cases decisions about the purchase of dairy inputs are generally made by both 
husband and wife (46.7%), wife alone (24.5%) and husband alone (19.6%). In rare cases 
such decisions are made by every household member (7.2%) and in very rare cases (2%) 
are such decisions made by the youth (Fig 19). 
Figure 19: Decision making in the purchase of dairy cows 
19.6
24.5
2.0
46.7
7.2
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
Husband wife youths both H&W all HH members
percentage
decsion maker
23
2.5.2 Decision about using income 
Decisions about using money from milk sales are generally made by both male and females 
together (50.2%). Surprisingly women are more involved (23.3%) in the decision making 
process than men (18.8%). Children and other household members are rarely involved 
(less than 10%) in the decisions about money (Fig 18). Women who are not married 
(single) parents are more involved in decision making on their own than women that area 
married. However some men that are married still make certain decisions alone. 
Figure 20: Decision making on the use of income from dairy cows. 
2.5.3 Gender relationship in herding cattle 
Children are more involved in cattle herding than other household members with 46.2% of 
surveyed households indicating the duty is reserved for them. In some cases, men (17.6%) 
and women (10.9%) are also involved with cattle herding (Fig 21). 
Figure 21: Gender responsibility on herding cattle
18.8
23.3
2.1
50.2
5.6
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
husband wife children both H&W AII HH members
percentage
decision maker
17.6
10.9
46.2
9.9
15.4
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
Husband Wife Children Husband and wife All
percentage
24
2.5.4 Gender relationships of family members in milking cattle 
In many families, milking is generally carried out by children (35.6%) and adult males 
(22.4%). Women are generally not involved in such roles (10.9%). This is mainly because 
cows may be violent especially to women. 
Figure 22: Gender roles in milking cows
2.6 Environmental consideration in the ZDL project 
Dairy projects have the potential to cause damage and harm to the environment since a lot 
of chemicals and equipment are disposed into the ecosystem. This evaluation assessed the 
distance between cow shades and water sources, distances of composts from water sources 
as well as the methods that were used to dispose waste chemical substances. 
2.6.1 Drainage systems and water sources 
If cow shades and milking parlors are located closer to water sources, there is potential for 
contamination. A distance of at least 8 m is recommended. This evaluation assessed the 
distances between the shades and the water source at each household. Most of the shades 
(56.4%) are located more than eight meters from the water sources, some 31.4% are 
located between 3 – 8 meters from the water sources whilst only 12.2% are located within 
three meters from the water source (Fig 23). 
22.4
8.9
35.6
12.9
20.1
.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Husband Wife Children Husband and wife All
percentage
Who performs milking
25
Figure 23: Percentage of Households with cow shades of a certain distance from the water source
2.6.2 Composts locations and water sources 
The ZDL project encouraged farmers to prepare composts for use in fodder production. 
However, if the composts are located too close to the water source, this may cause 
contamination of the water, resulting in environmental and health hazards. Although this 
may vary with terrain and soil type, a distance of at least 8 m is recommended. A 
significant amount of people (58.6%) located their composts at a distance of more than 
eight meters from the composts while some 33.3% were located within a distance of 3 – 8 
meters from the water source. A minute (8.1%) of the composts were located with a 
distance of 3 meters from the water source (Fig 24). 
Figure 24: Distances of compost from the water source - %
2.6.3 Disposal of chemical waste products 
Dairy projects results in the disposal of several waste products. These include the dipping 
chemicals, vaccination chemicals and materials such as the dry cow therapy. Most of the 
waste chemicals are either thrown in the toilets (55.4%), burnt (24.5%), or buried under 
ground (16.6%). Only 1.3% is thrown onto the open ground (Fig 25). It is not 
recommended to dispose them into the open ground. 
12.2
56.4 31.4 <3m
3m -8m
>8m
8.1
33.3
58.6
<3m
3m -8m
>8m
26
Figure 25: Chemical disposal methods
2.7 Cost benefit Analysis 
The evaluation also carried out a cost benefit analysis of the ZDL project. This is a 
systematic process for calculating and comparing benefits and costs of a project, decision. It 
involves comparing the total expected cost of each option against the total expected 
benefits, to see whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and by how much. For this 
evaluation two cost benefit analysis methods were applies i.e. payback period and benefit 
cost ratio. 
2.7.1 Payback period
This refers to the period of time required for the return on an investment to "repay" the 
sum of the original investment. For this assignment, the evaluation assessed the period of 
time requred by a farmer who received a dairy cow under the Cattle Bank Facility (CBF) to 
recover the money initially invested. 
The formula to calculate payback period of a project depends on whether the cash flow per 
period from the project is even or uneven. In case they are even, the formula to calculate 
payback period is:
Payback Period =
Initial Investment
Cash Inflow per Period
When cash inflows are uneven, we need to calculate the cumulative net cash flow for each 
period and then use the following formula for payback period:
Payback Period = A +
B
C
In the above formula,
A is the last period with a negative cumulative cash flow;
B is the absolute value of cumulative cash flow at the end of the period A;
C is the total cash flow during the period after A
24.5
16.6
55.4
1.3 2.2
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
burn bury
underground
throw in toilets throw in
rubbish pit
other
percentage
disposal method
27
Specifically, the evaluation assessed how long it takes for the project to "pay for itself." 
According to the calculations, it takes 18 months (1.5 years) for a farmer who receives a 
dairy cow to accumulate benefits (both the milk and the cow) that are equal to the cost 
incurred. All else being equal, shorter payback periods are preferable to longer payback 
periods. Payback period is widely used because of its ease of use despite the recognized 
limitations. The cost is equivalent to the value of purchasing the cow and the cost of 
maintaining the cow (feed, vaccines, labor and general upkeep) whilst benefits refers the 
value of milk produced and the value of calves produced within a given period. 
2.7.2 The Benefit Cost Ratio
The MTE also calculated the benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of the ZDL project. The BCR is an 
indicator, used in the formal discipline of cost benefit analysis, which attempts to summarize 
the overall value for money of a project or proposal. A BCR is the ratio of the benefits of a 
project or proposal, expressed in monetary terms, relative to its costs, also expressed in 
monetary terms. Below is the mathematical formula for calculating the BCR.
Benefit Cost Ratio =
Discounted Benefits
Discounted Costs
 = 8.9
 Benefit = milk produced by the cow in 5 years + value of four calves and their 
babies produced within that period) 
 Cost =Initial cost and cost of feed, vaccines, maintenance, labor etc. 
 Though one cow can last for about 8 years, within 5 years the cow cab bring more 
than 8 times the cost of acquiring and maintaining it 
All benefits and costs should be expressed in discounted values. Benefit cost ratio (BCR) 
takes into account the amount of monetary gain realized by performing a project versus the 
amount it costs to execute the project. The higher the BCR the better the investment. 
General rule of thumb is that if the benefit is higher than the cost the project is a good 
investment.
Section 3: Evaluation of Project Design, Implementation and 
Achievements
3.1 Project Design 
The ZDL project was designed to build upon an existing initiative in smallholder dairy 
improvement by ARDA Dairy Development Programme (DDP) and the recent Stabex 95 
project which was being funded by the European Union (EU). The ZLD project was designed 
and structured in such a manner as to allow for training and empowerment in its early 
stages with technical support, followed by support in sustaining independent business 
28
development and allowing farmer access to markets for the sale of milk and other dairy 
products as well as supporting the purchase of inputs for dairy production. Unlike donor￾funded humanitarian projects, the ZDL project was designed to promote long term 
development and self-sufficiency. Farmers are encouraged to pay for every activity rather 
than expect handouts. Under this project, all the cows, feeds and chemicals that farmers 
receive are to be paid back in the form of revolving funds. Training of CLWs in AI is also a 
sustainable way of improving the purity of dairy breeds in the medium to long term. 
Although community members were not involved in the actual design of the program, they 
were involved in the planning and implementation of the project. All the MCCs developed 
constitutions, with farmers directly involved, which was a participatory process where 
communities ultimately decided what should be in the document. Management committees 
were selected by the farmers at each MCC and their roles and responsibilities collectively 
decided. The beneficiaries were satisfied with their level of participation. Local delivery 
partners were also engaged right from the identification of prospective beneficiaries. 
AGRITEX, LPD and NADF played a critical role during project planning. During 
implementation, AGRITEX and LPD officers played a key role of providing technical support. 
All key stakeholders were satisfied with the level of participation in the program. 
To a larger extent, the design of the project was relevant to the needs of the target 
population. However, the time frame of the project suits more to a short-term relief than a 
long-term development project. Farmers require much longer time to build a sustainable 
dairy herd and therefore if the project is allowed to operate for less than five years, it may 
not be technically feasible to quantify and justify the impacts. The project also made much 
progress in empowering the producer/farmer level. Whilst this may go a long way in 
enhancing the performance of the sector, there may also be need to provide mentoring and 
capacity building to other value chain actors such as input producers, agro dealers, 
secondary milk producers and processors such as DZL and Nestle Zimbabwe. If farmers’ 
capacities are increased without looking at other value chain actors, the benefits of such 
growth may be short-lived. 
3.2 Project Implementation 
At each site, stakeholders facilitated the formulation of a constitution and establishment of 
management committees. All the farmers interviewed were aware of the constitution and its 
importance. Some were able to quote some parts of the constitution. This clearly indicated 
that the constitution formulation process was highly participatory and the beneficiaries had 
ownership of the document. The program also facilitated the formation of committees 
responsible for management of MCCs. Although there were slight variations per site, 
generally, the committees formed per site included a management and marketing 
subcommittee. Each site had between five and seven committees responsible for the 
operations of the site. Initially, it appeared as if there were too many committees. However, 
visits to the successful old sites revealed that they had even more committees than the new 
sites. What the evaluation concluded was that the number of management committees does 
not matter as long as their roles and responsibilities are clear and do not overlap in 
function. 
