MAPPING A SUSTAINABLE RURAL ECONOMY
IN EASTERN PROVINCE:
MID-TERM EVALUATION OF COOPERATIVE LEAGUE OF THE USA 
NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Prepared by 
Farming Systems Association of Zambia (FASAZ)
Review Team:
Earnest T. Kasuta, Sociologist/Team leader
Peter Fushike, Forester
Moses Mwale, Agronomist
Munguzwe Hichaambwa, Agribusiness Specialist
Commissioned by the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID/Zambia)
27 March, 2003
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We wish to acknowledge the assistance rendered to us by individuals and organizations too 
numerous to mention in carrying out this evaluation. Specifically, we are indebted to the
USAID/Lusaka Mission for the financial support and Mr. John Heemans the CLUSA Natural 
Resources Management Program Coordinator and his staff for their cooperation. We
sincerely thank all the collaborating partners; Forest Department, MACO, Farmers’ Friend
and WVIAP for their support. We acknowledge the kindness of Chief Mbang’ombe and Chief 
Nyamphande for accepting to discuss with us at short notice. All the Enumerators and data
entry colleagues who assisted with the questionnaires are acknowledged. We would also like 
to thank Dr. G. Tembo for analyzing the questionnaires. Many thanks also to Mr. C.
Hamusimbi for providing the logistical support. We thank the driver, Mr. D. Mukosa, for ably 
taking us to and from Eastern Province. We are deeply indebted to Mr. M. C. Ndiyoi,
President - FASAZ, for his input in bidding for this job and for supporting the team throughout 
the execution of this noble task. Lastly, but not the least, we would like to thank the farmers 
for their patience and understanding in answering our many questions.
Authors1
 
1
 Earnest Kasuta is a Lecturer in Sociology and Social Work at the University of Zambia; Moses Mwale is an 
Agronomist at Mt Makulu Central Research Station in Chilanga; Peter Fushike is a Lecturer in Forestry at the
Copperbelt University; and Munguzwe Hichaambwa is a private consultant in Agribusiness and, Farming
Systems and Participatory Research and Extension. 
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................................................III
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................IV
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................ V
LIST OF ACRONYMS.......................................................................................................................VI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................. VII
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE EASTERN PROVINCE ................................................................. 1
1.2 BACKGROUND TO THE COOPERATIVE LEAGUE OF THE USA NATURAL RESOURCES 
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CLUSA/NRMP)................................................................................. 1
1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION.................................................................. 2
1.3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................. 2
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT RATIONALE .................................................................................................. 5
2.1 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION PROCESS ..................................................................................... 5
2.2 NEEDS OF RURAL FARMERS IN THE TARGET AREAS ............................................................. 5
2.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT .............................................................................................. 6
2.3 POLICY ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION......................................................................................... 9
3.1 ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT.................................................................................... 9
3.2 FINANCIAL ASPECTS (DISBURSEMENT AND ALLOCATION OF FUNDS)................................... 10
3.3 IDENTIFICATION OF PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................ 10
3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF BENEFICIARIES ................................................................................... 12
3.5 COMPONENTS OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND SERVICES PROVIDED............................. 12
3.6 COLLABORATIONS AND PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS ..................................... 16
3.7 EFFECTIVENESS OF SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM ................................................................ 17
CHAPTER 4: PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT...................................................................... 18
4.1 PERFORMANCE: WHAT DIFFERENCE DID PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION MAKE........................ 18
4.2 IMPACT: WHAT HAS CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT ............................................ 22
4.3 EMPOWERMENT: FARMER PARTICIPATION, GENDER AND YOUTH....................................... 23
4.4 PERFORMANCE OF THE FORESTRY COMPONENT................................................................. 25
CHAPTER 5: LESSONS LEARNT...................................................................................................... 29
5.1 LESSONS FOR USAID/ZAMBIA .......................................................................................... 29
5.2 LESSONS FOR CLUSA AND OTHER NGOS ......................................................................... 29
5.3 LESSONS FOR MTENR...................................................................................................... 29
5.4 EXTENDING, EXPANDING OR CUT SHORT THE PROGRAM? ................................................... 30
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................... 31
6.1 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 31
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................... 31
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 35
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE.................................................................................................. 36
ANNEX 2: LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS INTERVIEWED....................................................................... 43
ANNEX 3: ITINERARY FOR FIELD WORK.......................................................................................... 44
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Average Number Of Household Members By Age And Gender ..................................................4
Table 2: Proportion of Expenditure Levels at different Levels of Project Implementation Over Years.......10
Table 3: Reasons Why the CLUSA/NRMP was Perceived to be Relevant by Sample Farmers...............12
Table 4: Relative Importance of Services Provided By the Program as perceived by Beneficiaries..........13
Table 5: Relative Importance of the Credit Sources in the Program Areas..............................................14
Table 7: Perceived Income Trend Between 1998 And 2002 By Household Head’s Gender 
And Whether Or Not The Household Is A Member Of The CLUSA-NRM Program ..................18
Table 6: Results of project Activities in Accordance with Performance Indicators....................................20
Table 8: Quantities and Values of Crops Marketed by the POTC in 2000 and 2001................................21
Table 9: Relative Frequency of Skills the Beneficiaries Have Acquired Through Program Activities ........22
Table 10: Expected and actual conditions after 2 years of Program activity...........................................26
Table 11: Implications of various decisions on USAID and project beneficiaries ....................................30
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Selected Attributes Of Heads Of Households Participating In The CLUSA-NRM
 Households In The Sample ......................................................................................................4
Figure 2. Selected Attributes Of Heads Of Households Participating In The CLUSA-NRM 
 Households In The Sample ....................................................................................................11
Figure 3. Relevance Of The CLUSA-NRM Program To Farmer Circumstances......................................11
Figure 4: Changes in Ways farmers Earn their Income as a Result of the Program ................................19
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AIDS Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome
ASIP Agricultural Sector Investment Program
ATCs Area Training Coordinators
CA Cooperative Agreement
CBNRM Community Based Natural Resources Management
CEMP Community Environmental Management Project
CLUSA Cooperative League of the USA
CLUSA/NRMP CLUSA/ Natural resources Management Program
CMS Credit Management Services
ECU Eastern Cooperative Union
ESP Environmental Support Program
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FASAZ Farming Systems Association of Zambia
FGD Focused Group Discussion
FL Functional Literacy
GFs Group Facilitators
GIS Geographic Information System
HIV Human Immuno Deficiency Virus
ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agroforestry
ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
IFT Improved Fallow Technology
ISC Interim Steering Committee
JFM Joint Forest Management
JFMP Joint Forest Management Plan
LWF Lutheran World Federation
MACO Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
MMD Movement for Multi-party Democracy
MTENR Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
NRM Natural Resources Management
OGS Out Grower Scheme
POTC Producer Owned Trading Company
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
RGBs Rural Group Businesses
SAP Structural Adjustment Program
SCCI Seed Control and Certification Institute
SO Strategic Objective 
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists
ToT Training of Trainers
UNIP United National Independence Party
USAID United states Agency for International development
VRGs Village Resource Group
VRMAC Village Resources Management Area Committee
WVIAP World Vision Integrated Agroforestry Project
ZATAC Zambia Agribusiness Technical Assistance Center
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background and Objectives
Since October 1998 the Cooperative League of the USA (CLUSA) has been implementing a 
five-year, $3.8 million Natural Resources Management Program (NRMP) in four districts
(Chipata, Mambwe, Katete and recently moved in Petauke) of Eastern Province, Zambia,
funded by the USAID. The CLUSA/NRMP was aimed at combining community forest
management and promoting the emergence of democratically self-managed, financially viable 
rural businesses that improve rural family incomes. Using fully costed credit for rural groups, 
CLUSA promised to bring to Zambia its rural group development experience gained
worldwide including West Africa. The Cooperative Agreement that CLUSA signed with
USAID indicated that in five years, communities living around selected forests in Eastern
Zambia could be involved in the management of four forests of total area 87,656 hectares. In 
addition, the formed rural groups would in five years access credit of cumulative value
$2,388,375 to allow them produce crops of a cumulative value of $10,671,375. In total, some 
7,000 rural dwellers would be involved in the CLUSA project by its final year. Successful 
implementation of the project would contribute positively to USAID/Zambia’s Strategic
Objective (SO) 1, which is “Increased Rural Incomes of Selected Groups”.
It is against this background that at the end of May 2002, the USAID/Zambian mission
commissioned the Farming Systems Association of Zambia (FASAZ) to undertake a
concurrent mid-term evaluation of the CLUSA/NRMP and its sister project, the World Vision
Zambia Integrated Agroforestry Project (WVIAP). The primary objective of the evaluation was 
to determine whether USAID investments are achieving their desired impact, why or why not. 
A second objective was to generate ideas on how the impact of USAID investments in
CLUSA/NRMP activities can be improved. A final objective was to generate ideas on how
CLUSA/NRMP experiences can influence ongoing or future USAID and other institution
investments in increasing rural incomes, improving food security, and managing natural
resources. 
Summary of Methodology
The evaluation team reviewed project documents, held interactive interviews with various
stakeholders, including mission staff, project staff, collaborating partners, traditional leaders
and the beneficiary community. In addition a structured questionnaire was administered to a 
random sample of 106 households including both beneficiaries and non beneficiaries in the
project areas. Qualitative data was analysed for content while quantitative data was analysed 
using the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) for triangulation and to support and 
complement findings from qualitative data analysis.
Main Findings
1. The project currently has four major components – Forestry, Agriculture, Adult Functional 
Literacy/HIV/AIDs and a Producer Owned trading Company (POTC). The POTC is an
addition that was not in the Cooperative Agreement (CA) but was included as a response 
to farmers’ need for markets. 
2. Membership of Rural Group Businesses (RGBs), through which the project operated,
indicated that there are more men who are substantive members of the farmer groups
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program viii
than there are women. However, there are some women behind much of the male figures 
because among married couples the husbands registered for membership since they
owned/controlled the farmland. Data of cooperators, however, needed to be aggregated 
into "married, single, female-headed household, male or joint headed household as well
as age."
3. Under the agricultural component, RGB members are trained in the production of cash
crops especially paprika, groundnuts and sunflower that are promoted under the Out
Grower Scheme (OGS) type of arrangement. Maize is included as a food security crop. 
4. The main services provided by the project as perceived by the beneficiaries were training 
in new farming methods (42.0%), input provision (31.8%), credit provision (12.5%),
marketing services (8.0%) and HIV/AIDS awareness (3.4%). 
5. Credit is provided in the form of inputs after members pay a flat fee of K10,000 (was until 
this year 10% of the value of the loan). Inputs are given to farmers and after production, 
farmers pay back their loans through cash crops which they sell back with an interest rate 
of 3.5%. Excess crop is marketed for farmers and the money is given to them. About 
51.5% of the respondents rated the credit provided in the 2001/2002 season as good
while about 35.0% and 13.5% indicated that it was fair and poor respectively. 
6. Due to program activities, beneficiary farmers obtained during the 2001/02 season an
average of US $149 per farmer in seasonal loans for inputs compared to US $44 for non 
members of the program (the amounts of which were significantly different at 0.001 level 
of probability).
7. The current focus of the program is on increasing yields of paprika and groundnuts by
encouraging farmers to use recommended sustainable farming practices and
agroforestry/soil fertility improvement technologies so as to reduce on cost of production. 
This is enhanced through a cadre of trained group facilitators (GFs), area training
coordinators (ATCs) and commodity monitors (e.g. Paprika and Groundnut Monitors
found at each depot). 
8. Input provision and crop marketing are conducted under the auspices of the POTC. The 
services provided are sustainable in that beneficiaries have realised that farming is a
business. The agricultural cultural practices introduced are sustainable because there is 
a ready market for inputs and produce, and the farmers working in groups, reduce
marketing transaction costs.
9. The POTC has started buying produce from non-CLUSA farmers for processing
purposes. Since the quantities produced by its own farmers are small, the POTC has
formed a strategic partnership with Farmers’ Friend (a private company involved in
agricultural input and output marketing and has a fairly felt presence across the province) 
to expand their marketing activities making the POTC more economically viable and
sustainable in the long run after project end. The Farmers’ Friend does not currently have 
the capacity to adequately undertake the POTC’s marketing functions.
10. The POTC is a significant contribution by CLUSA in the eastern province. It is being
created following an assessment of the marketing problems that have beset the province 
following the collapse of the Eastern Cooperative Union (ECU). Farmers interviewed
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program ix
(e.g. Chiparamba farmers) cite problems of “briefcase” buyers who could only buy a few 
bags of produce at a time. The money from such transactions was too small to permit 
any meaningful investment by the farmer. 
11. The POTC, according to project staff, needs to have 3000 farmers for it to be viable. 
Currently 1270 farmers are on loan records while 300 independent farmers have also
sold crops to the company. Farmer membership declined in the past couple of years due 
to unhappiness with group responsibility over loan repayment and lack of the 10%
commitment fee. Project management is optimistic that membership will increase greatly 
by August 2002 under the new loan arrangements of individual loan commitment and
K10,000 registration fee. According to the Project Coordinator, about 90% of the loan
fund provided at the time of project inception is still available and will be used for this
purpose.
12. With resources, other institutions could provide the services being provided by the
project, but such institutions would need a lot of time to establish a kind of structure that 
would ensure sustainability of activities after project life.
13. In order to enhance effectiveness of service delivery, the program has field staff stationed 
within the communities who train the farmers in business, agriculture and forestry
management skills. Strategic partnership with the private sector in input delivery and
produce marketing also enhances efficiency and sustainability. However, weak linkages
with MACO field staff and the fact that the field staff are CLUSA employees in a way
compromises sustainability after the project ends. This is because although the program 
is under the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR), success 
of the agriculture component is very key to reducing pressure on the forests. This
requires that MACO field staff should put in their best in terms of extension and
backstopping, now and after the program has phased out.
