ZIMBABWE LIVESTOCK FOR ACCELERATED RECOVERY AND IMPROVED RESILIENCY (ZRR) FINAL REPORT Submitted to: 1080 W. County Road F, MS 5120 Shoreview, MN 55126 USA Date: 30 August 2015 Name of the project evaluated: ZIMBABWE LIVESTOCK FOR ACCELERATED RECOVERY AND IMPROVED RESILIENCY (ZRR) Contract ID number ZRR-15-A-C-1534 Evaluation is commissioned by (person in charge, desk and organization) : . Name(s) of the evaluator(s): Dovich Development Management Experts (DEMEX) 1. Dr. Douglas Gumbo- Team Leader: Manicaland 2. Dr. Ntando Tebele- Team Leader: Matabeleland Date of Final Report: 30 August 2015 Person in charge for monitoring of the implementation plan: 1 Acknowledgement & Disclaimer The analysis, lessons and recommendations contained in this report have been contributed by many people involved in the USAID-OFDA-funded Zimbabwe Livestock for Accelerated Recovery and Improved Resiliency (ZRR) project. Dovich Development Management Experts (DEMEX) would like to thank the many people (project recipients, especially representatives of individual households targeted by the project, Local community leaders, Community Livestock Workers, Goat producers and Marketing Groups, their committees and former LAND O’LAKES staff) who generously gave their time to discuss the project performance, challenges and outcomes. Sincere gratitude goes to all respondents, key informants and stakeholders who made a positive contribution towards this evaluation. Special mention goes to the District Officials at Ward levels from Buhera, Bulilima, Makoni, Mangwe and Mutare Districts and for his good arrangement of fieldwork logistics, including mobilizing the project recipients, taking the evaluation team to sites and arranging interviews with Key informants. The views expressed in the report are those of the evaluators, and do not necessarily represent the view of USAID-OFDA or Land O’Lakes or the implementing partners. Douglas Gumbo Dovich Development Management Experts: 30 August 2015 2 Contents Acknowledgement & Disclaimer......................................................................................................... 2 Acronyms and Abbreviations.............................................................................................................. 4 Tables and Figures .............................................................................................................................. 5 Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 6 1. Background ...............................................................................................................................11 1.1 The ZRR Project.................................................................................................................11 1.2 Objectives of the Final Evaluation ...................................................................................12 2. Methodology and Implementation Approaches used in the Evaluation ...................13 2.1 Approach to the Evaluation..................................................................................................13 2.2 Data sources for the Evaluation ............................................................................................14 2.3 Challenges and Limitations during the Evaluation .............................................................16 3. Major Findings..........................................................................................................................17 3.1 Appropriateness of the intervention.................................................................................17 3.2 Achievement of Sub-sector goal and Project goal ........................................................19 3.3 Achievement of Intermediate Results .............................................................................20 3.4 Efficiency .............................................................................................................................34 3.4.1 Efficiency of project Management................................................................................34 3.4.2 Efficiency of project implementation............................................................................35 3.5 Sustainability of the project initiatives .............................................................................36 4. Conclusion, Lessons and Recommendations.....................................................................40 4.1 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................40 4.2 Lessons Learnt.........................................................................................................................41 4.3 Recommendations .............................................................................................................42 Annex 1: Scope of Work for the evaluation.......................................................................................44 Annex 2: List of Persons and Organizations Consulted.....................................................................48 Annex 3: Qualitative data collection tools........................................................................................51 Annex 4: ZRR Final Evaluation - Daily Data Collection Log Sheet .....................................................59 Annex 5: FGD summary field notes...................................................................................................60 Annex 6: Table of Key Performance indicators with Baseline, Midterm and Final Values................69 3 Acronyms and Abbreviations ACHM Africa Centre for Holistic Management Agritex Agricultural Technical & Extension Services CLW Community Livestock Worker CRM Complaints and Response Mechanism DA District Administrator DEMEX Dovich Development Management Experts DVS Department of Veterinary Services DRR Disaster Risk Reduction FGD Focus Group Discussion HLLM Holistic Land and Livestock Management HLM Holistic land Management ICT4D Information Communication Technologies for Development IR Intermediate Result KII Key Informant Interviews LPD Department of Livestock Production and Development M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NGO Non-Governmental Organization NR Natural Region OFDA Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PMSD Participatory Market System Development RDC Rural District Council RDDC Rural District Developmental Committee SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists TOR Terms of Reference USAID United States Agency for International Development VA Veterinary Assistant ZADF Zimbabwe Association of Dairy Farmers ZIMVAC Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee ZRR Zimbabwe Livestock for Accelerated Recovery and Improved Resiliency 4 Tables and Figures Table 1: Wards visited for qualitative data collection....................................................................15 Table 2: Number of focus group discussions conducted at each center...................................15 Table 3: Sources of extension support on animal husbandry .....................................................22 Table 4: Fodder crops planted in 2013-14 cropping season.......................................................25 Table 5: Marketing channels used by ZRR project beneficiaries ...............................................26 Table 6: Sources of goat market information - August 2014.......................................................26 Table 7 : Proportion of farmers practicing different animal health practices.............................32 Table 8 Checklist of the sustainability mechanisms for each project component....................37 Figure 1: ZRR Operational areas.....................................................................................................11 Figure 2 Framework for conceptualizing the evaluation framework...........................................13 Figure 3: Mr and Mrs Ngwenya from Bulilima district showing off Boer buck that they received from the ZRR project .........................................................................................................23 Figure 4: Bhidiri sales pen in Buhera ward 12 is now used as a pre-school ............................27 Figure 5: Metal movable kraal in Mutare at Manzununu community and Burma sheet in Makoni ward 31 ..................................................................................................................................29 Figure 6: A mountainous rangeland in ward 11 of Buhera district..............................................30 5 Executive Summary To expedite recovery, reduce risk, and mitigate effects of economic and environmental disasters on vulnerable communities in five districts of Manicaland and Matabeleland provinces of Zimbabwe, Land O’Lakes in partnership with Africa Centre for Holistic Management (ACHM), implemented the USAID-OFDA-funded Zimbabwe Livestock for Accelerated Recovery and Improved Resiliency (ZRR) project. The ZRR Project Goal was “to reduce risk through enhanced institutional and community capacities to respond to and mitigate the effects of disasters, strengthen the resilience of vulnerable communities, and reduce exposure to hazards through the effective use of goats and rangeland management”. The project goal was to be achieved by fulfillment of three Intermediate Results (IR) namely • IR1: Increased productivity and market access of the livestock asset base in vulnerable households and communities. • IR2: Increased communities’ capacity for and practice of sustainable rangeland management. • IR3: Increased capacity of and access to animal health and livestock extension services The ZRR project targeted 6,200 direct beneficiaries. The implementation period for the ZRR project was 16 May 2012 – 15 May 2014 at a cost of US$ 1,984,473. Through a 3 month no cost extension and a 12.5 month cost extension, the termination of the project was revised to 31 August 2015, at a total cost of US$ 2,984,080. The cost extension was mainly to increase the number of direct beneficiaries from 6,200 to 9,400 and expand the scope of the project to include a new component on improving water resources. Due to circumstances beyond the control of the project, activities scheduled for the extension period were not implemented. In collaboration with USAID-OFDA, the project budget was reduced and targets were reverted to the original implementation plan without the cost extension. The implementation period for the project was therefore 16 May 2012 – 15 August 2014. This final evaluation covered the implementation period 16 May 2012 – 15 August 2014. The evaluation assessed the appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the ZRR’s approach and implementation. Since the final evaluation was conducted 11 months after termination of project support, this gave the evaluation team an opportunity to assess if the project outputs/outcomes were still being realized by the beneficiaries almost a year after termination project support. Data for the final evaluation was collected from four main sources namely (i) secondary data through review of project documents and reports; (ii) quantitative data using household survey data collected by the ZRR project staff from 270 project participants in August 2014; (iii) primary qualitative data through stakeholder deliberative dialogue using focus group discussions and key informant interviews; and (iv) direct observation through site visits. Qualitative data was collected from all the five districts where project activities were implemented. Fieldwork for the evaluation was conducted from 27-31 July 2015. Appropriateness of the project The project was highly appropriate as it was aligned to the Food Deficit Mitigation Strategy (2010) and National Social Transfers Policy Framework (2012) of Zimbabwe that seek to reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience by strengthening sustainable livelihoods, stimulating markets, improving access to services and welfare support to overcome poverty. The project interventions that focused on building household assets through goat production and marketing coupled with improved rangeland management were a good foundation for building the resilience of vulnerable populations so they can respond positively to and 6 recover from potential shocks. The project appropriately targeted the highly vulnerable households in two provinces of Matabeleland South and Manicaland that are characterized by variable and relatively low rainfall (less than 650 millimeters per year), poor soils, poor land management techniques and a dearth of alternative economic opportunities. Livestock production remains the most suitable livelihood in these semi-arid regions. Goats were the most appropriate productive asset to promote due to their strong resilience to disease and ability to forage on poor quality vegetation. Selection of goats was also appropriate for the two year OFDA funding as goats reproduce fast (a minimum of three kidding cycles in two years) and desired outcomes can be realized within two years. However, the depth of the rangeland management component may have been inappropriate for a two year OFDA emergency funding as rangeland management requires a minimum of three years to get buy-in. Effectiveness of the project The project successfully contributed to the USAID-OFDA Subsector goal, exceeding all the targets several fold. The project partially achieved the ZRR project goal as only 44% out of a target of 60% of beneficiary households had improved asset base by the end of the project. Goal Target Achieved USAID-OFDA Sub-Sector Goal: Expedite recovery, reduce risk, and mitigate effects of economic and environmental disasters on Zimbabwe’s vulnerable communities through livestock production, management and marketing. A Number of animals benefitting from or affected by livestock activities 6,200 11,829 B Number of people benefiting from livestock activities 6,200 11,025 C Number of veterinary interventions, treatments or vaccinations administered 2,000 13,494 D Number of animals treated or vaccinated 1,500 8,352 Project Goal: Reduce risk through enhanced institutional and community capacities to respond to and mitigate the effects of disasters, strengthen the resilience of vulnerable communities, and reduce exposure to hazards through the effective use of goats and rangeland management. E Number of individuals participating in disaster risk reduction activities 6,200 11,025 F Percentage of beneficiary households with improved productive asset base 60% 44% G Percentage of beneficiary female-headed households with improved productive asset base 60% 61% Intermediate Result 1 was largely achieved. The ZRR project was successful in the training of 68 community livestock workers (CLWs) who in turn trained 2,205 community members on improved goat husbandry and marketing. Communities were actively applying improved goat husbandry techniques that included improved housing, improved kid rearing, supplementary feeding, castration and dehorning. Efforts at fodder production were frustrated by the poor rainfall. The goat herds were increased through the direct distribution and pass-on of 2,000 goats to 983 households. Average household goat ownership increased from six at baseline to nine at the end of the project. Although the goat pass-on was successful during project implementation, sustainability after termination of project support was a challenge. Goat breeds were improved through the introduction of 150 superior Boer bucks. Ten goat producer groups were formed and successfully trained on goat marketing. While 9 of 10 groups were linked to markets, these linkages did not last beyond the project life. Farmers were reluctant to sell to formal markets as they received lower prices when compared to farm gate. There was a 30% increase in the value of household assets when compared to the baseline. Intermediate Result 2 was partially achieved. Sixty eight (68) CLWs, out of a target of 50 were trained as trainers in farm and sustainable rangeland management techniques. With technical support from government extension and project staff, the CLWs successfully trained 7,430 community members exceeding the target 6,200. Six communities out of a target of eight were using the metal movable kraals and Burma sheets. The use of the burma sheets and movable kraals both contributed to increased crop yields and restoration of degraded grazing lands. According to the project reports, 6,369 hectares (target 2,000 hectares) of land had been improved through better grazing management, movable kraals 7 and fodder production. The evaluation team was not able to independently verify this area or understand how it was calculated by the former ZRR project staff. The project successfully developed six grazing maps at ward level. Unfortunately, the six maps were not further developed into implementable grazing plans. The project was therefore not successful in developing the grazing plans. Since communities from several wards utilized the mapped grazing areas, it was difficult to implement any controlled grazing as farmers from non￾project wards had not received any training on rangeland management. Through the initiative of traditional leaders, communities in six out of over 500 villages in the ZRR target villages, each developed their own grazing plans where they practiced ‘herding together’ during the rainy season. While the project promoted paddocking, only 2.2% of households surveyed were practicing paddocking by the end of the project. Almost all the farmers (97.8%) were practicing open range grazing at the end of the project. Paddocking was difficult to establish as grazing areas were communally utilized by communities from both project target and non-target wards. Intermediate Result 3 was achieved; The project successfully facilitated the training of 68 CLWs as trainers and service providers in animal health and extension, exceeding the target of 50. By the end of the project, 65 CLWs were applying and utilizing their skills to train and provide veterinary services and extension to farmers. The CLWs successfully trained and provided veterinary services and extension to 2,022 households exceeding the target of 2,000. During project implementation, funds from the input revolving fund were used for the purchase of vaccines and drugs. However, after termination of the project, there were inadequate funds for the purchase of drugs and vaccines as group members had stopped contributions to the input revolving fund, due to poor accountability on how the funds were utilized. Furthermore, the 12 dip tanks constructed by the project were also not utilized due to shortage of funds for purchase of acaricides. The CLWs were linked to the government veterinary department and reported directly to them. The CLWs remained the main source of extension support to the farmers. The extension services provided by the CLWs remained appropriate and relevant. The CLW approach proved to be one of the great successes of the ZRR project. By the end of the project, 5,964 women compared to 1,891 at baseline were making household decisions in veterinary care and management of their goats. The decision on how the income from goat sales was used was made jointly by both spouses. Given the levels of achievement of the three intermediate results, the project goal was therefore largely achieved. Efficiency The ZRR project had a clear Organogram and clear lines of reporting. The project was implemented by a small team of 11 technical and 4 support staff. The allocation of only one field officer for both Mangwe and Bulilima districts was inadequate. A high staff turnover of three over a period of two years was experienced for the Mangwe/Bulilima field officer position. Project implementation was guided by well-prepared implementation plans that were collectively developed and translated to work plans. Project progress was assessed during the regular quarterly planning and review meetings attended by the whole team. All reports to the donor and key stakeholders were submitted on time. Procurement of inputs was as per the USAID-OFDA guidelines. The project had a well designed and implemented M&E system that was useful in guiding project implementation. However, mainstreaming of complaints and response mechanisms was not immediately evident. The Africa Centre for Holistic Management was appropriately awarded the contract to provide training and technical support on rangeland management as they are the technical experts in holistic land and livestock management. Training of the communities was a collective effort of relevant stakeholders. Overall, the project selected the most suitably qualified institutions to provide specific training. 8 Sustainability The project had to terminate suddenly and was therefore unable to finalize sustainability mechanisms that were initially put in place. The project needed a phase where the sustainability mechanisms would be tested for effectiveness with monitoring, supervision and certification by technical partners. The expectation that Agritex, LPD and DVS would continue supporting farmers was over ambitious given the current capacity limitations of government departments. The current extension staff to farmer ratio is higher than 1:350. Since the evaluation was conducted one year after the project ended, it was a unique opportunity to assess which activities have continued and which have not. Project activities / components that have been sustained include: goat production, provision of extension services by CLWs and use of movable kraals. The components that have not been sustained by the project participants include; goat production groups, goat pass-on, input revolving fund, maintenance and utilization of dip tanks and sale pens, implementation of grazing management plans, fodder production and group marketing of livestock. Lessons Learnt Following are some of the major lessons learnt; 1. All key stakeholders should be involved in the design and planning of future projects so that issues of ownership, relevance and sustainability are adequately addressed 2. The transition from a recovery to a meaningful resilience development initiative would require that Land O’Lakes mobilize resources to strengthen some project activities like rangeland management and adhere to best practice of supporting a resilience initiative with a market driven approach to goat production. 3. Total buy in and active involvement of traditional leadership in rangeland management activities is critical for the success of the intervention. Rangelands are communally owned and the traditional leaders have total oversight over the utilization of the grazing land. 4. For successful implementation of interventions and realization of desired outcomes, adequate time frames should be programmed for. Holistic land management is a long-term activity that should not be integrated into a two year program. Livestock production and rangeland management are intricately connected and should be done together, but in a program with a longer timeframe. 5. When purchasing livestock for project use, the prevailing market rates should be used to avoid distorting the market. 6. For sustainability, the input revolving fund should be linked to an income generating initiative. 7. Without a functional community based monitoring system, the goat pass-on system will not be sustainable. 