ZSSS_End of Project Evaluation Report

End of Project Evaluation
Zimbabwe Seed Systems Strengthening to Adapt to El
Nino Crisis Project (ZSSSP)
August 2016

i
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................... iii
List of Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... v
1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................1
1.1. Context and Background of the Project..................................................................................1
1.2. Project Outcomes ...................................................................................................................1
1.3. Project Coverage.....................................................................................................................1
1.4. Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation..............................................................................2
1.5. Evaluation Objectives..............................................................................................................2
2. Approach and Methodology for the Evaluation .....................................................................4
2.1. Approach.................................................................................................................................4
2.2. Study Sites and Survey Respondents......................................................................................4
3. Presentation of Findings .......................................................................................................6
3.1. Contextual Background...........................................................................................................6
3.2. Assessing Relevance of the Project.........................................................................................7
3.2.1. Overview .........................................................................................................................7
3.2.2. Relevance to the District Context and Participants Needs.............................................7
3.2.3. Relevance to the National Food Security Policy and ZimAsset.......................................8
3.2.4. Relevance to CRS and Caritas Harare Strategic Priorities and Approaches....................9
3.3. Assessing the Effectiveness.....................................................................................................9
3.3.1. Achievement of Project Targets......................................................................................9
3.3.2. Effectiveness of seed fair process.................................................................................13
3.4. Findings on Efficiency............................................................................................................14
3.4.1. Appropriateness of resources invested ........................................................................14
3.4.2. Adherence to agreed budgets and limits......................................................................14
3.4.3. Adherence to timescales...............................................................................................14
3.4.4. Cost Effectiveness .........................................................................................................14
3.5. Effectiveness of Project Management and MEAL Structure.................................................15
3.6. Difference made by the ZSSS Project....................................................................................16
3.7. Assessing Project Sustainability ............................................................................................18
4. Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................... 20
4.1. Overview...............................................................................................................................20
4.2. Project’s Strengths................................................................................................................20
4.3. Key Challenges ......................................................................................................................20
4.4. Summary of Lessons learnt...................................................................................................21
4.5. Recommendations................................................................................................................22
4.5.1. Recommendations to CRS and Caritas Harare..............................................................22
4.5.2. Recommendations to other Stakeholders....................................................................22

ii
5. Annexes ............................................................................................................................. 23
5.1. Documents Reviewed ...........................................................................................................23
5.2. List of Key Informants ...........................................................................................................24
5.3. Data Collection Tools ............................................................................................................25
5.4. Terms of Reference...............................................................................................................35
Table of Figures
Figure 1: ZSSS Project Implementation Wards .......................................................................................2
Figure 2: Sampled Evaluation Data Collection Wards.............................................................................4
Figure 3: Sex of Survey Respondents......................................................................................................5
Figure 4: Survey Respondents.................................................................................................................5
Figure 5: Survey respondent’s access to irrigation.................................................................................7
Figure 6: Sources of seed planted in the 2015/16 season......................................................................8
Figure 7: Comparison of crop acreage between 2014/15 and 2015/16 season...................................10
Figure 8: Respondents reporting increase in sorghum and cowpeas acreage.....................................11
Figure 9: Survey respondents who planted the seed ...........................................................................11
Figure 10: Respondents who received training and relevance of training...........................................12
Figure 11: Farmers reporting an increase in crop yields.......................................................................16
Figure 12: Respondents view of the extent of the project sustainability.............................................18
Figure 13: Interventions farmers keen to continue practicing .............................................................19
List of Tables
Table 1: Key Agricultural Production Constraints...................................................................................6
Table 2: Challenges associated with production and consumption of small grains in Mudzi................6
Table 3: Farmers who redeem vouchers ................................................................................................9
Table 4: Beneficiaries reporting an increase in cultivated land............................................................10
Table 5: Farmers trained on optimum input use..................................................................................12
Table 6: Farmers Trained in Quality Seed Production ..........................................................................12
Table 7: Budget cost effectiveness .......................................................................................................15
Table 8: Comparison of sorghum yield for this season against last season per ward..........................17
Table 9: Comparison of cowpeas yields................................................................................................17

iii
Acknowledgements
The team would like to thank all the people who contributed to the successful execution of this
evaluation. We are especially grateful to the study participants, i.e. men, women and youths, from
Mudzi for taking part in this evaluation.
We sincerely extend our gratitude to the many individuals who provided detailed accounts of the
project in the district. These individuals include representatives of various district stakeholders,
including local government officials and community leaders whose insightful opinions and
invaluable recommendations significantly facilitated the evaluation process.
We also thank various CRS and Caritas Harare staff who assisted and contributed to the
evaluation process in various ways. Thank you for providing a detailed account of the work of
Caritas Harare, with support from CRS, as well as, facilitating all the logistical support that the
team needed during the data collection phase of this assignment.
Lastly, the amazing work of our research team is appreciated. We particularly thank them for
collecting the data and writing their findings. Your commitment is recognized and reflected
through the entirety of this report.
Evaluation Team
Stanford Senzere
Lead Consultant
+263772876145
+263718786692
stansenzere@yahoo.com
Skype: stanford_senzere
Claudios Hakuna
Co-Consultant
+263774199248
+263717715323
claudgmh@gmail.com
Skype: claudios.hakuna

iv
List of Acronyms
AGRITEX Department of Agriculture Research and Extension
CRS Catholic Relief Services
DA District Administrator
DDRC District Drought Relief Committee
FGD Focus Group Discussion
KII Key Informant Interview
MWAGCD Ministry of Women Affairs Gender and Community Development
ODK Open Data Kit
OPV Open Pollinated Variety
ZIMASSET Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation
ZIMVAC Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee
ZSSS Zimbabwe Seed Systems Strengthening Project

v
Executive Summary
Background
The Zimbabwe Seed Systems Strengthening (ZSSS) project was implemented in response to the
El Nino induced drought conditions with the goal of improving the food security and livelihoods
of drought affected households in Mudzi District of Mashonaland East Province. This six months’
project was funded through CRS private funds to the tune of US$349,781 and directed much
needed drought tolerant seeds (sorghum and cowpeas) towards supporting smallholder farmers
in the district during the 2015-2016 Zimbabwe cropping season. In addition to providing drought
tolerant seeds the project also capacitated AGRITEX through provision of motor cycles and
repairs to the existing AGRITEX motor cycle fleet as a way of improving mobility for project
activity monitoring. In addition the department received XXX rain gauges in order to be able to
monitor ward level rainfall distribution. The project was implemented from December 2015 to
May 2016. The district lies in agro-ecological regions 4 and 5 characterised by low rainfall and
frequent droughts. To complement efforts by the government and other development agencies in
the district providing food assistance, ZSSS project through a voucher based seed fair system
aimed to provide a range of drought tolerant seed varieties, mainly sorghum (Marcia) and
cowpeas (IT18).
Cowpea is an important grain legume especially suitable for resource limited communities and
marginal areas. It is a multifunctional crop that provides food to human being and feed to
livestock, it fixes nitrogen, is a protein rich, drought tolerant and early maturing crop. Sorghum
(Marcia) was also selected as part of the seed basket because it’s rich carbohydrates content and
because it is a medium maturity variety with good disease tolerance.
In addition, the target farmers received agronomy training to ensure effective utilization of seed.
The trainings were designed in such a manner that Caritas Harare would train the extension staff,
who would cascade the training to the farmers. Essentially AGRITEX was at the forefront of
farmers trainings in their respective wards. The project also identified and supported lead
farmers to establish small grains demonstration plots.
The ZSSS project was implemented in 14 of the 18 wards in Mudzi. The selection of the wards was
done by the Mudzi District Social Services Committee in collaboration with CRS and Caritas
Harare team, who considered wards depending primarily on rain fed agriculture, wards identified
in the ZIMVAC as food insecure and the absence of other NGOs intervening in the wards. The
project was implemented in close collaboration with the local government through the District
Administrator’s (DA) and the District Drought Relief Committee (DDRC) which brings together
various local and central government ministries and departments represented in the district to
coordinate drought relief interventions in the district. Another key element of the project was
the involvement of the private sector (seed houses) who did not only supply sees but were
involved at the project inception. Three private companies namely; ARDA Seeds, Prime Seed and
Shalom Agrochemicals took part in the project.
Study Methodology
This evaluation was conducted as a comprehensive process that included assessing relevant
project documents and fieldwork activities in four of the 14 wards were the project was
implemented as well as one ward were the project was not implemented as a control ward. The
evaluation team utilised both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to draw out
perspectives of stakeholders, project participants, Caritas Harare as well as CRS staff. Individual
structured questionnaires were administered to 364 project participants of which 67% were
female and the rest i.e. 33% were male. A mobile data collection platform (Open Data Kit) was
used in the data collection using Android tablets. In addition, 5 focus group discussions were
conducted with 60 participants from the 5 data collection wards. Furthermore, twenty one key
informants were interviewed, who included CRS, Caritas and District stakeholders namely

