SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK 
DEVELOPMENT AND DAIRY COOPERATIVES 
PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
MAY 28, 2008 
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International 
Development. It was prepared by Paula Bilinsky, Team Leader/Evaluation Specialist and 
James Dunn, Agricultural Specialist, Management Systems International. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT 
AND DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
A subsidiary of Coffey International, Ltd. 
Management Systems International 
Corporate Offices 
600 Water Street, SW 
Washington, DC 20024 
Contract Number: DFD-I-00-05-00251-00 task order #1 
Land O’Lakes: Livestock Development and Dairy Cooperatives Programme (LDDCP) 
No. 623-A-00-05-00306-00 
LDDCP Implementer: Land O’ Lakes (LOL) 
LDDCP Evaluation: Management Systems International (MSI) 
DISCLAIMER 
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency 
for International Development or the United States Government. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
i
CONTENTS 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... II
PROJECT SUMMARY...............................................................................................................III
ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... V
I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1
II. THE DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM................................................................................ 1
A. Problem Statement ...................................................................................................... 1
B. Intervention ................................................................................................................. 2
III. PURPOSE........................................................................................................................... 3
IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 4
V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................. 5
VI. PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................... 14
A. Project Administration .............................................................................................. 14
B. Overall Project Outcomes ......................................................................................... 15
C. Cross-cutting Issues .................................................................................................. 15
D. Addressing the “Yellow Letter”................................................................................ 15
E. Meeting USAID/Sudan Priorities ............................................................................. 15
F. Planning for the Future ............................................................................................. 15
VII. LESSONS LEARNED ..................................................................................................... 16
ANNEX 1: INTERVIEW GUIDE ............................................................................................. 18
ANNEX 2: INTERVIEWEES.................................................................................................... 22
ANNEX 3: DOCUMENTS REVIEWED.................................................................................. 24
ANNEX 4: FIELD WORK SCHEDULE.................................................................................. 25
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
The evaluation team is pleased and deeply appreciative of the hospitality and assistance offered by 
numerous individuals during our two week stay in Southern Sudan to conduct the field portion of the 
evaluation of the Land O’Lakes Livestock Development and Dairy Development Project. From the staff 
of the MSI office in Juba to all of the Land O’Lakes staff who accompanied us to the field sites and 
offered so many insights to the communities in which they are working, we owe deep gratitude. Special 
mention should be made of the MSI staff in Washington, D.C. who got us off to a good start, specifically 
Mike Conway and Jill Tirnauer. And to Sam Taddesse, Ami Henson and Ayalew Teshome of MSI in 
Juba, who so skillfully guided us through the intricacies of the New York Hotel and got us where we 
needed to go, and for the most part got us back on time. Thanks to Garang for leaving us with an excellent 
record of the field trip. But we owe special gratitude to Alan King and John Kutwa of Land O’Lakes, who 
escorted us to numerous officials, rode the skies to Kapoeta with us, navigated roads not always seen and 
found us a place to sleep, whether in a tent or deluxe hut. It was fun. Mostly we want to recognize all 
those people under the giant shade trees who took the time to tell us of what they believe and what they 
hope for and are believers now that cooperatives can be a vehicle to better their lives and those of their 
children. That was the real special part of our stay in Southern Sudan. We hope this report will be useful 
as decisions are made for the future and we thank you all. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
iii
PROJECT SUMMARY 
Land O’Lakes, in collaboration with Vetwork Services Trust is operating the Livestock Development and 
Dairy Cooperatives Program (LDDCP) through the USAID/REDSO Mission with funding of $6.2 million 
for a period of four years, until June 2009. The project operates in the Eastern and Central Equatoria State 
of Southern Sudan. 
USAID CA#623-A-00-05-00306-00 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
iv
ACRONYMS 
CAHW Community Animal Health Worker 
CES Central Equatoria State 
EES Eastern Equatoria State 
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization 
GOS Government of Sudan 
GOSS Government of Southern Sudan 
LDCS Lainya Dairy Cooperative Society 
LDDCP Livestock Development and Dairy Cooperatives Programme 
LOL Land O’ Lakes 
MARF Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries 
MCRD Ministry of Cooperatives and Rural Development 
MLTC Marial Lou Livestock Training Centre 
MOFACOS Mogos Farmers Cooperatives Society 
NICODO Nile Community Development Organization 
PMP Performance Management Plan 
RLCS Riwoto Livestock Cooperative Society 
SPLA Sudan People’s Liberation Army 
SPLM Sudan People’s Liberation Movement 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
In designing a development strategy for Southern Sudan, USAID was primarily driven by the history of 
the region which was characterized by conflict between the central government in the North which had 
control over the political and economic systems of the country, and the southern region which was 
marginalized from the rest of the country. The signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) on 
January 9, 2005, by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLA/SPLM) and the Government of 
Sudan (GOS) ended Africa’s longest running conflict. The USAID strategy responds to the significant 
challenges and many opportunities in supporting the Southern Sudanese transition from war to peace. 
USAID programs are focused towards the need to successfully implement the CPA, resulting in a just and 
lasting peace. 
Within the context of promoting economic development in Southern Sudan, USAID recognized that 
livestock remains the mainstay of the economy and culture of the pastoral communities that dominate the 
region. By working with these communities it would be possible to not only realize the ‘peace dividends’ 
of the CPA, but also to promote reintegration efforts and reduce conflicts over time. Based on this 
recognition, USAID entered into an agreement with Land O’Lakes and its collaborator, Vetwork, a 
Sudanese NGO, to implement the Livestock Development and Dairy Cooperatives Program (LDDCP) a 
four year, $6.198,960 million project. 
The major focus of the program was to be the establishment of model cooperatives which would be 
formed after an intensive educational program. Cooperatives doing cattle marketing were intended to 
improve livestock productivity and quality through a focus on animal health. The cooperatives were 
organized to: 1) provide vaccines and drugs for animals prior to marketing; 2) establish livestock 
quarantine and fattening stations to prepare livestock for market; 3) and strengthen linkages with 
veterinary care services for members. 
Cooperatives dedicated to dairy would focus on processing and the sale of dairy products and other 
products that may be in demand in local markets. As part of this effort, Land O’ Lakes would develop a 
core of local cooperative employees who will learn how to manage a dairy cooperative. 
The purpose of this evaluation is threefold: 1) document successes, lessons learned and obstacles faced by 
LOL in its implementation of LDDCP; 2) provide recommendations to improve the implementation of the 
LDDCP and/or for design of a future program in Sudan; and 3) address issues outlined in the “Yellow” 
rating letter and actions taken by LOL. 
FINDINGS 
Two and a half years into implementation (the project moved sites partially through the first year) Land O 
Lakes is on track in regard to establishing cooperatives. Four cooperatives have been established or 
revitalized. These include the Riwoto Livestock Cooperative Society (RLCS); the Nile Community 
Development Organization (NICODO); the Lainya Dairy Cooperative Society (LDCS); and the Mogos 
Farmers Cooperative Society (MOFACOS). RLCS and MOFACOS are multi purpose cooperatives 
involving both livestock conditioning and marketing and dairy production, while LDCS and NICODO 
focus exclusively on milk processing and marketing. Officials of the government indicated that they 
viewed these as models and to be extended to other sectors and other regions. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
vi
The evaluation team was informed by Land O’Lakes that their team faced multiple constraints, some 
inherent in the country context such as lack of literacy among cooperative members and delays due to 
weather, and some due to management decisions taken by them and by USAID. This apparently 
influenced LDDCP’s performance. 
The project has been lagging in meeting some of its performance indicator targets. In addition, the 
indicators in the current PMP miss the more important contributions that the project is making to the 
general peace process and understate the true impact of the project on the lives of those involved. As 
shown below, the number of cattle, sheep and goats conditioned and sold is, however, very small given 
the size of the project. 
2006 2007 2008 (March) Cumulative Total 
Cattle 0 10 7 17 
Sheep & Goats 0 222 270 492 
Similarly the volume of milk collected and processed to date is small due to lack of refrigeration system 
and distance to milk collection points. Organized milk collection started in Lainya only in May 2008. In 
MOFACOS, Mogos milk collection is expected to commence once solar freezers are installed later in the 
third quarter of 2008. 
2006 2007 2008 (March) Cumulative Total 
RLCS 64 902 1,150 2,116 
NICODO 0 56,128 40,278 96,406 
In addition, the numbers of households benefiting from LDDCP created cooperatives are limited. As of 
this reporting the total number of households benefiting are 208 – RLCS (95), NICODO (107), LDCS (6) 
and MOFACOS (0). However, these numbers are misleading. They do not include households that benefit 
from animal health protection. 568 households have benefited from livestock vaccinations. In total, LOL 
reports that approximately 29,000 animals have been vaccinated and treated. 
