Agricultural Growth Program – Livestock Market Development ... · Agricultural Growth Program –...

transcript

Agricultural Growth Program – Livestock Market Development (AGP-LMD) Project EXTERNAL MID-TERM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT May 2015

This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Tufts University. The authors of the report are Kurt Rockeman, Beyene Tadesse, and Tsehay Redda.

Agriculture Knowledge, Learning, Documentation and Policy Project (AKLDP), Ethiopia

AgriculturalGrowthProgram–LivestockMarketDevelopment(AGP‐LMD)EXTERNALMID‐TERMPERFORMANCEEVALUATIONREPORTUSAIDContractNo.663‐13‐000006AgricultureKnowledge,Learning,DocumentationandPolicy(AKLDP)ProjectImplementedby:FeinsteinInternationalCenterFriedmanSchoolofNutritionScienceandPolicyTuftsUniversityAfricaRegionalOfficePOBox1078AddisAbabaEthiopiaTel:+251(0)11618014www.fic.tufts.eduDisclaimerTheviewsexpressedinthisreportdonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheUnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopmentortheUnitedStatesGovernment.

CONTENTSListofacronyms.........................................................................................................................................................................i Listoftables...............................................................................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................................ii EXECUTIVESUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................................iii 1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................1 1.1 BackgroundtoAGP‐LMDandtheMid‐TermEvaluation..........................................................................1 1.2 ProjectObjectiveandIntermediateResults..................................................................................................1 1.3 TheoryofChange......................................................................................................................................................2 1.4 ProjectManagement,CoverageandTargetGroups...................................................................................2 1.5 EvaluationObjectivesandQuestions...............................................................................................................3 1.6 EvaluationDesign.....................................................................................................................................................4 1.7 ReportLimitations....................................................................................................................................................4 1.8 LivestockValueChainProductivity...................................................................................................................5 2. EVALUATIONFINDINGS................................................................................................................................6 2.1 ProgramPerformance.............................................................................................................................................6 2.1.1 General.........................................................................................................................................................................6 2.1.2 IR1:IncreasedProductivityandCompetitivenessofSelectedLivestockValueChains.............8 2.1.3 IR2:ImprovedEnablingEnvironmentforLivestockValueChains..................................................13 2.1.4 IR3:ImprovedQualityandDiversityofHouseholdDiet.......................................................................13 2.2 ProgramImpactonGovernmentPolicy,ProcessandAdministration.............................................14 2.3 EffectivenessoftheImplementationApproach.........................................................................................15 2.4 RelevanceofProjectActivities..........................................................................................................................17 2.5 GenderIssues............................................................................................................................................................18 2.6 NutritionActivityPerformance.........................................................................................................................19 3. SUMMARYANDCONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................20 3.1 ProgramPerformance...........................................................................................................................................20 3.1.1 General.......................................................................................................................................................................20 3.1.2 IR1:IncreasedProductivityandCompetitivenessofSelectedLivestockValueChains...........21 3.1.3 IR2:ImprovedEnablingEnvironmentforLivestockValueChains..................................................24 3.1.4 IR3:ImprovedQualityandDiversityofHouseholdDiet.......................................................................24 3.2 ProgramImpactonGovernmentPolicy,ProcessandAdministration.............................................24 3.3 EffectivenessofImplementationApproach.................................................................................................25 3.4 EffectivenessofPartnershipswithGoEAGPImplementersandOtherGovernmentOffices..26 3.5 RelevanceofProjectActivities..........................................................................................................................26 3.6 GenderIssues............................................................................................................................................................27 3.7 NutritionActivityPerformance.........................................................................................................................28 4. RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................................................28

ListofacronymsADLI AgriculturalDevelopmentLedIndustrializationAI ArtificialInseminationAGP AgricultureGrowthProgramAGP‐AMDE AgriculturalGrowthProgram–AgriculturalMarketDevelopmentAGP‐LMD AgriculturalGrowthProgram–LivestockMarketDevelopmentBDS BusinessDevelopmentServicesCIG CommonInterestGroupCNFA CultivatingNewFrontiersinAgricultureDA DevelopmentAgentDCA DevelopmentCreditAuthorityENGINE EmpoweringNewGenerationstoImproveNutritionandEconomic

OpportunitiesProject,USAIDEDDP EthiopiaDairyDevelopmentProject FtF FeedtheFutureFMSEDA FederalMicroandSmallEnterpriseDevelopmentFtFZOI Feed‐the‐FutureZoneofInfluenceGoE GovernmentofEthiopiaGRAD GraduationwithResiliencetoAchieveSustainableDevelopmentProject,USAIDGTP GrowthandTransformationPlanHUNDEE OromoGrassrootsDevelopmentInitiativeIP ImplementingPartnerIR IntermediateResultIGA IncomeGeneratingActivityJRIS JointReviewImplementationStrategyLITS LivestockIdentificationandTraceabilitySystemLMD LivestockMarketDevelopmentLOL LandO’LakesLTC LivestockTechnicalCommitteeLVC LivestockValueChainsLWG LivestockWorkingGroupMLA MeatandLiveAnimalMOA MinistryofAgricultureMOH MinistryofHealthMOT MinistryofTradeMSE Micro‐andSmallEnterprisesMSP Multi‐StakeholderPlatformMSPM Multi‐StakeholderPartnershipMeetingMT MetricTonORDA OrganizationforReliefandDevelopmentinAmharaPEPFAR President’sEmergencyPlanforAIDSReliefPCI PreciseConsultInternationalPLIII PastoralLivelihoodsInitiative,SecondPhasePLWHA PeopleLivingwithHIV/AIDs PMP PerformanceManagementPlanPSNP ProductiveSafetyNetProgrammePRIME PastoralistsAreasResilienceImprovementandMarketExpansionProjectRDPAS RuralDevelopmentProgramandStrategyREDFS RuralEconomicDevelopmentandFoodSecurityREST ReliefSocietyofTigrayRFA RequestforApplicationRMSDA RegionalMicroandSmallEnterpriseDevelopmentSNNPR SouthernNations,Nationalities,andPeoples'RegionSOW StatementofWork

TA TechnicalAssistanceTOT TrainingofTrainersVC ValueChainUS UnitedStatesUSAID UnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopmentListoftablesTable1: Ethiopiacattlepopulationbyage(2013‐2014)……………………………………………..5Table2a: SelectedAGP‐LMDPMPIR1PerformanceIndicators……………………………………..9Table2b: AGP‐LMDIR1GrossPerformanceMeasures…………………………………………………11Table3: SelectedAGP‐LMDPMPIR2PerformanceIndicators…………………………………….13Table4 SelectedAGP‐LMDPMPIR3PerformanceIndicators…………………………………….14NoteInEthiopiaaworedaisanadministrativeunit,roughlyequivalenttoadistrictinothercountries.Akebeleisequivalenttoasub‐district,beingthenextlevelofadministrativeunitwithinaworeda.AcknowledgementsThemembersoftheevaluationteamwouldliketoexpressgratitudeandsincereappreciationtotheAGP‐LMDmanagementandstafffortheirdedicatedcooperationandassistanceinorganizingourtravelandinterviewscheduleandduringoursitevisits;andtheAKLDPstafffortheirsubstantiveguidanceandadministrativeandlogisticalsupport.

EXECUTIVESUMMARY Theexternalmid‐termevaluationoftheUSAID/EthiopiaAgriculturalGrowthProgram–LivestockMarketDevelopment(AGP‐LMD)projectwascarriedoutinMarch‐April2015torespondtoStatementofWork(SOW)specificationsandspecificquestionsprovidedbyUSAID.AGP‐LMDisafive‐year,$41millionprojectimplementedaspartoftheU.S.GovernmentFeed‐the‐Future(FtF)Initiative.Thegoaloftheprojectis:ImprovedSmallholderIncomesandNutritionalStatus.AGP‐LMD,inconcertwiththecropvaluechainprogram(AGP‐AMDe),servesaspartofUSAID’scontributiontotheGovernmentofEthiopia’sAgriculturalGrowthProgram(AGP).TheAGPgoalis“toendpovertyandenhancegrowth”,whichalignswiththeFtFgoalto“sustainablyreducepovertyandhunger”.TheprojectisimplementedbyCNFA.TheobjectiveofAGP‐LMDisto“fostergrowthandreducepovertybyimprovingtheproductivityandcompetitivenessofselectedlivestockvaluechains:dairy,meatandliveanimals.”ItseekstoachievethisobjectivethroughthreeIntermediateResultsandfourcross‐cuttingissues:

IR1:IncreasedproductivityandcompetitivenessofselectedlivestockvaluechainsIR2:ImprovedenablingenvironmentforlivestockvaluechainsIR3:ImprovedqualityanddiversityofhouseholddietsCrosscuttingissues:gender,ICT,environmentandpro‐poor.

Specifically,AGP‐LMDimplementationfocuseson7mainlivestockgrowthcorridorsandmilkshedareas,andincludes62woredas(46AGPworedasand16non‐AGPworedas)inTigray,Amhara,OromiaandtheSouthernNations,Nationalities,andPeoples'Region(SNNPR).Ofthese10woredashavebeendesignatedDeepFocusedWoredaswheretheprojectwillinvestmuchofitsefforts,withaspecificemphasisonnutritionrelatedactivities.

TheAGP‐LMDevaluationteamcollectedandanalyzedquantitativeandqualitativeinformationtoassessprogresstowardsmeetingtheprojectgoalandobjectivesusingselectedindicatorsandtargetsfromtheAGP‐LMDPerformanceMonitoringPlan(PMP).Quantitativeinformationonaccomplishmentsdescribedinprojectdocumentsandreportswasverifiedandcomplementedwithqualitativeinformationfromface‐to‐faceinterviewswithover70projectimplementers,stakeholdersandinformedobserversinsixofthemainlivestockgrowthcorridors/milksheds.KeyFindingsandConclusions

Thefollowingdiscussionisasummaryofthegeneralfindings,conclusionsandrecommendationsoftheevaluationteam:

CNFAanditsconsortiumpartnersaremakingacredibleefforttoimplementtheproject,withthefollowingverynotablepositives:o CapacityBuilding:Individualsinterviewedwereverypositiveaboutprojecttechnical

andbusinesstraining,whichwebelievehasbeenthemostsuccessfulelementoftheprojecttodate.

o Women’sParticipation:Thespeciallydesignedentrepreneurship,governanceandleadershiptrainingfocusedonwomen,andthesubstantiveinvolvementofwomeninallprojectactivities.

o Business‐to‐Business:Thisactivityisgreatlyappreciatedasaprocessforintroducingfirmstooneanother,breakingdownresistancetocooperatingwithoneanother,andfacilitatingcollaborationlocallyandinternationally.

o DairyValueChain:Theprojectisdoingaverygoodjobofdevelopingthedairysector,especiallywithregardtocollectioncentersandprocessorsatalllevels.

o Investment:Theprojectisprovidinggrantstotalingmorethan$6milliontoleverageprivateinvestment,andhashelped9borrowersobtain$2.2millioninDCAfinancing.

o RegionalLivestockWorkingGroups(LWGs):Thisisahighlyregardedplatformforbringingtogethergovernment,NGOs,businessinterests,andproducerstodiscusspracticalissuesandproblemsimpactingthelivestocksectorandrecommendsolutions.

Basedonourfindingsandconclusions,webelievethattheprojectshouldconcentrateitseffortsduringtheremainingLOPon:

o Greatlyexpandingsupportformicro‐andsmallenterprise(MSE)developmentintheruralareasadjacenttolivestockproducers.

o SubstantiallyincreasingtheroleandresponsibilitiesofthelocalImplementingPartners,especiallyindesigningandimplementingMSEdevelopmentactivities,andmeasuringtheimpactofprojectactivities(withCNFAtechnicaladviceandsupport).

o EstablishingprivateBusinessDevelopmentServices(BDS)providerstoensureessentialservicesforgranteesandindustrialscalevaluechainoperations.

Theprincipalfindingsandconclusionsoftheevaluationteamwhichinformthesummaryandrecommendationsaboveare:

ThelinkbetweenAGPandFtFgoals,andtheirlinktotheAGP‐LMDobjectiveofincreasingvaluechainproductivityandcompetitiveness,isnotclearlyarticulatedinprojectdocuments.Thisresultsinanawkwardgeographicandtargetingfocus.

ItcanbearguedthatAGP‐LMDsupportsruraleconomicgrowth,andthatsuchgrowthisanecessary(butnotsufficient)conditionforpovertyreduction.ItcanalsobearguedthatincreasingvaluechainproductivityandcompetitivenesscancontributetotheachievementofbothAGPandFtFgoals.However,projectdocumentsdonotmakethesearguments.

Individualprojectcomponents,strategiesandactivitiesarenotclearlydefinedandarticulated,especiallywithregardtotheseparatedairyandmeat/liveanimalvaluechains.Thiscreatesconfusionamongimplementingpartnersandstakeholders,compromisingimplementationeffectiveness.

AGP‐LMDactivities(dairyvaluechain,meatandliveanimalvaluechain,training,grantsprogram,enablingenvironment,andnutrition)resembleseparateprojects.Thereislittlesynergybetweenactivities,whichdilutesandcomplicatesprojectmanagement.

CNFAisroughlyontracktomeetmostPMPtargets,especiallywhencomparedwiththepercentageofthebudgetwhichhasbeenexpended.Thisisinspiteofunrealisticimplementationexpectations;unreasonableexpendituretargetsduringthefirsttwoyears;andsomeill‐considereddecisions(e.g.,suspendingIR1traininginYear3).

Thegrantsprogramisdesignedtoleveragelarge‐scaleprivateinvestment,particularlyprocessingcapacity,inthelivestockvaluechains.Butthegrantprocessisincrediblycumbersome,andthecurrentrateofexpendituremakesitunlikelythattheprogramwillcontributesubstantiallytotheachievementofprojectgoalsduringtheLOP.

MajorPMPindicators,especiallythemandatoryFtFindicators,areinadequatetomeasureprojectimpactorcontributiontotheachievementofAGPandFtFgoals.PMPindicatorsarealsoinsufficienttomeasuretheperformanceandthecontributionofthegrantsprogramandcreditfacilitationactivitiestotheachievementofprojectgoals

Asstatedpreviously,theprojectisdoingaverygoodjobofsupportingdairyindustrydevelopment.Buttheimpactofincreasedcapacityandconsumerdemandonproductivitywillnotreallybefeltuntilaftertheprojectends.

Theproject“pull”philosophyfordrawingproducersintothevaluechain,whilefocusingonworkinginthemiddleofthechain,makessense.Butinpracticaltermstheprojectisworkingtoofardistantinthevaluechainfromruralproducerstoimpactproductivity.

Meatandliveanimalactivitiesaretooconcentratedatthetopendofthevaluechain,workingwithabattoirsandlargescalefeedlots,toofocusedonexports,andtoofardistantfromproducerstoexerteffective“pull”.

Ethiopianexportsoflivecattleandshoatcarcassesaresolidlycompetitiveintheregionalmarket.Buttheyareunlikelytoincreaseunlessgovernment‐imposeddisincentives(policyandregulatory)areeasedtodrawmoreanimalsintoformalexportchannels.

Beefexportsarenotpresently,norlikelytobe,competitive–atleastinthenearfuture.Majorfactorsaffectingcompetitivenessincludeproductqualityandcost.

Effortstoimprovetheenablingenvironmentforlivestockvaluechainsareencouraging,buttheimpactongovernmentpolicyandregulationisyettoberealized.

TheprojectisontracktomeetIR3indicatortargets,butthepracticalimpactonnutritionalpracticesandPLWHAsisnotyetrealized,andthescaleofeventualimpactisuncertain.

Theprojectisnottakingfulladvantageoftheinstitutionalandorganizationalstrengths,andtechnicalcapabilitiesoflocalImplementingPartners.Theculpritistheineffectualsub‐contractingmechanismcurrentlyinuse,whichmitigatesagainsteffectiveperformance.

RecommendationsThespecificrecommendationsoftheEvaluationTeamforincreasingtheprojectcontributiontobothAGPandFtFobjectives,andachievingtheprojectgoalandobjective,areasfollows:

1. DevelopandincorporateinprojectdocumentsandreportingacleararticulationoftherelationshipbetweentheAGPandFtFgoals,theirlinkagewiththeprojectgoalandobjectives,andexactlyhowprojectactivitiesareexpectedtocontributetotheachievementofthosegoalsandtheprojectobjective.

Atpresenttheprojectgoalandrationale,andtheexpectedcontributionofprojectactivitiestotheachievementofthegoalandLOPtargets,isnotclearlyarticulated.

2. DevelopcustomPMPindicatorstomeasureandrecordtheoutcomeandimpactofthetrainingprogramsandthegrantsprogram;andtheircontributiontotheachievementofprojectgoalandobjective.

Wesuggestdevelopinganindicatorofincreasedsales/incomeformeasuringtheimpactoftrainingonMSEsandproducers.

Wealsosuggestindicatorsofincreasedproductsales(volumeandvalue),increasedinputpurchases(volumeandvalue),andare‐evaluationofthejobcreationindicator(person/daysofemployment)tomeasuretheimpactofthegrantsprogramandloanfacilitation.

3. Developandimplementamethodologytomeasure(ratherthansimplyestimate)theimpactofAGPandAGP‐LMDactivitiesonlivestockproductivity(fertility,mortality,andyield/animal)andruralhouseholdincome.

Specifically,werecommendjointdesignandimplementationofthemethodologywithlocalImplementingPartnersinlinewithRecommendation5,inconsultationwithotherstakeholders.ThiswillbothimprovetheeffectivenessofFtFreporting,andhelpAGPmeasuretheimpactofitsactivities.

4. Greatlyexpandingsupportformicro‐andsmallenterprise(MSE)developmentintheruralareasadjacenttolivestockproducers(firstpointofsale)asthefocusofimplementationduringtheremainingLife‐of‐Project.