8. A landscape approach or watershed management approach should be used when promoting commonly managed resources such as grazing areas. Active involvement of the entire community and the local leaders who use the rangelands located in the same watershed is critical for success of the intervention. Recommendations Following are recommendations for future similar projects i. A project which promotes establishment of common managed resources such as rangelands and infrastructure facilities requires a local management structure linked to the technical service provider such as DVS and / or LPD and strong local leadership with good community mobilization skills for maintenance of the resources 9 and infrastructure after termination of the project. The project did not have strong local management structures that were linked to the government extension departments. ii. A field officer should be appointed for each district and the officer should be based at ward level. This will ensure that the officer is easily accessible to the CLWs for technical and supervisory support. Accessibility of the Mangwe / Bulilima field officer was a challenge due to the distances the officer had to travel from one district to the next. iii. For all recovery and resilience related projects, inception meetings should be allocated sufficient time for all stakeholders to understand their roles and responsibility in the project. Inception meetings were not allocated sufficient time and some leaders were not aware of their role in the ZRR project. iv. Community Livestock Workers should be given reference materials with relevant visual aids, more time should be allocated to practical lessons with refresher courses held frequently. The CLWs were not given any reference and training materials during project implementation. Refresher training that should be done at least once every six months was not given. v. Local leadership and producer group committees should be further trained in group dynamics, leadership and management. Since land use in communal areas is predominantly governed by the traditional leadership, rangeland management will work effectively where local leadership has been trained in leadership and community dynamics. Local leaders were not trained on group dynamics and leadership during the project. vi. To formalize the Goat Producer Associations, the project should ensure that all groups have a Constitution and a Code of Conduct that guides the activities of the group. Although all the Groups were advised to develop Constitutions, none of the groups in Matabeleland had constitutions. In Manicaland the groups had by-laws which were not enforced. vii. A community based monitoring team that comprises all stakeholders and reports to the chief should be set up to monitor the goat pass-on scheme. Lack of a strong community based monitoring team resulted in challenges that were faced with the pass-on scheme after termination of the project. viii. The project should facilitate service contracts between producer groups and identified goat markets. This will formalize the linkage between producer and buyers. Linkages created during the ZRR project were not formalized and were therefore weak. ix. The project should prioritize the mobilization and capacity building of all community leadership to a level where the leaders become the drivers of the proposed land use change. Implementation of herding together in six villages was a success because of strong buy in from the leadership that was driving the intervention. x. For future recovery projects, Humanitarian Accountability Assessments should be conducted at the beginning of the project. The assessment would establish the communication strategy between the beneficiaries and project staff and also establish a complaints and response mechanism. The complaints and response mechanisms were not clearly articulated during project implementation. Beneficiaries who had complaints were not aware how to handle them. 10 1. Background 1.1 The ZRR Project Land O’Lakes received support from USAID-OFDA to implement The Zimbabwe Livestock for Accelerated Recovery and Improved Resiliency project (ZRR) in five Districts. The project was implemented in three districts (Buhera, Makoni and Mutare) in Manicaland and two Districts (Bulilima and Mangwe) in Matabeleland South Provinces. The target wards are indicated in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: ZRR Operational areas The ZRR project was designed as a two year recovery project that falls within the Livestock and Veterinary Medicines or Vaccines Sub-Sectors of the USAID-OFDA Agriculture and Food Security Sector. At program level, the ZRR project contributes toward the USAID￾OFDA Sub-Sector Goal. The goals of the ZRR project were: i. USAID-OFDA Sub-Sector Goal: Expedite recovery, reduce risk, and mitigate efforts of economic and environmental disasters on Zimbabwe’s vulnerable communities through livestock production, management and marketing. ii. ZRR Project Goal: Reduce risk through enhanced institutional and community capacities to respond to and mitigate the effects of disasters, strengthen the resilience of vulnerable communities, and reduce exposure to hazards through the effective use of goats and rangeland management. The project goal was to be realized through the achievement of three Intermediate Results (IR), which are: 11  IR1: Increased productivity and market access of the livestock asset base in vulnerable households and communities. For the result the main component was the goat husbandry. Land O’Lakes helped communities in target wards to increase and maintain their livestock asset base through the distribution of goats to 983 eligible participants and worked through 10 livestock producers groups to administer capacity building training in improved goat husbandry techniques (including fodder establishment and storage techniques, planned production, marketing, and group dynamics) to a total of 2,205 households.  IR2: Increased communities’ capacity for and practice of sustainable rangeland management. In the rangeland management component, Land O’Lakes worked in the same communities to prevent environmental degradation to return degraded land to year￾round productive grazing and browsing. Through partner ACHM, the project facilitated a training of trainer course for 68 “master trainers” in the communities. The “master trainers” then trained 7,430 community members and worked together to create annual grazing and rangeland management plans in 6 communities.  IR3: Increased capacity of and access to animal health and livestock extension services. In the animal health component, the project identified 68 “Community Livestock Workers” (CLW) from the producer groups and trained them in animal health techniques and linkages to private veterinarians and drug suppliers. The CLW then provided animal health services to their producer group and in their communities to help reduce the rate of livestock mortality and improve herd productivity. The Agreement for Land O’Lakes to implement the ZRR project from 16 May 2012 – 15 May 2014 was signed with USAID-OFDA on 16 May 2012. Upon signing the agreement, the project was able to access and immediately start spending the US$ 1,984,473 allocated for the project. To complete activities, the project requested for, and was granted a 3 month no￾cost extension, with the project termination date revised to 15 August 2014. The project further requested for, and was granted a cost extension up to 31 August 2015. The 12.5 month extension was mainly to increase the number of direct beneficiaries from 6,200 to 9,400 and expand the scope of the project to include a new component on improving water resources. The total cost of the USAID-OFDA support for the ZRR project (16 May 2012 – 31 August 2015) was US$ 2,984,080. Due to circumstances beyond the control of the project, activities scheduled for the extension period were not implemented. In collaboration with USAID-OFDA, the project budget was reduced and targets were reverted to the original implementation plan without the costed extension. The implementation period for the project was therefore 16 May 2012 – 15 August 2014. 1.2 Objectives of the Final Evaluation As per the Scope of Work, the final evaluation was meant to assess the appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the ZRR’s approach and implementation (Annex1). The specific objectives were to; • Assess the appropriateness of the strategies and methodologies employed by Land O’Lakes in the program given the goal, timing, location, and beneficiaries’ needs; • Assess the degree to which the project has met its projected goals, objectives, outcomes and outputs and explain deviations, taking into account gender differences; • Describe any unintended benefits or negative consequences of the intervention, and how the program team handled it; • Describe community perceptions of the project and benefits; 12 • Identify factors and constraints that affected project implementation including technical, managerial, organizational, institutional and socio-economic issues to addition to other external factors. • Assess the sustainability of the program and its various activities; • Describe environmental, social or cultural issues that could undermine the sustainability of the results; • Comment on how the project approached gender equality to ensure balanced involvement in project activities; • Identify key strengths and weaknesses of the program; • Identify key lessons learned and recommendations which should be adopted by Land O’Lakes for similar programs in Zimbabwe or elsewhere. Since the activities scheduled for the extension period were not implemented, this evaluation only considered the implementation period 16 May 2012 – 15 August 2014. 2. Methodology and Implementation Approaches used in the Evaluation 2.1 Approach to the Evaluation The evaluation was guided by an Evaluation Framework that tracked efforts by the project from inputs, processes, outcomes (capabilities) and impacts (Figure 2). The approach focused on process evaluation and outcome/impact evaluation. Process evaluation involved a detailed review of the ZRR project (i) strategy; (ii) implementation process (iii) documentation; and, (iv) management processes. Outcome/ impact evaluation assessed the contribution made by the project in making a difference in people’s lives. Figure 2 Framework for conceptualizing the evaluation framework PROCESSES INPUTS OUTPUTS IMPACTS Functional Area Outputs Service outputs Increased resilience to economic and environmental disasters Improved knowledge, attitudes and practices on rangeland management Increased livestock productivity Increased access to markets Increased access to animal health and livestock extension services Capability Well-being External inputs USAID-OFDA ACHM Land O’ Lakes Facilitation & Management Joint planning processes Training Program level information Beneficiary level information 13 A multi-disciplinary and collaborative approach was followed during the final evaluation. The evaluation was conducted in a participatory manner, working closely with the former Land O’Lakes Technical Manager, partners and stakeholders to document project achievements and lessons learnt. 2.2 Data sources for the Evaluation Data for the Final evaluation was collected from four main sources namely; • Secondary data: - through review of project documents and reports; • Primary quantitative data - household survey data collected by ZRR project staff from project participants in August 2014; • Primary qualitative data - stakeholder deliberative dialogue using focus group discussions and key informant interviews. The organizations and persons met are listed in Annex 2. • Direct observation through site visits (Annex 2). 2.2.1 Analysis and review of secondary data The evaluation critically reviewed the project design documents, project plan, performance monitoring plan (PMP), data collection as well as reporting systems, training manuals, baseline report, midterm evaluation report and quarterly and annual project progress reports that were submitted to USAID-OFDA. Through the review of existing data, the extent to which targets were attained was assessed. 2.2.2 Primary Quantitative data analysis The evaluation used data that was collected from 270 project-participant households in August 2014 by the ZRR project. The dataset was cleaned to ensure correctness, consistency and completeness of the survey data. In order to ensure proper cleaning of the data, cleaning rules were developed. The data, which was originally in MS Excel, was converted into Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) for two main reasons. Firstly, it was used for detecting and removing inconsistencies from the data to improve its quality. The missing data or inconsistent data was then checked with the original data collection forms at Land O'Lakes headquarters. Secondly, after cleaning, the data was analyzed using the SPSS. 2.2.3 Collection and analysis of Qualitative data The evaluation visited and collected qualitative data from all the 8 wards that were supported by the ZRR project (Table 1). Data collection teams were in the field from 27 – 31 August 2015 (Annex 4). Qualitative data was collected through focus group discussions (FGD) and key informant interviews (KII). Only one center1 per ward was sampled. 1 A center was a focal point in the ward where project beneficiaries congregated for project activities (e.g. training, meetings, etc). 14 Table 1: Wards visited for qualitative data collection Province District No. of Wards Ward Names Manicaland Buhera 2 Wards 11 & 12 Makoni 1 Ward 31 Mutare 3 Ward 11 (Namburiko) Ward 12 (Mushunje) Ward 22 (Manzununu) Matabeleland Bulilima 1 Ward 11 (Madlambudzi) Mangwe 1 Ward 4 (Mangwe) Total 8 Focus group discussions (FGD) The evaluation collected qualitative data using the following FGDs; i. Local leaders (traditional leaders and elected leaders (councilors); ii. Goat Producer Group members (mixed group - 3 men and 3 women who received goats and 3 men and 3 women who did not receive goats), iii. Goat Producer Group members who received goats (women only), iv. Goat Producer Group Committee, and v. Community Livestock Workers (CLW). The numbers of FGDs conducted at each site are indicated in Table 2. Table 2: Number of focus group discussions conducted at each center FGD participants Matabeleland Province Districts & Wards Manicaland Province : Districts and Wards Mangwe Bulilima Mutare Mutare Mutare Buhera Buhera Makoni Ward 4 Tshitshi Ward 11 Madlambudzi Ward 11 Nhamburiko Ward 12 Mshunje Ward 22 Manzununu Ward 11 Ward 12 Ward 31 Local Leaders   - -     Goat Producers (men & women))         Goat producers (women only)  -       Producer Committee -  -      Community Livestock Workers  -       FGDs were held with project beneficiaries. A total of 308 community members (184 females and 125 males) participated in 34 FGDs across the five districts (Annex 2). A checklist of questions guided the FGDs (Annex 3). Key Informant Interviews 15 Key informant interviews were conducted with key stakeholders at both community and district levels across the five districts. Semi-structured questionnaires were used to guide the interviews (Annex 3). Analysis of qualitative data Qualitative data from FGDs and KII was analyzed using the computer software Atlas.ti7. Field notes were transcribed to text, cleaned and saved in Word Format. All individual field notes were then converted to PDF and loaded onto Atlas.ti7. Codes were generated based on pre-determined project issues that the evaluation sought to assess. The data from all the primary documents was filtered using these codes, and the output displayed as text referenced to the primary documents (FGD and KII notes). The analysis using Atlas.ti7 facilitated the grouping of text that addresses the same issues. 2.2.4 Site Visits In each district, site visits to different interventions supported by the ZRR project were conducted (Annex 2). Some of the sites visited included movable kraals, grazing areas, goat housing, goat sale pens and dip tanks. Good quality photographs of these sites were taken and compilation of the ZRR project in pictures prepared. Five case studies of success stories were also prepared. 2.3 Challenges and Limitations during the Evaluation The following are some of the challenges and limitation that were experienced during the evaluation; 1. The Final Evaluation was conducted 11 months after the ZRR project terminated activities on the ground. Some of the beneficiaries had forgotten some of the finer details of project implementation. In Matabeleland, the confusion was more pronounced as there were several projects going on at the same time. There was confusion with the current USAID funded Amalima project and the Promoting Recovery in Zimbabwe (PRIZE) project. 2. At the time of the evaluation, the ZRR project staff were no longer on the ground. However, an opportunity to discuss the project with former staff was made available at an all-day lessons learned event held on July 25th. The evaluation also greatly appreciated the assistance of the former Technical Manager of the ZRR project who was always there to answer questions on the project. It was only through the assistance of the former Technical Manager that the evaluation was successful in mobilizing communities for qualitative data collection. 3. Since the evaluation was conducted during the dry season, it was difficult to observe some of the components of the project like fodder demonstration plots and the impact of movable kraals on field crop production. 16 3. Major Findings The findings presented are based on the 270 household interviews of project participants conducted in August 2014, KII and FGDs with beneficiaries, and observations made by the evaluation team in July 2015. 3.1 Appropriateness of the intervention Appropriateness was measured in terms of whether the interventions were in line with Government national policy and/or strategies; located in the right agro-ecological zones, meeting local needs and priorities of beneficiaries, and applied using a transparent targeting and selection of project recipients including CLWs. 3.1.1 Alignment to government policies and strategies Zimbabwe has experienced a number of unprecedented economic, environmental and political shocks and stresses over the past two decades that has resulted in people stripping their productive assets and making them dependent on food aid. Despite meeting short-term humanitarian needs regarding survival, large-scale emergency interventions do not substantially improve local capacity to withstand future shocks and stresses. Smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe today are typically characterized by low productivity and lack of market competitiveness.2 They face multiple constraints in pursuing their livelihood, including limited extension services, poor access to financing, limited access to markets, and a lack of market information. The project is aligned to Food Deficit Mitigation Strategy (2010) and National Social Transfers Policy Framework (2012) that seek to reduce vulnerability and enhance resilience by strengthening sustainable livelihoods, stimulating markets, improving access to services and welfare support to overcome poverty. These frameworks signal a transition by the Government towards a long-term developmental approach that respond to a wide variety of shocks and stresses. The project interventions were a good foundation for building the resilience of vulnerable populations so they can respond positively to and recover from potential shocks by helping them to cope with current change, adapt their livelihoods, restock their livestock herds and improve rangelands and governance systems so they are better able to avoid problems in the future. 3.1.2 Geographical targeting The project was meant to improve community and household resiliency to economic and natural shocks for highly vulnerable households in two provinces of Matabeleland South and Manicaland (five districts) which are found within agro ecological Zones IV and V. Geographical targeting was done effectively through three main considerations: firstly, based on consensus by district stakeholders who chose areas where there are highly vulnerable households in agro-ecological zones IV and V. The communities in these regions are still vulnerable to economic and environmental shocks. Secondly, it was based on a previous USAID-funded dairy production and donkey traction program (Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe) and thirdly, it was based on an assessment conducted in 2011 that showed that households most impacted by vulnerabilities related to erratic rainfall and droughts are those that depend on livestock for wealth generation. Selection of target districts was therefore appropriate as it was based on Vulnerability Assessment Reports and suitability of the districts for goat production. The selected districts lie in Zimbabwe’s agro￾ecological Zones IV and V that are characterized by variable and relatively low rainfall (less than 650 millimeters per year), poor soils, poor land management techniques and a dearth of 2 Government of Zimbabwe and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Country Programme Framework 2012-2015. Harare, 2012. 17 alternative economic opportunities. Livestock production remains the most suitable livelihood in these semi-arid regions. Goats were the main small livestock promoted and were the ideal productive asset due to their strong resiliency to disease and ability to forage on poor quality vegetation. 3.1.3 Targeting and selection of beneficiaries The project essentially targeted all community members in the operational wards. Targeting the whole ward was appropriate as grazing lands are communally owned and utilized. Rangeland management and service provision by CLWs targeted the whole community in the ward. The selection of goat beneficiaries, either through direct provision or pass-on, was based on six key elements: • Membership to a goat producer group. • Attendance to at least 50% of the training sessions. • Construction of recommended goat housing. • Ownership of goats in order to receive bucks • Willingness to castrate and sell off all local male bucks and use the buck introduced by the project. • Willingness to contribute to the input revolving fund. During FGDs, communities were satisfied that the selection criterion listed above ensured that only those people committed to goat production would receive goats. The committed beneficiaries were highly likely to ensure successful implementation and sustainability of the goat production initiative. Furthermore, the selection criteria promoted beneficiary contributions; in–kind contributions through the construction of goat housing and cash contributions to the group input revolving fund. However, FGDs also revealed that there were some inclusion and exclusion errors, but, the actual level could not be established. Additionally, the selection of beneficiaries for the pass￾on of goats in half the wards (Ward 11, 22 in Mutare, Ward 31 Makoni and Ward 12 in Buhera) in Manicaland was done by CLWs without consultation with the local leadership and Producer Group Management Committees. Feedback on the selection of the recipients was not given to the broader community. The lack of transparency resulted in suspicion of nepotism and favoritism. The selection process ensured that at least 60% of the beneficiaries were women. This was not difficult to achieve, as culturally, the care of small stock is left to women. Furthermore, women are generally more consistent in attendance to training sessions than men. The evaluation is satisfied that the initial targeting and beneficiary selection was appropriate. 