14. One of the most significant impacts of project activities on the beneficiaries has been
improved crop productivity. Farmers attributed this to better and timely availability of
inputs, training in better farming methods, assured produce markets and better business 
skills. Farmers interviewed during group discussions indicated that their maize yields
have increased from about 300 Kg per hectare to over 3,000 Kg per hectare.
15. Most farmers interviewed perceived their incomes to have increased between 1998 and
now. Farmers attributed the increase to employing of improved farming methods
(41.8%); improved marketing arrangements and better prices (32.8%); better crop
varieties (7.3%); and increased cash cropping (18.2%). However increased income has 
been greatly hampered by the group responsibility over loans.
16. Due to drawbacks in recruiting members, which is important in achieving project targets, 
the CLUSA/NRMP has made little progress in achieving the results identified in the
Cooperative Agreement except for the number of groups and depots formed. There are
four factors that have contributed to this:
· Group responsibility over loan repayment impacted negatively on the RGBs. Good
farmers were meant to pay for defaulting farmers and this discouraged them.
· Membership in RGBs declined because good farmers quit while defaulters were
automatically screened out by the remaining farmers
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program x
· It was difficult to attract new members after seeing what had happened to their
colleagues
· The good farmers that remained in the groups devised ways of escaping paying for 
those of the members that defaulted for whatever reasons.
17. This not withstanding, the volume and value of sales of farmers’ produce through the
POTC has increased but not to the level expected if the project end target of total income 
of about US $ 10 million is to be achieved. Only about 2.5% of the projected project
period total has so been achieved by the time of the evaluation.
18. The training farmers have received from the project have changed their attitudes towards 
improved farming methods and they can appreciate developmental issues much better.
Farmers are now in the forefront looking for additional information in agricultural related
issues. The main skills acquired as rated by the project beneficiaries were new farming
methods (33.3%), growing of paprika (28.2%) and ability to read and write (7.7%). Others 
were gardening and crop budgeting at 3.8% each.
19. The implementation strategy of the Forestry component was to use the same farmers
whose needs are being addressed by the agriculture component and sensitise them on
issues of deforestation and sustainable forestry management. These farmers living
around forests about 5 km radius from protected local forests are then required to
organise themselves into Village Resource Management Area Committees (VRMAC) and 
pay their own village resource guards to assist in implementing forest activities. 
20. Models for community-based forest management are developed and Joint Forest
Management Plans (JFMPs) are prepared. The cost and benefit sharing mechanism is
agreed upon among stakeholders. Recently, a pitsawyer’s approach has been proposed 
as a community-based forest management in the open areas and is being tried out in
Petauke. 
21. The first chief with whom a JFMP should have been signed has refused to sign because 
of “consideration for his people”, who are currently squatting in the Chiulukire local forest. 
This has stalled the process and hindered progress in the other forests. It is possible that 
this could be sending a negative message to the other chiefs with whom similar JFMP
should be prepared and signed.
22. What was expected of the forestry component after two years of operations has not fully 
materialised though the project has made significant strides in:
· Raising forest users’ awareness of deforestation and sustainable management 
issues 
· Building capacity of local Forestry Department staff in forest management skills
· Formation of Village Resource Management Area Committees (VRMACs)
· Organisation and training of user groups
· Production of forest management plans
· The use of appropriate technology in the mapping and assessment/inventory of forest 
resources
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program xi
Conclusions 
1. The importance of having an effective and efficient input and output marketing system in 
increasing productivity and hence household food security and income can not be over 
emphasised. There is need that this goes hand in hand with an efficient and cost effective 
system of improved technology transfer to the farmers who need to be assisted in
assimilating and adopting these technologies through enhancing their ability to read and 
write by way of functional adult literacy. The POTC is a good thing that has so far
happened to the CLUSA program in Eastern Province. It is unfortunate that this out
grower approach faced a number of implementation problems as some farmers opted to 
leave the Program due to group responsibility of loans. The amount of crop marketed is 
directly related to the number of farmers in the program. As the number of farmers
increase, the amount of crop marketed will also increase. In addition, the project is now 
beginning to market crops from other NGOs and non-CLUSA farmers, which should
significantly increase the amount of crop marketed.
2. The first phase of the project was focused on refining a strategy/methodology to the
unique socio-economic context of the Eastern Province. Now that the strategy is in place, 
the number of farmers is expected, according to project management, to increase
significantly in 2002 and 2003 but is unlikely that the original targets will be met because 
of delays and the high learning curve. CLUSA Mozambique is developing a similar POTC 
in Nampula which could be linked to the POTC Chipata for marketing high value cash
crops like paprika. In addition, the joint venture with Farmers’ Friend is a means to ensure 
private sector advice and long term sustainability following CLUSA’s departure.
3. With regard to the forestry component:
· Considering achievements so far, and the time remaining before the project ends, it
can safely be said that the anticipated end-of-project status will not be attained. As
this forestry component is on an experimental basis for JFM, any results obtained will 
serve as important lessons for future applications of JFMs in Zambia.
· The sustainability of the Forestry Component after the project will largely depend on 
strengthening the VRMACs and the local Forestry Department staff on the other 
hand. For this to happen, the VRMACs should see benefits from forest resources
trickling down to them.
· In spite of the laws of the land, chiefs are a force to reckon with. The chiefs’ influence 
on their subjects should not be underrated in the pursuit of JFM; hence the need for a 
thorough situational analysis before any JFM in an area can be embarked on. 
· There is a fairly high level of participation in forestry activities by the communities
around Chiulikire Local Forest where the project is very active.
Recommendations
1. In order to improve on project performance and impact, it is recommended that:
· The POTC should recruit more farmers to make it more viable and this aspect should 
be ascertained by August 2002 to see how achievement of targets can be improved. 
It should also collaborate with other organizations such as World Vision to increase
volumes of produce marketed
· The capacity of the Interim Steering Committee (ISC), later to become the Board of 
Directors of POTC, should be improved. Most of the current members and the pool of 
farmers from which even future Boards will be drawn may not have the managerial
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program xii
skill and experience to steer the POTC to successful levels of performance. To
enhance sustainability, capacity building for the Boards and RGB executives is a
must.
· The program should not go back to group responsibility over loans. The project
should instead concentrate on sensitising farmers on the need to pay back loans and 
should also concentrate on individual loans. The joint venture with Farmers’ Friend
should be strengthened to achieve this objective. Other private sector collaboration
linkages should also be strengthened.
· RGBs should be trained in marketing and enterpreneurship in collaboration with
WVIAP which has a stronger training component
· Collaboration with MACO should be strengthened for sustainability purposes
because at project end, POTC will remain and MACO will have to continue with
facilitating RGBs
· Staff salaries should be commensurate with qualifications and experience and more 
personnel with agricultural or agribusiness backgrounds to work as facilitators under 
the agricultural component
· If the number of adult literacy centres keeps on rising, there would be need to
consider employing more staff
· Higher calibre staff are required in the POTC if it is to be more sustainable in the long 
run
2. It is further recommended that:
· USAID should assist with policy collaboration with Forestry Department at national
level
· JFM should be decentralized and simplified to minimise time and cost for practical
implementation purposes. 
· There should be proper assessment of an area intended to be declared as a JFM in 
terms of resources, chief’s cooperation and level of encroachment
· Squatters should be relocated before a JFM plan is made or finalized. Those in
Chiululikire Forest should not be allowed to plant this year if they are to move out by 
next year. They should be allocated with alternative land for them to settle by both
the chief and the government.
· Chiefs should be sensitised that they have control over forests under JFM and not 
before.
· Chiefs should be involved right from the start in an area required to be declared as 
JFM. After sensitisation on how to manage the forests, Chiefs could be a vehicle of 
information transfer to their subjects
· Collaboration between Forestry and other components within CLUSA should be
strengthened
· CLUSA should streamline and come up with a proper structure of the forestry
component
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 1
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND
1.1 Brief Description of the Eastern Province 
Located between 10 – 15 degrees South Latitude and 30 – 33 degrees East Longitude, Eastern
Province covers an area of about 70,000 square kilometers and its population was estimated at 1, 
300, 973 in 2000 (CSO 2001). It has an estimated farming population of 151,300 farm families with 
a total crop area of 245,000 hectares of which about 58% is ploughed by hand (MAFF, 1999).
The province has two of its districts (Chama and Mambwe) in Agro-ecological Region I while the 
rest of the districts fall in Region II. Soil types range from Sandy loams to clay loams on the plateau 
(Region II), while the valley (Region I) consists of clay loams to silt. Rainfall ranges from 600 –
1000 mm and between 400 and 650 mm per annum in the respective regions.
Farming is the most widespread activity. The region is good for groundnuts and cotton production. 
Pressure on forests for agricultural land is increasing rapidly due to rapid population increase and 
declining soil fertility in cultivated lands. Thus there is great need for sustainable
utilization/management of these miombo woodland-based forests.
1.2 Background to the Cooperative League of the USA Natural Resources Management 
Program (CLUSA/NRMP)
In support of Zambia’s economic liberalization, USAID has initiated and supported activities that
stimulate rural economic growth since 1991. USAID/Zambia's Country Strategic Plan for the 1998 -
2003 period, Strategic Objective 1 (SO 1) is "increased rural incomes of selected groups." 
Approximately 5 million of Zambia’s 10 million people live and work in rural areas. SO 1
investments aim at increasing the incomes of rural families working together in groups. It is hoped 
that rural families working as groups will result in more cost effective (and less risky) technology 
dissemination, training, rural finance, output marketing and forest management skills service
delivery. Lower service delivery costs will contribute to more sustainable, customer responsive and 
profitable service delivery agencies. Finally, more sustainable and profitable service delivery will
result in increased rural family opportunities to improve their productivity and incomes.
SO1 activities spring from rural family problem and opportunity identification. They are intended to 
encourage rural family contributions to solving their social or economic problems, enhance
women's contribution to rural economic growth and encourage government food security and rural 
finance policies that promote private initiative.
The CLUSA/NRMP in Eastern Province, Zambia began in October 1998. This five year project
aims at promoting involvement of communities living around gazetted forests in the management of 
forest resources while encouraging them to undertake productive agricultural activities outside the 
forests through developing the emergence of democratically self-managed, financially viable rural 
businesses that improve rural family incomes. Originally, the project was operating in three districts 
(Chipata, Mambwe and Katete) but has now extended to Petauke district. 
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 2
In the Cooperative Agreement (between CLUSA and USAID) Number 611-A-00-98-00002-00 it
was indicated that in five years, communities living around selected forests in Eastern Province
could be involved in the management of four forests of total area 87,656 hectares. In addition, the 
formed rural groups would in five years access credit of cumulative value US $ 2,388,375 to allow 
them produce crops of cumulative value US $ 10,671,375. In total, some 7,000 rural dwellers
would be involved in the CLUSA project by its final year (2003).
1.2 Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation
1.2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation was to obtain quantitative evidence of investment impact on rural
incomes and Joint Forest Management. Where quantitative evidence was not available or relevant, 
qualitative descriptions of impacts and processes were to be provided.
The evaluation included assessing the impact of the project and identified ways to improve
implementation and has, in this report, presented to USAID/Zambia Mission issues for
consideration regarding the options whether to extend, expand or cut short the project. 
1.2.2 Objectives of the Evaluation
The Specific objectives of the evaluation were:
1. Determine whether USAID investments are achieving their desired impact, why or why not. 
2. Generate ideas on how the impact of USAID investments in CLUSA/NRMP activities can 
be improved, 
3. Generate ideas on how CLUSA/NRMP experiences can influence ongoing or future USAID 
and other institution investments in increasing rural incomes, improving food security, and 
managing natural resources. 
4. Make recommendations to USAID/Zambia Mission for consideration whether to extend,
expand or cut short the project. 
5. Package relevant findings so that systematic or national level impact from evaluation
lessons learned might be achieved with specific reference to the Zambian context.
1.3 Methodology
1.3.1 The Study Design (nature of the study)
There are two basic types of program evaluative research: summative and formative evaluation.
Summative evaluation is primarily aimed at assessing organisational performance with emphasis
on reviewing the efficiency and effectiveness of a program/project as compared to its goals and
resource inputs. 
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 3
On the other hand, formative evaluation lends itself to providing an input in organisational learning,
that is, it focuses on processes with an intention to improve the organisation’s mode of operation, 
its operational approaches and procedures as well as its performance. The aim is to gain better
understanding of the complex and intricate processes of organisational behaviour in order to
establish knowledge and insight needed to strengthen the operations of the organisation should the 
program be found worth continuing.
This evaluation leans more on the later category. As such two basic categories of questions ran
through the whole investigation:
(a) Questions that will provide a systematic documentation and description of the
various elements and processes and structures of the project; and
(b) Questions that will result in explanations of why things are as they are
observed/experienced to be. The explanatory questions are closely inter-linked 
with and builds on the descriptive ones. 
1.3.2 Selection of study sites and respondents
The evaluation covered four (4) districts, namely: Chipata, Katete, Mambwe and Petauke, the new 
district that the program has extended into. 
Project staff and their collaborators were interviewed and groups of farmers were also interviewed 
in focus group discussions, group meetings and as individual key informants (See Annex 2 for a list 
of some key respondents). 
1.3.3 Data Collection and Analysis
The review used the following tools to collect data:
ß Reviewing relevant program documents such as periodic reports, annual reports, financial 
and other management process reports, etc.
ß Group discussions and topical/thematic interviews with project staff
ß Interactive discussions with beneficiaries (PRA)
ß Field visits to activity sites (Observations & transect walks).
