1    

Maziwa  Zaidi  /  MoreMilkiT  Project  Mid-­‐term  Review:  Final  report  

1    Brief  outline  of  project  context  and  objectives  

The  four-­‐year  Irish  Aid-­‐funded  More  Milk  in  Tanzania  (MoreMilkiT)  project,  currently  in  its  third  year,  aims  to  improve  rural  lives  in  Tanzania  through  dairy  value  chain  development.  The  project  contributes  to  the  overall  Irish  Aid  Tanzania  goal  of  achieving  inclusive  growth,  and  reduced  poverty  and  vulnerability,  and  it  supports  the  value  chains  development  work  being  undertaken  by  the  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Livestock  and  Fish  led  by  ILRI.  The  project  is  in  line  with  Tanzania’s  Agricultural  Sector  Development  Strategy  (ASDS)  and  Program  (ASDP)  insofar  as  it  supports  the  strengthening  of  the  institutional  framework  for  agricultural  development,  the  creation  of  a  favourable  climate  for  commercial  activities,  and  the  improvement  of  input  and  output  markets.    

The  project’s  objectives  are:  1. Develop   scalable   value   chains   approaches   with   improved   organizations  

and  institutions  serving  smallholder  male  and  female  households  2. Generate   and   communicate   evidence   on   business   and   organizational  

options  for  increasing  participation  of  resource  poor  men  and  women  in  dairy  value  chains  

3. Inform  policy  on  appropriate   role   for   smallholder-­‐based  value   chains   in  dairy  sector  development.  

The  project  essentially  targets  pre-­‐commercial  marginalized  smallholder  cattle  keepers  whose  participation  in  the  dairy  value  chain  has  been  minimal.  Adapted  dairy  market  hubs  (DMH),  derived  from  elements  of  an  approach  of  facilitating  market  linkages  and  collective  action  that  has  been  used  in  other  East  African  countries  to  successfully  target  this  group  of  farmers,  is  the  project’s  fundamental  approach  to  achieving  the  above  objectives.  The  project  is  piloting  DMH  in  30  sites  in  Morogoro  and  Tanga  regions.  

2    Terms  of  Reference  

The  full  Terms  of  Reference  (TOR)  for  the  Mid  Term  Review  (MTR)  are  in  Annex  A.  In  brief,  the  TOR  asked  the  review  team  to  assess:  

• conformity  of  the  implemented  work  with  the  project’s  research  and  piloting  objectives  

• how  the  project  is  fostering  learning  in  relation  to  expected  outputs  and  outcomes  

2    

• the  project’s  contribution  to  Irish  Aid’s  Country  Strategy  Paper  (CSP)  objectives  

• research  areas  that  are  not  currently  being  addressed  • the  relevance  of  existing  partnerships  for  implementation  of  activities  • review  management  structure  and  implications  • any  data  gaps  and  issues  around  data  handling  and  sharing.  

Irish  Aid’s  CSP  goal,  outcome  and  objective  relevant  to  MoreMilkiT  are,  respectively:  ‘inclusive  growth,  reduced  poverty  and  vulnerability’,  ‘rural  poor  are  more  income  secure’  and  ‘improved  livelihoods  of  smallholders  and  pastoralists’.  As  funder  of  the  project,  Irish  Aid  expect  to  see  development  at  project  sites  –  i.e.  functioning  dairy  market  hubs  (DMH)  adapted  to  local  contexts  –  from  which  evidence  and  lessons  can  be  drawn.  ILRI  asked  the  MTR  team  also  to  consider  whether  the  project  has  achieved  an  appropriate  balance  between  research  and  development.  

3    Approach  and  methods  for  the  MTR  

The  review  team  -­‐  Chris  Garforth,  Leonard  Oruko  and  Jean  Ndikumana  –  visited  Tanzania  6  –  10  July  2015.  After  a  briefing  at  ILRI  office  with  the  project  partners  in  Dar  es  Salaam  (and  Nairobi  via  Webex),  they  visited  four  project  sites  in  Tanga  and  Morogoro  Regions,  accompanied  by  staff  from  the  main  implementing  partners,  ILRI,  Heifer  International  Tanzania  (HIT)  and  Faida  MaLi  (FM).  Insights  from  the  field,  including  from  focus  group  discussions  with  farmers  and  other  local  stakeholders,  were  supplemented  by  review  of  project  documents  and  key  informant  interviews.  Preliminary  findings  were  presented  to  the  project  partners  on  10  July.  A  summary  report  was  submitted  to  ILRI  project  leader  on  13  July.  This  final  report  is  the  third  of  the  three  MTR  deliverables  (the  first  being  the  slides  presented  at  the  de-­‐brief  meeting  on  10  July).  

4    Field  visits  

We  report  here  on  discussions  held  at  four  project  sites  with  Maziwa  Zaidi  group  members,  service  providers  and  other  stakeholders.  The  sites  were  selected  by  the  project  team  to  show  the  range  of  contexts  in  which  the  project  operates,  with  contrasting  production  systems  and  local  market  arrangements  for  milk.  From  further  discussions  with  the  project  team  members,  we  believe  the  specific  local  successes  and  challenges  are  indicative  of  what  is  happening  in  the  project  more  generally.    

4.1  Wena  village,  Bumbuli    District,  Tanga  Region  

The  Maziwa  Zaidi  group  in  Wena  (registered  as  ‘Uwamazawe’)  started  on  October  18,  2013.  Currently,  the  group  has  118  members  including  82  men  and  36  women.  Its  constitution  was  registered  on  December  16,  2013.  The  MTR  team  held  a  group  discussion  with  six  group  members,  the  Village  Chairman  and  Village  Executive  Officer,  and  the  District  Livestock  Officer,  plus  Maziwa  Zaidi  project  partners.  

The  group  activities  are  built  on  achievements  from  a  previous  Heifer  Tanzania  project  which  started  in  2001  and  introduced  improved  dairy  animals  and  

3    

promoted  a  zero  grazing  system.  The  productivity  of  the  animals  has  declined  mainly  due  to  inadequate  feeding  but  also  to  increased  inbreeding  as  no  new  blood  of  improved  animals  has  been  brought  into  the  village  herd.  Artificial  insemination  was  already  practiced  before  the  Maziwa  Zaidi  project  started  but  there  was  low  adoption  due  to  high  cost.  

The  milk  is  sold  in  Bumbuli  town  through  a  collection  centre,  which  has  a  chilling  facility,  run  by  a  producers  association  (UWATABU).  The  milk  is  sold  to  the  collection  centre  at  TShs  600  per  litre  and  the  group  feels  that  the  price  is  too  low  as  if  sold  directly  to  consumers  the  price  goes  up  to  TShs  1000  per  litre1.  

So  far,  the  group  has  signed  a  contract  with  two  service  providers  who  will  provide  their  services  on  credit  basis;  they  are  a  provider  of  AI  services  and  a  provider  of  other  inputs  including  feeds  and  veterinary  drugs.  Implementation  of  the  two  contracts  has  not  yet  started.  The  AI  service  provider  indicated  that  he  will  honour  the  contract  by  using  money  received  from  producers  who  will  directly  pay  for  the  service.  This  arrangement  is  unsustainable.  This  is  also  an  indication  that  the  project  has  not  yet  succeeded  in  linking  the  milk  trader  with  the  service  provider2.  During  our  discussion  with  the  provider  who  signed  the  contract,  he  did  not  mention  that  he  could  establish  his  revolving  fund  through  the  milk  trader.  There  is  a  need  for  the  project  to  link  the  service  providers  contracted  with  credit  service  providers  to  ensure  they  can  efficiently  provide  the  services  as  per  the  contracts.  Getting  the  contracts  signed  is  not  enough.  The  project  has  to  monitor  whether  the  arrangement  is  operational  or  not,  and  if  not  to  find  out  why  and  work  with  the  group  and  other  actors  to  make  it  so.  If  and  when  it  becomes  operational,  the  project  should  be  identifying  what  lessons  can  be  drawn  that  should  be  documented  and  fed  into  the  learning  process.    

The  group  has  benefited  from  trainings  on  forage  establishment  and  management  and  on  milk  shed  construction  by  HIT  and  on  dairy  entrepreneurship  by  Faida  MaLi.  

The  group  has  been  sensitized  to  buy  improved  heifers  and  by  the  time  of  the  MTR  team  visit,  the  group  had  collected  money  from  a  number  of  farmers  to  buy  the  animals;  potential  suppliers  have  already  been  identified  but  the  project  has  not  yet  identified  an  expert  to  help  in  selecting  the  best  animals.  Although  this  is  already  in  FM’s  workplan,  it  seems  to  be  taking  too  long  to  arrange  with  the  risk  that  the  momentum  within  the  group  and  the  DMH  will  be  lost.                                                                                                                  1  It  is  not  uncommon  for  producer  prices  in  informal  value  chains  to  be  higher  than  in  formal  value  chains  because  of  the  lower  transaction  and  other  costs  involved.  The  comment  from  the  group  does  not,  however,   acknowledge   the   stability  provided  by   formal  arrangements  particularly   in   a   situation  where  output   is   increasing  beyond  a   level   that   can  be   absorbed  readily  by  the  local  informal  market.    2  As  ILRI  commented  in  response  to  the  draft  MTR  report,  this  is  ‘a  sign  that  our  “check-­‐off”  arrangement  is  not  yet  properly  understood  by  this  service  provider  because  the  idea  is  not    to  use  money  collected   from  the  producer  but   from  the  milk   trader,   so   the  producer  pays  indirectly  through  milk  as  collateral’.  

4    

Project  success  in  Wena  

The  project  has  developed  excellent  partnerships  with  the  local  authorities  at  village  and  district  level.  It  has  managed  to  secure  commitment  of  the  district  council  to  contribute  financially  to  the  provision  of  AI  services  to  the  group  members  as  well  as  to  other  producers  in  the  district.  

The  project  implementation  approach  which  is  based  on  village  specific  plans  is  very  participatory  and  promising  to  achieve  expected  outcomes  and  impact.  

The  facilitation  of  linkages  between  the  group  members  and  service  providers  is  an  excellent  step  in  establishing  a  functional  Dairy  Marketing  Hub.  

Areas  for  improvement  

With  less  than  two  years  to  the  end  of  the  project,  the  project  has  not  yet  established  a  functional  DMH  in  Wena  and  therefore  the  progress  is  not  satisfactory.  For  instance,  the  contracted  AI  and  input  services  providers  have  not  yet  started  operating.  The  project  should  facilitate  the  linking  of  the  service  providers  to  the  collection  centre  to  operationalize  the  check-­‐off  system.  The  AI  and  inputs  service  providers  contracted  by  the  group  should  also  be  supported  by  the  project  to  secure  support  from  a  credit  provider  so  that  they  have  the  required  revolving  fund  to  support  the  group  members.    