The question of LDDCP’s contribution to the livestock and dairy sector can be answered in two ways. In 
terms of their impact on the entire sector, it is minimal. The project area covers only a small part of 
Southern Sudan and it will not expand significantly. The number of beneficiaries and their production is 
relatively small. For example, co-op membership has been very low. RLCS membership was 60 in by the 
end of 2007 and rose by 6 new members by the end of March 2008. Membership of MOFACOS stood at 
84 by the end of March 2008. LDCS membership was only 12 by the end of March 2008. NICODO is a 
community-based organization (CBO) and is being transformed into a cooperative. 
However, the question can also be answered by reflecting that this is the first livestock cooperative 
activity to be in place in the state of Eastern Equatoria since the war. Thus the project represents a unique 
opportunity to provide a positive example of the benefits which security as represented by the CPA 
provides. The cooperatives appear to be the first opportunity for economic improvement for these 
communities since the war. Before this Land O’Lakes activity there was no meaningful milk processing 
and marketing. Fresh milk was not being sold in Kapoeta because of milk fermentation and milk 
handling hygiene problems. NICODO, formerly the Nile Dairy Cooperative, was not run on a profit basis 
and suffered a high rate of milk spoilage due to poor milk handling and processing techniques and lack of 
proper packing. This situation has changed significantly as a result of LOL technical assistance. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
vii
CONCLUSIONS 
There is no question that the need is great, the people deserving of having an opportunity to improve their 
own situations and to dare to hope that the future for their children will be better than their own. The 
responses the evaluation team heard from the beneficiaries echo the USAID/Sudan strategy in many 
ways. They talked about what the project meant to them in regards to the peace benefits and their 
reintegration into a nation. This is their view in spite of having not yet seen many of the benefits that 
come from membership in the cooperative. To date the project has lagged in meeting established targets. 
However, from what the evaluation team was able to see on the ground at the three cooperatives visited, 
with the necessary physical structures completed and training for cooperative members increased, the 
cooperatives could be self-sufficient with adequate technical and economic knowledge to carry on if 
continued for several years. The evaluation team could not travel to Lainya due to security concerns. 
Sometimes indirectly and sometimes directly, LDDCP did contribute to meeting USAID/Sudan priorities. 
It is the only project in the portfolio that reaches the grassroots level of this area. The project is one of the 
few activities happening that cooperative members link directly to peace in the area. It is possible to 
believe that should this project leave the area, their faith in the peace may be shaken. 
PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS 
• The evaluation team believes this project should be extended for 2 or 3 years to allow first phase 
completion. 
• USAID should provide better technical assistance through field visits to the main project sites, 
timely feedback on quarterly reports, and information sharing in regards to other projects that 
could support LDDCP work. 
• Additional efforts by both USAID and LOL staff to identify resources for literacy and numeracy 
training is necessary. 
• Without a project director full time in country, LOL should review and consider reallocating staff 
assignments which would allow, at a minimum, the dairy specialist/field coordinator more and 
higher responsibility in the field. Other adjustments could provide more support to the dairy 
production and processing efforts. Also, LOL leadership must look for every possibility including 
multi donor development funds that may be available and would require GOSS support. 
• It is important that LOL make a stronger case for the very important accomplishments of the 
project, including that people are now beginning to believe that they can change their situation. 
• To encourage greater youth involvement, USAID and LOL should consider instituting more 
programs to dialogue about raiding, visits to other communities to discourage raiding, and peace 
training. Again, seeking out other resources could well lead to micro enterprise type opportunities 
for youth. 
• In looking towards the future, the evaluation team had a number of specific suggestions 
regarding: feasibility/marketing studies, scholarships for Sudanese students, English language 
training for cooperative leadership, and optional livestock management techniques to deal with 
pasture shortages and location of cattle relative to milk processing 
• LOL’s should put in place a strategy and a management system to address issues raised in the 
“Yellow Letter” 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
viii
• USAID should take the lead, or encourage Land O’Lakes, in reallocating budget line items to 
better reflect needs in the field. This should result in greater project impact. 
LESSONS LEARNED 
• To the extent possible have a good understanding of the situation on the ground to allow for 
better design and avoid implementation discoveries. It appears that the LDDCP design document 
was prepared without a full understanding of the circumstances that would be addressed and that 
implementation activities were rushed, particularly after USAID changed the location of the 
project area early in the implementation stage. 
• Flexibility is important but too much change slows implementation, wastes effort and can often 
lead to misunderstanding and disappointment. When USAID decided to move early project 
activities from Rumbeck to Kapoeta, LOL staff found conditions that they seemed unaware of. 
Housing was not available and project staff lived in tents for two years. Additionally, decisions 
were made on selecting sites for the cooperatives which then had to be changed once community 
members were consulted 
• To adequately manage, provide oversight, and make informed decisions from a distance (Nairobi) 
is difficult at best. On site management and frequent field visits are very important. It appeared to 
the evaluators that opportunities to make the project more effective were missed because of the 
Country Manager only being in Southern Sudan 50% of the time. For USAID staff never to have 
visited project sites seems at best irresponsible. 
• Involvement of officials at all levels of government is important. It provides a sense of ownership 
and support for their priorities which is necessary for the longer term, but can also make 
implementation easier. The Director General of Planning, Investment and Marketing in the 
Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries reminded the evaluators of his own early 
involvement in the design of LDDCP and his strong continued support for it. The Minister of 
Cooperatives stated the project can become a model for cooperative development in Southern 
Sudan and pledged to work closely with project leadership and the people in the selected 
communities. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
1
I. INTRODUCTION 
The Government of Southern Sudan is at a critical juncture in its development, following years of war 
that were fought to gain not only independence, but also for the freedom to develop socially and 
economically. While there are many opportunities, the way forward will not be easy. Engagement of the 
international community in both the transitional phase and long term development will be essential. The 
new USAID Southern Sudan strategy has been developed to respond, in partnership with the Government 
of Southern Sudan, to the significant challenges and many opportunities in supporting the Southern 
Sudanese from war to peace. Economic development activities will be key to the success of this 
transition, and agriculture will play a critical role. 
In developing cooperatives in Southern Sudan, USAID has an unprecedented opportunity to nourish both 
the heart and soul of a people emerging from a distant past and who have been left behind in all previous 
development efforts. This is an opportunity for reaping a genuine peace dividend, including the right of 
people to live in peace in a place they choose and to realize the accomplishment of being food secure for 
themselves and their families. 
Land O’Lakes (LOL) acting as an implementing partner for USAID, and in collaboration with Vetwork 
Services Trust, has focused its activities on promoting livelihoods through market-driven, livestock￾related activities. These efforts will promote livelihoods and develop marketing outlets particularly 
through livestock marketing and milk production and processing. It is the intent of the Land O’Lakes 
program through building the cooperative approach to assist in averting and resolving conflict, promotion 
of stability, recovery and democratic reform by contributing to policy dialogue, development and reform 
in the areas of livestock and cooperatives. An analysis of the progress and accomplishments in meeting 
these goals, primarily through developing model cooperatives, follows. 
II. THE DEVELOPMENT PROBLEM 
A. Problem Statement 
In designing a development strategy for Southern Sudan, USAID was primarily driven by the history of 
the region which was characterized by conflict between the central government in the North which had 
control over the political and economic systems of the country, and the southern region which was 
marginalized from the rest of the country. This marginalization, coupled with religious and racial 
discrimination, resulted in a brutal civil war that consumed the country for more than 20 years of the last 
50 years of Sudan’s independence. The signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) on 
January 9, 2005, by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and the Government of Sudan 
(GOS) ended Africa’s longest running conflict. The USAID strategy responds to the significant 
challenges and many opportunities in supporting the Southern Sudanese transition from war to peace. 
USAID programs are focused towards the need to successfully implement the CPA, resulting in a just and 
lasting peace. 
USAID clearly recognizes that many challenges exist and must be addressed over time. The CPA brings 
high expectations from citizens for tangible peace dividends, honest power and wealth sharing, and an 
end to insecurity that has displaced more than 4 million people in Southern Sudan and caused over 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
2
500,000 refugees to flee the country. It is recognized that the reintegration and safe transition of these 
people is both essential and a major objective of USAID’s strategy. To ensure stability, the communities 
in which they reintegrate will need assistance in developing water systems, health systems, schools and 
agriculture, among other needs. USAID recognizes that implementation of the CPA will be slow, but 
success is critical for peace and stability in the region. 
USAID has an exceptional opportunity to work with the new Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) to 
promote development and bring not only peace and stability to Southern Sudan, but to the region. USAID 
recognizes the potential and actual threats to the CPA, but remains deeply committed to the economic and 
political stabilization process that is critical to consolidating peace and prosperity. 
Within the context of promoting economic development in Southern Sudan and generating ‘peace 
dividends’ for the CPA, USAID recognized that livestock remain the mainstay of the economy and 
culture of the pastoral communities that dominate the region. By working with these communities it 
would be possible to not only realize the economic element of the CPA, but also to promote reintegration 
efforts and reduce conflicts over time. Based on this recognition, USAID entered into an agreement with 
Land O’Lakes and its collaborator, Vetwork, a Sudanese NGO, to implement the Livestock Development 
and Dairy Cooperatives Program (LDDCP) a four year, $6.198,960 million project. 