vi
Department of Agriculture Research and Extension (AGRITEX), Ministry of Women’s Affair
Gender and Community Development (MWAGCD), Ministry of Youth, local leaders, lead farmers
and seed houses (Annex 5.2).
Summary of Main Findings
Relevance
Evaluation findings make it judicious to conclude that the project was entirely appropriate to the
target participants and communities and in line with both CRS and Caritas Harare strategic
priorities. The evaluation team considered the district context, project participants, national food
security policy, ZimAsset as well as CRS and Caritas Harare strategy in assessing the relevance of
the project, and found the intervention quite relevant in all these aspects. Mudzi District lies in
region 4 and 5 characterised by low effective rainfall, and in most cases long mid-season dry
spells. In addition, the project participants have limited access to irrigation, as evidenced by the
fact that 94% of the evaluation survey respondents had no access to irrigation. Resultantly
majority of the project participants depends on rain-fed agriculture. In view of this bringing in
small grains was thus a very relevant intervention in view of their drought tolerance and
increasingly unpredictable rainfall seasons. Stakeholders concurred that maize was not suitable
for Mudzi and sorghum was more suitable for the district
The project strategy of training farmers through district and ward base extension staff on quality
seed production as well as post-harvest handling and storage was very appropriate, as it meant
seed would be available within communities at relatively low cost. Caritas Harare staff trained
extension staff, who in turn cascaded the training to the farmers at community level. In addition,
farmers would access the seed through other means such as barter and labour exchange. Most
appropriately, the project was aimed at wards that had been identified in the ZIMVAC report as
food insecure and people who were identified as in need and having the capacity in terms of
labour to effectively utilise the seed provided. The project fitted perfectly well within national
food security policy as well as both CRS and Caritas Harare strategic priorities.
Effectiveness
Overall, the achievement was positive. A total of 6,004 farmers against a target 6,082 managed to
redeem the inputs vouchers provided by the ZSSS project. This translate to a 99% target
achievement. While is a noteworthy achievement key lessons can be drawn from the 1% that did
not redeem their voucher. The 78 (1%) beneficiaries failed to attend distributions because of
distance to distribution centres, and the fact that the seed suppliers were in their areas for only
one day.
The project targeted an increase in cultivated land compared to the previous season. Caritas
Harare reported that 4,622 farmers had reported an increase in cultivated land against a target of
6,082 farmers, which translates to a 76% achievement of the target. It was noted during the
evaluation that seed was distributed after land preparation for the farming season had already
been done, resulting in most farmers just planting small portions hence the non-attainment of the
target.
The evaluators are of the view that the seed fair process was generally able to achieve its objective
of making seed available and improving food security to the farmers within their communities,
while providing purchasing power of same. There is however significant room for improvement
in the whole process according to farmers, district stakeholders and seed suppliers. These include
timing of the seed fairs, increasing the number of the suppliers, involving local agro-dealers and
providing more time to allow redeeming of vouchers.
Efficiency
The evaluators assessed the extent to which the resources invested in this project were
appropriate, i.e. human, capital and material resources. An analysis of the finances indicated that
the project was able to spend the money in line with the planned budgets. The project

vii
implementation, despite the late start, was implemented generally in line with the plan. Some
project activities however had to be rushed in order to catch up with the time. This however had
negative implications on the effectiveness of training and seed fairs. Based on the information
availed to the evaluation team when this evaluation was conducted, the total cost per household
was on average $11.65. Given that the average number of members per household from the
project participants was 5 people, it is estimated that the project reached 30,020 persons at a cost
of $2.33 per beneficiary. It is therefore of the evaluators’ view that the project demonstrated good
value for money, given the level of investments made against the overall budget and the benefits
of the project.
Effectiveness of Project Management Structure and MEAL Structure
A project monitoring framework was produced and basic M&E tools were designed and utilised
for the purposes of project progress reporting. The project was innovative in the use of ICT in
monitoring. This involved the use of Datawinners; an integrated, mobile data collection and
communication service to collect data. There was however a delay in setting up the system which
resulted in the initial monitoring being done using the traditional paper system. Caritas Harare
compiled and submitted reports, both financial and narrative, to CRS. Feedback from CRS about
Caritas Harare reports was positive, highlighting that they submitted on time and were generally
of good quality. Judging by the feedback from the Partner and district stakeholder the evaluators
conclude that the project management and monitoring structure was effective and facilitated
successful implementation of the project despite the challenges of time.
Difference Made by the Project
CRS and Caritas Harare are to be applauded for their achievement to implement this project in
collaboration with district stakeholders. There is evidence of growing interest in small grains in
the district and the project should be applauded for stimulating that interest within the farmers.
The extension staff also noted that in many instances the maize crop was a complete write off and
it was only those that had planted sorghum that managed some reasonable harvest. Ultimately,
the project has successfully delivered on a majority of its targets, resulting in some positive food
and seed security outcomes for the farmers
Given the project was only implemented over a six-month period. It is however noteworthy that
the project stimulated interest and demonstrated the potential of small grains addressing food
security challenges in drought prone areas
Project Sustainability
Overall, the evaluators conclude that the approaches used in this project represent a model good
enough to compliment efforts towards improving the food security situation in the district and
ensuring seed availability. The ZSSS worked closely with district stakeholders and with existing
district and community institutions, thereby increasing the possibility of ongoing support after
project funding has ceased.
Another key sustainability aspect of the project was the use of open pollinated drought tolerant
seed varieties and encouraging farmers to retain seed for future use. The project supported some
farmers with hermetic storage bags for storing retained seed. This was meant to ensure that
communities do not entirely depend on seed houses for seed, but seed becomes available in the
communities. Farmers interviewed indicated a keen interest in continuing with all the
interventions promoted by this ZSSS project. The evaluators’ however note that the sustainability
of seed and grain production hinges upon assured markets, without which, farmers have little
incentive to produce.
While the likelihood for sustaining the benefits of this project were relatively high, the evaluators
also observed the following challenges:
 non-involvement of the local agro-dealers / entrepreneurs in the seed fairs and supply of
seed to the communities;

viii
 negative effects of climate changes are likely to continue affecting rain-fed agriculture and
effort to ensure food security among the project participants; and
 length of the project may not give enough time to impact on attitude towards production
and consumption of small grains especially sorghum.
Key Strengths of the ZSSS Project
The key strengths of the ZSSS project the evaluators noted were:
 a shared commitment and enjoyed a mutual partnership between CRS and Caritas Harare
underpinned by similar strategic priorities and approaches;
 strong support from local leadership;
 Caritas Harare allowed extension staff to take the lead role in farmer-training in order not
to undermine their capacity and respect within the communities; and
 the project focus on improving availability of drought tolerant crops by bringing seed
suppliers within the reach of communities and also providing the means to procure the
much needed drought tolerant seed varieties was relevant and considered the socio-
economic situation of the targeted project participants.
Challenges
The evaluators note that main drawback of the project was the timing. The fact that the project
was started late after the start of the rainy season has a number of negative implications of the
project which included:
 an inefficient and rushed seed fair process;
 failure by some farmers to plant most of the seed provided;
 farmers missing out on the first rains; and
 rushed trainings and in some cases trainings on agronomic practices taking place well
after the farmers had planted.
Other challenges noted included:
 sorghum seed not true to type (some of the sorghum was not as short season as
expected); and
 poor rainfall distribution throughout the season.
Lessons Learnt
The key lessons drawn from this project included the following:
 Timely Support: It is crucial that interventions of this nature start in time in order to give
enough time to, land preparation, seed distribution and training prior to the start of the
rainy season.
 Stakeholder Involvement - Stakeholders such as AGRITEX staff are a crucial force in
delivery of community-based agricultural interventions as they ensure project acceptance
and ownership by the community. The project strategy of actively engaging them at all
stages of the project cycle is laudable and should be continued in future interventions as
part of the sustainability strategy.
 Involvement of the private sector (seed-houses) in seed fairs provides an opportunity
for diversifying the seed varieties and farmers’ choices. There is however need to involve
local agro-dealers in order to ensure continued availability in future and also strengthen
the local economy and market linkages;
 Consistent communication and facilitation of ongoing monitoring, review and
reflection can help in effective project implementation. Throughout the life of this project,
CRS and Caritas Harare convened review meetings and facilitated learning opportunities.
This has been key to the success of this project.
 More time is required to build sustained capacity and interest: It is evident from the
project that one season is not enough to effectively implement seed system strengthening,

ix
as such there is need to implement such projects over 2 to 3 seasons in order to sustain
interest and capacity.
Recommendations
On the basis of the key findings, the following overarching recommendations are presented.
Recommendations to CRS and Caritas Harare
i. There is a general consensus among project participants and district stakeholders that the
project made notable contribution to encouraging farmers to produce and consume small
grains in Mudzi. Stakeholders thus recommend that a follow on project still focusing on
encouraging farmers to produce drought tolerant crops and seed fairs that provide
farmers access to quality drought tolerant seeds with improvements in the timing of
implementation.
ii. Timing is critical in agricultural intervention, as such it is recommended that projects of
this nature start well in time of the start of the agricultural season. This will allow time for
such activities such as targeting, distribution and training to be conducted prior to the
rains for farmers to avoid training at the peak, and also give the farmers a chance to put
into practice what they would have been trained; This should also be considered in the
context that farmers are not passive recipients but are active early planners hence there
is need for engagement with farmers during their planning stages for the upcoming
season.
iii. Seed fairs provide an opportunity for farmers to access seed, they would have otherwise
have failed to access. The use of seed fairs is thus commended. It is recommended to
conduct the seed fairs in time to allow more time for all the due processes and ensure
farmers have ample time to redeem their vouchers;
iv. Seed fairs also have the potential to stimulate local economy, by stimulating local trade. It
is therefore recommended that CRS and Caritas Harare together with the seed suppliers
explore the possibility of involving local agro-dealers in the seed fairs.
v. CRS is also encouraged to explore the possibility of working with the Seed Services
Department at national level for technical information and advice on seed production,
varieties and quality.
Recommendations to other Stakeholders
i. The district is recommended to continue supporting interventions supporting farmers to
adopt drought tolerant crops to mitigate the effects of drought;
ii. Poor and erratic rainfall remains a challenge to food production. Stakeholders,
particularly AGRITEX are recommended to continue encouraging the adoption of small
grains and also adopt water harvesting and moisture conservation techniques as standard
agricultural practices, while providing more extension services on small grain production;
iii. Stakeholders are urged to promote mechanization of the processing of small grains which
not only save farmers time during harvesting, but reduce the amount of foreign particles
found in the grain;
iv. The evaluators also recommend the government, research institutions and the academia
unpack and publicise the cowpea value chain in order for farmers and other stakeholders
to identify opportunities beyond household consumption. This may go a long way in
stimulating interest in the production and marketing of cowpeas.