The  project  should  put  more  emphasis  on  the  feeding  component  of  the  production  system.  Experience  from  elsewhere  including  at  the  project  site  of  Manyinga  or  in  Central  Kenya  indicates  that  once  market  is  available  and  producers  are  making  money,  they  are  willing  to  invest  in  improved  feeding  packages.  Demonstrations  to  enhance  adoption  of  feeding  packages  will  aim  at  showing  that  in  a  situation  whereby  market  is  not  a  limiting  factor,  improved  feeding  packages  will  result  in  increased  milk  yield  translated  into  increased  income  for  producers.  This  is  a  powerful  incentive  for  farmers  to  invest  into  improved  feeding  packages.  Currently,  producers  are  left  to  use  the  trial  and  error  approach  to  establish  the  right  feeding  packages  for  their  crossbred  animals.  Adaptive  research  to  enhance  adoption  of  the  most  effective  feeding  packages  using  feed  resources  available  on  farm  as  well  as  agro-­‐industrial  by-­‐products  available  in  the  area  should  quickly  be  initiated  for  the  remaining  period  of  the  project.  Feeding  innovations  adopted  by  other  project  villages  such  as  Manyinga  village  in  Mvomero  district  where  farmers  are  also  practicing  zero  grazing  using  crossbred  animals  and  have  adopted  innovations  introduced  by  Sokoine  University  should  be  introduced  in  Wena.  The  feed  resource  base  should  be  expanded  through  introduction  of  new  forage  species  particularly  forage  legumes.  The  introduction  of  a  user-­‐friendly  forage  chopper  locally  made  should  be  considered,  building  on  the  experience  from  TALIRI  Mabuki.  The  chopper  will  not  only  minimize  fodder  losses  in  the  zero  grazing  units  but  also  will  improve  fodder  intake  and  digestibility.  The  process  of  buying  improved  heifers  for  producers  who  have  already  raised  the  required  amount  of  money  should  be  fast  tracked  to  ensure  farmers  can  quickly  improve  the  overall  productivity  of  their  animals.  This  is  also  likely  to  

5    

have  a  motivational  effect  on  other  producers  in  the  group  and  the  community,  thus  helping  to  establish  the  usefulness  of  DMH.  Although  Faida  MaLi  has  conducted  a  gross  margin  analysis  on  dairy  production  in  the  project  villages,  ILRI  research  team  should  leverage  its  body  of  knowledge  on  agricultural  market  analysis  to  provide  a  more  nuanced  economic  analysis  of  the  dairy  production  by  this  and  other  groups  and  advise  on  the  best  management  practices  and  policies  that  will  ensure  profitability  of  the  dairy  production  units.  

The  project  should  strengthen  the  value  chain  approach  for  the  project  implementation  including  issues  of  post  harvest  handling,  hygiene  and  standards  and  marketing  to  improve  the  market  value  of  the  produced  milk  and  increase  income  for  the  smallholder  producers.  Value  addition  such  as  promoting  smallholder  cottage  processing  should  be  considered  if  the  project  is  able  to  secure  a  second  phase3.  

4.2  Masatu  village,  Handeni  District,  Tanga  Region  

Situated  in  Handeni  district,  the  village  group  is  mainly  composed  of  farmers  practicing  extensive  livestock  production  based  on  indigenous  breeds  although  out  of  the  1000  animals  in  the  village,  40  animals  are  improved  crossbreeds.  Some  farmers  own  up  to  200  animals  but  the  majority  of  group  members  own  1  to  10  indigenous  animals.4  The  group  started  in  January  2013  and  was  registered  in  December  2013.  It  has  85  members  comprising  51  men  and  34  women.    

The  group  has  not  yet  entered  into  contracts  with  input  providers  (e.g.  for  drugs,  veterinary  services)  but  they  are  reporting  to  have  negotiated  as  a  group  a  credit  system  whereby  group  members  receive  from  a  supplier  acaricides  and  other  veterinary  drugs  on  credit  terms  and  the  money  is  reimbursed  by  the  group  once  funds  are  available.    

There  is  no  AI  service  available.  The  few  crossbreed  animals  in  the  village  are  from  improved  bulls.  

Animal  feeding  is  based  on  communal  grazing  on  commonly  owned  grazing  land  and  the  overall  milk  yield  from  the  indigenous  animal  is  1  to  1.5  litres  per  day.  The  crossbreeds  are  also  grazing  but  receive  a  supplement  composed  of  crop  residues  and  maize  bran.  The  average  milk  yield  ranges  between  5  and  12  litres  per  day.  The  animals  graze  on  the  communal  grazing  area  throughout  the  year  (i.e.  there  is  no  seasonal  migration).  

                                                                                                               3   Discussions  with  milk   producers   at   all   project   sites   indicated   that   local   value   addition   is  important   for   them,  both  because  of   the  opportunity   to  capture  more  of   the  value   that   is  currently  added  further  along  the  chain  and  because  of  the  possibility  of  increasing  shelf  life  for  their  product  locally.  4   We   recognize   that   there   is   a   tendency   for   livestock   owners,   particularly   in   extensive  systems,  to  underreport  herd  size,  so  these  figures  should  be  treated  with  caution.    

6    

The  major  portion  of  milk  produced  is  sold  individually  directly  to  consumers.  However,  there  are  a  number  of  milk  traders  collecting  milk  from  group  members  to  sell  it  to  a  milk  collection  centre  with  chilling  facilities  in  Korogwe.  The  group  chairman  is  one  of  the  traders.    Major  constraints  to  livestock  production  in  the  village  are  Tick  and  Tick  Borne  Diseases  (TTBDs)  mainly  East  Coast  Fever  (ECF)  and  Trypanosomiasis  caused  by  tsetse  flies.  TTBDs  are  controlled  using  a  common  dipping  tank  located  4  km  from  the  village  and  managed  by  a  ward  group.  Users  pay  a  fee  of  TSHs  100  per  animal  per  use.  Manual  spraying  is  commonly  used  when  animals  are  not  taken  to  the  dipping  tank.  Acaricides  and  other  drugs  are  supplied  by  an  input  provider  or  bought  from  veterinary  pharmacies.  

The  group  have  already  benefited  from  HIT  training  on  feeding  and  animal  husbandry  and  on  group  dynamics  (legal  registration)  as  well  as  from  a  Faida  MaLi  training  on  entrepreneurship  skills.  

The  group  has  a  keen  interest  in  improving  their  local  animals  using  improved  bulls  but  there  are  very  few  improved  bulls  in  the  village.  They  are  aware  that  improved  animals  give  more  milk  and  provide  higher  income  than  the  indigenous  breeds.  They  are  requesting  that  the  project  facilitate  access  to  AI.  Members  of  the  group  interviewed  indicated  that  the  group  is  expecting  that  the  project  buy  improved  animals  for  them  and  expressed  disappointment  that  the  project  has  not  yet  done  so.  They  consider  that  although  some  training  has  taken  place,  “the  project  has  not  yet  started”.  This  reflects  a  misunderstanding  of  the  nature,  objectives  and  scope  of  the  project,  probably  informed  by  experience  of  previous  interventions  involving  asset  transfers  or  subsidies;  but  it  is  perhaps  also  due  to  lack  of,  or  slow,  specific  follow-­‐up  to  challenges  and  opportunities  identified  in  the  field.  

Project  success  in  Masatu  

The  training  on  dairy  production  and  entrepreneurship.  The  participatory  identification  of  constraints  and  priorities  for  project  interventions,  through  site  specific  planning.  

The  partnership  between  ILRI,  HIT  and  Faida  MaLi.  

Areas  for  improvement  

The  operationalization  of  the  DMH  concept  is  progressing,  albeit  slowly.  According  to  FM  a  veterinary  service  provider  has  now  been  contracted  and  a  number  of  milk  traders  are  buying  milk  from  producers,  including  a  collector  owning  a  vehicle  who  is  ferrying  collected  milk  to  Korogwe  town.  These  developments  were  not  reported  to  us  in  our  group  discussion  with  the  

7    

producers,  perhaps  reflecting  the  challenge  of  keeping  all  group  members  up  to  date  with  progress  in  implementing  the  actions  in  the  SSP.5  The  project  should  prioritise  the  interventions  taking  into  consideration  what  can  be  done  with  potential  for  impact  during  the  remaining  period.  For  instance,  the  major  constraints  to  livestock  production  and  marketing  along  the  value  chain  are  issues  related  to  diseases  on  the  production  segment  of  the  value  chain,  post  harvesting  conservation  as  a  large  quantity  of  milk  is  spoiled  before  reaching  the  market  due  to  poor  hygiene  in  milk  handling  and  poor  organization  in  milk  collection  and  marketing.  Those  factors  affect  negatively  the  quantity  and  quality  of  milk  reaching  the  market.  In  order  to  organize  a  functional  DMH,  priority  in  that  particular  village  should  be  (i)  to  establish  strong  linkages  between  producers  and  providers  of  health  services  and  veterinary  drugs  while  ensuring  that  the  dipping  tank  is  fully  operational  (the  group  to  sign  a  contract  with  a  veterinary  services  provider  facilitated  by  the  project  to  access  credit);  (ii)  improving  milk  handling  practices  (i.e.  containers,  cooling  facilities;  transport  facilities)  to  minimize  milk  spoilage  from  the  farmers  to  the  collection  centre;  (iii)  facilitate  the  establishment  of  a  milk  collection  centre  not  too  far  from  the  village  and  promoting  organizations  and  policies  that  will  improve  access  of    the  milk  produced  to  the  markets,  thereby  increasing  producers’  income  from  milk  marketing.  While  the  SSP  for  this,  and  all  other  project  sites,  contains  a  list  of  interventions  to  address  priorities  identified  in  consultation  with  milk  producers  and  other  stakeholders,  it  should  not  be  regarded  as  a  static  document.  Particularly  given  the  short  time  period  for  the  remainder  of  the  project,  SSPs  should  be  reviewed  to  identify  appropriate  prioritization,  focusing  on  those  activities  that  have  the  greatest  probability  of  establishing  DMH  in  locally  appropriate  forms.  Lessons  from  other  project  sites  can  also  be  used  for  adapting  interventions  identified  in  SSPs.  For  the  remaining  period  before  project  completion,  issues  related  to  provision  of  AI,  improved  forages  and  value  addition  (cottage  processing)  should  be  put  on  hold  as  no  short-­‐term  impact  can  be  achieved  in  the  context  of  this  project  site.  

4.3  Manyinga  village,  Mvomero  District,  Morogoro  Region  

Manyinga  village  Maziwa  Zaidi  group  started  in  July  2013  building  on  an  existing  innovation  platform  established  by  the  former  project  Milkit  which  ended  in  December  2014.  The  group  consists  of  71  members,  made  up  of  38  males  and  33  females.    The  group  is  keeping  a  mixture  of  improved  and  local  cattle  and  the  improved  animals  are  kept  under  zero  grazing.  The  improved  animals  originate  from  a  HIT  project  from  the  early  1990s.    

                                                                                                               5  At  the  time  of  writing  this  report,  it  was  not  clear  if  the  veterinary  service  provider  who  is  already  providing  service  on  credit  terms  to  group  members  has  been  formally  contracted  to  provide  services  to  the  group,  and  if  so  under  what  financing  arrangements.  

8    

The  average  number  of  animals  per  household  is  two  to  three  and  farmers  have  already  adopted  feeding  packages  innovations  introduced  by  researchers  from  SUA  during  the  implementation  of  a  previous  project  (Milkit).  The  feeding  rations  are  based  on  fodder,  maize  bran  and  cotton  seed  cake.  Milk  yield  reaches  8l/animal  per  day  for  some  farmers.  Different  types  of  forage  species  including  Napier,  Desmodium,  Leucaena,  Gliricidia  and  Calliandra  species  have  been  introduced  on  farm.  The  group  has  been  introduced  to  the  use  of  a  forage  chopper  in  preparing  feed  rations  using  innovation  platforms.  However,  the  animals  do  not  respond  significantly  to  improved  feeding  due  to  continued  inbreeding6  as  no  improved  animals  have  been  introduced  in  the  village  after  the  HIT  project.  

The  group  has  signed  a  contract  with  an  input  service  provider  supplying  mineral  licks,  veterinary  services,  drugs  and  AI7.    

The  milk  marketing  is  not  organized  as  group  members  sell  their  milk  to  neighbours,  nearby  shops  and  kiosks  in  Manyinga.  Currently,  group  members  manage  to  sell  all  their  milk  at  a  price  of  1000  TShs  per  litre.  While  this  works  well  for  producers  while  supply  and  local  demand  are  in  balance,  the  uptake  of  productivity-­‐enhancing  technology  will  increase  the  potential  viability  of  organized,  collective  marketing.  