ß Key informant interviews with collaborators and community leaders
ß Focus group discussions (FGD), in-depth interviews with key informants, case studies, and 
interactive discussions with professional staff of agencies 
The data collected using PRA was complemented by an individual household questionnaire. Table 
1 and Figure 1 show the characteristics of sampled households amongst which the questionnaire 
was administered. The data from questionnaires was analysed using the Statistical Package for
Social Scientists (SPSS), while qualitative data was analyzed for content.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 4
Table 1. Average Number of Household Members by Age and Gender
Average number of household members by age and gender
Project area 0-10 years old 11-19 years old 20 years or older
(District) Male Female Male Female Male Female
Total number of 
members per 
household
Chipata 0.57 0.46 0.37 0.38 0.61 0.54 2.63
Katete 1.25 1.47 1.27 0.82 1.40 1.56 7.78
Mambwe 1.55 1.82 1.45 1.64 1.82 2.27 10.55
Total 1.03 1.13 0.95 0.74 1.25 1.27 6.12
The average age of the household head in the study area is 44 years and ranges from 23 to 81.
Figure 1. Selected Attributes Of Heads Of Households Participating In The CLUSA-NRM Households In The
Sample
Increasing the level of education for the household head could be an important factor for increasing 
participation in the program but only if starting from levels lower than upper primary school. Most of 
the participating household heads have attained upper primary school level. It is not clear why the 
relationship between education level and participation changes sign beyond upper secondary
school. If our sample is indeed representative, one could probably guess that such households
have more options as to where to direct their energies and knowledge.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Number of sampled households that were part of the CLUSA￾NRM program
None Lower primary Upper primary Junior secondary Senior secondary
Level of education of the household head
Male-headed Female-headed
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 5
CHAPTER 2: PROJECT RATIONALE
This section aims to establish whether the project is addressing the needs of the intended
beneficiaries as perceived by the beneficiaries themselves as well as the professional staff serving 
the local communities. To achieve this the consultants identified the needs expressed by the
beneficiaries during the project’s baseline study, reviewed the process that was used to identify the 
needs addressed by the project and assessed whether, from the point of view of the beneficiaries, 
the project is addressing their felt needs in the area of concern. Professional staff serving in
relevant Government departments, traditional leaders as well as other key informants from the
communities were interviewed.
2.1 Project Identification Process
The idea to have the NRM Program appears to have been initiated by CLUSA from their
experience with the nature of problems in West Africa - Niger and Benin - and elsewhere. Before 
full program development was done, a research was undertaken in January 1998, which identified 
some of the key problems and possible collaborators in the areas of operation of the program.
2.2 Needs of Rural Farmers in the Target Areas
The need to use forest resources in a sustainable manner is beyond any debate as this is a visible 
reality to everyone and many studies have established both the causes and suggested solutions. 
As regards forests, at least four interrelated development problems that have been observed
among many natural resource-dependent rural communities are:
· Low capacity or total absence of institutional organization at community level;
· Lack of an effective decentralized management authority over communally-owned natural 
resources; 
· Lack of “conservation by the people”, that is, lack of genuine community participation in
natural resource management; and
· Lack of a culture of genuine propriety interest in the environment partially resulting from
the people feeling alienated.
Focusing on management and conservation of forest areas, CLUSA’s approach to natural
resources management involves a system of village-based training that equips the participating
village groups to develop and implement workable management plans for the forest areas and
forest-related economic activities. It directly addresses the weaknesses often found in rural
communities which are:
(a) Lack of planning and organisational experience
(b) Lack of financial management skills
(c) Lack of technical knowledge
(d) Limited access to credit
(e) Low levels of literacy
Both the high rate of deforestation in rural Zambia and the difficulties smallholder farmers face in 
their effort to make a living using available land and forests - the only resources available to them -
confirm the necessity of the CLUSA/NRM Program. This is because the project aims at raising
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 6
awareness of the forest communities about the necessity to conserve the forests and introduce
sustainable intensive farming practices and marketing strategies that would 
1. Increase productivity per hectare
2. Introduce high value cash crops with a guaranteed market
3. Provide the much needed markets to rural small scale farmers, all of which would
decrease pressure to clear more forests for new farmlands
4. Identify and encourage the utilisation of alternative non-wood products and value added
wood-products. This would change the attitudes of the community towards valuing more
the protection/conservation and restoration of their forests.
2.3 Objectives of the Project
The overall goal of the program is to improve the economic and social well being of Zambia’s rural 
population. Its purpose is to strengthen community groups and group based enterprises in target 
areas by helping them acquire the skills and knowledge they need to improve their living standards 
and their general economic situation. Specifically, the objectives are:
i. To demonstrate, in the Zambian context as a pilot activity in Eastern Province, a sustainable 
approach to community-based natural resources management that can be extended to other 
areas of the country and can be continued by other groups/organisations after the CLUSA
program is completed
ii. To contribute to the effective management and conservation of Zambia’s forests and
agricultural areas by assisting local community-based groups to develop the skills and
knowledge required to identify, initiate and manage viable economic activities utilising, in a
sustainable way, the resources of the forests and agricultural lands
iii. To enable villagers and forestry staff to develop comprehensive forest management plans
and establish effective multi-village forest management committees
iv. To expand the range of income generating opportunities available to the target populations
by introducing new agroforestry practices and new production and processing technologies
that add value to primary products
v. To provide alternative income generating opportunities and alternative farming techniques to 
the rural populations that will relieve pressures on forest areas from over exploitation and
agricultural extensification
vi. To introduce sustainable technologies for soil conservation and fertility enhancement that will 
improve agricultural yields. 
vii. To increase producer incomes by helping rural groups learn to function effectively in a market 
economy (accessing inputs and marketing crops)
viii. To assist the long-term institutionalisation of the program by helping individuals and groups to 
develop organisational management and training skills necessary to continue the program’s
services after its completion
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 7
2.3 Policy Environment
2.3.1 Zambian Forest Policy and Law 
Community involvement in the management of their forest resources arises out of the realization
that unless the people themselves become the protagonists of their own development no amount 
of investment or provision of technology would improve their standards of living in a sustainable
way. This is the basis of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM)2. CBNRM, 
therefore, is an “attempt to find new solutions for the failure of the top-down approaches to
conservation”. The overall objective is to devolve powers to the local communities to enable them 
be directly involved in improving their quality of life to a point where they see the value of
conserving the natural resources in their vicinity upon which much of their developmental potential 
and livelihoods depends.
The mission of current national Forestry Policy (adopted by government in July 1998) is: “To
ensure sustainable flow of wood and non-wood forest products and services while at the same time 
ensuring protection and maintenance of biodiversity for the benefit of the present and future 
generations through active participation of all stake holders.” This policy emphasizes the following 
principles:
· Sustainable resource management
· Capacity development
· Participatory approach
· Private sector forest development
· Gender participation
· Sectoral integration
In order to meet the mission goals of Forest Policy of 1998, the government revised the Forest Act 
of 1974, which ultimately led to the enactment of the Forest Act No. 7 of 1999. This Act recognizes 
the importance of adopting a holistic approach, in particular, it seeks to build a link between
conservation of the environment and the socio-economic, cultural and political aspects. It provides 
a flexible and responsive framework for the joint management of the forest resources viz, Part V
Section 25(1), which authorizes the Minister to declare by statutory instrument joint management of 
forest areas. The Act recognizes the need for adopting broad based participatory approaches to
forestry management. To this end Section 25 (1) reads, 
 
 “Any area proposed to be declared a joint forest management area shall not be declared so
unless the local community has given consent”
Whereas the old Act excluded participation by other stakeholders the new Act ensures that all
stakeholders are given due recognition and are actively involved in joint forest management. To
avoid conflicts between traditional leaders, local communities, local authorities and other
government officials, all parties are represented in the Forest Management Committee. The Act
 
2
CBNRM is a term depicting the way in which a group of people living in the same area and having common interests 
organize themselves in order to use and conserve natural resources of their area. It is based on the recognition that 
local communities must have the right to exercise direct control over the utilisation and benefits of natural resources in 
order to utilize them in a sustainable manner.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 8
also ensures that forest resources are not managed on an ad-hoc basis by providing for
management plans. Section 29(1) requires that these management plans be done in consultation 
with local authorities, local communities and traditional authorities. The Act in Section 30 further 
stipulates that,
“For the purpose of preparing a management plan under this part, the Commission shall
conduct national and local inquiries on a management plan and its implementation as may 
be necessary to obtain representation from a local community, committee, traditional
authority and any other stakeholder.”
The involvement of local communities, NGOs and other stakeholders provides an appropriate
framework for effective joint efforts in forestry management. The Act contains provisions that
ensure rationale and sustainable protection and utilization of forest resources. In sharp contrast to 
the 1974 Act, the 1999 Act does not “police” forests. 
Notwithstanding the good intentions of the current forest policy and law in Zambia, implementation 
is still a big problem. Government functionaries are not prepared to relinquish their authority over 
the forests to locals. Another major factor causing hesitation is the idea of benefit sharing among 
all parties to the joint management of forests. Forests are a significant source of internal revenue 
for Government, which it appears to hesitate to let go.
2.3.2 Agricultural policy
The Zambian Government in 1991 undertook to implement the Structural Adjustment Program
(SAP) with a view to redress the economic decline Zambia had slid into during the state-controlled 
monopoly economy under the previous administration. SAP, among other things, entailed the
withdrawal of state participation in marketing of agricultural commodities and removal of subsidized 
loans for inputs were unsustainable. However, the benefits of adherence to SAP conditions have 
not immediately delivered a positive impact on majority of the low income groups, with effects more 
biting on the rural sectors of the economy, where poverty levels, including food insecurity have
soared. This is the more reason why CLUSA/NRM, which aims at piloting the sustainable use of 
forest and land resources and improving the marketing capability of resource poor farmers in the 
Eastern Province, is significant to Zambia.
From 1996 to December 31, 2001 the Zambian Government through the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Cooperatives (MACO), has been implementing the Agricultural Sector Investment Program (ASIP) 
as the overall strategy for guiding public sector, private sector and NGO involvement in agriculture 
in Zambia. ASIP activities were implemented through twelve sub-programs. The project under
review falls under “Marketing and Trade, and Extension and Information”, two of the sub￾programs of ASIP.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 9
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
3.1 Organization and Management
3.1.1 Project Components and Organizational Structure.
Currently, the project has four major components, which work in collaboration with each other,
namely; Agriculture, Producer Owned Trading Company (POTC), Forestry and Adult Functional
Literacy/HIV & AIDS supported by an Administration Section. A Program Coordinator (PC) heads 
the program and each component has a head, also called a coordinator. In the field, each district 
has Area Training Coordinators (ATCs) who supervises Group Facilitators’ (GFs) activities with the 
Rural Group Businesses (RGBs). The ATCs are assisted by Team Leaders, who coordinate the
work of other GFs. About 3 - 4 RGBs come together to form a depot run by a chairman. A number 
of depots (3) form area farmers’ associations with each being represented by 2 members (one
male and another one female) on the Interim Steering Committee (ISC)3 of the POTC. 
The POTC was not in the Cooperative Agreement but arose out of the program’s experience with 
marketing needs and problems the farmers were facing. The rationale of forming the POTC was to 
have a private company owned by producers to assist with supply of inputs and marketing of their 
produce. The idea came in the wake of realities on the implications of the demise of the Eastern 
Co-operative Union (ECU) on the availability of produce markets for the farmers in Eastern
Province. Its mission is to maximize income of member farmers through profitable local and
international marketing and adding value to groundnuts and other products through grading and
processing into peanut butter and sunflower cooking oil. Currently the ISC has a gender-balanced 
membership of 12, who meet monthly to deliberate on matters of concern to the POTC. At the
moment CLUSA/NRMP undertakes the management functions of the company.
3.1.2 Personnel
According to the presentation made by program management to the review team, CLUSA/NRMP 
has 62 full time Zambian members of staff. Of these, 17 are directly doing administrative tasks: 11 
guards, 3 drivers for the three utility vehicles, 1 motorbike mechanic, 1 Administration manager and 
his assistant. The Agricultural component is 36 members strong – the Coordinator and his
assistant and 34 field staff (3 Area Training Coordinators and 31 Group Facilitators inclusive of
their team leaders). The POTC has 7 project employees under it. Despite its significance, only one 
person handles the Functional Literacy component. It appears that at field level the Forest 
component work is undertaken by GFs operating near the forests. The project has two expatriate
staff: Project Coordinator, Mr. John Heeman and Cecilia Polansky, as Technical Advisor in charge 
of the Forestry component. 
From the discussions held with individual GFs, it appears that although the Agricultural component 
seems to have the largest number of staff many, if not most, of the GFs have a diploma in forestry 
and not in agricultural sciences (about 33.3% have training in agricultural sciences; 33.3% in
forestry with the remaining 34% taken up people with different qualifications such as school
leavers, public relations, marketing, accounts, etc). The high number of foresters in the Agricultural 
 
3
 The ISC will be transformed into a Board of Directors once the POTC is registered.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 10
component can cause serious limitations to the ability to handle farmers’ problems that require a
specific detail of understanding. Although workshops, seminars and short orientation courses have 
often been used to supplement one’s skills, this has a limit to which they can adequately prepare 
staff to handle issues at certain level. The training background of new staff at the level of GFs (if 
the project continues and/or expands) should be considered with a view to address this situation.
At present a business expert from VSO is assisting the management of POTC. Given the unfolding 
complexity of the POTC, it will soon become evident that the program will require staff with higher 
levels of training for its management to boost the efforts of the current personnel. However, the
capacity of the ISC, later to become the Board of Directors of POTC, will require to be improved. 
Most of the current members and the pool of farmers from which even future Boards will be drawn 
may not have the managerial skill and experience to steer the POTC to successful levels of
performance. To enhance sustainability, capacity building for the Boards and RGB executives is a 
must.
3.2 Financial Aspects (Disbursement and allocation of funds)
Table 2 shows comparative levels of expenditure patterns as reported by the project between the 
office and the field in Chipata. A total of about US $ 1.6 million had been spent in Chipata at the 
time of the evaluation, representing about 42% of the total project cost.