Specifically,werecommendcombiningtechnicalandbusinessmanagementtrainingwithsmallcapitalinvestmentgrantstoleverageentrepreneurship(suggestedamount

$500‐$1,000).Thiswillpromotevaluechaindevelopment,moredirectlyimpacttheFtFtargetpopulation,increasethenumberofbeneficiaries,andcontributemoreclearlytotheachievementoftheAGPgoal.

5. SubstantiallyincreasingtheroleandresponsibilitiesofthelocalImplementingPartners,makingthemdirectlyresponsibleforthedesignandimplementationoftheMSEdevelopmentprogramrecommendedabove.

Specifically,werecommendchangingthecurrentsub‐contractingmodalitytoeitherasub‐grant(preferred)oramulti‐yearsubcontractcombiningcostreimbursementforcoreoperationswithpurchaseordersforspecificactivities.Thiswillensurecontinuityinimplementation,dramaticallyincreaseimpact,andtakefulladvantageofIPinstitutionalandtechnicalcapacityandoperationalpresence,enhancingsustainability.

6. Bringthelarge‐scalegrantsprogramtoanorderlyconclusion.

Specifically,werecommendthatLMDnotconsideranygrantinexcessof$100,000.AGP‐LMDhasdoneenoughwiththeprogramtoleveragenew,larger‐scalevalue‐chaininvestments.Itneedstofinalizethosegrantscurrentlyinprocess,andbringtheactivitytoaclose.However,theprojectwillneedtocontinueprovidingTAduringtheremainingLOPtohelpthegranteessucceed.

7. DesignandimplementaprofessionalBDSprogramforprovidingessentialTAandtrainingservicesgranteesandindustrialscalevaluechainoperations(milkprocessors,feedlots,feedprocessors,andabattoirs).

AGP‐LMDneedstodevelopindividualprogramsofassistancewitheachclient,definedinawrittenagreementwhichclearlystateswhattheprojectwilldointermsofprovidingtechnicalassistanceandadvice,clientobligations,andclearlydefinedresultsbenchmarks.

8. KeepIR2activitiesmodestandfocused.

TheprojectshouldcontinuefacilitatingMSPandLWGactivities,thepilotLITS,andmodestengagementtosupportSPSissueresolution.Theprojectshouldalsoseektopromoteanewunifiedpolicyandregulatoryframeworkforthelivestocksectortoreplacethepresentburdensomeandinconsistentcombinationofcontradictorypoliciesandregulations.

9. DesignandincorporatepilotpoultryactivitiesintoIR3,emphasizingpatioproductionandhomeconsumptionofeggs.

Werecommendacombinationofincludingmessagespromotingthehomeuseofeggsandpoultry,andmodesteffortstoimprovemanagementandproductivityofpatioflocks.ThiswilltieIR3moredirectlytotheoverallproject;emphasizetheuseoftheanimalsourcefood(eggsandchicken)whichismostaccessibletothepoortoimprovenutrition;andlaythefoundationforthedesignoffuturenutritionactivities.Inparticular,thepilotpoultryactivityshouldincorporatevaluechainconceptswhereappropriate,perhapsengagingPLWHAstoraisechicksintomaturebirdswhichcanbemadeavailabletohouseholds.

ImplementingtheRecommendations

Wehavecraftedtherecommendationstomakeimplementationafairlystraightforwardprocess.Thechangeswerecommendwillstimulatecreativityandaction,promoteachievement,produceresults,andmakeeveryonelookbetter.Thetwostepstoimplementtherecommendationsare:

1. AnnualWorkPlan:Recommendations1,2,3,6,7,8and9canbeimplementedinthecontextofdevelopingthenextAnnualWorkPlan.USAIDwillneedtoprovideguidancetoCNFAtocarrythisout,buttherecommendationsarenotcomplicatedanddonotappeartorequiresubstantivechangestotheprojectSOWorbudget.

2. ContractAmendment:ImplementingRecommendations4and5willrequireanamendmenttothecontractSOWtodescribetheMSEdevelopmentprogram,establishtheguidelinesforexpandingImplementingPartnerrolesandresponsibilities,andamendingthebudgettoaccommodatethesechanges.USAIDmaywishtoconsideraprojectextensiontocompensateforthetimeneededtomakethesechanges.

Thisneednotbealong,drawn‐outandcomplicatedprocess.But,itwilltakewillanddecisiveness:thewilltoembracechange;andthedecisivenesstopressonandmakeithappen.SummaryCNFAisdoingacrediblejobofimplementingtheproject,andwebelievethatAGP‐LMDiscontributingtotheachievementoftheAGPgoal.ButtheprojectcontributiontotheachievementoftheFtFgoalisnotclear,projectactivitieslacksynergy;andprojectresultsandimpactarenotbeingmethodicallymeasured.Therefore,insummarywerecommendthatimplementationduringtheremainingLOPfocusonMSEdevelopmentinareasadjacenttorurallivestockproducerstoincreaseimpactandprojectcontributiontotheachievementofAGPandFtFgoals.

1. INTRODUCTION1.1 BackgroundtoAGP‐LMDandtheMid‐TermEvaluationTheexternalmid‐termevaluationoftheUSAID/EthiopiaAgriculturalGrowthProgram–LivestockMarketDevelopment(AGP‐LMD)ProjectwascarriedoutinMarch‐April2015followingtheStatementofWork(SOW)specificationsprovidedbyUSAID.ThepurposeoftheevaluationistoexaminewhatAGP‐LMDhasachievedatthemid‐pointinimplementation.Specifically,theevaluationassessedwhetherAGP‐LMDisachievingorislikelytoachievetheexpectedresultsbytheendoftheproject,aswellasthemanagementandoperationoftheproject.Thefindings,conclusionsandrecommendationsareintendedtoinformandimproveimplementationofAGP‐LMDduringtheremaininglifeoftheproject.Theevaluationfindingswillalsohelpinformthedesignofsimilarprojectsinthefuture.

AGP‐LMDisafive‐yearprojectimplementedaspartoftheU.S.GovernmentFeed‐the‐Future(FtF)Initiative.Thegoaloftheprojectis:ImprovedSmallholderIncomesandNutritionalStatus.AGP‐LMD,inconcertwiththecropvaluechainprogram(AGP‐AMDe),servesaspartofUSAID’scontributiontotheGovernmentofEthiopia’sAgriculturalGrowthProgram(AGP).TheAGPgoalis“toendpovertyandenhancegrowth”,whichalignswiththeFtFgoalto“sustainablyreducepovertyandhunger.”

AGP‐LMDisbeingimplementedunderacontractsignedwithCultivatingNewFrontiersinAgriculture(CNFA)(AID‐663‐C‐12‐00009)onSeptember17,2012withanenddateofSeptember16,2017.ProjectactivitiesfocusedonlivestockgrowthcorridorsandmilkshedswhichencompasstargetedAGPandfoodinsecureworedasinTigray,Amhara,OromiaandSNNPR.Implementationarrangementsuseandbuildupontheextensiveprofessionalandsocialnetworksoflocalorganizationsinthefourregions.TheinitialLifeofProjectBudgetwas$37,673,362,subsequentlyincreasedto$41,173,362onFebruary11,2015.1.2 ProjectObjectiveandIntermediateResultsTheobjectiveofAGP‐LMDisto“fostergrowthandreducepovertybyimprovingtheproductivityandcompetitivenessofselectedlivestockvaluechains:dairy,meatandliveanimals.”ItseekstoachievethisobjectivethroughthreeIntermediateResults(IRs),fiveComponents,andnumerousactivitiesasfollows:IR1:Increasedproductivityandcompetitivenessofselectedlivestockvaluechains Component1:FromAnalyticstoStrategytoLearning

- Communityofpractice- Innovationsandgoodpractices- Cases,studies,presentationsandexchanges- Trainingofstaff

Component2:ImprovetheProductivityandCompetivenessofLivestockValueChains- Linkvaluechainactorstoinputandserviceproviders- Strengtheninputandserviceproviders- Improvelivestockmanagement- Improvepost‐productionrelationships,efficienciesandquality- Improvenumber,qualityandfunctionalityofthemiddleofthevaluechain- Marketexpansion–domesticandinternational- Strengthengovernanceandcollaborationwithinvaluechain- Increasedomesticconsumptionofdairyproducts- Increasewomenentrepreneurshipandleadershipdevelopment

Component3:SpurInvestmentandInnovation- Stimulateinvestmentsandaccesstofinancethroughoutthevaluechain

IR2:Improvedenablingenvironmentforlivestockvaluechains Component4:ImprovetheEnablingEnvironmentofLivestockValueChains

- Facilitateandempowerstakeholdersforpolicyreformandadvocacy- Buildcapacityofpublicandprivatestakeholderstoprovideservices- Institutionalcoordinationamongstakeholders- Appliedresearchfordevelopment- Linkagecreationwithothers

IR3:Improvedqualityanddiversityofhouseholddiet Component5:EnhancedNutritionofRuralHouseholds(NutritionandPLWHA)

- CapacitybuildingforIPs- Behavioralchangecommunication- Communityengagement- Focusongender- Developingpartnershipsandnetwork- SavingsandCreditGroup(SCG)formationandtraining(PLWHA)- Businesstrainingandresourcemobilization

CrossCutting Gender,ICT,Environment,Pro‐Poor1.3 TheoryofChangeAGP‐LMDisfocusedinthehighlyproductiveareasofEthiopiawheresmallholderfarmershavetheproductiveassetsrequiredforatleastminimalcommercialengagement.ItalsoincludesactivitieswhichtargetextremelypoorandsubsistencelevelhouseholdsandselectedfoodinsecureworedaswherethegraduatesoftheProductiveSafety‐NetProgram(PSNP)reside.IntheseareasitaimstopulltheirproductsintothemarketplaceupongraduationfromUSAID"push"initiatives,whichwillultimatelyincreasetheirincomes.TheideaisforAGP‐LMDinterventionstogeneratethemarket“pull”requiredtoexpandproducerincomes,developcommercially‐orientedsupportingservices,andformsustainablesupplierandbuyerrelationships.ThisexpandedmarketpullwilllinknewmarketparticipantsgraduatingfromsubsistenceagriculturebyUSAID'sGRADandPRIMEinitiatives.

ThekeydevelopmenthypothesisofAGP‐LMDisthatmarket‐drivenenterprisedevelopmentcangenerateincreasedproducerincomesbypullingpreviouslymarginalizedpopulationsintocommercialvaluechains.Increasedincomes,supportedbyeffectiveplanningandsocialbehaviorchangecommunication,thenleadtoimprovementsinnutrition,householdfoodsecurityandhealth,andcanequitablyimpactwomen,minoritiesandpeoplelivingwithHIV/AIDS.Theprojectimplementationapproachisguidedbyahypothesiswhichstatesthat“empoweringtheprivatesectoratalllevelsofthevaluechain,includingtheintersectionswithhealthandnutrition,isthemosteffectivewaytoachievesustainablegrowthofthelivestocksectorandtoassureimprovementsinpeople’snutritionandhealth.”

ToprovethehypothesisAGP‐LMDappliesaholisticvaluechaindevelopmentapproachtoachieveitsobjectives,withthemiddleofthevaluechainasanentrypointandAGPworedalivestockanddairyproducersasprimarybeneficiaries.Toeffectivelyimplementthisapproach,AGP‐LMDuseda“livestockgrowthcorridor”or“milkshed”(clusterofworedas)approachtoselectinterventionareasandtargetedbeneficiaries.Valuechainsarenotlimitedtospecificworedaboundariesoreventoregionalboundaries.Downstreamvaluechainactorsareoftennotpresentinthesameworedaastheirsuppliers,whiletheimprovementofthecompetivenessofavaluechainrequiresworkingwiththeactorsalongthechain.1.4 ProjectManagement,CoverageandTargetGroupsAGP‐LMDisledbyCNFAandsupportedbythirteenconsortiumpartners.CNFAusesanimplementationapproachwhichcombinesEthiopianandinternationalconsortiumpartnerswithprovenlivestockanddairyvaluechaindevelopmentexperience,withexpertiseinhealth,nutrition,genderequity,andICT.InadditiontoCNFA,theAGP‐LMDconsortiumincludesfourlargeandexperiencedregionalpartnersoperatinginthetargetregions:ReliefSocietyofTigray,

theOrganizationforRehabilitationandDevelopmentinAmhara,theOromoGrassrootsDevelopmentInitiative,andSelf‐HelpAfrica–Ethiopia.Theseorganizationsprovideregionalofficefacilitiesandregionallybasedpersonnelforfront‐lineimplementation.LocalbusinessconsultingfirmsPreciseConsultInternational,BCadConsultingManagement,andTREGConsultconductedendmarketstudies,valuechaingapanalyses/strategies,andprogramlearningstrategies,aswellassupportingprograminterventionstoimproveaccesstofinance,businessskills,andgenderinclusiveness.Thisteamissupportedbyinternationalconsortiumpartners,whichincludetheNetherlandsDevelopmentOrganization,InternationalMedicalCorps,J.E.Austin&Associates,theInstituteforInternationalEducation,andtheInternationalInstituteforCommunicationandDevelopment.

IntermsofgeographytheoverallFtFimplementationareaincludesthe111AGPworedasthatfallundertheaegisofAGP‐AMDe,AGP‐LMDandENGINE.Italsoincludesanadditional38woredasoutsidetheAGPworedaswhereGRADandPRIMEareactive.Thisdiversegroupof149woredasconstitutestheFeed‐the‐FutureZoneofInfluence(FtFZOI),withthepopulationofvulnerablehouseholdswithinittheultimatetargetedbeneficiariesoftheFtFprogram.WithinthiscontextAGP‐LMDimplementationfocuseson7mainlivestockgrowthcorridorsandmilkshedareas,andincludes63woredas(46AGPworedasand16non‐AGPworedas)inTigray,Amhara,OromiaandtheSouthernNations,Nationalities,andPeoples'Region(SNNPR).Ofthese10woredashavebeendesignatedDeepFocusedWoredaswheretheprojectwillinvestmuchofitsefforts,withaspecificemphasisonnutritionrelatedactivities.

Inaddition,theprojectincludesafocusonengagingwomenasparticipantsandincreasingwomen’sroleinleadershipanddecisionmakingparticipants.Womenarekeyactorsinlivestockvaluechains,butduetocultureandsocialtraditionsdonotbenefitfullyandfreelyfromtheirparticipation.Italsotargetshouseholdswithchildren,youth,andHIV/AIDSpositivemembers.1.5 EvaluationObjectivesandQuestionsTheobjectiveoftheAGP‐LMDprojectmid‐termevaluationistoprovideUSAID,CNFA,andstakeholderswithanindependentassessmentofprojectperformancetodate.Theevaluationfocusesonprogressinachievingtheprojectgoal,objectives,andplannedresultsfromSeptember2012throughMarch2015;andonAGP‐LMD’scontributiontoUSAIDEthiopia’sFtFprogramdelivery.

Specifically,theevaluationassessedquantitativelymeasurableprogresstowardtheachievementoftheAGP‐LMDgoalandobjectivesasarticulatedinthePerformanceManagementPlan(PMP),andtheimpactofAGP‐LMDactivitiesonselectedlivestockvaluechains.Thisiscomplementedbyaqualitativeassessmentofotherprojectresults;theeffectivenessofCNFAmanagement,includingcollaboration/coordinationmechanisms;theworkingrelationshipbetweenimplementingpartnersandstakeholders;andtheprogram’scontributiontotheachievementofFtFdevelopmentobjectives.

TheevaluationalsoprovidesrecommendationstoUSAID,CNFA,andotherstakeholdersregardingtheprioritizationofprojectresourcesandactivitiestomaximizeimpactandsustainabilityduringtheremaininglifeoftheproject,aswellastoinformthedesignandimplementationofsimilarprojectsinthefuture.

ThespecificobjectivesoftheAGP‐LMDevaluationareto:1. AssessprogresstowardsachievingtheAGP‐LMDprojectgoalsandobjectivesin

measurable,quantitativeterms;2. Assessotherresults,suchastheimpactofpromotionalandtrainingactivities,and

women’sparticipationinprojectactivities,inqualitativeterms;3. EvaluateCNFA’smethodologies,management,andactivitycoordinationbetween

partnersandstakeholdersintermsofprogrammaticandcosteffectivenessinachievingprojectobjectivesandkeyresults;

4. Provideinformationonprojectachievementsandchallenges,andmakerecommendationstoUSAIDandCNFAforpriorityinterventionsduringtheremaining

lifeoftheprojecttomaximizeimpact,sustainability,andcontributiontoFtFdevelopmentobjectives;and

5. Makerecommendationsregardingactivitieswhicharecandidatesforbeingscaledup,thosethatshouldbediscontinued,andthosewhichcanbeusedtoinformnewprojects.

TheevaluationaddressesthesevenquestionsposedintheStatementofWork(Annex1)asfollows:

1. AretheselectedprogramactivitiesontracktoreachthedesiredFtFresultsinEthiopia?2. Didtheprogramactivitiesleadtoanysignificantchangesingovernmentpolicy,process,

oradministrationthatcanbeexpectedtocontributetoincreasedproductionandinvestmentinthesectorsand/orincreasedexportcompetitiveness?

3. Whatisthedemonstratedeffectivenessofthecurrentimplementationapproach(e.g.workingwithlocalregionalorganizationssuchasORDA,REST,HUNDEEandSelfHelpAfrica‐Ethiopia;andwithinternationalconsortiums)?

4. HoweffectiveisthepartnershipwithGoE‐AGPimplementersandothergovernmentofficessuchasMinistryofAgriculture,MinistryofTrade,MinistryofIndustry,FederalCooperativeagencyandATAintermsofcollaborationandcoordinationtoimplementAGP‐LMD?Whatfactorscontributetosuccessorchallengesinpartnerships,particularlywithregardtotheGoE‐AGP,andwhatisrecommendedtoresolvethechallenges?

5. Basedonsustainabilityandcosteffectiveness,whichactivitiesshouldbecontinuedandwhichactivitiesareirrelevantornomoreimportanttocontributetotheprojectobjectivesinthefuture?