Major  diseases  affecting  livestock  production  in  the  village  are  East  Coast  Fever  (ECF),  Foot  and  Mouth  Disease  (FMD)  and  Lumpy  skin  disease.  Farmers  control  the  diseases  through  spraying  acaricides  for  ECF  and  buying  drugs  at  local  veterinary  pharmacies.    Farmers  have  benefited  from  HIT  training  on  construction  of  milk  sheds  and  pasture  establishment  and  management  and  from  training  on  entrepreneurship  by  Faida  MaLi.    

The  group  is  keen  on  acquiring  improved  animals  and  five  members  have  already  paid  money  for  the  group  to  buy  improved  heifers  for  them.    The  group  has  organized  a  committee  of  farmers  who  have  benefited  from  the  various  trainings  carried  out  by  the  project  and  previously  by  the  Milkit  project  which  is  coordinating  training  of  new  farmers  to  enhance  adoption  of  the  various  dairy  production  innovations.    

Project  success  in  Manyinga  

The  project  has  built  on  previous  experience  from  Heifer  and  Milkit  projects.  Farmers  have  adopted  innovations  for  dairy  production  under  zero  grazing  particularly  feeding  packages  and  diseases  control.    

                                                                                                               6  ILRI  contest  this  point;  however  the  problem  of  inbreeding  in  a  herd  where  for  a  long  time  there  is  no  import  of  new  blood  should  not  be  underestimated.  7   ILRI  note   that,   according   to   the  group   secretary,  AI  has  not  been   taken  up  by  producers  under  this  contract  because  of  the  perceived  high  cost  (Ts35,000).  

9    

The  partnership  between  ILRI,  HIT  and  Faida  MaLi  is  strong  and  the  project  is  involving  local  administration  and  extension  services  at  village  and  district  level.  The  project  has  strengthened  capacity  among  group  members  through  training  on  the  various  aspects  of  dairy  production.  

Areas  for  improvement  

The  situation  in  Manyinga  is  quite  unique  as  currently  all  milk  is  directly  sold  to  consumers  at  a  fairly  high  price.  A  contract  was  signed  with  a  service  provider  who  is  already  supplying  inputs  on  credit.  No  collective  milk  marketing  is  currently  needed.  However,  the  situation  might  change  if  milk  production  continues  to  increase  due  to  the  planned  purchase  of  more  productive  animals  and  the  expected  enhanced  adoption  of  productivity  enhancing  technologies  (improved  feeding;  increased  use  of  AI;  improved  husbandry  practices).  A  milk  marketing  study  should  be  carried  out  to  find  out  whether,  with  the  anticipated  increase  in  milk  production,  a  milk  collection  centre  could  be  necessary  as  well  as  the  involvement    of  milk  traders.    The  research  team  could  design  a  simple  milk  recording  tool  for  farmers  to  record  milk  yield  based  on  the  feeding  packages  to  draw  lessons  for  up-­‐scaling  the  feeding  innovations  to  similar  project  groups  such  as  in  Lushoto  and  Bumbuli  districts  where  similar  conditions  of  zero  grazing  prevail.  

4.4  Wami  Dakawa  village,  Mvomero  District,  Morogoro  Region  

Called  Tenabo  Kibaya,  the  group  was  established  in  2013  and  started  activities  in  2014.  It  has  50  members,  comprising  30  men  and  20  women.    

The  group  is  practicing  extensive  production  system  with  an  average  of  15  animals  per  household.  The  highest  number  of  animals  for  a  household  is  400.  The  feeding  is  communal  grazing  and  water  scarcity  particularly  during  dry  seasons  is  a  major  concern.  Farmers  have  contributed  money  to  dig  a  shallow  well  as  a  livestock  drinking  water  reservoir.  

The  group  has  benefited  from  training  courses  on  animal  husbandry  but  the  planned  training  on  entrepreneurship  was  not  carried  out  as  farmers  did  not  turn  up  the  day  the  course  was  planned  to  be  organized.  

Before  the  Maziwa    Zaidi  project  began,  no  other  dairy  project  had  been  implemented  in  the  village.    

During  the  dry  season,  migration  in  search  of  fodder  and  water  is  practised.    

One  of  the  major  constraints  to  livestock  production  is  disease  particularly  ECF  and  trypanosomiasis.  ECF  is  controlled  through  spraying  acaricides  while  trypanosomiasis  is  controlled  through  drugs.  The  drugs  are  bought  at  Dakawa  and  the  farmers  treat  their  animals  themselves.  There  is  no  dipping  tank  and  each  farmer  sprays  his  animals  weekly  to  prevent  ECF.  

Milk  is  sold  at  Dakawa  at  TShs  1000    per  litre  when  sold  directly  to  consumers.  The  price  is  TShs  600  per  litre  for  traders  or  farmers  supplying  the  chilling  centres.  They  are  paid  10  days  after  delivery.  Some  traders  are  collecting  milk  at  

10    

TShs  400-­‐500  per  day  per  litre  to  sell  it  to  three  milk  collection  centres  in  Dakawa  at  TShs  600  per  litre.  Facilities  of  the  milk  collection  centres  belong  to  Tanga  Fresh.  During  the  dry  season,  there  is  not  enough  milk  and  the  chilling  plant  are  closed  3-­‐4  months  a  year.  The  milk  price  also  varies  from  500  TShs  per  litre  during  the  rainy  season  to  TShs  740  per  litre  during  the  dry  season.  Twenty  four  traders  have  been  trained  on  milk  health  quality  control  and  certified  by  the  Tanzania  Dairy  Board.    One  of  the  major  challenges  for  the  project  is  market  as  it  is  not  organized,  some  producers  selling  their  milk  to  milk  collectors  or  directly  to  the  collection  centres  while  others  manage  to  sell  directly  to  consumers  at  a  significantly  higher  price  (TShs  1000  per  litre).  The  market  is  therefore  not  yet  perceived  as  a  problem  by  most  producers,  which  limits  the  options  for  DMH  models  in  this  context.    Although  the  market  is  not  yet  properly  organized,  producers  manage  to  sell  all  their  milk.  They  indicated  that  in  order  to  increase  milk  production,  the  project  should  facilitate  access  to  dipping  tanks,  improved  cows,  forage  seed  and  genuine  veterinary  drugs  as  the  ones  generally  sold  are  not  genuine.    

Project  success  in  Dakawa  

The  project  has  mobilized  farmers,  extension  services  and  local  authorities  for  a  participatory  implementation  of  the  project.  

There  is  a  strong  partnership  between  HIT,  Faida  MaLi,  ILRI  and  extension  services  in  the  project  implementation.  

Areas  for  improvement  

The  pillars  for  a  functional  DMH  are  not  yet  in  place  as  no  contracts  have  been  signed  between  the  group  and  the  service  providers.  FM  report  that  their  efforts  to  help  the  group  develop  contracts  with  service  providers  and  milk  traders  have  been  met  with  lack  of  interest,  with  group  members  not  turning  up  to  pre-­‐arranged  meetings.  This  begs  the  question  of  whether  the  project  should  continue  to  devote  scarce  resources  to  working  with  a  group  where  there  is  apparently  so  little  commitment.  

Although  the  market  is  there,  there  is  no  milk  trader  contracted  as  an  actor  in  a  functional  DMH.    Farmers  are  expecting  the  project  to  provide  improved  animals,  AI,  dipping  tank  and  improved  fodder  species  but  the  extensive  livestock  production  system  and  the  agro-­‐ecological  conditions  of  the  village  (pronounced  drought  and  migration  for  water  and  grazing  resources  during  drought  periods)  are  not  favourable  to  intensive  livestock  production  i.e.  under  zero  grazing.  Introducing  improved  fodder,  improved  animals  or  AI  do  not  have  potential  for  impact  as  the  indigenous  breeds  which  are  dominating  the  system  cannot  be  economically  reared  into  an  intensive  production  system  characterized  by  high  inputs  in  terms  

11    

of  feed  and  veterinary  services.  The  dry  conditions  are  also  not  favourable  to  introducing  improved  forages8.  As  in  Masatu  village  of  Handeni  district,  the  project  should  more  focus  on  improving  milk  collection,  milk  handling  and  post  harvest  conservation  to  minimize  post  harvest  milk  spoilage  due  to  lack  of  hygiene  and  poor  handling  practices  to  increase  the  quantity  of  milk  reaching  the  market.  This  is  a  specific  window  to  increase  smallholder  farmers’  income  from  selling  their  milk.  There  is  a  need  for  the  ILRI,  HIT  and  Faida  MaLi  team  to  identify  priorities  to  be  addressed  for  the  remaining  15  months  of  the  project  to  make  sure  some  impact  can  be  achieved  by  the  end  of  project.  This  can  be  done  by  focusing  mainly  on  diseases  control  at  the  production  segment  of  the  value  chain  and  at  post  harvest  handling  and  milk  marketing.  For  diseases  control,  the  Maziwa  Zaidi  group  should  develop  a  strong  partnership  and  sign  a  contract  with  a  veterinary  services  provider  and  the  project  should  facilitate  the  provider  to  access  credit  so  that  he  or  she  can  support  the  smallholder  producers.  Pastoralists  in  the  village  seem  to  be  not  very  keen  in  participating  in  project  activities  as  indicated  by  their  lack  of  interest  in  responding  to  Faida  MaLi's  invitation  to  participate  in  training  on  dairy  entrepreneurship.    

4.5  Key  observations  and  issues  arising  from  the  field  visits  

For  various  reasons,  the  project  started  slowly  and  changes  to  annual  work  plans  (including  the  decision  to  embark  on  site  specific  planning)  further  delayed  some  of  the  fieldwork  focused  on  establishing  DMH.  Nonetheless,  ILRI’s  reports  to  Irish  Aid  on  progress  against  approved  work  plans  show  that  progress  has  indeed  been  made.  The  most  recent  report  shows  DMH  ‘established’  at  ten  of  the  30  project  sites  and  ‘operational’  at  four.  This  is  indicative  of  the  commitment  and  collaboration  of  the  project  partners  in  working  with  groups  towards  setting  the  institutional  foundations  for  DMH  (formation,  training  and  registration  of  groups;  identifying  appropriate  service  providers  and  traders;  negotiating  the  details  of  contracts  between  DMH  actors).  However,  in  terms  of  the  overall  project  ambitions,  there  is  still  a  long  way  to  go  before  DMH  are  established  in  the  majority  of  project  sites  and  those  already  established  are  fully  operational  and  delivering  benefits  to  milk  producing  households.  Overall,  the  degree  of  progress  seen  is  understandable  given  the  realities  the  project  has  faced  on  the  

                                                                                                               8  ILRI  suggest  that  the  lack  of  potential  for  impact  of  these  technologies  should  not  be  assumed  and  that  data  are  currently  under  analysis  to  determine  the  frontiers  to  commercial  dairy  production  in  Tanzania.  However  there  is  no  need  to  analyse  data  to  understand  that  forage  production  is  not  cost  effective  under  extensive  livestock  production  such  as  in  the  Wami  Dakawa  village  where  each  family  has  a  large  number  of  indigenous  animals  under  communal  grazing  and  practising  migration.  Artificial  insemination  will  result  in  improved  offspring  that  are  not  adapted  to  the  prevailing  conditions  (fodder  and  water  scarcity,  diseases,  poor/no  housing  etc.)  and  therefore  they  will  not  survive  under  such  conditions.      