3.1.3 CLWs and Master Trainer targeting The responsibilities of CLWs included (i) the provision of animal health services to participating farmers, (ii) training of the group members in animal husbandry and (iii) training of the community in rangeland management. In Manicaland, the CLWs were selected from the goat producer group members and participation was voluntary. The CLWs were selected through an open community selection process where the group members in the village were all openly involved in the selection of candidates. Communities based their selection on age (young and energetic), ability to work with others, experience in livestock management and literacy, social and morally upright. In Matabeleland the project targeted paravets that had previously been trained by other organizations (Government, Practical Action and 18 Organization for Rural Association for Progress). The candidates were however endorsed by the communities through an open selection process. According to FGDs and KII, the selection of CLWs was transparent as the communities were directly involved in selecting the preferred CLWs. 3.2 Achievement of Sub-sector goal and Project goal 3.2.1 USAID-OFDA Sub-Sector Goal: Expedite recovery, reduce risk, and mitigate effects of economic and environmental disasters on Zimbabwe’s vulnerable communities through livestock production, management and marketing. Number of animals benefitting from or affected by livestock activities: A total of 11,829 animals (exceeding the target of 6,200 animals) benefitted from activities that were implemented by the project. The high adoption of good goat husbandry practices, animal health related initiatives and uptake of good land management practices such as fodder production at farm level, resulted in more animals benefiting from or affected by livestock activities than targeted. The number of CLWs and their mobility made it possible for them to attend to more animals than had been previously targeted. Furthermore, the CLWs provided health and extension services to animals that belonged to both project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. It is however, also possible that the project may have been very conservative in its estimation of the targets. The ZRR quarterly report of Jan – March 2013 states that a goat census across project sites indicated that there were 11,482 goats. Since this indicator looks at all animals (cattle, goats, sheep), then a target of 6,200 animals was conservative. Number of people benefiting from livestock activities: Some 11,025 people against a target of 6,200 benefited from livestock activities. The project engaged more people than had been anticipated. More community members were involved in rangeland management. Anticipation of benefiting through the goat pass-on scheme also resulted in more people attending training lessons and constructing goat housing. The project managed to engage more people on rangeland management activities than had been originally anticipated, since all communities in the target wards, rather than only the producer group members, were involved in land management activities. During project implementation, the CLWs conducted several campaigns on vaccination, dipping, castrations and dehorning. These campaigns involved the whole community i.e. project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. These campaigns were able to reach a larger number of people, exceeding the project target. Number of veterinary interventions, treatments or vaccinations administered. A total of 12,524 treatments and veterinary procedures were conducted on all livestock (cattle, goats, and sheep) exceeding the target set at 2,000. The achievement was six times the target. The high numbers of veterinary interventions and treatments indicated the improved access to veterinary extension and animal health services through the CLWs. Through effective training and better understanding of animal health, farmers were requesting for veterinary services from the CLWs. Furthermore, during project implementation, the input revolving funds were operational, so, the producer groups were able to purchase adequate vaccines and drugs. During project implementation, the CLWs conducted several campaigns on vaccination, dipping, castrations and dehorning. These campaigns involved the whole community i.e. project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. These campaigns resulted in veterinary interventions and treatments exceeding the project target. It is also possible that the project may have been very conservative in its estimation of the targets as there was no indication on how quickly and effectively trainings on animal health and husbandry would translate into farmers actually adopting the practices. 19 Number of animals treated or vaccinated: The CLWs working with government extension staff vaccinated / treated 8,352 goats in two years, exceeding the target of 1,500. The goats vaccinated include both the project beneficiaries and other communal farmers’ goats. The CLWs conducted several vaccination campaigns during the life of the project. Vaccinations for pulpy kidney were the most frequent as kids were vaccinated at two months and thereafter twice a year, and all does were vaccinated two weeks before kidding. Through better understanding of animal health, farmers were requesting for vaccinations and treatment of the goats by the CLWs. During project implementation, vaccines and drugs were available as group members were actively contributing towards the input revolving funds. 3.2.2 Project Goal: Reduce risk through enhanced institutional and community capacities to respond to and mitigate the effects of disasters, strengthen the resilience of vulnerable communities, and reduce exposure to hazards through the effective use of goats and rangeland management. Number of individuals participating in disaster risk reduction activities: 11,025 individuals were aware of climate related risks that they faced in their area, have taken efforts to rebuild their goat herds and are in the process of trying out community based adaptation measures to reduce the impacts of shocks and stressors that are likely to affect them in future. The project exceeded the target of 6,200.Goat restocking and various trainings on goat production, land management and rangeland management made the project reach out to more people. Grazing plans were also revised to target the community and not only direct beneficiaries. Percentage of beneficiary households with improved productive asset base: Forty four (44) percent out of a target of 60% of beneficiary households had improved asset base. The achievement was lower than the target because some farmers sold off their assets, especially goats to pay for household expenses, school fees and health expenses. Furthermore, most of the households from Matabeleland had not realized the desired outcomes from the project as the project terminated before the first progeny from the distributed bucks was born. Percentage of beneficiary female–headed households with improved productive asset base: To date, 61% of female headed households had improved asset base, exceeding the target set at 60%. 3.3 Achievement of Intermediate Results This section outlines the major findings for each Intermediate Result focusing on four main aspects namely; i. Project components implemented and targets that were successfully accomplished. ii. Project components and targets that were partially accomplished and the reasons thereof. iii. Analysis of the main approaches and critical success factors for achieving the project results. iv. Overall conclusion on achievement of the result area. 20 3.3.1 IR1: Increased goat production asset building and improve access to markets by vulnerable household and communities (i) Project components implemented and targets that were successfully accomplished Training of Community Livestock Workers: The project successfully trained 68 CLWs (33 males and 35 females) as community trainers in goat husbandry, animal health, and rangeland management, exceeding the target of 50. The CLWs were trained by project staff and technical staff from DVS, LPD, Agritex and ACHM. As the target wards were geographically spread out, the project’s initiative of increasing the number of CLWs from 50 to 68 ensured better coverage of the beneficiaries across the five districts. The provision of bicycles also facilitated better coverage of the target communities by the CLWs. The training in goat husbandry focused on nutrition, housing, breeding, disease diagnosis and prevention / treatment care of the buck, kid rearing, dehorning, castration, ear tagging and record keeping. Overall, the training of the CLWs was effective as during the FGDs, the CLWs were able to accurately articulate and explain the different aspects of goat husbandry. However, during FGDs, the CLWS indicated that ageing goats on dentition was one of the areas that they found very difficult to grasp and would require further training on it. Other areas that they required additional and new training on included disease diagnosis and treatment and calving problems, as farmers regularly requested their support on these areas. During FGDs, the farmers reported that the CLWs were adequately trained as they provided good clear training and excellent services especially on castration, vaccination and disease treatment While the training of CLWs was effective, CLWs did not receive any reference notes or training visual aids. In Mangwe district, CLWs indicated that the time allocated for practical sessions during the training could have been increased to ensure that everyone got a chance to try out what was being demonstrated. Furthermore, after the initial training, refresher courses were not held. The DVS recommends that CLWs should meet with the DVS staff at least once every six months to discuss progress and also receive refresher training on veterinary extension and animal health care. Training and application of goat husbandry by households: The CLWs, under the technical support of the project and government extension staff, successfully trained 2,205 households on improved goat husbandry, exceeding the project target of 2,000. By the end of the project, the majority (95.2%) of households were practicing improved goat management (93.7% of households had constructed improved goat housing; 75.9% of the households renovated the goat housing twice a year, with 17.4% renovating once a year; 89.3% of the households were practicing improved kid rearing; the proportion of households castrating bucks as a herd management practice increased from 13% at baseline to 25.9% at the end of the project; 83% were practicing feed preservation). Due to the application of improved husbandry practices, kid mortalities had reduced from 27% at baseline to around 10% at the time of the final evaluation. By the end of the project, the overall goat mortality rate of 14.8% was much lower than the 45% goat mortality reported at baseline. Kid and overall goat mortalities were significantly reduced due to the adoption of improved husbandry and animal health practices. The CLWs remained the main source of extension support to the farmers (Table 3). The majority (70.4%) of the farmers indicated that extension services provided by the CLWs were appropriate and relevant as the advice given was applicable. 21 Table 3: Sources of extension support on animal husbandry Area of Technical Assistance Sources of extension support and proportion (%) of beneficiaries using them None Community Livestock Worker Government Extension Staff NGO Other Goat management 1.5 59.3 1.1 37.8 0.4 Kid rearing 1.1 58.5 1.9 38.1 0.4 Animal nutrition 4.4 55.6 1.9 37.8 0.4 Goat production as a business 1.5 58.5 1.1 38.5 0.4 Feed establishment 1.5 58.5 1.5 38.1 0.4 Feed conservation 1.9 57.8 1.9 38.1 0.4 Stocking 2.7 57.4 1.5 38.1 0.4 During the FGDs, farmers indicated that they would continue the following improved practices ; (i) improved goat housing through renovation of goat housing – however through observation during the final evaluation, it was evident that some farmers were no longer renovating the goat houses at the same frequency they did during project implementation as most goat houses visited were in need of repair, (ii) improved goat feeding through allowing the goats to graze for at least six hours and supplementary feeding with urea treated crop residues, and (iii) castration and dehorning. Although the farmers emphasized the importance of vaccination, deworming and dipping, they indicated that availability of funds would determine whether they continued with the practices or not. Distribution of goats: The project successfully distributed goats to 741 households, exceeding the target of 700. A total of 2,000 goats (1,850 does and 150 bucks) were distributed, exceeding the target of 1,500. Land O’Lakes was able to provide additional goats due to purchasing goats for less than budgeted. In addition to the direct goat distribution by the project, 241 households received goats through the pass-on scheme. In total, the project was able to contribute towards building the livestock assets of 983 households (833 received does, 124 received bucks and 26 received both bucks and does). By the end of the project, 92.6% of the sampled beneficiaries owned goats. The average number of goats per household increased from six at baseline to 9 by the end of the project. Breed Improvement: The project successfully distributed 150 Boer bucks (50 each to Bulilima and Mangwe districts and 50 to Manicaland province) to targeted beneficiaries (Figure 3). A mixture of translocation stress and poor management resulted in high mortalities for the bucks distributed in Mangwe district. At the time of the final evaluation in 2015, thirty-five out of 50 bucks had died, giving a high mortality of 70%. Buck mortality for Bulilima district was 14% and mainly due to inadequate housing and pulpy kidney disease. In Manicaland, buck mortality was low at around 2%. The provision of a superior buck breed catalyzed the reproduction of improved quality offspring. Where good goat husbandry practices were followed, and supplementary feeding conducted regularly, like in ward 31 of Makoni district and ward 12 of Buhera district, goat herds were increasing at recommended commercial rates of not let less than three kidding cycles in two years. During FGDs, the farmers confirmed that they were indeed continuing to use the Boer bucks for breeding. However, during communal grazing, bucks from non-project participants were servicing some of the does and disrupting the goat breeding. Some of the famers had also reverted back to uncontrolled breeding where does were left with the buck all the time. 22 Figure 3: Mr and Mrs Ngwenya from Bulilima district showing off Boer buck that they received from the ZRR project Formation of Goat Producer Groups: The project successfully established 10 goat producer groups, achieving the target of 10. The producer groups were formed at ward level. With the exception of Makoni ward 31 and Bulilima Ward 11, that had two groups each because of their large geographical sizes, the rest of the six wards had one group each. At village level, the project facilitated the formation of sub-groups that were part of the umbrella ward group. Establishment of sub-groups facilitated the implementation of training sessions and project activities as the ward group was too large and some participants would have had to travel large distances for project activities. The 10 producer groups had responsibility for coordinating the training of members; managing the activities of the CLWs, administration of the input revolving fund and monitoring the goat pass-on system. Each producer group had a Group Producer Management Committee. The final evaluation in 2015 revealed that some of the groups did not have Constitutions that guided them in managing the group activities. The 983 households that received goats from the project participated in the producer groups. The project met its target as 60% of the producer group membership was female. During project implementation, the groups met regularly for training and to discuss project and group issues. Unfortunately, 12 months after termination of the project, the groups in Bulilima and Mangwe had stopped meeting. During FGD, the farmers indicated that they were no longer meeting because the pass-on did not happen and that since the marketing linkages were not established, there were fewer reasons to meet as a group. In Manicaland, only three out of eight groups were meeting regularly, mainly for the administration of the goat pass-on Training on goat marketing: The project successfully trained members of the 10 goat producer groups on marketing of goats. At the end of the project, 2,205 households were trained and were also receiving technical assistance in goat production and marketing through the CLWs. This number exceeded the project target of 2,000. The training exposed the farmers to the different goat marketing channels. Furthermore, the sale of goats through formal markets based on live weight or dressed mass was explained. Formal grading of carcasses based on weight, age, fleshing and fat cover were also explained. During FGDs, 23 beneficiaries exhibited a fair understanding of the different marketing channels and their requirements. They emphasized that although the marketing of goats based on fleshing Household asset base: Percentage of beneficiary households with improved productive asset base: The average household asset value for beneficiary households was $2,496 which is a 30% increase over the value of $1,914 estimated at baseline. The increase in asset value was equivalent to $582 / household. This increase was attributed to a combination of factors that included (i) an increase in the average number of goats per household from six at baseline to nine at end of project, and (ii) purchase of assets using both project and non-project related sources. Only 30.4% of households realized income through the sales of an average of four goats per household at an income of $134.28. Of the farmers who sold goats, 53.6% sold 1 goat each. The survey also showed that 63% of the households were involved in savings and lending schemes whose income that contributed towards asset procurement... (ii) Project components and targets that were partially accomplished and the reasons thereof Goat pass-on: Restocking in the target wards was to be achieved through the direct distribution of goats and sustained through the goat pass-on system. The households that received bucks were to pass-on a buck to another household in the group that met the criteria. Similarly, the household that received three does had to pass-on three does to another household in the group that met the criteria. The community was to decide when to stop the pass-on. During project implementation, the project was able to support the beneficiaries in Manicaland as they established and implemented the goat pass-on system. The beneficiaries in Manicaland received mature does that were able to breed and kid within six months of goat distribution. During project implementation, the goat pass-on proceeded successfully with 241 households receiving goats through the pass-on system. In contrast, in Matabeleland, the project was unable to support the beneficiaries through the establishment of the pass-on system. The beneficiaries in Matabeleland received 6 month old bucks towards the end of 2013. The bucks had to mature to breeding age (8-10 months) and thereafter service the does. This therefore meant that by the time the project terminated in August 2014, the does were still to kid their first progeny from the project bucks. At the time of the final evaluation in 2015, the goat pass-on was progressing in a systematic manner for only three goat producer groups in Manicaland. For the other four groups in Manicaland, the pass-on system experienced the following challenges (i) poor record keeping and tracking of beneficiaries, (ii) lack of clarity on the roles of the leaders and CLWs in the pass-on system (iii) lack of support from leadership that was excluded from administration of the pass-on, and (iv) goat mortalities delayed the pass-on scheme. In Matabeleland (Bulilima and Mangwe districts), the goat pass-on failed to take off. By the time the first progeny of bucks were born, the project had ended and the producer groups had stopped meeting. There was no formal structure to administer and monitor the implementation of the pass-on system. Furthermore, leadership in these two districts indicated lack of clarity on how the pass-on system was to be conducted. Only a handful of CLWs in Bulilima and Mangwe districts reported that they had passed on bucks. Establishment of fodder banks: The project was instrumental in the introduction of supplementary feeding through the use of cultivated fodder crops and urea treated crop residues. During the first year of implementation, the project successfully established 20 fodder demonstration plots. During the 2013-2014 cropping seasons, the project distributed 500 grams each of sugar graze, velvet beans, and sun hemp to 780 farmers for cultivation. At the end of the project in 2014, only 10.7% of the households were cultivating fodder and using it as supplementary feed for goats during winter. Due to inadequate rainfall, low yields 24 of 0.25 t/ha for velvet beans, 0.3 t/ha for sugar graze and 0.66 t/ha for sun hemp were realized (Table 4) Table 4: Fodder crops planted in 2013-14 cropping season Fodder crop Mean Area planted (ha) Mean Total Production (kg) Yield (t/ha) velvet beans 0.14 34.49 0.25 sugar graze 0.07 21.55 0.31 cow peas 0.1 19.65 0.20 soya bean 0.01 2.44 0.24 yellow maize 0.02 4.67 0.23 groundnuts 0.8 21.74 0.03 Sun hemp 0.01 6.61 0.66 During the FGD in 2015, farmers indicated that poor rainfall during the 2014-15 cropping season frustrated their efforts at fodder production. Consequently, yields for fodder crops were insignificant and farmers were having difficulties providing supplementary feed in 2015. Despite the challenge in fodder production, the farmers indicated that they would continue attempts to establish fodder plots as they are now aware of the positive effects that supplementary feeding has on goat quality. Maintenance of input revolving fund: During project implementation, all the 10 groups successfully established input revolving funds since contribution towards the fund was one of the conditions for receiving a goat. The fund was to be used for group purchase of inputs and drugs for the goat enterprises. Unfortunately, after the exhaustion of the initial contributions, the input revolving funds collapsed as members were reluctant to make further contributions. There was generally lack of trust on how the funds were managed. According to some FGDs in Manicaland, the farmers felt that it was better to establish the revolving fund for smaller groups at village level where membership would be about 10-15 people. Monitoring of fund usage would be easier for a smaller group. Linking goat producers to the market: The project successfully introduced and linked nine out of 10 groups to formal markets. Three groups of farmers in Makoni district each made single sales to Surrey Abattoir