6. Howhastheprogramaddressedgenderissues?7. Howwastheperformanceofthenutritionsensitiveactivitiesimplementationtoward

achievingexpectedoutcome1.6 EvaluationDesignTheAGP‐LMDevaluationteamcollectedandanalyzedquantitativeandqualitativeinformationonprojectperformancetoassessprogresstowardsmeetingtheprojectgoalandobjectivesusingprincipalindicatorsandtargetsselectedfromtheAGP‐LMDPerformanceMonitoringPlan(PMP).Quantitativeinformationonaccomplishmentsdescribedinprojectdocumentsandreportswasverifiedandcomplementedwithqualitativeinformationfrominterviewswithprojectimplementers,stakeholdersandinformedobservers.Interviewsprovidedinsightintoimplementingpartnerexpectations;theeffectivenessandexpectedimpactofshort‐termtrainingandnutritionactivities;andthepotentialforprojectsustainability.Theevaluationteamalsoassessedthedata/informationcollectedfromprojectreports,sitevisitsandinterviewstorespondtothespecificevaluationquestions.TheevaluationteamreviewedAGP‐LMDachievementsandlinkedthembacktoCNFA’sperformancemeasures,especiallyregardingsustainability,enterprisedevelopment,management,quality,genderparticipationandnutritionissues.TheAGP‐LMEvaluationTeamworkedwithUSAIDandCNFAtodevelopascheduleofface‐to‐facemeetingswithimplementingpartnersandstakeholders.Thesewerecombinedwithvisitstositesinsixofthemainlivestockgrowthcorridors/milksheds.CNFAandUSAIDprovidedalistofkeyimplementingpartnersandstakeholdersfortheAGP‐LMDevaluationteamtointerview.Theteamdevelopedalistofquestionstoguideinterviewswithimplementingpartnersandstakeholders,whichwereusedasareferenceduringtheinterviewprocesstofocusdiscussion.FurtherdetailsontheevaluationdesignareprovidedinAnnex3(AGP‐LMDMid‐TermEvaluationWorkPlan),andtheCVsoftheevaluationteammembersareprovidedinAnnex8.1.7 ReportLimitationsThereareimportantsocio‐economicandagro‐ecologicaldifferencesbetweenthefourregionsincludedinUSAID’szoneofinfluence,andtheAGP‐LMDtargetworedas.Inaddition,giventhetimelimitationsandthegeographicdispersionofprojectactivities,itwasnotfeasibletousea

statisticallyrepresentativesampleoftargetworedasandinformantstoexamineAGP‐LMD’swork.Also,itwasnotpossibletointervieweveryregionalandfederalgovernmentcounterpartandinstitutionalstakeholder.However,theEvaluationTeamdidinterviewover70livestockvaluechainactorsrangingfrominputsupplyandserviceproviderstoproducersandprocessors,regionalandfederallevelgovernmentofficials,plusimplementingpartnerandCNFAstafftoobtaintheinformationuponwhichourfindings,conclusionsandrecommendationsarebased.Finally,thetimeavailabletotheEvaluationTeamwasinsufficienttocarryoutin‐depthanalysisofeachprojectstrategy,component,andactivity.Therefore,theevaluationreportconcentratesonthebroadparametersofprojectdesign,implementation,andanticipatedimpacttoidentifythemajoractionsneededtoimproveperformanceandimpact.1.8 LivestockValueChainProductivityAspreviouslystated,theobjectiveofAGP‐LMDisto“fostergrowthandreducepovertybyimprovingtheproductivityandcompetitivenessofselectedlivestockvaluechains:dairy,meatandliveanimals.”Inthiscontext,IntermediateResult1(IR1)isfocusedonincreasingtheproductivityandcompetitivenessofselectedlivestockvaluechains.Butthereislittletoindicateexactlywhatthismeans.Therefore,thissegmentoftheevaluationreportprovidesabriefexplanationofthekeyissuesrelatedtolivestockproductivity(cattle).AdditionalinformationregardingsheepandgoatsiscontainedinAnnex8.

TheestimatedcattlepopulationinthesedentaryareaofEthiopia(excluding3zonesinAfarand6zonesintheSomaliregions)during2013‐2014is55,027,280head,asrepresentedinthetablebelow.Ofthattotal,20,545,625headarefemalesabovetheageof3years.Thisroughlyconstitutesthebreedingpopulation(excludingheiferswhichhavenotcalved).Table1:Ethiopiacattlepopulationbyage(2013‐2014)Age

Total Male FemaleNumber % Number % Number %

TOTAL 55,027,280 100 24,555,570 44.6 30,471,710 55.4- Under6months 5,228,666 9.5 2,514,073 4.6 2,714,593 4.9- 6monthsto1year 4,380,095 7.9 2,099,315 3.8 2,280,780 4.1- 1yearto3years 9,026,584 16.4 4,095,873 7.4 4,930,712 8.9- 3yearsto10years 34,974,795 63.6 15,121,553 27.5 19,853.243 36.1- Over10years 1,417,140 2.6 724,758 1.3 692,382 1.3

Source:CSAAgriculturalSampleSurvey2013/2014(E.C.2006)Withthesenumbersasastartingpoint,therearefourwaystoincreasetheproductivityofEthiopia’scattleherd.Theyare:

a. Increasefertility:Thetotalestimatednumberofcalvesbornduringtheyearwas10,225,288–whichrepresentsacrudefertilityrateof49.8%.Simplyput,roughlyhalfofthebreedingagecowshadacalfduringtheyear.Increasingfertilityto55%wouldproduceanadditional1,000,000calvesfromthesamenumberofcows–anincreaseinproductivity.

b. Decreasemortality:Estimatedmortalityduringtheyearwas3,481,333–whichrepresentsacrudemortalityrateof6.3%.Decreasingmortalityto5.3%wouldmeanthatanadditional550,000cattlesurvive,therebyincreasinganimalsavailableforbreedingandsale(offtake)–increasingproductivity.

c. Increasedmilkproduction:Anestimated10,731,656cowsweremilkedatsometimeduringtheyear.Averagedailyproductionof1.371liters(net)duringa6month(180day)averagelactationperiodyieldedroughly2.65billionlitersofmilk.Simplyincreasingaveragemilkproductionto1.5litersperdaywouldyieldanadditional250millionlitersofmilk,orslightlymorethan680,000litersperday–increasingproductivity.

d. Increasedweight:Anestimated3.8millionheadofcattlewereslaughteredfordomesticconsumptionduringtheyear.Thesurveydoesnotseektoquantifytheamountofmeatproduced,butincreasingaveragemeatyieldby5kilogramsperheadwouldyieldanadditional19millionkilogramsofmeatavailabletothelocalmarket–anincreaseinproductivity.

Insummary,becauseofthesizeofEthiopia’scattleherdevenmodestimprovementsinthesefactorswillyieldsignificantproductivitygains.Thebasicelementsofincreasinglivestockproductivityaredescribedasfollows:

a. Increasingfertilityrequiresimprovingthephysicalcondition(health)ofbreedingcows.Thatcanbeaccomplishedbyimprovedfeedingpracticesandaccesstofeed(betternutrition)andincreasingaccesstoanduseofveterinaryservices(healthcare).

b. Decreasingmortalityrequiresimprovingphysicalcondition(health)ofanimals.Aswithincreasedfertility,thatcanbeaccomplishedbyimprovedfeedingpracticesandaccesstofeed(betternutrition)andincreasingaccesstoanduseofveterinaryservices(healthcare).

c. Increasedmilkproductionrequiresacombinationofimprovingphysicalcondition(health)byimprovedfeedingpracticesandaccesstofeed(betternutrition),increasingaccesstoanduseofveterinaryservices(healthcare),andgeneticimprovement.

d. Increasedweightrequiresimprovedfeedingpracticesandaccesstofeed(betternutrition)andincreasingaccesstoanduseofveterinaryservices(healthcare).

Insummary,improvedfeedingpracticesandincreasedaccesstoanduseofveterinaryservicesareessentialtoimprovingproductivity.Thecatchisthatthereisalonglagtimebetweenimprovementsandincreasedproduction(offtake).Forexample,ittakes3yearsforcalvesbornduetoincreasedfertilitytoweantheirfirstcalf(female)orbeavailableforslaughter(male).Sincemostmortalityoccursamongcalves,thesameistruefordecreasingmortality.Increasedmilkproductionandweightcanbeachievedinsomewhatlesstime.Butanimalsstuntedearlyinlifeneverfullyrecover,andformostcowsincreasedmilkproductionasaresultofimprovedfeedingwilltakeplaceinthenextlactation.Geneticimprovementsrequireageneration(3yearsatleast)tobegintomaterialize.

Tosummarize,thelagtimerequiredtoincreaselivestockproductivitymeansthatmostoftheimpactfromwhattheprojectisdoingtodaywillonlybegintoberealizedoverthenext3years.Someimpactmayberealizedintheshortrun,butmostofitwilltakeplaceaftertheendoftheproject.2. EVALUATIONFINDINGSThefindingspresentedbelowareorganizedaccordingtothesevenevaluationquestionsposedbyUSAIDintheSOW.AGP‐LMDhasthreeIRs,eachwithrelatedcomponentsandactivities(Section1.2).AGP‐LMDperformanceisexaminedwithregardtothemajoractivityindicatorsandtargetscontainedinthePMP–firstingeneralterms,andthenwithregardtoeachoftheIRs.Therearealsofourcross‐cuttingissues(gender,ICT,environment,pro‐poor)buttheseissuesarenotlinkedtospecificactivities,andarewithoutindicatorsortargets.2.1 ProgramPerformanceThefollowingarethefindingsoftheevaluationteaminresponsetoquestionone:AretheselectedprogramactivitiesontracktoreachthedesiredFtFresultsinEthiopia?2.1.1 GeneralFirstofall,wefoundthatCNFAanditsconsortiumpartnersaremakingacredibleefforttoimplementtheproject,withsomeverypositiveachievementstodate.Theseinclude: CapacityBuilding:Theambitiousprogramoftechnicalandbusinesstrainingacrossawide

rangeofsubjectsandalargenumberofparticipantsreceivedverypositivecommentsfromeveryoneweinterviewed.Thereisnodoubtthatthisisthemostsuccessfulelement

oftheprojecttodateintermsofdirectimpactwiththebeneficiarypopulation,andmostlikelytohaveimpactedproductivity.

Women’sParticipation:Thespeciallydesignedentrepreneurship,governanceandleadershiptrainingfocusedonwomen,andthesubstantiveinvolvementofwomeninallprojectactivities,hasbeenverysuccessful.

Business‐to‐Business:Thisactivityisgreatlyappreciatedforitscontributioninintroducingfirmstooneanother,breakingdownresistancetocooperating,establishingbusinesslinkages,andfacilitatingcollaborationlocallyandinternationally.

DairyValueChain:AGP‐LMDisdoingaverygoodjobofsupportingdairysectordevelopment,especiallywithregardtoexpandingprocessingcapacity,supportingtheestablishmentofcollectioncenterstoimprovethesupplynetwork,andtraining.

Investment:Theprojectisprocessinggrantstotalingmorethan$6milliontoleverageprivateinvestment,andhassuccessfullyhelped9borrowersobtain$2.2millioninDCAfinancing.

RegionalLivestockWorkingGroups(LWGs):Thisisahighlycomplimentedplatformforbringinggovernmentinterests,NGOs,businesspeople,andproducerstogethertodiscusspracticalissuesandproblemsimpactingthelivestocksectorandrecommendsolutions.Second,basedonourfindingsandconclusions,webelievethattheprojectshould

concentrateitseffortsduringtheremainingLOPon: Greatlyexpandingformicro‐andsmallenterprise(MSE)developmentintheruralareas

adjacenttolivestockproducers. SubstantiallyincreasingtheroleandresponsibilitiesofthelocalImplementingPartners,

especiallyindesigningandimplementingMSEdevelopmentactivities,andmeasuringtheimpactofprojectactivities(withCNFAtechnicaladviceandsupport).

FacilitatingtheestablishmentofprivateBusinessDevelopmentServices(BDS)providerstoensuretheavailabilityofessentialservicesforgranteesandindustrialvaluechainoperations.Thespecificfindingsoftheevaluationteamwhichinformtheabovearediscussedas

follows:ProjectDesignIssues:ThegoalsofAGPandFtFappearcomplementary,butinpracticemakeforanawkwardimplementationmarriage.Forexample,theAGPgoalis“toendpovertyandenhancegrowth”,andimplementationisfocusedonimprovingproductivityandeconomicgrowthinthehighpotentialareasofEthiopia,withanemphasisonsurplusproducers.However,thegoaloftheFtFinitiative(theprimarysourceoffundingfortheproject)is“tosustainablyreducepovertyandhunger”withimplementationfocusedonimprovingtheincomesofpoorruralhouseholds,andimprovingthenutritionalstatusofchildren.ThereiscertainlyoverlapbetweenAGPandFtFbeneficiarypopulations,buttheextentofoverlapandhowitisconsideredduringimplementationisnotclearlydescribed.

AGP‐LMDcombinesthesegoalsundertheumbrellaobjectiveofimprovingsmallholderincomesandnutritionalstatus,whichaimstocontributetotheachievementofbothusingavaluechaindevelopmentapproachtoimproveproductivityandcompetitiveness.However,thevaluechainapproachdoesnotnecessarilyengagewithorimpactpoorruralhouseholds.AGP‐LMDisnotfullyconsistentwiththeAGPgeographicfocusareaseither.Itdepartsfromworedaspecificgeographictargetstoencompassnaturallyoccurringdairymilkshedsandlivestockgrowthcorridors.Sincelivestockvaluechainstranscendadministrativeboundariesandgeography,thismakesperfecttechnicalsense.However,itmakesforanawkwardgeographicmarriage,withsomeprojectactivitiesfocusedontargetworedaswhileothersemphasizegrowthcorridorsandmilksheds.

Thekeydevelopmenthypothesisoftheprojectisthatmarket‐drivenenterprisedevelopmentcangenerateincreasedproducerincomesbypullingpreviouslymarginalizedpopulationsintocommercialvaluechains,increasingtheirincomes.Theassumptionisthatthiswillleadtoimprovementsinnutrition,householdfoodsecurityandhealthinthetarget

population.However,projectcontributionstotheachievementofAGPandFtFgoalshingeuponexactlywhichhouseholdsactuallybenefitfromprojectinterventions.

Withinthissomewhatawkwardframework,thecomponentpartsofAGP‐LMDresembleseparateprojects(dairy,meat,liveanimals,training,grants,policy,andnutrition),withverylittlecomplementarityorsynergybetweenthem.Thisdilutesoversight,makingthemanagementofprojectimplementationcomplicatedanddifficult.2.1.2 IR1:IncreasedProductivityandCompetitivenessofSelectedLivestockValueChainsCNFAisroughlyontracktomeetmostoftheperformanceindicatortargets(seeTables2,3and4below).Themostnotableexceptionsarejobcreation,whichmethodologyissuesmakestotallyinadequatetocapturetheemploymentimpactofincreasinglivestockvaluechainproductivityandcompetitiveness,andthenumberofMSMEsreceivingUSGassistancetoaccessloans.Wenotethatperformancecannotbeexpectedtobelinear,butincreasingovertimewiththelateryearsoftheprojectproducingthebulkoftheanticipatedresults.

TherearesignificantissuesregardingtherelationshipoftheindicatorstoAGP(enhancedgrowth)orFtF(povertyreduction)goals.ThisiscomplicatedbythefactthatAGPisnotattemptingtomeasureimpact,relyinguponthefinalevaluation.ThemajorPMPindicators,drawnprimarilyfrommandatoryFtFindicators,aresimplyinadequatetomeasureimpact,ortoarticulatethe“sowhat”ofprojectactivities.Therefore,areviewoftheindicatorsleavesthereaderwonderingwhattheprojectisactuallyachievingwithregardtoAGPandFtFgoals.

Table2aoverleafpresentsprojectachievementsasoftheendofDecember2014againstLOPTargetsforselectedPMPperformanceindicators.Thefollowingisageneraldiscussionoftheseindicators,andwhattheyrepresent.FurtherdetailisprovidedinAnnex9.

Theprimaryindicator,valueofincrementalsalesathouseholdlevelattributedtoprojectimplementationisnotavalidmeasureofimpact.FirstofalltheAGP‐LMDfocusonvaluechainsmeansitisnotworkingattheproducerlevel(withsomeexceptionsinthedairyvaluechain),andmustthereforeusesecondarydatasourcestowhichasetofassumptionsareapplied.

Second,mostresultsreportedtodatearefromtheliveanimalandmeatvaluechain(specificallysheepandgoats),withdataderivedalmostentirelyfromtotalexportsalesbasedonasetofassumptions.Thelackofdetailonthecomponentpartsoftheestimate(#ofanimals,saleprice)makesitimpossibletodeterminewhetherincreasedsalesarearesultofincreasedproductivity,ormarketpriceincreases.

Third,intheshorttermtherearenonewanimalsbeingproducedbythesystem(duetothelaginsupplyresponse),soanyrecordedincrementmaysimplybethediversionofanimalsfromotherchannels(marketreadylivestockdonotgounsold).Thatmeansthetotalshouldbediscountedtoreflectonlyincrementalprice.

Fourth,asincreaseddairyprocessingcapacitycomesonline,thecontributionofincreasedmilksaleswillalsoneedtobediscountedbecausethereis,asofyet,nonewmilkinthevaluechain.Rather,increasedproducersalestoprocessorsmostlydisplaceexistingrawmilksales.

Insummary,thecalculationsforthisindicatorneedseriousreviewandreconsideration.WerecommendreducingtheLOPtargetfortheindicatortotheoriginal$65,912,056.Theindicatorvalueoflivestockandlivestockproductexportsattributedtoprojectimplementationprovidesareasonablesourceofinformationonprojectachievements.Butthetargetisalmostcertainlyoverstated,becauseincreasedbeefandliveshoatexportsarehighlyunlikelytomaterialize.Inaddition,theindicatorisinsufficienttomeasuretheimpactofincreasedexportsonhouseholdincomeandnutrition.WerecommendreducingtheLOPtargetfortheindicatortotheoriginal$135,906,300.