12    

ground  but  one  might  have  expected  more  DMH  to  be  operational  by  this  stage,  after  two  years  of  post-­‐inception  project  implementation.  Although  part  of  the  slower  than  expected  progress  can  be  attributed  to  the  challenges  in  establishing  functional  partnerships  due  to  bureaucratic  processes  in  signing  contracts  in  the  relevant  institutions  at  the  beginning  of  the  project,  the  MTR  team  feel  that  there  could  have  been  more  focused  integration  in  the  field  between  the  project  partners.  HIT  and  FM  are  highly  experienced  partners  and  have  been  working  well  in  their  respective  fields.  To  some  extent  the  training  (by  HIT)  has  been  detached  from  the  enterprise  development  and  establishment  of  business  linkages  work  of  FM.  Closer  coordination  and  integration  of  the  various  work  streams  in  the  field  (training,  business  development,  (action)  research)  would  help  to  give  appropriate  focus  towards  achieving  project  outputs.    

There  should  be  a  greater  focus  on  problem  solving  and  mentoring  of  groups,  rather  than  on  further  training,  during  the  remaining  period  of  the  project  life.  The  project  already  has  in  place  a  good  set  of  procedures  for  enabling  sharing  of  experiences  and  challenges,  through  monthly  Skype  meetings,  joint  quarterly  work  planning  and  bi-­‐annual  review  and  planning  meetings:  it  is  important  that  these  are  properly  focused  on  identifying  what  needs  to  be  done,  month  by  month,  at  each  project  site,  to  take  DMH  forward.  To  this  end  ILRI,  as  the  institution  accountable  to  Irish  Aid,  needs  to  play  a  pro-­‐active  role  in  ensuring  that  all  field  activities  are  undertaken  in  a  complementary  way.  ILRI  should  review  the  level  and  nature  of  its  human  resources  allocated  to  field  implementation,  including  reviewing  the  decision  to  step  back  from  the  Field  Coordinator  role.  There  is  no  question  that  the  current  partners  are  entirely  appropriate  for  the  project;  more  attention  is  needed,  though,  on  the  overall  management  and  guidance  of  all  partners’  activities  to  ensure  maximum  collective  focus  on  achieving  project  outputs.  Partnership  with  credit  providers  to  support  the  operations  of  milk  traders,  services  and  inputs  providers  have  not  received  adequate  attention  during  the  project  implementation;  these  are  key  actors  to  sustain  the  DMH  operations  and  without  working  capital  it  will  be  difficult  for  them  to  provide  contracted  services.9  ILRI  visibility  in  the  field  is  very  low.  Most  farmers  talked  mostly  about  HIT,  less  about  Faida  MaLi  but  quite  rarely  about  ILRI.  As  the  lead  partner  in  the  project,  there  is  a  need  for  a  greater  presence  of  ILRI  staff  in  the  field  to  supervise  fieldwork  and  be  more  visible.  We  understand  that  the  project  partners  all  agreed  to  promote  ‘Maziwa  Zaidi’  as  the  label  under  which  all  project  activities  were  being  carried  out,  rather  than  the  brands  of  the  individual  partners.  In  

                                                                                                               9  The  AI  services  provider  contracted  in  Wena  indicated  during  our  meeting  that  he  would  be  providing   the   services   to  Maziwa   Zaidi   members   using  money   collected   from   non-­‐   group  members  who  will   pay   cash   for   the   service.   Although  we   did   not   discuss   the   issue   at   the  other  three  villages  visited,  the  participation  of  a  financial  services  provider  to  support  the  inputs  and  services  providers  is  crucial  to  the  success  of  the  DMH.    

13    

reality,  though,  farmers  talk  about  the  activities  in  terms  of  the  organisations  they  see  in  the  field.    The  research  component  of  the  project  is  not  visible  at  village  level,  although  the  donor  (Irish  Aid)  feels  that  there  is  more  research  than  development  in  the  project  implementation.  Lessons  from  bottlenecks  encountered  in  the  field  in  the  course  of  the  project  implementation  should  be  articulated  to  inform  appropriate  adaptive  research  to  support  the  project.  The  inputs  from  SUA,  in  the  form  of  recommendations  and  advice  based  on  research,  were  not  clearly  manifest  in  the  field  yet  they  can  contribute  significantly  to  streamline  adaptive  and  up-­‐scaling  research  to  support  the  development  project  component,  for  example  the  use  of  research  findings  through  action  research  at  village  level  to  enhance  adoption  of  appropriate  innovations  by  smallholder  dairy  producers.    

Thirty  villages  seem  to  be  too  large  a  number  taking  into  consideration  human  resources  available  for  the  project  implementation  particularly  from  the  ILRI  side.  One  option  to  consider  is  to  reduce  the  number  of  villages  covered  by  the  project  taking  into  consideration  village  typology  based  on  poverty  level,  the  production  system  to  be  addressed,  the  challenges  and  potential  for  impact  during  the  remaining  project  life  period.    

At  each  of  the  short  listed  villages,  activities  to  be  carried  out  should  also  be  prioritized  to  ensure  the  priorities  can  be  successfully  implemented  before  project  end.  The  priorities  should  be  based  on  what  can  and  should  be  done  along  the  value  chain  to  increase  the  quantity  and  quality  of  milk  reaching  the  market,  the  market  efficiency  and  increased  income  for  the  smallholder  farmers  through  milk  marketing  in  a  functional  DMH.    The  partnerships  developed  between  ILR,  HIT,  Faida  MaLi  and  the  local  administration  at  village  and  district  level  are  very  good  and  the  participatory  nature  of  the  project  implementation  is  commendable.  It  is  however  very  important  that  ILRI  enhance  its  presence  in  the  field  to  ensure  more  efficient  coordination  of  field  activities  for  proper  implementation  of  the  work  plans.  This  should  probably  be  done  through  the  recruitment  of  a  field  manager  located  at  ILRI  office  in  Morogoro.    

5    Key  Evaluation  Questions  

5.1  Progress  towards  project  outcome  and  objectives  

The  project  has  three  stated  objectives.  On  the  basis  of  our  review  of  project  documents  and  discussions,  we  conclude  that  important  progress  has  been  made  towards  achieving  these,  though  much  remains  to  be  done.  It  is,  however,  too  soon  to  assess  progress  towards  the  outcome  to  which  these  objectives  are  expected  to  contribute  (enhanced  income  security  through  enhanced  access  to  demand-­‐led  dairy  market  business  services  and  viable  organizational  options).  

14    

Objective  1:  Develop  scalable  value  chains  approaches  with  improved  organization  and  institutions  serving  resource-­‐poor  male  and  female  households  in  dairy  value  chains  

Establishment  of  producer  groups  (some  of  which  are  based  on  pre-­‐existing  groups),  and  contracts  with  service  providers  and  traders,  are  the  main  ‘improved  organization  and  institutions’  in  evidence  to  date.  It  is  now  important  that  these  structures  begin  to  function  to  improve  the  forward  and  backward  market  linkages  within  the  value  chain  (VC)  that  are  at  the  heart  of  the  DMH  concept.    

Site  specific  plans  (SSPs)  have  helped  define  specific  activities  towards  establishment  of  DMH  in  each  of  the  project  sites,  but  in  doing  so  have  generated  activities  and  expectations  not  covered  in  the  project  proposal  and  budget.  Lessons  from  this  can  already  be  drawn  for  future  projects;  for  example  that  SSPs  could  usefully  be  done  much  earlier  in  a  project,  perhaps  during  an  initial  inception  phase;  that  project  budgets  should  be  flexible  enough  to  allow  a  project  team  to  address  priority  actions  identified;  and  that  facilitation  and  protocols  of  the  SSP  process  should  be  modified  to  focus  on  constraints  and  actions  specifically  related  to  DMH  development.  The  follow  up  to  SSPs  has  not  been  sufficient  to  maintain  momentum  at  all  sites  towards  DMH  establishment.  There  are  issues  here  of  focus,  targeting,  the  level  of  presence  in  the  field  and  the  overall  pace  of  follow  up.  In  some  sites  there  seem  to  be  specific  bottlenecks  to  further  progress  that  could  reasonably  have  been  addressed  in  the  time  available.  As  recognised  in  the  project  proposal  and  by  all  partners,  the  successful  adaptation  of  the  DMH  concept  to  extensive  cattle  systems  represents  a  big  challenge,  but  one  that  needs  to  be  addressed.  It  will  be  important  in  the  remaining  months  of  the  project  to  focus,  in  these  project  sites,  on  what  can  be  achieved  to  increase  the  offtake  of  existing  milk  production  (through  better  post-­‐milking  handling,  contracts  with  input  suppliers  and  milk  traders)  and  not  to  spend  project  resources  on  longer  term  aspirations  identified  in  the  SSPs  such  as  improving  genetic  make  up  of  herds  and  establishing  fodder  pastures  in  contexts  where  local  land  tenure  arrangements  make  it  impossible  in  the  short  term.  

The  sites  where  the  DMH  concept  is  furthest  developed  are  those  where  there  is  a  prior  history  of  project  intervention  and  a  relatively  well-­‐developed  milk  collection  and  aggregation  system.  A  challenge  facing  the  project  is  to  generate  evidence  on  whether  DMH  can  be  established  in  sites  with  a  less  favourable  set  of  circumstances.  

Objective  2:  Generate  and  communicate  evidence  on  business  and  organizational  options  for  increasing  participation  of  resource-­‐poor  male  and  female  households  in  dairy  value  chains  

Evidence  will  come  from  sites  where  there  are  functional  DMH  which  are  making  a  difference  to  milk  producers.  As  these  are  not  yet  in  place  at  most  sites,  it  is  too  early  to  expect  definitive  evidence.  The  project  has  put  in  place  the  monitoring  procedures  to  provide  the  quantitative  data  from  which  evidence  can  be  drawn  

15    

at  the  end  of  the  project  (the  annual  monitoring  survey),  including  evidence  on  the  participation  of  resource  poor  farmers  and  the  gender  distribution  of  participation  and  benefits.  The  MTR  team  feels  that  additional  qualitative  investigation  will  be  needed  to  provide  evidence  on  the  process  and  the  benefits  and  constraints  as  perceived  by  producers  and  other  value  chain  actors.  

The  project  has  developed  a  communication  strategy  to  guide  its  communication  of  evidence  with  relevant  audiences,  stakeholders  and  decision  makers.  This  is  a  useful  first  step,  but  does  not  go  far  enough,  in  terms  of  identifying  who  will  do  what,  when  and  how  in  order  to  put  the  strategy  into  effect.  In  this  further  elaboration  of  communication  plans,  it  will  be  important  to  achieve  an  appropriate  balance  between  communication  products  (reports,  policy  briefs,  flyers)  and  ongoing  face  to  face  interaction  with  those  in  a  position  to  use  the  evidence  to  make  a  difference  within  the  dairy  sector.    

The  establishment  of  the  Dairy  Development  Forum  (DDF)  has  been  an  important  element  in  ensuring  ownership  of  the  project  vision  and  aspirations  by  key  dairy  /  livestock  sector  stakeholders.  Under  the  aegis  of  Tanzania  Dairy  Board  (TDB)  it  has  potential  to  be  a  sustainable  forum  for  contributing  to  ongoing  policy  discussions  and  one  of  the  vehicles  for  communicating  MoreMilkiT  findings  to  decision  makers  in  the  public,  private  and  NGO/CSO  sectors.  Observations  made  during  the  MTR,  from  discussions  and  project  documentation,  have  raised  issues  about  the  use  of  evidence:    

● whether  performance  reporting  could  be  improved  through  more  concise  reports  that  draw  out  key  lessons  to  inform  project  actions  and  learning  

● whether  the  current  MLE  framework  is  sufficiently  aligned  to  the  reality  of  the  project  on  the  ground,  including  the  more  evolutionary  approach  to  DMH  design  that  has  developed  since  the  start  of  the  project  

● whether  lessons  from  the  initial  VC  diagnostic  studies  during  the  Inception  Phase  have  been  identified  and  shared  

● what  insights  from  the  2013  Baseline  Survey  can  usefully  be  shared  beyond  what  is  already  in  the  public  domain  through  CGIAR  Livestock  and  Fish  Research  Programme  Briefs10  (which  do  a  good  job  of  summarizing  findings  from  the  Baseline  Survey  but  do  not  draw  out  lessons  and  implications  for  the  design  /  development  of  DMH)  

● it  is  not  clear  what  learning  questions  lie  behind  the  research  design  and  sample  structure  for  the  panel  in  the  annual  Monitoring  Survey.    