29
Capacity building of the management committees should be encouraged in order to equip 
the committee members. By the end of the program, the committees should have clear 
guidelines on how they should carry out their duties. The program should continue 
emphasizing on the culture of record keeping at both MCC/MPA and household level. All 
committees should have recorded minutes. In addition to ensuring that a record of the 
operations of the committee is maintained, the minutes will help to assess the effectiveness 
of the committees, as the speed with which they address MCC issues can be followed up. 
Land O’Lakes and NADF facilitated and negotiated with cow sellers on behalf of the farmers. 
Whilst this central negotiation lessened some of the challenges, it could also be better if 
farmers are just given the loan and allowed to buy cows from a supplier of their choice. It 
could also be better if farmers were given more than one choice of suppliers. 
3.3 Project Achievements as of 30 September 2012 
Projects of this nature usually require longer time than allocated to realize tangible results. 
It takes up to five years for a farmer to be able to master the key concepts, build a sizeable 
herd of cows and realize meaningful proceeds. However, below are some of the 
achievements realized by the project as at 30 September 2012. 
Table 11: Project Achievement as at 30 September 2012. 
Output Achievements Comment
Target Achieved
 Number of jobs 
attributed to FTF
implementation 
382 429 For this indicator, the project has 
so far surpassed its target. 
Judging from the current 
progress, there are very high 
chances that more jobs will be 
created within the remaining 
period. 
 Number of hectares 
under improved 
technologies or 
management practices 
1500 875 For this indicator, the project is 
way below its targets. People still 
debate between planting fodder 
and the staple maize.
 Number of farmers and 
others who have 
applied new 
technologies or 
management practices 
800 887 For this indicator, the project is 
on course as to the achievement 
of its targets. Chances are high 
that the targets will be reached.
 Value of incremental 
sales attributed to Feed 
The Future (FTF) 
implementation 
840,000 978,142 Increased incomes, better dairy 
management systems and more 
milk volumes marketed through 
formal markets
 Number of producer 
organizations that 
applied new 
15 15 The project is on course on this 
indicator since farmers from all 
the MCCs/MPAs are applying new 
30
technologies or 
management practices 
technologies. 
 Number of firms 
(excluding farms) or 
Civil Society 
organizations (CSOs) 
engaged in agricultural 
and food security 
related manufacturing 
services 
10 15 All the MCCs operating are 
managing to meet the basic 
operating costs and paying 
farmers for the milk delivered. 
 Increase in income of 
vulnerable households 
($) 
1885 2640 The project has thus far exceeded 
its target on this indicator. 
Chances are high that by the end 
of the project, the target will be 
exceeded. 
 Number of rural 
households reporting 
increased incomes from 
program intervention 
800 887 The project has so far surpassed 
its target on this indicator and 
chances are high that the same 
trend will continue up to the end 
of the project.
 Gross margin per dairy 
cow in lactation 
961.7 895 This indicator has fallen slightly 
lower than the target. Most of the 
cows including those that were 
bought on credit are producing 
below target. This is likely a 
management challenge which can 
improve with increased training 
and mentoring. 
 Number of food security 
private enterprises (for 
profit), producer 
organizations, water 
users associations, 
women’s groups, trade 
and business 
associations, and 
community-based 
organizations (CBOs) 
receiving USG 
assistance 
15 15 All the targeted MCCs are 
receiving assistance from the 
project as planned. Chances are 
high that more groups may be 
reached by the end of the project.
 Number of rural 
households benefitting 
directly from USG 
interventions 
800 1075 So far the project has benefited 
more people than planned. 
Chances are high that by the end 
of the project, it will have 
surpassed its target by far. 
 Value of agriculture and 480000 233713 This indicator has fallen well 
31
rural loans ($) below target. The numbers of 
organizations offering loans in the 
farming areas are very few. Many 
people are generally skeptical of 
loaning in Zimbabwe because of 
the challenges that were 
experienced during the macro 
economic challenges of 2000 –
2008. 
 Number of MSMEs 
receiving business 
development services 
from USG assisted 
sources 
15 15 All the targeted MCCs /MPAs are 
receiving business development 
services from the project as 
planned. Chances are high that 
more groups may be reached by 
the end of the project.
 Total volume of milk 
produced per household 
each month 
240 550 For this indicator the project has 
exceeded its target and with more 
cows expected to be milked, 
chances are high that this 
targeted will be surpassed. 
 Number of households 
producing milk for 
collection by MCCs 
700 407 Fewer people are producing milk 
for collection by MCCs than 
planned. Chances are high that 
the target will not be reached. It 
takes longer time to develop a 
meaningful herd size therefore 
there may be need for more time 
before the target is reached.
 Value of milk collected 
by MCCs each month 
690000 873624 In terms of value, the MCCs have 
collected more milk than 
anticipated. Chances are high that 
this indicator will be surpassed by 
the end of the project. 
 Number of MCCs 
collecting milk from 
producers 
15 15 All the targeted MPAs are 
delivering milk to the MCCs as 
planned
 Number of individuals 
who have received USG 
supported short-term 
agricultural sector 
productivity or food 
security training 
800 970 The project has reached more 
people with the trainings than 
anticipated. This indicator is likely 
to be exceeded by the end of the 
project-
 Gross margin per 
donkey in traction 
business 
623 90 Donkeys are used by fewer 
people than planned and they are 
paying less than anticipated. 
Chances are high that this target 
32
will not be reached. The use of 
donkeys to carry milk becomes a 
challenge when distances are 
longer than 10 km which is 
normally the case. 
 The number of 
households contracted 
with trained service 
providers for land 
clearing, ploughing 
and/or transportation 
200 56 This indicator is way below target. 
Chances are high that the target 
will not be reached. There is need 
to increase awareness on this 
indicator. 
Source: Mid-term Evaluation, October 2012 
Section 4: Evaluation of processes that affect achievement of project 
outputs 
The evaluation of the ZDL project also involved evaluation of the processes which affect 
achievement of the major project outputs. These processes include, among other things, 
assessing the MCC/MPA methodology, the revolving fund, CLWs, linkage with private sector, 
beneficiary training in business management, adoption of new technologies and market 
linkages and the level of milk hygiene at both the farmer and MCC levels. 
4.1 The MCC / MPA Methodology 
The ZDL project employed the MCC / MPA methodology where small-scale milk farmers are 
grouped into an association and jointly work together to access inputs and market the milk. 
This approach helps farmers not only to procure inputs at lower prices, but also to access 
markets that would otherwise be difficult to reach individually. This methodology also allows 
farmers manage their own businesses rather than being managed by some external agents. 
In this project, Land O’Lakes and NADF only provide technical guidance whist the 
committees manage the project, making it easier for the outputs to continue even beyond 
the life of the project. 
Whilst useful to a larger extent, this approach benefits more those milk producers who live 
closer to the MCC, farmers whose farms are more than 10 km away from the MCC find it 
difficult to deliver afternoon milk. Under commercial conditions, a dairy cow is milked thrice 
per day; once, in the morning, in the mid afternoon and in the late afternoon. 
 
4.2 The Revolving Fund 
Unlike other donor funded projects that give free handouts to the so-called vulnerable 
households, the ZDL project employed the revolving fund approach where every item 
received by farmers had to be paid back into a fund, in turn benefiting other deserving and 
interested members. People generally place more value to resources that they paid for 
compared to free handouts. The revolving fund approach allows dairy farmers not only to 
access better dairy cows but also to access inputs such as dairy feeds and chemicals on 
credit. Although not much time has been allowed to assess this component; many farmers 
33
have so far made efforts to pay back the loans they have taken from the revolving fund. 
These also include farmers whose cows have not yet produced any milk for delivery. Most 
of the people who are struggling to pay back the loans are those whose cows are producing 
low daily milk yields regardless of the efforts to feed them adequately. 
The revolving fund is not enough to cater for every farmer’s needs. There may be need for 
the project to link MCCs with more private sector players such as commercial banks. 
4.3 Community Livestock Workers (CLWs) 
The ZDL project trains and equips Community Livestock Workers (CLWs) who have proved 
to be very helpful, especially considering that there is a general shortage of livestock-based 
extension, particularly for dairy. There is a trained AI technician at each MCC. All the CLWs 
have been trained in AI, making them strategically positioned to improve the quality and 
purity of future dairy breeds. CLWs perform all their duties for a fee; though they tend to be 
cheaper than private veterinarians. 
However, their efficiency is yet to be ascertained. Some of the farmers expressed doubt as 
to whether the CLWs can be relied upon to provide meaningful extension. There may be 
need for the project to educate the communities about the effectiveness of the CLWs. A 
further analysis of this approach showed that in previous projects, not much effort was 
made to recruit and train competent people who would then effectively deliver. The ZDL 
project however, was more thorough in that regard. The ZDL project made attempt to train 
people with previous experience in the dairy sector and who have at least been involved 
with the dairy cows. 
4.4 Linkage with the private sector 
The approach linked to milk processors (ZDL and Nestle), input service providers. The 
approach also involves linking farmers to private financial institutions such as Micro king. 
Apart from allowing farmers to access better services, such links allows project outputs to 
be more sustainable in the long run. 
4.5 Beneficiary training in business management 
The ZDL project involved a business development approach where farmers are trained in 
various business management topics such as record keeping, marketing and planning. So 
far, every beneficiary farmer had been trained, and more than 90% have adopted at least 
80% of the trainings in their business operations. The trainings have also allowed the 
beneficiary farmers to explore better markets and make more informed decisions. The 
project could also consider trainings that are specifically for MCC /MPA leadership. 
