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

Monitoring Outcomes at Household Level: Preliminary findings of the 1st round of household survey

James Rao

Maziwa Zaidi review & planning meeting

31 March – 1 April 2015 at Giraffe Ocean View Hotel, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Monitoring Learning & Evaluation (MLE) Framework

‘Usual’ monitoring: monitoring activities & outputs

Mainly to account for funds - donors

MLE with a strong emphasis on ‘learning’

Collection and analysis of evidence on key outcomes & impact indicators

At various levels of the value chain: farmers, hubs, VC actors

Both qualitative and quantitative

Provide evidence that feeds back loops project activities

Project

interventio

n

Project

activities

& outputs

Farmer &

communit

y change

in

behaviour

Outcome

s at

househol

d &

group

levels

Analyses

&

reflection

s

“Usual”

Monitoring

Monitoring

Learning &

Evaluation

Household Monitoring

Indicators to monitor include:

Uptake of dairy technologies: feed, AH, management, breeding

Use of purchased inputs and services: purchase feed etc…

Use of hub services e.g. check off services

Cow productivity

Price of milk, inputs and services

Dairy income, controlled by men and women

Consumption of milk and milk products and food diversity score

HUB

INTERVENTIO

N

IMPACTS ON:

Dairy income

Household

income

Consumption

of milk/milk

products and

food security

Uptake of dairy technologies

Cow productivity

Hubs mediating access to inputs, services & milk

markets

Increased frequency & value

of hub-based transactions

What we have done so far

1st round of household survey completed late 2014

2nd monitoring completed in March 2015

Nutrition/Women empowerment survey planned

Hub/group level data to be compiled from templates distributed to groups

District N

Lushoto 154

Mvomero 98

Handeni 105

Kilosa 104

Total 461

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Early lactation Peak lactation Late lactation

Milk

ou

tpu

t (L

itre

s)

LL=Lactation Length (months)

Lushoto (LL=8.0) Mvomero (LL=7.1) Handeni (LL=7.4)

Kilosa (LL=7.6) All (LL=7.4)

District

No. of household

s with lactating

cows)

Mean milk production

per cow

Mean milk

production per

household

Lushoto 76 3.8 4.9Mvomero 85 1.9 11.1Handeni 76 1.2 6.3Kilosa 101 1.0 12.5All 338 1.9 9.1

Use of technology

Lushoto leads in the use of modern livestock technologies

AI breeding

Use of concentrates

Likely explanation for higher milk productivity

Kilosa trails in these aspect …. likely explanation for low milk production

0

20

40

60

80

100

Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa Total

%

of

hou

sehold

s u

sin

g

imp

roved

fora

ge

Napier Planted grass* Fodder shrub Other**

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa

% o

f h

ou

sehold

s u

sin

g

concebtr

ate

s

0

20

40

60

80

100

Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa Total% o

f h

ou

sehold

s w

ith a

ccess

to b

reed

ing m

eth

ods

AI Own bull Other bull

Milk market orientation

Higher commercial orientation among farmers in Lushoto and Mvomero

Milk largely sold to private milk traders

Individual customers offer higher prices

Co-ops with chilling plants offer 2nd best prices

Possible innovation

Build stronger hubs around traders and linking them to chilling plants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Lushoto Mvomero Handeni Kilosa TotalPro

port

ion o

f to

tal m

ilk p

rod

uced

Milk consumed Milk sold

02468101214

0100200300400500600700800

Milk q

uanti

ty (Lit

res)

Milk

pri

ces

(TZS

)

Milk quantity Milk prices

Milk prices, quantity sold and revenues

Revenues driven by a mix of quantity sold and milk prices

Revenue nearly as high in Kilosaas in Mvomero

But quantity sold is much higher in Kilosa

So, higher revenues in Mvomerois likely driven by higher prices

Revenues in Lushoto likely compromised by quantity sold

Prices higher than in Kilosawhere revenues are pretty high

Total production low despite high productivity

Revenues in Handenicompromised both by quantity and prices

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0


Fre

sh m

ilk r

eve

nu

es

Fre

sh m

ilk q

uan

titi

es

sold

Revenue Milk quantity

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


Fre

sh m

ilk r

eve

nu

es

Fre

sh il

k p

rice

s (T

ZS)