Table 2: Proportion of Expenditure Levels at different Levels of Project Implementation Over Years
Level 1999 2000 2001 2002 (May)
Amount (US
$)
%Total Amount (US
$)
%Total Amount (US $) %Total Amount (US 
$)
%Total
Field 404,465 63.1 194,012 55.0 261,897 67.9 124,694 61.7
Office 236,033 36.9 158,856 45.0 123,584 32.1 77,501 38.3
Total 640,498 100.0 352,868 100.0 385,481 100.0 202,195 100.0
Source: CLUSA/NRMP Reports
3.3 Identification of Project Location
The project location was identified on the basis that it offered the best opportunities to the
applicability of CLUSA village-based NRM approach in Zambia. Eastern province is neither the
poorest nor the best off in the country. It has sufficient agricultural potential for small-scale farmers 
(although in some areas commercial estate farms play a dominant role); and it has significant 
stands of forest, most of which is still in reasonably good condition, but beginning to deteriorate
more rapidly each year as encroachment and uncontrolled cutting of trees increase. Specific
locations for the forestry component (Chiulukire, Mphomwa North, and open areas in Chief
Nyampande’s area) were identified with the Forestry Department using the following criteria: I)
forests being intact (open areas, local forests), ii) access to the forest resources, iii) availability of 
farmers around. In case of Chief Nyampande’s area, also good stocking of valuable species such 
as Mukwa, Mupapa, and Mululu.
At the inception of the project CLUSA undertook consultations with the traditional chiefs in the
project area, the Forest Department and other stakeholders. The review team established that
while the project has faced some difficulties in its implementation the intended beneficiaries still
find it relevant to their circumstances in that the issues embodied in it are in real sense meant to 
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 11
address necessities in their livelihood. Figures 2 and 3 show households’ motivation for joining the 
CLUSA/NRMP and its level of relevance to their livelihood endeavours respectively.
Figure 2. Selected Attributes Of Heads Of Households Participating In The CLUSA-NRM Households In The
sample
Sixty (or 92 percent) of the 65 CLUSA-NRM program participants said the program was relevant to 
their circumstances of which 70 percent were male-headed (Figure 3). Several reasons were given 
as to why the program was perceived to be relevant (Table 3).
Figure 3. Relevance of The CLUSA-NRM Program To Farmer Circumstances
Crop marketing 
opportunities
9%
Food security
16%
Input loans
7%
Interest
29%
Improved 
technologies 
introduced by the 
program
39%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Relevant Not relevant
Relevance of CLUSA-NRM to farmer circumstances
Number of households
Male-headed households Female-headed households
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 12
Table 3: Reasons Why the CLUSA/NRMP was Perceived to be Relevant by Sample Farmers
Reason for Program Relevance Relative Proportion of Farmers Citing Reason
Frequency Percent
New farming knowledge provided 30 38.5
Inputs provided on time 11 14.1
Higher crop yields leading to increased profitability 11 14.1
Loans given 10 12.8
Food security increased 7 9.0
Markets for produce was provided 5 6.4
Increased group interactions 2 2.6
Increased HIV/AIDS awareness 2 2.6
With regard to knowing about the program, most (81 percent) of the CLUSA-NRM member
households learned of the program through a group facilitator. A few indicated having learned
through fellow farmers/neighbours (14 percent) and through their chief (5 percent).
3.4 Identification of Beneficiaries
Initially, CLUSA came to the communities through their chiefs and started sensitising them on food 
security and income issues and also on the importance of sustainable management of natural
resources, emphasising on the importance of combating deforestation. The modus operandi of the 
project was explained to the communities and these were encouraged to form rural group
businesses (RGBs) of about 15 – 25 interested members. These groups chose executive
committees comprising the Chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer. The overall strategy whereby
farmers are trained in various skills including agriculture, adult literacy, business skills to improve 
their agricultural production and earning and through selling forest products, seems feasible in
terms of meeting the farmers’ basic needs thereby minimising the urge to look up to forests for
survival.
3.5 Components of Project Implementation and Services Provided
3.5.1 Forestry Component
The most important components of project implementation are:
i) Raising forest users’ awareness of deforestation and sustainable management issues;
ii) Building capacity of local Forestry Department in forest management skills;
iii) Developing models for community-based forest management.
Under the Forestry component, the strategy is to use the same farmers whose needs are being
addressed by the agriculture component and sensitise them on issues of deforestation and
sustainable forestry management. These farmers living around forests about 5 km radius from
protected local forests are then required to organise themselves into Village Resource
Management Area Committees (VRMAC) and pay their own village resource guards to assist in
implementing forest activities. They are taught the basic skills in forest management and
appropriate technology. Forest resource assessment, inventories and mapping are encouraged
and applied. The Forestry Department officers at provincial and district levels have also been
equipped with modern technical skills in forest inventory, mapping and planning.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 13
Models for community-based forest management have been developed and one Joint Forest
Management Plan (JFMPs) prepared. The cost and benefit sharing mechanism is agreed upon
among stakeholders. An important objective is to help forest users realise a greater percentage
from both timber and non-timber forest products by marketing through organised forest user group 
in the style of Producer-owned Trading Company (POTC). 
Recently, the project has proposed a pitsawyer approach to a community-based forest
management in the open areas, which is being tried in chief Nyampande’s area in Petauke District. 
At the moment, the project is at the stage of formation of groups. This approach is later planned to 
be tried in Mphomwa. 
3.5.2 Agricultural Component
Generally, the agricultural component in the program is responsible for:
· Input procurement and distribution
· Groundnut seed multiplication
· Winter gardening and promotion of irrigated paprika
· Training farmers in sustainable agricultural practices including conservation farming
and soil fertility improvement through improved fallow technologies (IFT)
· Crop collection and marketing
After RGB formation, members are trained in the production of cash crops especially paprika,
groundnuts and sunflower that are promoted under the Out Grower Scheme (OGS) type of
arrangement. Maize is included as a food security crop because of the high production cost with 
low rate of returns and marketing problems experienced in the 1999/2000 season. The services
that the program provides its beneficiaries under this component are shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Relative Importance of Services Provided By the Program as perceived by Beneficiaries
Services Provided Frequency of Respondents Citing 
Benefiting from the Service
Percent
Provision of inputs 28 31.8
Training in new farming methods 37 42.0
Marketing services 7 8.0
Credit Provision 11 12.5
HIV/AIDS Awareness 3 3.4
None 2 2.3
Total 88 100
Members are given credit in the form of seed, fertilizer, chemicals and equipment. Members are 
only eligible to get credit if they show commitment by giving a 10% down payment of the value of 
the loan (but now this year onwards a flat fee of K10,000.00). Inputs are given to farmers and after 
production, farmers pay back their loans through cash crops which they sell back with an interest 
rate of 3.5%. Excess crop is marketed for farmers and the money is given back to them. For the 
2001/02 season about 51.5% of the respondents indicated that the quality of credit provided was 
good while about 35.0% and 13.5% indicated that it was fair and poor respectively. The major
credit provider was indicated to be the CLUSA/NRMP (Table 5).
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 14
Table 5: Relative Importance of the Credit Sources in the Program Areas
Credit Source Frequency of Households benefiting
Male-Headed Female-Headed Total Percent of Total 
Dunavant 5 1 6 6.9
CLUSA/NRMP 39 20 59 67.8
Clarke Cotton 5 2 7 8.0
Christian Churches of Zambia 2 0 2 2.3
PAM 0 3 3 3.4
Africare 3 3 6 6.9
FRA 0 4 4 4.7
Total 54 33 87 100
Due to program activities, beneficiary farmers obtained an average of ZMK 594,227 per farmer in 
seasonal loans for inputs during the 2001/02 season compared to ZMK 175,517 for non members 
of the program (the amounts of which were significantly different at 0.001 level of probability).
The current focus of the program is on increasing yields of paprika and groundnuts by encouraging 
farmers to use recommended sustainable farming practices and agroforestry/soil fertility
improvement technologies so as to reduce on cost of production. This is enhanced through a
cadre of trained group facilitators (GFs), area training coordinators (ATCs) and commodity
monitors (e.g. Paprika and Groundnut Monitors found at each depot). The Component also
endeavours to increase adoption of paprika and groundnut production through decentralized area 
training and intensified field follow-ups. Cassava promotion will be embarked on in an effort to
enhance household food security among the farmers. 
3.5.3 The POTC
Input provision and crop marketing are conducted under the auspices of the POTC. The POTC
was not in the CA but arose out of the need for a profitable market for their produce. The services 
provided are sustainable in that beneficiaries have realised that farming is a business. The
agricultural cultural practices introduced are sustainable because there is a ready market for inputs 
and produce, and the farmers working in groups, reduce marketing transaction costs.
The POTC is targeting groundnuts, paprika and sunflower for this activity. Groundnuts is targeted 
because farmers are accustomed to the crop.
Grounduts also has:
· a number of processing options, 
· a steady local and international market, 
· research support from International Centre for Research in Sustainable Agricultural
Technologies (ICRISAT) and Msekera Research Station.
Malawi, which is within 130 Km, is one of the major markets. According to the project
management, there is an order for 600 tons of groundnuts from Malawi and 150 tons of groundnut 
seed from Lusaka. Paprika has great promise as long as inputs, transport and technical
assistance are arranged properly. Forward marketing contracts are signed with Cheetah Zambia
who export the crop. In order to break even through economies of scale, the company has started 
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 15
buying produce from non-CLUSA farmers for trading and processing purposes. The quantities
produced by its own farmers being small, POTC has formed a strategic partnership with Farmers’ 
Friend (a private company involved in agricultural input and output marketing and has a fairly felt
presence across the province) to expand their marketing activities making the POTC more
economically viable and sustainable in the long run after project end. There has been enormous
interest by the farmers (non CLUSA members) from across the province including Lundazi,
Chadiza and Petauke to sell their produce to the POTC.
Through the marketing arrangement with POTC, member farmers are assured of having inputs on 
credit on time, training/extension advice through out the cropping cycle and a ready market for their 
produce of which payment is made on time. The POTC is the most significant contribution by
CLUSA in the eastern province. It is being created following an assessment of the marketing
problems that have beset the province following the collapse of the Eastern Cooperative Union
(ECU). Farmers interviewed (e.g. Chiparamba farmers) cite problems of “briefcase” buyers who
could only buy a few bags of produce at a time. The money from such transactions was too small 
to permit any meaningful investment by the farmer. The POTC buys all the groundnuts, paprika 
and sunflower the farmers can bring to the buying point. The farmers are paid cash. The
company, according to project staff, needs to have 3000 farmers for it to be viable. Currently 1270 
farmers are on loan records while 300 independent farmers were reported to have sold crops to the 
company. Farmer membership declined in the past couple of years due to unhappiness with group 
responsibility over loans and lack of the 10% commitment fee over the loans. Therefore, another 
50% is still required in terms of membership in order to make the POTC more viable. Project
management is optimistic that membership will increase greatly by August 2002 under the new
loan arrangements of individual loan commitment and K10,000 registration fee. According to the 
Project Coordinator, about 90% of the loan fund provided at the time of project inception, is still
available and will be used for this purpose.
With regard to credit, the study team encountered out-cries of group responsibility over loans
whereby hard working farmers are made to pay for the loans taken by defaulting group members. 
CLUSA NRMP was a duplicate of the CLUSA–RBG project based in Lusaka. Thus CMS was part 
of the design. The NRM project worked with CMS for two years from 1999 to 2001. The credit
recoveries were satisfactory as “CMS were quite aggressive in getting repayment”. The credit
administration is now done directly by the project through the POTC, with CMS playing a
supporting role to CLUSA. Two issues have led to the cancellation of the CMS contract. Firstly the 
fees paid by the project to CMS meant that over time, the loan fund was going to be depleted. 
Secondly, the loan recovery mechanism, especially the principle of collective responsibility, led to 
many good farmers leaving the program as they felt they could not forfeit their income to support 
farmers who did not put in their best. There are some farmers who still grieve over the loss and 
ask that the project pursues the defaulting farmers so that the good farmers could be paid what 
was rightly due to them. Some farmers lamented that: “Because of collective responsibility, my
children cannot go to school”. The affected farmers fear bringing discord and untold calamities in 
the communities if they were to pursue the defaulters. As it stands, the project has not approached 
the defaulters. However, the CMS and collective responsibility principle have been discontinued. 
The farmers are going to obtain loans in their own right as individuals without being burdened by 
the need to look after someone’s else’s inefficiency. 
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 16
The loans provided are all seasonal, and no medium term loans are given. The repayment is
through the sale of the crop. Medium term loans of 2-3 years are required to purchase farm
implements, irrigation pumps and oxen. If the conditions are right, the heifer project may be invited 
to operate in the area. Because of the need to pay loans irrespective of crop performance, some 
farmers reported stagnation in own economic status. They suggest that when loan recoveries are 
made, CLUSA should take into account the condition of the crop as reported by the crop monitor 
during the season. Some change was acknowledged, however, in the availability of food through 
out the year. 
3.5.4 Adult Functional Literacy and HIV/AIDS
The Adult Functional Literacy/HIV & AIDS component started after a needs assessment that was 
conducted in 1999 during which exercise it was discovered that the adult illiteracy rate was as high 
as 68% which would in one way or another hinder program activities. In the year 2000, 8 focus
groups were identified and literacy materials were produced and distributed and activities
commenced. In the following year, more demand for this service was seen and 17 more classes
were formed. The demand has continued to increase in 2002 necessitating long term sustainability 
measures. For this purpose learners are now being asked to pay K7,500/learner per year to show 
commitment to these lessons. Half of the amount collected is given to the literacy leaders while the 
other half is kept to buy more literature materials for continuity purposes. Due to these classes, it 
has been noted that members are now able to read, write their names and do some simple
arithmetic. Other interventions of sustainable agriculture and HIV/AIDS sensitisation are also given 
through these literacy classes. There are plans to include in the curriculum CLUSA Loan
Agreement and forestry conservation issues. The learners have been seen to be understanding
development issues better. There is a deliberate policy to have 80% women participation.