Zimbabwe Seed Security Strengthening Project - End of Project Evaluation Draft Report Page | 1
1. Introduction
1.1. Context and Background of the Project
The Zimbabwe Seed Systems Strengthening (ZSSS) project was implemented in response to
the El Nino induced drought conditions with the goal of improving the food security and
livelihoods of drought affected households in Mudzi District of Mashonaland East Province. The
district lies in agro-ecological regions 4 and 5 characterised by low rainfall and frequent
droughts. The district was selected for the project because it is one of the most food insecure
districts in Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee (ZIMVAC) 2013
report estimated that only 29% of the population grew small grains which are more adapted
to dry arid regions compared to 84% that grew maize. The recurrent droughts and the
insistence by farmers on planting maize are the major contributory factors of food insecurity
in the district especially amongst subsistence farmers. According to the 2015 ZIMVAC
assessment report, 18.8% of the district population was projected to be food insecure. To
complement efforts by the government and other development agencies in the district
providing food assistance, ZSSS project through a voucher based seed fair system aimed to
provide a range of drought tolerant seed varieties (sorghum, cowpeas, groundnuts, round-nuts
and sugar beans) to vulnerable but viable farmers. In addition, the target farmers received
agronomy training to ensure effective utilization of seed. The project also identified and
supported lead farmers to establish small grains demonstration plots.
1.2. Project Outcomes
The goal of the project was to contribute to improved food security and livelihoods of drought-
affected households in Mudzi district and the outcome was drought-affected farming
households have improved production. The project had two intermediate results, namely:
i. Drought-affected farming households make more efficient use of improved quality
drought tolerant seed inputs; and
ii. Drought-affected farming households are able to produce quality seed and good
harvest.
1.3. Project Coverage
The ZSSS project was implemented in close collaboration with the local government through
the District Administrator’s (DA) and the District Drought Relief Committee (DDRC) which
brings together various local and central government ministries and departments represented
in the district to coordinate drought relief interventions in the district. The project was
implemented in 14 wards selected by the Mudzi District Social Services Committee in
collaboration with CRS and Caritas Harare team. The selection considered wards depending
primarily on rain fed agriculture, wards identified in the ZIMVAC as food insecure and the
absence of other NGOs intervening in the wards.
Figure 1 below show the map of the wards were the project was implemented.

Figure 1: ZSSS Project Implementation Wards
1.4. Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation
CRS through the end of project evaluation sought to collect evidence on:
i. the extent to which the project interventions were relevant to the needs of target
beneficiaries;
ii. the number of farmers that planted the drought tolerant seed varieties distributed
through the ZSSS project;
iii. barriers (if any) that restrict farmers from planting and/or consuming small grains
particularly drought tolerant varieties; and
iv. the impact the seed varieties have had on the food security situation of target
households compared to previous years without CRS assistance.
The evaluation also sought to highlight the extent to which the project was effectively and
efficiently implemented as well as document lessons that will improve livelihoods and the
implementation of seed systems projects in the future.
1.5. Evaluation Objectives
The end of project evaluation was aimed at ascertaining the extent to which the set targets
were delivered and factors that influenced the identified level of achievement. The evaluation
was also designed to draw lessons on the implementation of seed systems projects particularly
drought tolerant small grain seed varieties. The key objectives of the evaluation were thus to:
i. Assess the extent to which the project achieved the set targets and ascertain the
contributory factors to the level of achievement;

ii. Identify the barriers to the production and consumption of drought tolerant small grain
seed (sorghum and cow peas) varieties in Mudzi;
iii. Assess the impact of the project on households food self- sufficiency and seed systems
iv. Identify which of the promoted agricultural techniques are likely to be
adopted/practiced by the extension staff and farmers in the next agricultural seasons;
v. Identify key lessons that CRS, seed houses, agro dealers, district stakeholders and
beneficiaries can draw from the seed fair process conducted during the ZSSS project;
vi. Identify lessons learnt from the project that can improve the implementation of future
food security and seed systems projects; and
vii. Provide recommendations for improvement in future programming of similar
interventions.

2. Approach and Methodology for the Evaluation
2.1. Approach
The core principles underpinning the evaluation were independence, transparency, collaboration
and direct participation with beneficiaries, key stakeholders at district level and involvement of the
project implementing partner. The evaluation made use of both quantitative and qualitative data
collection methods, and was highly participatory while gathering data from multiple sources. This
involved consultations with CRS, Caritas Harare and District stakeholders namely Department of
Agriculture Research and Extension Services (AGRITEX), Ministry of Women’s Affair Gender and
Community Development (MWAGCD), Ministry of Youth, Indigenization and Economic
Empowerment and leader farmers and seed houses.
The evaluation was centred on the indicators for the project outcomes in the project log-frame,
determining progress towards set targets over the duration of the project. Monitoring data and
monthly reports were also reviewed to track project implementation. In the absence of a baseline
the evaluation used where necessary the 2015 ZIMVAC results for comparison on the food security
situation.
2.2. Study Sites and Survey Respondents
Primary data and information was gathered from a selection of 4 out of the 14 wards in Mudzi
where the project was implemented. For comparison the household questionnaire was
administered to selected households from one ward were the project was not implemented. The
selection was made in consideration of seed basket received in various wards, general performance
of the project and differences in rainfall as well as the geographic coverage to bring in diverse views.
Multi-stage stratified random sampling was used to select the wards for household data collection.
The key stratification variables were district level rainfall distribution, seed basket received and
project performance across the wards. Based on the stratification, wards 1, 6, 10 and 14 were
selected and ward 12 was randomly selected as a control ward among the 4 wards where the
project was not implemented and this was done in consultation with the district authorities. Figure
2 below shows the map of evaluation data collection wards.
Figure 2: Sampled Evaluation Data Collection Wards

A mobile data collection platform (Open Data Kit) was used in the data collection using Android
tablets. A total of 364 individuals participated in the household questionnaire of which 316 (87%)
had benefited from the project and 48 (13%) were non-beneficiaries. As shown in figure 3 below
67% respondents were females and 33% were males. A mobile data collection platform (Open Data
Kit) was used in the data collection using Android tablets, giving the evaluation team near real-time
monitoring and quality control of the data quantitative collection process.
Figure 3: Sex of Survey Respondents
Figure 4 show that 79% (n=288) of the respondents were farmers, 8% (n=28) were lead farmers
and 13% (n=48) were non-participants (control).
Figure 4: Survey Respondents
Female
67%
Male
33%
SEX OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
13%
8%
79%
Survey Respondents
Non-project participants (control) Lead Farmers
Participarting Farmers

3. Presentation of Findings
3.1. Contextual Background
Farmers in Mudzi face a myriad of challenges, which affect their agricultural production resulting
is severe food insecurity. Interviews with the AGRITEX officials and other district stakeholders
revealed that the district is characterized by unpredictable weather, limited and erratic rainfall and
nutrient-poor soils and suffer from a host of other agricultural constraints such as limited access to
appropriate seed varieties and limited knowledge. The main agricultural production challenges
identified by the farmers include: poor rainfall, limited access to inputs, poor soil fertility, lack of
draught power and equipment as well as access to market. As shown in Table 1 poor rainfall and
limited access to inputs were the major constraints to production identified by the farmers.
Table 1: Key Agricultural Production Constraints
Production Constraints (%)
Poor Rainfall 94
Limited access to inputs 71
Poor soil Fertility 9
Lack of draught power and equipment 6
Limited markets 2
These constraints lead to significantly reduced agricultural yields and consequently food
insecurity. Food security and agricultural production are interconnected and the best way of
tackling this is to focus on adaptation means and the correct crop varieties to grow1. The ZSSS
project sought to address this through making drought tolerant seed available and providing
training to farmers on the efficient use of the inputs.
Small grains like sorghum and millet are considered a viable option with the potential to mitigate
against climate change and drought. They have been noted by experts to be better performers in
drought-prone areas and are considered to have better nutritional value than maize, which is also
viewed as an unsuitable crop for low rainfall areas like Mudzi. Sorghum and millet are regarded as
generally the most drought-tolerant cereal grain crops that require little input during growth and
with increasing global population and climate change induced rainfall / water supply challenges,
represent important crops for future human survival.
Despite the well documented benefits of small grains, they seem not to be so popular in most areas
including Mudzi. Survey respondents identified some of the challenges associated with the
production and consumption of small grains. Table 2 show the challenges identified by project
participants. Farmers also noted during FGDs that depredations of the quelea birds on small grains
was another major challenge they faced in producing small grains. Interestingly, only one
respondent noted poor palatability as a reason for not consuming small grains.
Table 2: Challenges associated with production and consumption of small grains in Mudzi
Challenge %
Labour intensive 27
Lack of processing equipment 13
Time consuming 7
Availability on the market 7
Lack of knowledge 4
Poor Palatability 0.3
1 Svodziwa (2015) The Feasibility of Small Grains as an adoptive strategy to Climate Change