4.6 Beneficiary selection 
Unlike other donor funded projects which targeted the vulnerable members of the society 
with limited access to productive resources and provided them with free handouts, the ZDL 
project targeted people not because of their wealth status but because of their willingness 
and ability to participate in the project. Before they could benefit from the cows on credit, a 
beneficiary farmer has to raise a USD300 deposit, prepare an acceptable milking parlor, 
34
prepare an acceptable quantity of hay bales and prove beyond any doubt that once (s)he 
receives the cows, (s)he will be able to take good care of them. This approach is more 
sustainable in the long run. However, the project could also consider building the capacity of 
those vulnerable members of the society who are committed the cause of the project. Some 
of these people may not afford to raise the deposits required. 
 
4.7 Linkage with the National Dairy Farmers Association 
The ZDL project also involves a strong linkage with the National Dairy Farmers Association 
(NADF). Several capacity building initiatives have been implemented including but not 
limited to improving the capacity of NADF to monitor and assist farmers by improving the 
provision of technical advice. 
Section 5: Evaluation of sustainability of project outcomes 
Assessment of sustainability hinges on an analysis of the mechanisms and systems that the 
program has put in place to ensure both the sustainability of the project outcomes and the 
intended benefits that are derived from project. The evaluation identified and examined a 
number of conditions that were necessary for the achievement of sustainable 
implementation of dairy projects the medium to long term. In addition, factors that 
threaten the sustainable development of dairy programs were also highlighted. 
5.1 Conditions necessary for sustainable use of the assets 
The following conditions were identified as being necessary if sustainable development of 
dairy projects was to be achieved in the medium to long term. These were: 
 Ensuring ownership of the project by communities 
 Linkages to government departments and programs 
 Ensuring environmental sustainability of the project 
5.1.1 Ensuring ownership of the project by the communities 
Ownership is the acknowledgement or acceptance of a project as one’s own. The individual 
or MCC has exclusive rights over the project, and enjoyment of benefits that are derived 
from that project. Outsiders wishing to benefit from the project have to seek permission 
from the designated owners. Enjoyment of benefits from the project comes at a price – that 
of maintenance and upkeep of project assets to ensure a sustained flow of benefits. In order 
to ensure sustainable use, project assets should be regularly maintained – a responsibility 
that rests on the owner. 
Community participation at all stages of the project cycle is now widely accepted as a key 
pre-requisite for success and sustainability. Participation allows communities space to 
conceptualize their own challenges and develop their own ways of dealing with them in 
order to ensure ownership and long term sustainability. The evaluation noted that the 
program put a lot of effort into ensuring effective and appropriate participation of 
35
beneficiary communities in most stages of the project cycle. Beneficiary communities were 
directly involved during program implementation. 
It was clearly evident that the level of beneficiary participation achieved by the program 
was the basis for the high degree of ownership expressed during the evaluation. Overall, all 
respondents to the household survey acknowledged that the infrastructure, equipment and 
buildings at the MCCs belonged to all the members of the MCC. 
Ownership is not only about acknowledging belonging – it is also about taking responsibility 
for maintenance of the project assets so as to continue enjoying benefits from them. The 
committees provide the required leadership that ensures continued use of the project assets 
at the MCCs. 
The evaluation noted that although MCC management committees have been set up at each 
site, they still require further capacity building to ensure that they were fully aware of their 
roles and responsibilities. 
5.1.2 Linkages to government departments 
When a program contributes to the overall national objectives and development plans of a 
country, subsequent continuity of project outcomes is more likely to be assured if there is 
government support. The infrastructure constructed / rehabilitated under the ZDL program 
was part of the rolling plans of the ARDA DDP which did not have sufficient funds to support 
these activities. Efforts were made by the ZDL project to ensure that relevant government 
departments (LPD and AGRITEX) were the drivers of the program providing training, 
supervision and extension support. Under this arrangement, sustainability would be more 
likely as government would be better placed to continue support to the communities after 
termination of program support. However, sustained support by government will, of course 
be dependent on the resources that government would be able to access. Currently 
availability of resources severely limits the provision of government support to beneficiaries 
after termination of project. 
5.1.3 Project to be implemented in an environmentally sustainable approach 
The ZDL project should be environmentally sound – the natural resource base should be 
maintained to produce benefits over the long term without reducing its productive capacity. 
Programming should ensure that during continued implementation of the project, natural 
resource utilization is rational so that what is taken from the environment equals the rate of 
renewal or restoration of that resource. It is critical that resources be used to the maximum 
yield that can be maintained through generations. Overall, the ZDL program had a 
significant environmental conservation / protection emphasis. Disposal of objects that could 
be harmful to the environment was discouraged. 
Environmental degradation is a real threat to the sustainable implementation of the ZDL 
program. Consequently, the program staff should put more emphasis on natural resource 
conservation for the remaining period of project implementation. The adoption of zero 
grazing reduces the pressure on rangeland and thereby reducing land degradation. The 
natural resource management activities should be implemented as per the set technical 
36
guidelines. Programming for natural resource management should therefore ensure the 
availability of adequately qualified technical staff to support the community in natural 
resource management activities. 
5.2 Conditions that threaten sustainability of development projects 
The ZDL programs support people to rebuild build their dairy businesses, however the 
influences of external structures and processes ultimately determine whether the 
interventions are able to support the desired livelihood outcomes that the program aims to 
achieve. Many of these factors are beyond the program’s immediate control, but this does 
not mean that they should be ignored. The implication is to emphasize the importance of an 
outward-looking perspective when implementing the program so that internal and external 
factors affecting sustainability are well linked. Some of the external factors that may affect 
sustainability of the ZDL project include: 
 Provision of extension support services 
 Access to markets 
 Political instability 
5.2.1 Provision of extension support services 
Agricultural activities (dairy management, animal health, and AI) promoted by the ZDL 
program require on-going support from agricultural extension advisers on appropriate 
inputs, improved cultivation techniques, disease and pest control and access to markets. In 
agricultural production, lack of access to improved quality inputs has the potential to be a 
major constraint to project sustainability. For the ZDL program, long-term extension 
support is to be obtained through AGRITEX/LPD/DVS extension workers. 
Availability of extension support to the project beneficiaries appears to be a major threat to 
the sustainable development of the project. Access to quality, long–term extension appears 
to be the greatest challenge to the sustainability of the agricultural interventions in the MCC 
sites. The challenges of extension support include the following: 
 Although the coverage of AGRITEX extension staff has improved to at least 2 – 3 
extension staff per ward, the extent of coverage is still minimal as many of the 
extension staff lack adequate experience in dairy management. 
Clearly, the lack of quality extension support to the project beneficiaries will continue to 
threaten the sustainable impacts of the project. To improve access to extension, the project 
could consider the introduction/strengthening of Farmer Field School in the MCC sites. 
Another alternative would be to increase the number of community livestock workers (CLW) 
in an area and helping the community to accept them as alternative sources of extension. 
The concept focuses on promoting dispersed, active and locally accountable community 
livestock workers who can work in a range of activities, addressing services which are 
needed very quickly and are best delivered locally. CLWs are essentially volunteers, selected 
from the community in which they live, trained to render a specific task, supported and 
supervised by a facilitating agent which may be either an NGO or government entity. In 
previous programs, their recruitment has not been thorough and most of their attempts to 
37
inseminate cows artificially have not been very successful therefore the general population 
has not been satisfied by what they are able to deliver. Although the current approach has 
hired more competent people and exposed them to thorough trainings, the number of 
people to be saved by one technician can be reduced if more people are hired. It may be 
important to train every farmer who is interested in AI. 
5.3.2 Access to markets 
Production of high quantities of milk will not make much sense if farmers will not access 
better markets. In order for the beneficiaries’ access better markets, it is essential that they 
be equipped with adequate marketing training and organization for collective marketing. 
The pinnacle activity of the marketing training should be an investigation of the local 
markets and completion of a “market study”. Effective market training should result in 
beneficiaries with an understanding of basic marketing concepts that could help them 
establish prices for their produce, find buyers and plan their production to meet local 
demand. There is also need to consider the whole value chain rather than concentrating on 
the farm level and MCC level alone. The project can consider assisting other value chain 
actors and linking them up with MCCs. Success at the farm and MCC should be 
complemented by success at other levels of the value chain such as distributors and 
processors. 
5.3.3 Macroeconomic environment 
The problems of macroeconomic instability play a critical role in the sustainability of all 
development programs. The dairy sector in Zimbabwe significantly depreciated when 
macroeconomic conditions were unfavorable for economic productivity. This was especially 
witnessed in 2008. 
Section 6: Beneficiary rating of the project 
92.1% of the respondents were at least satisfied with the project whilst 4.7% was not 
satisfied. Another 3.2% was indifferent about the project implementation processes (Fig 
24). Respondents cited the following reasons for their dissatisfaction: 
 High cow prices 
 High initial deposits for obtaining cattle 
 Lack of farmer and Land O’Lakes bargaining power along the value chain to influence 
milk prices (farmers are price takers) 
 Lack of viability of the milk business under the current arrangement since farmers 
are receiving only one cow; if it goes dry, the farmer suffers. 
 Absence of Land O’Lakes extension services in some instances, especially in Dowa. 
 Low milk productivity for some of the cows received through revolving fund 
38
Figure 26: Respondents rating of the program
Section 7: Lessons Learnt 
The ZDL program has provided a learning opportunity for Land O’Lakes and partners. 
Following are some of the major lessons learnt; 
1. Viability of the dairy business at the farmer level. In order for the dairy 
business to be viable at the farmer level, it is important that a given farmer be given 
sufficient time to grow the dairy herd to up to three cows. Farmers with one or two 
cows have cash flow challenges when the cows are dry. In addition, when the cows 
are few, the financial benefits of the project are such that they may not be sufficient 
to meet all the households’ financial needs if the farmer was to forego other 
livelihood activities. Also more milk per farmer makes milk transportation to the MCC 
more cost effective. 
