Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Monitoring Outcomes at Household Level: Preliminary
findings of the 1st round of household survey
James Rao
Maziwa Zaidi r...
Monitoring Learning & Evaluation
(MLE) Framework
 ‘Usual’ monitoring:
monitoring activities &
outputs
 Mainly to account...
Household Monitoring
Indicators to monitor include:
 Uptake of dairy technologies: feed, AH, management, breeding
 Use o...
What we have done so far
 1st round of household
survey completed late 2014
 2nd monitoring completed
in March 2015
 Nu...
Use of technology
 Lushoto leads in the use of
modern livestock technologies
 AI breeding
 Use of concentrates
 Likely...
Milk market orientation
 Higher commercial
orientation among farmers
in Lushoto and Mvomero
 Milk largely sold to privat...
Milk prices, quantity sold and
revenues
 Revenues driven by a mix of
quantity sold and milk prices
 Revenue nearly as hi...
Household control of milk revenues
Morning milk
 Morning milk largely jointly
managed in Lushoto & Mvomero
 Women contro...
Livelihood Options
 Diversity in income options for
households
 Especially among Handeni and Kilosa
males
 Income sourc...
Collective action and hub potential
District N
% households with
at least a member
in a group
% households
with a man
as m...
Collective action and hub potential
 Animal health is the most
used service
 Followed by:
 Milk marketing: nearly all s...
Conclusion
$$
Payment
agreement
Producer
s
Inputs &
service
providers
Milk
traders/c
hilling
plants
Informal relationship:...
Observations from the field
 Opportunities for establishing linkages
 Existing relationship between BDSs & milk traders ...
The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given ...
Conclusion
 In most sites we have the building blocks of a hub
 Relevant farmer groups (livestock producer groups)
 Sub...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Monitoring outcomes at household level: Preliminary findings of the first round of household survey

461 views

Published on

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

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Monitoring outcomes at household level: Preliminary findings of the first round of household survey

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 12. Conclusion $$ Payment agreement Producer s Inputs & service providers Milk traders/c hilling plants Informal relationship: TDB training ISP to train milk traders
  13. 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. 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. 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

×