                                                                                                               10  Milk   production,   utilization   and  marketing   channels   in   Tanga   and  Morogoro   regions   of  Tanzania   (Brief   8);   and   Availability   and   accessibility   of   livestock   related   technology   and  inputs  in  Tanzania  (Brief  7)      

 

16    

Objective  3:  Inform  policy  on  appropriate  role  for  pro-­‐poor  smallholder-­‐based  informal  sector  value  chains  in  dairy  sector  development  

The  project  enters  its  final  two  years  at  a  time  when  policy  stakeholders  are  actively  seeking  ideas,  evidence  and  information  for  the  future  development  of  the  dairy  sector  and  the  livestock  sector  more  generally.  The  project  has  a  lot  to  offer  and  could  usefully  review  its  plans  for  sharing  information  for  the  remainder  of  the  project,  including  initial  lessons  (e.g.  about  the  design  and  implementation  of  the  process  of  establishing  locally-­‐appropriate  adapted  DMH),  the  feeding  of  project  team  learning  (through  its  regular  review  and  planning  meetings)  into  policy  processes,  and  lessons  derived  at  the  end  of  the  project  from  the  evidence  gathering  activities  under  Objective  2.    

Progress  towards  project  outputs  

There  is  insufficient  data  so  far  to  indicate  what  progress  has  been  made  towards  many  of  the  anticipated  outputs  at  household  and  village  level,  which  include  increases  in  milk  production  and  prices,  and  an  increase  in  the  number  of  women  and  men  accessing  inputs.  In  terms  of  gender  inclusiveness,  there  is  already  evidence  that  the  project  is  on  track  to  achieve  the  expected  level  of  female  participation  in  DMH  /  dairy  groups  of  30%.    

A  key  output  that  will  determine  the  success  or  failure  of  the  DMH  concept  is  the  operation  of  business  development  service  (BDS)  providers  at  hub  sites  (Output  1.1  in  PRF).  The  fact  that  some  are  in  operation,  and  contracted  to  dairy  groups,  at  some  sites  shows  there  is  potential.  However  the  experience  to  date  shows  that  intensive  facilitation  is  often  needed  to  take  the  arrangement  forward  from  the  level  of  goodwill  and  intention  to  formal  arrangements  and  from  there  to  effective  functioning.  This  is  an  area  in  which  more  human  resources  need  to  be  deployed  at  field  level  in  the  project.  

The  use  of  farm  household  survey  data  to  populate  indicators  on  progress  towards  outputs  appears  to  be  problematic.  Some  of  the  figures  that  have  been  put  forward  by  the  project  to  indicate  progress  are  a  case  in  point.  In  the  April  –  December  2014  report  to  Irish  Aid  Tanzania,  comparisons  are  made  between  pre-­‐project  figures  (based  on  the  Baseline  survey  in  2013)  and  data  from  the  first  monitoring  survey  in  2014.  These  figures  may  not  reflect  an  actual  increase  in  the  proportion  of  cattle  owning  households  deriving  income  from  milk,  and  a  50%  increase  in  milk  production  per  household,  since  there  are  considerable  differences  in  the  sample  structure  and  methodology  for  the  two  surveys.  The  section  on  measurement  learning  and  evaluation  provides  more  detailed  diagnostics  on  this  and  strategies  for  measuring  and  documenting  progress.    

5.2    Partnership  and  management  

Partnership  arrangements  in  project  are  largely  adequate.  Save  for  the  lag  in  leveling  expectations  of  farmers  and  the  implementation  team,  the  present  partnership  arrangement  is  likely  to  deliver  on  the  project  objectives.  Typical  of  proof  of  concept  initiatives,  the  current  resource  envelope  somewhat  limits  the  flexibility  of  the  project  team  to  course-­‐correct  and  respond  to  emerging  issues.  

17    

The  field  operational  management  support  function  should  be  strengthened  if  more  resources  were  to  be  made  available.  Additional  talent  adept  at  field  level  implementation,  problem  solving  and  mobilization  of  partners  should  be  brought  in.  The  ILRI  post-­‐doc  would  then  be  freed  to  focus  on  conceptualizing  analytical  pieces,  synthesizing  and  documenting  merging  evidence  and  lessons.    

5.3    Balance  between  research  and  development  

The  structure  of  the  project  objectives  should  not  be  seen  as  separating  the  ‘development’  (Objective  1)  from  the  ‘research’  (Objective  2)  elements  of  MoreMilkiT.  They  are  inseparable.  The  research  agenda  that  will  generate  evidence  about  the  viability  of  adapted  DMH  and  the  process  of  their  establishment  depends  upon  effective  action  in  the  field  to  stimulate  and  facilitate  functioning  DMH.  And  development  intervention  at  this  pilot  scale  needs  research  to  draw  out  lessons  and  generate  evidence  that  will  lead  to  benefits  at  a  much  wider  scale  in  future  interventions  in  the  sector.  The  quality  and  capability  of  ILRI  as  a  team  of  researchers  and  as  a  research  institution  is  not  in  question  here:  what  is  essential  is  that  the  research  agenda  is  appropriately  aligned  to  the  objective  of  generating  evidence  about  the  VC  approaches  (i.e.  DMH  models)  emerging  within  the  project.    In  this  regard,  the  MTR  team  suggests  the  project  partners  consider  whether:  

a) the  process  of  DMH  establishment  is  being  documented  appropriately  to  generate  useful  evidence  

b) the  annual  household  panel  survey  should  be  supplemented  by  rigorous  participatory  /  qualitative  research  in  the  field.  

For  the  remainder  of  the  project,  it  is  important  to  articulate  clear  research  questions  relevant  to  drawing  out  lessons  about  the  establishment  of  DMH  and  the  participation  of  resource  poor  households  –  in  addition  to  the  ‘impact  evaluation’  questions  identified  in  the  project  proposal  around  volume  of  milk,  household  incomes,  etc.  There  are  some  apparent  differences  in  perceptions  between  donor  and  ILRI,  and  among  implementing  partners,  about  the  role  and  focus  of  research  within  the  project.  One  contributing  reason  may  be  that  the  proposal  is  not  written  as  a  research  project  proposal  (it  has  no  research  questions  [only  ‘impact  evaluation’  questions  on  p.27]  and  no  hypotheses)11;  this  is  appropriate  to  the  aspirations  of  the  project  where  the  research  is  focused  on  generating  evidence  but  ongoing  dialogue  is  needed  to  clarify  the  interaction  within  the  project  between  ‘research’  and  ‘development’.  The  MTR  team  would  encourage  the  project  to  ensure  that  field  implementation  is  making  full  use  of  ILRI,  SUA  and  others’  science  in  support  of  producers  and  producer  groups  (e.g.  around  nutritional  value  of  feedstuffs,  and  feeding  strategies  for  different  types  of  dairy  cattle).  

                                                                                                               11  This  difference  in  perception  is  seen  also  in  the  TOR  for  the  MTR,  which  refer  to  progress  towards  answering  the  ‘three  research  questions’  and  meeting  the  ‘three  research  objectives’.  

18    

6    Fostering  learning  in  relation  to  the  research  objectives  

The  MTR  team  reviewed  two  key  sets  of  documents  in  relation  to  the  fostering  of  learning,  following  these  up  with  discussions  with  project  team  members:  the  project  results  and  MLE  frameworks,  and  the  communication  strategy.  As  indicated  in  the  paragraphs  below,  these  were  felt  to  be  ‘works  in  progress’,  in  the  sense  that  they  had  not  been  developed  to  the  point  at  which  they  can  be  effective  tools  for  learning.  

6.1  Measurement,  Learning  and  Evaluation12  

There  was  adequate  planning  for  measurement,  learning  and  evaluation.  A  logical  theory  of  change  (TOC)  was  developed,  based  on  the  Project  results  framework  (RF)  that  was  submitted  to  Irish  Aid.  The  MoreMilkiT  project  team  identified  the  primary  MLE  objective  as  that  of  generating  objective  evidence  of  performance  in  a  timely  fashion,  by  tracking  a  core  set  of  relevant  indicators,  within  a  limited  resource  envelope  (Box  1).  

 The  MLE  framework  provides  a  clear  rationale  for  tracking  progress  towards  achievement  of  results  at  output  and  outcome  levels,  with  a  range  of  relevant  sets  of  indicators  at  each  level.  However,  the  next  logical  step  of  identifying  a  core  set  of  indicators  that,  when  taken  together,  would  demonstrate  progress  towards  achievement  of  the  desired  outcome  and  objectives  within  3-­‐4  years  is  yet  to  be  taken.  Accordingly,  the  15  or  so  indicators  put  forth  in  the  MLE  framework  could  easily  be  collapsed  into  six  and  tracked  through  special  studies  and  dairy  hub  records.  A  trivial  point  that  may  have  been  overlooked  in  the  results  framework  is  that  of  turning  project  objectives  into  results.  More  importantly  though  is  the  need  to  identify  a  specific  set  of  core  indicators  for  each  of  the  three  objectives  and  their  associated  outputs  (Table  1).    Table  1  Indicators  of  project  objectives  

Objectives  (from  Project  Results  Framework)   Indicators  (from  Project  Results  Framework),  with  comments  (in  red)  from  MTR  team  

Objective  1:  Develop  scalable  value  chains  approaches  with  improved  organizations  and  institutions  serving  smallholder  male  and  female  households  

-­‐Number  of  functional  DMH  developed-­‐Does  this  mean  the  more  the  better?  Suppose  you  only  develop  1  in  each  of  the  three  zones  (agro-­‐pastoral,  intensive  and  pastoral)?  The  number  of  DMH  does  not  necessarily  indicate  improved  organizations  and  institutions  serving  smallholders.  

Objective  2:  Generate  and  communicate  evidence  on  business  and  organizational  options  for  increasing  participation  of  resource  poor  men  and  women  in  dairy  value  chains  

-­‐No.  of  project  reports,  knowledge  products,  focused  on  lessons  from  project-­‐Actionable  recommendations    might  be  better  than  this;  and  effectiveness  of  communication  can  only  be  assessed  at  the  receiving  end,  not  by  how  much  communication  activity  takes  place  

                                                                                                               12  MLE  in  MoreMilkiT  project  documents  usually  refers  to  ‘Monitoring,  Learning  and  Evaluation’.  In  this  report,  we  use  it  in  its  more  current  sense  of  ‘Measurement,  Learning  and  Evaluation’.  