2. Viability of MCCs. Whilst MCCs are a potentially viable method of commercializing 
small scale milk production, the MTE found that some of the centers require more 
time to achieve this objective. The location of some centers is such that linking them 
43.7
48.4
4.7
3.2
.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Highly satisfied Satisfied not satisfied indifferent
percentage
respondent rating
39 
to private buyers may not guarantee a viable business in the short run. As a result 
such centers are only able to supply the current market. Other centers were also 
established for humanitarian and or social reasons which evidently require more time 
to convert a social institution into a business empire. 
3. Inclusion of young people. Inclusion of the young people (less than 35 years) in 
development programs is crucial if future sustainability is to be enhanced. The MTE 
found that many of the beneficiaries of the project and MCC committee members are 
elderly people (50 – 70 years). 
4. Flexibility of the project components. The MTE found that it is very crucial for 
the donors to allow a degree of flexibility on the Implementing partners to come with 
other innovative ways that would benefit the project. In this case, the Zim 
Pasteurizer to cope with erratic power supply was a viable option though not part of 
the initial plan. 
5. Involvement and empowerment of women. The MTE found that MCCs where 
females were more involved in the committees had better quality milk than MCCs 
which were male dominated. This shows that empowerment of women is not only 
good for the females involved but also for the community as a whole. 
6. Linkages with other programs and the private sector. The MCCs were actively 
linked with the National Association of Dairy Farmers (NADF) as well as other private 
sector players like banks and input service providers. To be sustainable, dairy 
programs must not sit in isolation but should be part of a wider framework that 
seeks involves linkages with other value chain actors and the private sector. 
7. Beneficiary Targeting. The ZDL project can benefit the economically active farmers 
but not the most vulnerable. The project tends to exclude the absolute poor who 
may be interested in the project because they either do not have cattle or cannot 
afford the huge deposits required to access cows on credit through the revolving 
fund. 
8. Project ownership. The MTE found that ownership appears to be one of the most 
important determinants of sustainability of projects. For all the MCCs farmers were 
highly committed to see the project being successful because they knew that it was 
their project. Instilling project ownership will lead to improved maintenance and 
long term sustainability of the program. Community driven programming is essential 
to ensure that ownership of the projects is built resulting in long-term benefits. 
9. Cross cutting issues. The project paid particular interest on cross cutting issues. 
Cross cutting issues such as gender and environment need to be considered when 
selecting the projects to be supported to ensure long term sustainability. Social and 
economic development need to be underpinned by environmentally sound practices. 
40
10.The field offices. The ZDL project was made successful by the field offices which 
were adequately staffed and resources with all field officers who have access to 
motor bikes, laptops and internet access. It is critical that field offices are adequately 
staffed and resourced so that they can operate efficiently. 
11.The business approach to dairy. The quality trainings in business management 
enhanced the success of the ZDL project. Such an approach encouraged the farmers 
as well as MCC to operate dairy farming as a business which keeps track of all 
expenses, recording profits and accessing better markets. 
Section 8: Conclusion and Recommendations 
Based on progress to date, the ZDL program is highly likely to achieve and in some cases 
exceed most of its targets by the end of the program. The program has successfully revived 
all the Milk Collection Centers that had either closed down or struggled due to a number of 
factors. Significant progress has been made in building the business capacity of beneficiary 
members and linking milk producers to better markets. The program however, remains with 
a considerable amount of capacity building and training to be completed in the remaining 
period of implementation. The capacity building includes: 
i. Capacity building of stakeholders along the whole value chain such as transporters, 
input providers, private extension systems (veterinarians) and processors 
ii. Improved awareness raising on natural resources conservation 
iii. Cascading of dairy farming as business training to the rest of the community 
members. 
Following are recommendations for the current implementation period and future 
programming: 
1. A community based planning approach should continue to be used to establish the 
most appropriate interventions to support. Land O’Lakes should continue to 
institutionalize a highly participatory community based approach so that it is part 
and parcel of the ZDL programming. To ensure sustainable development, there 
should be a comprehensive capacity building for community based management 
systems (CBM). 
2. The business approach to dairy farming should be strengthened. Land O’Lakes and 
partners should continue to develop and refine a competitive business approach to 
dairy farming. 
3. The project should consider carrying out a further study on present and alternative 
transport systems especially for farmers who are located at a distance from the 
MCCs at a cost. This will allow more milk to be delivered to the MCC. Currently many 
farmers are only supplying their morning production to the MCC yet dairy cows have 
41
a potential to be milked thrice per day. This study should also assess the suitability 
of donkeys in all areas. 
4. Land O’Lakes and NADF should make efforts to further explain the characteristics 
and purity of some of the cows that were purchased by farmers on credit. Some of 
the farmers did not quite understand the behavior of the mixed breeds which they 
got. 
5. Land O’Lakes should consider employing new ways of encouraging farmers to pay 
back the revolving fund. This may include some strict measures such as not paying 
those who would have defaulted on this cause. 
6. The project could also consider the expansion of the Community Livestock Worker 
(CLW) concept. The concept focuses on promoting dispersed, active and locally 
accountable community workers who can work in a range of livestock activities, 
addressing services which are needed very quickly and are best delivered locally. 
More dairy farmers could be trained to be Community Livestock Workers. The project 
should also consider training more people on AI than just the few CLWs. If more 
people are trained, understanding is enhanced. The other alternative is to have more 
CLWs on one MCC. 
7. In order that the beneficiaries continue to access expanded markets, it is 
recommended that the project carry out an investigation of the local markets and 
completion of a “market study”. The study may involve mapping out processor 
routes and linking such to the MCCs that are located throughout the country. 
8. The project should also consider new options of encouraging expansion of the area 
that is under improved technology. Such an approach would reduce the cost of feed 
and thereby increase the annual gross margin per dairy cow in lactation. 
9. Involvement of women and young people should be further encouraged both as 
beneficiaries and committee members. Although the current proportion of women 
benefitting is around 33%, efforts should be made to ensure that women 
beneficiaries and committee members be at least 50%. Efforts should also be made 
not only to encourage young people to join MCCs but to create a suitable 
environment for them. 
10. Projects like the ZLD obviously require more time than allocated to be able to 
achieve the anticipated benefits. If possible, the donor should consider increasing the 
lifespan of the project to about 5 years. This will allow Land O’Lakes and the 
beneficiaries to realize meaningful impacts. Some of the centers have been recently 
introduced. More time will also allow farmers to increase the herd size, something 
that cannot be done within three years. 
42
Annexes 
43
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference (TOR) 
Background 
Since January 2010, Land O’Lakes has been implementing the Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in 
Zimbabwe (ZDL) project, in Manicaland, Mashonaland East, Masvingo, Midlands and Matabeleland 
South Provinces of Zimbabwe. This USAID-funded project aims to build the livelihoods and promote food 
security of farmers through interventions in the livestock and dairy value chains. Livestock were once an 
important pillar of Zimbabwean households’ food production capacity and livelihood asset base, but herds 
and productivity have been decimated as households sold off whatever livestock and other assets they 
have at whatever price is offered to buy staple foods. The livestock and dairy sectors, and the 
Zimbabweans that depended on them, are in dire straits. 
Organized under four program components, program activities will focus on assisting vulnerable 
households, particularly women-lead households, to increase milk production; rebuild the goat, cattle and 
dairy herds through pass-on schemes; improving rangeland/fodder flow management and preventative 
animal health services, stimulating market linkages between value chain actors, and promoting use of 
donkey draught power in dairy production. A crosscutting focus on building profitable livestock and dairy 
businesses and stimulating market linkages between value chain actors will promote the sustainability of 
the interventions. The program has been implemented in two phases with roughly the same activities: 
January 2010-April 2011 (16 months); May 2011 – May 2013 (24 months). 
The proposed strategies and activities aimed to produce concrete results for vulnerable Zimbabwean 
households and make contributions to USAID’s IR 3.2.1: Improved Livelihoods, Income Generation, 
and Employment, including: 
 Distribution of 40 donkeys to 20 vulnerable households to test the use of donkeys for contract 
animal traction services; 
 Linking households receiving dairy cattle and their dairy farmers to high-value milk markets; 
 Increasing access to animal health services for farmers through training of Community Animal 
Health Workers; 
 Increasing capacity of rangeland/fodder flow management; and 
 Promoting the use of donkeys for animal traction services and milk collection for1,200 farmers. 
Assignment Objective 
The purpose of the mid-term evaluation is to critically and objectively review the project activities, the 
implementing environment and assess whether targeted beneficiaries are receiving services as expected, 
and that the project is on track to meeting its stated goals and objectives. Furthermore, the mid-term 
evaluation is an opportunity to document lessons and discuss necessary modifications to effectively and 
efficiently meet the stated goals and objectives. Both qualitative and quantitative data will be used to 
examine the following key areas: 
Evaluation of project progress: Has the program achieved its targets to date? If not, why not? Are 
established targets reasonable given the current program context? If not, how do they need to be 
44
modified? As defined and measured, do the performance indicators provide useful and reliable data on 
program progress and impacts? Are M&E data collected and reported regularly and in a timely fashion? 
Evaluation of project design, implementation and achievements, including changes in context and 
review of assumptions (relevance): Do the framework, assumptions and design match the local conditions 
and evolving needs of target beneficiaries? Is the problem clearly identified and addressed? Are planned 
activities appropriate for the stated problems? What internal and external factors have influenced the 
ability project staff to meet projected targets? Which interventions are most effective in achieving project 
objectives? What are the unexpected but important benefits to document (if any)? What are the negative 
impacts that should be documented (if any)? 
Evaluation of processes that affect achievement of project outputs (behavior change and capacity 
strengthening): Are beneficiaries adopting desired practices or behaviors? Are there certain groups with 
lower rates of adoption and if so, why? Which practices have beneficiaries been more inclined to adopt 
and why? Is the frequency of contact adequate for the type of behavior change envisioned? Are training 
materials appropriate for participants, and if not, how can they be improved? 