Revenue Milk prices

Household control of milk revenues

Morning milk

Morning milk largely jointly managed in Lushoto & Mvomero

Women control morning milk in Kilosa & Handeni

Evening milk

Control evenly distributed in Lushoto & Handeni

Largely jointly managed in Mvomero

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Pro

port

ion o

f h

ou

sehold

s

Household male Household female Joint

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Pro

port

ion o

f h

ou

sehold

s

Household male Household female Joint

Livelihood Options

Diversity in income options for households Especially among Handeni and Kilosa

males

Income sources largely male dominated

More interesting in Mvomero

More women already engaged in milk trading

Greater room for building gender inclusive hubs around traders

0 2 4 6 8

Male

Joint

Female

Male

Joint

Female

Lushoto

Mvom

er

oH

and

eni

Kilosa

Proportion of different gender controlling income

from different sourcesTrading in livestock and livestock products (not own

produce)

Trading in milk, feeds and other livestock products (not own

produced)

Trading in agricultural products (excluding livestock) (not

own produce)

Formal salaried employment (non-farming, e.g. civil servant,

private sector employee, domestic work in other home)

Business: trade or services (non-agricultural)

Working on other farms (including herding)

Sale of products of natural resources (forest and sea/rivers

products)

Collective action and hub potential

District N

% households with at least a member

in a group

% households with a man as member

% households with a woman as member

Lushoto 154 48.1 75.7 44.6

Mvomero 98 58.2 68.4 45.6

Handeni 105 46.7 77.6 34.7

Kilosa 104 36.5 76.3 26.3

Total 461 47.3 74.3 39.5

DistrictSocial

welfare

Savings and credit

groups/Sacco

Agricultural

producer groups

Livestock producer groups

Agricultural

marketing groups

Livestock marketing groups

Lushoto 9.5 20.3 8.1 74.3 4.1 20.3

Mvomero 5.3 22.8 - 75.4 1.8 1.8

Handeni 2.0 14.3 12.2 69.4 6.1 20.4

Kilosa - - 7.9 92.1 - 15.8

Total 5.05 16.1 6.9 76.6 3.2 14.7

Collective action and hub potential

Animal health is the most used service

Followed by: Milk marketing: nearly all sites

And input supply: Lushoto & Handeni

Breeding and feed supply also in Lushoto

Little access of services via collective action except; Milk marketing in Lushoto

020406080

100120

Indiv

idually

Gro

up

Indiv

idually

Gro

up

Indiv

idually

Gro

up

Indiv

idually

Gro

up


Nu

mb

er

of

hou

sehold

s a

ccessin

g

serv

ices

Feed supply Animal health Breeding

Milk marketing Savings

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Pro

port

ion o

f h

ou

sehold

accessin

g s

erv

ices

Feed supply Animal Health Breeding

Extension Advice Milk marketing Milk transport

Input supply

Conclusion

$$

Payment

agreement

Producer

s

Inputs &

service

providers

Milk

traders/c

hilling

plants

Informal relationship: TDB training ISP

to train milk traders

Observations from the field

Opportunities for establishing linkages

Existing relationship between BDSs & milk traders courtesy of TDB training

Villages around Wami Dakawa & Dumila served by milk traders from project areas

Informal relationship exist between milk traders, service providers & farmers that can easily be exploited

Need for closer monitoring of group activities to ensure:

Timely management of group dynamics

Timely sharing of information among project partners

Need for feedback session with farmers (via FGDs) to share results of the 2 surveys and cow killer research

Explain the value of the surveys/introduce upcoming nutrition survey

Include milk traders & BDS in FGD to introduce the hub concept

Set timelines (per group) for linkage establishment

Provide translated site-specific plans to groups and explain progress

The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.

better lives through livestock

ilri.org

Thank you!

Conclusion

In most sites we have the building blocks of a hub

Relevant farmer groups (livestock producer groups)

Substantial commercial orientation in milk production

Milk traders or chilling plants (around which a hub can be established)

Various service providers – AH; agro-vets; etc.

Some service providers (agro-vets etc.) already engaging with TDB

What we need

Work with farmers to identify preferred service providers

Improve farmers’ understanding of the benefits of “linkages” and “check-off”

Engage and improve capacity of identified service providers

Establish linkages and formalize agreements between farmer groups and service providers

Continue to monitor outcomes and feed back into the project

Science

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