Box  1  Why  MLE  Evidence  to  assess  whether  we’re  on  track  in  a  timely  manner,  in  a  cost  effective  way;  generate  data  and  information  that  is  useful  for  project  clients:  farmers,  hubs,  BDS  providers,  project,  donor.  How  MLE  What  we  can  afford;  in  terms  of  budget  and  time  for  staff,  farmers  and  other  stakeholders  Areas  to  avoid  Too  many  indicators  of  little  relevance  to  the  goal;  M&E  seen  as  ‘beans  counting’;  biased  data  or  evidence;  data  and  analysis  ready  too  late  or  not  targeted  to  the  right  people.  Source:  adapted  from  MoreMilkiT  MLE  Framework  

19    

Objective  3:  Inform  policy  on  appropriate  role  for  smallholder-­‐based    value  chains  in  dairy  sector  development  

- No.  of  policies/regulation  in  place  to  increase  the  role  of  smallholder-­‐based  value  chains  in  the  dairy  industry    

- No.  of  non-­‐state  organisations  representing  male  and  female  smallholder  farmers  in  policy  processes  at  national  &  local  level  

- No.  of  organisations  supported  to  conduct  policy  advocacy  (This  set  of  indicators  might  not  provide  sufficient  evidence  of  progress  or  achievement)  

The  summary  performance  measurement  plan  does  not  provide  a  clear  value  proposition  to  justify  the  investments  in  the  specific  studies.  It  is  not  immediately  obvious  that  the  value  chain  assessment  and  the  farm  household  baseline  survey  speak  to  specific  indicators  yet  they  generate  information  on  existing  dairy  hubs,  herd  size,  membership  of  a  group  etc.  The  column  on  “approach”  could  provide  a  summary  of  the  assessment  design  as  opposed  to  “quantitative  or  qualitative”  categorization.  The  project  team  may  also  wish  to  review  the  use  of  “qualitative  vs  quantitative”  given  the  complementarity  in  the  analytical  products  from  the  two  approaches13    (Table  2).  Table  2  Summary  of  Performance  Measurement  Plan  (from  MoreMilkIT  Monitoring,  Learning  and  Evaluation  Framework  2014)  with  MTR  team  comments  and  suggestions  in  red  italics  

Type  of  assessment  

Main  objective   Indicators   Approach  and  expected  results  

Lead  partner  

Frequency   Status  of  completion  

Value  chain  assessment  

To  identify  constraints  and  opportunities  for  1st  best  bet  identification.  These  studies  provide  baseline  values  for  key  performance  indicators  as  well  

Attributes  of  functional  value  chains  

Qualitative.  Value  chain  analysis  or  rapid  value  chain  analysis  focusing  on  xxx  value  chain  actors  

ILRI   Done  once   Done,  August  and  September  2012  

Baseline  survey,  household  level  

To  measure  level  of  outcome  and  impact  indicators  at  project  start  

Dairy  technologies  and  practices  uptake:  feed,  AH,  management,  breeding  Use  of  purchased  inputs  and  services:  milk  marketing;  purchase  of  feed;  etc…    Use  of  hub  purchased  services,  whether  on  check  off  or  not;  Milk  yield  Price  of  milk,  inputs  and  services  

Quantitative   ILRI   Done  once   Done,  November  2012  to  January  2013  

Monitoring  of  activities  

To  assess  implementation  of  activities,  also  for  accountability  purposes  

Activity  milestones  monitored    

Workplan  will  be  used  

All  partner  

Reporting  done  bi  -­‐annually  

On  going  

Monitoring  of  outputs  (at  farmers,  groups  and  business  providers  level)  

To  assess  how  the  activities  delivered  the  expected  results  at  farmers,  groups  and  business  providers  

-­‐  #  farmers  who  have  joined  groups,  by  age  and  gender  -­‐  #  farmers  groups  

Template-­‐  draft  here  Draft  protocol  

All  partner  

Done  bi-­‐  annually  

Draft  template,  need  revision  and  testing;  protocols  

                                                                                                               13  Measurement  entails  more  than  numeric  quantification  of  performance.    

20    

levels   formed,  membership  structure  and  leadership  structure  -­‐  #  individuals  trained,  by  type  of  training,  age  and  gender  -­‐  #  BDS  providers    linked  to  hub  

 

 

to  be  completed  

Monitoring  of  trends  of  outcomes  and  impact-­‐  farm  level  

To  assess  farmers  uptake  of  technologies  and  dairy  income  To  assess  farmers  use  of  hub  services  

Identify  indicators-­‐see  the  examples  from  farm  household  survey  above  

Quantitative,  panel  survey  of  cattle  keepers  Structured  survey  done  annually.    Main  sources  of  data  for  farm  level  research.  This  statement  provides  a  clear  value  proposition  for  the  survey  

ILRI   Done  annually   Tools  &  protocol  to  be  developed  (draft  in  embedded  doc)  

Monitoring  of  trends  of  outcomes  and  impact-­‐  hub  and  community  levels  

To  assess  DMH  status  in  terms  of  organization,  business  entity  and  providers  of  inputs  &  services  

See  indicators  specific  to  hub  operations  

Qualitative  (MSC?)  and  quantitative  Use  the  EADD  stage  gate  tool  as  starting  point  Conducted  annually  Main  sources  of  data  for  hub  level  research  

ILRI   Done  annually   Tools  &  protocol  to  be  developed  (draft  in  embedded  doc)  

Monitoring  of  trends  of  outcomes  and  impact-­‐  regional/  country  level  

To  assess  change  in  policy  and  mindsets  of  key  decision  makers  

There  should  be  some  relevant  indicators  

Qualitative,  KII   ILRI   Done  annually   Tools  &  protocol  to  be  developed  (draft  in  embedded  doc)  

Mid  term  evaluation  

To  review  progress  to  date  and  allow  wider  range  of  stakeholders  to  provide  feedbacks  

Review  and  learning  function  as  opposed  to  actual  tracking  

Qualitative,  relying  on  monitoring  data    

External  

Done  once    

Final  evaluation   To  assess  quantitatively  impact  of  the  interventions  on  key  outcome  and  impact  indicators  

   An  impact  evaluation  study  conducted  internally  or  a  review  similar  to  the  mid-­‐term  review??  Quantitative  

External  

Done  once-­‐will  the  project  commissioned  external  impact  evaluation  study?  

 

 Although  the  project  proposal  makes  mention  of  a  “stage-­‐gate  tool”  for  tracking  DMH  performance,  its  application  is  not  borne  out  in  any  of  the  status  reports.  In  addition,  the  MLE  framework  does  not  specify  a  clear  outcome  and  impact  evaluation  agenda.  The  project  sampling  protocol  suggests  that  a  “rigorous  with  and  without”  evaluation  plan  is  anticipated  following  the  establishment  of  a  counterfactual,  given  the  mention  of  control  and  treatment  villages.  The  protocol  also  recognizes  the  potential  for  self-­‐selection  bias,  contamination  and  attrition  in  the  sample.  The  sample  size  determination  suggests  that  a  power  calculation  has  been  conducted  on  the  sample.  Beyond  the  above,  there  is  no  mention  of  the  

21    

evaluation  design  and  plan  for  its  implementation,  going  forward.  This  leads  to  the  following  questions:  

● Did  the  project  team  consider  some  form  of  randomization  in  the  evaluation  design?  

● If  so  is  it  really  possible  to  observe  some  form  of  change  in  the  outcome  variable  within  3  years?  

● If  no  to  the  above,  are  there  other  forms  of  evaluation  design  that  would  provide  sufficient  evidence  of  directional  change  on  the  outcome  variables  of  interest?  

By  the  same  token,  the  learning  agenda  is  not  well  articulated  in  the  MLE  framework.  It  is  evident  that  the  project  has  a  robust  activity  implementation  tracking  and  reporting  framework.  A  monthly  review  and  dialogue  session  via  Skype  is  held  regularly,  in  addition  to  a  physical  convening  of  all  project  team  members  every  six  months.  These  sessions  represent  functional  review  and  learning  mechanisms  /  platforms.  The  role  of  mid-­‐term  review  and  end  of  programme  review  as  learning  events  is  not  reflected  in  the  MLE  framework.    

An  independent  mid-­‐term  review  such  as  the  present  one  could  serve  primarily  as  a  feeder  to  the  learning  function,  drawing  on  data  and  information  from  the  internal  MLE  activities  and  perception  of  project  partners;  an  independent  final  evaluation  should  serve  the  same  purpose.  In  the  MLE  framework,  the  aim  of  the  final  evaluation  is  reported  as  “to  assess  quantitatively  impact  of  the  interventions  on  key  outcome  and  impact  indicators”.  It  is  not  clear  whether  an  independent  study  will  be  commissioned  or  a  SPIA  (CGIAR’s  Standing  Panel  on  Impact  Assessment)  type  impact  evaluation  will  be  conducted  by  ILRI  itself.  It  might  be  more  helpful  for  ILRI  to  design  and  conduct  an  impact  evaluation  and  present  the  results  for  review  by  an  independent  panel.    

In  keeping  with  the  CGIAR  standards,  the  project  provides  detailed  progress  reports  with  supporting  data.  Worthy  of  note  is  the  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  draft  1  report  of  2015.  Deriving  from  sound  analytics,  the  report  speaks  to  key  household  and  DMH  /  community  level  output  and  outcome  indicators.  Equally  informative  although  less  targeted  are  the  various  research  and  progress  reports  such  as  the  Progress  Report  for  the  Period  January-­‐December  2014  submitted  to  Irish  Aid.  Unfortunately,  not  all  the  stakeholders  view  these  performance  reports  through  a  similar  lens14.  Feedback  from  one  of  the  key  stakeholders  revealed  that  some  of  the  reports  cited  above  do  not  relay  the  expected  message;  that  of  stating  the  baseline  scenario  or  progress  towards  achievement  of  results.  The  reporting  style,  especially  the  messaging  appears  to  be  customized  to  the  research  community  rather  than  to  development  practitioners.    Undeniably,  the  development  practitioners  acknowledge  that  the  reports  are  quite  comprehensive.  However,  the  typical  practice  among  the  research  community  of  illustrating  facts  with  statistical  data  would  appear  to  generate  voluminous  reports  that  are  less  appealing  to  those  from  non-­‐research                                                                                                                  14  The  verdict  above  comes  from  a  team  of  agricultural  research  experts  who  have  designed  and  managed  results  measurement  systems.  

22    

backgrounds.  Instead,  the  development  practitioners  expect  summarized  factual  information  with  simple  graphical  illustrations  where  necessary.  The  Information  brief:  Mid-­‐term  Progress  of  the  MoreMilkiT  Research  Project  of  July  15  2015  prepared  for  the  present  review  is  a  good  attempt  at  this.  More  importantly,  the  messaging  could  aim  to  inform  or  influence  certain  decisions  or  actions,  as  opposed  to  disseminating  knowledge.  This  is  an  important  feedback  that  should  inform  future  communication  plans.    

Way  forwards  

Much  thought  has  gone  into  the  design  of  the  results  measurement  and  learning  system;  much  less  of  the  documentation  has  been  done.  The  emerging  MLE  good  practice  guidelines  would  suggest  that  given  the  complex  nature  of  interventions  and  the  diverse  learning  needs  of  stakeholders,  a  detailed  results  measurement  and  learning  strategy  should  have  been  documented  and  endorsed  by  all  the  project  partners.  Having  articulated  the  desirable  characteristics  of  the  project  MLE  system  (Box  1),  a  “non-­‐bean  counting”  MLE  strategy  could  identify  key  strategic  learning  questions  and,  building  on  the  RF  and  TOC,  specify  a  few  evaluation  questions  to  guide  research  activities  going  forward15.  

The  present  project  could  be  framed  primarily  as  a  development  intervention  with  a  research  component  whose  objective  is  to  generate  evidence  on  what  works.  Based  on  this  framing,  most  of  the  proposed  activities  to  be  implemented  by  ILRI  could  be  classified  as  evaluative  research.  

“Aim  is  to  provide  proof-­‐of-­‐concept  on  how  marginalised  groups  can  be  targeted  successfully.  If  the  project  successfully  establishes  the  proof-­‐of-­‐concept  for  this  type  of  pro-­‐poor  DMH-­‐based  strategy,  it  will  serve  to  guide  and  accelerate  implementation  of  future  larger-­‐scale  dairy  

development  projects.”  MoreMilkiT  Proposal.  In  a  typical  proof-­‐of-­‐concept  setting,  the  measurement  and  learning  agenda  should  prioritize  capture  and  documentation  of  processes,  lessons  and  results  during  the  design  and  implementation  phase.  Given  the  time  and  resource  constraints,  only  a  limited  number  of  strategic  learning  questions  to  inform  the  evaluative  research  topics  should  be  pursued.  By  the  same  token,  the  evaluative  research  design  should  aim  to  generate  valid  results  within  the  shortest  time  possible.  Accordingly,  far  from  being  a  “cherry-­‐picking”  process,  the  identification  of  priority  evaluation  research  activities  should  be  inclusive  and  transparent,  informed  by  objective  and  rigorous  selection  criteria.    Re-­‐examining  and  building  on  the  already  identified  research  questions,  some  of  the  learning  points  for  consideration  could  include  the  following.    