It was also noted during focus group discussions that most farmers have failed to acknowledge the
significance of small grain production as they are driven by the taste of maize. The ease with which
maize can be processed compared to small grains and perceptions about availability of markets
were the other reasons small grains were not so popular despite their drought tolerance.
3.2. Assessing Relevance of the Project
3.2.1. Overview
Evaluation findings make it judicious to conclude that the project was entirely appropriate to the
target participants and communities and in line with both CRS and Caritas Harare strategic
priorities. The evaluation team considered the district context, project participants, national food
security policy as well as CRS and Caritas Harare strategy in assessing the relevance of the project.
3.2.2. Relevance to the District Context and Participants Needs
Mudzi District lies in region 4 and 5 characterised by low effective rainfall, and in most cases long
mid-season dry spells. In addition, the project participants have limited access to irrigation, as
evidenced by the fact that 94% of the evaluation survey respondents had no access to irrigation
(see figure 5).
Figure 5: Survey respondent’s access to irrigation
Only half of the respondents having access to irrigation indicated that the irrigation was functional,
effectively only 3% had access to functional irrigation. Resultantly majority of the project
participants depends on rain-fed agriculture. Against
such a background bringing in small grains and
strengthening their seed systems was thus a very relevant
intervention in view of their drought tolerance and
increasing unpredictable rainfall season. Stakeholders
concurred that maize was not suitable for Mudzi and
sorghum was more suitable for the district. One lead farmer said “…growing maize in this area is
just but a huge bet and in most cases it has always failed to give us meaningful yields…” Another key
informant concurred and said “… small grains fit well into our season length and seasonal rainfall
distribution…” Maize is popular across the country to the extent that it tends to be grown in parts
of the country where the conditions are not favourable including areas like Mudzi that receive less
than 600 mm of rainfall per year. This according to some stakeholders was partly as a result of the
readily available seed, yet sorghum seed for instance was in short supply. The project sought to
address this by bringing in seed to the communities giving the farmers an opportunity to try out
these drought tolerant varieties.
Although most household prefer maize,
given the changing weather patterns
small grains are the most relevant crops
to grow. Key Informant, Agritex
No
94%
Yes
6%
Respondents access to irrigation

Farmers face the challenge of acquiring quality seed, due to limited resources. An analysis of the
sources of seed planted in the previous season revealed external support was among main source
of seed in addition to carryover from last season and retained seed. Thirty-eight percent identified
own purchase as the main source of seed (figure 6).
Figure 6: Sources of seed planted in the 2015/16 season
The project strategy of training farmers on quality seed production as well as post-harvest handling
and storage was very appropriate, as it meant seed would be available within communities at
relatively low costs. In addition, farmers would access the seed through other means such as barter
and labour exchange. Despite the challenges faces in project implementation which meant limited
success on this front, the approach was very relevant highly commendable in view of the socio-
economic situation of the project participants. There is however need to continue building the
capacity of farmers to treat and properly store retained seed in order to maintain seed viability.
Most appropriately, the project was aimed at wards that had been identified in the ZIMVAC report
and food insecure and people who were identified as in need and having the capacity in terms of
labour to effectively utilise the seed provided. The evaluators however noted that the majority of
the respondents were somewhat labour constrained. The respondents were asked if people who
provide labour for agricultural activities in their household were adequate for their normal
agricultural activities only 38% indicated yes. In addition, out
of the 62% that did not have adequate labour, only 14% had
the capacity to hire additional labour. In view of the labour
intensive nature of small grains production, harvesting and
processing it is critical to consider labour availability in
interventions of this nature in the short to medium term, while
in the long term exploring the possibility of adopting mechanization of some activities like
threshing and processing.
Some stakeholders also noted that while it was appropriate to bring in sorghum and cowpeas in
the district, there was need to strengthen the groundnuts value chain in addition to introducing
other drought tolerant crops. Groundnuts was noted to be one of the major crops in the district.
3.2.3. Relevance to the National Food Security Policy and ZimAsset
According to the National Food Security Policy “the government of Zimbabwe is committed to
ensuring that where social protection including social assistance programmes are implemented, these
84%
38%
25%
17%
14%
CRS/Caritas Own purchase Carryover from
last season
Retained Seed Government
support
Sources of seed planted in the 2015/16 season
62% of the respondents did not
have adequate labour for normal
agricultural activities, and only 14%
had the capacity to hire additional
labour

must contribute and enhance food and nutrition security of the most vulnerable in the short and
medium term”. The project fitted perfectly well within this policy framework as well as the ZimAsset
food security cluster objectives and targets which seeks to “…intensify and encourage the growing
of crops that are drought resistant…” The provision of open pollinated drought tolerant seed
varieties, was meant to address seed availability challenges and ultimately food security challenges
in the short and medium term in line with the food security policy. The project was not only meant
to provide seed in the current season, but also encouraged farmers to retain seed for used in the
following seasons, thereby addressing both immediate food security needs and long term seed
availability in the communities, thus ensuring farmers have continued access to drought tolerant
seed for food security in the medium to long term.
3.2.4. Relevance to CRS and Caritas Harare Strategic Priorities and Approaches
The evaluators conducted a review of the contributions made by the project in relation to the aims
and objectives of both CRS and Caritas Harare. The project was in line with CRS approach to
agricultural livelihoods which “…helps farmers build sustainable livelihoods through a phase-by-
phase process that includes recovery, rebuilding, and long-term growth through equitable, systemic
change”. The team further noted from the Strategy Document that Caritas Harare seeks to
“…promote sustainable and innovative approaches to agricultural production (Conservation farming,
irrigation scheme establishment and rehabilitation, green houses, post-harvest techniques, input and
livestock vouchers) as well as promote and implement programmes and support capacity building to
improve food security”. The project thus fitted perfectly well into the Caritas Harare strategic
priorities.
In relation to the approach, the project was also well aligned with the CRS agricultural livelihoods
approach to partnership, were agriculture programs are implemented through local development
partners in collaboration with national agricultural extension services, to leverage local knowledge
and expertise while building local capacity.
3.3. Assessing the Effectiveness
This section details the progress delivered on planned results of the ZSSS project. In this section,
we considered the effectiveness of the project by looking at the achievement of the specific
outcomes and outputs for this project. Overall, the achievement was positive, albeit the let-down
by some of the output targets that could not be met, as described in this section.
3.3.1. Achievement of Project Targets
Smallholder crop farmers redeem agriculture vouchers for essential agricultural inputs in time for
the planting season.
A total of 6004 farmers against a target 6082 managed to redeem the inputs vouchers provided by
the ZSSS project. This translate to a 99% target achievement (table 3). While is a noteworthy
achievement key lessons can be drawn from the 1% that did not redeem their voucher. The 78 (1%)
beneficiaries failed to attend distributions because of distance to distribution centres. The voucher
distribution was done a day before seed distribution, which meant on had to travel to the
distribution centre twice with a 24-hour period. Given the distances some of the farmers had to
travel to the distribution centres some farmers failed to travel to collect the seed.
Table 3: Farmers who redeem vouchers

Indicator Target Actual Achieved
%
Achieve
ment
Male Female Total
Number of beneficiary farmers who
redeemed vouchers
6082 2863 3141 6004 99%
Number of beneficiaries who report an increase in cultivated land compared to last winter harvest.
The ZSSS project objective was to ensure drought-affected farming households have improved
production. The project thus targeted an increase in cultivated land compared to the previous
season. Caritas Harare reported that 4,622 farmers had reported an increase in cultivated land
against a target of 6,082 farmers, which translates to a 76% achievement of the target. It was noted
during the evaluation that seed was distributed after land preparation for the farming season had
already been done, resulting in most farmers just planting small portions hence the non-attainment
of the target.
Table 4: Beneficiaries reporting an increase in cultivated land
%
Achievement
Number of beneficiaries who report an
increase in cultivated land compared to
last winter harvest.
Male Female Total
6082 1950 2672 4622 76%
Analysis of monitoring confirms the same trend where the acreage of sorghum and cowpeas was
significantly higher in the 2016 than 2015 season within the project implementation wards (see
figure 7).
Figure 7: Comparison of crop acreage between 2014/15 and 2015/16 season
AGRITEX officials also concurred that there was a general increase in sorghum and cowpeas
acreage compared with the previous seasons. It is clear as presented in figure 8 that there was a
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Maize Sorghum Cowpea Roundnuts Groundnuts
AverageareaPlanted
Comparison of crop acreage between 2014/15 and 2015/16
season
Area planted 2014/15
Area planted 2014/16

more pronounced increase in sorghum and cowpea acreage in ZSSS project wards than in the
control wards, which is attributable to the project intervention.
Figure 8: Respondents reporting increase in sorghum and cowpeas acreage
Farmers and stakeholders are however of the opinion that this could have been much better if the
seed had been availed in time. As shown in figure 9, fifty-one percent of the survey respondents
reported having planted all the seed, while 48% planted part of the seed and 1% did not plant at
all.
Figure 9: Survey respondents who planted the seed
Smallholder crop farmers have increased knowledge of appropriate agricultural practices
The project was targeted to train all farmers who redeem seed vouchers on optimum use of the
seed provide. The trainings covered topics such as land preparation, moisture conservation
techniques, planting, fertiliser application, and weeding as well as pest and disease control. The
project achieved 91% of the set target (Table 5). A total of 570 (9%) did not attend the training.
Considering the timing of the training, (during the peak of the farming season) this was a
commendable achievement. While some farmers may not have attended the training workshops,
34
29 28
4
42
31
25
13
7
43
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Ward 1 Ward 6 Ward 10 Ward 12
(Control)
Ward 14
Respondents reporting increase in sorghum and
cowpeas acreage
Sorghum Cowpea
Did not plant
1%
Planted all
51%
Planted some
48%
Survey respondednts who planted the seed