B. Intervention 
Based on its acceptance of the Land O’ Lakes unsolicited proposal, USAID accepted a program that was 
intended to not only address economic concerns through development of model cooperatives, but also 
reduce conflict over issues such as land and water. The program was also to address the reintegration of 
returning internally displaced persons (IDPs), involve gender equity and include HIV/AIDS messages in 
training activities. Based on the importance to the program, as well as the livestock industry nation wide, 
Land O’Lakes was to engage the GOSS in key policy discussions and identify policy issues hindering 
successful implementation. 
In submitting an unsolicited proposal, Land O’ Lakes justified their proposal that clearly met many of 
USAIDs objectives in support of the Government of Southern Sudan and the CPA. In many areas across 
Southern Sudan, cattle are the primary resources, since land is held communally. Within these cultures, 
livestock are the critical socio-economic focus of their labor, their planning and their outlook. To protect 
and enhance the economic well being of these groups, it is essential to help them protect and enhance 
their livestock and add value to the livestock through better marketing of live animals, meat products and 
dairy products. In a 1994 Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) food economy assessment, it was indicated that 
livestock accounts for 20 to 60 percent of total food requirements through milk, meat, blood and barter for 
grain. Livestock marketing also provides the main access to hard currency. 
In the original proposal accepted by USAID, Land O’Lakes proposed to work in several regions including 
the Bahr el Ghazal which traditionally exported cattle to neighboring Uganda and the Eastern Equatoria 
region which had prior to the war exported cattle to Kenya. In both regions it was believed that internal 
milk demand far exceeded supply and that consequently a strong market existed. Within a few months 
after signing the Cooperative Agreement, USAID decided that the Bahr el Ghazal region was not a 
priority area and the Rumbek site which Land O’Lakes had originally selected for implementation was 
dropped. With some disruption to the program, Land O’ Lakes quickly shifted their efforts to the Kapoeta 
area, the site in the state of Eastern Equatoria which had been identified in the original proposal. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
3
The major focus of the LDDCP was to be the establishment of model cooperatives which would be 
formed after an intensive educational program on organization formation, management and benefits that 
can be derived from a democratically formed, business oriented and well managed cooperative. All 
activities were preceded by extensive community consultation through community meetings and a 
participatory rapid assessment. Cooperatives doing cattle marketing were intended to improve livestock 
productivity and quality through a focus on animal health. The cooperatives were organized to: 1) provide 
vaccines and drugs for animals prior to marketing; 2) establish livestock quarantine and fattening stations 
to prepare livestock for market; 3) and strengthen linkages with veterinary care services for members. 
Cooperatives dedicated to dairy would focus on the sale of dairy products, including ghee (cooking fat), 
mala (local yogurt) and other products that may be in demand in local markets. As part of this effort, 
Land O’Lakes would develop a core of local cooperative employees who will learn how to manage a 
dairy cooperative. Similar to the livestock marketing component, the dairy effort will be based on the 
increased value that a quality dairy product can command. To implement both components, the program 
would hire and train, when necessary, a professional staff that would be responsible for the various 
activities. These positions would range from administrative staff to cooperative development specialists, 
dairy, marketing and monitoring and evaluation specialists. 
The local implementing partner with Land O’ Lakes is Vetwork Services Trust, a NGO headed and 
staffed by Sudanese. Vetwork will concentrate on training to upgrade the capacity of the private 
veterinary services by providing direct services and training for community animal health workers in 
disease prevention and cure, and livestock husbandry and nutrition. Vetwork will also support Land 
O’Lakes with the quarantine process, inspection and certification of livestock at the holding areas. All 
animals will be vaccinated against common livestock diseases. 
LDDCP will provide training support to both stakeholders at the Ministry of Animal Resources and 
Fisheries (MARF) and at the community level. The project assisted MARF through support of the Marial 
Lou Livestock Training Centre (MLTC) for one year after which the Government of Southern Sudan 
(GOSS) took it over. It is expected that Vetwork will be given a contract to assist with training at the 
Centre. 
Strengthening of urban areas is accomplished through the construction of livestock and milk processing 
facilities in Juba, Kapoeta, Lainya and Mogos. These buildings include offices, storage facilities, 
boreholes, work areas, and holding pens. 
III. PURPOSE 
The development context in Southern Sudan presents numerous obstacles and constraints to effective 
development. Primary among those is the on-going insecurity and a young and evolving state structure. 
The political situation in the country is fluid and does not lend itself to the long term planning necessary 
for development to take place. In this context, projects such as LDDCP are often forced to respond 
quickly to situations beyond their control and to interpret policy changes with little or no assistance. 
USAID/Sudan has chosen to carry out a number of mid and late-term evaluations to provide information 
for making any necessary adjustments to implementation. Given this situation, the purpose of this 
evaluation is threefold: 
• Document successes, lessons learned and obstacles faced by LOL in its implementation of 
LDDCP 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
4
• Provide recommendations to improve the implementation of the LDDCP and/or for design of a 
future program in Sudan 
• Address issues raised in the Yellow rating letter and actions taken by LOL 
In implementing this evaluation, the questions of effectiveness and strategic relevance, especially in terms 
of the peace dividend, underlie the entire effort. The evaluation team has attempted to gather data from a 
wide range of stakeholders and to provide clear and actionable information for the use of USAID and its 
implementing partners in making decisions. As the original scope included many evaluation questions, 
they are not repeated here, but may be found in the evaluation plan located in Annex. 
IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 
The methods used in this evaluation were a mix of stakeholder interviews, document reviews, and field 
observations1
. Interviews were held both in the offices of government officials who were related to the 
project as well as under a tree on the cooperative’s grounds with local stakeholders. Construction projects 
that the project was engaged in were viewed first hand and in pictures. While not included with this report 
due to concern about the electronic size of the document, numerous photos of the project are available 
upon request from MSI. 
As there was little baseline data either from the project or from secondary sources, the design of this 
evaluation has been of necessity an “after” picture only. However, given the extreme poverty of the 
primary beneficiaries and, in some cases, their only recent emergence from the bush during the war, we 
can fairly confidently say that there has been little assistance provided to them and they have only the 
most marginal integration into the monetary economy. Even before the war, they were a neglected area of 
the country. They have traditionally bartered milk and meat, but most of these traditions were disrupted 
by the war. In the case of one area, Lainya, the community members released their cattle into the wild 
during the war and are only now rounding them up and re-domesticating them for milk and meat 
production. Land O’Lakes is assisting in this activity. 
The “after” picture we provide in this evaluation is thus a picture of communities only now entering a 
formal economy so the results produced in the project, while seeming small in production terms, are, for 
the most part, the first cash products for the cooperative members. The availability of veterinary services 
is also almost completely new for them. The results reported by the project must be seen within this 
perspective to truly understand the impact of the project. 
Data constraints included the illiteracy of the major beneficiary group, necessitating group interviews 
with translation; lack of project baseline information on indicators such as milk and meat production as 
mentioned above; and the short data collection period due to finances, security and weather constraints. 
 
1
 The list of interview questions is attached as Annex 1. The list of informants interviewed is attached as Annex 2. 
The list of documents reviewed and the teams work plan are attached as Annex 3 and Annex 4. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
5
V. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 
Findings - Project Administration 
The LDDCP is a USAID-funded project in Southern Sudan which is working directly at the grass roots 
level with pastoralists and their livestock. Livestock is the backbone of the entire Southern Sudan 
economy. The project is providing assistance to the most isolated communities. It is important to note that 
all results of the project are considered in reflection of the fact that the project was told to change their 
project site after they had already begun. The move from Rumbek to Kapoeta was both a set back in terms 
of programming on the ground and morale of the staff. That being said, 15 professional and support staff 
have been hired and are actively engaged. The evaluation team was impressed by the professionalism and 
dedication of all LOL staff. 
The difficulty in finding qualified Sudanese staff resulted in a team in which the technical specialists are 
mainly Kenyan expatriates. This has also made it difficult in terms of communication with the Sudanese 
communities. This issue is partially addressed by: 
• hiring and adding to the LOL team Kenyans that speak a similar language as Taposa (locally 
spoke in the region); 
• hiring and mentoring the few educated women found in the community and increasing their 
skills; and 
• hiring a Sudanese marketing assistant and training and grooming him to be come a marketing 
specialist by the end of the project. 
Partnership with Vetwork, a local NGO, is functioning well and is clearly building the capacity of the 
organization as well as providing vital services to the livestock communities. The Vetwork staff work in 
close collaboration with LOL staff and are engaged in both planning and implementation. At the same 
time Vetwork brings in other resources such as vaccination supplies from the FAO. Vetwork can be seen 
to be growing from the new contract due to be awarded by MARF to run their training center in Mariel 
Lou. Land O’Lakes also supported Mariel Lou in the early stages of the project to facilitate capacity 
building in the agricultural sector. 