while in Mangwe and Bulilima, the project organized one auction sale each where Grills Butchery was the sole buyer purchasing on live weights. Following the initial sales by Makoni farmers, and the introductory auction sales in Mangwe and Bulilima, the farmers have not made deliberate efforts to pursue the market linkage with the established market. During the final evaluation, the farmers in Mangwe and Bulilima indicated that the prices offered by the formal markets were much lower than what they realized through farm gate sales. The dissatisfaction with the prices was also reflected in the end of project survey where 78% or respondents cited low prices as one of the major challenges in goat marketing. The possible explanation for the low prices when selling based on weight was that the existing breeds (average weight 20kg) combined with the feeding regimes (free range with very limited supplementary feeding) have not improved the goats enough to fetch high prices. Farmers are currently building their herds using the superior Boer bucks. It is anticipated that in the next two years, farmers will be selling larger frame goats with better fleshing and fat cover, and fetch higher prices. It was unfortunate that the goat purchase strategy implemented by Land O’Lakes also contributed to the dissatisfaction with the prices offered in the formal markets. When the project started, the goat market price ranged between $1.00 and $1.20 per kg live weight. The project purchased goats at $1.80 per kg live weight. While the purchase price of $1.80/kg ensured that the project accessed good quality does quickly, this created a problem 25 when farmers started selling their goats in the open market as they were offered only $1.20 / kg live weight. Private buyers were unable to match/compete with the price the project had offered the farmers. The ZRR purchase price had distorted the market. The evaluation recommends that in future, projects should purchase livestock at the prevailing market price. market At the end of the project, farmers were using different marketing channels for goats (Table 5). Although there was a notable decrease in use of farm gate sales, 66.42% at baseline to 38.3% at end of project, farm gate sales still remained the most used channel for goat sales. Table 5: Marketing channels used by ZRR project beneficiaries Marketing Channel Proportion (%) using channel at Baseline Proportion (%) using channel at midterm Proportion (%) using channel at End Of Project Business center 24.42 10.3 15.2 Collection point N/a 12.3 15.7 Farm gate 66.42 64.4 38.3 RDC cattle sales 9.16 3.4 32.0 Sales at the RDC cattle sales increased from 9.6% at baseline to 32.0% at end of project. The sales at RDC cattle sales were similar to farm gate sales as the goats were sold through negotiation with private buyers and not on live weight. The farmers took advantage of the congregated buyers at the cattle auctions to sell their cattle. Access to market information is critical for any business operation to succeed. The survey revealed that the main source of goat market information was the farmers themselves (Table 6). Clearly, the farmers did not have access to formal goat marketing information. Inadequate access to marketing information is a sign of inadequate linkage to formal markets. Table 6: Sources of goat market information - August 2014 District Sources of goat market information and proportion (%) of beneficiaries using them None Extension officers Other farmers Livestock traders Local gatherings Other Buhera 0 0 77.4 9.5 11.9 1.2 Bulilima 0 10 60.0 0 30.0 0 Makoni 0 1.7 56.9 6.9 32.8 1.7 Mangwe 26.1 0 73.9 0 0 0 Mutare Rural 4.4 2.6 69.6 6.3 16.3 O.7 Creation of market linkages was the weakest component for IR1. According to key informants and FGDs conducted at the eight sampled centers, the smallholder farmers were currently inclined towards production rather than market based approach. Their engagement in the goat subsector was not based on its competitive advantage, the potential of market expansion and the existence of a demand potential. Construction and Utilization of goat sale pens: The project successfully constructed five goat sale pens in Buhera wards 11 and 12, Makoni Ward 31 and Mutare wards 11 and 12... None of the sale pens are being used for the auctioning of goats. For example, Bhidiri sales pen is now used as a pre-school (Figure 4). 26 Figure 4: Bhidiri sales pen in Buhera ward 12 is now used as a pre-school The reason for the poor usage of the sale pens was that farmers were reluctant to sell their goats through the auction sales as they were dissatisfied with the prices that they were offered by buyers during previous auction sales. A further drawback to the use of sale pens is that auctioneers were not interested in conducting goat auctions as the commission they earn from the sale of goats was miniscule when compared to cattle sales. There have to be large numbers of good quality goats to attract auctioneers and buyers to goat sales. (iii) Analysis of the critical success factors for achieving the project results The following are some of the factors and strategies that ensured the successful achievement of project results; • The use of the CLWs (who were locally selected by the community) in the provision of training and technical support on goat husbandry led to accelerated adoption of improved husbandry techniques as the CLWs were working with the farmers on a daily basis. Access to technical support on goat production was therefore always available at community level. • Setting conditions for eligibility to goat distribution ensured that only those individuals committed to goat production participated in the project. Attendance to at least 50% of the training sessions ensured that goat beneficiaries had the required knowledge on goat husbandry. The committed beneficiaries ensured the successful implementation of the goat production initiatives. • Restocking of household herds using the pass-on system ensured that a larger number of community members benefited from a few seed goats. However, this strategy only worked efficiently where there were clear accountability mechanisms including a local management structure for the pass-on. Good record keeping and involvement of leadership in the management of the pass-on system were critical for successful implementation. • Locally adapted does and bucks purchased within the communities were able to survive and multiply quicker when compared to those bought in from outside. 27 • Understanding the market and supply chain analysis by small holder farmers is important for strengthening market linkages and making farmers better understand the true value of their goats. iv) Overall conclusion on achievement of Intermediate Result 1 The ZRR project was successful in the training of CLWs who in turn trained community members on improved goat husbandry and marketing. Communities were actively applying improved goat husbandry techniques that included improved housing, improved kid rearing, supplementary feeding, castration and dehorning. Efforts at fodder production were frustrated by the poor rainfall. The goat herds were increased through the direct distribution and pass-on of goats. Although the goat pass-on was successful during project implementation, sustainability after termination of project support was a challenge. Goat breeds were improved through the introduction of superior Boer bucks. Ten goat producer groups were formed and successfully trained on goat marketing. Although market linkages were established, the linkages were not sustained. Farmers were reluctant to sell to formal markets as they received lower prices when compared to farm gate. There was a 30% increase in the value of household assets when compared to the baseline. Farmers were reluctant to continue contributions to the input revolving funds. Intermediate Result 1 was therefore largely achieved. 3.3.2 IR2: Increased communities’ capacity for and practice of sustainable rangeland management (i) Project components implemented and targets that were successfully accomplished Training of master trainers and farmer training: Sixty eight (68) CLWs, out of a target of 50 were trained as Master trainers by ACHM in farm and sustainable rangeland management techniques. CLWs indicated that training on rangeland management which included a “look and learn” visit to ACHM-Dimbangombe ranch in Hwange District was adequate. In addition to the CLWs, key community leaders also attended the 3-day look and learn training facilitated by the project to ACHM in Victoria Falls, where they were able to see rangeland management in action. The CLWs and community leaders that participated in the “look and learn” visit to ACHM were convinced that rangeland management can be effective. With technical support from project staff, LPD and Agritex staff, the CLWs successfully trained 7,430 other community members on rangeland management exceeding the target of 6,200. Field days were instrumental in demonstrating the benefits of improved farm and rangeland management to community members. During FGDs, some KII indicated that the CLWs and local leaders could have coordinated better in their training to convince all community members of the benefits of the approach.” Use of movable kraals: The six communities that received movable kraals out of a target of eight are all using the metal movable kraals and burma sheets. Farmers reported that the use of the Burma sheets and movable kraals both contributed to increased crop yields and restoration of degraded grazing lands (Figure 5). Farmers in Mutare and Makoni Districts reported increases of maize yields from 0.6 - to 1.2 t/ha. In contrast, use of the movable kraals in Buhera did not result in improved crop yields due to erratic rainfall and prolonged dry spells which led to crop failure. 28 Figure 5: Metal movable kraal in Mutare at Manzununu community and Burma sheet in Makoni ward 31 Area under improved land management: According to the project reports, 6,369 hectares (target 2,000 hectares) of land had been improved through better grazing management, movable kraals and fodder production. The evaluation team was not able to independently verify this number or understand how the area under improved land management was calculated by the former ZRR project staff. There was no doubt that the movable kraals and fodder production significantly contributed to improved land management. However, if the estimate of area under improved land management included all the land under grazing maps, all of which were not implemented, the reported number may be higher than actual. (ii) Project components and targets that were partially accomplished and the reasons thereof Development and utilization of grazing management plans: In Zimbabwe, a district is an administrative unit that is sub-divided into wards. Several wards make a district. Each ward is further sub-divided into villages according to the spatial arrangement of the settlement. A village is administered by the traditional leadership. The ZRR project was implemented in 8 wards in five districts. The 8 wards targeted by the ZRR project comprised of over 500 villages. The project successfully developed six grazing maps at ward level. Unfortunately, the six grazing maps were not further developed into implementable grazing plans. The project was therefore not successful in developing the grazing plans. Through the initiative of traditional leaders who had visited Dimbamombe Ranch in Victoria, six small villages each developed their own grazing plans where they practiced ‘herding together’ during the rainy season. These villages included;  Village B2 in Mutare Ward 22  Tanga Village in Mutare Ward 11  Village 2 and 14 in Makoni Ward 31  Mututsa Village in Buhera Ward 11  Hazvinavarwi in Buhera Ward 12 Herding together was practiced during the rainy season and not during the dry season. This was because during the dry season, all communities practice open grazing as pastures will be poor. Furthermore, livestock have to be driven long distances in search of water as the rangeland water sources dry up during winter. The farmers are therefore forced to find alternative water sources outside the rangelands, disrupting any grazing plans that may be in place. 29 While the project promoted paddocking, only 2.2% of households surveyed were practicing paddocking by the end of the project. The proportion of farmers practicing open range grazing by the end of the project (97.8%) had not changed much when compared to baseline (93.1%). The slight increase in the proportion of those practicing open range grazing at the end of the project is most likely due to those who were previously tethering their goats. Paddocking was difficult to establish as grazing areas were communally utilized by communities from both project target and non-target wards. Rangeland management is a community and not an individual household initiative that requires the active participation of traditional leaders who are the custodians of the communal lands. Farmers highlighted the following challenges in the implementation of rangeland management activities; (i) engaging local leaders or other community members who were not beneficiaries of goats, on rangeland management practices, was very difficult, (ii) after termination of the project activities on the ground, local leadership and CLWs who had the responsibility to continuously train the community, implement and monitor grazing plans, were no longer active, (iii) predation from hyenas, jackals and baboons is very high in grazing areas that are located in mountainous areas (e.g. Manicaland). Herding together in such areas was not feasible. Figure 6 below shows a mountainous rangeland in Buhera Ward 11. Figure 6: A mountainous rangeland in ward 11 of Buhera district In both Bulilima and Mangwe districts in Matabeleland province, grazing plans were not implemented because of a peculiar grazing system during winter. During the dry winter season, livestock is driven to grazing pastures/ farms some 15-20 km away and only rounded up for dipping every two weeks. Farmers hire herdsmen to stay with the livestock in the grazing areas. Since communities from several wards utilized these grazing areas, it was difficult to implement any controlled grazing as farmers from non-project wards had not received any training on rangeland management. Farmers from Matabeleland were resistant to herding together and kraaling animals together. One challenge to implementation of rangeland management techniques was the late involvement of the traditional leaders. The 30 leaders were not aware of their role in rangeland management. Furthermore, no committees were set up to oversee the implementation of rangeland management. (iii) Analysis of the critical success factors for achieving the project results • The buy-in by local leadership in rangeland management is key to enforcing and upholding good rangeland principles and practices. In areas where local leadership support has been effectively harnessed (e.g. Ward 12 Mutare), mobilization of communities for production and implementation of grazing and rangeland management plans as well as herding together are visible. In such areas additional pastures have been allocated to facilitate rotational grazing, paddocking and enhance reclamation of degraded lands. • Projects like rangeland management require a long time to implement as it has a lot to do with behavior change of participating communities. A minimum of three years is required to establish proper grazing management plans. • Building on existing best practices: Successful components were building on previous and other on-going practice for which communities had some awareness and confidence like herding and kraaling together in movable kraals • Communities that are normally affected by chronic shocks and stressors prioritize techniques that offer immediate and tangible benefits to communities. FGDs and KII acknowledged that use of technologies such as movable kraals helped in improving soil fertility and crop yields within a year of establishment. iv) Overall conclusion on achievement of Intermediate Result 2 The evaluation concludes that Intermediate Result 2 was partially achieved with the techniques such as movable kraal being accepted as a good technology while utilization of grazing management plans was less successful. Since communities from several wards utilized the grazing areas, it was difficult to implement any controlled grazing as farmers from non-project wards had not received any training on rangeland management. This was the weakest component of the project that could have been achieved with a longer timeframe. 3.3.3 IR3: Increased capacity of and access to animal health and livestock extension services (i) Project components implemented and targets that were successfully accomplished Provision of animal health services and extension: By the end of the project, 65 CLWs (96%) were still applying and utilizing their skills to train and provide animal health and extension services to farmers. The CLWs successfully trained and provided veterinary services and extension to 2,022 households exceeding the target of 2,000. To facilitate access to farmers, the CLWs were provided with bicycles. To perform veterinary procedures, the CLWs were provided with veterinary kits. The CLWs were paid a nominal fee of $1 or R5 / goat for vaccinations and veterinary procedures. In situation where the farmers were unable to pay, the CLWs still provided services. During the final evaluation, the CLWs indicated that the biggest challenge to the provision of veterinary treatments and vaccinations was the shortage of vaccines and drugs. Since farmers had stopped contributions to the group input revolving funds, they were unable to purchase drugs and vaccines. In situations where the CLWs purchased the drugs, the farmers were unable to pay the CLWs for the drugs. Consequently, inadequate vaccination of goats has led to the return of pulpy kidney disease and the associated mortality in Mangwe and Bulilima districts. 31 In ward 11 in Mangwe district, the CLWs were the only source of veterinary assistance as there was no government veterinary extension staff on the ground. In those areas where there was veterinary staff, the CLWs worked very closely with them and reported directly to them. For example, in Bulilima, the DVS staff signed the CLWs registers every week. There were however a few exceptions in Mutare wards 11 and 22 where the CLWs seemed to be in direct competition with the veterinary extension staff on the ground. The majority (57.8%) of respondents indicated that, they accessed animal health extension support from CLWs, while 38.1% accessed support from NGOs that included the Land O’Lakes staff. When compared to the baseline, there was a significant improvement in disease treatment and vaccination by the end of the project in 2014 (Table 7). In contrast, the application of dipping and deworming had declined to below baseline levels. Table 7 : Proportion of farmers practicing different animal health practices Animal heath practice Proportion practicing at Baseline (%) Proportion practicing at Midterm (%) Proportion practicing at End of project (2014) (%) Disease treatment 4.6 10 47.8 Vaccination 51.9 68 74.8 Dipping 36.6 68.4 35.6 Deworming 43.5 25 40 During the final evaluation in 2015, farmers confirmed the decline in the frequency of deworming, citing shortage of funds to purchase deworming remedies as the main reason. The farmers further emphasized the unavailability of veterinary drugs in the local agro-dealer retail shops. However, whenever the drugs were available in the local shops, the high prices charged were prohibitive. Farmers therefore still had to travel to the nearest cities and towns to purchase veterinary drugs. An added challenge was that most of the farmers did not have a cold chain to keep the vaccines, and were therefore apprehensive to purchase them as the vaccines would lose their efficacy before use due to inadequate storage conditions. The greater the proportion of inputs that can be sourced locally from agro-dealers and agro-vet enterprises at competitive prices, the greater the chances that producers will be competitive in their production activities. The evaluation recommends that future similar projects should consider bringing veterinary drugs, at affordable prices, closer to the farmer. Decision making by women in veterinary care and management of goats: As part of gender mainstreaming, the ZRR project sought to determine the proportion of women that were able to make household decisions on veterinary care and management of goats. By the end of the project, 5,964 women compared to 1891 at baseline were making household decisions in veterinary care and management of their goats. This achievement was more than double the target of 2,480. This finding is not surprising as traditionally, women are left to tend for the small stock whilst the men look after the large stock. Survey data indicated that both men and women shared almost equally the goat rearing activities. When it came to decision making on how the income from goat sales was used, the majority (74.5%) of respondents indicated that the decision was made jointly by both spouses. This confirmed that the women had as much power as the men on the decision on how the income from goat sales was used. All participants in the FGDs indicated that the project was very important in improving spousal communication and that no conflicts at household level were recorded as a result of this project. Most families sat together and made joint decisions on when to sell and the use of the money after selling the goats. Women from households that benefitted also indicated their active engagement in decision making and direct involvement in deciding on the use of 32 the money after selling the goats. Cooperation and improved social rapport as a result of the pass-on scheme. Information Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D): The CLWs participated in a Catholic Relief Services (CRS) implemented pilot project with the DVS. The project was on the use of mobile phones by field staff to capture and then transmit livestock data (e.g. census, disease surveillance) to the DVS. More than 50% of the CLWs participated on the project and sent data through the ICT4D platform. While the ICT4D platform was an effective way of speedily transmitting livestock data from the field to the DVS, the platform was suspended as the DVS was sorting out payment arrangements with the data service provider. (ii) Project components and targets that were partially accomplished and the reasons thereof Utilization of dip tanks: Although 42.6% of the survey respondents reported that dip tanks were immediately accessible, the final evaluation revealed that all the 12 dip tanks constructed by the project were not being used. The main reason advanced for not using the dip tanks was the lack of funds to purchase acaricides. Only 27.4% of the households surveyed reported ownership and use of a knapsack sprayer for tick control on goats. (iii) Analysis of the critical success factors for achieving the project results The following are some of the factors and strategies that ensured the successful achievement of project results; • Training of trainer’s approach of community based livestock extensionists enabled local communities to access extension services locally. This complements government efforts where extensionists are facing mobility challenges and are located away from the communities. Building a grassroots animal health network linked to larger private enterprises government veterinary department is likely to improve herd productivity, reduce mortality, and increase the availability of breeding stock in the area. • The CLW approach proved to be one of the great successes of the project. The selection of the CLWs by the communities ensured that the most suitable candidates were selected. Through the use of CLWs, animal healthcare and extension services were made more accessible and affordable to the rural farmers. Since CLWs were part of the community and resident in the community, their services were available upon request. Equipping the CLWs with bicycles ensured that they were able to reach all community members. Lack of transportation has always been a major constraint to the provision of extension services by the government extension staff. • Issue of bicycles was a major incentive for the CLWs to carry out their extension activities. Bicycles are a valued asset in the community as they provide a means of transportation. The CLWs used bicycles for both animal health extension related and personal errands. • The ability to receive payment or token of appreciation of services provided by the CLWs was a major motivator. CLWs felt appreciated by the gesture of payment. Overall conclusion on achievement of Intermediate Result 3 The project successfully facilitated the training of 68 CLWs as trainers and service providers in animal health and extension, exceeding the target of 50. By the end of the project, 65 CLWs were applying and utilizing their skills to train and provide veterinary services and 33 extension to farmers. The CLWs successfully trained and provided veterinary services and extension to 2,022 households exceeding the target of 2,000. The biggest challenge to the provision of veterinary treatments and vaccinations was the shortage of funds to purchase vaccines and drugs. The CLWs were linked to the government veterinary department and reported directly to them. The CLWs remained the main source of extension support to the farmers. The extension services provided by the CLWs remained appropriate and relevant. The CLW approach proved to be one of the great successes of the ZRR project. By the end of the project, 5,964 women compared to 1,891 at baseline were making household decisions in veterinary care and management of their goats. The decision on how the income from goat sales was used was made jointly by both spouses. It was only the utilization of dip tanks that was unsuccessful. Intermediate Result 3 was achieved. Given the levels of achievement of the three Intermediate Results, the project goal was therefore partially achieved. 