● What  does  it  take  to  set  up  a  dairy  marketing  hub  in  the  diverse  production  systems  and  how  have  the  initial  assumptions  panned  out  in  different  research  sites?  

                                                                                                               15  Discussions  with  ILRI  staff  and  perusal  of  project  documents  point  to  interesting  strategic  learning  questions  not  packaged  explicitly  as  such.  

23    

● Is  the  Hub  concept  a  more  effective  organizing  principle  and  platform  for  knowledge  and  technology  brokerage  and  if  so,  is  it  likely  to  better  catalyse  adoption  and  impact?  

● Are  there  any  additional  costs  to  farmers  arising  from  joining    /  being  a  member  of  a  DMH?  Framed  differently,  is  it  possible  that  direct  sales  to  individuals  reflect  an  “optimizing”  behaviour  on  the  part  of  producers,  given  the  prevailing  demand  and  supply  dynamics?  

● Is  it  necessarily  true  that  the  present  constraints  to  increased  productivity  could  be  addressed  by  product  aggregation  and  inter-­‐linked  transactions?  Framed  differently,  do  the  assumptions  around  development  of  sustainable  DMH  obtain  in  any  of  the  sites?  

 In  order  to  respond  to  some  of  the  above,  the  project  should  review  the  current  analytical  agenda.  The  present  strategy  for  results  measurement  /  evaluative  research  appears  to  rely  heavily  on  farm-­‐household  level  data  to  generate  valid  empirical  evidence.  In  the  absence  of  complementary  approaches  to  tracking  indicators,  this  strategy  could  easily  result  in  the  “data  and  analysis  ready  too  late  or  not  targeted  to  the  right  people”  –  a  result  that  the  project  team  have  stated  they  want  to  avoid.  Going  forward,  possible  options  for  consideration  include  the  following,  bearing  in  mind  that  as  staff  members  of  a  research  organization,  ILRI  staff  need  to  conduct  rigorous  research  for  peer  reviewed  publication.    

● Populating  baseline  values  for  priority  key  performance  indicators  through  analysis  of  existing  secondary  data  and  simulation  modeling.  This  analysis  could  speak  to  the  key  question  “what  does  it  take  to  have  a  functioning  DMH  in  Tanzania?”  

● Broadening  the  gender  analysis  to  provide  pointers  to  the  inclusive  growth  objective  i.e.  what  are  the  micro-­‐level  indicators  of  inclusive  growth  in  the  project  context?  

● Conducting  some  choice  experiments  to  establish  the  potential  outcomes  of  key  interventions.  

 In  keeping  with  the  above,  any  suggestion  to  change  the  reporting  format  to  meet  the  needs  of  all  stakeholders  would  create  a  false  choice  dilemma.  To  the  contrary,  the  project  should  review  its  communication  and  knowledge  management  strategy;  in  addition  to  the  detailed  technical  reports,  the  project  should  generate  focused  messages  for  targeted  audiences.  In  this  regard,  the  project  team  should  avoid  the  typical  “Policy  Briefs  Trap”.  As  indicated  earlier,  the  focus  should  be  on  providing  actionable  recommendations  and  identifying  an  appropriate  medium  and  forum  for  delivery  in  order  to  evoke  the  desired  response.      The  MTR  team  has  no  concerns  on  the  process  of  data  collection  and  quality  of  data  being  collected  (ILRI  is  a  reputable  research  organization).  We  do  feel,  though,  that  the  available  data  collected  to  date  could  be  used  more  effectively  to  

24    

provide  clear  messages  as  opposed  to  what  seems  to  be  the  present  strategy  of  waiting  for  the  results  at  the  end  of  the  project.  

6.2  Communications  strategy  

ILRI  and  partners  have  developed  a  communications  strategy  for  the  Maziwa  Zaidi  programme  as  a  whole16.  This  is  based  on  an  adaptation  of  the  communications  strategy  of  an  ASARECA  Soil  and  Water  Management  network.  It  does  not  seem  to  be  based  on  a  thorough  analysis  of  MoreMilkiT  stakeholders’  information  and  communication  needs;  nonetheless  it  is  a  useful  first  step  in  developing  a  strategic  approach  to  communication  for  MoreMilkiT.  Before  it  can  become  an  operational  tool,  however,  much  more  detail  needs  to  be  elaborated,  including  details  on  who  will  do  what,  when,  and  how  –  and  the  cost  and  funding  sources  of  the  different  communication  activities.  We  are  not  aware  of  a  specific  budget  line  for  communication  and  knowledge  sharing  activities  in  the  project  documentation.  Without  earmarked  financial  and  human  resources  for  communication,  with  clear  management  responsibilities  for  ensuring  communication  activities  happen,  the  strategy  is  likely  to  remain  largely  a  paper  exercise.  

7    Contribution  to  Irish  Aid  Tanzania  CSP  objectives  

Irish  Aid  CSP  output  and  objectives  in  relation  to  MoreMilkiT  are  for  smallholder  farmers  and  pastoralists  to  achieve  greater  income  security  and  improved  livelihoods.  The  project  is  already  enhancing  market  access  via  DMH  at  some  project  sites  and  is  showing  potential  to  increase  income  and  market  participation  of  resource-­‐poor  households.  The  project’s  recently  developed  Theory  of  Change  suggests  how  this  might  lead  to  increased  incomes  and  improved  livelihoods.  The  next  18  months  are  an  opportunity  to  show  that  the  DMH  can  contribute  to  the  CSP  objectives.  ILRI  should  engage  in  dialogue  with  Irish  Aid  to  clarify  and  manage  expectations  about  how  far  along  the  impact  pathway  one  might  reasonably  expect  to  move  before  the  end  of  the  project.  

The  project  has  less  than  two  years  to  run,  with  18  months  available  (July  2015  to  December  2016)  to  complete  field  implementation  in  respect  of  DMH  establishment  and  a  further  six  months  to  complete  data  analysis,  distilling  evidence  and  writing  up.  Irish  Aid  has  agreed  in  principle,  in  response  to  a  request  from  ILRI,  to  make  an  additional  200,000  euros  available  subject  to  the  MTR  confirming  that  a  viable  plan  is  in  place  to  direct  that  funding  at  completing  the  establishment  of  DMH  and  generating  evidence  to  inform  future  policy.    

ILRI  has  shared  with  the  MTR  team  their  proposal  on  how  the  additional  funds  might  be  used.  This  proposal  focuses  heavily  on  additional  training  and  on  feeding  demonstrations,  with  a  small  proportion  of  the  funds  allocated  to  ‘additional  learning  activities’  –  which  comprise  research  on  the  causes  of  land  conflicts  and  on  the  contribution  of  DMH  to  improved  mother  and  child  

                                                                                                               16  Maziwa  Zaidi  Research  for  Development  Projects:  Strategy  for  Communication  and  Knowledge  Sharing,  June  2014    

25    

nutrition,  and  identification  of  variants  to  DMH  approaches  and  institutions  that  ensure  sustained  participation  and  benefit  by  women.  Our  view,  based  on  analysis  of  the  challenges  to  project  implementation  and  progress  in  the  field,  is  that  while  the  proposal  focuses  appropriately  on  field  implementation,  it  is  not  sufficiently  focused  on  what  needs  to  happen  to  deliver  functioning  DMH  which  will  be  making  a  difference  to  producers  by  the  end  of  the  project.  Already  a  lot  of  training  has  been  delivered  –  training  that  is  appreciated  by  the  participants  and  has  succeeded  in  building  technical  and  managerial  capacity.  The  main  need  now  in  the  field  is  for  mentoring  of  groups,  facilitating  discussions  between  groups  and  existing  and  potential  BDS  providers,  understanding  local  milk  market  situations  and  identifying,  in  dialogue  with  local  stakeholders,  realistic  ways  of  improving  smallholders’  participation  in  the  market,  trouble-­‐shooting  bottlenecks  around  the  working  of  contracts  and  access  to  services,  liaising  with  local  governments  and  strengthening  coordination  of  field  activities  through  employment  of  a  project  manager  as  strongly  recommended  by  Irish  Aid.  These  and  other  personnel  intensive  activities  are  more  important  at  this  stage  than  feeding  demonstrations  and  additional  training.    

8    Conclusions  and  Lessons  Learnt  

There  is  an  effective  and  committed  partnership  in  place  for  implementation  of  the  project.  Regular  interactions  through  review  and  planning  meetings,  and  monthly  Skype  meetings,  help  to  sustain  the  partnership  and  maintain  its  focus  on  the  project  activities  and  outputs.  Establishment  of  the  Dairy  Development  Forum  (DDF)  has  been  an  important  element  in  ensuring  ownership  of  the  project  vision  and  aspirations  by  key  dairy  /  livestock  sector  stakeholders.  Under  the  aegis  of  Tanzania  Dairy  Board  (TDB)  it  has  potential  to  be  a  sustainable  forum  for  contributing  to  ongoing  policy  discussions  and  one  of  the  vehicles  for  communicating  MoreMilkiT  findings  to  decision  makers  in  the  public,  private  and  NGO/CSO  sectors.  

Important  steps  towards  the  establishment  of  functioning  dairy  market  hubs  (DMH)  have  been  completed  in  the  field.  Field  implementation  got  off  to  a  slow  start  and  the  pace  of  DMH  development  varies  considerably  among  the  30  project  sites.  However  there  is  now  experience  in  the  field,  ranging  from  possibly  four  sites  where  the  hub  concept  is  operational  to  situations  where  various  challenges  and  bottlenecks  have  delayed  progress  towards  an  adapted  DMH  being  established.  From  this  experience,  evidence  can  already  be  generated  to  inform  the  project  and  other  interested  parties  about  how  to  go  about  establishing  adapted  DMH  in  different  contexts.  

These  steps  include:  ● awareness  and  sensitisation  about  the  project  and  the  potential  of  DMH  

arrangements  is  high  among  producers  at  the  project  sites  ● producer  groups  have  been  organized    at  all  30  sites  and  most  of  them  

have  already  been  registered.    ● site  specific  planning  has  taken  place  at  all  sites  

26    

● contracts  between  producer  groups  and  input  /  service  providers  have  been  signed  at  several  sites  

● training  on  technical  topics  (e.g.  animal  husbandry;  feeding)  and  institutional  topics  (e.g.  group  formation,  leadership  and  governance)  has  been  delivered  at  all  sites  by  HIT  and  FM.  

 Site  specific  planning  was  not  in  the  original  project  proposal.  While  the  idea  behind  it  is  sound,  in  terms  of  ensuring  project  activities  are  addressing  constraints  and  opportunities  that  are  owned  and  understood  by  producers  and  other  stakeholders,  it  has  also  created  challenges  of  its  own:  delays  in  implementing  field  activities  towards  DMH  establishment  while  the  participatory  planning  and  synthesis  was  done,  raising  producer  expectations,  and  insufficient  budget  available  to  carry  through  all  the  activities  identified  in  the  plans.    

The  project  has  succeeded  in  leveraging  support  from  local  governments  (LG)  at  several  sites,  ranging  from  active  participation  by  LG  extension  and  technical  staff  in  project  activities  to  commitment  of  financial  and  human  resources  to  increase  the  level  of  available  service  provision  in  some  sites.    In  keeping  with  a  ‘research  for  development’  ethos,  the  implementation  team  has  been  flexible  in  respect  to  the  DMH  models  being  piloted.  Rather  than  impose  pre-­‐determined  models,  the  institutional  arrangements  have  been  allowed  to  evolve  in  response  to  local  realities  and  potential.  The  original  set  of  criteria  for  considering  a  DMH  to  be  in  place  have  been  modified  appropriately  (e.g.  so  that  a  ‘check-­‐off’  arrangement  is  not  longer  an  essential  feature).  