3.6 Collaborations and Partnerships with Other Institutions
With resources, other institutions could provide the services being provided by the project, but such 
institutions would need a lot of time to establish a kind of structure that would ensure sustainability 
of activities after project life. 
In its activities the project has been collaborating with the following institutions:
· USAID, for provision of financial resources 
· Credit management Services (CMS), originally for managing the credit component but 
now assisting in installing a new loan tracking system; setting up BRILLIANT
accounting system; and training accounting staff of POTC in both systems every about 
6 weeks
· HIVOS, for financial support in research for improved shelling machines and capacity 
building within the POTC such as training of the ISC and payment of CMS
backstopping services 
· Chipata District Council, for provision of land on which an all-under-one-roof facility will 
in future be constructed comprising a warehouse, processing plant, etc
· Zambia Agri-business Technical Assistance Centre (ZATAC), who facilitated
availability of a marketing/research advisor for one year
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 17
· Africare, marketing of agricultural machinery, livestock development and small
business development
· Forestry Department, for joint forestry management and other related issues
· ICRISAT/ Msekera Research Station, for the provision of improved groundnut varieties 
and providing technical backstopping to project staff
· Seed Control and Certification Institute (SCCI), for training of farmers in production of 
certified groundnut seed (MGV4 and Chishango)
· Volunteer Service Overseas (VSO), for seconding management experts to POTC
· World Vision Integrated Agroforestry Project (WVIAP), for exchanging IFT experiences 
and as a source of seed for agroforestry species.
The project has also cultivated partnerships with the private sector. At the time of the review it had 
active relationships with the following private sector organizations (besides CMS):
· Farmers’ Friend, for input and produce marketing. It has local depots across the
province some of which are used as buying points
· Cheetah Zambia/Malawi, for marketing of paprika
· The Growth Triangle, for providing export market potential into Malawi and
Mozambique; the program is working to link the POTC to this partnership as another 
one of its marketing network.
The program is a member of the NGO Forum in Eastern Province where it interacts with several 
other NGOs (including Africare, Families in Distress, Children in Distress, Catholic Relief Services, 
Lutheran World federation, etc) within the province. 
Collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MACO) is weak. The ministry feels 
more needs to be done in this respect as involvement of MACO has implications in sustainability of 
activities at the end of the project. While the project management insisted that their doors were
open and could work/collaborate with anybody who was interested, the review team’s observation 
is that the project needs to seek that collaboration. Suffice to say they collaborate with the FD staff, 
but the later does not have as many staff in the field and the bulk of the project activities are crop 
farming-oriented.
3.7 Effectiveness of Service Delivery System 
In order to enhance effectiveness of service delivery, the program has field staff stationed within
the communities who train the farmers in business, agriculture and forestry management skills.
Strategic partnership with the private sector in input delivery and produce marketing also promises 
to enhance efficiency and sustainability. However, weak linkages with MACO field staff and the fact 
that the field staff are CLUSA employees in a way compromises sustainability after the project
ends. This is because although the program is under the Ministry of Tourism, Environment and
Natural Resources (MTENR), success of the agriculture component is key to reducing pressure on 
the forests and this requires that MACO field staff put in their best in terms of extension and
backstopping, now and after the program has phased out.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 18
CHAPTER 4: PROJECT PERFORMANCE AND IMPACT
4.1 Performance: What difference did Project Implementation Make
One of the most significant impacts of project activities on the beneficiaries has been improved
crop productivity. Farmers attributed this to:
(a) Inputs being made available on time thus facilitating proper planning and planting in
good time
(b) Teaching in better crop management practices at all stages of the cropping cycle by
trainers within the communities (ATCs, GFs and Commodity Monitors)
(c) Practising conservation farming such as pot-holing and leaving crop residue in the field 
after harvest
(d) Assured produce markets through the POTC
(e) Taking part in group businesses (including farming) which is more profitable than when 
taken individually as group members advise each other and transaction costs are
reduced. 
As an elaboration of the impact on their livelihoods, participating farmers in areas visited indicated 
that they now have enough food (maize) to last longer in the year unlike previously when all the
maize used to be consumed whilst still in the field leaving nothing for harvest. Farmers during a
group discussion in Chiulikire Area of Katete District indicated that their maize yields have
increased from about 300 Kg per hectare to about 3,600 Kg per hectare (the group in Chaka and 
Mukango in Mambwe District estimated it at about 3,000 Kg per hectare). Income from cash crops 
helps the farmers with meeting other household necessities (Table 7). 
Table 7: Perceived Income Trend Between 1998 and 2002 by Household Head’s Gender and Whether or Not 
the Household Is a Member of the CLUSA-NRM Program
Perceived income trend between 1998 and 2002
Gender of household head and 
membership to CLUSA-NRM 
program
Income is higher in 2002 than it 
was in 1998
Income is the same in 
2002 as is was in 1998
Income is lower in 2002 than 
it was in 1998
Male-headed households
Number in sample 44 10 6
% that were program 
members
84 30 17
Female-headed households
Number in sample 29 6 8
% that were program 
members
52 67 25
All households
Number in sample 76 16 14
% that were program 
members
71 44 21
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 19
It can be seen from the table that most farmers perceive their income to have increased between 
now and 1998. Farmers attributed the increase to employing of improved farming methods
(41.8%); improved marketing arrangements and better prices (32.8%); better crop varieties (7.3%); 
and increased cash cropping (18.2%). They summed changes regarding the way they earn income 
according to Figure 4.
Figure 4: Changes in Ways farmers Earn their Income as a Result of the Program 
Due to drawbacks in recruiting farmers, which is important in achieving project targets, the
CLUSA/NRMP has made little progress in achieving the targets identified in the Cooperative
Agreement except for the number of groups and depots formed (Table 6). There are three factors 
that have contributed to this:
1. Group responsibility over loan repayment impacted negatively on the RGBs. Good farmers 
were meant to pay for defaulting farmers and this angered them.
2. Membership in RGBs declined because good farmers quit while defaulters were
automatically screened out by the remaining farmers
3. It was difficult to attract new members after seeing what had happened to their colleagues
4. The good farmers that remained in the groups devised ways of escaping paying for other 
members that defaulted for whatever reasons. Some farmers side sell their excess crop.
On the Forestry component, the first chief with whom a JFMP should have been signed has
refused to sign because of “consideration for his people”, who are currently squatting in the local 
forest (Chiulukire). This has stalled the process and hindered progress even in the other forests. It 
is possible that this could be sending a negative message to the other chiefs with whom similar
JFMPs should be prepared and signed.
This not withstanding, the volume and value of sales of farmers’ produce through the POTC has 
increased (Table 8) but not to the level expected if the project end target of total income of about 
US $ 10 million is to be achieved.
Changes Regarding Ways of Income Earning
Marketing
65%
Credit 
12%
Better Husbandry
23%
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 20
Table 6: Results of project Activities in Accordance with Performance Indicators
Activity Level by Year By Gender
1999 2000 2001 2002 To date as % of Project 
End Total
Indicator Planned/
Achieved
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Fem. Total Male Fem. Total
No. farmers adopting Planned 1,170 254 1,424 580 145 724 1,671 418 2,089 949 487 1,436 100.0 100.0 100.0
improved technology Achieved 883 303 1,186 0 0 0 213 6 219 24.8 23.4 24.4
No. of Ha under improved Planned 2,828 1,450 4,178 2,872 100.0
technologies Achieved 1,083 0 0 9.4
No. Ha under non maize Planned 2,136 1,088 3,134 2,154 100.0
crop Achieved 742 0 0 8.6
No of farmers increasing Planned 1,170 254 1,424 580 145 725 1,671 418 2,089 949 487 1,436 100.0 100.0 100.0
incomse through RGB 
linkage
Achieved 883 303 1,186 0 0 0 213 6 219 24.8 23.4 24.4
Number of Groups Planned 122 36 162 66 100.0
Achieved 86 10 45 127 69.4
Number of Group Members Planned 1,464 366 1,830 432 108 540 1,944 486 2,430 792 198 990 100.0 100.0 100.0
Achieved 883 303 1,186 0 0 0 213 6 219 1,174 595 1,769 24.8 23.4 24.4
Number of Depot Planned 18 0 33 0 100.0
Committees Achieved 19 4 10 26 115.7
Number of tertiary Planned 0 0 0 0 100.0
associations Achieved 0 0 4 2 120.0
Loan Recoveries Rates (%) Planned N/A 65 75 90 95
Achieved N/A 95 92
Source: CLUSA/NRMP Reports
Note: The project unilaterally revised the target total number of beneficiaries at end of project from 7,000 in the Cooperative Agreement to 4,427. 
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 21
Table 8: Quantities and Values of Crops Marketed by the POTC in 2000 and 2001
Quantity (Kg) and Value (US $) per Year
2000 2001 (From CLUSA farmers) 2001 (Including off street purchases
Crop
Quantity (Kg) Value (US $) Quantity (Kg) Value (US $) Quantity (Kg) Value (US $)
Sunflower 77,954 18,092 39,694 7,166 146,990 26,458
Maize 593,050 47,444 0 0 0 0
Paprika 28,502 30,403 57,572 66,208 71,458 82,178
Groundnuts (Unshelled) 35,660 7,726 40,841 11,435 71,566 21,470
Groundnuts (Shelled) 19,236 8,977 0 0 0 0
Groundnuts (Seed) 0 0 0 0 15,775 8,611
Total 754,402 112,642 138,107 84,809 305,789 138,717
Total Value of Produce Marketed up to the 2001 Marketing Season = US $ 251,359 which represents about 2.5% of the Targeted Total at Project end in 2003
Source: CLUSA/NRMP Reports
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 22
4.2 Impact: What has Changed as a Result of the Project
4.2.1 Changes on Target Population
It is clear that the training farmers have received through the project has changed them a lot (Table 
9). Farmers have learned new technologies in farming and business and appreciate the fact that 
farming is a business. Farmers are also very happy that the project makes markets readily
available. Some of the specific skills leant by the target population include record keeping,
business management, conservation farming, IFTs, ability to read and write and knowledge and
awareness of HIV/AIDS As a result of the project, farmers are now in the forefront looking for
additional information in agricultural related issues. In most cases, when the project first started, 
there were more members joining with the view of having easy access to credit. However, this
discouraged a lot of farmers after realising that they had to pay for others who had defaulted. But 
when the system was changed to allow individual farmers be responsible for their own loans,
numbers are beginning to go up again. 
Table 9: Relative Frequency of Skills the Beneficiaries Have Acquired Through Program Activities
Skill Frequency Percent
New methods of farming 26 33.3
Gardening 3 3.8
Read and write 6 7.7
Growing paprika 22 28.2
Crop budgeting 3 3.8
Group mobilisation 2 2.6
Seeking finance 1 1.3
Crop diversification 6 7.7
Market research 1 1.3
None 8 10.3
Total 78 100
4.2.2 Changes on Project Staff
The project staff now have increased knowledge of not only improved methods of sustainable
agriculture production and sustainable forestry management but also that of overall agricultural
extension methodologies. This is so because at inception, project staff who were raw from
colleges underwent a lot of hands-on training in agriculture and forestry in readiness for the task 
ahead.
4.2.3 Changes on Community Groups
There is increased interest in community groups to source for knowledge and other services being 
provided by the project. Farmers in adjacent communities where CLUSA/NRMP is not operating
now appreciate what their neighbours are learning and want similar services to be extended to
them. Where the project is working, there is increased awareness of sustainable agricultural
practices and forestry technologies as well as business skills.
4.2.4 Changes on Agricultural Extension Providers
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 23
Since Group Facilitators and Team Leaders live in the communities, access to agricultural
information by farmers has greatly improved. The project has also trained elected farmers from
RGBs to become commodity monitors for crops like paprika and groundnuts. These specialists
specifically monitor the progress (and teach farmers appropriate aspects of crop production) of a
given crop in the field from planting to harvesting. This has enhanced farmers’ yields of such crops 
translating into potential increased incomes.
4.2.5 Changes in Farmers’ Attitudes to Improved Agricultural Practices
Having seen the benefits of improved agricultural practices, farmers now grow paprika and
sunflower under improved management practices. They also practice crop rotation, conservation
farming such as pot-holing, mulching and maintaining of crop residue. Farmers are now aware of 
(and some practice) oil expressing from sunflower and peanut butter making. Some farmers said 
that even after project completion, they would continue practising the new and sustainable
methods of agriculture.
4.3 Empowerment: Farmer Participation, Gender and Youth 
4.3.1 Nature of farmer participation in program activities 
“Community participation”, hereafter called farmer participation, is not a new concept but it has
always meant different things to different people. In this study farmer participation has three
dimensions: a Product, a Process & Performance. As a product, community participation is an end 
in itself that should be sought. People have the right and duty to participate in the execution (that 
is, planning, implementation and management) of projects that affect their lives. It underlies an
acceptance of democratic principles and practices.
The study established that the farmers are participating in the various aspects of the project. To
begin with, membership to the RGB is the farmer’s choice and acceptance of the individual farmer 
by the group. It should be noted, however, that the farmers did not choose the package of services 
to be provided. CLUSA depended on specialists to determine the nature of the project. The
acceptance by farmers to participate in project activities lies in the fact that it addresses their
fundamental basis of livelihood - agriculture. However, farmer participation in the forestry
component still remains a problem for reasons discussed above. 
As a process, community participation is a means to improve project results. 
“If people participate in the execution of projects by contributing their ingenuity, skills and 
other untapped resources, more people can benefit… and the outcome corresponds better 
to the needs and priorities of the beneficiaries”(UNCHS-Habitat, 1984: 6).