3.4 Efficiency 3.4.1 Efficiency of project Management Human Resource Use The ZRR project had a clear Organogram and clear lines of reporting. The project was implemented by a small team of 11 technical and 4 support staff. A Chief of Party had overall responsibility for the project. Unfortunately, the evaluation was unable to meet with the Chief of Party. An experienced Technical Manager was responsible for the day to day coordination of four Field Officers and a Business Development Officer. Although the evaluation was satisfied that all staff had adequate qualifications and experience for the positions they held, the allocation of only one field officer for both Mangwe and Bulilima districts was inadequate. The field Officer responsible for Bulilima and Mangwe districts was based in Plumtree town. The Mangwe district project site was 60 km south west of Plumtree whilst the Bulilima District site was in an opposite direction, 75 km North West of Plumtree. Implementation of project activities necessitated a lot of travelling on very rough roads, especially to the Bulilima project sites. A high staff turnover of three over a period of two years was experienced for the Mangwe/Bulilima field officer position. The evaluation recommends that for future similar projects, a field officer is appointed for each district. Furthermore, in situations where the activities are concentrated in only one ward in a district, the field officer should be based at ward level. Planning and Reporting Project implementation was guided by well-prepared implementation plans that were collectively developed. The implementation plans were translated to monthly, fortnightly and weekly work plans. Project progress was assessed during the regular quarterly planning and review meetings that were attended by the whole team. At these quarterly meetings, the M&E staff presented and discussed findings from the quarterly monitoring visits. Budgets were also reviewed during these quarterly meetings. Communication amongst project staff across all districts was efficient as all staff was connected to the internet. Weekly field reports were submitted on time to the Technical Manager and the M&E Department. Weekly reports were consolidated by M&E into monthly 34 reports that were always prepared on time. Monthly reports were consolidated to quarterly and annual progress reports that were submitted to USAID /OFDA. The reports submitted to the donor were very well prepared and highly informative. All reports were submitted on time. All key stakeholders (RDC, DA, Agritex, LPD, and DVS) reported that they received well prepared and informative project reports regularly every quarter. At district level, project staff always attended and participated in the Rural District Developmental Committee (RDDC) and Full Council meetings. The evaluation is convinced that planning and reporting on project progress was generally satisfactory. 3.4.2 Efficiency of project implementation Input Procurement Bucks were procured from registered commercial enterprises while does were purchased from the target communities. This ensured that good quality pure breed bucks were procured and distributed. The evaluation was satisfied with the quality of the Boer bucks as they had the characteristic brown head and white body and had a large frame. It was however unfortunate that when bucks were brought to the small holder farmers from the commercial farmer, 35 of the 50 bucks that were distributed in Mangwe district died. A mixture of translocation stress and poor management resulted in high mortalities for the bucks distributed in Mangwe district. Mortalities in other districts were low at about 2%. Only certified fodder seed was purchased and distributed. The ZRR project followed the USAID￾OFDA guidelines on procurement of goats and seed. Monitoring and Evaluation The project had a detailed Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) that was used for assessing, managing, and documenting the progress towards achieving the ZRR objectives. As per the USAID guidelines, the PMP contained the following five components; (i) Results Framework, (ii) Performance Indicator Reference Sheets, (iii) Annual Performance Data Table, (iv) Performance Management Plan M&E Table, and (v) M&E Task Schedule. All the PMP documents were detailed and very well prepared. The Results Framework clearly conveyed the development hypothesis and the cause and effect linkages between the intermediate results (IR) and the project goal and subsector goal. It was logically clear how the achievement of the three IRs would result in achievement of the project goal. The PMP also included the critical assumptions that were supposed to hold for the development hypothesis to lead to achievement of the project goal. A weakness that was noted in the M&E system was the lack of a complaint and response mechanism (CRM) and a feedback mechanism. Mainstreaming of humanitarian accountability into project activities was not immediately evident. The M&E staff successfully prepared the baseline report, midterm evaluation report and final report. These reports were well prepared and informative. Overall, the project had a well designed and implemented M&E system that was useful in guiding project implementation. Training The Africa Centre for Holistic Management was appropriately awarded a cooperative agreement to provide training and technical support on rangeland management as they are the technical experts in holistic land and livestock management. Training of the communities was a collective effort of relevant stakeholders that included the following; • ACHM who provided training on Holistic Land and Livestock Management, • Government Veterinarians, animal health inspectors and veterinary extension assistants that provided training and technical support on livestock health; 35 • Livestock Production and Agricultural Extension staff that provided training and technical support on goat production, rangeland management and animal health extension. As the designated trainers of the communities, the CLWs received special training of trainers in rangeland management, goat production and animal health. Review of the training manuals and training schedules indicated that the content of the training was appropriate and adequate. However, a major weakness in the training was that the CLWs, who were tasked with training the rest of the communities, were not given any notes or reference materials. The CLWs relied on the notes that they took during training courses. Furthermore, refresher courses, especially on animal health were not regular. CLWs indicated that the time allocated for practical lessons was inadequate. The evaluation recommends that in future projects, CLWs should be given reference materials with relevant visual aids, more time should be allocated to practical lessons and refresher courses should be held frequently. It was the intention of the project that the AGRITEX and/or LPD extension staff attend the weekly training of the producer groups that was led by the CLWs. Attendance to the training sessions by these government extension staff was inconsistent as they wanted to be paid travel and subsistence allowances which the project could not do. Furthermore, some of the extension staff did not have transport to travel to the project sites. Overall, the project selected the most suitably qualified institutions to provide specific training. As a result, very good quality training was delivered as evidenced by the high level of beneficiary understanding and implementation of the different aspects of goat husbandry and rangeland management. 3.5 Sustainability of the project initiatives Sustainability is not an event in itself, but, rather a process. It is a set of conditions which need to be met on an ongoing basis to ensure the desired outcomes are maintained. The project had to terminate suddenly and was unable to finalize sustainability mechanisms that were initially put in place. The project needed a phase where the sustainability mechanisms would be tested for effectiveness with monitoring, supervision and certification by technical partners. The expectation that Agritex, LPD would continue supporting farmers was over ambitious given the current capacity limitations of government departments. The current extension staff to farmer ratio is higher than 1:350. ZRR project beneficiaries will therefore continue to rely on CLWs for support. Based on FGDs, KII and the evaluation team observations, the following project components have been sustained by the project beneficiaries; goat production, provision of extension services by CLWs and use of movable kraals. The components that have not been sustained by the project participants and have a number of challenges to be addressed include; goat producer association groups, goat pass-on, drug revolving fund, maintenance and utilization of dip tanks and sales pens, implementation of grazing management plans, fodder production and group marketing of goats. The criteria on which sustainability of each component is based include ownership, functionality, maintenance and management of the initiatives after project termination. Table 8 provides the evidence and justification why the different project components are going to be sustained or not. . 36 Table 8 Checklist of the sustainability mechanisms for each project component Project component Sustainability check (Sustainable = S and not sustainable or weak =W) Sustainability mechanisms put in place Sustainability mechanisms that could improve sustainability in future The goat producer Association groups at ward level W No regular meetings by the groups Smaller groups at village level better organized Members have stopped making contributions to the input revolving fund. Contributions in cash and in-kind to the group was meant to build a sense of ownership; Training during project implementation was meant to improve management of the groups. Inception meetings should be allocated sufficient time for all stakeholders to understand their roles and responsibility in the project. Specifically the Group Management Committee should be made aware of their roles and responsibilities including that they are part of the sustainability mechanism. Management committee should be linked to the existing local structures so that local leadership can support the groups in resolving conflicts and mobilizing members to be actively involved in the project. Formulation and enforcement of by-laws (governing the activities of the group) by Group committees to ensure the group continue to function and follow agreed by-laws Conduct Transformational leadership training for all ward based Group committees so that they can effectively lead the group Goat production S Households now own goats they received directly from the project or through pass-on Access to extension support Good knowledge on goat husbandry Kid mortalities was reported to be 10% Productivity levels were good with most goats achieving twining and three kidding cycles in two years. Use of goat breeds adapted/ suited to local conditions. Availability of extension support on animal husbandry through CLWs. Linkage of CLWs and groups to government extension staff for technical support in goat husbandry and animal health. Goat production that is linked to goat marketing using the Value chain approach The goat pass on scheme W Poor record keeping which made it difficult to track goats that are ready or beneficiaries ready to accept the pass-on goats. This has CLWs and Management Committees were put in place to lead and drive the process but had no deeper training on managing group dynamics. Formulation and enforcement of by-laws (governing the activities of the group) by Group committees to ensure smooth running of the pass-on schemes and regular attendance to meetings by group members. 37 led to increased number of defaulters. No enforcement of the by-laws on the defaulters. Active involvement of leadership was limited to very few groups in the target wards e.g. Mutare ward 12, Makoni Ward 31 Current pass-on being led by CLWs without active involvement of the local leadership Management Committees that are accountable to local leadership to ensure by-laws are enforced. Community leaders that are fully aware of how the goat activities are to be carried out. Provision of extension services by the CLWs S CLWs able to reach most group members when approached CLWs motivated to provide extension services Locally based CLWs easily accessible to provide service to the farmers. Non-monetary incentives to volunteers Provision of handbook or ‘how to do’ manual which has technical information on goat husbandry and animal health as reference material for use by CLWs The drug revolving fund W The members only contributed once and have since stopped making any contributions Poor feedback by CLWs on the use of the fund Group members have limited sources of income to enable them to contribute Setting up the fund at ward level The drug fund should have been set up at village level where there are smaller and manageable groups. Consider linkage with income generating activity or savings schemes. Maintenance and utilization of the dip tanks W None of the dip tanks were being used. Dip tanks were only used during demonstration. Members not contributing to the input revolving as some are located far away from the facility. Those close by feel it’s a dip tank for everyone. Contribution of local materials for the construction of dip tank was meant to instill a sense of ownership The project needs to set up a management structure to oversee the procurement of the acaricides and mobilizing people to contribute to the drug revolving fund beyond the group management committees. Consider integration of dip tanks to income generating activities or saving schemes and water source development to facilitate functionality of dip tanks since the farmers are still in the recovery mode and rebuilding their goat herds. Use of the movable kraals S Technology was being used and areas where it was used beneficiaries saw degraded grazing areas being restored. Use of local resources especially scrap metal or sustainable harvesting of trees to make the kraal The fabrication of the movable kraal should be linked to community based entrepreneurs like blacksmiths or any people trained in life skills so that they can reproduce this technology for the community. Utilization of grazing management plans and herding together W Except for six villages no grazing management plans were developed and implemented No Sustainability mechanisms put in place A landscape approach or watershed management approach should be used when promoting commonly managed resources such as grazing areas. Active involvement of the entire community and the local leaders 38 The local context where wild animals proved to be a menace and water shortage for livestock during the dry season forced communities to abandon grazing plans Open grazing has continued to be the main method of grazing and made it difficult for those interested to uphold the HRM principles. who use the rangelands located in the same watershed is therefore required. Conduct inception meetings that ensure buy-in of the local leaders who share the same grazing areas. Management Committees that are accountable to local leadership to ensure by-laws are enforced. Consider behavior change communication trainings such as Transformational leadership. Training for transformation required for mindset change. Fodder production W Most fodder plots affected by prolonged dry spells Smallholder farmers indicated that they were not able to buy certified seeds. Provision of certified seeds and promotion of fodder seed multiplication Consider water conservation and citing of plots close to the water source since rainfall is major constraint. Group marketing of goats at formal markets W Except for one delivery of goats to a formal market by each group during project implementation, none of the groups have made subsequent sales to the formal market The goat producers are aware of some of the market requirements but are currently unable to meet them e.g. quality of goats, size fleshing and fat cover Producers are still not acquainted with the goat subsector value chain actors. Group Management committees expected to spearhead marketing Farmers require sufficient time to fully understand the goat subsector value chain. Further training in Participatory Market System Development required for groups and committees 39 4. Conclusion, Lessons and Recommendations 4.1 Conclusion The ZRR project set out to expedite recovery, reduce risk and mitigate effects of economic and environmental disasters on vulnerable communities in Manicaland and Matabeleland provinces through livestock production, management and marketing. Through building the capacity of farmers in goat husbandry and re-stocking using improved goat breeds, the project successfully contributed to improved goat production and subsequent asset base of targeted vulnerable farmers. By the end of the project, average household goat ownership had increased from an average of 6 at baseline to 9 goats at the end of the project. Farmers were also introduced to farming as a business but efforts were mainly focused on production rather than a market driven approach. The farmers are still to organize themselves for effective market linkages. Through assistance from the ZRR project, farmers have taken efforts to rebuild their goat herds and are in the process of trying out community based adaptation measures to reduce the impacts of shocks and stressors that are likely to affect them in future. Access to veterinary services and extension at community level has significantly improved through the promotion of a community based animal health approach that utilizes community livestock workers. The project was successful in training CLWs to provide animal health services in those areas where there was no government extension staff on the ground; and also complemented government efforts where coverage by government extension staff was inadequate. According to FGDs the CLWs remained the main source of extension support to the farmers in the project target areas. Although improved access to veterinary services improved the application of most of the animal health practices, challenges were faced on dipping as farmers were unable to purchase dipping chemicals and dip tanks remained under-utilized. Inadequate funds for purchase of vaccines and drugs remain a major threat to the goat production initiative. While the project strategy to address drug and input procurement was the establishment of the input revolving fund, resistance to contribute to the fund has led to the observed cash-flow challenges. Future similar initiatives would need to dialogue with the farmers and come up with the most sustainable way of ensuring continued availability of funds for input and drug purchase. Possible mechanisms would include linkage of the input revolving fund to some income generating activities or savings and lending schemes. The project successfully introduced supplementary feeding of goats. Unfortunately, poor rainfall frustrated the farmers’ efforts to grow fodder. Future interventions may consider locating the fodder multiplication plots near reliable water sources to facilitate irrigation. Erratic and unreliable rainfall has characterized natural regions IV and V of Zimbabwe. With the effects of climate change, rainfall is getting more erratic and droughts are getting more frequent. It is therefore critical that future support should focus on improving water availability to rural communities in semi-arid regions. The focus should be on harvesting as much water as possible, conserving water catchment areas and employing water conserving crop production systems. The project involved not only the group members, but the whole community that utilizes a particular grazing area in holistic land management as adapted from the ACHM model. Following the “look and learn” visit to the ACHM – Dimbamombe farm in Hwange, stakeholders were convinced of the effectiveness of HLM. The conviction was such that traditional leaders from six villages in Buhera, Mutare and Makoni took over and became the drivers of the rangeland management initiatives in their communities. With strong traditional leadership buy in, herding together and paddocking were implemented and adopted in these six villages. The majority of the villages who were supposed to implement grazing plans at 40 ward level were unable to do so as the grazing areas were utilized by communities in project and non-project wards. Since communities from several wards utilized the grazing areas, it was difficult to implement any controlled grazing as farmers from non-project wards had not received any training on rangeland management. In addition to traditional leadership buy in, adequate time should be allocated for implementation of HLM. Technocrats from ACHM, the experts in holistic land and livestock management advised that HLM was a long process that requires at least three years of implementation (community mobilization, skills training, implementation, monitoring and refining knowledge and skills) to show the desired impact at community level. Clearly the emergency funding timeframe of two years is inadequate. Implementation of the rangeland management component of the ZRR project was not as successful as the animal production and health component. There was however the movable kraal technology whose effectiveness was appreciated by all the community members. This is one technology that will continue. The evaluation concludes that the ZRR project was largely successful in achieving its targets. However, sustainability mechanisms for most of the interventions were not fully developed. Consequently some of the interventions e.g. goat pass-on, input revolving fund, utilization of grazing plans all, run the risk of not being continued beyond the life of the project. 