Monitoring outcomes at household level: Preliminary findings of the first round of household survey
Transcript of Monitoring outcomes at household level: Preliminary findings of the first round of household survey
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
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 activities
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
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
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
Milk
ou
tpu
t (L
itre
s)
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
production per
household
Lushoto 76 3.8 4.9Mvomero 85 1.9 11.1Handeni 76 1.2 6.3Kilosa 101 1.0 12.5All 338 1.9 9.1
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
%
of
hou
sehold
s u
sin
g
imp
roved
fora
ge
Napier Planted grass* Fodder shrub Other**
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa
% o
f h
ou
sehold
s u
sin
g
concebtr
ate
s
0
20
40
60
80
100
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa Total% o
f h
ou
sehold
s w
ith a
ccess
to b
reed
ing m
eth
ods
AI Own bull Other bull
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 TotalPro
port
ion o
f to
tal m
ilk p
rod
uced
Milk consumed Milk sold
02468101214
0100200300400500600700800
Milk q
uanti
ty (Lit
res)
Milk
pri
ces
(TZS
)
Milk quantity Milk prices
Milk prices, quantity sold and revenues
Revenues driven by a mix of quantity sold and milk prices
Revenue nearly as high in Kilosaas in Mvomero
But quantity sold is much higher in Kilosa
So, higher revenues in Mvomerois likely driven by higher prices
Revenues in Lushoto likely compromised by quantity sold
Prices higher than in Kilosawhere revenues are pretty high
Total production low despite high productivity
Revenues in Handenicompromised 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
Fre
sh m
ilk r
eve
nu
es
Fre
sh m
ilk q
uan
titi
es
sold
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
Fre
sh m
ilk r
eve
nu
es
Fre
sh il
k p
rice
s (T
ZS)
Revenue Milk prices
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
Pro
port
ion o
f h
ou
sehold
s
Household male Household female Joint
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa Total
Pro
port
ion o
f h
ou
sehold
s
Household male Household female Joint
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
Mvom
er
oH
and
eni
Kilosa
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)
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
DistrictSocial
welfare
Savings and credit
groups/Sacco
Agricultural
producer groups
Livestock producer groups
Agricultural
marketing groups
Livestock marketing 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
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
020406080
100120
Indiv
idually
Gro
up
Indiv
idually
Gro
up
Indiv
idually
Gro
up
Indiv
idually
Gro
up
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa
Nu
mb
er
of
hou
sehold
s a
ccessin
g
serv
ices
Feed supply Animal health Breeding
Milk marketing Savings
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa Total
Pro
port
ion o
f h
ou
sehold
accessin
g s
erv
ices
Feed supply Animal Health Breeding
Extension Advice Milk marketing Milk transport
Input supply
Conclusion
$$
Payment
agreement
Producer
s
Inputs &
service
providers
Milk
traders/c
hilling
plants
Informal relationship: TDB training ISP
to train milk traders
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
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!
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