Presented by James Rao to the Maziwa zaidi Review and Planning Meeting, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 30 March-1 April 2015

1. Monitoring Outcomes at Household Level: Preliminary
findings of the 1st round of household survey
James Rao
Maziwa Zaidi review & planning meeting
31 March – 1 April 2015 at Giraffe Ocean View Hotel, Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania

2. Monitoring Learning & Evaluation
(MLE) Framework
 ‘Usual’ monitoring:
monitoring activities &
outputs
 Mainly to account for
funds - donors
 MLE with a strong
emphasis on ‘learning’
 Collection and analysis of
evidence on key
outcomes & impact
indicators
 At various levels of the
value chain: farmers,
hubs, VC actors
 Both qualitative and
quantitative
 Provide evidence that
feeds back loops project
Project
interventio
n
Project
activities
& outputs
Farmer &
communit
y change
in
behaviour
Outcome
s at
househol
d &
group
levels
Analyses
&
reflection
s
“Usual”
Monitoring
Monitoring
Learning &
Evaluation

3. Household Monitoring
Indicators to monitor include:
 Uptake of dairy technologies: feed, AH, management, breeding
 Use of purchased inputs and services: purchase feed etc…
 Use of hub services e.g. check off services
 Cow productivity
 Price of milk, inputs and services
 Dairy income, controlled by men and women
 Consumption of milk and milk products and food diversity score
HUB
INTERVENTIO
N
IMPACTS ON:
 Dairy income
 Household
income
 Consumption
of milk/milk
products and
food security
Uptake of dairy
technologies
Cow
productivity
Hubs mediating
access to inputs,
services & milk
markets
Increased
frequency & value
of hub-based
transactions

4. What we have done so far
 1st round of household
survey completed late 2014
 2nd monitoring completed
in March 2015
 Nutrition/Women
empowerment survey
planned
 Hub/group level data to be
compiled from templates
distributed to groups
District N
Lushoto 154
Mvomero 98
Handeni 105
Kilosa 104
Total 461
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Early lactation Peak lactation Late lactation
Milkoutput(Litres)
LL=Lactation Length (months)
Lushoto (LL=8.0) Mvomero (LL=7.1) Handeni (LL=7.4)
Kilosa (LL=7.6) All (LL=7.4)
District
No. of
household
s with
lactating
cows)
Mean milk
production
per cow
Mean
milk
productio
n per
househol
d
Lushoto 76 3.8 4.9
Mvomer
o 85 1.9 11.1
Handeni 76 1.2 6.3
Kilosa 101 1.0 12.5
All 338 1.9 9.1

5. Use of technology
 Lushoto leads in the use of
modern livestock technologies
 AI breeding
 Use of concentrates
 Likely explanation for higher
milk productivity
 Kilosa trails in these aspect ….
likely explanation for low milk
production
0
20
40
60
80
100
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa Total
%ofhouseholdsusing
improvedforage
Napier Planted grass* Fodder shrub Other**
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa
%ofhouseholdsusing
concebtrates
0
20
40
60
80
100
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa Total
%ofhouseholdswithaccess
tobreedingmethods
AI Own bull Other bull

6. Milk market orientation
 Higher commercial
orientation among farmers
in Lushoto and Mvomero
 Milk largely sold to private
milk traders
 Individual customers offer
higher prices
 Co-ops with chilling plants
offer 2nd best prices
Possible innovation
Build stronger hubs around
traders and linking them to
chilling plants
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa Total
Proportionoftotalmilkproduced
Milk consumed Milk sold
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Milkquantity(Litres)
Milkprices(TZS)
Milk quantity Milk prices

7. Milk prices, quantity sold and
revenues
 Revenues driven by a mix of
quantity sold and milk prices
 Revenue nearly as high in Kilosa
as in Mvomero
 But quantity sold is much higher
in Kilosa
 So, higher revenues in Mvomero
is likely driven by higher prices
 Revenues in Lushoto likely
compromised by quantity sold
 Prices higher than in Kilosa
where revenues are pretty high
 Total production low despite
high productivity
 Revenues in Handeni
compromised both by quantity
and prices
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa
Freshmilkrevenues
Freshmilkquantitiessold
Revenue Milk quantity
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa
Freshmilkrevenues
Freshilkprices(TZS)
Revenue Milk prices