There were many delays in implementation, some of them due to factors beyond the project’s control 
(changes in USAID strategies, continuing insecurity) and some that could have been mitigated by the 
project. The project director was in country only part time. Project staff is restricted in their movements 
during the rainy season due to a lack of all season roads throughout Southern Sudan. This means that staff 
access to the cooperatives is limited during the time of highest production (milk production is higher due 
to increased grazing and cattle are able to graze close to the communities giving access for both milking 
and sale). 
From the perspective of project staff, technical guidance and support by USAID for the project was 
lacking. Little feedback, with the exception of the “yellow” rating letter has been provided to them. No 
USAID staff has been out to visit and observe the main work at the cooperatives. 
Conclusions - Project Administration 
Given the limited opportunity for alternative economic activities in the project area, the USAID mandated 
change in project area, the desperate need of the people who have been by-passed previously, their high 
expectations and expressed desire to better their lives plus the very difficult circumstances for the project 
team to work under, the project has done its best to respond in a thoughtful and effective manner. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
6
The project still requires better advance planning to minimize seasonal and other delays. Project 
leadership did not provide proactive guidance to ensure that down time was used profitably. For example, 
LOL should be aware of and pursue all partnership opportunities to provide additional support. This is the 
type of activity that could be pursued more vigorously if the Project Director spent more time in country. 
Opportunities to find creative solutions to issues may have been lost due to the lack of connections to 
other local activities by project leadership. 
The extremes of the wet/dry seasons still provide a significant constraint to both programming and 
operational aspects of the project. 
Project implementation and project morale would have benefited from improved support by USAID. The 
lack of management support to the project has implications in terms of the project making appropriate 
changes to reflect the changing requirements of USAID. 
Findings - Overall Project Outcomes 
Land O Lakes is on track in regard to establishing cooperatives. Four have been established or revitalized. 
The four include Riwoto Livestock Cooperative Society (RLCS), Mogos Farmers Cooperatives Society 
(MOFACOS), Lainya Dairy Cooperative Society (LDCS) and the Nile Community Development 
Organization (NICODO). The first two are multi purpose cooperatives involving both livestock 
conditioning and marketing as well as dairy production and marketing, while the latter two focus 
exclusively on milk collection, processing and marketing. Officials from GOSS and at the state level 
indicated that they viewed this introduction of cooperatives as a model and that they planned to extend 
this example to other sectors and other regions. 
Land O’Lakes has indicated that approximately 208 households are benefiting directly from cooperative 
activities. For example, NICODO milk collection activity benefits more than 107 household. Similarly 
RLCS and LDCS activities benefit 95 and 6 households, respectively. Households in RLCS and NICODO 
milk collection zone get 1 SDG or $0.50 USD per liter of milk and in the LDCS milk collection zone 
households get 2 SDG or $1.00 USD per liter. As of March 2008 RLCS has paid out approximately 
2,116 SDG or $1,058 USD to milk producers and NICODO has paid out approximately 153,992 SDG or 
$76,996 USD for milk suppliers. 
NICODO had been a dairy cooperative previously, but then had been changed into a more general 
purpose community based organization under the guidance of Oxfam. However the original dairy 
producers were unhappy and opted to reestablish a dairy cooperative under the guidance of Land 
O’Lakes. The NICODO plant is located in Juba Town and the demand for their quality milk products far 
exceeds their ability to supply the market. Following the return of the cattle from their dry season grazing 
areas, supply is expected to increase significantly. Even given this situation, in 2007 NICODO collected 
and processed 56,000 liters of milk and in the first quarter of 2008 it had collected 40,200 liters of milk. 
New milk products have been developed and sold on the local markets with yogurt being by far the most 
popular. Demand far outstrips supply in all areas, but most significantly in Juba where the NICODO 
product is perceived as being of superior quality and under prices all competitors. 
Education for communities on forming a cooperative and how to run one, as well as the benefits of 
membership, was given high priority in the early stages of the project and continues today. Interest and 
membership enrollment has increased with nearly 66 members at RLCS as of March 2008, 84 members at 
MOFACOS, but with fewer or 12 members in LDCS. NICODO is a community-based organization; 
however, there are 76 individuals from the old Nile Milk Cooperative. During the group interviews 
cooperative members expressed appreciation for the training and were excited about the future of the 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
7
cooperatives and their own lives. They seemed to see great hope in what the program represented and 
requested additional training for themselves and neighboring communities. 
LOL has also reported that the LDDCP project has created several jobs. As shown below, it claims it has 
created 84 jobs. 
Cooperative/ Organization Location Number of Jobs Created 
RLCS Kapoeta North, EES 27 
NICODO Juba County, CES 25 
LDCS Lainya County 5 
MOFACOS Kapoeta East, CES 19 
LDDCP N/A 8 
 Total 84 
Staff at the NICODO facility are being trained extensively on all parts of milk handling and processing. 
They are involved in creating new products for the urban market as well. Additional training for 
cooperative staff is planned at RLCS, particularly the two women currently in charge of milk collection. 
LOL has also claims to have provided capacity building training to cooperatives. The numbers of people 
trained by location and training topic are shown below. 
Training Location Capacity Building Training 
Number 
Trained 
Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) 17 
Basic Cooperative Management 39 
Basic Milking & Milk Handling Hygiene 23 Kapoeta North, EES 
Milk Handling Hygiene, Grading & Processing 7 
CAHWs 19 Kapoeta East, EES Basic Cooperative Management 51 
CAHWs 9 
Lainya County, CES CAHWs refresher 15 
Poultry Auxiliaries (female) 10 
CAHWs 8 
Juba County, CES Milk Handling Hygiene, Processing & Packaging 25 
Sales & Marketing 9 
While the emphasis in the early stages was on training in various communities, other activities also began. 
In Kopoeta an office building, staff housing, animal holding grounds and water supply points have been 
established. For RLCS, a milk collection center has been set up complete with weigh scales, milk quality 
testing equipment, a solar freezer, and a livestock holding area complete with water supply. MOFACOS 
has established a livestock holding area with a borehole presently being drilled and a posho mill (for 
grinding grains) ready for installation. 
In Kapoeta, LOL is still operating out of a temporary office at UN-WFP compound. The staff housing and 
office is 85% completed. Roofing, fixing of windows, plastering, electrical and plumbing, ceiling and 
painting is still ongoing. Fixing of window panes, doors and foot paths are still remaining. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
8
In spite of all of the educational efforts undertaken, Land O’Lakes staffs face a difficult situation in 
preparing members for their roles in managing a democratic and business oriented cooperative. Lack of 
adult literacy and numeracy are a significant constraint to building cooperatives. There are only a couple 
of members in each cooperative who can read and write. 
For six months of the year when there is virtually no rainfall in their home areas, cattle are trekked far 
away where there is water and better pasture available. As a result, a smaller number of animals than 
anticipated have been prepared for market and sold. In part to combat this rather difficult situation, an 
improved pasture development program has been developed and will be critical for eventually moving to 
a more confined farming system. This is particularly important for milk producers, but is geared to help in 
preparing cattle for sale too. The improved pasture is, however, in trial stage. According to LOL, since the 
pasture is imported variety they have been planted in trail plots to characterize them before increasing the 
acreage. The trial is being done in three locations: Kapoeta North, Kapoeta South and Lainya County. No 
animal have been put on the improved pasture as the establishment was delayed due to (a) poor weather 
condition and (b) project staff have yet to have a dialogue with the communities regarding the new 
pasture. 
Without baseline data on cattle marketing in this area, it is difficult to comment on the actual rate of 
increase or the price-cost ratio. 
Nearly all respondents noted that animal health is one of their primary concerns. Vetwork, a Sudanese 
NGO and collaborator with Land O’Lakes in this project is responding to this need. Vetwork in 
partnership with LOL has provided animal health training along with drugs and vaccines for cattle 
owners. This is being implemented on a cost recovery system. As there was no baseline in regards to 
animal health before the project started, it is difficult to judge the effectiveness of their activities. It is 
clear from discussions with GOSS and state government staff that these communities cannot expect to see 
the government step in to continue with animal health efforts. What can be said is that Vetwork’s efforts 
are aimed at self-sufficiency with cost recovery and animal owners were enthusiastic about bringing cattle 
in to be treated. 
Animal health improvement activities through Vetwork, have benefited more than 568 households with 
approximately 29,000 cattle (8,032), sheep and goats (20,258) and chickens (810) vaccinated or treated. 
640 livestock owners have their animals vaccinated and treated in LDDCP areas of operation of Kapoeta 
North, South and East in Eastern Equatoria State and Juba and Lainya County in Central Equatoria State.