Table2a:SelectedAGP‐LMDPMPIR1PerformanceIndicatorsIndicator

AchievedtoDecember2014

LOPTarget

Valueofincrementalsalesattributedtoprojectimplementation- Milk- Cattle- Shoats

$ 29,613,505$524,230$872,686$25,582,734

$111,293,5291$11,548,403$2,104,501$97,640,625

Valueoflivestockandlivestockproductexportsattributedtoprojectimplementation- Beef- Livecattle- Shoatmeat- Liveshoat

$32,315,261‐$1,525,000$30,790,261‐

$191,292,3212$54,500,000$21,104,021$100,336,500$15,351,800

GrossMarginperunitofland,kilogramoranimalofselectedproduct‐Cattle‐Shoats‐Milk

‐ ‐$57.50$10.60$10.00

Numberofjobsattributedtoprojectimplementation 220 5,025 Numberoffarmersandotherswhohaveappliednew

technologiesormanagementpracticesasaresultofUSGassistance

7,158 53,099

NumberofindividualswhohavereceivedUSGsupportedshort‐termagriculturalsectorproductivityorfoodsecuritytraining

12,2044,180F

76,97623,093F

Numberoffoodsecurityprivateenterprises,producerorganizations,waterusersassociations,women’sgroups,tradeandbusinessassociations,andcommunity‐basedorganizationsreceivingUSGassistance

499 700

Numberofvulnerablehouseholdslinkedtomarketsasaresultoftheproject

1,826 7,420

Valueofnewprivateinvestmentinthelivestocksectororfoodchainleveragedbyprojectimplementation

$3,188,747 $35,475,000

Valueofagriculturalandruralloansfacilitatedbytheproject

$7,556,862 $24,265,830

NumberofMSMEsreceivingUSGassistancetoaccessloans

18 193

Thegrossmarginindicatorisessentiallyuseless.Firstofall,themethodologyisnot

applicabletothelivestocksectorbecauseoutputpricesarenotstableandareoutsideproducercontrol.Thatmakesthecalculationunpredictablycyclicalandvariable.Second,itonlylooksatcashexpense,anddoesnotprovideforrecoveryoftheconsiderableupfrontinvestmentcostsrequiredtoengageinlivestockproduction.Third,itdoesnotaccountforanychangesininventory.Thosesamereasonsmakeinequallyuselessforperennialcrops,andvirtuallyuselessforannualcrops.Fourth,datacollectionbasedonfarmerrecallisnotoriouslyinaccurate.Fifth,asapointofreference,standardoperatingprocedureforagriculturalproductionenterprisesandprofessionalsistomeasureandmanageproductioncosts,usingthemasareferencepointwhenconsideringproductiondecisionsbasedonpriceexpectations.Itneedstobeeliminated,notjustfromthePMP,butfromthepantheonofFtFindicatorsglobally.

1OriginalLOPtarget:$65,398,3062OriginalLOPtarget:$138,906,300

Asnotedabove,themethodologyformeasuringjobscreatedmakesittotallyinadequatetocapturetheemploymentimpactofincreasingproductivityandcompetitivenessinlivestockvaluechains.

Thenextfourindicators(numberoffarmers,individuals,enterprisesandhouseholdsbenefittingfromtheproject)aresimpleoutputfigures.Whileusefulforindicatingthescaleofactivity,theydonotmeasuretheimpactoftheprojectonhouseholdincomesandnutrition.Thenexttwoindicators(valueofnewprivateinvestmentleveraged,valueofagriculturalandruralloansfacilitated)alsoprovideausefulindicationofthescaleofactivity.Butagain,actualimpactoftheseinvestmentsonhouseholdincomesandnutritionisnotbeingmeasured.

Finally,thetargetforthenumberofMSMEsreceivingUSGassistancetoaccessloansisfartooambitious,andthewholeindicatormeritsfurtherredefinition,reviewandadjustment.Table2b(below)summarizesoverallindicatorachievementasa%oftheLOPindicator.Table2b:AGP‐LMDIR1GrossPerformanceMeasuresIndicator

LOPTarget

FinancialExpenditure- %oftarget

$13,883,22734%

$41,173,362

Valueofincrementalsalesattributedtoprojectimplementation- %oftargetOverstated–returntooriginallevel

$29,613,50526%

$111,293,529

Valueoflivestockandlivestockproductexportsattributedtoprojectimplementation- %oftarget

$32,315,26117%

$191,292,321

GrossMarginperunitofland,kilogramoranimalofselectedproduct

Useless Notargetestablished

Numberofjobsattributedtoprojectimplementation- %oftarget

NumberoffarmersandotherswhohaveappliednewtechnologiesormanagementpracticesasaresultofUSGassistance- %oftargetProblemIndicator–needsrevision

7,15813%

53,099

NumberofindividualswhohavereceivedUSGsupportedshort‐termagriculturalsectorproductivityorfoodsecuritytraining- %oftarget

12,20416%

76,976

Numberoffoodsecurityprivateenterprises,producerorganizations,waterusersassociations,women’sgroups,tradeandbusinessassociations,andcommunity‐basedorganizationsreceivingUSGassistance- %oftarget

49971%

Numberofvulnerablehouseholdslinkedtomarketsasaresultoftheproject- %oftarget

1,82625%

Valueofnewprivateinvestmentinthelivestocksectororfoodchainleveragedbyprojectimplementation- %oftarget

$3,188,7479%

$35,475,000

Valueofagriculturalandruralloansfacilitatedbytheproject- %oftarget

$7,556,86231%

$24,265,830

NumberofMSMEsreceivingUSGassistancetoaccessloans- %oftargetProblemIndicator–needsrevision

Twocautionswithregardtothelevelsofperformance.Firstofall,itshouldbe

comparedtotheamountoffundsexpendedasa%ofprojectbudget–34%inthecaseofAGP‐

LMD.Second,performanceisnotlinear.Rather,oneexpectsittoincreaseatanincreasingrateovertheLOP,withmostimpacttakingplaceinyears4and5.Forthesetworeasons,webelievethattheprojectisroughlyontracktomeetperformancetargets,withexceptionstothatstatementnoted.However,actuallymeetingthetargetswilldependuponthesuccessofrecommendedactions.Beneficiaries:Thepullphilosophyoftheprojectistodrawproducersintothevaluechainbyformalmarketparticipation.Butotherthancapacitybuilding,projectactivitiesareworkingtoofardistantfromproducerstohaveanydirectandimmediateimpactonproducerincome.

AGP‐LMDactivitieshaveemphasizedfacilitatingandsupportingindustrialscaleagriculture(milkprocessingplants,exportabattoirs,largefeedlots,andfeedmills)investments,withtheratherheroicassumptionthatthiswillexerttheneededmarket“pull”onsmallholderproduction.However,thelinkbetweenpricespaidbytheseenterprises,andanychangesinsmallholderproducer/ruralhouseholdincome,isnotbeingmeasuredorrecorded.Theprojectincorporateskeyvaluechainactors,includinganimalfeedprocessors,privateandcooperativedairyproducers/processors,liveanimalexporters,domesticandexportabattoirs,inputsupply,andAIandanimalhealthserviceproviders.However,ithastodateoverlookedotherkeyactors(traders,transportersandbrokers)whoplayasignificantroleintheoperationoflivestockvaluechains.Thisneedstoberemedied.CapacityBuilding:AGP‐LMDhasprovidedagreatdealoftechnical,business,leadership,andpolicytrainingtoawiderangevaluechainactors.Thesehaveincluded,amongothers:skilltrainingonanimalhusbandrymanagement,feedformulation,sanitationandhygieneformeatandmilkproducts;StandardOperationalProcedures;marketing;entrepreneurship;businessproposaldevelopment,datarecordingandbookkeeping;andpolicyformulation.Alltheindividuals,firms,cooperativesandgovernmentserviceprovidersweinterviewedcomplimentedtherelevanceandeffectivenessofthetrainingprovided.

Theprojectalsoofferedspecialtrainingtowomeninentrepreneurshipandleadershipdevelopment.Somewomenentrepreneursinthelivestocksectorwerealsoidentifiedforadditionalentrepreneurshipandbusinessmanagementtrainingandmentoring.Theprojectconductedneedsassessmentsforeachoftheseentrepreneurs,anddevelopedacoachingstrategytosupportwomenentrepreneurstrainedinthepreviousyear.ThisinvolveslongtermcoachingthroughtheWomen’sBureau.

Participantsstatedthattrainingactivitieswereveryeffectiveinimprovingbeneficiaryskillsasreflectedintheenhancedproductivityandproductionoftheirbusinesses.Forexample,dairyproducersstatedthatpracticeschangedsubsequenttothetrainingincreasedmilkyields,improvedmilkhygieneandquality,reducedthepercentageofmilkrejectedbyprocessors,increasedthequalityofprocessedmilk,andincreasedincome.Somedairyprocessorsarealsoattemptingtointroducequality‐basedpaymentsystemsbasedonmilkdensitymeasurementsandalcoholtests.Experiencesharingamongdifferentactors,withinandacrosstheregions,andvisitstoenterprisesoutofthecountrywerealsoverymuchappreciated.GrantsProgram:Thegrantsprogramisfocusedonleveragingprivateinvestmentinthevaluechain.Theobjectiveistoenhancethecapacityofkeyvaluechainactors,improvetheirefficiencyandcompetitiveness,andstrengthenthepulleffectonsmallproducers.Theprogramhasbeencarefullydesigned,andisbeingresponsiblymanaged.Butinpracticeitisprovingtobeslowandcumbersome,andinneedofstreamlining.

Totalgrantfundingbudgetedundertheprojectis$6,058,738,tobeallocatedtoacombinationofprivateenterprises,cooperativebusinesses,andwomenentrepreneurs(notincludingPLWHAcreditandsavingsgroups).However,only19grantswithatotalvalueof$1,773,983havebeensignedtodate,andonly$255,394actuallydisbursed.Another56proposalsarebeingfurtherrefinedandevaluated.

Thegrantswhichhavebeensigned,andthoseinprocess,seemreasonable.Buttheexpectedcontributionoftheprogramtotheachievementofmajorindicatortargets,whileexpectedtobesubstantial,isyettoberealized.Furthermore,delaysinprocessmeanthatmostgrantswillnothaveanysignificantimpactuntilaftertheendoftheproject.IndividualgranteeswillalsoneedcontinuedTAthroughouttheremainingLOPtohavethebestchanceofsuccess.

BusinessLinkages:TheBusiness‐to‐Business(B2B)meetingshavebeenaneffectiveandpopularapproachtobuildingrelationshipsbetweenvaluechainbusinesses,andpromotingtheconceptofcollaboration.Facilitatingtheparticipationofabattoirsintheinternationalbusinessexhibitionandstudyvisitswasalsocontributedtobusinesslinkageandexperiencesharingopportunities.AGP‐LMDalsousedtheseopportunitiestointroducenewconceptsandwaysofthinking.Theseactivitiesaregreatlyappreciatedasaprocessforintroducingfirmstooneanother,breakingdownresistance,andfacilitatingcollaborationlocallyandinternationally.2.1.2.1DairyValueChainDairyvaluechainactivitiesarecenteredonlargerurbancenters,whichprovidethemarketoutletforpasteurizedmilkandmilkproducts.Theemphasisisonmilksheds,andurbanandperi‐urbanmilkproduction.ThisdoesnotentirelysatisfyAGPtargetingcriteria,butisnonethelessmakingasignificantcontributiontotheachievementofAGPgoals.However,theimpactofdairyvaluechainactivitiesontheachievementofFtFgoalsisnotbeingmeasuredandrecorded.

Asignificantamountoftechnicalandmanagementtrainingisgoingintothedairysector,fromproducerlevelthroughsmallscaleprocessorstonewstartupsandlargerscaleprocessors.Trainingforinputsupply(feed,veterinarydrugs)andservices(animalhealth,AI)issupportingtheproductionside.Allofthisprovidesanessentialentrepreneurialandtechnicalfoundationforexpandingdairyproduction,butmuchmoreneedstobedone(collectioncenters,small‐scaleprocessing)tomoreeffectivelyreachFtFbeneficiaries.However,moreeffortisneededtostrengthenthemarketlinkbetweenproducersandprocessorsandbandconsumers.

Thegrantsprogramisleveragingnewinvestmentindairyprocessingandsupportingservices.Theemphasisonindustrialmilkprocessing,andthemarketingofpasteurizedmilkandmilkproducts,willundoubtedlyhaveanimpactondomesticmilkconsumption.Butdairydevelopmentfacessignificantchallenges.

Forexample,atthebeginningoftheprojecttotalof107,050liters/dayofmilkwasbeingprocessed,versusestablishedprocessingcapacityof190,500liters/day.Withnewcapacitycomingonline,allplantswillbechallengedtogrowtheirproductmarketwhilecapturingenoughmilktosatisfyincreasingdemand.Thereiscertainlypotentialatthesmallholderleveltofillthisgap,butitwillrequiregreateremphasisonpullingthealreadyavailablerawmilkintotheformalchannel,andbuildingthemilksupplynetwork.2.1.2.2MeatandLiveAnimalValueChainCurrentmeatandliveanimalvaluechainactivitiesarefocusedattheendofthevaluechainaswitnessedduringourvisitstoexportabattoirs,andlarge‐scalefeedlotswithanexclusiveexportorientation.Therearealsolimitedeffortsunderwaywithdomesticabattoirsandthefeedlotswhichprovideanimalstothem.However,thedomesticsupplyofmeat,emanatingfrommunicipalabattoirs,raiseshygieneandsafetyissueswhichneedtobeaddressedtopromoteandsupportmodern,commerciallyorientedprivatesectorownedabattoirsslaughteringforthedomesticmarket.

Ethiopia’scomparativeadvantagesmakeitsolidlycompetitiveintheexportoflivecattleandshoatmeat.Forbeefthereissolidexportdemandforfresh(hot)meatintheGulfStatesandEgypt,andthecattlewhichEthiopiaexports(Borantype)arewellknownandpreferred.ButEthiopiaisnot,andisnotlikelytoeverbe,competitiveintheexportofchilledorfrozenbeef.TherealityisthatEthiopiacannotcurrentlycompeteoneithermeatquality(tenderness,acombinationofageandcondition)orprice(highcostofconditioninganimals)withmajorexporters.Tofurthercomplicatethings,domesticpricesforbeefareoftenhigherthanexport.Asaresult,furtherinvestmentinexportabattoircapacityforbeefisnotwarranted.

Livecattleexportremainsaprofitable,butriskyenterprise.Withthegrowingdomesticdemandforbeef,anddemandforlowlandanimalsofexportquality,thereislittleroomforfurthergrowth.ThereisalsoasolidmarketforchilledshoatcarcassesofthesizeEthiopiacanproduceinabundance.Ethiopiaiscurrentlycompetitiveinthismarket,buttomaintainitsedgemustcontinueeffortstoincreaseproductivityanddecreaseprocessingcosts.

2.1.3 IR2:ImprovedEnablingEnvironmentforLivestockValueChainsAGP‐LMDeffortstoimprovetheenablingenvironmentfallintotwogeneralareas.Firstofall,buildinguponsomemodestindividualsuccesses,AGP‐LMDisplayingakeyrolebyfacilitatingtheestablishmentandorganizationofregionalLivestockWorkingGroups(LWGs).ChairedbytherelevantLivestockAuthority,theseareprovidingaplatformforbringingtogethergovernmentrepresentatives,businessinterests,producers,andotherstakeholderstodiscusspracticalissuesandproblemsandrecommendsolutions.TheoutcomesandrecommendationsofthesegroupswillbetakenupforconsiderationbytheMulti‐stakeholderPlatforms(MSPs).Thisbottom‐upapproachtoraisingpolicyandregulatoryissueshasgreatpotentialforinfluencingchange.

Second,AGP‐LMDiscollaboratingwithandsupportingeffortsatthenationalleveltopilottheLivestockIdentificationandTraceabilitySystem(LITS),andprovidingtechnicalassistancetohelpaddressissuesrelatedtothelivestockandlivestockproductexportsandthenationalSPSsystem.Table3:SelectedAGP‐LMDPMPIR2PerformanceIndicatorsIndicator

LOPTarget

Numberofpolicies,regulationsandadministrativeproceduresdeveloped,enactedorimplementedasaresultoftheproject- %target

Reductioninthecostofdoingbusinessinthedairy,meatandliveanimalvaluechains

‐ 20%

Performanceindicatorsdonotreallycapturewhatistakingplace.Simplycountingnumbersofthingsdonedoesnotindicatetheirrelativeimportance.Forexample,theChiefVeterinaryOfficercitedinstancesofimportantAGP‐LMDcollaborationonseveralanimalhealthandmanagementissues–includingLITS,andSPS,andthenewLivestockMarketingproclamation.ThissupportiscriticaltohelpEthiopiareduceregulatoryburdensandcosts,andmaintainitscomparativeadvantageinlivecattleandshoatmeatexports.

WehaveincludedincludeanewcustomindicatorforIR2whichcapturesinunderstandabletermsthegoaloftheseactivities–toreducethecostofdoingbusinessinthedairy,meatandliveanimalvaluechains.Theintentisclear,butthemethodologyforthisindicatorneedstobedeveloped,defined,andproperlymeasured.

Insummary,AGP‐LMDeffortsinIR2aredefinitelycontributingtoimprovedlivestocksectorpolicyandregulations.Buttheimpactoftheseeffortsonvaluechainefficiencyandproductivityisyettoberealized.2.1.4 IR3:ImprovedQualityandDiversityofHouseholdDietTheIR3programisbeingimplementedincollaborationwiththeMinistryofHealth(MOH)andtheMinistryofAgriculture(MOA).WeweretoldthatthiscollaborationishelpingDAsimprovetheirunderstandingofhealthandnutritionalissues.