8. Household control of milk revenues
Morning milk
 Morning milk largely jointly
managed in Lushoto & Mvomero
 Women control morning milk
in Kilosa & Handeni
Evening milk
 Control evenly distributed in
Lushoto & Handeni
 Largely jointly managed in
Mvomero
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa Total
Proportionofhouseholds
Household male Household female Joint
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa Total
Proportionofhouseholds
Household male Household female Joint

9. Livelihood Options
 Diversity in income options for
households
 Especially among Handeni and Kilosa
males
 Income sources largely male
dominated
 More interesting in Mvomero
 More women already engaged in
milk trading
 Greater room for building
gender inclusive hubs around
traders
0 2 4 6 8
Male
Joint
Female
Male
Joint
Female
Lushoto
Mvomer
oHandeniKilosa
Proportion of different gender controlling income
from different sourcesTrading in livestock and livestock products (not own
produce)
Trading in milk, feeds and other livestock products (not own
produced)
Trading in agricultural products (excluding livestock) (not
own produce)
Formal salaried employment (non-farming, e.g. civil servant,
private sector employee, domestic work in other home)
Business: trade or services (non-agricultural)
Working on other farms (including herding)
Sale of products of natural resources (forest and sea/rivers
products)

10. Collective action and hub potential
District N
% households with
at least a member
in a group
% households
with a man
as member
% households with a
woman as member
Lushoto 154 48.1 75.7 44.6
Mvomero 98 58.2 68.4 45.6
Handeni 105 46.7 77.6 34.7
Kilosa 104 36.5 76.3 26.3
Total 461 47.3 74.3 39.5
District
Social
welfare
Savings and
credit
groups/Sacc
o
Agricultur
al
producer
groups
Livestock
producer
groups
Agricultur
al
marketing
groups
Livestock
marketin
g groups
Lushoto 9.5 20.3 8.1 74.3 4.1 20.3
Mvomero 5.3 22.8 - 75.4 1.8 1.8
Handeni 2.0 14.3 12.2 69.4 6.1 20.4
Kilosa - - 7.9 92.1 - 15.8
Total 5.05 16.1 6.9 76.6 3.2 14.7

11. Collective action and hub potential
 Animal health is the most
used service
 Followed by:
 Milk marketing: nearly all sites
 And input supply: Lushoto &
Handeni
 Breeding and feed supply also
in Lushoto
 Little access of services via
collective action except;
 Milk marketing in Lushoto
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Individually
Group
Individually
Group
Individually
Group
Individually
Group
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa
Numberofhouseholdsaccessing
services
Feed supply Animal health Breeding
Milk marketing Savings
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa Total
Proportionofhousehold
accessingservices
Feed supply Animal Health Breeding
Extension Advice Milk marketing Milk transport
Input supply

12. Conclusion
$$
Payment
agreement
Producer
s
Inputs &
service
providers
Milk
traders/c
hilling
plants
Informal relationship: TDB training ISP
to train milk traders

13. Observations from the field
 Opportunities for establishing linkages
 Existing relationship between BDSs & milk traders courtesy of TDB
training
 Villages around Wami Dakawa & Dumila served by milk traders from
project areas
Informal relationship exist between milk traders, service providers &
farmers that can easily be exploited
 Need for closer monitoring of group activities to ensure:
 Timely management of group dynamics
 Timely sharing of information among project partners
 Need for feedback session with farmers (via FGDs) to share
results of the 2 surveys and cow killer research
 Explain the value of the surveys/introduce upcoming nutrition survey
 Include milk traders & BDS in FGD to introduce the hub concept
 Set timelines (per group) for linkage establishment
 Provide translated site-specific plans to groups and explain progress

14. The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.
better lives through livestock
ilri.org
Thank you!

15. Conclusion
 In most sites we have the building blocks of a hub
 Relevant farmer groups (livestock producer groups)
 Substantial commercial orientation in milk production
 Milk traders or chilling plants (around which a hub can be
established)
 Various service providers – AH; agro-vets; etc.
 Some service providers (agro-vets etc.) already engaging with
TDB
 What we need
 Work with farmers to identify preferred service providers
 Improve farmers’ understanding of the benefits of “linkages”
and “check-off”
 Engage and improve capacity of identified service providers
 Establish linkages and formalize agreements between farmer
groups and service providers
 Continue to monitor outcomes and feed back into the project