FGDs participants revealed that some benefited through interaction with lead farmers and ward
level extension. It however important to take into consideration the timing of the trainings in future
interventions in order to ensure more farmers participate in the trainings.
Table 5: Farmers trained on optimum input use
%
Achievement
Number of farmers trained on optimum
input use
Male Female Total
6004 2229 3205 5434 91%
Smallholder crop farmers have increased knowledge on methods for quality seed production
The ZSSS project sought to strengthen seed systems through training farmers on quality seed
production, as a way of ensuring availability of drought tolerant seed varieties within communities.
The project managed to train 4,383 farmers against a target of 6,004 (Table 6), which translates to
73% achievement.
Table 6: Farmers Trained in Quality Seed Production
%
Achievement
Number of farmers trained on quality
seed production
Male Female Total
6004 1707 2676 4383 73%
Interviews with Partner staff, stakeholders and farmers revealed that the training was done after
the farmers had planted and others had not planted the seed so they did not see the need to attend
the training. In addition the trainings were also done at the peak of the farming season which meant
that farmers had pressing commitments and could not attend the training workshops. Stakeholders
were also of the view that some trainings were rushed and the groups were too big for effective
knowledge transfer. Farmers and stakeholders thus recommended that such training be done prior
to the rain season, at a time when farmers can commit more time to attend the training and be done
in smaller groups which make learning and knowledge transfer more effective. Despite these
challenges 73% of the survey respondents indicated that they had received the training and 94%
of those trained found the training relevant to their needs and aspirations and were keen to use
this knowledge in the following seasons.
Figure 10: Respondents who received training and relevance of training

The ultimate goal of the project was to ensure drought-affected households in Mudzi have
improved food security and livelihoods. The evaluation thus made an attempt to establish the
number of months survey respondents would be food secure from own production in the year 2016
compared to previous years without CRS support. This however proved rather difficult, as this was
in both the survey and monitoring data somewhat deliberately understated as probably
anticipating food aid. This however does not take away the project’s contribution towards
household food security albeit a very difficult agricultural season.
3.3.2. Effectiveness of seed fair process
Seed supply mechanism for communal farmers have increasingly become unreliable and
unpredictable. Reports suggest that farmers cannot obtain their seed on time as either the seed is
not readily available on the local market or available varieties are not suitable for local conditions.
Resultantly, crop failure becomes common due to late planting directly linked to late availability of
seed and the poor adaptability of these available varieties to local agro-ecological and socio-
economic conditions. Recurrent droughts have also resulted in local seed stocks being exhausted
because seed is being converted into food and the stocks are not being replenished year in year out
due to crop failure. In addition, local business people are reluctant to stock some seed varieties
because demand is uncertain2.
Recognition of this stimulated interest in a new model of relief seed distribution using seed fairs in
conjunction with vouchers. This strategy stems from the realization that seed is available in the
market, but a sub-set of vulnerable households do not have the purchasing power to obtain it. Seed
vouchers provide this purchasing power and the seed fair offers an organized market in which to
redeem the voucher. Seed fairs are also aimed at promoting farmer to farmer exchange of seed (and
thus boost diversity of plant genetic resources) as well as providing a platform for farmers with
extra seed to sell. The concept of using seed fairs with vouchers has been applauded as a major
improvement on direct seed handouts. Seed fairs are said to offer farmers greater choice of seed to
replenish their stocks. The choice of local varieties is supposed to improve crop biodiversity.
Furthermore, income is believed to remain within the local community, stimulating an expansion
of seed production and marketing3.
The ZSSS project sought to address the challenges of seed
availability using the same principles above. The evaluators are
of the view that the seed fair process was generally able to
achieve its objective of making seed available to the farmers
within their communities, while providing purchasing power of
same. There is however significant room for improvement in the whole process according to
farmers, district stakeholders and seed suppliers. The evaluators identified the following areas that
need attention in future seed fairs.
i. Time: The late start of the seed fair processes meant that very little time was available at
each site for the seed suppliers to interact with the farmers, and some farmers missed out
the opportunity to redeem their vouchers;
ii. Timing of the Seed Fairs: The seed fairs started around mid-December, by that time most
seed suppliers had limited seed supplies and some are closing for holidays. This somehow
limited the participation of a wide range of suppliers, with those participating having
limited stocks.
iii. Involvement of local agro-dealers / entrepreneurs and farmers: Seed fairs in this project
did not involve local agro-dealers or farmers with extra seed to sell. The project thus missed
2 CRS; ICRISAT and ODI (2002): Seed Vouchers and Fairs: A manual for seed based agricultural recovery
after disaster in Africa; Kenya
3 ICRISAT Briefing Note 3: Do Seed Fairs Improve Food Security and Strengthen Rural Markets?
The seed fair ended up being a
seed distribution exercise, due
to limited time, Key Informant,
Seed Supplier

an opportunity to strengthen the local economy and create local market linkages.
Involvement of local agro-dealers would have also given farmers who had failed to redeem
their vouchers on the specified date an opportunity to do so since the vouchers would have
been redeemable in local shops.
iv. The project was specific on one cowpea seed variety and the seed suppliers claimed had no
room to propose other varieties with similar characteristics, thus supplies were limited. It
could be worthwhile to explore other locally available varieties such as CBC1, CBC2 and
CBC3 cowpeas and see how it compares with IT18 to ensure a wider genetic base in the
communities
3.4. Findings on Efficiency
In assessing project efficiency, the evaluators assessed the extent to which the project has used the
least possible resources to achieve its outcomes.
3.4.1. Appropriateness of resources invested
The evaluators assessed the extent to which the resources invested in this project were
appropriate, i.e. human, capital and material resources. The availability of full time field staff at
Caritas Harare in Mudzi was commendable as it facilitated efficient coordination of the project
activities at field level. The evaluators confirm that by all means, staff invested extra time to provide
support, coordination and supervision for the successful implementation of this project. More than
6,000 households across 14 wards in Mudzi district benefitted from this project.
3.4.2. Adherence to agreed budgets and limits
An analysis of the finances indicated that the project was able to spend the money in line with the
planned budgets. According to the Finance staff slight budget realignments were made after
realizing some budget lines required slightly more resources that initially planned while others
required less than planned. There were however no significant disparities between planned and
actual expenditure for the whole life of the project.
3.4.3. Adherence to timescales
According to project staff, the project implementation, despite the late start, was implemented
generally in line with the plan. Some project activities however had to be rushed in order catch up
with the time. This however had negative implications of effectiveness of training and seed fairs.
3.4.4. Cost Effectiveness
In assessing the cost effectiveness of this project, the evaluators did a simple cost benefit analysis
that considered the level of funding towards project expenditure including overheads/cost
expenses. Based on the information availed to the evaluation team when this evaluation was
conducted, the total cost per household was an average $58.26. Given that the average number of
members per household from the project participants was 5 people, it is estimated that the project
reached 30,020 persons at a cost of $11.65 per beneficiary. It is therefore of the evaluators’ view
that the project demonstrated good value for money, given the level of investments made against
the overall budget and the benefits of the project. Table 7 provides details of the budget cost
effectiveness.

Table 7: Budget cost effectiveness
Item Indicator and units Formula Value
A Project expenditure (USD) $292,252.22
B Overheads/cost recovery (USD) $57,528.78
C Total expenditure (USD) $349,781.00
D Total beneficiaries (number) 6,004
H Total cost per direct beneficiary (USD) C/D $58.26
I Share of overhead in total cost (%) (B/C)*100 16%
J Cost of transferring USD1 value of benefit (USD) B/A $0.20
In addition, the following approaches used by the project were considered by the evaluation team
as having been positive and leading to the cost effectiveness of the project:
 Engaging existing structures, such as AGRITEX in the farmer training;
 Seed fairs meant that the cost of seed distribution was borne by the seed supplier instead of the
project;
 Project related purchases were done at the least cost for the relevant level of quality;
 CRS used its organizational capacity to support the project, for instance no project M&E officer
was recruited but instead CRS used existing MEAL staff for that purpose.
3.5. Effectiveness of Project Management and MEAL Structure
The M&E system was designed to collect information to support the activities and outcomes of the
interventions. All project stakeholders’ i.e. CRS, Caritas Harare and district stakeholders coordinated
project management, monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning through a variety of
mechanisms, such as review meetings and project monitoring and
reporting. A project monitoring framework was produced and basic
M&E tools were designed and utilised for the purposes of project
progress reporting. The project was innovative in the use of ICT in
monitoring. This involved the use of Datawinners an integrated,
mobile data collection and communication service to collect data. This was meant to ensure that
monitoring data was available in real-time to assure quality and enhance evidence-base in making
project decisions. There was however a delay in setting up the system which resulted in the initial
monitoring being done using the traditional paper system. The project thus did not have much time
to learn from the implementation of Datawinners, but provided a good learning which can be applied
to future projects.
Caritas Harare compiled and submitted reports, both financial and narrative, to CRS. Feedback from
CRS about Caritas Harare reports was positive, highlighting that although there were back and forth
comments on the report, they were generally of high quality and in line with agreed reporting
templates. Judging by the feedback from the partner and district stakeholder the evaluators conclude
that the project management and monitoring structure was effective and facilitated successful
implementation of the project despite the challenges of time. CRS used its experience and capacity to
support Caritas Harare in areas where they were not so experienced and capacitated. A case in point
was the implementation of seed fairs. One partner staff noted “…CRS used their previous experience
We went with the team for
monitoring visits and they
were very enlightening, Key
Informant, Ministry of Youth