In the original proposal Land O’Lakes, along with Vetwork, proposed to carry out a pilot study on East 
Coast Fever in Eastern Equatoria, but this has now been deferred as GOSS is currently developing its own 
approach. 
In line with USAID’s interest in disputed areas, the project originally planned two trips to the Three Areas 
to investigate opportunities for livestock programming, but only one has been completed as USAID is 
still reviewing the situation. 
The provision of assistance and guidance towards the creation or improvement of laws related to livestock 
is a relatively small part of project activities. While the staff is acutely aware of the need to improve the 
policy environment, there is a lack of clarity by LOL in what activities might be undertaken to support the 
effort and on specifically which laws are to be their focus. Policy work done thus far has been on an ad 
hoc basis. That being said, interviewees indicated that the project has participated in numerous policy 
discussions on the following: Cooperative Law (anticipated to be enacted in 2008), Health Certificate for 
Livestock (related to movement of animals both within the country and across borders), Livestock 
Taxation, the new Livestock Act for Eastern Equatorial and Standards for Milk Processing and 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
9
Marketing. Copies of the actual papers/policies were unavailable for inspection and are in various stages 
of review in the government. Vetwork has played a key role in animal related policy discussions and 
preparation of new legislation.
LOL brought in a Cooperative Development Consultant to work with GOSS officials. The consultant met 
with Ministry of Cooperative and Rural Development officials at the GOSS level and also gave a lecture 
to Cooperative Inspectors who were undergoing training. LDDCP has helped to form and strengthen the 
cooperative by-laws for the Cooperatives. 
Conclusions - Overall project outcomes 
The cooperatives represent the first opportunity for economic improvement for these communities since 
the war. These are possibly the most neglected communities in Southern Sudan. This project provides 
assistance based on their most important notion of cultural identity – livestock. As indicated above 
approximately 200 households benefit from milk sales and 568 farms have benefited from LDDCP animal 
health activities. 
While the project has been lagging in meeting some of the revised indicator targets, the team believes that 
project results in the coming year will show good progress. The choice of indicators for the project would 
on first glance appear to be obvious (# of animals sold, liters of milk sold), but these are process 
indicators that should be realistically expected to be fairly low as this is an entirely new enterprise for 
these communities. The indicators in the current PMP miss the more important contributions that the 
project is making to the general peace process and understate the true impact of the project on the lives of 
those involved. 
The question of LDDCP’s contribution to the livestock and dairy sector can be answered in two ways. In 
terms of their impact on the entire sector, it is minimal. The project area covers only a small part of 
Southern Sudan and it will not expand significantly. The number of beneficiaries and their production is 
relatively small.
However, the question can also be answered by reflecting that this is the first livestock cooperative to be 
in place in the state of Eastern Equatoria since the war. Cooperatives have operated in the country before 
the war, but few are in active operation now, particularly in Eastern Equatoria. Thus the project is a 
unique opportunity to provide a positive example of the benefits which security, as represented by the 
CPA, provides. 
In addition to establishing the cooperatives as vehicles to carry out farming business, it is equally 
important to early on provide members with concrete benefits such as drugs and related animal care. The 
capacity building that Vetwork is engaged in will have long term benefits to the farmers and to the nation 
as a whole. 
Findings– Gender
The project has integrated a gender approach in several different ways. At a management level, women 
have been included as staff although only at the community level. 
At the programmatic level, the idea that women should be included as equal members in the cooperatives 
was clearly expressed by both men and women respondents in the community. Both women and men are 
able to hold shares in the cooperative. In most cases, the women bought their own shares. Lists of 
representatives in cooperative committees showed that women had been elected to various positions. 
While there are no precise records of women’s involvement in decision making, project staff report that 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
10
women do speak in the meetings. During the evaluation the women clearly spoke their mind about the 
cooperative and what they expected to see happen as a result of being part of the cooperative. While 
LDCS and NICODO do not yet have female members, women participation in both RLCS and 
MOFACOS is significant (see Table 1 below). Bringing the posho mills (maize mills) to cooperatives in 
Kapoeta and Mogos also has definite implications for women’s labor as they previously did this task by 
hand or walked into town to have the grain ground. The time savings for women will be significant if they 
have a machine to grind the grain close to their community. 
Women have been trained as community animal health workers (CAHWs). They commented that they 
wished there were more people trained as they could not meet demand. 
TABLE 1: COOPERATIVE MEMBERSHIP (NEW) 
2006 2007 2008 (March) Total 
Cooperative Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 
RLCS 0 0 50 10 0 6 50 16 
MOFACOS 0 0 0 0 63 21 63 21 
LDCS 0 0 0 0 12 0 12 0 
NICODO* 76 0 0 0 0 0 76 0 
* NICODO is now a community-based organization. The 76 members are from the old Nile Milk Cooperative. 
While there are no precise records of women’s involvement in decision making, Management 
Committees for the cooperatives have both men and women. At least one-third of the committee members 
are women and they participate in the decision making of the cooperatives. Also, during the election held 
for RLCS early this year, the treasure is a woman. In milk collection, women dominate at the Payam 
committees. 
Conclusions - Gender 
All integration of women into project activities has been done despite the traditionally powerless position 
that women generally hold in this society. The time that is saved by women in particular due to shorter 
transport distance for milk products results in their ability to apply themselves to other productive 
activities while the cash they receive for milk is used to purchase necessities that are currently difficult to 
acquire (i.e., clothing, salt, oil). The project can be expected to boost the earning status of the women who 
are members of the coops as the coop matures in terms of dividends paid out and support for the 
community. 
Findings – Youth
There are no precise records of the age of cooperative members, however, cooperative members and 
project staff indicate that younger members of the community are somewhat engaged in the cooperative. 
These cattle communities have a long history of cattle raiding, back and forth, between themselves and 
neighboring communities. It is primarily the young men who are involved in these activities. 
Raiding activities mean that 1) the young men are engaged in revenge raids, taking them away from 
productive activities such as the cooperative; 2) the older men are also pulled away to help deal with the 
ramifications of the raids; 3) the cattle are frequently trekked long distance meaning that their condition 
deteriorates and they are worth less unless time is taken to build up their condition again; 4) milk 
production is lost during the period in which the cattle are away. The project has tried to address the issue 
of cattle raiding and, indirectly, the involvement of youth, by using cooperative meetings to help discuss 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
11
the issue and encourage discussions with the neighboring communities to lessen tension. During the 
evaluation, in meetings with the cooperative members in the community, young men from the community 
were often seen at the edges of the meetings, mainly listening to the discussions. 
On a more positive note respondents indicated that they believed that by bringing cooperatives together to 
encourage discussions about raiding, and as they see the economic benefits to cattle sales, raiding will be 
reduced and conflict avoided. 
Conclusions - Youth
The project will have to continue to deal with issue of youth through the topic of cattle raiding. While 
deeply imbedded in the culture, there is reason to believe that the impact or frequency of the raids could 
be lowered if the young men are actively involved in productive pursuits that yield more than raiding 
Findings– HIV/AIDS
The project has planned to have a staff member of Vetwork to come in and provide HIV training for the 
cooperative members. She is based in Kapoeta and will go to each of the cooperative locations. 
Conclusions – HIV/AIDS
The HIV/AIDS rate in Sudan is estimated to be fairly low. As the project has no health activities, 
including training on HIV as part of their training schedule in the cooperatives, is an acceptable approach. 
Findings – Addressing the “Yellow” Rating Letter 
The “Yellow” Rating Letter, a USAID memo addressing the need for improvement by the project, 
included four areas of concern: targets, sustainability, programmatic issues, and financial management. 
These areas are discussed in the text above, but our findings and conclusions are brought together below 
for ease of reference: 
Targets 
The targets set by the project have been revised once in the life of the project, after the move from 
Rumbek to Kapoeta. It would appear that the targets are still set a bit high, given the extremely 
rudimentary knowledge and systems in place before the project began work. Even with the revision, the 
project has not yet met some of the targets set. 
Sustainability 
Perhaps the most difficult issue to deal with in evaluating the LDDCP is the issue of sustainability. This 
project operates in perhaps the most difficult environment the evaluation team has experienced. Several of 
the areas are remote and extremely difficult to get to. Roads at many times of the year are impassable and 
even at the best of times are very rough and treacherous as the team experienced on the trip to the 
cooperative in Mogos. Some of the better access roads cannot be used because of being heavily mined 
and have yet to be cleared. Insecurity remains a concern in some areas. Because of this isolation and, 
according to both government officials and community members, of deliberately being excluded from 
services and support by past governments, the people of these areas are essentially beginning at ground 
zero in regards to knowledge of cooperatives, monetary business acumen and literacy. From our 
interviews with GOSS officials, it is apparent that the government while fully supportive of the effort, 
currently lacks the capacity or resources to begin to address their basic needs. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
12
With even this small opportunity the communities involved with the LDDCP have responded positively 
to do all they can with their meager resources. They have worked hard to clear roads, build fences, pay 
their dues and all because of their high expectations that this can change their lives. They see their future 
in being organized against what has often in the past been a hostile world. 