4.2 Lessons Learnt Following are some of the lessons learnt; 1. All key stakeholders should be involved in the design and planning of future projects so that issues of ownership, relevance and sustainability are adequately addressed 2. The transition from a recovery to a meaningful resilience development initiative still requires that Land O Lakes mobilize resources to strengthen some project activities like rangeland management and adhere to best practice of supporting a resilience initiative with a market driven approach to goat production. This is because these two components require a long implementation period of more than three years. 3. Total buy in and active involvement of traditional leadership in rangeland management activities is critical for the success of the intervention. Rangelands are communally owned and the traditional leaders have total oversight over the utilization of the grazing land. Rangeland management can only succeed when all members of the community that graze in a particular area adhere to the agreed grazing plans. The traditional leaders, especially the chief, can, through the passing and enforcing of agreed by-laws, compel all community members to abide by the grazing plans. Agreed on penalties would be levied on those who break the by-laws. Success of rangeland management by communities in Buhera and Mutare was due to total buy in by the leadership. 4. For successful implementation of interventions and realization of desired outcomes, adequate time frames should be programmed for. Holistic land management is a long￾term activity that should not be integrated into a two year program. Livestock production and rangeland management are intricately connected and should be done together, but in a program with a longer timeframe. ACHM, the experts in holistic land and livestock management advised that HLM is a long process that requires at least three years of implementation (community mobilization, skills training, implementation, monitoring and refining knowledge and skills) to show the desired impact at community level. Resilience projects require a multi-stakeholder, multi-year funding and partnership approach because they require a longer implementation timeframe. 41 5. When purchasing livestock for project use, the prevailing market rates should be used to avoid distorting the market. The ZRR project purchased does for use in the project at $1.80/ kg live weight while the market was buying at only $1.20/ kg. When it came for the beneficiaries to sell their goats in the market, they resisted the price offered on the market as they felt they were cheated since the ZRR project had paid them more. 6. For sustainability, the drug revolving fund should be linked to an income generating initiative such as savings schemes. This will ensure sustainability of the fund and the members would not need to contribute all the time. 7. Without a functional community based monitoring system, the goat pass-on system will not be sustainable. The project ended abruptly and did not have sufficient time to finalize and test goat pass-on sustainability mechanisms. Consequently goat pass-on only proceeded smoothly for only three groups in Manicaland. The other five groups in Manicaland faced challenges on record keeping record and lack of support from leadership. In Matabeleland districts, the goat pass-on never really took off as it was initiated without project support long after termination of the project. 4.3 Recommendations Based on the findings, conclusions and the main lessons from the evaluation, the main recommendations for future similar projects include the following; (i) Project Management and implementation 1. A project which promotes establishment of common managed resources such as rangelands and infrastructure facilities requires a local management structure linked to the technical service provider such as DVS and / or LPD and strong local leadership with good community mobilization skills for maintenance of the resources and infrastructure after termination of the project. The project did not have strong local management structures that were linked to the government extension departments. These linkages are critical for sustained utilization of the infrastructure. 2. For future similar projects, a field officer should be appointed for each district and the officer should be based at ward level. This will ensure that the officer is easily accessible to the CLWs for technical and supervisory support. Accessibility of the Mangwe / Bulilima field officer was a challenge due to the distances the officer had to travel from one district to the next. Because of the extensive travelling on rough roads, there was a high staff turnover of 3 staff members over two years for the Mangwe / Bulilima field officer position. 3. For all recovery and resilience related projects, inception meetings should be allocated sufficient time for all stakeholders to understand their roles and responsibility in the project. Inception meetings were not allocated sufficient time and some leaders were not aware of their role in the ZRR project. 4. Community Livestock Workers should be given reference materials with relevant visual aids, more time should be allocated to practical lessons with refresher courses held frequently. The CLWs were not given any reference and training materials during project implementation. Refresher courses that should be given at least once every six months were not conducted. 42 5. Local leadership and producer group committees should be further trained in group dynamics, leadership and management. Since land use in communal areas is predominantly governed by the traditional leadership, rangeland management will work effectively where local leadership has been trained in leadership and community dynamics and there is buy-in and the target communities have gone through a process of reorganization. Local leaders were not trained on group dynamics and leadership during the project. (ii) Goat production and marketing 6. To formalize the Goat Producer Associations, the project should ensure that all groups have a Constitution and a Code of Conduct that guides the activities of the group. Although all the Groups were advised to develop Constitutions, none of the groups in Matabeleland had constitutions. In Manicaland the groups had by-laws which were not enforced. Training Leaders and Producer Committee members in transformational leadership training will help leaders learn the techniques of by-law enforcement and group management. 7. A community based monitoring team that comprises all stakeholders and reports to the chief should be set up to monitor the goat pass-on scheme. The monitoring team should report to the chief since the pass-on scheme is to benefit the whole community. This monitoring team should be in place and functional by the end of the project. Lack of a strong community based monitoring team resulted in challenges that were faced with the pass-on scheme after termination of the project. 8. The project should facilitate service contracts between producer groups and identified goat markets. This will formalize the linkage between producer and buyer. Linkages created during the ZRR project were not formalized and were therefore weak (iii) Rangeland Management 9. The project should prioritize the mobilization and capacity building of all community leadership to a level where the leaders become the drivers of the proposed land use change. Once the leaders own the process, they can then introduce the concept to the community, and by-laws that facilitate successful implementation of the rangeland management techniques can then be drafted and agreed to at community level. It is only after acceptance of the intervention first by the leadership, and then by the community, that rangeland management may stand a chance of success. Implementation of herding together in six villages was a success because of strong buy in from the leadership that was driving the intervention. (iv) Monitoring and evaluation 10. For future recovery projects, Humanitarian Accountability Assessments should be conducted at the beginning of the project. The objectives of the assessments would be: • To establish mechanisms that Land O’Lakes will use when communicating project developments with the community. • To establish mechanisms that will be used for complaints and feedback. • To establish strategies and recommended actions that would be taken when solving challenges. • Establish means that the community, stakeholders and Land O’Lakes will use to conduct business in a fair and transparent manner. 43 Annex 1: Scope of Work for the evaluation Zimbabwe Livestock for Accelerated Recovery and Improved Resiliency (ZRR) Final Evaluation July 2015 Background and Justification Land O’Lakes and its partner, Africa Centre for Holistic Management (ACHM), implemented the Zimbabwe Livestock for Accelerated Recovery and Improved Resiliency (ZRR) project from May 2012 to August 2014 to expedite recovery, reduce risk, and mitigate effects of economic and environmental disasters on Zimbabwe’s vulnerable communities through livestock production, management and marketing. The three objectives of the project were to: • Increase productivity and market access of the livestock asset base in vulnerable households and communities • Increase communities’ capacity for and practice of sustainable rangeland management • Increase capacity of and access to animal health and livestock extension services In the goat husbandry component, Land O’Lakes helped participants to increase and maintain their livestock asset base through distributing goats to 983 eligible participants and working through 10 livestock producers groups to administer capacity building training in improved goat husbandry techniques (including fodder establishment and storage techniques), planned production, marketing, and group dynamics to a total of 2,205 households. In the rangeland management component, Land O’Lakes worked in the same communities to prevent environmental degradation to return degraded land to year-round productive grazing and browsing. Through partner ACHM, the project facilitated a training of trainer course for 68 “master trainers” in the communities. The “master trainers” then trained 7,430 community members and worked together to create annual grazing and rangeland management plans in 6 communities. In the animal health component, the project identified 68 “Community Livestock Workers” (CLW) from the producer groups and trained them in animal health techniques and linkages to private veterinarians and drug suppliers. The CLW then provided animal health services to their producer group and in their communities to help reduce the rate of livestock mortality and improve herd productivity. This contract is to hire an external firm to conduct a final evaluation of the ZRR program that will validate the results of the program and provide recommendations for future programs. An external final evaluation report is required in Land O’Lakes funding contract with USAID/OFDA. Objectives of the Final Evaluation The final evaluation will assess the appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of ZRR’s approach and implementation. Specifically, the final evaluation will meet the following objectives: • Assess the appropriateness of the strategies and methodologies employed by Land O’Lakes in the program given the goal, timing, location, and beneficiaries’ needs; • Assess the degree to which the project has met its projected goals, objectives, outcomes and outputs and explain deviations, taking into account gender differences; • Describe any unintended benefits or negative consequences of the intervention, and how the program team handled it; 44 • Describe community perceptions of the project and benefits; • Identify factors and constraints that affected project implementation including technical, managerial, organizational, institutional and socio-economic issues to addition to other external factors. • Assess the sustainability of the program and its various activities; • Describe environmental, social or cultural issues that could undermine the sustainability of the results; • Comment on how the project approached gender equality to ensure balanced involvement in project activities; • Identify key strengths and weaknesses of the program; • Identify key lessons learned and recommendations which should be adopted by Land O’Lakes for similar programs in Zimbabwe or elsewhere. Scope of Work The contractor will conduct the final evaluation for the ZRR project, including the design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data with consultation and input from Land O’Lakes project staff. The final evaluation will use both quantitative and qualitative methods that uses the data collected at the baseline, mid-term and the draft final evaluation, as well as additional qualitative data collected by the contractor. The contractor will report to the Land O’Lakes Regional Program Director and Global M&E Analyst. Detailed Requirements The specific activities of this contract are detailed below: Review of Documents: Undertake a review of the ZRR program documents and other relevant documents including, but not limited to, the following: • Project agreement • Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) • Baseline report, data collection tools, and data • Mid-term report, data collection tools, and data • Final evaluation draft report, data collection tools, and data • Quarterly and Annual reports to USAID/OFDA • Any other program documents which will enable the final evaluation team to get acquainted with the program • Relevant Government of Zimbabwe reports and documents for background information and establishing the socio-economic and political context in which the project took place 45 Refinement of methodology and data collection tools: Based on the methodology and survey instruments from the baseline, mid-term, and draft final evaluation, the firm will collaborate with Land O’Lakes’ M&E team to: • Develop a methodology for the final evaluation, including a sampling strategy for the qualitative data collection and use of the existing quantitative and qualitative data. • Based upon a reading of the program documents, propose any additional topics or issues for analysis in the final evaluation • Revise the tools and create any new tools necessary to answer the evaluation questions Field Data Collection • Plan and coordinate the necessary logistics to collect the qualitative data in accordance with the selected methodology • Pre-test, edit, translate (if needed), finalize and reproduce the data collection instruments • Train and orient field interviewers • Carry out the fieldwork using own transportation o Sufficient number of focus groups discussions with beneficiaries (number to be agreed upon with Land O’Lakes) o Sufficient number of key informant interviews with Land O’Lakes staff, government officials, local leaders, and lead beneficiaries (number to be agreed upon with Land O’Lakes) o At least 5 success stories • Apply strong quality control practices for field data collection Data entry, analysis and reporting • Enter, synthesize, analyze, and interpret data from the qualitative studies, and analyze and interpret existing quantitative and qualitative data • Prepare and submit qualitative notes with relevant documentation to Land O’Lakes • Prepare a draft final evaluation report addressing the objectives of this evaluation outlined in this SOW and providing recommendations for potential similar projects for review and feedback by Land O’Lakes staff and stakeholders. • Prepare at least five (5) success stories to be annexed to the final evaluation report. • Develop a PowerPoint presentation of evaluation findings, present and submit to Land O’Lakes and stakeholders. • Prepare a final evaluation report that includes revisions required to meet the comments and suggestions provided during the feedback process. Deliverables The contractor is responsible for submitting the following deliverables: i. Implementation Report that describes the following-- a. Understanding of the project based on project documents and literature review b. Finalized methodology, including detailed sampling plan and field procedures c. Quality control measures d. Communication protocol e. Finalized timeline (activities, responsible party, outputs, and timing) ii. Electronic copies of all clean and final English-version of data collection tools; iii. Clean and final English versions of qualitative transcripts/notes, field and interview notes in MS-Word document iv. At least five (5) success stories with photos, testimonial, and supporting quantitative data; 46 v. Draft final evaluation report in English addressing all of the evaluation objectives in this SOW; vi. Two (2) bound copies of the Final evaluation report in English with an electronic copy that includes, but is not limited to the following sections: a. List of Acronyms and abbreviations b. Table of Contents c. Executive Summary d. Background (Program description and purpose of evaluation) e. Methodology and Implementation f. Results and Findings (in accordance with the objectives) g. Recommendations (for future similar project) h. Annex: Table of key program indicators with baseline, midline, and final values i. Annex: Success Stories j. Annex: Scope of Work for the evaluation k. Annex: Survey Instruments: questionnaire(s), interview guides(s) vii. 15-20 high-quality pictures of the project beneficiaries and activities. viii. PowerPoint presentation used by the Final Evaluation Team for the Dissemination Workshop. Timeline Activity Responsibility Timeline/Date Review of relevant documents to prepare for inception meeting Evaluation Team July 6th – 10th, 2015 Inception meeting with Land O’Lakes to discuss protocol, methodology, sampling, tools and timeline Evaluation Team and Land O’Lakes team July 13th, 2015 Develop an inception report and data collection tools (questionnaires for quantitative data, FGD/interview guidelines, for all levels of data collection). Evaluation Team July 13th – 19th , 2015 Implementation report and tools due Evaluation Team July 19th, 2015 Land O’Lakes reviews report and tools and provides feedback, comments and suggestions to evaluation team Land O’Lakes July 20th - 21st, 2015 Prepare for field work Evaluation Team July 20th – 21st , 2015 Finalize Tools and appointments Evaluation Team July 22nd -23rd , 2015 Pre-testing and Data Collection Evaluation Team July 26th – Aug 1st, 2015 Data analysis and report writing Evaluation Team August 2nd – 15th, 2015 Draft report is submitted to Land O’Lakes Evaluation Team August 15th , 2015 Land O’Lakes reviews draft final report and provides evaluation team with comments and suggestions for revisions for final report Land O’Lakes August 16th – 18th , 2015 Incorperation of comments from draft report into a Final Evaluation Report Evaluation Team August 19th – 21st , 2015 Final Evaluation Report and accompanying deliverables due. Evaluation Team August 21st , 2015 Prepare and conduct dissemination workshop Evaluation Team August 24th – 25th, 2015 All remaining deliverables due Evaluation team August 31st, 2015 Payment Schedule The contractor will be paid 40% on commencement, 40% on submission and acceptance of draft report and 20% on submission and acceptance of the final report. 47 Annex 2: List of Persons and Organizations Consulted A. Land O’Lakes Staff No Name Sex Position B. Key Informants No ex Position 12. M Director Of Training And Consulting, Africa Centre For Holistic Management (ACHM), Dimbangombe Ranch, Victoria Falls 13. M ICT Manager, Catholic Relief Services 14. M MEAL Manager, CRS 15. F District Administrator, Bulilima District 16. M Assistant District Administrator, Mutare Dictrict 17. M Assistant District Administrator, Mangwe District 18. M Chief, Tshitshi, Mangwe District. 