in conducting seed fairs to help us in this project, CRS was always there to help us and they were very
flexible and accommodated our innovations in implementing this project”.
3.6. Difference made by the ZSSS Project
CRS and Caritas Harare are to be applauded for their achievement to implement this project in
collaboration with district stakeholders. There is evidence of growing interest in small grains in the
district and the project can be attributed stimulating that
interest within the farmers. One lead farmer said, “…the
cowpea variety they gave us was really good and different
from the one we are used to, it is fast maturing and thrives
even in low rainfall. We managed to harvest something
because of that. We will surely plant this in the coming
seasons”. The extension staff also noted that in many
instances the maize crop was a complete write off and it was only those that had planted sorghum
that managed some reasonable harvest.
The evaluators made an attempt to compare both harvest and acreage between the current and the
previous season. It emerged that generally acreage has been declining, most probably due to erratic
rainfall and El Nino induced drought. A comparison of farmers reporting increase in yield of various
crops show that more farmers reported an increase in cowpeas (25%) and sorghum (18%)
compared with other crops where on average on 4% reported an increase, (see figure 11),
Figure 11: Farmers reporting an increase in crop yields
The control ward (ward 12), at one percent recorded a significantly lower number of farmers with a
higher sorghum yield for this season as compared to last season (see table 8). This is despite the fact
that the season was generally bad for the whole district hence suggests that the generally slightly
higher numbers (albeit lower than last season) of farmers with higher sorghum yield in the four
wards that benefitted from the ZSSS project can be attributed to the positive impact of the project.
25%
18%
4% 4% 4%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Cowpeas Sorghum Maize Millets Groundnuts Roundnuts
% of farmers reporting an increase in yield
“Farmers are generally not so keen on
producing small grains, but because of this this
project and experience from the last season
where small grains performed generally better
than maize, they are slowly beginning to
appreciate them”. Key Informant

Table 8: Comparison of sorghum yield for this season against last season per ward
Ward Less More No Idea Same Total
1 Count 67 10 0 1 82
% of Total 18.4% 2.7% 0.0% 0.3% 22.5%
6 Count 42 24 9 2 96
% of Total 11.5% 6.6% 2.5% 0.5% 26.4%
10 Count 18 13 5 6 56
% of Total 4.9% 3.6% 1.4% 1.6% 15.4%
12
(control)
Count
28 5 0 1 45
% of Total 7.7% 1.4% 0.0% 0.3% 12.4%
14 Count 69 14 0 0 85
% of Total 19.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 23.4%
As shown in table 9, cowpeas production was evidently much higher in ZSSS project wards than in
the counterfactual ward 12 which at 0.5% recorded a significantly low percentage of farmers whose
cowpeas yield for the current season was higher than the last season. This is clear testimony of the
positive impact that the project had on the benefitting community in spite of the poor rains received
this season. A number of respondents said that “…. without CRS/Caritas Harare support we could not
even have managed to get any yield at all.” It is also important to note that cowpeas seem to have had
more profound impact on the farmers because of its performance as a drought tolerant and quick
maturing variety compared to sorghum which in most cases was not true to type hence poor yield.
Table 9: Comparison of cowpeas yields
Ward None
response Less more same
1 0.8% 17.9% 3.6% 0.3% 22.5%
6 4.7% 11.0% 10.2% 0.5% 26.4%
10 1.1% 9.1% 4.9% 0.3% 15.4%
12 9.3% 2.2% 0.5% 0.3% 12.4%
14 0.3% 17.3% 5.8% 23.4%
16.2% 57.4% 25.0% 1.4% 100.0%
Ultimately, the project has successfully delivered on a majority of its targets, resulting in some
positive food and seed security outcomes for the farmers. The specific changes noted during this
evaluation included an increase in farmers growing sorghum and cowpeas as well as some farmers
managing to retain some seed for next season. The project also brought in new seed varieties into
the community especially cowpeas. Farmers were introduced to the short season and high yielding
variety, which performed much better in terms of drought tolerance and yield that the varieties they
had.

Interviews with lead farmers and ward extension officials confirmed this with most of them noting
that farmers who had planted sorghum and cowpeas had better harvest than maize which was in
most cases a complete write off. It is also noteworthy that the project stimulated interest and
demonstrated the potential of small grains addressing food security challenges in drought prone
areas.
The project also provided a good learning platform for CRS, Caritas Harare and District stakeholders
for future design and implementation of projects of similar nature.
3.7. Assessing Project Sustainability
Overall, the evaluators conclude that the approaches used in this project represent a model good
enough to compliment efforts towards improving the food security situation in the district and
ensuring seed availability.
The ZSSS worked closely with district stakeholders and with
existing district and community institutions, thereby increasing
the possibility of ongoing support after project funding has ceased.
For instance, neither CRS nor Caritas Harare were at the forefront
of farmer training, but trainings were facilitated by district and
ward extension staff. By so doing the project did not undermine the
existing extension system, but actually capacitated it to continue providing support to the farmers
beyond the project. In addition, the use of lead farmers also means that there is increased internal
capacity within communities to practice promoted interventions.
Another key sustainability aspect of the project was the use of open pollinated drought tolerant seed
varieties and encouraging farmers to retain seed for future use. The project supported some farmers
with hermetic storage bags for storing retained seed. This was meant to ensure that communities do
not entirely depend on seed houses for seed, but seed becomes available in the communities.
Community members, the evaluation team interacted with during FGDs and household
questionnaires indicated that they were likely going to continue practicing what they had learnt in
this project. As presented in figure 12, seventy-four percent of survey participants agreed that to a
large extent, the benefits of this project will continue after the end of this project.
Figure 12: Respondents view of the extent of the project sustainability
large_extent
74%
less_extent
22%
not_sure
4%
Respondents view of the extent of the project
sustainability
74% of survey participants
agreed that to a large extent, the
benefits of this project will
continue after the end of this
project.

Farmers interviewed indicated a keen interest in continuing with all the interventions promoted in
this ZSSS project. The majority of farmers interviewed (290) noted that they are likely to continue
producing of small grains (see figure 13).
Figure 13: Interventions farmers keen to continue practicing
The evaluators’ further note that the sustainability of seed and grain production hinges upon assured
markets, without which, farmers have little incentive to produce. One farmer said “If we are to plant
these millets and sorghum will we get someone to buy them, they are not like groundnuts we know for
sure someone will by them”, demonstrating the uncertainties within the communities of the market
for the small grains. It is thus critical to address marketing concerns if the production of small grains
is to be sustained in the future.
290
97
14 11
Production of Small
Grains
Conservation Farming Post-harvest Practices Seed Production
NumberofFarmers
Interventions farmers keen to continue practicing

4. Conclusions and Recommendations
4.1. Overview
Following the assessment of the ZSSS project, the evaluation team concluded it has made a
significant difference in the delivery of the results that CRS and Caritas Harare committed to. The
evidence generated from this evaluation indicates that 6004 farmers received and redeemed seed
vouchers the project provided. The emerging impacts of this project were remarkable, albeit the
challenges that were faced in the timing and delivery of this project. The challenges faced, key
lessons learnt, as well, recommendations from henceforth are presented in this section.
4.2. Project’s Strengths
The key strengths of the ZSSS project were:
i. CRS and Caritas Harare had a shared commitment and enjoyed a mutual partnership.
An analysis of the strategic areas of focus revealed that CRS and Caritas Harare shared
similar ambitions to reduce poverty, hunger, disease and the impact of disasters through
community empowerment processes that responded to the challenges identified by the
communities.
ii. ZSSS received support from the local leadership at all levels right from communities to
the district levels: A major strength of this project was the acknowledgement of, and
respect for, existing structures. Despite the project staring late into the season time was
invested to consult with local authorities from the inception of the project, resulting in the
project receiving maximum support at all political levels. Also the implementing partner
allowed extension staff to take the lead role in farmers training in order not to undermine
their capacity and respect within the communities.
iii. The approaches and strategies used by ZSSS were relevant. The project focused on
improving community seed availability of drought tolerant crops by brining seed suppliers
within the reach of communities and also providing the means to procure the much needed
drought tolerant seed varieties. The capacity of both extension staff and communities to
efficiently utilise the inputs provided through training and community level demonstration
plots.
4.3. Key Challenges
i. Time: The main drawback of the project was the timing. The fact that the project was
started late after the start of the rain season has a number of negative implications of the
project which included: Failure by some farmers to plant most of the seed provided;
Farmers missing out on the first rains; and Rushed trainings and in some cases trainings on
agronomic practices taking place well after the farmers had planted.
ii. Targeting: The project staff noted that while the involvement of district stakeholders was
applauded, some extension officers strongly felt that their involvement would have
contributed to the success of the ZSSS project by ensuring the targeting of serious and
committed farmers.
iii. Seed Quality: Farmers and other stakeholders noted that some of the sorghum seed
supplied was not true to type, which in a way affected yield. Although some off-type plants
are expected in open pollinated varieties (OPV) it appears the levels were quite high in this
case.
iv. Crop destruction by livestock: Some farmers decided not to tend their cattle after the dry
spell had destroyed most of their crops, which resulted in some sorghum and cowpea crops
being destroyed despite having survived the dry spell.