Wevisitednutritiontrainingsessions,nutritionclubs,andcookingdemonstrationspromotingtheuseofanimalsourcefoodstoimprovematernalandchildnutrition.TheapproachistoprovideTOTtrainingonmaternalandchildnutritiontoIPstaffandworedafocalpersonsasthebasisforinfluencingbehavioralchangeinthetargetcommunities.Thesearecomplementedbynutritiontrainingandcookingdemonstrations,whichhelpmotherslearnbyinvolvingtheminthepreparationofanutritionalporridgerecipeusinganimalproducts,cereals,vegetables,fruits,oilandiodizedsalt.

TheprojectisalsotrainingDAsondietarydiversity,infantandyoungchildfeeding,andlivestockproductpreservationandstorage.Theobjectiveistobuildtheircapacitytotransfernutritioneducationtobeneficiariesatthegrassrootslevel.Thetrainingincludesanoverviewof

whynutritionmatters,nutritionprioritygroups,dietarydiversificationandtheimportanceofconsuminganimalproducts,aswellassafemilkandmeatconsumption.Theprimarytargetispregnantandlactatingmothers,butalsoincludesfathersastheyplayamajorroleinhouseholddecision‐makingregardingwhatfoodappearsontheplate.

TheprojectalsosupportedSchoolMilkDayandTheSecondWorldSchoolMilkDayeventsinanumberoftowns.Theobjectivewastoinitiateschoolmilkfeedingprograms,andpromotesafemilkconsumptionamongschoolchildren,theirfamilymembers,andnutritionaltargetgroupsinthecommunity.Theseeventsemphasizedthenutritionalbenefitsofdrinkingsafemilkaspartofaregulardiet,andtheimportanceofboiling/pasteurizingmilk.However,behaviorchangetakeslongperiodsoftimetotakeeffect,andisdirectlylinkedtoaccessandcontrolofhouseholdresources.Therefore,mothersneedaccessandcontroloftheseresourcesinordertoprovideimprovednutritionfortheirfamilies.Forthesereasonsitisnotclearhoweffectivetheseactivitieswillbeincontributingtoimprovednutrition.

AGP‐LMDisroughlyontracktomeettheLOPIndicatortargetsrelatedtothenumberofchildrenunderfivereachedbytheproject(seerationaleabove),andisdefinitelyontrackwithregardtothenumberofpeopletrainedinchildhealthandnutrition.Performanceasmeasuredbytheindicatorsisquitegood,butimpactwillbedifficulttomeasure.Table4:SelectedAGP‐LMDPMPIR3PerformanceIndicators Achievedto

December2014LOPTarget

Numberofchildrenunderfivereachedbyprojectsupportednutritionprograms- %oftarget

14,9057,513F34%

44,28322,359F

NumberofpeopletrainedinchildhealthandnutritionthroughProject‐supportedprograms- %oftarget

17,6355,706F49%

35,72810,718F

ActivitiesarealsounderwaytoimprovethenutritionandeconomicstatusofHIV‐affectedandinfectedhouseholdsinprojectDeepFocusWoredas.Wevisitedonegroup,andtalkedwiththemembers.PLWHAarebeinghelpedtoformsavingsandcreditgroups(SCG),whicharereceivingTAandcapacity‐building,andareusingtheirsavingstoinvestinjointgroupenterprisesorindividualbusinesses.Theactivityissmall,butismakingadifferenceinthelivesoftheparticipants.

Thisisreallyastand‐aloneactivity,withlittlerelationshiptotherestoftheproject.Butit,thenutritionprogram,andthewrap‐aroundPLWHAprogramareactivitiesforwhichtheImplementingPartnersareresponsible.Fromwhatweobserved,whatweweretold,andtheindicatorinformationimplementationisgoingquitewell.But,impactisnotbeingmeasuredorrecorded,andisyettoberealized.2.2 ProgramImpactonGovernmentPolicy,ProcessandAdministrationThefollowingarethefindingsoftheevaluationteaminresponsetoquestiontwo:Didprogramactivitiesleadtoanysignificantchangesingovernmentpolicy,process,oradministrationthatcanbeexpectedtocontributetoincreasedproductionandinvestmentinthesectorand/orincreasedexportcompetitiveness?

AGP‐LMDisveryjudiciouslyworkingongovernmentpolicy,processandadministrationissuesrelatedtolivestockvaluechains.Thescaleofeffortappearstobejustaboutright.Specificactivitieswhichprovideasettingforbroad‐basedidentificationanddiscussionofissuesimpactingthelivestocksectorinclude:LivestockWorkingGroups(LWGs):Theprojecthasfacilitatedtheorganizationandestablishmentofthesegroupsasinstrumentsfordevelopinglivestockpolicyagendasintheregions,andtohelptacklepracticalproblems.RegionallivestockauthoritieschairtheLWGs,andparticipantsincludeRegionalgovernmentbureausandagencies,privatesectorinterests,andNGOsworkinginthelivestocksector.LWGshavebeenestablishedinallregions,an

executivebodyelected,andparticipantshaveidentifiedprioritypolicyissuesandagendastobepresentedanddiscussedatthenextmulti‐stakeholderplatforms(MSPs)intheirrespectiveregions.Multi‐stakeholderPlatforms(MSPs):Theprojectplanstoorganize4MSPsperyearintheregions,and1atthefederallevel.Todatetheprojecthashostedatotalof22MSPs(19regionaland3federal.However,thereisonlyanecdotalevidenceoftheirimpact.LiveAnimalTradingProclamation:AGP‐LMDhasconductedsensitizationandawarenesssessionsontheimplementationoftheLiveAnimalTradingProclamationforgovernmentofficials,traders,feedlotoperatorsandtransporters.Unfortunately,theproclamationisseriouslyflawed.Thatsaid,projecteffortsarehelpingcreateacommonunderstandingofthenewproclamation,thesubstantialfinancialinvestmentwhichwillberequiredtoimplementit,andcapacitybuildingneeds.Itwillalsorequirechangesinthemindsetsofproducers,marketactorsandlawenforcementagencies–theneedforwhichisdebatable.

FederalMOTrepresentativesandregionalTradeandTransportBureausareconsideringthesechallenges,andhavepromisedtocomeupwithpossiblesolutions.Intheabsenceofarepealoftheproclamation,thisisprobablythebestthatcanbeexpected.Itremainstobeseeniftheproclamationwillhaveanypositiveimpactonthesector.LivestockIdentificationTraceabilitySystem(LITS):InsupportofthispiloteffortaninternationalLITSConsultanthasbeencontracted;aworkinggroupestablishedtotechnicallyleadthepilotprogram;anddraftdataentryandanimalhealthcertificationformshavebeendesigned.Planningisunderwaytoconductthepilot.

GovernmentlivestockpersonnelallcitedtheLWGsasbeinganimportantstepinprovidinganopenandtransparentenvironmentfordiscussingissuesandpossiblesolutions.However,theworkonLWGs,andtheirrelationshipwiththeMSPs,isstillbeingdefined.Asaresult,theimpactonvaluechainproductivitycompetitivenessisyettoberealized.2.3 EffectivenessoftheImplementationApproachThefollowingarethefindingsoftheevaluationteaminresponsetoquestionthree:Whatisthedemonstratedeffectivenessofthecurrentimplementationapproach(e.g.workingwithlocalregionalorganizationslikeORDA,REST,HUNDEE,Self‐Help–Africa,andregionalconsortiums)?

Thefragmentednatureofprojectactivities,theirgeographicdispersion,andtheratherawkwardmarriageofAGPandFtFgoalstendstodilutefocusandmakeoversightandmanagementdifficult.Managementisfurthercomplicatedbythelargenumberoffederalandregionalgovernmententities,andprivateactors,involvedinAGPandAGP‐LMDimplementation.Theburdenofsimplydoingbusinessinthecurrentoperationalmodality,withsomanyactorsandinasettingwithsomanygovernmentinterestsandstructurestakesaninordinateamountoftimeandeffortonthepartofUSAID,CNFA,andtheotherimplementers.SimplymanagingtheoveralleffortrequiresinordinateamountofoversightandcommunicationwithUSAID,distractingseniorstaff,disruptingactivities,andmakingimplementationclumsyandinflexible.

Inaddition,themodalityofimplementationcurrentlybeinguseddoesnottakefulladvantageofimplementingpartner(IP)capabilities.Infact,IPsarenotreallypartners.Theyaresimplysub‐contractors,hiredtocarryoutcertaintasks,butwithoutbeingsubstantivelyandcontinuouslyengagedinactivitydesign,planningandimplementation,ormonitoringandevaluation.Forexample,thecontractualagreementwiththeIPsconsistsofanannualpurchaseorderforspecifictasksasdirectedbyCNFA.Asaresultthesepartnersdonothavecompleteinformationonthefullrangeofworkplannedforthewholeproject.Theyonlyknowwhatisbeingaskedthisyear.Thishastwoimplications:(a)theIPsareactivityorientedandnotresultoriented;(b)itiscumbersomefortheIPstoeffectivelyorganizetheirstaffandlogisticsovertheprojectperiod.AprimeexampleistheunexpecteddroppingofIR1trainingactivitiesthisyear.ThiscausedseriousproblemsforallIPsastheywereforcedtoterminatestaffwhohadbeenhiredinanticipationofanongoingtrainingefforts.AlltheIPsstatedthattheirunhappinesswiththemodality,indicatingtheyareonlycontinuingbecauseoftheircommitmenttoUSAID.

Insummary,themanagementstructureforAGP‐LMDisunreasonablycomplexandmitigatesagainsteffectiveimplementation.Specifically,AGP‐LMDisnottakingfulladvantageofIPinstitutionalstrengths,technicalexpertise,andlocalpresence.Itisnotengagingthemonacontinuousbasisinprojectplanningorinmeasuringimpact(M&E),andtheircapacitytoprovideeffectiveBDSservicesisnotbeingbuiltbyparticipatingintheproject.Thesameistrueoflocalconsultingfirms,whoarecontractedforspecificimplementationtaskswithoutbeingfullyengagedinthemanagement,oversightandplanningofactivities.

AsaresultmanagementisoverlycentralizedinCNFA,leavingseniormanagementstaffinordinatelyburdenedbycoordinatingwiththelargenumberofnationalandregionalgovernmententities,institutions,andstakeholdersengagedinAGPandAGP‐LMDimplementation.Coordinatingwiththisarrayofactorsandinterestseatsuphugeamountsofseniorstafftime,withlittleapparentimpactonimplementationandtheachievementofresults.EffectivelyengagingtheIPsaslong‐termactors,andallowingthemtorepresenttheprojectandcoordinateattheregionallevel,wouldimprovecommunicationandreducetheburdenonCNFAtocoordinateatalllevels.Thiswouldgivemanagementstaffmoretimetodevotetoimplementation,insteadofendlessroundsofcoordination.2.4 EffectivenessofPartnershipswithGoEAGPImplementersandOtherGovernment

OfficesThefollowingarethefindingsoftheevaluationteaminresponsetoquestionfour:HoweffectiveisthepartnershipwithGoE‐AGPimplementersandothergovernmentofficessuchastheMinistryofAgriculture,MinistryofTrade,MinistryofIndustry,FederalCooperativeAgency,andATAintermsofcollaborationandcoordinationtoimplementAGP‐LMD?Whatfactorscontributeforsuccessorchallengesinpartnership,particularlywiththeGoE‐AGPandwhatisrecommendedtoresolvethechallenges? WethoroughlydiscussedCNFAeffectivenessincoordinatingAGP‐LMDimplementationwithimplementingpartners,AGPcoordinationunits,relevantsectorsandrelevantbureausatfederalandregionallevels.NotethattherearealargenumberofprogramssupportinglivestockdevelopmentinEthiopiaincludingADLIP,RDPAS,GTP,AGP,andREDFS.Inadditiontothese,AGP‐LMDissupportingspecificplatformstostrengthenpartnershipswithotherAGPimplementersandgovernmentoffices.Theseincludesteeringcommittees,technicalcommittee,MSPM,LTC,JRIS,andothers.

TheprojectisworkingparticularlyhardtosustainparticipationinregularquarterlymonitoringandplanningmeetingswithAGPatboththeregionalandfederallevel.TheprojectalsosupportsandparticipatesinthecroplivestockTechnicalCommitteemeetingsatthefederallevel.InthiscontextannualAGP‐LMDplansandactivitiesarepreparedinconsultationwiththeregionalstakeholdersandimplementingpartners,andpresentedtorespectiveTechnicalandSteeringCommittees.Inspiteoftheseefforts,therewerecomplaintsfromseveralquartersregardingalackofclarityandtransparency.

Asdiscussedabove,theimplementationmodalitywiththeIPsmeanstheycannotrelievetheburdenbyrepresentingAGP‐LMDorsubstantivelyparticipateinregionalcoordinationbodies.TheonlyrolefortheIPsistofacilitateandencourageprivatefirmsandcooperativestocompeteforgrantfunds.Forexample,neithertheregionalstakeholdersnortheIPshavecompleteinformationregardinghowthegrantsprogramoperates.Tocomplicatethingsfurther,thereareactivitiesdirectlyimplementedbyprojectstaffatbothfederalandregionallevelswithoutanyconsultationwiththeregionalIPs.Thisdisorganizedandconfusedarrangementforrepresentingtheprojectmakesitdifficulttoeffectivelycoordinatewithgovernmentagencies. MostgovernmentofficesconfirmedthatAGP‐LMDattemptstoplanandimplementactivitiesinpartnershipwithkeygovernmententities.Forexample,jointeffortstodevelopthepilotLivestockIdentificationandTraceabilitySystem(LITS)andtheRationalizationRoadMapdocumentshowindicategoodrelationshipswiththeMOA,theMinistryofLivestock,thestateminister’sofficeandtheanimalhealthdirectorateatthefederallevel.However,theeffectivenessofpartnershipsattheregionallevelvariesfromverygoodtoalmostnon‐existent.

However,weareastoundedatthelargenumberofgovernment,donor,andinstitutionalactorsinvolvedinlivestockprojectimplementation,includingAGP,attheregionalandfederallevel.Thesehavespawnedaninordinatenumberofworkinggroups,committees,andcoordinatingbodies–allofwhichdemandparticipation,butdonotseemtoimpactimplementation. Insummary,theAGP‐LMDisreallystretchedtocollaborateandcoordinatewitheveryonewhoexpectsit.Staffexpendaninordinateamountoftimeandefforttalkingaboutwhattheyaredoing,allofwhichtakestimeawayfromactualimplementation.Theneedisforthewholeapparatustospendlesstimecoordinating,andmoretimeactuallyaccomplishingsomething.Itdoesnotappearthatthelevelofeffortrequiredtoimprovecoordinationwouldhaveanysubstantiveimpactonimplementationorgoalachievement.2.4 RelevanceofProjectActivitiesThefollowingarethefindingsoftheevaluationteaminresponsetoquestionfive:Basedonsustainabilityandcosteffectiveness,whichactivitiesshouldbecontinuedandwhichactivitiesareirrelevantornomoreimportanttocontributetotheprojectobjectivesinthefuture?

Therelevanceofprojectactivitiesisafunctionofhowwelltheyaddressnationaldevelopmentobjectives,theirrelationshipwithotheron‐goingGoEandUSAIDprojects,andtheneedsandprioritiesoftargetbeneficiaries.AGP‐LMDwasspecificallydesignedtocontributetotheachievementofbothAGPandFtFgoalsbyincreasingtheproductivityandcompetitivenessofselectedlivestockvaluechains:dairyproductsandmeatandliveanimals.Asaresult,itfunctionsasthelivestockmarketingcomponentofAGP.

ThegoalofAGP,whichis“toendpovertyandenhancegrowth,”alignswithFTF’sgoalto,“sustainablyreducepovertyandhunger.”ThespecificAGP‐LMDobjectiveistofostergrowthandreducepovertybyimprovingtheproductivityandcompetitivenessofselectedlivestockvaluechains.TheoverallAGP‐LMDgoalistoimproveSmallHolderIncomesandNutritionalStatus.AGP‐LMDattemptstolinkgeographicallyandthematicallywiththeprimeAGPfocusonthehighlyproductiveareasofEthiopia,wheresmallholdershaveatleastminimalcommercialengagement.ItalsoattemptstointegrateactivitieswiththeUSAIDGRADandPLIII/PRIMEinitiativesoperatinginselectedfoodinsecureworedaswherethegraduatesoftheProductiveSafety‐NetProgram(PSNP)reside.IntheseareasAGP‐LMDattemptsto“pull”theirproductsintothemarketplaceupongraduationfromUSAID"push"initiatives,assumingitwillultimatelyincreasetheirincomes.Inshort,AGP‐LMDactivitiesareexpectedtogeneratethemarketdemandneededtoexpandcommercial‐orientedinputandservicesupplyandformsustainablesupplierandbuyerrelationshipstolinkproducerstoformalmarkets.Thefocusisonproducersgraduating("pushed")fromsubsistenceagriculture,bothintheselectedhighagro‐ecologicalpotentialareastargetedbytargetofAGP,andfoodinsecurelocalitiestargetedbyFtF.

TheAGP‐LMDimplementationapproachseekstoempowertheprivatesectoratalllevelsofthevalue‐chainasthemosteffectivewaytoachievesustainablelivestocksectorgrowth,andimprovepeople’snutritionandhealth.Although,privatesectorgrowthisdecisiveinmarketdevelopmentandcommercialization,ithasbeenleastaddressedinGoEagriculturaldevelopmentstrategies.Therefore,AGP‐LMDfillsakeystrategicgapbyfocusingontheprivatesector.Itiswithinthiscontextthatwecommentontherelevanceofprojectactivities.