Evaluation of sustainability of project outcomes: Are project impacts and outcomes sustainable? Is 
there likelihood that farmers will continue the proposed activities after the project is completed? What can 
be done to increase sustainability? Does the project have a well-developed exit and sustainability 
strategy? If so, has the project staff moved to initiate some aspects of those strategies? Has the program 
effectively collaborated with local administrative bodies? Is the program actively developing capacity of 
counterparts and/or partners; if not, how can the design be or implementation be altered to improve 
capacity strengthening? Is the project building capacity within local institutions? 
Evaluation of beneficiary rating of project services: What are the beneficiary perceptions on quality of 
service provision, transparency and general performance of the project? Are there omissions in service 
delivery? How can the project improve upon service delivery? Are there knowledge gaps of the 
community members regarding the project and how it is implemented? What strategies can be used to fill 
these gaps? 
Review Methodology 
The Consultant shall collaborate with Land O’Lakes M&E staff to develop an appropriate survey design, 
including using statistical techniques to estimate the optimum sample size and random selection of 
survey participants, survey tools and methodology for conducting the evaluation. The Consultant will then 
be expected to take the primary lead in providing local expertise in the design phase, data analysis and 
interpretation, and support in drawing conclusions regarding the efficacy of the selected process and the 
results of the assessment. The Consultant will provide labour on data collection using own Enumerators. 
The selected firm will implement the following activities: 
Stage 1: Review Existing Documentation 
Undertake review of the program documents and other relevant documents including, but not limited 
to the following: 
 Approved agreements 
45
 Progress reports 
 Performance Management Plan (PMP) 
 Activity work plans 
 Any other program documents to get acquainted with the program activities and indicators 
Stage 2: Refinement of Review Methods 
During this stage, the evaluator will review necessary survey and data collection tools that will provide 
information on indicators relevant to the evaluation (quantitative and qualitative as required), and in close 
collaboration with the Land O’Lakes team, decide on the methods and instruments to be used during field 
visits. 
Stage 3: Field Data Collection 
The Consultant will conduct key interviews for the qualitative and quantitative collection of data at the 
field using own Enumerators. 
Stage 4: Data Entry, Analysis and Reporting 
During this stage, the evaluator will complete the following critical tasks: 
 Enter, clean up, synthesize, analyze, and interpret data from both the quantitative surveys, if any, 
and the qualitative study. 
 Prepare an evaluation report addressing the objectives of this mid-term evaluation as outlined in 
this Scope of Work, including feedback from the presentation and recommendations on the 
overall Land O’ Lakes ZDL program. 
 Develop a Power Point presentation of evaluation findings, present and submit to Land O’Lakes 
and stakeholders. 
 Fully address the concerns, comments, and issues raised during the presentation of the mid-term 
evaluation report. 
 Submit clean and final English versions of quantitative data sets in Excel formats and qualitative 
transcripts, field and interview notes in Word to Land O'Lakes. 
 Produce pictures of the process. 
Relationship and Responsibilities 
The consultant shall perform the tasks described above with the support of Zimbabwe Chief of Party, 
the Land O’Lakes Zimbabwe M&E Specialist, and the field team. During the evaluation, the consultant is 
also expected to work with the Land O’Lakes Headquarters and Regional M&E teams, in which case, he 
or she will be available for questioning and inquiry. 
46
Logistics and other Land O’Lakes Obligations 
The consultant will provide own field transport and an agreed charge. In addition to providing 
information as may be required by the bidder to complete the study, Land O’Lakes shall, 
 Provide the Bidder with specific and detailed relevant information concerning the study; 
 Provide all information and access to project personnel; 
 Print and photocopy all relevant survey tools upon finalization; 
 Appoint relevant staff who shall arrange any access to its information and staff required by Bidder 
for its performance under the contract, if agreed and required. 
Timeline 
ACTIVITY GOAL/OUTCOME
Expected Date 
of Activity 
completion(2012)
Lead personnel to be available for 
inception meetings with Land O’Lakes 
Zimbabwe and Headquarters Staff for up to 
three full days. Discuss protocol, which includes 
methodology and implementation plan that lays 
out how the consultant envisions conducting the 
program evaluation (sample size, tools, 
methodology, schedules and responsibilities)
Final work plan with milestone dates, time 
guideline, and logistical arrangements
5 September
Undertake a literature review of the 
program and other relevant documents 
including, but not limited to the documents 
mentioned in Section Error! Reference 
source not found. above
To contextualize and aid in development of data 
collection tools and report
10 –14 
September
Drafting data collection tools 
(questionnaires for quantitative data, 
FGD/interview guidelines, for all levels of data 
collection). Conduct pre-test with Land O’Lakes 
in program areas in Zimbabwe
Final version of data collection tools 10 – 14 
September
Train the survey supervisors and 
enumerators.
Conduct pre-test with Land O’Lakes in 
program areas in Zimbabwe
17-28 
September
Data collection - Carry out the fieldwork to 
collect quantitative and qualitative data, 
including engagement with key program staff, 
beneficiaries, government officers, other relief 
agency partners, private sector partners, other 
stakeholders, and other community members 
as needed to collect qualitative information for 
the evaluation.
Quantitative and Qualitative: evaluator 
should propose a sample size large enough for 
robust evaluation.
Data entry 
A bullet point preliminary presentation of key 
trends found from quantitative and qualitative 
data collection which will serve as the basis of 
preliminary and final drafts
An electronic version of all qualitative notes 
format, including quotes that summarize the 
impact of the project on beneficiaries
One electronic copy of finalized, clean data 
in Microsoft Excel format
One electronic folder of any applications, 
modules, and scripts developed to organize, 
process, and analyze the data. 
8-17 October
47
ACTIVITY GOAL/OUTCOME
Expected Date 
of Activity 
completion(2012)
20-25 high quality photographs (minimum 
300 dpi resolution photos) of some program 
evaluation data collection activities, i.e.; survey; 
interviews; focus-group discussions burned onto 
a CD-ROM disc and delivered to Land O’Lakes
Pre-report draft (electronic version, including 
data) using outline below
Analysis and report writing First draft of report due to Land O’Lakes that 
includes: Introduction;Protocol, Methods and 
Tools;Findings; Recommendations; Executive 
Summary; an introduction containing the 
objectives of the SOW and a brief description of 
the program. 
Actionable recommendations to improve the 
implementation of this and similar future projects, 
includingdata limitations; lessons learned, best 
practices and/or best principles
and appendices that include:
 SOW
 Composition of the team
 List of sites visited
 List of key informants
 Literature reviews
 Data collection tools
 References
Other appendices that document or support 
previous sections
By 27 October
Receive feedback from Land O’Lakes 
reviewers
Feedback received 6 November 
Final report writing, including changes 
integrated into report to fully address the 
concerns, comments, and issues raised by 
Land O’Lakes on the draft evaluation report
Two bound copies of the final 
comprehensive evaluation report with an 
electronic copy on a CD-ROM or thumb drive 
Electronic files of all clean raw (final) 
quantitative and qualitative data collected. These 
files should be delivered in MS-Excel format for 
quantitative data and Word for qualitative 
transcripts and notes.
One (1) electronic folder of any applications, 
modules, and scripts developed to organize, 
process, and analyze the data. 
One final report presentation given to Land 
O’Lakes, and one electronic/hardcopy version 
each of the presentation
In-person presentation of key findings from 
the evaluation to Land O’Lakes, donor and other 
stakeholders
15 November 
48
Expected Deliverables 
 Final Work Plan with milestone dates, time guidelines and logistical arrangements 
 Final version of data collection tools 
 Electronic version of all qualitative notes format, including quotes that summarize the impact of 
ZDL on beneficiaries 
 High quality pictures of process and some survey participants (electronic form) 
 Preliminary summary of data analysis based upon trends of data analyzed that will be used to 
develop the pre-report draft 
 Pre-report draft (electronic) following outline in Scope of Work 
 First draft of report following outline in Scope of Work 
 Final report (one hard copy, one electronic copy in Word)-see section 8 below for content detail 
 One (1) electronic copy of finalized, clean data in Microsoft Excel format 
 Final report presentation to Land O'Lakes, donor and stakeholders, including electronic and hard 
copy version of each presentation 
Expected Output in the Report 
The output for the assessment will be a report with the following focal points: 
 Efficiency and relevance of assistance to the target beneficiaries 
 Sustainability of the project 
 Analysis of objectives and outcomes against the activities 
 Challenges, gaps and learning’s from implementation 
49
Appendix 2: List of Persons and Organizations Consulted 
A. Land O’Lakes staff
No Name Position
1. CathrineMashayamombe Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist
2. Ozias Mombo Monitoring & Evaluation Assistant
3. Spencer Ngoma Administration & Finance Manager
4. Mr William Mudzingi Field Officer/ABS Accounting System, Land O’Lakes
5.
B. Key informants 
No Name Position
6. Mr Richard Wiskot NADF Field Officer, Masvingo
7. MrSibanda MCC Chairperson, Marirangwe
8. Mathew AI Technician/CLW, Marirangwe
9. Mr Christopher Gono MCC Chairperson, Hamaruomba, Masvingo
10. MrTinasheChirume Dairy Production Officer, LPD, Gokwe
11. Mrs Flora Chingura MCC Centre Administrator, Gokwe
12. Mr Simon Mubvumbi MCC Committee Member, Gokwe
13. MrMujuru MCC Vice Chairperson, Hamaruomba, Masvingo
14. Mr Elias Chiweshe MCC Vice Chairperson, Gokwe
15. MsBinoniaMatumbu MCC Committee Member, Gokwe
16. Mr Sharp Mazivanhanga NADF Field Officer, Wedza
50
Appendix 3: Household questionnaire 
Dear Respondent, 
You have been selected randomly from the many persons who are being assisted by Land O’ Lakes 
intervention in this area. The purpose for the interview is to help us understand your current situation so 
that in future we plan the right activities together and measure performance of this project. Please note 
that this survey will have no impact on whether this household will or will not receive any assistance 
offered by LAND O’ LAKES ZIMBABWE in the future. The information collected from this household 
will be combined with the information collected from other respondents and used to improve future 
related interventions. Each household’s responses will be kept confidential. 
IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS 
Province Name/Code: |__||__| 
District Name/Code: |__||__| 
Ward Name/Code |__||__| 
Village Name/ Code: |__||__| 
Household Number |__||__| 
Name of MCC: 
THE ENUMERATOR MUST READ AND INTERPRET THE PASSAGE BELOW TO THE 
RESPONDENT PRIOR TO THE INTERVIEW
51
Name of Milk Producing Association (MPA): 
ASSIGNMENT RECORD:
E-Code Name of Enumerator Signature Date Interview Completed
S-Code Supervisor’s Name Signature Date Checked
B: Household Dietary Diversity Score - HDDS): 
Now I would like to ask you about the types of foods that you or anyone else in the household consumed 
yesterday and the day before yesterday? NOTE: Firstly establish that these days were normal or usual 
days and not Special days 
A. Household Demographics
A.1 What is the sex of the respondent? 1 = male 2 = female
A.2 What is the age of the respondent? …………………….. Years
A.3
What is the sex of the household 
head?
1 = male 2 = female
A.4
What is the marital status of the 
household head?
1=married 3= Widowed 5=Separated
2=divorced 4= Single
A.5
What is the age of the household 
head?
…………………….. Years
A.6
Is anyone in your household been 
consistently sick for the past three 
months? 
1= Yes 0 = No
A.7
What is the current occupation of 
the Head of the Household?
1=Formally employed 2=Farmer
3=Trader 4 = Both formally 
employed and Farming 99= Other 
specify…
52
B.1. 
FOOD 
CODE
FOOD TYPES B.2. Did your 
household 
consume these 
food types 
Yesterday 
B.3. Did your 
household 
consumed these 
food types the day 
before Yesterday 
1=Yes, 0=No 1=Yes, 0=No
A Sadza
B Any potatoes, yams, manioc, cassava or 
any other foods made from roots or 
tubers?
C Any vegetables? 
D Any fruits? 
E Any beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, wild 
game, chicken, duck, or other birds, liver, 
kidney, heart, or other organ meats?
F Any eggs? 
G Any fresh or dried fish or shellfish? 
H Any foods made from beans, peas, 
lentils, or nuts? 
I Any cheese, yogurt, milk or other milk 
products? 
J Any foods made with oil, fat, or butter? 
K Any sugar or honey? 
L Any condiments, coffee, tea? 
M Other(specify)
C. Month of Inadequate Household Food Provisioning – MIHFP 
Now I would like to ask you about your household’s FOOD supply during different months of the year. 
When responding to these questions, please think back over the last 12 months. (FOOD supply refers to 
food that may have been produced, purchased, gifted etc…) 
QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODINGS SKIP
53
C.1. In the past 12 months, were there months in which you 
did not have enough FOOD to meet your family’s 
needs? 1=Yes 0=N0
…………….|___|
IF NO 
GO TO 
D
C.2. DO NOT READ THE LIST OF MONTHS.
PLACE A ONE IN THE BOX IF THE RESPONDENT 
IDENTIFIES THAT MONTH AS ONE IN WHICH THE 
HOUSEHOLD DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH FOOD TO 
MEET THEIR NEEDS.
If yes, which were the months (in the past 12 months) in 
which you did not have enough FOOD to meet your 
family’s needs?
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
A…………..|___|
B…………..|___|
C…………..|___|
D…………..|___|
E…………..|___|
F…………..|___|
G………….|___|
H………….|___|
I…………...|___|
J………..….|___|
K…….……|___|
L……..……|___|
D. LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION 
D.1 Has your household ever received any dairy animal from Land O’Lakes? 1= Yes 0= No. go to D3. 
D.2 How many animals (heifers and or bulls) have you received from Land O’Lakes so far? 
D.2A. Heifer /Bull 
name/ Tag 
number
D.2B. Date received 
(MM/YYYY)
D.2C. 
Recipient 
in 
household
1=Male
2=Female
D.2D. 
Pregnancy 
status at receipt
1=in-calf
2=not pregnant
3=Already with 
calf
D.2E. Are 
you 
currently 
milking this 
heifer
1=Yes
NAME No. 0=No
Month Code
YEAR
Heifer
54
Bull
D 3. Do you own any other livestock? (Yes =1, No =0) 
(If answer is ‘Yes’ please fill in the Table below, if ‘No’ skip to question 3.3) 
Livestock 
Species
D.4 
Number 
owned by 
the 
household 
(total)
D.5 
Number 
owned by 
male
D.6 
Number 
owned by 
female
D.7 
Number 
owned 
jointly
D.8Total 
Value 
sold in 
the past 
year 
USD
(Oct2011- 
Sept 
2012)
D.9 
Price 
per 
livestock 
type 
sold
Oct 
2011 –
Sept 
2012
D.10 
Total 
cost of 
transport,
labour, 
levies, 
permits,
slaughter 
fees, 
herding
while 
awaiting 
slaughter 
incurred 
during 
selling 
in the 
year 
(USD) 
(Oct 
2011- 
Sept 
2012)
Dairy 
Cattle
Local
Pure
Cross / 
exotic
Beef Local
55
cattle
Cross / 
exotic
Goats
Local
Cross/ 
exotic
Sheep
Local
Cross/ 
exotic
Poultry
Local
Cross/ 
exotic
Pig
Local
Cross/ 
exotic
Donkeys/Horses
Rabbits
Other, specify
E. Dairy Management 
E.1 What is the area that has been put under forage production in ha (this past season) 
……………….…………….… 
E.2 What is the method of grazing the dairy animals…………………………… 
1=Open range 2=Paddock grazing 3=Zero grazing 4 = 1 and 2 5 =1 and 3 6 = 2 and 3
 99=other, specify 
E.3 What type of grass do you mainly feed the dairy cattle on? ............................................. 
 1=Natural pasture 2=Cultivated pasture 3=Fodder 99=Other, Specify 
E.4 How many times are the dairy cattle fed with supplements per 
day………………………………………….. 
1=Once 2=2 times 3=3 times 4=More the 3 times 
56
E.5 How many times have your cattle (if any) been vaccinated or treated for any disease or received any 
known and approved veterinary intervention in the last 12 months? 
E.5a Veterinary 
intervention
Number of times the animals benefitted
E.5 .b By the 
Department of 
Agriculture
E.5 c By other
veterinarians
E.5.d By CLWS E.5 .e By 
yourself
Vaccinations
Dipping
De-worming 
E.6 How many of your cattle (if any) have been treated for any disease or received any known and 
approved veterinary intervention in the last 12 months? 
E.6 a Veterinary 
intervention
Number of animals which benefited
E.6.b By the 
Department of 
Agriculture
E.6 c By other 
veterinarians
E.6.d By CLWS E.6.e By 
yourself
Treatment for disease
Artificial insemination
De-worming 
De-horning
Castration
Any other veterinary 
intervention
E.7 LIVESTOCK SUPPORT & OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE 
3.4.7a Structure 3.4.7.b Number/Kg owned
Livestock drinking trough (#)
Cattle kraal (#)
Milking parlor
Livestock feeding trough (#)
Feeding paddocks (#)
Livestock sheds (#)
Barns (#)
57
Stock feed stored (Kg)
Sprayer (for ticks and others)
Donkey equipment e.g. saddles
Other, specify:
E.8 ACCESS TO WATER, FEED & DIPPING SERVICES 
E.8a 
Immediately 
accessible 
=1
E.8 b Takes a 
few hours (1 to 2 
hours) = 2
E.8c Takes 
several hours 
(more than 2 
hours) =3
E.8d Not 
accessible in 
this community 
=4
E.8.1 How do you 
rate access to water for 
livestock?
E.8.2. How do you rate 
access to pasture for 
livestock?
E.8.3 How do you rate 
your access to dipping 
services?
E.9 Gross Margin for the heard average. 
Now I would like to find out specific information about the performance of your average dairy herd. 
(Enumerator: please note that if the farmer has more than one cows, try to extract specific information 
that an average cow produces per year 
UNIT COST / TOTAL COST /
ITEM QUANTITY UNIT VALUE ($) VALUE ($)
RECEIPTS 
Milk Marketing 
Milk Sales
Other Income
Total Gross Income
58
LESS: EXPENSES 
Variable Costs
Dairy meal 
Maize Silage/Banner 
Pature production 
costs for 1ha
Casual Labour
Milk Transport
Dips (Pour-on type)
Blue guard (teat dip)
Sanitisers (Striclean)
Dry Cow Therapy 
Lactating cow therapy 
Antihelmintics
Total Variable Costs
Other Costs 
E.10 Total Milk Production 
Liters of milk produced during 
the wet season per month (Nov 
– April)
Liters of milk 
produced during 
the dry season per 
month (May –
October)
Cost of feed / supplement per month
Cost of vaccines per month
Cost of labor per month
Other costs per month (specify)
Total cost per month
59
F: LABOUR ACTIVITIES FOR LIVESTOCK 
F.1 Now I would like to find out about labour for your Livestock rearing activities during the last 6 
months: (Enumerator: Note that if the respondent says YES in F.1.a, continue with the rest of the 
questions, otherwise go to the next labour activity) 
F.1.a. Labour Activity F.1.b. Did 
the 
household 
use any 
labour for 
….