v. Poor Rainfall: Erratic rainfall coupled with long dry spell also presented a major challenge
to the project, which resulted in some crops being a complete write-off.
Despite the challenges the farmers and district stakeholders were highly grateful of the project
and would appreciate the replication of the project in the following season.
4.4. Summary of Lessons learnt
Key lessons learnt from the project highlighted through the report are summarized below
i. Timely Support: It is crucial that interventions of this nature start in time in order to give
enough time to, land preparation, seed distribution and training prior to the start of the
rainy season.
ii. Training prior to the rainy season ensures that farmers can commit more time to the
training and interest in the project is enhanced before the start of the rainy season, thus
increasing in the chances of project success.
iii. Stakeholder Involvement - Stakeholders such as AGRITEX staff are a crucial force in
delivery of community-based agricultural interventions as they ensure project acceptance
and ownership by the community. Active engagement of such stakeholders demonstrated
in this project should be applauded and continued as it presents greater opportunities for
continued support of project interventions beyond the project.
iv. Involvement of the private sector (seed-houses) in seed fairs provides an opportunity for
diversifying the seed varieties and farmers’ choices. There is however need to involve local
agro-dealers in order to ensure continued availability in future and also strengthen the local
economy and market linkages;
v. Consistent communication and facilitation of ongoing monitoring, review andreflection can
help in effective project implementation. Throughout the life of this project, CRS and Caritas
Harare convened review meetings and facilitated learning opportunities. This has been key
to the success of this project. Through regular dialogue and discussion, the project partners
brought together different organisational strategies and they worked together to bring
about the changes that were ultimately brought about by this project.
vi. More time is required to build sustained capacity and interest: It is evident from the project
that one season is not enough to effectively implement seed system strengthening, as such
there is need to implement such projects over 2 to 3 seasons in order sustain interest and
capacity.

4.5. Recommendations
On the basis of the key findings, the following overarching recommendations are presented.
4.5.1. Recommendations to CRS and Caritas Harare
vi. There is a general consensus among project participants and district stakeholders that the
project made notable contribution to encouraging farmers to produce and consume small
grains in Mudzi. Stakeholders thus recommend that a follow on project be implemented
building upon the lessons and successes of this project.
vii. Timing is critical in agricultural intervention, as such it is recommended that projects of
this nature start well in time of the start of the agricultural season. This will allow time for
such activities such as targeting, distribution and training to be conducted prior to the rains
for farmers to avoid training at the peak, and also give the farmers a chance put into practice
what they would have been trained;
viii. Seed fairs provide an opportunity for farmers to access seed, they would have otherwise
have failed to access. The use of seed fairs is thus commended. It is however recommended
to conduct the seed fairs in time to allow more time for all the due processes and ensure
farmers have ample time to redeem their vouchers;
ix. Seed fairs also have the potential to stimulate local economy, by stimulating local trade. It
is thus recommended that CRS and Caritas Harare together with the seed suppliers explore
the possibility involving local agro-dealers in the seed fairs. It is anticipated that by so doing
local supply may be guaranteed beyond the days of the seed fair;
x. The project was specific on one cowpea seed variety and the seed suppliers had no room to
propose other varieties with similar characteristics, thus supplies were limited. The
evaluators thus recommend that CRS explore other locally available varieties such as CBC1,
CBC2 and CBC3 cowpeas and see how it compares with IT18 to ensure a wider supplies and
genetic base in the communities.
xi. CRS is also encouraged to explore the possibility of working with the Seed Services
Department for technical information and advice on seed production, varieties and quality.
4.5.2. Recommendations to other Stakeholders
v. Stakeholders are encourage to harmonise approaches to supporting farmers especially
with regards to adoption of small grains in areas like Mudzi. Government for instance in
encouraged to consider providing mainly small grains in its inputs support scheme in areas
like Mudzi. By providing maize seed in such schemes sends contradictory messages to the
promotion of small-grains in drought prone areas;
vi. District stakeholder support received on this project is commended. The district is
recommended to continue supporting interventions supporting farmers to adopt drought
tolerant crops to mitigate the effects of drought and supporting more research and
extension services on small grain production
vii. Poor and erratic rainfall remains a challenges to food production. Stakeholder, particularly
AGRITEX are recommended to continue encouraging the adoption of small grains and also
adopt water harvesting and moisture conservation techniques as standard agricultural
practices.
viii. In view of the labour requirements of processing sorghum an millets stakeholders are
urged to promote mechanization of the processing of small grains which not only save
farmers time during harvesting, but reduce the amount of foreign particles found in the
grain, helping farmers produce better quality grain and ultimately fetch a better prices;
ix. The evaluators also recommend the government, research institutions and the academia
unpack and publicise the cowpea value chain in order for farmers and other stakeholders
to identify opportunities beyond household consumption. This may go a long way in
stimulating interest in the production and marketing of cowpeas.

5. Annexes
5.1. Documents Reviewed
i. Caritas Zimbabwe -Archdiocese of Harare Strategic Planning Document 2013-2017
ii. CRS an Agricultural livelihoods available on
http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/752898/22942499/1371651707440/crs-and-
agricultural-livelihoods.pdf?token=yz8HAtNfsRmGBZqQNouJYyyfkOI%3D
iii. CRS; ICRISAT and ODI (2002): Seed Vouchers and Fairs: A manual for seed based
agricultural recovery after disaster in Africa; Kenya:
www.crs.org/sites/default/files/tools-research/seed-vouchers-and-fairs.pdf
iv. ICRISAT Briefing Note 3: Do Seed Fairs Improve Food Security and Strengthen Rural
Markets?
v. Svodziwa (2015) The Feasibility of Small Grains as an adoptive strategy to Climate
Change : https://www.rjoas.com/issue-2015-05/article_04.pdf
vi. Zimbabwe Seed Systems strengthening to adapt to El Nino Crisis Project (ZSSSP)
Performance Monitoring Plan
vii. Zimbabwe Seed Systems strengthening to adapt to El Nino Crisis Project (ZSSSP)
Proposal Document
viii. Zimbabwe Seed Systems strengthening to adapt to El Nino Crisis Project (ZSSSP),
Monthly/Quarterly Project Performance Reports
ix. Zimbabwe Vulnerability Assessment Committee, Rural Livelihoods Assessment Report
(2016): available on
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/zimvac_2016_rural_livelihoods_
assessment.pdf

5.2. List of Key Informants
Name Sex Position Organization
1
Mr. Mboweni Male
District Agricultural
Extension Officer AGRITEX
2 Mrs Makachi
Natsikai Female
Ward Extension
Officer AGRITEX
3
Zivanai Kambonga
Male
Ward Extension
Officer AGRITEX
4
Mr. Smoko Male
Ward Extension
Officer AGRITEX
5 J Mukiwa Male Sales Agronomist ARDA Seeds
6 W Zonde Male Sales Agronomist ARDA Seeds
7 Bro David
Nyamuronda Male Project Coordinator Caritas Harare
8 Hazvinei Usaiwataka Female Finance Office Caritas Harare
9 Takura Gwatinyanya Male Programmes Manager Caritas Harare
10 Masimba Marega Male Field Officer Caritas Harare
11 Joyful Mujuru Male Field Officer Caritas Harare
12 Letwin Chuma Female M&E Officer Caritas Harare
13
Sekai Mudhoni Female Head of Programmes
Catholic Relief
Services
14
Gwinyai Chibaira Male Project Manager
Catholic Relief
Services
15
Chengetanai Gwazvo Female M&E Officer
Catholic Relief
Services
16
Mr. Mashingaidze Male
Community
Development Officer
Ministry of
Gender
Women's Affairs
and Community
Development
17 Mr Muyimbe Male Ward Coordinator Ward 12
18
Mrs Chibanda Female
Youth Development
Officer
Ministry of
Youth
19
Mrs. Muguto Female District Administrator
Mudzi Rural
District Council
20 Masimba Kanyepe Male Sales Manager Prime Seeds
21
Mr. Hove Male Operations Manager
Shalom Agro-
Chemicals

5.3. Data Collection Tools
Focus Group Discussion Guide
General Introductory Questions
1. Is food security a serious matter in Mudzi district?
a. What are some of the causes of food insecurity in Mudzi district?
2. What are some of the strategies being implemented to improve food security in Mudzi district?
(Probe to ascertain what different stakeholders are doing)
ZSSS Project Specific Questions
3. In your opinion, would you consider this project a success or failure?
a. Did beneficiaries improve their food security as a result of this project?
4. Did you learn something new and/or useful on grain production and storage as a result of this project
that you are likely going to continue making use of?
5. What is your comment on the strategies used in the selection of beneficiaries for the project?
a. Did the selection criterion used manage to get the targeted beneficiaries
b. Was the selection criterion used effective in addressing food security challenges in the
community/district?
c. What better selection strategies could have been used?
6. To the best of your knowledge, did the beneficiaries plant all the seed that was provided to them?
a. If not, what could be some of the reasons for failure to plant all seeds?
b. What lessons can be learnt from that?
7. Comment on the acreage of small grains in the just ended season compared with the previous seasons
8. Do you think the production of drought tolerant crops such as sorghum is likely to continue beyond
this project?
a. Why is it so?
b. Why is it not so?
9. What is your opinion on the use of seed fairs, seed vouchers and private companies in the supply of
seed for the farmers/beneficiaries?
a.
10. If the project was to be implemented again, what would you want to be done differently?
11. What were some of the major challenges faced by this project?
a. What can be done in the future to mitigate these challenges
12. What are the major reasons why farmers do not seem interested producing drought tolerant
crops/varieties such as sorghum?
13. What do you think needs to be done to encourage farmers to continue planting drought tolerant crop
varieties? (Probe on who needs to do what i.e. what is the role of government, NGOs, local leaderships
and private sector)