19. M Chief, Madlambudzi, Bulilima District 20. F Councillor, Ward 4, Mangwe District 21. M Agricultural Activities Supervisor, Mangwe RDC 22. M Head Of Department, Social Services, Mangwe RDC 48 23. M District Veterinary Officer, Bulilima & Mangwe Districts 24. M Senior Animal Health Inspector, Bulilima District 25. F Senior Animal Health Inspector, Mangwe District 26. F District Head, Animal Health Mutare District 27. M Animal Health Inspector, Mutare District 28. M Animal Health Inspector, Mutare District 29. M Livestock Extension Officer, Bulilima District 30. M Livestock Extension Officer, Mangwe District 31. M Livestock Extension Officer, Bulilima District 32. M Veterinary Assistant, ward 11, Buhera 33. M Agricultural Extension Supervisor, Mangwe District 34. F Livestock Extension Worker, Ward 4, Mangwe District 35. M Livestock Extension Supervisor, Mutare District 36. M Livestock Specialist, Mutare District 37. M Agricultural Extension Worker, Ward 22, Mutare District 38. M Livestock extension Worker , Ward 11, Mutare District 39. M Livestock Extension Worker, Mutare District 40. M Beef Abattoir Manager, Surrey 41. M Businessman, Madziro Abattoir, Sunny Valley Farm, Mutare District 42. M Makoni South Animal Health Inspector 43. M Makoni East Animal Health Inspector 44. M District livestock Specialist (Acting District Head), Buhera District C Focus Group Discussions District Ward Group Participants Female Male Mangwe Ward 4, Tshitshi Community Leadership 0 8 Goat Producer Association Members (Mixed Men & Women) 7 5 Goat Producer Association Members (Women Only) 10 0 Community Livestock Workers 6 3 Bulilima Ward 11 Madlambudzi Community Leadership 0 6 Goat Producer Association Members (Mixed Men & Women) 14 4 Goat Producer Association Committee 1 1 Makoni Ward 31 Community Leadership 0 9 Goat Producer Association Members (Mixed Men & Women) 8 6 Goat Producer Association Committee 4 3 Community Livestock Workers 3 2 Goat Producer Association (Women Only) 12 0 Mutare Ward 11 Nhamburiko Goat Producer Association Members (Mixed Men And Women) 6 6 Goat Producer Association(Women Only) 12 0 49 Community Livestock Workers 1 1 Goat Producer Association Committee 5 4 Ward 12 Mushunje Goat Producer Association Members (Mixed Men And Women) 10 6 Goat Producer Association Members ( Women Only) 10 0 Community Livestock Workers 2 1 Goat Producer Association Committee 2 3 Ward 22 Manzununu Community Leadership 0 3 Goat Producer Association Committee 2 3 Goat Producer Association Members( Mixed Men And Women) 10 6 Goat Producer Association Members (Women Only) 12 0 Community Livestock Workers 1 1 Buhera Ward 11 Community Leadership 0 9 Goat Producer Association Committee 4 3 Goat Producer Association Members( Mixed Men And Women) 8 4 Goat Producer Association Members (Women Only) 10 0 Community Livestock Workers 3 2 Ward 12 Community Leadership 0 6 Goat Producer Association Committee 4 3 Goat Producer Association Members( Mixed Men And Women) 6 6 Goat Producer Association Members (Women Only) 8 0 Community Livestock Workers 3 2 Total 184 125 D Site visits District Ward Number of sites visited Name of Centre What was seen Mangwe Ward 4, Tshitshi 3 Guqukani village Movable kraal Goat housing Dip tank Bulilima Ward 11 Madlambudzi 4 Baningumba Movable kraal (failed intervention) Madlambudzi center Female successful goat producer Goat auction pen Ngotsha village Successful male goat producer Mutare Ward 11 3 Mukina ward centre Goat housing Diptank Movable kraal Ward 12 3 Shundure/Marimba ward centre Diptank Sales pen Movable kraal Ward 22 4 Manzununu ward centre Goat housing Grazing area Diptank Movable kraal Makoni Ward 31 4 Chokore sales pen later moved to the Business centre Sales pen Goat housing Movable kraal Burma sheet Buhera Ward 11 2 Ward 11 centre Burma sheet Goat housing Ward 12 4 Ngwazani centre Sales pen Movable kraal Diptank Goat housing Total 27 50 Annex 3: Qualitative data collection tools A. Focus Group Discussion Checklist 1. Welcome and Introductions • As participants arrive, thank them warmly for coming, welcome them and put them at ease by friendly conversation. • Once assembled, thank the group for coming together to participate in this discussion which is expected to last about one hour. Introduce yourself and team members to the group, explaining why you are here and your different roles (facilitator, note taker etc). We are, on behalf of Land O’ Lakes conducting a Final Evaluation of the ZRR project that was implemented in your ward from May 2012 – July 2014. The project trained CLWs who in turn trained project participants on rangeland management, fodder production and goat husbandry. Goat Producer Groups were formed and goats distributed to selected beneficiaries. Goat Producer groups were linked to formal markets. 2. Introduce purpose of evaluation The purpose of the evaluation is to assess project achievements and lessons learnt for improvement of future similar interventions. As a participant in the ZRR project, you have been selected to participate in this evaluation. We would like you to share with us information that can help Land O’ Lakes future programming activities. We therefore, kindly request you to share your honest views on different issues we will be discussing with you. The evaluation will have no impact on whether your household will or will not receive any help offered by Land O’ Lakes in future. Participation in this evaluation is voluntary and you can choose not to participate. The information you give will be confidential-and will only be used to prepare a report of general findings-but will not include any specific names. There will be no way to identify that you gave this information. 3. Some Ground Rules Highlight some general rules that help group meetings work more smoothly and enjoyably. These are; • Participation is important. • There are no right or wrong answers – feel free to say what you think. • Let others talk too. • Stay with the group, it is disruptive to come in and out of the group. No cell phone use or leaving the venue while discussion is in progress. • Don’t have side conversations please. 4. Getting Started Before you begin, ensure that the group is comfortable. Sometimes a small ice breaker can help. During the discussion remember to give people time to think before answering the questions and don’t move too quickly. Introduce the key topic and then use the probes to ensure that all issues are addressed, but please move on when you feel you are starting to hear repetitive information. 51 1. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: LOCAL LEADERS A. Relevance of the ZRR Project Q1. How was the project introduced into your area? • Were you as leadership involved at inception and planning of the ZRR project? If so, how? • What specific priority needs of this community were addressed by this project? • What leadership and cultural values were upheld or violated by this project? Q2. How would you compare the ZRR approach to other similar projects that have been implemented in your area? • What are some of the strengths of the project approach? • What are some of the weaknesses of the project approach? Q3. Was the emphasis on women participation and decision making on livestock production and marketing culturally acceptable? B. Role in Rangeland Management Q4. Are you convinced that rangeland management can reclaim the land? Why? Q5. What was your role in rangeland management? • Did your village develop any grazing plans? • Is your village implementing the grazing plans? If not, why? • Who is responsible for ensuring that grazing plans are implemented? • Are all members of the village (including non-association members) required to abide by the grazing plans? Who monitors compliance? Q6. In your opinion, are the people responsible for leading the efforts to improve grazing land doing enough? If not, then what should be done to ensure that this happens? Q7. What have been the benefits of rangeland management? C. Role in Goat Production & Marketing Q8. What was/is your role in the Goat Producer Groups? Q9. What are your views on the selection of goat beneficiaries? Q10. Is the goat pass-on scheme continuing? When will it stop and how? Q11. Were community members able to market any goats? • Were communities adequately trained in marketing? • Were market linkages for livestock sales developed? Q12. Do you think farmers are now realizing the true value of their livestock from sales? Why? D. Livestock Health Q13. Are CLWs providing quality services to the communities? • Were the right candidates for CLW selected? Why? • In your opinion, were the CLWs adequately trained? Why? • Are the CLWs still active? If not, why? • Do CLWs have adequate equipment and access to drugs to conduct their work? Q14. Are famers continuing to pay for services provided by the CLWs? If not, why? Q15. How effective has the drug revolving fund been? E. Sustainability and Recommendations Q16. Are the communities continuing with project activities and realizing benefits? • Which project activities are continuing? • Which project activities were terminated? Why? Q17. Are the community based monitoring teams still active? If not why? Q18. What do you think was done well and should be replicated in future projects? Q19. What do you think was done poorly and should be improved on in future? Q20. For future similar interventions, what should be done to ensure that project activities continue after termination of donor support? 52 1. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: GOAT PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION MEMBERS (Women only + Mixed men and women) A. Beneficiary Selection Q1. How were you selected to participate in the project? • Why did you decide to join the project? • Was there a deliberate effort to encourage women to join the project? B. Training in improved goat husbandry practices and community rangeland Q2. How was the training conducted? Q3. What did you like best about how the CLW or Land O’Lakes provided the training? Q4. How could Land O’Lakes/CLWs have improved how they provided training? Q5. What did you learn from the training on improved goat rearing practices? (probe: goat housing, improved feeding (fodder or crop residues), improved breeding) • What topics were most useful? What topics were not as useful? • Did you adopt or modify any goat rearing techniques after training? If yes, which ones? • Which of these techniques are you still applying now? Why? • Has your goat productivity improved because of using these techniques? Q6: What did you learn from the training on improved community rangeland management? • What topics were useful? What topics were not as useful? • Did you/your community change their rangeland practices? Which ones? • Which of the techniques are you/ your community still applying now? Why? • What do you see as the benefits of rangeland management? Challenges? • How has the rangeland changed through using these management practices? • Did your community develop a community grazing plans? How did they do it? • Is your community implementing the grazing plan? If no, why? C. Livestock Health Services Q7. Did you utilize the project-trained CLWs for animal health services? Why or why not? • What types of treatments did you receive from the CLWs? For which animals? • Are you still using the CLWs for animal health services? For what treatments? For which animals? • What changes have you seen in your livestock through using animal health services? Q8. What is your opinion of the CLWs that you used? • Were CLWs always accessible when you needed them? If no, why? • Did the CLWs have sufficient drugs and equipment • Are you still using the CLWs? If no, why? D. Goat Producer Groups Q9. What did you like best about being a part of a group in the project? • Is membership open to all members of the community? • What benefits (if any) did you receive from being in the group? Q10. What challenges did you face in being a part of the group? Q11. Are you still part of the group? Why or why not? E. Goat Distribution and Production Q12. How did you feel about the project’s approach to goat distribution? • How were goat beneficiaries selected? • What were the conditions for receiving goats? Did you face any challenges meeting these conditions? 53 • How do the participants that did not receive goats feel? • How did the goat pass-on scheme in your group work? What were the challenges? • Is the pass-on scheme still occurring in your group? • Is there adequate monitoring of the pass-on scheme? • When/how is the pass-on scheme expected to end? Q13. How successful were your goats in reproducing with the provided bucks? • Did your does have sufficient access to the buck? • Do the does still have access to the buck? • What was the level of kid mortality? Is it increasing or decreasing? Why do you think that is? F. Goat Marketing Q14. How did the project help you and your group market the goats, if at all? • Did you receive any skills training in marketing? • Were you or your group successful in marketing the goats? To whom? • Are you or your group still selling the goats? To whom? Why or why not? • What prices have you received for the goats? What has been the trend? Q15. What more could the project have done to help you/your group market goats? Q16. Has your family income changed because of participation in the project? • If income increased: What did you do with the additional money? Q17. Do you think that women participating in the project are empowered to make decisions on veterinary care and management of their goats? Q18. Do the women have power over decisions on how income from goats is used? G. Recommendations Q19. What do you think was done well and should be replicated in future projects? Q21. What do you think was done poorly and should be improved on in future? Q22. What are your recommendations for future similar projects? Q22. Which of the project activities do you think the communities will continue doing? Why? 2. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: GOAT PRODUCERS & MARKETING GROUP COMMITTEE A. Election of Committee members Q1. How were committee members elected? • Was the election process inclusive, fair and transparent? • How many women are in the committee and what positions do they hold? • What can be done to improve on the committee selection in future? B. Tenure of Committee Q2. Do you have a constitution? • What does your constitution say regarding tenure if applicable? Q3. How do you ensure efficiency and effectiveness, transparency and accountability as a committee? Q4. Did you receive any form of training during your tenure? If yes, how relevant and appropriate was the training to the committee? C. Role of Committee Q5. What is the role of the committee in the project? Q6. Did you face any challenges when executing your role? Q7. What strategies did you use to overcome the challenges? Q8. What should be done to avoid these challenges in future? Q9. Please explain how your drug revolving fund works? • Are all members contributing towards the revolving fund? 54 • What do you do with members who default? • Were there any challenges faced in the management and administration of the revolving fund? • If yes, what strategies or steps were taken to overcome them? D. Marketing Strategies Q10. Did the committee receive any specific training on marketing? Q11. What marketing strategies did you implement as a committee during your tenure? Q12. Did you face any challenges in the implementation of the marketing strategies? If yes, which ones? Q13. How effective were the strategies in improving the livelihoods of the beneficiaries? Q14.Would you say that your group is now effectively linked to livestock markets. E. Sustainability of Committees Q15. Is the committee still strong and functional? If no, why? Q16. Any areas that the committee requires additional support to effectively perform its functions? 3. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: COMMUNITY LIVESTOCK WORKERS A. Selection of CLWs Q1. How were CLWs selected ? • What were the criteria for selection of CLWs? • Were female candidates given the same opportunities as their male counterparts? B. Capacity building of the CLWs Q2. Did you receive adequate training for the role you played in the project? • Did you receive any handouts or reference notes? • Did you attend any refresher courses? How often? • Are there any areas where you feel you needed more training? • Are there any topics that were not covered but should be included in future training? C. Training of farmers Q3. What topics were covered during farmer training? • Rangeland management • Goat production • Animal health Q4. Was training open to all farmers in the ward? Q5. What challenges did you face during training? Q6. Did you get adequate support and guidance from ACHM , Agritex and LPD for rangeland management and goat production training and activities? Q7. Was the district veterinary staff always available to support and guide you? Q8. Given that you were responsible for training and implementation of both rangeland management and goat production including veterinary services - How would you rank the work load you had during the project? D. Provision of animal health services and extension Q9. Did you receive adequate equipment to perform veterinary procedures? Q10. Did you have easy access to veterinary drugs? How? •Were you always remunerated by the farmers for the veterinary services that you provided? •Are you still providing veterinary services? If not, why? •Are farmers still paying for your services? Q11. Did you face any challenges? • How did you resolve these challenges? • Are you still facing the same challenges? 55 • What programming strategies should be adopted to avoid these challenges in future similar projects? Q12. Did you participate in the Information Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) disease reporting system? • Are you still contributing to the ICT4D? If no, why? E. Outcome / Impact Q13. Did rangeland management interventions make a difference in your area? If so, what difference? Q14. Has access to livestock health extension improved? Why do you say so? Q15. What is the contribution of infrastructure (dip tanks, sale pens) constructed by the project? • Is the infrastructure being utilized? F. Sustainability and Recommendations Q16. What do you think was done well and should be replicated in future projects? Q17. What do you think was done poorly and should be improved on in future? Q18. What are your recommendations for future similar projects? Q19. Which of the project activities do you think the communities will continue doing? Why? B.Key Informant Interview Checklists KII –Ward level Extension staff AGRITEX, LPD & VET + District level AGRITEX, LPD & VET 1. What was the main role of your department in the ZRR project? 2. Was there good collaboration and communication between ZRR staff and the extension staff at ward/District level? 3. Please provide your view/comment/s on the following; a. Approach used for this project when compared to other similar projects. b. Time allocated for implementation of project activities. c. Geographical targeting and coverage by this project. d. Coordination of project activities at ward level. e. Results/performance of this project when compared to other similar projects that you have implemented or assisted in the ward. f. What are the major contributions made by this project in the respective wards? g. Which would you say were the flagship activities of this project (Project components that were done well or successfully) and why? h. Which project components were not done well or not successfully and why? i. Main challenges faced during project implementation. j. What mechanisms were put in place to ensure that the project activities continued beyond termination of external assistance? k. What major lessons were learnt? l. Recommendations for future similar projects. KII – Former Land O’Lakes Staff 1. What was your main role in the ZRR project? 2. Did the project have adequate numbers of appropriately qualified staff? 3. Was project staff satisfied with remuneration and working conditions? 4. Please provide your view/comment/s on the following; a. Approach used for this project when compared to other similar projects. b. Geographical targeting and coverage by this project. c. Procurement and supply of inputs and services to project sites. 56 d. Capacity building of Community livestock workers. e. Coordination of project activities in the districts and at ward level. f. Did implementing partners (ACHM and CRS) play their roles effectively? Was there good collaboration with these partners? g. Monitoring and evaluation activities. h. Results/performance of this project when compared to other projects of similar nature in your district or countrywide. i. What are the major contributions made by this project in the respective districts? j. Which would you say were the flagship activities of this project (Project components that were done well or successfully) and why? k. Which project components were not done well or not successfully and why? l. Main challenges faced during project implementation. m.Areas that require improvement for future similar projects. n. What mechanisms were put in place to ensure that the project activities continued beyond termination of external assistance? o. What major lessons were learnt? p. Recommendations for future similar project. KII –ACHM AND CRS 1. What was the main role of your organization in the ZRR project? 2. As a key implementing partner, were you involved in the planning and design phases of the project? 3. Did the ZRR staff collaborate well with your organization? 4. Please provide your view/comment/s on the following; a. Approach used for this project when compared to other similar projects. b. Time allocated for implementation of project activities. c. Geographical targeting and coverage by this project. d. Coordination of project activities in the districts and at ward level. e. Results/performance of this project when compared to other projects that you have implemented or assisted in Zimbabwe and other countries. f. What are the major contributions made by this project in the respective districts? g. Which would you say were the flagship activities of this project (Project components that were done well or successfully) and why? h. Which project components were not done well or not successfully and why? i. Main challenges faced during project implementation. j. What mechanisms were put in place to ensure that the project activities continued beyond termination of external assistance? k. What major lessons were learnt? l. Recommendations for future similar projects. KII –ABATTOIR 1. Is the ……………. Goat Producers Association one of your customers? 2. Are there any special arrangements with this group? 3. When did the group start delivering livestock for slaughter and sale to your abattoir? 4. How many deliveries and numbers of livestock have been made by the group to date? Date of delivery Number of livestock Goats cattle 57 4. Did the goats / cattle meet the market requirements in terms of quality? - State the positives - State the negatives 5. What areas of production should the group improve on? 58 Annex 4: ZRR Final Evaluation - Daily Data Collection Log Sheet Date Name of district visited No of KII completed No of FGD completed No of case studies recorded No of sites visited No of pictures Problems and issues to be followed up each day 27/07/15 Mutare ward 22 3 5 2 4 9 -Records were not available -village A was not represented because of distance -one village also had to attend a funeral so 4 out of 6 villages attended 27/07/15 Bulilima & Mangwe District Offices 5 - - - - - Only key informants were visited - AGRITEX District staff was not available. - Met with CLWs for Mangwe and Bulilima to map out mobilization strategy for FGDs at project sites. 28/07/15 Mutare ward 11 2 4 1 3 3 -local leadership had a meeting in another centre -1 village had to attend to a funeral 28/07/15 Mutare ward 12 0 4 1 3 9 29/07/15 Makoni ward 31 3 5 1 4 6 Late start -delay in DAs office -there were 2 meetings and @ venues so there was confusion we started at the dip tank but stopped and travelled to the ward center proceedings upon the request by the councillor 29/07/15 Mangwe Ward 4 2 4 1 3 6 - Only 4 out 5 villages were represented - Participants were unhappy as they expected to be given lunch. 30/07/15 Buhera ward 11 1 5 0 1 4 Late start delayed by district stakeholders 30/07/15 Bulilima Ward 11 1 3 2 4 6 - Only 5 out 6 villages were represented - Delayed start as participants arrived late 31/07/15 Buhera ward 12 1 5 2 4 4 District Vet officer was not available for interviews 59 Annex 5: FGD summary field notes CONSOLIDATED FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS, MANICALAND AND MATEBELELAND SOUTH 1. GOAT PRODUCTION 1.1 BENEFICIARY SELECTION AND DISTRIBUTION 1.1.1 Community Leaders • Only leaders in Ward 12 Mutare were clear about their role in the project. • In other wards of Bulilima, Mangwe, Mutare, Makoni and Buhera leaders were not aware of their role. • Leaders from Matabeleland South Province were not clear on selection criteria. • Leaders from Manicaland Province believed that selection prioritized those who had participated in the previous ZDL project, were members of pre-existing community groups, built recommended goat housing and attended goat management training sessions. • Participation of women and decision making on livestock production and marketing was acceptable. 1.1.2 Goat Producers • Selection by CLWs and LOL staff • Attendance to training sessions; and • Construction of housing structure. • In Manicaland, willingness and ability to pay $5 subscription fee was an additional eligibility criterion. 