Inouropiniontherearesignificantdesignandimplementationweaknesseswhichdirectlyimpacttherelevanceofprojectactivities.Theyare:Interventionstrategies:TheAGP‐LMDIR1interventionstrategiesunderIR1arenumerous,notclearlydefinedandarticulated,andoverlapconsiderably.Itwouldbefarbettertoconsolidatethesestrategiesinto:(a)capacitybuildingforvaluechainactors(awarenesscreation,technicalandbusinesstraining,andexperiencesharing);(b)marketexpansion(domesticandglobalmarketlinkages);(c)stimulatinginvestment(grantfunding,creditaccess);and(d)promotingaccesstoandconsumptionofnutritiousfood.Inaddition,whilegenderandenvironmentaremainstreamedinallcategories,theyneedtobebetterarticulatedandgivenmoreprominence.

Indicators:Thepresentperformanceindicatorsareinadequatetomeasureachievementandimpact.Forinstance,thevalueoflivestock/productsexportedisaffectedbyawiderangeoffactorsexternaltotheproductionprocess.Mostprojectindicatorsaresimplyrecordingthenumberofactivitiescarriedoutandindividualsandfirmsaffected.Itisnicetoknowthenumberoftrainees,amountofgrantsdistributed,totalvaluesofagriculturalloansprovided,numberofchildrenreached,etc.togetasenseofthescaleofactivity.Butitwouldbefarbettertoknowtheimpactofprojectactivitiesonhouseholdincomeandnutrition.CapacityBuilding:TheextensivetrainingprogramcarriedoutduringthefirsttwoyearsoftheprojectwascitedbyeveryoneweinterviewedasamajorcontributiontoAGP.Thereisconsiderableanecdotalevidencethatthisistrue,eventhoughthereisnoquantitativedatatomeasureimpact.TheinexplicablecancellationofmuchoftheIR1trainingagendabyUSAIDduringyearthreeinterruptedoneofthepotentiallymajorsuccessareasoftheproject,rupturedthecontinuityofeffort,andhadnodiscernibleimpactonimplementationofthegrantsprogram(thereasoncitedforcancellation).Thisneedstobeimmediatelyrectified.Grants:Thespecificobjectiveofthegrantsprogramistoleverageprivateinvestmenttoimprovetheproductivityandcompetitivenessoflivestockvaluechains.Theprogramisbeingcarefullyimplemented,withtheprocessguidedbyaprojectmanual.Wenotedthat,accordingtothemanual,CNFAisexpectedtoprovidetheapprovedgrantsefficientlyandrapidly.However,thegrantprocesshasprovenextremelycumbersome,andevenapprovedcandidatesareimpatientwiththerateofdisbursement.Disbursementdelaysmeanthattheprogramcannotbeexpectedtocontributesubstantiallytotheachievementofprojectgoalspriortotheendoftheproject.

Asconfirmedinthefield,grantsarebeingconsideredforprojectsthatareobviouslynotfeasible,and/orhaveseriousmanagementissues.(AbergelleExportAbattoir,MekeleDairyPlant).Inaddition,thegrantsprogramalmosttotallyoverlooksmicroandsmallenterprisesinthevaluechain.Andfinally,thepotentialimpactofthegrantsprogramonmarketlinkages,anditssubsequenteffectonsmallholderproducers,isnotclear.Beneficiaryselection:Inprinciple,valuechaindevelopmentneedstoidentifyandmitigatecriticalproblemsalongthechain.AGP‐LMDclaimstobeprimarilyfocusedonmiddlevalue‐chainactors,importantvaluechainactorsinthemeatandliveanimalvaluechain(livestocktraders,transportersandbrokers)havebeenlargelyignored.Theseactorsplayacriticalroleininformation,pricing,marketlinkagesandtheoverallfunctioningoftheliveanimalmarket.ItwillbeparticularlyimportanttohelpthemadapttothenewLiveAnimalTradingProclamation.AGP‐LMDismorefocusedonliveanimalexportersandexportabattoirs,whichalreadycreatesufficientdemandpullforexistingproduction.Amorecriticalproblemisthedomesticvaluechain,fromproducersthroughsmalltradersandfeedlotstodomesticabattoirsandbutcheries.

InthedairyvaluechainAGP‐LMDactivitiesareconcentratedinthepre‐urbanandurbanareasprocessors,andexistingdairyproducers.Theseproducershavealreadybeencommercialized,althoughtheprojectsupportcouldbestillrelevant.Thekeyquestionis,"howcantheprojectsupportexpansionofthemilkshedcollectionareastosmallruralmilkproducers?”ActivitiestoincreaseproduceraccesstoAIservicestoimprovegenetics,andimprovethemanagementofdairyproduction,areunderway.Butitwilltakeyearsforsubstantialincreasesintotalmilkavailabilityandsupplytomaterialize.Inthemeantime,moreaggressivesupporttoimprovefertility(includingbullservices)andmilkyieldisneeded.2.5 GenderIssuesThefollowingarethefindingsoftheevaluationteaminresponsetoquestionsix:Howhastheprogramaddressedgenderissues?

AGP‐LMDissuccessfullyimplementinggendermainstreamingactivitiesinallprojectactivitiesandcomponents.TheprojecthasagenderequalityadvisorwhofacilitatestheimplementationofeverycomponentofthethreeIRs,andindividualactivitieswithaspecialfocusongender.Thisfocusisreflectedinindicatortargets,andtailoredtrainingandmentoringactivitiesforwomen.Theprojectneedstomaintainthepresentlevelofeffortandexpanditto

helpclosethegendergap,withevengreateremphasisoncapacitybuildinginwomen’sentrepreneurshipandleadershipskills.

Observationsinthefieldconfirmprojectreportinformationregardingtheconcertedeffortsbeingmadetoaddressgenderissues.AGP‐LMDcapacitybuildingactivitiesroutinelyrecord30‐40%womenparticipation,andhasorganizedspecialtraininginbusinessandleadershipforwomenentrepreneurs.Experiencesharing,exposurecreationandbusinesslinkageactivitiesallengagelargenumbersofwomen.Theprojectalsoemphasizeswomen’sparticipationinthegrantsprogram,withfundssetasidespecificallyforwomenentrepreneurs. Itisgenerallyacknowledgedthatwomenaremoreinvolvedinlivestockfarmingthanmen.Thedairyvaluechainisdominatedbywomen.Wevisitedseveralwomenwhoareengagedasowner/operatorsinmilkproduction,processingandretailing–withfullaccesstoandcontroloftheresourceandincomes.Wealsoobservedwomenworkinginthefeedlotsandabattoirswevisited,bothaslaborersandmanagers.Nutritionprogramsemphasizewomen,andthePLWHAeffortsarereachingequalnumbersofmenandwomen..

Insummary,AGP‐LMDisdoinganexcellentjobofintegratinggender,andismakingveryconcertedanddeterminedeffortstoencouragehighlevelsofwomen’sparticipationinprojectactivities.However,thetraditionalrolesofwomeninlivestockproductionandmarketing,andculturalnormsregardingworkresponsibilities,meritfurtherconsiderationinordertoencourageruralwomentoparticipateineconomicactivitiesandleadership,withimprovedaccesstoandcontroloverresources.Forexample,thesubstantiveparticipationofwomenatmarketpoints,livestockcollectiongrounds,milkcollectioncentersandcooperativeoperationsissteadilyexpanding,butstillrelativelylow.Inaddition,effortsareneededtospecificallydeterminetheimpactofthisemphasisonhouseholdincomeandnutrition.

2.6 NutritionActivityPerformanceThefollowingarethefindingsoftheevaluationteaminresponsetoquestionseven:Howwastheperformanceofthenutritionsensitiveactivitiesimplementationtowardachievingexpectedoutcomes?

AGP‐LMDnutritionactivitiesareontracktomeettheLOPindicatortargetsrelatedtothenumberofchildrenunderfivereachedbytheproject,andthenumberofpeopletrainedinchildhealthandnutrition.However,changingfoodconsumptionandpreparationcustomsandbehaviorisverydifficult,especiallywhenwomendonothaveaccesstoorcontroloverresources.Assuch,theimpactofnutritionactivitiesonthetargetpopulation–andtheireffectivenessinpromotingbehaviorchange–willonlyberealizedoverthelongterm.

Wevisitednutritiontraining,nutritionclubs,andcookingdemonstrationspromotingtheuseofanimalsourcefoods.Trainersandextensionagentsexplainedtheapproachbeingusedtoencouragebehavioralchangeinthetargetcommunities.Theyalsoexplainedthemessagesbeingpromotedinnutritioneducation,andhowcookingdemonstrationsarebeingusedtoshowwomenhowtoincorporateanimalsourcefoods.Themessages,andtheinformationbeingcommunicated,istechnicallysound.Thequestionishoweffectiveitwillbeinencouragingbehaviorchange.Theprojectalsosupportsschoolnutritionclubs,sharingnutritionbestpracticeswithstudentsbasedonavailableresources.Teachingtakesplaceinthemorningbeforeclass.Theideaisthatyoungpeoplearethemostlikelytochangeculturalandeatinghabits,andrespondfastertonewideasandchanges.Forexample,thepopularityofpizzaishavingagreatimpactondietbyintroducingyoungpeopletocheeseconsumption. WealsometwithaPLWHAgroupinYetnora,DejenofAmhararegion.Thegroupisbroadlyrepresentativeoftheother5groupsintheworeda.Ithas12activemembers,whohavebeentrainedoncreditandsavingschemes.Theyaresavingmoney,andlendingthefundstooneanothertofinancemicro‐enterprises.Wevisitedwithgroupmembersabouthowtheactivitywasimpactingtheirlives.Theyexplainedwhattheyaredoingandspokeofcompanionship,ofencouragement,ofhope,andofhowitwashelpingthemsupporttheirfamilies.Itisnotreachingalotofpeople,butitishelping.

Insummary,nutritionactivities(includingPLWHA)arevirtuallystand‐aloneefforts,havinglittlerelationshiptotherestoftheproject.ButtheyaredirectlyimpactingFtFtargetpopulations,andaregivingtheImplementingPartnerstheopportunitytodemonstratetheircapabilities.BothnutritionandPLWHAactivitiesseemtobepracticallyoriented,andwewerenottoldofanyissues.Buttheyarestillinthebeginningstages,andwillneedtobeexpanded,evaluated,andfurtherrefinedtoimproveanddemonstratetheleveleffectivenessneededtoachieveimpactandmeritreplication.3. SUMMARYANDCONCLUSIONS3.1 ProgramPerformanceThefollowingprovidestheconclusionsoftheevaluationteaminresponsetoquestionone:AretheselectedprogramactivitiesontracktoreachthedesiredFtFresultsinEthiopia? ThegoalsofAGPandFtFappearcomplementary,butinpracticemakeforanawkwardimplementationmarriage.TheAGPgoalis“toendpovertyandenhancegrowth”,andimplementationisfocusedonimprovingproductivityandeconomicgrowthinthehighpotentialareasofEthiopia,withanemphasisonsurplusproducers.Meanwhile,thegoaloftheUSAIDFeed‐the‐Future(FtF)initiative(theprimarysourceoffundingfortheproject)is“tosustainablyreducepovertyandhunger”withimplementationfocusedonimprovingtheincomesofpoorruralhouseholds,andthenutritionalstatusofchildren.AGP‐LMDcombinesthesegoalswithanobjectiveofimprovingsmallholderincomesandnutritionalstatus.ItaimstocontributetotheachievementofbothAGPandFtFgoalsusingavaluechaindevelopmentapproachtoimproveproductivityandcompetitiveness.AGPandFtFtargetbeneficiarypopulationsdefinitelyoverlap,buttheexactnatureoftheirrelationshiptooneanotherisnotclearlyarticulated.Furthermore,itisnotclearhowtheprojectfocusonvaluechainsengagespoorruralhouseholds.

Infact,AGP‐LMDisnotfullyconsistentwiththeAGPgeographicfocusareas.Itdepartsfromtheworeda‐specificAGPgeographytoencompassnaturallyoccurringmilkshedsandlivestockgrowthcorridors.Theselivestockvaluechainstranscendadministrativeboundariesandgeography,whichmakesperfecttechnicalsense.However,itmakesforanawkwardgeographicmarriage,withsomeactivitiesfocusedonAGPtargetworedas,othersonfood‐insecurenon‐AGPworedas,andstillothers–especiallydairy–onurbanandperi‐urbanagriculturalareas.

Thekeydevelopmenthypothesisoftheprojectisthatmarket‐drivenenterprisedevelopmentcangenerateincreasedproducerincomesbypullingpreviouslymarginalizedpopulationsintocommercialvaluechains,increasingtheirincomes.Theassumptionisthatthiswillleadtoimprovementsinnutrition,householdfoodsecurityandhealthinthetargetpopulation.However,projectcontributiontotheachievementofAGPandFtFgoalshingesuponexactlywhichhouseholdsactuallybenefitfromprojectinterventions.

Insummary,theprojectisroughlyontracktomeetLOPindicatortargetsasarticulatedinthePMP,especiallywhencomparedtothepercentageoftheprojectbudgetexpendedtodate.Moreimportantly,thePMPindicatorsareinadequatetovalidatethekeydevelopmenthypothesisoftheproject.Theyareoutputfocused,andarenotdesignedtomeasureactivityimpactortheprojectcontributiontotheachievementofAGP,FtFandprojectgoals.3.1.1 GeneralTheconclusionsoftheevaluationteamarethat: ThelinkbetweenAGPandFtFgoals,andtheirlinktotheAGP‐LMDobjectiveofincreasing

valuechainproductivityandcompetitiveness,isnotclearlyarticulatedinprojectdocuments.Thisresultsinacollectionofactivitieswithlittlesynergy,anawkwardgeographicfocus,andadispersedbeneficiarypopulation.

ItcanbearguedthatAGP‐LMDsupportsruraleconomicgrowth,andthatsuchgrowthisanecessary–butnotsufficient–conditionforruralpovertyreduction.Itcanalsobe

arguedthatincreasingvaluechainproductivityandcompetitivenesscaneffectivelycontributetotheachievementofbothAGPandFtFgoals.However,projectreportsanddocumentsdonotmakethesearguments.

Individualprojectcomponents,strategiesandactivitiesarenotclearlystatedordefined,especiallywithregardtotheseparatedairyandmeat/liveanimalvaluechains.Thiscreatesconfusionamongimplementingpartnersandstakeholdersworkingondifferentvaluechainactivities,andcompromiseseffectiveness.ThenumerousAGP‐LMDactivities(dairyvaluechain,meatandliveanimalvaluechain,capacitybuilding,grantsandfinancing,enablingenvironment,andnutrition)resembleseparateprojects,withlittlesynergy,whichdilutesimpactandcomplicatesprojectmanagement.

CNFAisroughlyontracktomeetPMPtargets,especiallywhencomparedwiththepercentageofthebudgetwhichhasbeenexpended.Thisisinspiteofunrealisticimplementationexpectations;unreasonableexpendituretargetsduringthefirsttwoyears;andsomeill‐considereddecisions(e.g.,suspendingIR1traininginYear3).

MajorPMPindicators,especiallythemandatoryFtFindicators,aresimplyinadequatetomeasureprojectimpactorcontributiontotheachievementofAGPandFtFgoals.

3.1.2 IR1:IncreasedProductivityandCompetitivenessofSelectedLivestockValueChainsWebelievethatAGP‐LMDismakingasubstantialcontributiontotheachievementoftheAGPgoal.However,itscontributiontotheachievementofboththeAGPandFtFgoalsissimplynotbeingcapturedbythePMPindicators.ThereisthereforeapressingneedtodevelopandincorporatecustomindicatorsinthePMPtomoredirectlymeasureimpactandachievement.Giventhecomplexityofmeasuringincreasedproductivityinthelivestocksector,AGPandAGP‐LMDalsoneedtodevelopamethodologyformeasuringachievementsandimpact.

WebelievethatAGP‐LMDcanincreaseitscontributiontotheachievementoftheFtFgoalbyfocusingeffortsonthepointoffirstsale/contactwithproducersinthevaluechain(smalltraders,dairycollectioncenters)andnearbyactors(brokers,transporters).Thiswillmoredirectlyimpacttargetbeneficiaryhouseholdincomes.

AGP‐LMDalsoneedstoplacegreateremphasisonfacilitatingprivateinputsupplyandservicedeliveryproviderstosupportincreasedproductivity(increasedfertility,decreasedmortality,increasedmilk/meatproduction).Theprojecthasdoneenoughtoencouragelarge‐scaleinvestmentattheprocessorlevel.OvertheremainingLOPitneedstofocuson:(a)trainingandsupporttodevelopmicroandsmallscaleenterprisesclosertotheproducer(inputsupply,animalhealthandAIservices,smallscalefattening,brokers,transporters);and(b)providingBDSservicestoexistingclientsandgranteestohelpthemsucceed.(SeeRecommendation4)CapacityBuilding:Thereisagreatdealofanecdotalevidencethecapacitybuildingactivitiesaregeneratingpositiveimpact.However,trainingisbeingtreatedmorelikeanevent,ratherthanaprocessleadingtoadesiredresult.Specifically,theimpactoftrainingonhouseholdincomeneedstobemeasured.Also,trainingistoooftenbeingprovidedfreeofchargetoindustrialenterprises(abattoirs,processors)whoarewellabletopayforthem.

ThescaleoftrainingactivitieswasdrasticallyreducedduringYear3.Itneedstobereinstatedandexpandedintoamorecomprehensivecombinationoftechnicalandbusinesstrainingleadingtotangiblechangesinthemanagerialskillandentrepreneurshipoftheactorstodeveloptheselectedvaluechains.(SeeRecommendation4)Grantsprogram:Thegrantsprogramisleveragingnewprivateinvestmentinthelivestockvaluechains.Thetotalbudgetallocationofslightlymorethan$6milliontothisactivitymakesitreasonabletoexpectthatitwillcontributesubstantiallytotheachievementofprojectgoals.However,thegrantprocesshasprovedtobeterriblycumbersome.Asaresult,bythemid‐pointoftheprojectonly$1,773,983ingrantfundshasbeencommitted(signed),andonly$299,796actuallyexpended.Itwilltakeconcertedefforttofullydisbursetheremaininggrantfunds

withintheremaininglifeoftheproject.Unfortunately,thereislittleprospectofthegrantfundingproducingsignificantmeasurableresultsbeforetheendoftheproject.