Stakeholder Interview Tool
General Introductory Questions
1. What are some of the causes of food insecurity in Mudzi district?
2. What are some of the strategies being implemented to improve food security in Mudzi district? (Probe
to ascertain what different stakeholders are doing)
ZSSS Project Specific Questions
3. What were the key successes / failures of the project? What worked well and what did not work so
well?
4. What is your comment on the strategies used in the selection of project participants?
a. Did the selection criterion used manage to get the targeted beneficiaries?
b. Was the selection criterion used effective in targeting the right participants? Where there any
deserving households that did not participate in the project?
c. What better selection strategies could have been used?
5. To the best of your knowledge, did the beneficiaries plant all the seed that was provided to them?
a. If not, what could be some of the reasons for failure to plant all seeds?
b. What lessons can be learnt from that?
6. In your opinion did the project participants’ food security improve as a result of this project?
7. What are some of the barriers to production and consumption of small grains in the district?
8. Do you think the production of drought tolerant crops (small grains) promoted in this project is likely
to continue in the next seasons?
a. Why is it so?
b. Why is it not so?
9. What do you think needs to be done to encourage farmers to continue planting drought tolerant crop
varieties? (Probe on who needs to do what i.e. what is the role of government, NGOs, local
leaderships and private sector)
10. What is your opinion on the use of seed fairs, seed vouchers and private companies in the supply of
seed for the farmers/beneficiaries?
11. If the project was to be implemented again, what would you want to be done differently?
12. What were some of the major challenges faced by this project?
a. What can be done in the future to mitigate these challenges
13. What challenges did seed houses face in the provision and supply of seed to the beneficiaries?
a. What can be done to resolve or minimize these challenges
14. Recommendations to CRS/Caritas, Seed Companies, Other stakeholders

Seed Houses / Agro-dealers Interview Tool
1. How was your company involved in project
2. Comment on the effectiveness of seed fairs in increasing farmers’ access to quality seed? What
worked well and what did not work so well?
3. What is your comment on the strategies used in this project?
4. What quality control measures did you put in place to ensure quality seed was provided to the
farmers? Did you get any feedback on the performance of seed provided?
5. In your opinion what are some of the barriers to production and consumption of small grains?
What challenges are seed industry players facing in supply of small grain seed?
6. What do you think needs to be done to encourage farmers to continue planting drought tolerant
crop varieties?
7. What role can seed houses play to address some of these challenges?
8. What recommendations would you give to CRS/Caritas, Seed Companies, Other stakeholders to
increase the uptake of small grains drought tolerant crop varieties?
Staff Interview Tool
Timeline
1. Please draw a ‘roadmap’ that shows the key successes and challenges faced by this project over the
last six months.
Relevance
2. Identify the specific strategies / approaches that worked well and which did not work well in the
delivery of this project?
3. How were these aligned to the CRS/Caritas strategic objectives and goals
Efficiency
4. Were the activities on the ground implemented according to the planned timescale? Was the timescale
appropriate?
(Did you follow the time planned?)
Effectiveness
5. What were the main achievements of this project? (Result language)
6. Identify the key factors that supported or hindered the achievement of the changes?
Sustainability
7. What measures are in place to ensure the project efforts persist after project closure?
8. If you were to design this project again, what would you start, stop and continue doing?
Recommendations
9. What are your key recommendations to:
 CRS
 Caritas
 AGRITEX
 Seed Companies and agro-dealers
 Other stakeholders

Household End-line Survey Questionnaire
Informed Consent
Hello. My name is ______________ and I am working with CRS and Caritas, we are conducting an end of
project evaluation for the Seed Security Strengthening Project a project which was aimed at addressing
the food security situation in Mudzi.
We would very much appreciate your participation in this survey. We have randomly selected you to
participate in this end-line survey, which is voluntary and all results will be kept confidential and
anonymous. You are free to decline to answer any or all questions, and may choose to stop the survey
at any time. We will not provide payment, but by participating you will contribute to our work in your
area. The results of this survey will only be used to help CRS and Caritas design better programmes in
this area. The survey usually takes between 20 and 30 minutes to complete.
You can ask questions about this study at any time during the interview. Do you have any questions
now?
May I proceed with the interview? (please circle) Yes No
Identification
Questionnaire Number Interviewer Code
Date of Interview
(mm/dd/yyyy)
Ward
Interview Result Completed
No Household Member at Home
No Competent Respondent Home at time of visit
Refused
Other (specify)
General Instruction for Enumerator
Do not read the answers, unless otherwise specifically stated.
Circle the response that most reflects the answer given by the respondent for each question.
Select only one answer per question, unless otherwise clearly stated

Respondent’s Demographic Profile
No Background Characteristics Response (Please Circle Correct
Response)
Sex of Respondent Male Female
Age of Respondent
Nature of Participation in the
project
Lead Farmer Participating Farmer
Marital Status Married living together
Married living apart
Divorced/Separated
Widow/widower
Never married
99. Refuse to answer
What is the highest
educational level you attained
None
Primary level,
ZJC level
O’ level
A’ level,
Diploma/ Certificate after primary
Diploma/ Certificate after secondary,
Graduate/ Post-Graduate
During the past 6 months
what were your household’s
most important sources of
income
(use activity codes, up to 4
activities)
Remittance
food crop production/sales,
cash crop production,
casual labour,
begging,
livestock production/sales,
skilled trade/artisan,
own business,
petty trade,
pension,
formal salary/wages,
fishing,
gifts
vegetable production/sales,
small scale mining/ mineral sales,
beer brewing
food assistance,
cross border trade
currency trade,
gathering natural products for sale e.g.
firewood,
collecting scrap/ waste material for re-
sale,
rentals,
Other (Specify),
During the past 6 months
what were your household’s
most important sources of
food? (use activity codes, up
to 4 activities)
Own production,
Purchases(cash and barter),
Remittance from Outside
Zimbabwe,
Remittances from Within
Zimbabwe
Government Food
Assistance(In-kind, cash or
vouchers),
Grain loan scheme,
Non State Agencies Food Assistance(In-
kind, cash or vouchers),
Gifts (from non-relative well-wishers),
Labour exchange,
Borrowed,
Hunting and gathering from wild
Gleaning,
0ther
How many people provide labour for agricultural activities in
your household?
Are these people adequate for your normal agricultural
activities?
Yes
No
Did your household hire any casual labour to assist with
agricultural activities last season?
Yes
No

Household Production and Food Security Situation
Household Food Production
What are the two main challenges in
agricultural production in this community?
Lack of regular rains and
irrigation water
Limited access to inputs,
e.g. seed and fertilizer
Shortage of land
Poor soil fertility
Limited access to markets
for agricultural produce
No storage for produce
Poor quality of crops / seeds
Other
Which crops did you plant in the 2016
season?
Multiple response
Maize
Sorghum
Millets (rapoko, pearl
millets)
Groundnuts
Round nuts
Cowpeas
Beans
Tubers (sweet-potatoes,
cassava)
Other (specify)
How does your acreage in the 2015/16
season compare with the 2014/15 season?
Increased
Stayed the same
Decreased
Do not know
Maize Increased
Stayed the same
Decreased
Do not know
Sorghum Increased
Stayed the same
Decreased
Do not know
Millets(rapoko, pearl millets) Increased
Stayed the same
Decreased
Do not know
Groundnuts Increased
Stayed the same
Decreased
Do not know
Roundnuts Increased
Stayed the same
Decreased
Do not know
Cowpeas Increased
Stayed the same
Decreased
Do not know
Beans Increased
Stayed the same
Decreased
Do not know
Tubers (sweet-potatoes, potatoes, cassava,
yams)
Increased
Stayed the same
Decreased
Do not know
Other (specify) Increased
Stayed the same
Decreased
Do not know
What were the sources of your inputs
(multiple response)
Purchase
Government
CRS/Caritas
Other NGO
Carryover from last season
Retained
Remittances
Private Contractors
Other
How much did your household harvest in this
season (2015/16)?
Maize
Sorghum
Millets(rapoko, pearl millets)
Groundnuts
Roundnuts
Cowpeas
Beans
Other(specify)
How does this harvest compare with the
previous season (2014/15)
Maize More than last season
Less than last season
Same as last season
Did not plant last season
Do not know
Sorghum More than last season
Less than last season
Same as last season
Did not plant last season
Do not know
Millets(rapoko, pearl millets) More than last season Did not plant last season

ZSSS_End of Project Evaluation Report

ZSSS_End of Project Evaluation Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to ZSSS_End of Project Evaluation Report

Similar to ZSSS_End of Project Evaluation Report (20)

ZSSS_End of Project Evaluation Report