Unlike WVIAP, which uses lead farmers (LFs) and contact farmers (CGs) to provide most
agricultural extension to farmers, CLUSA/NRM uses only project staff, the GFs, for that purpose. 
For this reason CLUSA/NRM program has a larger number of field staff than WVIAP. 
Finally, as performance (impact), participation is a self-generating activity, which stimulates people 
to seek participation in other spheres of projects or activities in their society.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 24
“Participation builds up a self-reliant and co-operative spirit in communities; it is a learning 
process whereby people become capable of identifying and dealing actively with their
problems” (Ibid).
From the discussion with the RGB members, it appears that they do not see any additional tasks 
that they should undertake besides farming as a business. Although the farmers gave reasons
centred on personal relationships and “community spirit” for failing to collect the debt that they are 
owed by their defaulting colleagues whom they paid for, none mentioned using the RGB for any
activity other than what was set by CLUSA. This implies that the farmers see the RGB as CLUSA 
and not as themselves. That sets doubt on any hope for these groups to continue after or outside 
CLUSA-facilitated credit.
4.3.2 Characteristics of the RGB Farmer Groups 
The review established that the program set no exclusion conditions for farmers who should
participate in the activities of the project, in particular the agricultural-based RGBs. Membership
was open to all farmers living in the selected target villages on condition that the other members 
trusted them and were willing to admit them into the group. In the first and second years of the
program, it was mandatory that RGB members pay for any of their group members who, for any
reason, failed to repay their part of the group loan. The socio-economic characteristics that one
would find among participating farmers exist in as natural a way as they could, without deliberate 
manipulation or choice by the project. In short RGBs comprise:
ß Self-selected membership
ß People who are willing to work and do business with each other
ß People who have accepted to pay for each other
Although the last feature was explained to the farmers repeatedly during the sensitization and
facilitation sessions, farmers did not seem to have taken CLUSA seriously because they cried foul 
play at the implementation of the very principle they had appended their signatures to. It was clear 
from the apprehension farmers expressed about this that:
ß Many a Zambian farmer still expects credit providers not to be strict with repayment.
ß Failure by previously state subsidized credit institutions to effect loan repayment
contributed to their own failures and, even worse, the corrupting of sustainable business
values among small scale farmers.
Their mix of membership reflects the demographic and socio-cultural possibilities and acceptability 
in the geographical areas of operation, respectively.
4.3.3 Gender and Participation in project activities
The CLUSA management indicated that there are more men participating in the program than
women. The credit provided through the RGB is given to individual farmers who are members.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 25
Even under the group responsibility arrangement, which has just been done away with this season 
(2001/2002), farmers received credit in their own right. While it is likely that there were more
women undertaking the cultivation of crops under men’s credit women who are married did find it 
more difficult to obtain credit than those who are not in marriage. This is because women who
resided in their husband’s villages found it relatively more difficulty to obtain farmland to allocate
exclusively for the crops under the loan. 
In Mambwe district, chief Jumbe’s area, many of the women who attended the meeting with the
review team were not in marriage. Married women keep away from activities that have implications 
to farmland use. They leave it to their husbands, who control access to their matrimonial village
land. 
The other reason for less participation of women in program activities, according to the Functional 
Literacy (FL) coordinator is that illiteracy levels are higher among women than it is among men. To 
this effect the FL component has adopted a positive discrimination policy to enrol more women
(80%) in the classes.
4.4 Performance of the Forestry Component
4.4.1 Project Activities
Table 10 shows the extent to which benchmarks for project activities have been achieved
While it is clear that what was expected after two years of project work has not fully materialised, 
the Project has made significant strides in the three major aspects of Forestry component, as
follows: -
i. Raising forest users’ awareness of deforestation and sustainable management issues 
The Project has established a clearer link between agriculture and forest management and 
deforestation by including forestry and agroforestry messages in literacy classes,
conservation farming sessions, and Forestry Department-supported sensitisation
campaigns delivered to farmers where CLUSA facilitators work. There are Village
Resource Management Area Committees (VRMACs)
ii. Building capacity of local Forestry Department staff in forest management skills
The Project has provided technical training in inventory equipment and image and map reading
skills for 25 forestry officers and 5 group facilitators since 1999. One provincial Forestry
Department officer is being trained in Geographic Information System mapping and 3 Forest
Department officers were sponsored to assist at a week long FAO participatory forest management 
in Africa. It has provided skills in group formation, village communications, and village forest
resource assessment procedures to the same target groups mentioned above.
It has assisted the Forestry Department with the development of a set of guidelines for Joint Forest 
Management for use throughout Zambia.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 26
Table 10: Expected and actual conditions after 2 years of programme activity
Conditions expected after 2 years of
programme activity
Present status (2 years after
programme activity)
Comment/Observation
4 multi-village forest management
committees formed and operating.
(Covering 87,656 ha of forest areas)
VRMACs formed in Chiulukire and in
Mphomwa. VRMACs are currently being
formed in the open forest of Chief
Nyampande’s area. There are currently 3 
areas and not 4 as planned. 
-VRMACs to be fully operational after
preparations and actioning of forest
management plans of the various areas.
-By end of 2002, almost 17,000 ha of
gazetted forest & 25,000 ha of open
(customary) land under management with 
provincially approved plans.
-Target not met because of:
h Long time spent sensitising villagers
to sustainable and legal harvest of forest 
products.
h Inadequate understanding of the role
of Chiefs and Indunas in resource
management issues (especially in terms
of land allocation).
h Unforeseen administrative hurdles in
the ministerial offices in Lusaka.
At least 5 new products based on forest
resources serving, as the basis for group 
economic activities will have been
initiated by the group businesses.
(Original target was 10)
User group organization and preparation 
for training in:-
i) marketing in pitsawing being organized 
now in Chief Nyampande’s area and
Chiulukire
ii) Beekeeping just started in Chiulukire
iii) Natural broom crafting not yet started
iv) Charcoal productionnot yet started
v) Mushroom processing not yet started 
- The project has noted that it would
be better to have few sustainable
forest enterprises than many
unsustainable ones leading to
problems of deforestation.
- It is hoped to have user groups
organised and prepared for training 
in the aforementioned forest-based 
enterprises by end of 2002. 
1,250 group members will be involved in
business activities using forest resources. 
(Original target was 2,250) 
People organized and trained by the
project are still few at the moment.
Probably less than 300 so far
-The organization and preparation for
training for most user groups not yet
started.
- The actual number of people involved in 
some form of business activities using
forest resources is higher because some
of them started even before project
inception.
800 Board members will have received
training in NRM and Forestry
Management.
Only one project location namely:
Chiulukire is almost at implementation
stage of JFM, hence the actual figure falls 
far below the projected one. 
The exercise is going on in Mphomwa. It 
is to start soon in Chief Nyampande’s
area through Pitsawyers’ approach.
At least 25% of the participating village
groups will consist of women’s groups or 
of groups having a significant level of
female participants (Original figure was
20%)
Women participation has been
encouraged in all participating village
groups. There was an indication of
women participation in all village groups
interviewed.
The implementation stage will give a
clear picture of women participation in
JFM. 
iii. Developing models for community-based forest management
The Project has produced supporting studies on: I) Chiulukire area beekeeping practices and
marketing needs, ii) Miombo non-timber forest product collection and marketing information, iii)
Chipata District charcoal production procedures and marketing, and iv) Revenue sharing scenarios 
based on inventory results of Chiulukire forest.
The component has produced a manual on inventory and mapping methods and data utilization
appropriate to Joint Forest management.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 27
It facilitated the writing of a comprehensive 10-year miombo forest management plan covering 16 
major forest products, using workshops with stakeholders (representatives from villages, Forestry 
Department, District Councils, traditional authorities, and other NGOs) during which user groups
met. 
A JFMP for Chiulukire forest has been formulated although it is not yet signed
4.4.2 Sustainability of forest component activities
In the CLUSA approach, most of the activities are carried out with participation of the beneficiary
community and other stakeholders. For instance, in the management of a forest to be declared as 
Joint Forest Management area, a Joint Forest Management Plan (JFMP) is a requirement. The
JFMP outlines the necessary local institutions and major players for its functioning. These include:
1. Traditional Authorities
2. The Forestry Department
3. The Joint Forest Management Committee
4. The Village Resource Management Area Committees
5. Others are Village Resource Guards, User groups, and any relevant NGOs.
There is a fairly high level of participation in forestry activities by the communities in the areas
where the project is very active e.g. around Chiulukire Local forest. The evaluation found that some 
local people were being groomed to play the role of facilitators. It is expected that at the end of the 
Project, the above-indicated institutions and major players will continue with the forest
management activities. The responses from the communities were that they were ready to
continue with the work of managing the forest resources even after the end of the project. 
4.4.3 Constraints to Implementation of the forest component
The problems that affected implementation of the component were:
1. Squatters in the gazetted local forests
The problem of squatters is a crucial one in the implementation of the Joint Forest
Management. The two local forests, Chiulukire and Mphomwa, already have squatters.
Some squatters have written permits from their Chief dating more than a decade ago.
These pose a threat to the very survival of the forest. It is reported that most of these
people have alternative land to cultivate outside the forest, although some claimed that
they do have alternative land to settle on. Both the squatters and the chief have reasons 
for their position.
ÿ Squatters perspective
Interviews conducted by this evaluation revealed that most of the squatters know about 
CLUSA program but are not in agreement with the idea of leaving the forest. In fact they 
are of the idea to expand their fields to meet the needs of the growing families. A few
claimed to have little idea about CLUSA program and do not want anything to do with it. In 
both cases, however, they all seem to lean very much on the Chief’s support.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 28
ÿ Chief Mbang’ombe’ point of view
The Chief said his people understand the CLUSA programme but he was not approached 
at first about the program. He said there is a problem between the people in his area and 
the Forestry Department. According to him, people moved into the forest because they
didn’t know that it was a gazetted forest since the Forestry Department was not inspecting 
the area. The Chief is of the view that people should stay in the forest with the condition 
that no more people should come in and no fields should be expanded. He is also not in
favour of making his people pay rent (K18, 000/ha/year) because they are poor; they can’t 
afford. 
2. Chief’s failure to sign the Chiulukire Forest Management Plan
This meant that the legality of co-management operations was put on hold. This JFMP has 
not been signed to date. 
3. Inability by the Forestry Department to respond quickly on Project matters requiring their 
attention 
A case in point is where a draft management plan for Chiulukire in Katete District was sent 
to Forestry Department Headquarters in Lusaka in June 2001, and more than 6 months
elapsed before receiving some comments. 
4. Transport
Occasional there are some clashes in transport requirements for this component with
agricultural activities. Currently, there are only pool vehicles.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 29
CHAPTER 5: LESSONS LEARNT
This chapter outlines the major lessons learnt from project implementation for the different 
stakeholders.
5.1 Lessons for USAID/Zambia
Need for USAID to become more involved in policy issues at Ministry level of Forestry. 
The Project has been facing a number of hurdles involving policy issues, which cannot
simply be resolved from the Chipata office. Little support has been forthcoming on policy 
issues that often reach the level of Central headquarters. The issues frequently have at
their roots the simple application of Zambian law and the assurance of reaction or input
from headquarters on the documents sent to them. The working through a traditional
authority hierarchy each time the Project has to do some work is also cited as a hurdle. To 
facilitate work, it is, therefore recommended that USAID takes an active role in policy
issues with the Ministry of Tourism Environment and Natural Resources (MTENR). 
5.2 Lessons for CLUSA and other NGOS
1. One clear lesson is that collective responsibility does not work in the OGS system that 
the RGB works on. Collective responsibility, which appears to be working well under 
micro-finance group lending arrangement, is not suitable for and should not have been 
instituted. 
2. Projects should develop realistic project goals and objectives in the initial planning
stage based on a clear problem identification backed by factual concrete information of 
an area are required. The changing of program targets along the way casts a doubt on 
whether CLUSA adequately took care of this critical stage or based much of their
targets on their vast experience.
3. Need for squatters to move away from gazetted forest areas before plans for Joint
Forest Management are made. The Chiulukire Local Forest intensions have to grapple 
with the problem of the existing squatters first and not the potential ones.
Contradictions are occurring even with the very people who are supposed to make the 
program a success in Chiulukire Local Forest. For any other area to be declared a
Joint Forest Management area, the pre-condition should be that the Chief should be
ready to support the legal eviction of the squatters from the forest. This is a lesson for 
the MTENR as well.
5.3 Lessons for MTENR
The experience with the Chiulukire Local Forests indicates that:
1. There is need for proper assessment of an area planned to be declared as a JFM
area. Potential hurdles in the implementation of a JFM should be identified at an early 
stage and if insurmountable, the JFM idea should be dropped in a particular area. If
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 30
the squatters are too many, then the option would be to re-demarcate the occupied
area and settle for the remaining part of the forest to be under a JFM. There is an
immediate need for an in-depth study of the squatter situation in relation to co￾management of the forest resources. This is a very vital policy-informing study.
2. There is need for decentralising and simplifying the JFM process. The CLUSA
experience has shown that the current procedure takes a long time to get a joint forest 
management plan written with communities and secure its approval from the ministry 
headquarters in Lusaka. To speed up the process, there is need to decentralise the
process so that less time and money is spent and less forest is destroyed while
awaiting actual implementation of the JFM. 
5.4 Extending, Expanding or Cut short the program?
Table 11 summarises implications of various decisions on USAID and project beneficiaries.
Table 11: Implications of various decisions on USAID and project beneficiaries
USAID BENEFICIARIES
Decision Advantages Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages
Extending time To make the project 
meaningful as
lessons learnt will be
applied elsewhere in
the country for JFM
process.
To give time to test
JFM model that has
been developed.
To give time to
firming private sector
marketing linkages
for farmers using the
POTC
More time and
resources will be
required.