Werecommendbringingtheprogramtoanorderlyclose(seeRecommendation6),finalizingtheprocessthathasbeenstarted,butnotaddingtoit.Rather,duringtheremainingLOPtheprojectshouldfocusonanintegratedmicroandsmallenterprisedevelopmentprogram,withtechnicalandbusinesstrainingcombinedwithsmallcapitaldevelopmentgrants(lessthan$1,000)toprovidethecapitalneededforsmallvaluechaintoestablishandexpandtheiractivities.(ThisapproachisalreadyincludedforCAHWs,andPLWHAs).Specifically,itshouldbetiedtoenterprisedevelopmentandmanagementtraining,tiedtotheachievementofbenchmarksfordisbursement,anddesignedincollaborationwithandfullymanagedbyimplementingpartners.3.1.2.1DairyValueChainInthedairyvaluechainmilkproducersandprocessorsareconcentratedinurbanandperi‐urbanareas,notruralareas,andarealreadypartofthevaluechain.Itisreasonabletosupporttheseactors,sincetheindustryisstillnascentandtheyarenotyetstrongenoughtofullyexploitthebusinessopportunitiesavailabletothem.However,itisnotrealistictoexpectanypulleffectonruralsubsistencehouseholdswithintheprojectperiod.

WebelievethatAGP‐LMDisdoingaverygoodjobofsupportingdairyindustrydevelopment,andfacilitatingtheincreasedprocessingcapacitywhichisneededtosupplygrowingdemand.Buttheinitialimpactwilltendtobetodisplacemilkfromexistingchannels(rawmilk)toprocessors.Therewillbesomeincreaseinmilkproductionasfeedingimproves,andthecollectionareaexpands.Buttheimmediateincreaseintotalmilkproductionwillbelimitedtoexistingproducers.

Adependablemarketoutletforrawmilk(processors)shouldeventuallyprovideincentivesandsecurityforcurrentproducerstoupgradetheirherd(geneticimprovement),tryhardertogetcowspregnant(improvefertility)andimprovefeedingpractices(increasemilkproductionperanimal).However,thelagtimeforachievingsignificantresultsislikelytobeageneration(threeyears).

Producersaremostlikelytoupgradetheirherdandimprovefeedingratherthanincreasenumbers.Somemaybuypregnantdairycowstoincreasetheirproduction,butthiswillnotaddtototalmilkproduction.However,increasedprocessingcapacityshouldeventuallyprovideincentivesforruralhouseholdsatthefringeofthemilkshedstobuydairyanimalsandbeginsellingmilk.Thelikelyimpactwillthereforebeanexpansioninthesizeofthemilkshed(collectionarea)toencompassmoresmallholderproducers.

Sincemostdairyproducersdonotproducealloftheirownfeed,theincreaseddemandforfeedandforagewillencouragenewfeedproduction,andeventuallyprovideproducerswiththecashneededtoenterdairyproductionthemselves(buycows).Thiswillcreatearippleeffect,expandingthecollectionareaovertime,andinvolvingmoreoftheFtFtargetbeneficiarypopulation.Thereareexcellentprospectsforexpandingmilkproductionandconsumption,butitwilltaketime.

Expandedmilkprocessingcapacityalsocreatesademandpullforinputandservicesupplytoincreaseproductivity,aswellasprovidingopportunityfornewproducerstoenterthemarket.ThisgrowthenhancementisfullyconsistentwithAGPgoals.However,itdoesnotreadilycontributetoFtFgoalsofreducingpovertyandhunger.Milkproducersarenotpoor,andpasteurizedmilkisarelativelyhigh‐endproduct.However,withasalepriceofBirr7‐8per½liter,itisverycompetitivewithCoca‐Colaandconsumptionshouldincrease.Milkshedsmayeventuallyexpanddeeperintoruralareas,impactingmoreproducers.However,theyarealsounlikelytobepoor.

AGP‐LMDneedstodomoretoaddressweaknessesinthemarketlinkbetweenproducersandprocessors,andbetweenprocessorsandconsumers.Specifically,itneedstodomoretoorganizeand/orstrengthencollectioncentersasthegatewayforrawmilkenteringtheprocessedmilkvaluechain.Anexpandednetworkofmilkcollectioncenterswillexpandthesupplybaseandimprovemarketefficiency.

However,AGP‐LMDshouldnotseektofurtherexpandlarge‐scaledairyprocessingcapacity.Itistimetoconsolidateefforts,andconcentrateonensuringtheavailabilityofBDSservicestothosealreadyinexistence.ThereislittleornopracticalandmanagementexperiencewithoperatingdairyprocessingplantsinEthiopia,andtheavailabilityofsparepartsandrepair/maintenanceservicesisquestionable.Therefore,technicalandmanagementsupporttoprocessorsovertheremaininglifeofprojectwillbeessentialtohelpsafeguardinvestmentsalreadyinprocess.

WeconcludethatthefollowingdairychainactivitieswouldmoredirectlyimpacttheFtFtargetgroup:

o Supporttheestablishmentofmilkcollectioncentersattheedgeofexpandingmilkshedareas.3Thiswillprovideadditionalincentivesforincreaseddairyproduction(althoughnotforpoorfarmers)andareadymarketforinputandservicesupply–includingforageproduction(asmallholdercropalternative).

o Expandentrepreneurshiptrainingintargetworedas,combinedwithtechnicaltrainingincottage‐levelprocessingofrawmilkintocheeseandbutter.Thiswillprovidewomenwithexpandedincomeopportunities,andimprovethelocalavailabilityofdairyproducts.

o Addtrainingonbullmanagementtoimprovefertility,especiallyforhigh‐producingdairyanimals,intotechnicaltrainingprograms.Thedairyvaluechainsneedstoensurethatfertilityismaintainedatahighlevel.AIcontributestogeneticimprovement,butaftertwoattemptsitistimeforthebull.

3.1.2.2MeatandLiveAnimalValueChainWebelievethereispotentialforamoreefficientliveanimalandmeatvaluechaintoencourageincreasedlivestockproductivityinthehighlandareas.However,wearenotcertainjusthowmuchproductivitycanbeincreasedinthelowlandareas,whicharealreadytheprimarysourceofcattleforliveanimalexport,andofgoatsandsheepforcarcassexports.Itappearsthereisalreadyexcessdemandforlowlandanimals(shoatsandcattle),withtradersreportingahighlycompetitivemarketintheAfarandBorenaareas.InthehighlandareasAGPsupportforproducersseemstooweaktogenerateasubstantialincreaseintheavailabilityofsheepandgoats.Asaresult,webelievethatAGP‐LMDwillbeunabletomeetitsexportgoalsforbeefandliveshoats.

Furthermore,expandedexportabattoircapacity,whichtheprojectissupporting,willnotincreasethenumberofanimalsavailableintheshortrun.Itappearsthatlowlandareasarealreadyproducingatorneartheirofftakelimit,anditwilltaketimeto“pull”increasedshoatproductioninthehighlands.Increasedprocessingcapacityismorelikelytoincreasedemandfortheexistingsupplylowlandanimals,creatingsupplyconstraints(limitedabilitytobuysufficientanimalsatthepriceprocessorsarewillingtopay)whichwillmakeitverydifficultforAbergelle(Tigray),Abyssinia,andnewfacilitiesunderconstructiontoprosper. Ethiopianexportsoflivecattle,andgoatandsheepcarcasses,aresolidlycompetitiveintheregionalmarket.Buttheyarenotlikelytoincreasesubstantiallywithoutarationalizationandstreamliningoftaxesandregulations.However,arelaxingofcurrentgovernmentrestrictions(e.g.,transportfees,FOREXrepatriation,andminimumweightforlivecattleexport)wouldalmostcertainlyincreaseexportsbydrawinganimalsintoformalexportchannels.

Beefexportsarenotpresently,norlikelytobe,competitive–atleastinthenearfuture.ThemajorfactorswhichkeepEthiopianbeeffrombeingcompetitivearequality(tendernessandtaste,relatedtoageandcondition)andcost.Simplyput,Ethiopiadoesnothavethegenetics,orthefeedresources,toproducequalitymeatatacompetitiveprice.

InthissettingAGP‐LMDmeatandliveanimalactivitiesmayeventuallyresultinincreasedlivestockproductivity,butonlyifimprovedinprocessingefficiencyistranslatedintohigherproducerprices.Eventhen,itwilldependuponwhetherproducershavesufficientresourcestoimprovenutrition,increasefertility,reducemortality,andincreaseyield.

3 Weunderstandthisiscurrentlyintheplanningstage.

Insummarymeatandliveanimalactivitiesaretooconcentratedatthetopendofthevaluechain,workingwithabattoirsandlargescalefeedlots,toofocusedonexports,andtoofardistantfromproducerstoexerteffective“pull”.Theyshouldberefocusedonthedomesticmarket,including:encouraginginvestmentinsmall‐scaleinputsupplyandanimalhealthenterprisesandfatteningoperationstoincreaseproductivity;increasingtheefficiencyofdomesticabattoirs;andimprovingmeatcuttingandretailing(seeRecommendation4).3.1.3 IR2:ImprovedEnablingEnvironmentforLivestockValueChainsAGP‐LMDeffortstoimprovetheenablingenvironmentforlivestockvaluechainsarehelpingvaluechainactorsadjustandadapttonewregulations(LiveAnimalTradingProclamation),andlayingthefoundationforpolicychange.ProjectsupportfortheestablishmentandorganizationofMSPsatthenationalandregionallevel,andregionalLWGs)isprovinganeffectivewayofbringinggovernmentrepresentatives,businessinterests,producers,andotherstakeholderstogethertodiscusspracticalissuesandproblems,andrecommendsolutions.Inparticular,thebottom‐upLWGapproachtobringingpolicyandregulatorybeforegovernmenthasgreatpotentialforinfluencingchange.

Inaddition,AGP‐LMDsupportforthepilotLITS,andtechnicalassistancetohelpaddressissuesrelatedtothelivestockandlivestockproductexportsandthenationalSPSsystem,ishelpingEthiopiareduceregulatoryburdensandcosts,andmaintainitscompetitiveadvantageinlivecattleandshoatmeatexports. Inconclusion,AGP‐LMDeffortstoimprovetheenablingenvironmentforlivestockvaluechainsareencouraging,butanysubstantiveimpactonrationalizingandstreamlininggovernmentpolicyandregulationisyettoberealized.3.1.4 IR3:ImprovedQualityandDiversityofHouseholdDietAGP‐LMDnutritionactivities(includingPLWHA)representanimportantinitialefforttopracticallyaddressfoodpreparationandconsumptionpractices,andpromotesocialandbehavioralchangetoimprovematernalandchildnutrition.Thatsaid,theyvirtuallystand‐aloneefforts,havinglittlerelationshiptotherestoftheproject.However,theydirectlyimpactFtFtargetpopulations,andareanopportunityforImplementingPartnerstodemonstratetheircapacity.BothnutritionandPLWHAactivitiesappeartobetechnicallysoundandpracticallyoriented.Buttheyarestillinthebeginningstagesofimplementation,andneedtobescaledup,expanded,evaluated,andfurtherrefinedtoimproveanddemonstrateeffectiveness.

Theoneweaknesswenoteisthatthenutritionmessagesandcookingdemonstrationsincorporateanimalsourcefoodswhicharenotreadilyavailabletopoorruralfamilies(e.g.,pasteurizedmilk).Eggsandpoultryareincluded,butnotemphasized.Wethinkthatincorporatingpilotpoultryproductionandnutritionmessages,promotingeggconsumptionforinfants,toddlers,pregnantwomen,andlactatingmotherswouldimproveprojectimpactbyemphasizingtheuseofanimalsourcefoodswhicharemostavailabletopoorfamilies.Webelieveitwouldlaythefoundationforimprovedimpact,aswellasimprovethelinkageoftheseactivitiestotheotherelementsofAGP‐LMD(seeRecommendation9).3.2 ProgramImpactonGovernmentPolicy,ProcessandAdministrationThefollowingaretheconclusionsoftheevaluationteaminresponsetoquestiontwo:Didprogramactivitiesleadtoanysignificantchangesingovernmentpolicy,process,oradministrationthatcanbeexpectedtocontributetoincreasedproductionandinvestmentinthesectorand/orincreasedexportcompetitiveness?

AGP‐LMDisverycarefullyworkingongovernmentpolicy,processandadministrativeissuesrelatedtolivestockvaluechains.Activitiesarehelpingprovideasettingandplatformforbroad‐basedpopularparticipationindiscussingissuesimpactingthesector,foraddressingsystemicissueswhichconstraintproductivityandcompetitiveness,andputtingbottom‐uppressureonthepolicyprocess.Thereareinstanceswheretheprojecthasbeenabletohelpresolvealocalissue.TheimportantthingisforAGP‐LMDtobepresentinthediscussionssoastoinfluenceactionwhentheopportunitypresentsitself.However,nothingsignificant–suchas

amajorregulatoryortaxchange–hasbeenachievedtodate,andanysignificantimpactontheproductivityandcompetitivenessoflivestockvaluechainsisyettoberealized.

WebelievethatAGP‐LMDneedstostayengaged,concentratingonfacilitatingandsupportingMSPandLWGactivities,andhelpingthemraiseissuesandproblemstohigherlevels.TheprojectalsoneedstostaymodestlyengagedwiththeLITSandSPSissues.Inaddition,ateveryopportunityitshouldpromoteandsupportthedevelopmentofanewunifiedpolicyandregulatorysystemforlivestocktoreplacethepresenttangle(seeRecommendation8).3.3 EffectivenessofImplementationApproachThefollowingaretheconclusionsoftheevaluationteaminresponsetoquestionthree:Whatisthedemonstratedeffectivenessofthecurrentimplementationapproach(e.g.workingwithlocalregionalorganizationslikeORDA,REST,HUNDEE,Self‐Help–Africa,andregionalconsortiums)?

Thecurrentimplementationapproachisnottakingfulladvantageoflocalorganizationsandpartners.Itisbeingstrangledbypaperworkandprocess,withsubstantialdelaysindecision‐makingthatcompromisestheeffectivenessofprojectimplementation.WehavenodoubtthatanimplementationwhichfullyengagestheIPsinplanningandimplementationcanbeveryeffective,providedtheoperationalissuesareresolved.Specifically: SubcontractingmechanismwithIPs:Theinstitutionalstrengths,technicaland

managementcapabilitiesoftheregionalImplementingPartnersaresimplynotbeingfullyengagedunderthecurrentsub‐contractingmodality.Annualpurchaseordersdonotprovideanopportunityforlong‐termplanningorcontinuinginvolvementandparticipationinprogramplanning,M&E,orprogramsupport.Moreimportantly,thereisnowaythatAGP‐LMDcanexpandthescaleoftheiroperationstomatchtheexistingcapabilitiesoftheIPs.Insummary,substantiveIPparticipationisessentialforprojectsuccess,andwouldbemuchbetterengagedusingsub‐grantstofinanceprogramimplementation,oraframeworkcontractcomplementedbypurchaseordersforspecifictasks(seeRecommendation5).

Deathbyathousandcuts:Allthestakeholdersaredoingthebesttheycan,butprojectimplementationisdrowninginprocessandpaperwork.Specifically,thenumberofindividualactionsforwhichspecificUSAIDapprovalisrequiredisdaunting,anddealingwithitsapsAGP‐LMDofenergyandmomentum.USAIDandtheContractorneedtoreviewthecontractandstreamlinetheprocessforapprovingSTTA,travel,grants,etc.Itsimplydoesnothavetobethiscomplicatedandclumsy.

Reporting:Thetemplatesforprojectreportinganddocumentationneedseriousattention.Specifically,projectdocumentsareineffectualinarticulatingaclearrationalefortheprojectanditscomponentparts,andreportingonwhattheAGP‐LMDisachieving,where,andwhyitisimportant.Insummary,AGP‐LMDisnotprojectingaclearandpositiveimage.Webelievetheprojecthasastorytotell,butitisjustnotbeingtold(seeRecommendation1).

Indicators:ThePMPindicatorsareentirelyinadequateformeasuringachievementandimpact.Webelievethatasetofcustomindicatorsareneededtobetterexplaintheexpectedcontributionofthegrantsprogram(seeRecommendation2).

Personnel:IncreasingthenumberofAGP‐LMDstaffintheregionswillnotimpactimplementationunlesstheyhavesomeonetoworkwith.ItwillbemosteffectiveifadditionalstaffareusedtoprovidetechnicalassistanceandadvicetotheImplementingPartnersastheirroleandresponsibilityinimplementationisexpanded(seeRecommendation5).

3.4 EffectivenessofPartnershipswithGoEAGPImplementersandOtherGovernmentOfficesThefollowingaretheconclusionsoftheevaluationteaminresponsetoquestionfour:HoweffectiveisthepartnershipwithGoE‐AGPimplementersandothergovernmentofficessuchastheMinistryofAgriculture,MinistryofTrade,MinistryofIndustry,FederalCooperativeAgency,andATAintermsofcollaborationandcoordinationtoimplementAGP‐LMD?Whatfactorscontributeforsuccessorchallengesinpartnership,particularlywiththeGoE‐AGPandwhatisrecommendedtoresolvethechallenges? Wewereastoundedatthenumberofgovernment,donor,andinstitutionalactorsengagedinimplementingAGPattheregionalandfederallevel.Incombinationwithotherongoingprogramsandinitiatives,thishasspawnedaninordinatenumberofworkinggroups,committees,andcoordinatingbodieswhichdemandparticipation.Butthatparticipationoftenhaslittleapparentimpactonimplementationeffectiveness.Thereisalotoftimeandeffortspenttalkingaboutcooperationandcollaboration,allofwhichtakesresourcesawayfromimplementation.Thereisanurgentneedisforthewholeapparatustospendlesstimeinmeetingsanddiscussion,andmoretimeactuallyimplementingactivities.