1.1.3 Goat Producers Committee • Majority of the positions (3 out of 6 in Matabeleland South, 4 out of 7 in Manicaland) in executive committee were held by women. • Chairmanship was dominated by men. 1.1.4 Women Producers • Women voluntarily joined the project to seize the opportunity (as traditional goat producers) of training in goat management, take advantage of the new goat breed and market linkages. • However, in ward 31 there was need for beneficiaries to pay $5 for DRF 1.2 TRAINING 1.2.1 Community Livestock Workers • Topics covered during training were goat housing; nutrition; breeding; disease diagnosis and prevention/treatment; record keeping, ear tagging; dehorning; and kid management. • Majority of the trainees were women. • Support from LOL, Agritex and LPD was adequate. • In Buhera ward11 , Refresher training was periodically conducted by LOL and LPD but however, currently no trainings are being conducted • Support from Department of Veterinary Services (DVS) was inadequate. There were no DVS personnel at ward and village level in both provinces. • Challenges included: o Low and inconsistent attendance to training sessions; 60 o Lack of refresher and/or update trainings; o Presentation were not supported with hand-outs or reference materials; and o DVS was not actively involved in facilitation. 1.2.2 Goat Producers • Done by LOL staff in conjunction with CLWs, LPD and AGRITEX, • Methods included classroom set up, look and learn visits, field schools and demonstrations/practical lessons. • Training sessions were conducted weekly at village centres. • Training was open to all villagers. • Look and learn visits also complemented theoretical trainings 1.2.3 Women Producers • Training was being done in groups at the village centres • Training times were very convenient 1.3 CURRENT PRACTICES 1.3.1 Goat Producers • The communities continue to practise the following: o Improved goat housing o Improved goat feeding practises o Castration o Vaccination and dosing o Dehorning o Goat manure management 1.4 PRODUCTIVITY 1.4.1 Goat Producers • Herd increase ranges from 0.6 to 2.3 over the project cycle. • Flock size increased because of improved goat husbandry techniques. • 20-32% of the bucks are still alive in Mangwe. • Bucks are allowed to run free and breed indiscriminately. 1.4.2 Women Producers • Herd increase ranges from 0.4 to 1.8 over project cycle 1.5 GROUP ACTIVITY 1.5.1 Goat Producers • Participants enjoyed the cohesiveness (working together), learning, building pens as groups. • Membership was open to all • Village groups no longer active in Matabeleland South but some village groups still functional in Manicaland 1.5.2 Women Producers • Participants liked working together, sharing labour in building pens as groups as well as buying vet medicines as groups. • Benefits included sharing of labour to building of pens, breed improvement. Bulk procurement of Vet drugs and knowledge sharing. • Group membership was open to all villagers. 1.6 MARKETING 1.6.1 Community Leaders • Communities received training on goat marketing. • The project managed to organize goat auctions (2 in Manicaland and 2 in Matabeleland South). 61 • In Matabeland South community did not sell any goats through the auction as they felt that the prices offered by buyers were low ($13-$25 / goat). Prices were based on live weight. • Selling based on weight was a new concept which farmers have not embraced as they realise less than when they sell through direct negotiation with a private buyer. • Sale pens not being used and now neglected and falling apart. • In Manicaland, 77 goats were sold through auction. • Abattoirs were facing challenges of high transaction costs and council levies were deterrent. 1.6.2 Goat Producers • Received training on marketing concepts and farming as a business. • Individuals mostly sell within the ward to other members of the community whilst few farmers in Mutare are beginning to penetrate some urban markets like restaurants. • Weak collective marketing (poor farmer organization) • Limited access to inputs such as dipping chemicals, fodder seeds, veterinary drugs • Market distortions as a result of Land O' Lakes buying normal local goats at exorbitant prices for pass on 1.6.3 Goat Producer Committee • Committee and group members received training on marketing. • Marketing strategies promoted by the project have had no impact on the livelihoods of the beneficiaries. • Weak market linkages for Goat Producer Associations. 1.6.4 Women Producers • Received training on marketing. • Individuals mostly sell within ward to other members of the community 1.7 PASS ON SCHEME 1.7.1 Community Leaders • Leaders were not clear on the modalities of the pass on scheme. 1.7.2 Goat Producers • Very few producers reported that they managed to pass on. • Others were not passing on as they are not fully aware of the terms of reference. • One member in Mangwe, and some members from Ward 12 in Mutare had done passed on a goat. 1.7.3 Women Producers • In Matabeleland, 7 of 12 participants had passed on bucks and the rest were not passing on as they are not fully aware of the terms of reference • In Manicaland does are being passed on and bucks are kept at selected farmers, leaders or CLW homestead 62 1.8 RECOMMENDATIONS 1.8.1 Community Leaders • Distribution of goats allocated to a ward should be based on household numbers in the respective villages. • Clear terms of reference for goat pass on should be developed, communicated and implemented. • Community based monitoring teams that include local leaders should be established and functional before termination of the project. • Need for consistent engagement of local leaders at all stages of the project cycle to enhance ownership and buy in. • Local leaders should be empowered to take leadership in mobilization of communities for production and implementation of grazing and rangeland management plans. • Committees set up and local leaders should receive transformational leadership trainings 1.8.2 Community Livestock Workers • Reduce workload on CLWs. Train two types of cadres – one for rangeland management and the other for animal husbandry and health. • Provide reference materials and notes. • Improve sensitization of communities on rangeland management. May need to conduct a small scale pilot study where communities can actually visualize the impact of rangeland management. • Allocate more time for practical training. • Conduct frequent refresher courses. • Improve access to cold chain for vaccines and drug storage at village level • Improve relationships and complementarity between CLWs and Veterinary Extension Staff • Strengthening use of ICT in goat disease surveillance and cascading of market information • Increase number of CLWs in some cases to enhance coverage 1.8.3 Goat Producers • Training should have involved hand-outs of the lessons conducted for easy reference • Identify other markets. • Invite more buyers who will compete for the goats. • Increase project implementation timeframe • Improve goat breeds and breeding 1.8.4 Goat Producers Committee • Group members should receive Leadership training so that they appreciate the role of committees and select persons who are able to perform their duties. • Each group should have a Constitution that governs the activities of the group. • Increase goat dipping facilities to reduce distances needed to drive goats. • Training in participatory market system development. • Water source development alongside goat dipping facilities. • Improve availability of dipping chemicals and veterinary drugs in local agro-vet enterprises. • Capacitate local agro dealers in veterinary issues (use and storage) 63 1.8.5 Women Producers • Explain pass on to all members and have register. • Increase number of buyer at sales. • Increase number of CLW’s. • Water source development alongside dipping facilities. • More technical and marketing skills for running successful goat enterprises. 2. RANGELAND MANAGEMENT 2.1 TRAINING 2.1.1 Community Leaders • Leaders that participated in “look and learn” visit to ACHM were convinced that rangeland management can be effective. • However, local traditional and civic leaders in Manicaland felt that rangeland management trainings focused more on CLWs leaving out leaders who have the mandate to lead natural resources planning including allocation of grazing land. 2.1.2 Community Livestock Workers • Fodder production and processing; borma sheets; movable kraals; herding together; paddocking 2.2 ACHIEVEMENTS 2.2.1 Community Leaders • Implementation of community rangeland management has been unsuccessful. Consequently, the benefits have not been demonstrated. • In areas where local leadership support has been effectively harnessed (e.g. Ward 12 Mutare), mobilization of communities for production and implementation of grazing and rangeland management plans as well as herding together are visible. In such areas additional pastures have been allocated to facilitate rotational grazing, paddocking and enhance reclamation of pastures. • Look and learn visits facilitated by the project for farmers to Africa Centre for Holistic Management in Victoria Falls have instilled some mind-set shift in terms of sustainable rangeland management practices at local levels. 2.2.2 Community Livestock Workers • Only movable kraals made a difference to a few individuals who had access to the kraals in Matabeleland. • The look and learn visits were complemented by training of trainers in rangeland management. • Dissemination of learnt skills from lead farmers/master trainers may need to be made more systematic and effective in future programming in terms of scale of reach out and quality of information/knowledge disseminated. 64 2.2.3 Goat Producers • Paddocking not yet done except in ward 12 Mutare. • Grazing area perimeter fence in Mangwe not yet finished. • Communal herding was done in Guqukani village for one season and then stopped. • Supplementary feeding is enhancing goat productivity like in ward 31 of Makoni district and ward 12 of Buhera district, goat herds are increasing at a faster rate (not let less than 3 kidding cycles of twins in two years for goats). 2.3 BENEFITS 2.3.1 Community Leaders • The look and learn visit demonstrated the benefits of practising paddocking and movable kraals which are: soil fertility and veld improvement. 2.3.2 Goat Producers • Rangeland management has not yet been implemented in some areas and benefits not evident. • Improved harvest on areas where movable kraals or borma sheets have been placed but the portions are too small to significantly contribute to household economy. 2.3.2 Women Producers • Benefits of rangeland management include rejuvenation of grass in sodic patches (Reclamation of pastures). • Improved crop yields in field demonstrations. 2.4 CHALLENGES 2.4.1 Community Leaders • Lack of leadership involvement in all stages of the project cycle except for Mutare Ward 12. • Lack of by-laws and there enforcement in most wards for effective rangeland management due to poor buy-in by local leaders. 2.4.2 Community Livestock Workers • Communities are reluctant to communal herding of livestock – traditionally do not want to mix their cattle. • Furthermore, in winter, cattle are driven to grazing areas (10-15km away) and only rounded up weekly or fortnightly for dipping. • Some leaders did not allocate additional portions of land for rotational grazing. 2.4.3 Goat Producers • Community participation current limitation (community reluctant to pen livestock together). • Few grazing plans were developed but not implemented. 2.4.4 Goat Producers Committee • Failed to implement rangeland management techniques due to: o Poor coordination of paddocking; o Farmer resistance to herding together and kraaling animals together, o Inadequate rainfall - 2014 was drought. • No access to fodder seeds in local agro – dealers. • Lack of fencing for effective paddocking. 2.4.5 Women Producers • Grazing area not fenced. 2.5 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.5.1 Community Livestock Workers • Improve sensitization of communities on rangeland management. May need to conduct a small scale pilot study where communities can actually visualize the impact of rangeland management. • Assess need and cost benefit analysis of certain technologies e.g. burma sheets by agro ecological zoning. 65 2.5.2 Goat Producers • Promote local leadership led rangeland management initiatives from planning, by-law institution, monitoring and evaluation. • Improve access to inputs e.g. fodder seeds in local agro dealer shops. 3. ANIMAL HEALTH AND EXTENSION 3.1 UTILISATION AND ACCESS TO ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICES 3.1.1 Community Leaders • Animal healthcare was made more accessible and affordable to over 85% of rural farmers. • As a result of this intervention, communities have recorded a significant reduction in mortality; especially kid mortality was reported at less than 10%. Service provision is good. • Both group and non-group members are utilizing the CLWs in Manicaland whilst only group members are accessing CLW services in Matabeleland. • CLWs are available and accessible all the times except in cases where they are very few and/or long distances affect reach out. 3.1.2 Goat Producers Mixed • CLWs still being consulted after termination of the project. • Each farmer buys medication /vaccines/dosing remedy and the CLW administers. • CLWs in other wards buy medication /vaccines/dosing remedy and charge the farmers for the services. In some few wards drugs are bought at group level and the CLW administers these at a fee of $0, 50 for group members and $1 for non-group members. • In Matabeleland South, 53% consulted CLWS during project. 47% reported that CLW are accessible even after the project. 3.1.3 Women Goat Producers • Accessible to all villages. • CLWs still being consulted after the project • CLWs are available and accessible all the times except in cases where they are very few and/or long distances affect reach out • In Matabeleland South, 58% of the participants utilised CLWs for services; and • 66% reported that CLWs are always accessible when needed. 66 3.2 DRUGS AND EQIUPMENT 3.2.1 Community Livestock Workers • Equipment to perform veterinary procedures was adequate except for the burdizzo, elastrator rings and tying rope. • There is an increased attention of farmers in seeking healthcare and veterinary assistance in support of their livestock production activities. • Have now run out of elastrator rings. No funds to purchase rings. • Access to drugs and vaccines remains a challenge. • Drug revolving fund non-functional because of previous bad experiences – Mzila group gave LOL staff member R120 to purchase pulpy kidney vaccine from Plumtree Vet Department. The staff member left LOL and to date, the vaccine has not been delivered to the group. Thereafter, group members refused to contribute to drug revolving fund. Similar thing happened to Bambanani village who tried to purchase Lumpy Skin vaccine. • Mostly doing castrations. • Trained on ICT4D. 3.2.2 Goat Producers Mixed • Services provided by CLWs included: o Castration; o Disease diagnosis; o Ear tagging; o Dosing for internal parasites; and o Vaccination for pulpy kidney. 3.2.3 Women Goat Producers • Services provided by CLWs included: o Castration o Disease diagnosis o Tick grease application o Dosing and vaccination 3.3 BENEFITS 3.3.1 Goat Producers Mixed • CLWs have contributed to: o Improved health status o Increase in livestock numbers and quality o Reduced livestock mortality 3.3.2 Women Goat Producers • CLWs have contributed to improved health status of goats and reduced kid mortalities 3.4 CHALLENGES 3.4.1 Community Leaders • Leaders not aware of service fees charged by CLWs in some areas • CLWs have role conflict with local leadership in some areas. • drug revolving fund is non - existent or poorly managed 67 3.4.2 Community Livestock Workers • Payment to CLWs is almost negligible – most farmers will only say “thank you”. • Access to drugs and veterinary supplies remains a challenge as CLWs have to travel to Plumtree to access agro-dealers. • When CLWs use their own drugs, farmers are unable to pay them enough to recover the cost of the drugs. • Farmers have no money to purchase drugs to treat sick animals. • Biggest challenge with vaccination is need for cold chain. The groups do not have access to refrigerators. • Unable to contribute as they did not have airtime and some of the CLWs did not have mobile phones. • Poor relationship with DVS staff-limited back stopping support. • Limited access to medication/vaccination in local agro-vet shops. • Unsustainable/poor application of ICT in goat disease surveillance and dissemination of market information. • Few CLWs in some cases which compromises coverage. • Lack of a bicycle maintenance fee to ensure reach out to farmers every time. • Limited uptake of goat dipping technology. 3.4.3 Goat Producers Mixed • Drugs and equipment are inadequate. • No drug revolving fund. • The quality of extension knowledge provided remains rudimentary and overstretched as only CLWs are training them without any further update/refresher training support from government extension system. 3.4.4 Women Goat Producers • Drugs and equipment not enough. • No drug revolving fund. • Lack of distribution of training hand-outs/manuals has also weakened quality of follow-on farmer to farmer trainings. This has also limited knowledge retention within communities. 68 Annex 6: Table of Key Performance indicators with Baseline, Midterm and Final Values No Performance Indicator Baseline Value Target Midterm Evaluation End of project 31 August 2014 Final Evaluation Comments Achieved % Achieve￾ment USAID/OFDA Sub-Sector Goal: Expedite recovery, reduce risk, and mitigate effects of economic and environmental disasters on Zimbabwe’s vulnerable communities through livestock production, management and marketing. A Number of animals benefitting from or affected by livestock activities 0 6,200 8,747 11,829 191 Target achieved B Number of people benefiting from livestock activities 0 6,200 5,770 11,025 178 Target achieved C Number of veterinary interventions, treatments or vaccinations administered 0 2,000 6,748 13,494 675 Target achieved D Number of animals treated or vaccinated 0 1,500 6,189 8,352 557 Target achieved. The project had not anticipated a huge response. Awareness was created on the importance of animal health. Project Goal: Reduce risk through enhanced institutional and community capacities to respond to and mitigate the effects of disasters, strengthen the resilience of vulnerable communities, and reduce exposure to hazards through the effective use of goats and rangeland management. E Number of individuals participating in disaster risk reduction activities 0 6,200 5,770 11,025 178 Target achieved F Percentage of beneficiary households with improved productive asset base 0% 60% 31% 44% 73 Target not achieved. The project was at the initial phases of production. This is likely to be achived with the increase in the number of goats. G Percentage of beneficiary female-headed households with improved productive asset base 0% 60% 49.2% 61% 102 Target achieved as women have shown interest in the project. Intermediate Result 1: Increased goat production, asset building and improved access to market by vulnerable households and communities. 1.1 Number of households trained or receiving technical assistance in goat production and marketing 0 2,000 1,154 2,205 110 Target achieved 69 No Performance Indicator Baseline Value Target Midterm Evaluation End of project 31 August 2014 Final Evaluation Comments Achieved % Achieve￾ment 1.2 Average value of Assets (tools, Livestock, domestic) In targeted Participating Households $1,914 $2,070 $2,141 $2,496 121 The indicator assumes that all household assets were purchased from funds generated through the project. The increase to the average value of goats is attributed to increase in the number of goats and other sources of income such as savings which have nthing to do with the goat project. 1.3 Number of households receiving goats from the program and participating in producer groups 0 700 617 983 140 Target achieved although pass on is now not systematic and is characterized dealys and increased number of defaulters. 1.4 Number of goat producer groups formed or strengthened 0 10 10 10 100 Groups formed but not meeting regularly. According to FGDs, KII and observation by the team, the enforcement of by-laws was weak. 1.5 Proportion of producer group membership comprised of females 0 30% 60% 60% 200 Target achieved 1.6 Number of producer groups linked to markets 0 10 0 9 90 At the time of final evaluation, none of the groups could be described as formally linked to markets. In all sites only one delivery for each producer group was done during the project implementation period. Intermediate Result 2: Improved rangeland and water resources management 2.1 Number of CLW’s trained in farm and sustainable rangeland management techniques 0 50 68 68 136 Traget achieved 70 No Performance Indicator Baseline Value Target Midterm Evaluation End of project 31 August 2014 Final Evaluation Comments Achieved % Achieve￾ment 2.2 Number of individuals trained in improved farm and rangeland management techniques 0 6,200 3,220 7,430 120 Target achieved 2.3 Number of grazing management plans developed and utilized by communities 0 6 1 6 100 Although the last Quartelry report indicates a 100% achievement of the target, none of the six communities who produced the grazing maps implemented the grazing plans at ward level. Only 6 villages out of the several villages in each ward had only practised herding together. 2.4 Communities applying improved farm and sustainable rangeland management techniques 0 6 6 6 100 The movable kraal was used in all the six communities but because these were few, only 40% had benefitted from the technique. Fodder production could not provide the much needed feed because of poor rainfall. 2.5 Number of hectares (ha) under improved land management 100 2,000 125 6,369 318 The movable kraal and fodder production were successful but the evaluation team could not confirm the number of hectares under grazing management plans. This hectarage could have been overestimated. 2.6 Percentage of community farmers applying improved farm and sustainable rangeland management techniques 0 50% 45% 82% 164 According to FGDs and KI the movable kraal was used in all the six communities but because these were few, only 40% had benefitted from the technique. Fodder production could not provide the much needed feed because of poor rainfall. 71 No Performance Indicator Baseline Value Target Midterm Evaluation End of project 31 August 2014 Final Evaluation Comments Achieved % Achieve￾ment Intermediate Result 3: Increased capacity of and access to animal health and livestock extension services 3.1 Number of CLW’s trained 0 50 68 68 136 Target achieved 3.2 Percentage of CLWs utilizing their training and skills to train farmers 0 60% 90% 96% 160 Target achieved and CLWs are the main sources of extension messages on animal health 3.3 Number of women responsible for making household decisions in veterinary care and management of their goats 1,891 2,480 1,154 5,964 240 Target achieved, overwhelming interest by women to own assets such as goats that can help in meeting the household basic needs. 3.4 Number of households served by CLWs 0 2,000 1,200 2,022 101 Target achieved. Active involvement of CLWs. According to FGDs, the CLWs are overwhelmed. 72