Lack of sustainability can come from a lack of human resources or monetary resources. LDDCP has 
attempted to respond to the lack of available Sudanese expertise through a policy of mentoring local staff 
to bring up their level of skills. The project has introduced the idea of paying for animal health services 
and the cooperative members have responded enthusiastically despite the cost. In addition, the drugs and 
vaccination supplies are provided on a cost-recovery basis. 
Programmatic Issues related to modification of activities and what to report 
The evaluation team analyzed the quarterly reports and queried the program team as to their efforts in 
modifying programmatic activities after the move to Kapoeta. It appears that there was a real gap in 
getting programs moving on the ground as much time was spent in gaining an understanding of the new 
area and in approaching communities with the idea of building a cooperative. Once the people had agreed 
to form cooperatives more time was taken in deciding on the appropriate site for infrastructure such as 
holding grounds and bore holes. In addition, the lack of existing buildings meant that time has been lost in 
building structures for staff housing and offices. The current offices and housing (tents) is not conducive 
to working effectively or efficiently but there appears to be no other choices available. 
As mentioned above, the project has continued with reporting on the indicators chosen at the start of the 
project. They have included pictures in their reporting to assist in the understanding to the project context. 
Financial Management 
While access to the project’s full books was not possible, the budget in the quarterly report shows an 
overall slow burn rate with a particularly large discrepancy in the amount budgeted under “Program 
Services”. In discussions with project staff, this under-spending was in the area of training and training 
support. It was explained that that budget had been determined according to expectations that they would 
be holding trainings in hotels and paying hotel and per diem for participants. In fact, the trainings that 
have been held thus far have been done under a tree in the community due to lack of any infrastructure in 
the area. 
Conclusions - Addressing the “Yellow” Rating Letter
Targets 
Given the trends in reporting on indicators that have yet to be met and activity on the ground, the 
evaluation team believes that the project will now begin to meet targets as presently prescribed in the 
PMP. The reality on the ground in Eastern Equatoria was not well understood by either the project or 
USAID/Sudan so it should not be a surprise that the targets were not as realistic as they might have been 
for the beginning of the project. It took them longer to establish the cooperatives to a point where they 
could actually begin marketing products. Targets should also have been set to reflect seasonal realities. 
Sustainability 
There is no question that the need is great, the people deserving of having an opportunity to improve their 
own situations and to dare to hope that the future for their children will be better than their own. The 
responses the evaluation team heard from the beneficiaries echo the USAID/Sudan strategy in many 
ways. They talked about what the project meant to them in regards to the peace benefits, economic 
growth and their reintegration into a nation. This is their view in spite of having not yet seen many of the 
benefits that come from membership in the cooperative. To date the project has lagged in meeting 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
13
established targets. However, from what the evaluation team was able to see on the ground at the three 
cooperatives visited, with the necessary physical structures completed and training increased, the 
cooperatives could be self-sufficient with adequate technical and economic knowledge to carry on if 
given several more years of support. 
Programmatic Issues related to modification of activities and what to report 
The LDDCP did an adequate job of responding to the changes presented to them, but could have been 
more creative in their use of time and resources at the beginning of their work at the second project site. 
Little proactive thinking went into alternative activities that could have supplemented or replaced 
originally planned activities. Reporting remained in the standard format and an opportunity to show what 
the project was really impacting was lost until recent efforts, such as a PowerPoint presentation covering 
all aspects of the project, to tell their story more effectively. 
Financial Management 
The project could have been more effective in using their budget to ensure that activities happened, if not 
exactly as planned, but in a way that ensured that momentum was not lost. Again, it is felt that better 
leadership in this area might have improved the spending pattern and led to greater impact on the training 
side. 
Findings - Meeting USAID/Sudan Priorities 
The scope of work asks the evaluators to determine whether or not the contributions of the LDDCP are 
relevant to the following USAID/Sudan priorities: household food security, employment opportunities, 
conflict mitigation, returnees, and urban development. 
Clearly, livestock products and the money earned by their marketing can be a help for household food 
security. Given the complexity of household food security and its reflection of cultural and social values, 
it is difficult to determine the extent to which the marketing of livestock products results in a healthy 
yearlong diet for the entire household. 
The project has resulted in 61 mostly full time jobs and as the cooperatives expand, that number could be 
expected to rise. 
Currently, conflict in this area is largely related to cattle raiding and the cooperative is filling its role in 
mitigating the situation by providing peace training and encouraging community relationships through 
visits. 
The area that is covered by LDDCP did not see a wide dispersal of population during the war. People 
moved into the bush during insecure time and then rapidly returned to their homes. Community members 
indicated however, that the provision of assistance in building the cooperative and the interest paid by the 
government in this effort has resulted in the feeling that these communities, previously ignored by the 
government, are now part of a government that recognizes their worth. 
LDDCP’s contribution to urban development included renovation of the NICODO milk plant, and 
structures at the field sites and the provision of critical food products – milk and yoghurt – to the thriving 
Juba market. They cannot yet meet demand and they are providing a locally produced healthy and safe 
product to urban dwellers. The construction of the LDDCP housing and office structure and the animal 
holding pens and treatment facilities also contribute to Kapoeta’s urban development. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
14
Conclusions - Meeting USAID/Sudan Priorities 
Sometimes indirectly and sometimes directly, LDDCP did contribute to meeting USAID/Sudan priorities. 
From the perspective of the conflict mitigation and the peace dividend, the following are critical to 
understanding the project’s contribution. It is the only project in the portfolio that reaches the grassroots 
level of this geographic area. There is little that reaches this area in terms of the government or an official 
perspective on the future. The project is one of the few activities happening that cooperative members 
link directly to peace in the area. It is possible to believe that should this project leave the area, their faith 
in the peace may be shaken. 
VI. PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS 
A. Project Administration 
• The evaluation team believes this project should be extended for 2 or 3 years to allow first phase 
completion. 
• USAID should provide better technical assistance through field visits to the main project sites, 
timely feedback on quarterly reports, and information sharing in regards to other projects that 
could support LDDCP work 
• Additional efforts by both USAID and LOL staff to identify resources for literacy and numeracy 
training is necessary. 
• The training budget should be used more effectively. Bring to the cooperative more experts on the 
topics they are most interested in such as animal health. Given current spending levels, they 
might consider hiring a training manager to get this effort going. 
• Without a project director full time in country, LOL should review and consider reallocating staff 
assignments which would allow, at a minimum, the dairy specialist/field coordinator more and 
higher responsibility in the field. Other adjustments could provide more support to the dairy 
production and processing efforts. 
• It is important that LOL make a stronger case for the very important accomplishments of the 
project, including that people are now beginning to believe that they can change their situation. 
This is a major accomplishment and can only be seen when meeting directly with the cooperative 
members. Look to the contributions the project has made to peace and cooperation and to the 
beginnings of food security through economic and infrastructure development. Clearly, the 
benefits extend beyond only sales and returns at this time of implementation. 
• Identify and note secondary benefits of project interventions such as the substantial saving of 
firewood and water as a result of the energy saving equipment for milk production introduced by 
the project. In addition, highlight the use of innovative equipment such as solar-powered milk 
freezers. These are an important contribution to economic returns and the environment. 
• LOL leadership must look for every possibility including multi donor development funds that 
may be available and would require GOSS support. This is the type of activity that could be 
pursued more vigorously if the Country Manager spent more time in country. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
15
B. Overall Project Outcomes 
• Look for opportunities to create partnerships so that more services can be brought to people who 
have had so little over the years. Seek out NGOs and other organizations to expand the impact of 
the overall program. 
C. Cross-cutting Issues 
• To encourage greater youth involvement, consider instituting more programs to dialogue about 
raiding, visits to other communities to discourage raiding, and peace training. Again, seeking out 
other resources could well lead to micro enterprise type opportunities for youth. 
D. Addressing the “Yellow Letter” 
• USAID should take the lead, or encourage Land O’Lakes, in reallocating budget line items to 
better reflect needs in the field. This should result in greater project impact. 
E. Meeting USAID/Sudan Priorities 
• More effort should be put into conflict mitigation activities. Provide more training and 
community exchanges with the youth involved. 
F. Planning for the Future 
While the evaluation team believes the Land O’Lakes team has done a very commendable job in 
implementing the LDDCP, and has established a firm foundation for future development of the 
cooperative movement, we offer some suggestions for Land O’Lakes to consider as current 
implementation proceeds and for potential extension. 
• Begin or complete studies to determine the actual feasibility of some of the proposed activities 
such as establishing numerous milk collection centers, transport, processing and marketing of 
milk. A solid cost/benefit analysis should be completed before significant investment is 
contemplated and to address the issue of sustainability. The same process should be followed for 
the livestock cooperatives if additional costs associated with fattening cattle which will require 
supplemental feeds, as well as the animal health supplies. 