Uncertainty over
whether reasons that
caused the project not
tot achieve its targets
will change
Increased input
and output
marketing 
opportunities 
leading to
increased 
productivity
More opportunity 
to learn and
benefit from
application of
the JFM
process.
NIL
Expanding area
covered
More rural 
communities would 
have been reached
More time and
resources will be
required.
No firm positive lessons 
from the current project 
phase yet 
Spreading out too 
thinly without first 
achieving the initial 
objectives 
They will tend to 
benefit from a
project coming
into their area.
NIL
Cutting short the 
project
There will still be
some money left
It will be like an
experiment without
conclusions and
recommendations
NIL People will feel cheated
by the project.
It will create a bad
precedent for other
developmental projects in 
the area. 
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 31
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
From the agricultural component point of view, it can be seen that the importance of having an
effective and efficiency input and output marketing systems in increasing productivity and hence
household food security and income can not be over emphasised. The need has also been noted 
that this has to go hand in hand with an efficient and cost effective system of improved technology 
transfer to the farmers who need to be assisted in assimilating and adopting these technology
through enhancing their ability to read and write by way of functional adult literacy. The POTC is
the best thing that has so far happened to the CLUSA program in Eastern Province. It is
unfortunate that this out grower approach faced a number of implementation problems as some
farmer opted to leave the programme due to group responsibility of loans. The amount of crop
marketed is directly related to the number of farmers in the program. As the number of farmers
increase, the amount of crop marketed will also increase. In addition, the project is now beginning 
to market crops from other NGOs and non-CLUSA farmers, which should significantly increase the 
amount of crop marketed.
Although the program strategy is shaping up and the number of farmers is expected, according to 
project management, to increase significantly in 2002 and 2003 it is unlikely that the original targets 
will be met because of delays and the high learning curve.
There is a fairly high level of participation in forestry activities by the communities around Chiulikire 
Local Forest where the project is very active. However, based on the project’s achievements so far, 
and the time remaining before the project ends, it can safely be said that the anticipated end-of￾project status will not be attained. As this forestry component is on an experimental basis for JFM, 
any results obtained will serve as important lessons for future applications of JFMs in Zambia. In 
spite of the laws of the land, chiefs are a force to reckon with. The chiefs’ influence on their
subjects should not be underrated in the pursuit of JFM; hence the need for a thorough situational 
analysis before any JFM in an area can be embarked on. 
The sustainability of the Forestry Component after the project will largely depend on strengthening 
the VRMACs and the local Forestry Department staff on the other hand. For this to happen, the
VRMACs should see benefits from forest resources trickling down to them.
6.2 Recommendations
In all, the project is breaking new ground in Zambia. Activities so far appear to have been focused 
on refining a strategy and methodology to the unique socio-economic context of the Eastern
Province. So far the project has not achieved its targets and given the remaining period, there is no 
practical to expect that these will be achieved. However, the program management has started
implementing corrective measures to try and put back the confidence of the intended beneficiaries 
into the RGB especially. A lot of persuasive work needs to be done with the traditional leaders, this 
time broadening the target of such lobbying to capture the chief’s advisers – indunas and senior 
headmen living around the target forest areas. In view of the new strategies that the program has 
started to implement that appear promising to achieve the SO1 aims, the project time should be
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 32
extended to at least three more years to allow for the unfolding of the application of the JFM
models and the firming of the POTC. During this time strict observation should be made on the
following:
1. The Program should be transparent and ensure more involvement of FD, MACO
and the beneficiaries
2. POTC, which should be registered soonest, must work out a sustainability plan
that will increasingly reduce dependence on USAID grant/subside. In view of the 
fact that the POTC ownership will comprise mainly rural farmers who happen to be 
with less or no money at the moment, the Company will for some time require aid 
to develop its infrastructure and business capacity of its owners. The program
should assist the owners to seek additional grants, increase the number of farmers 
selling to it and broaden market linkages to raise own income.
3. Granters, the Program management and the POTC members/owners should put
in place structures that ensure that the program management and staff do not use 
the farmer owners less knowledge to disadvantage them in any way. All details
about the POTC should be available to its shareholders. 
4. The Zambian Government through the FD should take a more active, if not
proactive role in educating the chiefs on the legal status of the forests and clarify 
its positions in the event of failure by the chiefs to sign a JFM plan.
 More recommendations specific to the program components are as follows:
6.2.1 Administration
v Staff salaries should be commensurate with qualification and experience. The current
salary structure can be a good recipe for dissent among staff and high turnover of
appropriately qualified staff.
v Within chances created by natural staff turnovers only personnel with agricultural or
agribusiness backgrounds should be employed too work as facilitators under the
agricultural component. The number of GFs with Diploma in Forestry is sufficient for the
forestry component.
v The Technical Advisor should be placed to work with the Ministry and provide training and 
backstopping services to the project.Currently the Technical Adviser is doing the work of
one who should be a substantive component staff (not on advisory basis) and it was
reported that the full-time project forester reports to the Adviser. 
v There is need for forest activities to have a vehicle. 
6.2.2 Agriculture
v The Training of Trainers (ToT) approach would also be a more cost-effective way of achieving 
the project’s objectives and routing the improved practices in the community. More local
facilitators similar to WVIAP’a lead farmers should be trained. Project staff should be involved 
more in training Lead and contact farmers, backstopping as well as developing the busioness 
capacity of the RGB members and monitoring exercises.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 33
v The program should not go back to group responsibility over loans. The group responsibility
encouraged farmers to side sell to avoid their surplus being used to pay off other people’s
loans. The program should instead concentrate on sensitising farmers on the need to pay back 
loans and maintain strictness on individual loans. RGBs should be trained in marketing and
entrepreneurship in collaboration with WVIAP, which has higher qualified personnel in the
market training component.
v If the POTC has to be sustained, the program should recruit more farmers and collaborate with 
other organizations such as World Vision to increase volumes of produce marketed. CLUSA
Mozambique is developing a similar POTC in Nampula, which could be linked to the POTC
Chipata for marketing high value cash crops like paprika. In addition, the joint venture with
Farmers’ Friend is a means to ensure private sector advice and long-term sustainability after 
CLUSA departs. It should strengthen its private sector collaboration linkages.
v Collaboration with MACO should be strengthened for sustainability purposes. At project end, 
POTC will remain and MACO will have to continue with facilitating RGBs
v The program should move faster in the registration of POTC
v Higher calibre staff are required in the POTC if it is to be more sustainable in the long run.
6.2.3 Forestry
v USAID should assist with policy collaboration with Forestry Department at national level. A
significant cause for the current problem with JFM has to do with the unpreparedness by policy 
makers and senior managers to let go or share the revenue from the forest with the local
communities. These too need sensitisation in favour of the new values imbedded in CBNRM
principles. USAID should consider seconding a high profile advisor to MTENR.
v A high profile Forestry Officer should be seconded to the program for sustainability. It will be 
easier fore the program activities of the forest component to be included into mainstream FD if 
the current planning and initial implementation is done by and with the participation of senior 
professional staff who can easily incorporate them into Government structures.
v JFM should be decentralized and simplified to minimise time and cost for practical
implementation purposes. 
v There should be proper assessment of an area intended before declared as a JFM in terms of 
resources, chief’s cooperation and level of encroachment. At the moment there is an
immediate need for an in-depth study of the squatter situation in relation to co-management of 
the forest resources.
v Squatters should be relocated before a JFM plan is made or finalized. Those in Chiululikire
Forest should not be allowed to plant this year (2002/2003 season) if they are move out by
next year. Both the chief and government should allocate alternative land for them to settle
before the cultivation season begins
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 34
v Chiefs to be involved right from the start in an area required to be declared as JFM. When
chiefs are sensitised on the need for sustainable use and manage of the forests they can
become agents of change to their subjects.
v Collaboration between Forestry and other components within CLUSA should be strengthened. 
It was observed that there has been no collaboration between project implementation of
forestry and agriculture activities especially during agriculture peak periods. Forestry activities 
suffer during this period as they tend to be left out by the same GFs who undertake the work 
on both components. The planning should be done in such a way that project activities, at any 
time, are mutually re-enforcing. 
v CLUSA should streamline and come up with a proper structure of the forestry component. 
v Pitsawyers and Beekeepers require support in terms of: Training and securing appropriate
tools, securing markets for their sawn timber and honey, and transport for their merchandise. If 
these are in place, they will cut off unscrupulous businessmen from outside who benefit from
the forest by exploiting local people and resources while doing nothing about forest resource 
management. 
6.2.4 Adult Functional Literacy & HIV/AIDS
v If the number of adult literacy centres keeps on rising, there would be need to consider
employing more staff specifically for this component.
v The project should seek closer collaboration with the Department of Community Development.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 35
REFERENCES
USAID/CLUSA (1998), Cooperative Agreement No. 611 – A – 00 – 98 - 00002 - 00
CLUSA/NRMP Project Documents: 
ß Annual and Monthly Periodic Reports for the period October 1998 through December 2001
ß Annual Work Plan 1 March through 31 December 1999
ß Annual Work Plan 2002
ß Five year Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 
ß Revised Producer Owned trading Company Business Plan for Years Ending 31 March
2002 - 2004
Chidumayo, E. N. and Njovu, F (1998), Ecological and Environmental screening of forest areas in 
the provincial forestry action programme area. PFAP publication 
CSO (2001), Preliminary Report on the 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Lusaka.
FAO. (1999), State of the World’s Forests. FAO, Rome.
GRZ, The Chiefs Act Chapter 479
GRZ, The Forest Act No7 of 1999
GRZ, The Forest Act Chapter 311 
GRZ. (1998), National Forestry Policy. MENR. Lusaka
GRZ (1987), Village Forestry Programme. Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources,
GRZ. (1997), Zambia Forestry Action Programme Volume I: Executive Summary. MENR. Lusaka.
GRZ (1997), Zambia Forestry Action Plan, Volume 111- Strategies and Action. MENR
Kasuta, ET; Takawira, MD; Njovu, F; Mulenga , O; and Kaumba, J (2001), Testing and Verification 
of the Principles of Sustainable Community Based Natural Resource Management for Forest
Based CBNRM Programmes: A Case Study of the Uchi-Mukula Trust Programmes in the
Northwestern Province of Zambia, A Study Commissioned by the World Conservation Union 
Regional Office for Southern Africa. 
Mutale, G and Haamukwanza, C. (2000), Non-Timber Forest Product Research from Eastern and 
Western Sides of Chiulukire Local Forest, Eastern Province; Chipata CLUSA/NRM Program
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 36
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE
Activity Title: Concurrent Evaluation of two USAID/Zambia Activities; 
ß Cooperative League of the USA Natural Resources Management
Program(CLUSA/NRMP) Mid Term Evaluation, and
ß World Vision Integrated Agroforestry Project (WVIAP) Mid Term
Evaluation 
I. INTRODUCTION
With regard to the two projects identified in the title of this statement of work,
USAID/Zambia would like to find out whether investments in natural resources
management and agroforestry activities have had or are having a beneficial impact. If so, 
USAID/Zambia would like to identify the elements of successful investments that can be
replicated to improve ongoing or future investments. Finally, if an investment were not
achieving the intended results, USAID/Zambia would like to know how to reorient that
investment so that it does achieve the intended results. 
In support of Zambian economic liberalisation, USAID/Zambia has initiated and supported 
activities that stimulate rural economic growth since 1991. Under USAID/Zambia's Country 
Strategic Plan for the 1998 - 2003 period, Strategic Objective 1 (SO 1) is "increased rural 
incomes of selected groups." 
Approximately 5 million of Zambia’s 10 million people live and work in rural areas. 
SO 1 investments aim at increasing the incomes of rural families working together in
groups. Hopefully, rural families working as groups will result in more cost effective (and
less risky) technology dissemination, training, rural finance, output marketing and forest 
management skills service delivery. Lower service delivery costs will contribute to more
sustainable, customer responsive and profitable service delivery agencies. Finally, more
sustainable and profitable service delivery will result in increased rural family opportunities 
to improve their productivity and incomes.
SO1 activities spring from rural family problem and opportunity identification. They are
intended to encourage rural family contributions to solving their social or economic
problems, enhance women's contribution to rural economic growth and encourage
government food security and rural finance policies that promote private initiative.
During the March – April, 2002 period, two of SO1’s projects will be evaluated.
CLUSA/NRMP and WVIAP are both earmarked for mid-term evaluations. 
Following receipt of an unsolicited proposal from CLUSA, the Natural Resources
Management Program in Eastern Province, Zambia, began in October 1998. This 5 year, 
$3.8 million activity promotes involvement of communities living around gazetted forests in 
the management forest resources while encouraging them to undertake productive
agricultural activities outside the forests. CLUSA NRMP targeted to have four community 
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 37
forests under community management over five years while the communities working in
groups would deliver a cumulative amount of $10.7 million of produce to agribusiness
markets. 
Another unsolicited proposal, this time submitted by World Vision International resulted in 
the World Vision Integrated Agroforestry Project. This 5 year $3.9 million project also
began in October 1998. The project promotes the use of improved fallows to improve soil 
fertility and cut the use of expensive inorganic fertilizers. 
II. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this solicitation is to obtain technical consultancy services from the
contractor to comprehensively assess the two projects identified above. Each project
evaluation shall result in a separate evaluation report. The objective of performing the
evaluation of the two activities under one contract is to obtain lessons learned that may be 
applicable to both the projects objectives (rural incomes, food security, forest
management) in order to positively influence ongoing or future activities or investments.
The contractor is therefore required to provide a third report encapsulating lessons learned 
and describing their implications across activity objectives. 
III. PURPOSE 
The purpose of the evaluation is to obtain quantitative evidence of investment impact on
rural incomes and forest management (CLUSA) and adoption of improved fallows.
Quantitative evidence should be presented over time to illustrate any growth or reduction 
in investment impact during project implementation. Where quantitative evidence is not
available or relevant, qualitative descriptions of impacts and processes shall be provided.