1=Yes
0=No
F.1.c. 
Labour 
type
F.1.d. 
Number of 
Males who 
provided 
labour for 
this activity
F.1.e. 
Number of 
female who 
provided 
labour for 
this activity
F.1f Cash 
payment/Value 
of in kind 
payment for 
hired labor in 
the past 6 
months
1=Construction of 
Parlous/Kraals
2=Milking
3=Forage production
4=Feed Preparation
5=Calf rearing
6=Veterinary Services
7=Transportation/ Marketing
Codes for F.1.c
1=Household labour/members
2=Hired labour for in kind payment
3=Hired labour for cash payment
4= Permanent workers
99=Other (Specify)
 
F.2 How many permanent workers supporting the dairy sector do you have?............................. 
F.3 How much do you pay each permanent worker per month (USD)? 
G: HOUSEHOLD INCOME & ACCESS TO SAVINGS AND CREDIT 
G.1. HOUSEHOLD INCOME
60
Source of income
Total income (USD) from current season 
(October 2011 to September 2012)
All field crops sold
All garden crops & citrus fruits sold
Livestock sold
Milk and other dairy products
Labor/Employment
Remittances
Small Business/Trade
Other sources of income (gifts, piece works, 
trading in non agriculture, etc)
G.2. ACCESS TO CREDIT AND SAVINGS
G.2.1Do you belong to any savings and /or 
lending scheme
1 = Yes Specify-----------------
2 = No
G.2.2 During the past 12 months, did you or 
any of your household member borrow money
1 = Yes
2 = No , go to G3
G.2.3 If you or any of your household member 
borrowed money, from whom did you borrow
1 = Savings club, 2 = Bank, 3 = Microfinance 
institution, 4 = Money lender, 5 = 
Friend/Neighbor, 6 = Relative, 7 = Burial 
society, 8 = other specify
If you borrowed money, what were the reasons 
for borrowing?( see codes below)
1 =Food, 2 =Health, 3 = Funeral, 4 = Social 
event, 5 = Avoid selling assets, 6 = Agric 
inputs, 7 = School fees, 8 = Other specify
G.3 DAIRY PRODUCTION, SALES AND CONSUMPTION (Answer if 4.1.2- Dairy Cattle=yes) 
Please tell me more about the COWS your household is currently raising and their milk production during 
the dry season (May – October 2012) and Rainy season (Nov 2011 – April 2012). 
G.3.1. 
Dairy animal 
Type
G.3.2 
Total 
number 
of cows
G.3.3. 
Number 
of 
lactating 
cows 
during 
dry 
G.3.4. 
Average 
liters per 
day 
during 
dry 
season
G.3.5. 
Number of 
lactating 
cows during 
wet season
G.3.6 
Average 
liters per 
day during 
wet 
season
G.3.7. 
3 Biggest 
problems in 
raising 
animals
(See codes 
below)
61
season
1)Traditional 
Breed
2) Cross Breed
3)Pure Breed
Codes for G.3.7.
0=None
1=Animal Diseases
2=Poor nutrition and Pasture 
Management
3=Limited Grazing Land
4=Water access
5=Poor Milk production techniques
6=Lack of market for Milk
7=Low milk price
8=Poor infrastructure (roads, water supply, 
electricity)
9=Unavailable supporting services (veterinarian, 
A.I.)
10=Unavailable finance (operating capital)
11=High input costs (feed, medicines, equipment, 
other)
12=High labor costs
13=Unavailable land for feed production
14=Unavailable information on markets
15=Unavailable information on production issues
99= Other
G.5. How much milk has your household currently produced during the last 7 days? 
G.5.1. Date G.5.2. Number of 
cows milked
G.5.3. Litres 
produced
G.5.4. Liters sold 
to MCC
G.5.5. Litres sold 
within 
village/locality
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
 
G.6. From 5.5. (Litres unsold), what did you do with the unsold milk? 
62
G.6.1. Usage G.6.2.
1=Yes ; 0=No
G.6.3. Litres per day
1) Household consumption
2) Used to feed calves
3) Given to other households
99) Other-Specify
G.8. How many litres did the household deliver to the MCC and how much money was received for the 
delivered milk at the last monthly payment from the MCC? 
G.8.1. Last month of delivery
Month Name G.8.1.Code G.8.2. Liters sold G.8.3. Amount(USD)
G.9 How has your milk sales changed from before the project has been launched? 
1 = Increased, 2 = Not changed, 3 = Decreased 
G.10 How has your milk consumption changed from before the project has been launched? 
1 = Increased, 2 = Not changed, 3 = Decreased 
 
G.11. What are the 3 most important things you use your dairy income on? 
5.10.1= CODES:
1=Purchase of staple food
2=Purchase of non staple 
foods
3=Purchase of household 
goods (e.g. radios, TVs, 
e.t.c.)
4=Education/school fees
5=Marriage
6=Savings/Banking
7=Purchase of clothing
8=Travel
9=Agricultural Inputs
10=Medicines for animals
11=Farm implements
12=Groceries (e.g. soap, 
colget, sugar, e.t.c)
99=Other Specify
5.10.2=
 5.10.3=
G.12. Who decides how to use the proceeds from the milk sales? ……………………………… 
1= Male Head of Household 
2= Female Head of Household 
3= Both male and female 
63
99= Other 
H: Milk Transportation, and Donkey management 
H.1 Do you have access to donkey/bicycle traction and transport (yes =1, No =2, go to section F)…….. 
H.2 If your answer is yes, did you receive this donkey/bicycle from Land O’Lakes ((yes =1 specify the 
date of receipt……………., No =2 Specify the source……………………..……..) 
H.3 What other activities that the donkeys are used for in the order of importance 
Activity Level of importance
Ploughing
Milk transport
Commodity Transport
Donkey trading
H.4 What feeding practices do you use for your donkeys? 
1= Grazing 2= Straw feeding 3= Grain feeding 4= Anything available 5= Household 
waste 6 = Fodder supplements 99 = Other specify 
H.5 How many hours are spent by donkeys working on an average day? 
Summer Winter
How many times have your donkeys (if any) have been vaccinated or treated for any disease or received 
any known or approved veterinary intervention in the last 12 month? 
Veterinary 
intervention
Number of times the donkeys which benefited
By the department of 
agriculture
By other veterinarians By yourself
Treatment for disease
Castration
Any other intervention
64
H.6 How many of your donkeys (if any) have been vaccinated or treated for any disease or received any 
known or approved veterinary intervention in the last 12 month? 
Veterinary 
intervention
Number of donkeys which benefited
By the department of 
agriculture
By other veterinarians By yourself
Treatment for disease
Castration
Any other intervention
H.7 Did any of your donkeys experience any health related problems in the last 12 months (Yes =1, No = 
2) 
H.8 If your answer is yes, what problems were experienced by the animal? 
1= Coughing, 2 = nasal discharge, 3 = weight loss, 4= leg sores, 5= back sores, 6= sudden death, 7= 
Abortion, 8 = skin disease, 99= other specify. 
H.9. Which areas are sores most frequently identified on donkeys 
= On the back, 2 = Hind quarters, 3 = Stomach, 4= Shoulders, 5= Neck/head, 6= Others 
specify……………………………… 
H.10 What are the causes of sores on donkeys? (More than one answer allowed) 
1= Inappropriate saddle design, 2= Overloading, 3 0 Poor feeding, 4 = Lack of Vet care, 5 = Inappropriate 
harness design, 7 = cannot afford better harness, 8 = Don’t know, 99 = Other specify…………………… 
H.11 How can sores be reduced on donkeys? 
1= Stop working the animal, 2= Reduce loads carried, 3= Improve feeding, 4 = Improve saddle/harness 
design, 5 = Change the type of donkey, 6 = Seek veterinary help, 7= Increase the number of donkeys you 
use, 8 = Don’t know, 99 = Other specify………………………….. 
H.12 What are the ways in which you treat sores on your donkeys? 
1 = Use traditional remedies, 2 = Just rest the animal, 3=Purchase drugs after vet advice, 4 = Do nothing, 
5 = Purchase drugs from vendor, 99= Other specify 
65
H.13 What are the major sources of income from donkey owners? 
Source of income Total income from donkeys per month (USD)
Land preparation and cultivation
Milk Transport
Transport of farm produce
Donkey trading
Petty business
Other specify
H.14 Now, I would like to know the exact details of one donkey in the past 30 days 
Source of income Total income per 
month (USD)
Cost Amount in (USD)
Land preparation and 
cultivation
Veterinary cost
Milk Transport Feed supplements (If 
any)
Transport off farm 
produce
Labour
Donkey trading Other specify
Petty business
Other specify
H.15 Bicycle transport gross margin 
What are the major problems you have experienced in donkey use and management? 
1= Feed shortage, 2 = Health problems, 3 = lack of veterinary services, 4 = Housing and implements, 5 
=Reproductive related, 99= Other specify………………………………….. 
I: EXTENSION SERVICES 
I.1. I would like to ask you about the Land O’LakesLand O’Lakes technical assistance services that 
you or any other member of your household have received in the past 6 months 
I.1.1. Service I.1.2. Did 
someone in the 
HH receive 
technical 
assistance on . 
I.1.3. Have 
someone in 
the HH used/ 
applied this 
technical 
I.1.4. Do you 
and your 
family 
members 
think the 
I.1.5 Other Main 
source of this 
technical 
assistance 
1=AREX 
66
. . ?
1=Yes
0=No
assistance?
1=Yes
0=No 
technical 
assistance is 
useful?