• It could be informative to also examine different approaches to the marketing of cattle. For 
example, fattening at the cooperative vs. selling to others who may do the fattening as a separate 
business in the chain. Selling directly after health inspection, even though in poorer condition 
may be another option. While the original plan called for provision of feed stuff and then holding 
the animals for a period of time, this may or may not be the best economical option. Again, this 
relates to the issue of sustainability. 
• In relationship to the above, consider accelerating the pasture improvement program. This would 
begin to build support for some home based dairy production systems vs. driving all of the cattle 
to distance places. It would also allow the gradual introduction of improved genetics. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
16
• Consider providing a few scholarships/internships for livestock or veterinary students (Sudanese) 
at the Marial Lou Training Centre. This would help address the dearth of qualified Sudanese 
professionals needed to become involved in the LDDCP in the future. 
• Establish opportunities for English language training for cooperative leadership and other 
members of the cooperatives. By contracting a firm in either Kenya or Uganda it would be 
possible to get both the assistance to develop a training plan as well as providing the instruction, 
and costs could be kept to a reasonable level. 
• Carefully examine options to get milk from the dry season areas to the processing plants near 
urban centers. In some cases river traffic might be an attractive option. If successful, the 
additional milk during six months of the year would make the processing plants more profitable 
and human nutrition improved. 
• Make an effort to publicize the LDDCP with NGOs and other donors in Southern Sudan. 
Encourage visits and involvement in the project, which could lead to the additional resources 
available to the communities. 
• As milk collection center increase consider the possibility of working with milk transporters to 
secure micro credit for the purchase of small motorcycles or other types of transport. 
• Examine the chain of milk processing and marketing at the NICODO plant to assist in developing 
a high quality system for milk products. 
VII. LESSONS LEARNED 
• To the extent possible have a good understanding of the situation on the ground to allow for 
better design and avoid implementation discoveries. It appears that the design document was 
prepared without a full understanding of the circumstances that would be addressed and that 
implementation activities were rushed, particularly after USAID changed the location of the 
project area early in the implementation stage. 
• Flexibility is important but too much change slows implementation, wastes effort and can often 
lead to misunderstanding and disappointment. When USAID decided to move early project 
activities from Rumbeck to Kapoeta, LOL staff found conditions that they seemed unaware of. 
Housing was not available and project staff lived in tents for two years. Additionally, decisions 
were made on selecting sites for the cooperatives which then had to be changed once community 
members were consulted 
• To adequately manage, provide oversight and make informed decisions from a distance (Nairobi) 
is difficult at best. On site management and frequent field visits are very important. It appeared to 
the evaluators that opportunities to make the project more effective were missed because of the 
Country Manager only being in Southern Sudan 50% of the time. For USAID staff never to have 
visited the major project sites seems at best irresponsible. 
• Involvement of officials at all levels of government is important. It provides a sense of ownership 
and support for their priorities which is necessary for the longer term, but can also make 
implementation easier. The Director General of Planning, Investment and Marketing in the 
Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries reminded the evaluators of his own early 
involvement in the design of LDDCP and his strong continued support for it, while the Minister 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
17
of Cooperatives stated the project can become a model for cooperative development in Southern 
Sudan and pledged to work closely with project leadership and the people in the selected 
communities. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
18
ANNEX 1: INTERVIEW GUIDE 
1. Livestock and Dairy Cooperatives: 
 
1a. Land O’ Lakes Staff: 
1) The major focus of the LDDCP was to develop model private sector cattle marketing and dairy 
cooperatives. How successful have you been to date? What have been the major 
accomplishments? 
2) What impediments have you faced that have negatively impacted on what the program planned to 
accomplish? 
3) Please explain the process for becoming a member of the cooperative. 
4) How successful has the program been in developing membership to the levels anticipated? What 
factors to you attribute to meeting your goals or perhaps falling short? 
5) Has communication been a problem in either explaining the concept of a cooperative or educating 
membership in other aspects of the LDDCP? What various methods have been used in your 
efforts to effectively communicate? 
6) Have you found that the cost of joining the cooperative has been an inhibiting factor? If so, what 
alternatives have you explored? 
7) What efforts have been made to encourage the involvement of women in the cooperatives? What 
roles do they currently play? 
8) What efforts to provide market information to the sellers have you undertaken? 
9) Are the cattle marketed through the cooperative restricted to members or can others use the 
marketing facilities for a fee? 
10) How many animals have actually been marketed through the cooperative to date as compared to 
the anticipated number? 
11) How well have the livestock stations worked in providing the services planned,e.g., veterinary 
care, health inspection and feeding? Has it been possible to secure adequate feeds to actually 
improve the condition and weight of the animals? 
12) Moving to the dairy cooperative, please describe what Land O’Lakes has provided to date. 
13) How many milk collection centers have been established against the number planned and what is 
the status of membership and sales against what was planned? 
14) Has cost of becoming a member of the dairy cooperative been a factor in developing 
membership? 
15) In the circumstances that most people find themselves in, is the purchase of milk and milk 
products a high priority? 
16) Please describe exactly what has been accomplished to date, e.g., new products developed, min￾processing capacity, sales promotions, packaging, etc. 
17) Given the economic situation of most consumers what are the advantages to producers in utilizing 
the cooperative vs direst selling of fresh milk? 
18) What has been accomplished to help the milk holding centers and dairy processors meet quality 
standards that would add value to the product? 
19) At the dairy producer level please describe what has been done in way of improved farm 
management, improved breeding, feeding and animal health. 
20) What follow up is given (or is planned) for each cooperative. 
21) Given some of the constraints faced in this environment why do you believe a more sophisticated 
cooperative model is the answer for these producers? Have you modified your approach in any 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
19
way to take into account previous negative experience with cooperatives, if any, or an approach 
that might be more consistent with cultural and social ways of trade and business practices? 
22) For both cattle marketing and dairy processing and marketing, is the LDDCP a sustainable 
approach? If yes, please explain what it will take to make it so. 
23) As we look ahead to the future what modifications would you suggest to make this a better or 
more sustainable project? 
1b. Cooperative Members and Beneficiaries: 
1) Are you presently a member of either the cattle marketing or dairy cooperative? If not, why not? 
2) What is your overall impression of the LDDCP and please give us some concrete benefits that 
you as members have realized 
3) What specific things have not worked so well and that you would like to see changed in the 
future. 
4) What are the most serious problems you face as animal and milk producers? 
5) Do you believe a cooperative is a good way to do business or do you have experience with other 
approaches that you would be more comfortable with? 
6) Have you as individual members actually sold cattle or milk products through the cooperatives? If 
not, why not 
7) LDDCP, with their partner Vetwork, promised to provide members with animal health services, 
drugs and advice on farm management practices. How satisfied are you with the services 
provided? 
8) What other specific problems related to cattle production and marketing and dairy production and 
marketing would you like to see additional help with? 
9) How did you handle milk sales before and do you believe the milk collection centers and 
processing facilities have improved your livelihoods? 
10) Do you believe that at the end of program activities members (without outside resources) will be 
able to keep the cooperatives running? 
11) What other suggestions do you have that would improve the operation and success of the program 
and your cooperatives? 
1c. Government of Southern Sudan: 
1) Has the LDDCP met your expectations as far as improving the livelihoods of the livestock 
producers in the program area? If yes, could you give us some concrete examples? 
2) What activities have not met your expectations? 
3) From your perspective what are the most serious problems that people in the LDDCP area face as 
livestock and dairy producers? 
4) A major focus of the project is to introduce modern private sector driven cooperatives to market 
animal products. Do you believe this is an appropriate model? Could you suggest other ways that 
might work as effectively? 
5) What suggestions could you offer that would improve the effectiveness of the program in the 
future. 
6) The LDDCP intends to provide animal health and related services to producers through a 
partnership with Vetwork. Are you satisfied with results of that effort to date? If not, what 
suggestions would you make to improve the performance of the animal health element of the 
program? 
7) Do you believe capacity building has been dealt with effectively? What suggestions would you 
have to improve the program in this area? 
8) The LDDCP identified a number of policy issues that needed to be addressed, e.g., importation of 
animals, animal health and breeding and taxation during the life of the program. Do you agree 
and what progress, if any, has been made in this area? 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
20
9) Given that resources are always limited, are there other areas that you would suggest be addressed 
within the livestock sector—or perhaps in an entirely different area? 
10) One of the objectives of LDDCP was to assist in the peaceful integration displaced persons as 
they returned to the area. Do you believe the program has made a contribution in this area? Could 
you provide us with some concrete examples? 
11) Are you satisfied with the overall management of the LDDCP and the personnel who are 
involved with the program? 
1d. Policy Environment/Urban Structures
1) Have you been involved in any work regarding GOSS policies towards cooperative development 
or livestock marketing? 
2) What has been the result of that work? Have you seen changes in the policies themselves? 
1e. Cross-cutting Issues 
1) What structures have been rehabilitated or built by LOL? 