Inthissetting,AGP‐LMDisworkinghardtosustainparticipationinregularquarterlymonitoringandplanningmeetingswithAGPatboththeregionalandfederallevel.TheprojectalsosupportsandparticipatesinthecropandlivestockTechnicalCommitteemeetingsatthefederallevel.Annualplansandactivitiesarepreparedinconsultationwiththeregionalstakeholdersandimplementingpartners,andpresentedtorespectiveTechnicalandSteeringCommittees.However,nobodyseemshappywiththepresentset‐up.

Inparticular,thefailuretotakefulladvantageoftheIPsmeanstheycannotrelievetheburdenonprojectmanagementbyrepresentingAGP‐LMD,orsubstantivelyparticipatingin,regionalcoordinationbodies.Tocomplicatethingsfurther,thereareactivitiesbeingdirectlyimplementedbyprojectstaffatbothfederalandregionallevelswithoutanyconsultationwiththeregionalIPs.Thisdisorganizedandconfusedarrangementmakesithardtoeffectivelyrepresentwhattheprojectisdoingandcoordinatewithgovernmentagencies.

MostgovernmentofficesconfirmedthattheAGP‐LMDprojectattemptstoplanandimplementactivitiesinpartnershipwithkeygovernmententities,especiallyatthefederallevel.However,theeffectivenessofworkingrelationshipsattheregionallevelvariesfromverygoodtoalmostnon‐existent.

Insummary,thereiscertainlyaneedtomaintaingoodworkingrelationshipswithgovernmentcounterparts.Buttherearesomanycoordinatingstructuresthattheprojectisreallychallengedbytryingtocoverthemall.WebelievethatexpandingtheroleandresponsibilityoftheIPs,andempoweringthemwithagreaterroleinimplementation,wouldhelpresolvemanyoftheexistingissuesattheregionallevel.But,AGP‐LMDneedstoexercisecautionwhenitcomestoparticipatinginallthethingswhereitisrequested.Simplyput,itisnotatallclearthatcollaborationandcoordinationishavinganypositiveimpactonimplementation.3.5 RelevanceofProjectActivitiesThefollowingaretheconclusionsoftheevaluationteaminresponsetoquestionfive:Basedonsustainabilityandcosteffectiveness,whichactivitiesshouldbecontinuedandwhichactivitiesareirrelevantornomoreimportanttocontributetotheprojectobjectivesinthefuture?

Alltheactivitieswevisitedandreviewedaredesignedtocontributetotheachievementoftheprojectobjective,andhencearerelevant.Thatsaid,weoffersomecommentsonsustainabilityandcosteffectiveness,andsomespecificrecommendationstomaketheprojectmorerelevant,increaseimpactandbetterreachthetargetpopulation–increasingeffectiveness.

Firstofall,nothingthattheprojectisdoingissustainable–thatis,likelytocontinueaftertheLOP.Oneexpectsthatmanyofthebeneficiaryenterpriseswillcontinueoperating.But

theBDSservicesandfinancingbeingprovidedbytheprojectarenotbeingimplementedinwaythatensuresthefutureeffectivenessasBDSproviders.

AGP‐LMDindicatorsmeasureoutcomes,notimpact.Second,theprojectisnotreachingascaleofoperations,havingonlyexpended34%ofits$41,173,362budgettodate.Itmustrampupexpendituresandthescaleofoperationtogenerateimpactandbejudgedascosteffective.

Third,costeffectivenessdependsuponthescaleofachievementandimpact.And,assooftennotedinthisreport,AGP‐LMDismeasuringoutcomes,notimpact.Asaresult,wehavenobasisforjudgingthecosteffectivenessofwhatisbeingdone.

Thatsaid,thereareactionswhichcanbetakentoimprovecosteffectivenessandsustainability.Theyareasfollows:StreamlineInterventionStrategies:AGP‐LMDhasteninterrelatedinterventionstrategiesunderIR1.Thestructureissimplytoocomplextoguideandfocusactivity.Werecommendconsolidatingtheminto:(a)capacitybuildingforvaluechainactors(awarenesscreation,trainingandexperiencesharingonbusinessandentrepreneurship);(b)marketexpansion(establishingandstrengtheningdomesticandglobalmarketlinkages);(c)stimulatinginvestment(provisionofgrantandcreatingaccesstofinance;and(d)promotingaccesstoandconsumptionofnutritiousfood.Cross‐cuttingactivitieswillremainmainstreamedinallcategories.Thiswillimproveactivitydefinition,focus,expectedoutcomes,andimpact.ReviewandReviseResultsIndicators:Aspreviouslyemphasized,theindicatorsbeingusedaresimplyinadequatetomeasureperformance‐mostmeasureoutcomes,withimpactbeingassumed.Werecommendrefocusingmonitoringandevaluationeffortsonrevisingtheindicators,addingnewonestobetterrepresentwhatisbeingachieved,andfocusondevelopingandimplementingamethodologyformeasuringimpact.ExpandCapacityBuilding:Theextensiveprogramofcapacitybuildingcarriedoutduringthefirsttwoyearsoftheprojectwasextremelyrelevanttotheachievementofprojectobjectives.Thechallengeistogobeyondanecdotetomeasurethatimpact.However,thereductionintrainingduringyearthreenegativelyimpactedwhatpromisedtobeoneofthebestperformingpartsoftheproject,interruptedcontinuityofeffort,anddidnotimproveimplementationofthegrantsprogram.TheprogramneedstobeexpandedintoamoreintegratedMSEdevelopmenteffort(seeRecommendation4).GrantsProgram:Thegrantsprogramisseekstoleverageprivateinvestmenttoimprovetheproductivityandcompetitivenessoflivestockvaluechains.Thereisnoneedforadditionalgrantfunds,ortimetoprocessnewgrants.Rather,AGP‐LMDneedstobringtheprogramtoanorderlyendandfocusonestablishingasustainableapproachforprovidingBDSservicestothegranteestohelpensuretheirprospectsforsuccess.BeneficiarySelection:Theprincipleofvaluechaindevelopmentisidentifyingandmitigatingthecriticalproblemsalongthechain.However,importantvaluechainactorsinthemeatandliveanimalvaluechain,suchaslivestocktraders,transportersandbrokersneedtobeincorporatedintoprojecttrainingandB2Bactivities.Inaddition,moreeffortisneededtoimprovetheefficiencyandqualityofdomesticabattoirsandbutchers.3.6 GenderIssuesThefollowingarethefindingsoftheevaluationteaminresponsetoquestionsix:Howhastheprogramaddressedgenderissues?

InouropinionAGP‐LMDhasdoneaverygoodjobofaddressinggenderissues.TheprojecthasagenderequalityadvisorwhofacilitatestheimplementationofeverycomponentofthethreeIRs,aswellasindividualactivities,ensuringaspecialfocusongender.Thisfocusisreflectedinindicatortargets,andtailoredtrainingandmentoringactivitiesforwomen.Webelievetheprojectshouldmaintainandexpanditsefforts,buildingonwhathasbeendonetohelpclosethegendergap,withevengreateremphasisonbuildinginwomen’sentrepreneurshipandleadershipskills.

Itisgenerallyacknowledgedthatwomenaremoreinvolvedinlivestockfarmingthanmen.Inthatlight,AGP‐LMDcapacitybuildingactivitiesroutinelyrecord30‐40%women

participation,andtheprojecthasorganizedspecialtraininginbusinessandleadershipforwomenentrepreneurs.Experiencesharing,exposurecreationandbusinesslinkageactivitiesallengagelargenumbersofwomen.Theprojectalsoemphasizeswomen’sparticipationinthegrantsprogram,withfundssetasidespecificallyforwomenentrepreneurs.Nutritionprogramsemphasizewomen,andthePLWHAeffortsarereachingequalnumbersofmenandwomen..

Insummary,AGP‐LMDisdoinganexcellentjobofintegratinggender,andismakingveryconcertedanddeterminedeffortstoencouragehighlevelsofwomen’sparticipationinprojectactivities.However,thetraditionalrolesofwomeninlivestockproductionandmarketing,andculturalnormsregardingworkresponsibilities,meritfurtherconsiderationinordertoencourageruralwomentoparticipateineconomicactivitiesandleadership,withimprovedaccesstoandcontroloverresources.Inparticular,theprojectneedstofocusonmeasuringtheimpactofgenderactivitiesonhouseholdincomeandnutrition.3.7 NutritionActivityPerformanceThefollowingarethefindingsoftheevaluationteaminresponsetoquestionseven:Howwastheperformanceofthenutritionsensitiveactivitiesimplementationtowardachievingexpectedoutcomes?

AGP‐LMDnutritionactivitiesareontracktomeettheLOPindicatortargetsrelatedtothenumberofchildrenunderfivereachedbytheproject,andthenumberofpeopletrainedinchildhealthandnutrition.However,changingfoodconsumptionandpreparationcustomsandbehaviorisverydifficult,especiallywhenwomendonothaveaccesstoorcontroloverresources.Assuch,theimpactofnutritionactivitiesonthetargetpopulation–andtheireffectivenessinpromotingbehaviorchange–willonlyberealizedoverthelongterm. Webelievethatincorporatinganemphasisontheconsumptionofeggsandchicken,theanimalsourcefoodmostaccessibletothepoor,willimproveperformanceandhelplaythefoundationforfuturenutritionactivitydesign.Specifically,werecommendapilotefforttoincorporatemessagesandtrainingonpoultrymanagement,combinedwitheffortstoprovideaccesstoimprovedbirds(seeRecommendation9).

Insummary,nutritionactivities(includingPLWHA)arevirtuallystand‐aloneefforts,havinglittlerelationshiptotherestoftheproject.ButtheyaredirectlyimpactingFtFtargetpopulations,andaregivingtheImplementingPartnerstheopportunitytodemonstratetheircapabilities.BothnutritionandPLWHAactivitiesaretechnicallysoundandpracticallyoriented.Buttheyarestillinthebeginningstages,andwillneedtobeexpanded,evaluated,andfurtherrefinedtoimproveanddemonstratetheleveleffectivenessneededtoachieveimpactandmeritreplication.4. RECOMMENDATIONSTheEvaluationTeamrecommendsthefollowingactionstoincreasethecontributionofAGP‐LMDtobothAGPandFtFobjectives,andtoachievetheprojectgoalandobjective:1. Developandincorporateinprojectdocumentsandreportingacleararticulationof

therelationshipbetweentheAGPandFtFgoals,theirlinkagewiththeprojectgoalandobjectives,andexactlyhowprojectactivitiesareexpectedtocontributetotheachievementofthosegoalsandtheprojectobjective. Atpresenttheprojectrationale,andtheexpectedcontributionofactivitiestoLOP

targets,isnotclearlyarticulated.2. DevelopcustomPMPindicatorstomeasureandrecordtheoutcomeandimpactofthe

trainingprogramsandthegrantsprogram;andtheircontributiontotheachievementofprojectgoalandobjective. Wesuggestanincreasedsales/incomeindicatorfortraining.And,wesuggestincreased

productsales(volumeandvalue),increasedinputpurchases(volumeandvalue),andare‐evaluationofthejobcreationindicator(person/daysofemployment).

3. Developandimplementamethodologytomeasure(ratherthansimplyestimate)theimpactofprojectactivitiesonlivestockproductivity(fertility,mortality,andyield/animal)andruralhouseholdincome. Specifically,werecommendjointdesignandimplementationwithlocal

ImplementingPartnersinlinewithRecommendation5.ThiswillimprovetheeffectivenessofFtFreporting,andalsohelpAGPmeasuretheimpactofitsactivities.

4. Greatlyexpandingsupportformicro‐andsmallenterprise(MSE)developmentintheruralareasadjacenttotheproducer(firstpointofsale)asthefocusofimplementationduringtheremainingLife‐of‐Project. Specifically,werecommendcombiningtechnicalandbusinessmanagement

trainingwithsmallcapitalinvestmentgrants($500‐$1,000).Thiswillpromotevaluechaindevelopment,moredirectlyimpacttheFtFtargetpopulation,increasethenumberofbeneficiaries,andcontributemoreclearlytotheachievementoftheAGPgoal.

Note:ImplementingthisrecommendationwillmostlikelyrequireanamendmenttotheContractSOW.

Note:MSEsincludefeedandfoddersuppliers,veterinarydrugssuppliers,AItechnicians,bullserviceproviders,privateveterinariansandanimalhealthprofessionals,livestocktraders,brokers,transporters,butchers,andsmall‐scale(cottage)dairyprocessors.

5. SubstantiallyincreasingtheroleandresponsibilitiesofthelocalImplementingPartners,makingthemdirectlyresponsibleforthedesignandimplementationoftheMSEdevelopmentprogramrecommendedabove. Specifically,werecommendchangingthecurrentsub‐contractingmodalitytoasub‐

grant(preferred)oramulti‐yearsubcontractcombiningcostreimbursementforcoreoperationswithpurchaseordersforspecificactivities.Thiswilldramaticallyincreaseimpact,andtakefulladvantageofIPinstitutionalandtechnicalcapacityandoperationalpresence,enhancingsustainability.

Note:ImplementingthisrecommendationwillmostlikelyrequireanamendmenttotheContractSOW.

6. Bringthelarge‐scalegrantsprogramtoanorderlyconclusion. Specifically,weerecommendthatLMDnotconsideranygrantinexcessof$100,000.

AGP‐LMDhasdoneenoughtoleveragenew,larger‐scalevalue‐chaininvestments.Finalizewhatisinprocess,andbringittoaclose.FocusduringtheremainingLOPonprovidingTAtohelpthegranteessucceed.

7. DesignandimplementaprofessionalBDSprogramforgranteesandindustrialscalevaluechainoperations(milkprocessors,feedlots,feedprocessors,andabattoirs). AGP‐LMDneedstodevelopaprogramofassistancewitheachclient,definedinawritten

agreementwhichclearlystateswhatLMDwilldointermsoftechnicalassistanceandadvice,clientobligations,andresultsbenchmarks.ThiswilllaythefoundationforprivateBDSserviceproviderstoemerge.

8. KeepIR2activitiesmodestandfocused. FacilitateMSPandLWGactivities,helpingthemdeveloppracticalsolutionstoissues

andproblems.ContinuesupportforLITS,andmodestengagementwithSPSissues.Steadfastlypromoteandsupportthedevelopmentofanewunifiedpolicyandregulatorysystemforlivestocktoreplacethepresenttangle.

9. DesignandincorporatepilotpoultryactivitiesintoIR3,emphasizingpatioproductionandhomeconsumptionofeggs. ThiswilltieIR3moredirectlytotheprogram;emphasizetheuseoftheanimalsource

food(eggsandchicken)mostaccessibletothepoortoimprovenutrition;andlaythefoundationforfuturenutritionactivitydesign.Thepilotpoultryactivitymustbebasedonvaluechainconcepts,perhapsengagingPLWHAstoraisechicksintomaturechickensforprogramuse.

ImplementingtheRecommendationsWehavecraftedtherecommendationstomakeimplementationafairlystraightforwardprocess.But,itwilltakecommitmentanddecisivenesstogetitdone:thewilltoembracechange;andthedecisivenesstopressaheadandmakeithappen.AGP‐LMDcannotaffordtohaveUSAIDandCNFAheadquartersgetboggeddowninlengthydiscussions,complicatingmattersandputtingoffwhatneedstobedone.Thechangesrecommendedareineveryone’sbestinterest.Theywillstimulatecreativityandaction,promoteachievement,andmakeeveryonelookbetter. Withthisinmind,webelievetherearetwostepstoimplementingtherecommendations,asfollows:

1. AnnualWorkPlan:WesuggestimplementingRecommendations1,2,3,6,7,8and9inthecontextofdevelopingthenextAnnualWorkPlan.USAIDwillneedtoprovideguidancetoCNFAinordertocarrythisout,buttheyarenotundulycomplicatedanddonotappeartorequireanysubstantivechangestotheprojectSOWorbudget.TheContractingOfficemaywishtoprovideadditionalguidance,butthereisnoreasontodelaygettingstartedonthesethings.

2. ContractAmendment:WebelievethatimplementingRecommendations4and5willrequireanamendmenttothecontractSOWtodescribetheMSEdevelopmentprogram,establishtheguidelinesforexpandingtheroleandresponsibilitiesoftheImplementingPartners,andamendingthebudgettoaccommodatethesechanges.USAIDmayalsowishtoconsideramoderateextensionoftheprojectperiod(sixmonths)tocompensateforthetimeneededtomakethesechanges. TheamendmentprocessstartswithUSAIDpreparinganamendedSOWandBudgetforthecontract.TheContractingOfficewillprovidethenecessaryguidancetoensurethateverythingisdoneinorder. Thismaytakesometime,butneednotbecomplicated.Infact,withbroadgeneralagreementbetweenthepartiesthenextAnnualWorkPlancanincludeactivitiesinanticipationofaContractamendmentduringtheplanningperiod,andprovideforamendmentoftheAnnualWorkPlanoncetheContractisamended.

Asstatedearlier,thisneednotbealong,drawn‐out,complicatedprocess.Butitwillrequirewillanddecisivenesstogetitdone,settingthestageforimplementationduringtheremainingLOP.SummaryCNFAisdoingacrediblejobofimplementingAGP‐LMD,andtheprojectisclearlycontributingtotheachievementoftheAGPgoal.ButtheprojectcontributiontotheachievementoftheFtFgoalisnotclear,projectactivitiesarefragmented;andimpactandresultsarenoteasilymeasurable.Therefore,werecommendthatimplementationduringtheremainingLOPfocusonthedevelopmentandimplementationofaruralMSEdevelopmentinruralareasadjacenttotheproducertoincreaseresultsandimpact.ImplementationatthescalerecommendedwillrequiredramaticallyexpandingtheroleandresponsibilitiesofImplementingPartnerstoensurecontinuitythroughtheLOP.

Agricultural Growth Program – Livestock Market Development ... · Agricultural Growth Program –...

Documents