1=Yes
0=No 
extension officers
2=NGO (specify)
3=Private (e.g. 
vets)
4=Veterinary 
services
99=Other (specify)
1) Record Keeping
2) Animal Nutrition
3) Animal Health
4) Dairy Management
5) Calf Rearing
6) Milk Handling and 
Hygiene
7) Dairying as a 
business
8) Feed establishment
9) Feed Conservation
10) Artificial Insemination
11) Stocking
12) Market Linkages 
(Selling Milk to MCC)
Other specify
 
I.2. How have the Land O’Lakes Technical Assistance been useful in improving your dairy income? 
(Could you provide an example?) 
1.…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
2.…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
3.…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
I.3 What challenges have you encountered working with the Land O’Lakes Program? 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………… 
I.4. Is there anything else you want to say about the Land O’Lakes extension services provided? 
67
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………… 
……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
J: New technologies 
Did you or anyone in the HH use any of the following new technologies during from Land 
O’Lakes………………………….? 
New Technology 1 = Yes, 2 = No
Hay bailing using pit bailing
Hay bailing using box bailing
Silage making using plastics
Cutting silage using hand choppers
Zero grazing
Milking Parlous
Donkey transportation of milk
K: GENDER IN DAIRY PRODUCTION, MARKETING AND ON FARM PROCESSING 
 K1. Please indicate division of labor in performing the following dairy related activities 
Activity Performed by:
Husband (H) Wife (W) Children Both H & W All members of 
household
Herding
Feed collection
Construction of 
cattle shed
Feeding
Forage 
production
Cleaning cattle 
shed
Medical 
provision
Milking
Milk 
transportation
68
Marketing
Processing
Other (Specify)
K2. Who makes the following decisions in your household? 
Decision to: Decision made by:
Husband (H) Wife (W) Youths Both H & W All members of 
household
Buy dairy cattle
Borrow money
Rent land
Sell land 
Purchase of 
dairy inputs
Employ labor on 
farm
Sell dairy cattle 
(culls, heifers, 
calves)
Sell milk
Quantity of milk 
to be sold
Quantity of milk 
for home 
consuption
Process milk
Other (Specify)
K3. Who controls income from sale of dairy animals, milk and milk products? 
Income from 
sale of:
Controlled by:
Husband (H) Wife (W) Children Both H & W All Members of 
household
Dairy cattle
Milk
69
Dairy products
Manure
All dairy income
 
L: Environmental Management 
L.1 How far is the drainage system of yur caw shade away from the water source? 
1)> 3m 2) 3m-8m 3) <8m 
L.2 How far is the compost site away from your water source? 
1)> 3m 2) 3m-8m 3) <8m 
L.3 How do you dispose syringes and other hazardous materials including inoculants, pesticides, 
fertilizers? 
Burn 2) Bury underground 3) throw in the toilets 4) throe in the rubbish pit 5 ) other 
L.4 Do you use any protective clothing when using hazardous materials 1 Yes 2 No 
l.5 If yes which protective clothing do you have in your HH? 
1)Gloves 2 Overall 3 Gumboots 3 Work suit 4 Rain suit 5 Face mask 6 other (specify) 
M. Conclusion 
M.1 What is your overall rating of the Land O’Lakes project
1 = Highly satisfied 2 = Satisfied 3 = Not Satisfied 4 = Indifferent 
M.2 Do you have any question and or commend on the Land O’Lakes project 
70
Appendix 4: Key Informants’ Guidelines 
ASSIGNMENT RECORD:
E-Code Name of Enumerator Signature Date Interview Completed
S-Code Supervisor’s Name Signature Date Checked
IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS 
1. Province: __________________________ 
2. District: ___________________________ 
3. Administrative Post: ___________________________ 
Fodder production and grazing management 
A.1 Can you tell me about the land that is used for grazing dairy cows? (probe: communal, size, 
paddocks etc) 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
A.2 What options do people have for feeding dairy cows in the dry season 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
A.3 Do people in this are plant fodder crops for feeding dairy cows 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
A.4 What are the general challenges of fodder management in this area? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
A.5 What support do community leaders give in ensuring effective rangeland practices? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
MCC / MPA level 
B.1 In your own opinion are the MCCs / MPAs achieving the desired purpose? 
71
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
B.2 Are the MCCs properly managed in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of funds? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
B.3 What are the general challenges of the MCC / MPA methodology? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ 
B.4 What could be done to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of MCCs? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ 
Animal Health 
 
C.1 What are the common livestock pests and diseases which affect dairy cows in this area? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ 
C.2 How has the Land O’Lakes Intervention assisted the community in dealing with livestock health 
related problems? 
C.3 What roles do community members play in the administering of veterinary treatment? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ 
C.4 To what extent do community members support the development of Community Livestock Auxiliaries 
or other Village Based Trainers? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ 
What is your opinion on the roles of government, Land O’Lakes and paravets in offering livestock in 
general and dairy in particular extension? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________ 
72
Management of dairy cows 
D.1 How do you compare indigenous and exotic breeds in term of their milk production and business 
viability? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
D.2 How has the Land O’Lakes project impacted on the dairy business e.g. are people selling more milk, 
getting more money , living better lives etc? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
D.3 What are the major challenges experienced by dairy producers in this area? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
What could be done to improve the viability of dairy farming in this area? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
Milk Transportation 
E.1 What kind of a road network exist in the area? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
E.2 What kind of transport is typically used to carry milk to the market? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
E.3 How efficient are donkeys as a mode of carrying milk to the market? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
General livelihoods 
F.1 How do the people earn income for their day to day living? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
F.2 What are the income generating activities that are common in the area? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
73
F.3 Are there any off farm enterprises in the area? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
F.4 What type of credit and savings exist in the target communities? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
F.5 How does the community perceive informal lending schemes (if any) within the community? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
F.6 Do credit and savings schemes play any role in mitigating effects disasters? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
F.7 How do credit and savings schemes contribute (if at all) to building people’s resiliency to disasters? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
Milk marketing 
What are the markets that your household sells milk to in the area (Probe for milk markets other than the 
MCCs) 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________ 
How do you compare alternative prices with MCCs? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ 
Extension Services 
H.1 What types of places or to which people have you gone for dairy farming advice or instruction? 
(Probe for: cooperatives, other farmers, agricultural sales staff, extension agents, etc.) 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ 
H.2 Do they each have a different role and do farmers go to them at different times or use them 
differently? Why is this person/organization trusted? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ 
74
H.3 There is also a less formal “help” network, that is, people known who will help with the farm 
activities- vaccinations, planting, or with inputs. Can you describe some of these networks? Do you ever 
provide this type of support for or to other farmers? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ 
H.4 What could be done to teach farmers about improved dairy management practices? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ 
Land O’Lakes Partners (NADF) 
I.1 What is your assessment of the partnership between Land O’Lakes and NADF? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ 
I.2 What opportunities have you realized as a result of partnering with Land O’Lakes in this project? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ 
I.3 What are the major limitation / challenges of partnerships? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ 
I.4 What could be done to improve the partnership between Land O’Lakes and NADF? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ 
Challenges and recommendations 
J.1 What do you think are some of the biggest challenges or problems related to dairy farming in this 
area? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________ 
J.2 What are farmers doing to address these challenges or problems? 
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________ 
75
Appendix 5: Focus Group Discussion Guide 
Thank you for coming today to this discussion about farming in this community. My name is 
_________ and I am an independent consultant hired by Land O’Lakes International Development and I 
will be guiding the discussion. My colleague is ___________, and he/she will be taking some notes 
about our conversation because what you share is very important and we do not want to miss anything 
you say. 
Today we will be talking about your experiences being a farmer in this community. We are also 
interested in learning about your experiences with the Land O’Lakes Project. We encourage you to be 
open and honest in sharing information. Your answers to the questions should not be considered 
“right” or “wrong”. Some of you may have differing opinions or thoughts, so please understand that it 
is okay to disagree. All of our experiences and stories are equally important. Please be assured that all 
your responses are confidential and our summary report will make no references to names. Before we 
begin, let’s go around the room and introduce ourselves. But instead of telling us just your name, why 
not tell us your name and what types of activities you do at your farm.
Interviewer:…………………………… Recorder:……………………………………
Ward / Location:…………………………………………… Date:……………………………………………………………
76
Topic Issue
FGD 
Participants
Who participated FGD Respondents Age Fem
ale
Male
Understanding the ZLD project
How has the ZDL project progressed so far? 
What activities have been done so far
What has been the role of different stakeholders?
DLPD, Vet, AGRITEX, NDAsetc
What is the progress with MCCs ,MPAs
How the beneficiaries are selected 
Who was involved
Are there any Community Structures to manage 
the project? Explain.
Has the impact been positive or negative
Dairy Management (MCCs and MPAs)
What are the general issues at the MCCs
Are the MCCs and MPAs working?
77
How is milk transported to the MCCs?
Probe for donkey usage
How are the payments done?
How long does it take before the milk is collected?
Who determines the prices? 
How does it compare with other alternative markets
How are the passes on project and loan schemes 
operating? 
How efficient are donkeys as a mode of carrying 
milk to the market?
Technology management and change stories
What kind of trainings did the MPA members 
receive?
Probe for - Record keeping and other 
management related concepts
What is your perception about new technologies 
such as AI
How do you compare fodder production and 
normal grazing and food security
What other new technologies have you gained 
from the project
What has been the overall impact of the project on 
the household and community livelihoods
Extension Services
What types of places or to which people have you 
gone for dairy farming advice or instruction? (Probe 
for: cooperatives, other farmers, agricultural sales 
78
staff, extension agents, etc.)
Do they each have a different role and do farmers 
go to them at different times or use them 
differently? Why is this person/organization 
trusted?
There is also a less formal “help” network, that is, 
people known who will help with the farm activities￾vaccinations, planting, or with inputs. Can you 
describe some of these networks? Do you ever 
provide this type of support for or to other farmers?
What could be done to teach farmers about 
improved dairy management practices?
What do you think are some of the biggest 
challenges or problems related to dairy farming in 
this area?
What are farmers doing to address these 
challenges or problems?