The evaluations shall include assessment impact of the project and identify ways to
improve implementation and shall recommend to Mission for consideration whether to
extend, expand or cut short the projects. The contractor shall package relevant findings so 
that systemic or national level impact from evaluation lessons learned might be achieved 
with specific reference to the Zambian context.
Finally, the CLUSA NRMP experiences may indicate how community capacity to manage 
natural resources, and the benefits accruing from natural resources management, can be 
increased. The contractor shall package relevant findings so that systemic or national level 
impact from evaluation lessons learned might be achieved with specific reference to the
Zambian context.
IV. SCOPE OF ACTIVITY
The Contractor shall carry out the following tasks the CLUSA Natural Resources
Management Program Mid Term Evaluation
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 38
i) Background
The five-year, $3.8 million Cooperative League of the USA (CLUSA) Natural Resources
Management Program (NRMP) began in October 1998. The project, currently working in 
three districts of Zambia (Chipata, Mambwe and Katete) was aimed at combining
community forest management and promoting the emergence of democratically self￾managed, financially viable rural businesses that improve rural family incomes. Using fully 
costed credit for rural groups, CLUSA brought to Zambia its rural group development
experience gained worldwide including West Africa. The Cooperative Agreement with
USAID indicated that in five years, communities living around selected forests in Eastern 
Zambia could be involved in the management of four forests of total area 87,656 hectares. 
In addition, the formed rural groups would in five years access credit of cumulative value 
$2,388,375 to allow them produce crops of a cumulative value of $10,671,375. In total
some 7,000 rural dwellers would be involved in the CLUSA project by its final year. 
ii) Evaluation Objective
The primary CLUSA/RGBP evaluation objective is to determine whether USAID
investments are achieving their desired impact, why or why not. A second objective is to 
generate ideas on how the impact of USAID investments in CLUSA/NRMP activities can 
be improved. A final objectives is to generate ideas on how CLUSA/NRMP experiences
can influence ongoing or future USAID and other institution investments in increasing rural 
incomes, improving food security, and managing natural resources. 
iii) Evaluation Questions
1. What are the results identified in the cooperative agreement? Who are the
beneficiaries? Have CLUSA/NRMP activities to date made progress in achieving 
those results? Why or why not? The Contractor shall present the findings with
regard to annual results and impact quantitatively and using graphs where
appropriate. Has the program made significant contributions to USAID’s
“increased rural incomes of selected groups” Strategic Objective in line with the
SO’s results framework? 
2. How is the project implemented? What are the most important components of
project implementation? How was the project’s location identified? How much
project financing is expended in Zambia (actual and percentage figures)? What
percentage is expended in the Chipata Office and what percentage is expended in 
rural locations, outside Chipata, where CLUSA works? 
3. Is the project demand driven? Do beneficiaries find it relevant to their
circumstances? How does the project identify what the beneficiaries want? Is this 
approach effective in identifying what the beneficiaries want?
4. What are the most important services the project delivers to rural families? How 
were these services identified? How are they delivered? Are they delivered cost 
effectively? Is their delivery effective in Zambia’s rural context? Could other
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 39
institutions deliver these services if CLUSA did not? Could other institutions deliver 
CLUSA like services if they so desired? In terms of incentives, finance, personnel 
resources and other variables what would other institutions need to deliver similar 
services? Has CLUSA worked with local institutions to foster continuation and
sustainability of programs and services when the project ends?
5. Is there significant participation by women in the agricultural program and forest 
management activities? Is the program beneficial to women participants? Why?
How can more women participate in and benefit from the program?
6. What are the social and economic characteristics and organization of project￾supported group? What are their relative strengths and weaknesses with regard to 
business capacity, income and investment management, relations with
agribusiness, knowledge and utilization of agricultural and forest technologies, and 
skill levels to undertake additional welfare enhancing activities? What additional
skills may be required to make the groups effective and self-reliant beyond USAID 
assistance?
7. Is the program well organized to allow for cost effective implementation? Does it 
require any significant structural changes? Does the program offer opportunity for 
the establishment of sustainable activities beyond USAID assistance? Should it? 
8. What partnerships with other public or private sector agencies has CLUSA/NRMP 
made that enhance project service delivery and impact? What partnerships might 
CLUSA/NRMP make that would improve service delivery and impact?
9. What has Credit Management Services contributed to CLUSA/NRMP project
implementation? What are the strengths and weaknesses of CLUSA/NRMP’s
partnership with CMS for credit management? 
10. Are there any significant policy constraints to program implementation? Is the
program supportive of the stated Zambian government policy of forest
management, agricultural liberalization and establishment of a private sector led
economy? Has government policy influenced the program? How? Has the
program influenced government policy? Why or why not? 
11. What lessons learned during project implementation could lead to improved
CLUSA/NRMP impact? What lessons learned should inform decisions on project 
time and finance extension or expansion? 
12. What lessons learned during project implementation might influence ongoing or
future USAID investments in the forest and agricultural sector?
13. What are the advantages and disadvantages, particularly to beneficiaries and
USAID, of extending, expanding or cutting short the CLUSA/NRMP Cooperative
Agreement? 
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 40
14. Given the responses to the above questions, how can USAID/Zambia best utilize 
lessons learned from the implementation of this activity to inform government
policy dialogue and future government, donor or private sector investments,
particularly in forestry?
iv) Performance Reports and Previous Project Assessments
As required in the Cooperative Agreement, CLUSA prepares quarterly and annual
performance reports that are submitted to USAID/Zambia. Prior to the start of every 
new activity year, the project staff submits an annual workplan. CLUSA also have a 
length of project monitoring plan in place. 
Various external reports have been produced on CLUSA NRMP, including one by a
USAID/REDSO sector analyst in 1999. The report focused on the aspect of whether 
or not a Producer Owned Trading Company would be an appropriate structure for
farmers under the CLUSA NRMP. Also, reports and evaluations written / conducted 
on the sister CLUSA project that is based in Central / Southern may be relevant to
CLUSA NRMP. These reports include the May – June, 1999 report entitled “Less
Hunger, More Money, CLUSA: Making a Difference in Zambia.” The “Internal
Assessment of the Zambia Rural Group Business Program (RGBP)” of July – August, 
1999 may also be relevant. 
DELIVERABLES
A. Commencement
During the first week of implementation, the consultant (s) shall meet with the SO1 team 
leader and his staff to answer questions, clarify tasks, obtain relevant contacts, obtain
documents and establish an implementation plan. 
B. Draft Report
After Twenty one (21) working days of contract implementation, the team will submit a draft 
summary report to USAID (5 copies of each project). In the report, the contractor shall
summarize major findings and recommendations. Three working days after this
submission, the contractor shall make presentation to USAID, the government of Zambia 
and other select partners. The presentations will briefly describe the methodology and
summarize the preliminary findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluations. 
The contractor shall take note of the oral questions and comments from meeting
participants and finalize the report within 3 working days.
C. Final Report
The Contractor shall submit the final report to USAID after thirty (30) working days of
contract implementation. The final report shall address all comments from the review
meeting above. Ten (10) hard copies of the evaluation report of each program and an
electronic copy in Word 2000 must be submitted.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 41
The final report of the project evaluation, shall be concisely written and shall include an
Attractive Cover Page, Table of Contents, Executive Summary, List of Acronyms, the Main
Report in compliance with the Scope of Work, a Statement of Conclusions and a
Statement of Recommendations. The body of each of the reports must describe the
relevant country context in which the project was developed and carried out, and provide 
the information on which conclusions and recommendations are based. The reports shall
present quantitative evidence of project impact whenever possible using graphs and
tables. Sidebars of success stories are also requested, where appropriate. The reports
shall include attractive photographs of project activities either taken by evaluation team
staff or obtained from USAID/Zambia. The final report shall be user friendly. Depending on 
the findings, the reports may provide the basis for substantial future dialogue with private 
and public sector investors and inform future USAID strategic intervention. 
The three final evaluation reports shall also have annexes that include current status
project inputs and outputs if these are not readily indicated in the body of the report. Other 
required annexes to the reports are: technical and management issues raised during
assessment requiring elaboration, the project evaluation scope of work, a description of
the methodology used in assessment, bibliography of documents reviewed and a list of
agencies contacted, individuals interviewed and other relevant information.
In addition to the three final project evaluation reports, ten (10) copies of a stand-alone 
report synthesizing CLUSA NRMP and WVIAP lessons learned that have applicability to 
food security, rural income and community natural resource conservation is also required. 
This report shall include an appropriate introduction describing the document’s contents, a 
main body laying out lessons learned from the two project interventions that have
relevance to ongoing or future food security, rural income or natural resource conservation 
activities, and a concluding chapter containing recommendations on how lessons learned 
can be disseminated to beneficially influence future investments. Again, the report shall be 
prepared as indicated in paragraph C above.
C. TECHNICAL DIRECTIONS
Technical Directions during the performance of this work shall be provided by the
Cognizant Technical Officer of the two projects. Further, the contractor team shall work
closely with the USAID activity manager involved with the projects.
 D. LOGISTIC SUPPORT
The contractor is responsible for providing in-country transportation and secretarial support 
while in Lusaka and Eastern Province. The consultant will also make own field trip travel 
arrangements. USAID/Zambia or local partners may be consulted on logistics of sourcing 
field transport. It must be noted that USAID/Zambia will not be able to provide any office 
space for the contractor.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 42
E TEAM COMPOSITION
The evaluation team should at the least comprise of:
i) Agronomist – with agro-forestry background or experience
ii) Forester or Natural Resource Management specialist
iii) Sociologist – with experience in community mobilization
iv) Economist – with micro-enterprise experience or agribusiness background 
or experiences.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 43
ANNEX 2: LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS INTERVIEWED
1. Mr. John Heermans Program Co-ordinator
2. Ms Cecilia Polasnky Forestry Adviser
3. Mr. Evaristo Nyanoka Agriculture Co-ordinator
4. Ms Maximina Mwale Functional Literacy Co-ordinator
5. Mr. Botany Hang’ombe Area Training Co-ordinator, Katete
6. Mr. Charles Mjumphi POTC General Manager
7. Mr. Themba Sakala Administration Manager
8. Ms Evalyn Zulu POTC Data Entry/Accounts Clerk
9. Ms Jenala Lungu POTC Data Entry Clerk
10. Mr. Peter Mutale Group Leader, Mambwe
11. Mr. Martin Seshakanu Provincial Agricultural Co-ordinator, Eastern Province
12. Mr. Chendauka Principal Extension Officer, Forestry Department, Chipata
13. Mr. Mwanza Extension Officer, Forestry Department, Chipata
14. Mr. Moses Kapuka Senior Agricultural Officer, Chipata
15. Mr. Derrick Simukanze A/District Agricultural Co-ordinator, Mambwe
16. Nicholas Chilo Forest Extension Office, Chiulukire Forest
17. Charles Mchotsa GF
18. Robert Mula GF
19. Richard Kalyata Team Leader
20. Twambo Muchimba Area Training Coordinator, Chiparamba/Mambwe
21. AggieChama Team Leader, Chiparamba
22. Chief Nyampande Chief, Petauke.
23. Chief Mbang’ombe Katete
24. Mr. L. Muzi District Forest Officer, Petauke.
25. Headman Kazembe, Katete
26. Mr. Sakala Chairman and representing Chief Mbang’ombe on the 
 POTC ISC
27. Bernad Mwanza Chairman, Chinkasi Depot, Chiulukire Area Chairman
28. Amon Banda Tiyeseko RGB Chairman
29. King Phiri Chairman, Zitandizeni RGB, member Forest Committee
30. Helen Phiri Masamba Forest Committee
31. Chanda Kaifunge Masamba Forest Committee
32. Jack Phiri Paprika monitor
33. Davison Zulu Depot Manager, Pemba depot
34. Oliver Zulu Chairman, Changano Depot
35. John Lungu POTC ISC Secretary, Tiyeseko RGB Chairman
36. T.Sakala Chiparamba Area Association Chairman
37. Francisci Phiri Changano depot manager
38. Mrs Hellen Phiri Sisinje VRMAC, Mphomwa
39. Mr. Chanda Phiri Masamba VRMAC, Mphomwa
40. Mr. King Phiri Masamba VRMAC, Mphomwa
41. Mr. Brusho Phiri Squatter in Mphomwa Local Forest
42. Mr. Obby Kasaro Farmer, Ndelemani Village, Chief Mbang’ombe, Katete.
43. Mr. Aska Daka Farmer/Pitsawyer, Kapula Village, Chief Nyampande, Petauke.
FASAZ, Mid-Term Evaluation of the CLUSA/NRM Program 44
ANNEX 3: ITINERARY FOR FIELD WORK
Wednesday, 05/06/2002: Travel to Chipata (06 – 12/06/2002 dealing with WVIAP)
Wednesday, 12/06/2002: Morning - Project Briefing by Project Staff
Afternoon – Planning the schedule with project staff
Thursday, 13/06/2002: Group Discussions and Household Interviews with farmers in
Chiulukire Area, Katete
Friday, 14/06/2002: Group Discussions and Household Interviews with farmers in
Mukango Area, Mambwe
Interviews with farmers in Headman Kazembe’s Village, Chief
Mbang’ombe
Late Afternoon: Interview with the DACO’s Office in Mambwe
Saturday, 15/06/2002: Group Discussions and Household Interviews with farmers in
Chiparamba Area, Chipata
Sunday, 16/06/2002: Interviews with squatters in Chiulukire Forest and farmers outside 
the Forest
Monday, 17/06/2002: Morning – Wrap up meeting with project staff
Afternoon – Depart for Lusaka; Interviews with Chief Mbang’ombe 
for the Forester
Tuesday, 18/06/2002 Interviews with pitsawyers in Chief Nyampande’ area, Chief
Nyampande, and the District Forest Officer, Petauke
Wednesday, 19/06/2002 Depart for Lusaka