2) How is LOL working with women to increase their productivity and earning power? 
3) Are there activities specifically focused on youth or is their involvement encouraged in any way? 
4) How is LOL addressing the HIV problem? 
2. Vetwork: 
2a. Land O’Lakes Staff: 
1) How would you describe collaboration with Vetwork and exactly how things are to work? 
2) Can you describe what has happened that has benefitted the livestock and dairy producers giving 
specific examples? 
3) From your perspective has sufficient progress been made by Vetwork in areas such as disease 
prevention, animal health, nutrition and breeding and proper milking practices as identified in the 
Cooperative agreement? 
4) What would you do differently, if anything, to make the program more effective and beneficial to 
livestock and dairy producers? 
5) Tsetse flies and tick control were mentioned as two very serious animal health issues. How have 
those efforts progressed and what is the current status? 
6) A major effort for Vetwork and LOL was to be the implementation of a pilot study on East Coast 
Fever. What is the status of that program and its prognosis? 
7) It seems that much of potential success hinges on a strong cadre of community based animal 
health workers. How are they supported? 
8) What’s the chance that this private sector approach can be sustainable? 
9) While LDDCP provides support for an infusion of animal drugs and other supplies, how well is 
the revolving fund working and what is the chance it will be sustainable? 
10) What was the issue that delayed the start up of the animal health program? Was it resolved 
satisfactorily to all parties? 
2b. Vetwork Staff: 
1) Animal health interventions seem critical to the success of the LDDCP. How well has your 
collaborative effort with LOL worked? 
2) What has worked well and what has not? Please provide specific accomplishments. How would 
you organize things differently for future success? 
3) What has been your major constraint to successful implementation of this portion of the program? 
4) Has your involvement with community animal health staff been successful and productive? 
5) Is the overall animal health effort as organized under LDDCP a good model? 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
21
6) Based on a private sector approach can the program be sustainable? 
7) How well has the revolving fund for animal drugs and other supplies worked and can it be 
sustained without external support? 
8) What is your relationship with the GOSS and is there room for increased collaboration? 
9) Vetwork, in collaboration with Land O’ Lakes, intended to carry out a pilot study on East Coast 
Fever. What is the status of that study and will the result be beneficial to the people living in 
southern Sudan? 
10) From the materials provided to us it appears that there was some delay in reaching an agreement 
with LOL. What was involved and what impact did it have on the success of your work and the 
success of the project? 
2.c Government of Southern Sudan:
1) How aware are you of the work that Vetwork and LOL are doing? 
2) How satisfied are you with the work of Vetwork in providing animal health services? 
3) Is there a satisfactory relationship with government staff? 
4) Is the private sector approach to animal health services something you support and can it be 
sustainable? 
5) Is any of this work duplicative with Ministry work in animal health? 
6) Do you have suggestions for us to help improve provision of animal health services? 
2.d Livestock and Dairy Producers. 
1) LOL in collaboration with Vetwork has organized to provide animal health services, including 
key drugs, to cattle and dairy producers. How aware are you of the program and what is being 
offered to you. 
2) If you are aware of these services, have you taken advantage of them? If not, why not? 
3) Are the services and supplies that Vetwork is providing appropriate for your needs? Would you 
have other suggestions? 
4) Under the present system you are required to pay for drugs so that additional drugs can be 
purchased. Do you believe this is a good approach? 
5) Do you have access to other organizations that supply such drugs, supplies and other services? 
6) Are you aware of the community animal healthcare workers that are part of the LOL and Vetwork 
system? Have they been to see you and do you believe they are helpful? 
7) What are the most serious animal health problems you face? 
8) Would you have suggestions to make the provision of animal health services and animal drugs 
and supplies better or more available to you? Please be specific. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
22
ANNEX 2: INTERVIEWEES 
Land O’ Lakes Staff
Joyce Kweyu Accountant 
John Kutwa Milk Collection/Processing Specialist/Field Coordinator 
Lewis Karinenyeh Monitoring and Evaluation Manager 
Alan King Country Manager/Project Director 
Mark Lokiru Cooperatives Development Specialist 
Raphael Lotira Marketing Specialist 
Seraphine Longarikit Cooperative Manager 
Josephine Nalimlim Cooperative Development Assistant 
Ndirmiro Kakongo Milk Processing Technologist 
Angemela Hudda Dairy Assistant 
Wycliffe Lotieng Cooperative Manager 
Management Committee of the Riwoto Livestock Cooperative Society 
Evaristo Cheche Chairman 
Peter Lobuin Secretary 
Maria Loriang Lokatiri Treasurer 
Lino Lokirion Member 
Elisabeth Lomor Membe 
Diogo Lokale Member 
Henry Lomong Member 
Lokatiri Belekit Member 
Elisabeth Nakai Member 
Francis Iko Member 
Board of Members of the Mogos Farmers Cooperative Society
Aurelio Lokeno Chairman 
Rosa Kuron Vice Chairperson 
Peter Gordon Secretary 
Marko Lokii Assistant Secretary 
Eugenio Nawi Treasurer 
Andrea Napurei Information Officer 
Joseph Lokor Member 
Stephano Lokuam Member 
Palachido Loyepio Member 
Magdalena Longolio Member 
Nile Milk Cooperative (NICODO) Staff
Stanley Ladu Coordinator 
Victoria Lokisang Dairy Manager 
Rose Peter Processor 
Mary Vitaliano Processor 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
23
Government Officials
Anjelo Omen Acting Director of Cooperatives, EES 
Quinto Asaye Inspector for Animal Health, EES 
Dr. John Kanisio Director General, Planning, Investment & Marketing MARF, GOSS 
Dr. Agol Kwei Director of Veterinary Services, MARF, GOSS 
Prof. Louis Jaja Veterinarian, MARF 
Bortel Mori Under-Secretary of MCRD, GOSS 
Abdun Ayuen Director-General of MCRD, GOSS 
USAID Staff
Gary Alex Farmer-to-Farmer Program Manager Bureau for Economic Growth, 
Agriculture and Trade, USAID/Washington 
Lance Downing Temporary Sudan Economic Growth Team Leader for Sudan, 
USAID/Washington 
Jim Yazman Livestock Sciences Specialist, USAID/Washington 
Yugulle Labadiah Agriculture and Natural Resources Specialist, Economic Infrastructure 
Division, USAID/Nairobi 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
24
ANNEX 3: DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 
The following publications and papers served as the major documents reviewed by the evaluation team in 
preparation for conducting the evaluation of the Land O’Lakes Livestock Development and Dairy 
Cooperatives Program. 
• Cooperative Agreement No. 623-A-00-05-00306-00, Creating Model Private Sector Cattle 
Marketing and Dairy Cooperatives and Livestock Policy Dialogue for South Sudan, June, 2005. 
• Livestock Development and Dairy Cooperatives Program (LDDCP), Cooperative Agreement 
623-A-00-05-00306-00, Revised Program Description and Budget, June, 2006. 
• USAID/Sudan 2006-08 Strategy Statement 
• U.S. Agency for International Development Fragile States Strategy, January, 2005. 
• Portfolio Review “Yellow” Rating, letter dated December 27,2007 
• Land O’Lakes Annual Work Plans for LDDCP. 
• Quarterly Reports for Land O’ Lakes for LDDCP, Dated July/September, 2005 through 
January/March, 2008. 
• Sudan-Evaluation/Special Study Quality Management, April 2008. Prepared by Management 
Systems International. 
• Organizational Self Assessment Report of Nile Community Development Organization 
(NICODO). 
• Assessment of USAID/Sudan’s Economic Growth Portfolio, September, 2007. 
• Management Systems International (MSI) Evaluation Scope of Work for Land O’Lakes 
Livestock Development and Dairy Cooperatives Program, May, 2008. 
SUDAN: LAND O’LAKES LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND 
DAIRY COOPERATIVES PROGRAMME (LDDCP) 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT 
25
ANNEX 4: FIELD WORK SCHEDULE 
May 18 – May 30, 2008 
Sunday, May 18 
Arrival in Juba, meeting with MSI staff 
Monday, May 19 
Interviews with Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries 
Fly to Kapoeta 
Tuesday, May 20 
Courtesy calls on local officials. 
Drive to Riwoto, interview cooperative members and management, view cooperative buildings 
and equipment. 
Return to Kapoeta 
Wednesday, May 21 
Courtesy calls on local officials 
Drive to Mogos 
View cattle holding grounds 
Thursday, May 22 
Interview cooperative members and management 
Drive to Kapoeta 
Friday, May 23 
View LOL powerpoint presentation 
Fly to Juba 
Saturday, May 24 
Visit NICODO Dairy Cooperative, interview staff, see production facility 
Sunday, May 25 
Off 
Monday, May 26 
Interviews at Ministry of Cooperatives and Rural Development 
Tuesday, May 27 to Thursday, May 29 
Report writing 
Friday, May 30 
Return to Washington