Progress  has  not  been  as  fast  as  anticipated.  This  is  partly  because  of  administrative  delays  in  various  aspects  of  the  start  up  of  the  project  but  is  also  because  insufficient  human  resource  has  been  devoted  to  addressing  field  level  bottlenecks  in  the  development  of  DMH.  This  in  turn  is  partly  because  of  the  tensions  between  the  research  and  the  development  aspects  and  interpretations  of  the  project.  The  recruitment  of  a  development-­‐focused  project  manager  will  contribute  to  rapidly  redress  the  situation.  While  the  project  is  focused  appropriately  on  learning  and  important  research  outputs  are  already  in  place,  there  is  not  enough  reflection  and  documentation  of  the  processes  involved  in  establishment  of  DMH  in  different  market  and  production  system  contexts.  The  learning  agenda  is  currently  too  focused  on  quantitative  household  surveys  and  targeted  research  studies,  and  not  enough  on  qualitative  exploration  of  on-­‐going  processes.    

To  sum  up,  the  project  is  well  conceptualized  with  almost  ideal  partnership  arrangements.  Although  there  are  implementation  challenges,  the  project  team  is  working  hard  to  address  these.  Owing  to  the  stage  of  development  of  results  measurement  and  learning,  and  then  communication  strategies,  the  project  has  had  less  policy  influence  than  it  otherwise  might  have  done.  The  MTR  team’s  view  is  that,  with  an  appropriate  focus  on  field  support  for  the  emerging  DMH  for  the  remainder  of  the  project,  MoreMilkiT  can  generate  important  lessons  on  the  

27    

potential  for  increasing  participation  of  small-­‐scale  milk  producers  in  value  chains  in  Tanzania.    

9    Recommendations  

The  MTR  team  recommends  that  the  project  partners:    

1) consider  whether  to  reduce  the  number  of  sites  from  30  to  a  number  that  can  be  handled  well  given  the  time  and  resources  available,  and  if  so  the  criteria  for  doing  so  –  bearing  in  mind  the  need  to  retain  a  range  of  contexts  in  which  different  forms  of  adapted  DMH  can  develop    

2) in  all  contacts  with  farmer  groups,  seek  to  develop  an  understanding  of  the  scope  and  nature  of  the  project,  specifically  that  it  is  not  a  vehicle  for  externally  funded  asset  transfer  

3) allocate  time  in  the  regular  discussions  and  reviews  among  project  partners  to  identify  lessons  that  can  be  documented  from  current,  ongoing  activities  so  that  appropriate  learning  can  shared  between  partners  and  across  project  sites  and  to  avoid  the  loss  of  insight  that  occurs  when  trying  to  identify  detailed  lessons  about  process  at  the  end  of  a  project  

4) revise  the  proposal  to  Irish  Aid  for  additional  funding  to  include  the  appointment  of    an  experienced  development-­‐focused  project  manager  for  the  remainder  of  the  project  who  can  ensure  the  required  momentum  of    activity  in  the  field  is  sustained  and  that  emerging  bottlenecks  are  addressed  quickly  

5) identify  what  the  priority  activities  are  in  the  field  for  the  next  18  months  (to  December  2016)  

6) identify  what  needs  to  be  done  in  order  to  draw  lessons  from  the  DMH  experience  by  June  2017  

7) draw  up  clear,  costed  plans  for  engagement  and  dialogue  around  lessons  for  policy  –  as  part  of  a  revised  communication  and  knowledge  sharing  strategy.  

 

 

A-­‐1    

Annex  A  

 More  Milk  in  Tanzania  (MoreMilkiT)  Project  Terms  of  Reference  for  External  Mid-­‐Term  Review  

 

1  Background    

1.1  Overview  of  the  Project    

In  2012  Irish  Aid  provided  funds  to  ILRI  to  support  the  CGIAR  Research  Program  on  Livestock  and  Fish  in  Tanzania.  The  initial  funding  for  1-­‐year  inception  phase  of   collaborative   research   the   project   identified   appropriate   entry   points   and  initiated  partnerships  for  a  subsequent  4-­‐year  research-­‐for-­‐development  (R4D)  phase   targeted   at   promoting   a   more   pro-­‐poor   development   orientation   and  improving  rural  based  livelihoods  through  milk.  The  objectives  of  the  inception  phase  were  to:    

1)     Assess   the   current   status   of   the   Tanzanian   dairy   sector   and   identify  appropriate   entry   points   and   partners   for   promoting   a   more   pro-­‐poor  development  orientation;    

2)     Develop   a   strategy   for   strengthening   the   policy   environment   to   better  support   pro-­‐poor   dairy   development,   capitalizing   on   on-­‐going  engagement  with  key  policy  actors  and  previous  successes  in  Kenya  and  Uganda,  and    

3)     Identify   sites   appropriate   for   piloting   pro-­‐poor   dairy   development  interventions   that   have   been   successful   elsewhere   in   East   Africa,   and  assess   how   those   interventions   need   to   be   adapted   to   the   Tanzanian  context.    

Following  achievement  of   these  objectives,   ILRI  and  partners  embarked  on   the  follow  up  4-­‐year  phase  with  additional  funding  from  Irish  Aid.  The  objectives  of  second   phase   were   selected   to   contribute   to   Irish   Aid   (IA)   Tanzania   Country  Strategy  Paper  (CSP)  Goal  for  2011-­‐15  of  Inclusive  Growth,  Reduced  Poverty  and  Vulnerability,   through   Outcome   1   -­‐   Rural   Poor   are  more   Income   Secure   -­‐   and  Objective  1  -­‐  Improved  livelihoods  of  smallholders  and  pastoralists  -­‐  of  the  CSP.  The  project  objectives  are  as  follows:  

Goal:  Inclusive  growth  and  reduced  poverty  and  vulnerability  among  dairy-­‐dependent  livelihoods  in  selected  rural  areas  in  Tanzania  

Outcome:  Rural  poor  are  more  income  secure  through  enhanced  access  to  demand-­‐led  dairy  market  business  services  and  viable  organisational  options.  Contributing  objectives:    

1. Develop   scalable   value   chains   approaches   with   improved   organization  and  institutions  serving  resource-­‐poor  male  and  female  smallholder  dairy  households  

 

A-­‐2    

2. Generate   and   communicate   evidence   on   business   and   organizational  options   for   increasing   participation   of   resource-­‐poor   male   and   female  households  in  dairy  value  chains    

3. Inform   policy   on   appropriate   role   for   pro-­‐poor   smallholder-­‐based  informal  sector  value  chains  in  dairy  sector  development.    

The   first   objective   covers   piloting   activities   to   ensure   development   of   vibrant,  well  organized,  and  sustainable  dairy  market  hubs  (DMH)  delivering  demand-­‐led  inputs   and   services   to   both   female   and  male   livestock   keepers;   strengthening  DMH  governance  through  capacity  building;  and,  assessments  for  improving  the  performance  of  the  smallholder  dairy  value  chains.  The  second  objective  aims  to  ensure   that   after   the   DMH   have   been   established   and   as   they   become  operational,   they   are   used   as   platforms   for   generating   and   communicating  evidence   on   business   and   organisational   options   for   increased   participation   of  resource  poor  men  and  women  in  the  dairy  value  chains,  and  they  are  supported  to  become  viable  and  sustainable  dairy  value  chain  development  models  through  strengthening   of   their   governance   and  making   necessary   adjustments   to  meet  emerging  demands.  The  third  objective  aims  to  develop  and  disseminate  lessons  for   sustainable   value   chain   development   through   evidence-­‐based   research,  monitoring  and  evaluation,  and  to  draw  recommendations  for  scaling  out.  

1.2  Target  groups  and  pilot  sites    

The  project  is  primarily  targeted  at  pre-­‐commercial  marginalised  smallholder  cattle-­‐keeping  men  and  women  who  do  not  currently  participate  fully  in  dairy  value  chains.  Geographic  sites  that  were  identified  as  ideal  for  piloting  interventions  and  drawing  inferences  for  scaling  are  in  Morogoro  Region  (Kilosa  and  Mvomero  districts)  and  in  Tanga  Region  (Handeni  and  Lushoto  districts).  Kilosa  and  Handeni  districts  represent  mostly  pre-­‐commercial  rural  production  for  rural  consumption;  while  Mvomero  and  Lushoto  districts  represent  relatively  more  commercial  rural  production  for  urban  consumption.  These  criteria  are  guiding  several  studies  along  the  spectrum  from  pre-­‐commercial  producers  with  limited  market  access  to  those  better-­‐linked  to  more  vertically  coordinated  value  chains  that  may  reach  as  far  as  Dar  es  Salaam.    The  project  identified  30  villages  with  a  total  of  about  4800  cattle  keepers  for  targeting  over  the  4-­‐year  period  in  these  districts.  The  main  concept  that  the  project  aims  to  prove  is  that  pre-­‐commercial  men  and  women  can  be  targeted  successfully.    

The  project  supported  the  development  of  a  long  term  impact  pathway  up  to  2023  for  the  Livestock  &Fish  (L&F)  program  and  Agriculture  for  Health  and  Nutrition  (A4NH)  CRPs  in  Tanzania,  referred  to  locally  as  Maziwa  Zaidi.  A  number  of  complementary  projects  contributing  to  these  CRPs  have  been  encouraged  to  carry  out  their  research  activities  in  the  same  sites  for  synergy  under  Maziwa  Zaidi.  For  example,  two  projects  that  have  just  ended  (IFAD  funded  feeds  innovation  and  BMZ/GIZ  funded  Safe  Food  Fair  Food)  worked  in  these  pilot  sites.    

 

A-­‐3    

 

Map  of  MoreMilkiT  pilot  sites  in  Morogoro  and  Tanga  

 Approaches  for  hub  interventions  that  emphasize  improving  access  to  inputs  and  services  through  business  development  services  and  “check-­‐off”  arrangements  are  being  implemented17.  The  entry  points  have  a  strong  emphasis  on  check-­‐offs  due  to  the  widely  acknowledged  paucity  of  credit,  which  our  own  investigations  during  the  inception  phase  confirmed.  While  some  proposed  DMH  revolve  around  collective  bulking  and  marketing,  the  main  DMH  construct  that  has  been  identified  through  sites  specific  planning  as  the  most  suitable  for  piloting  in  these  sites  revolve  around  milk  traders  without  collective  bulking  and  marketing  by  producers  themselves.  This  kind  of  DMH  has  never  been  trialled  elsewhere  before  and  is  the  key  adaptation  in  this  project.  

1.3.  Partnerships  The  project  is  managed  by  ILRI  and  implemented  with  Sokoine  University  of  Agriculture  (SUA),  Tanzanian  Dairy  Board  (TDB),  Heifer  Project  International,  and  a  local  NGO  known  as  Faida  Market  Linkages  (Faida  MaLi).  Additionally,  the  project  engages  various  tertiary  stakeholders  through  the  national  Dairy  Development  Forum  (DDF)  as  a  mechanism  to  strengthen  relationships  and  to  co-­‐create  solutions  around  common  problems.  

 

                                                                                                                   17  A  “check-­‐off”   is  a   system  for   interlocking   transactions  where   farmers  access   the  desired  inputs  or  services  on  credit  with  their  milk  delivery  as  collateral;  and  the  cost  of  the  services  is  eventually  repaid  through  retained  earnings  from  milk  delivery  to  the  buyer    

 

A-­‐4    

Illustration  of  a  Dairy  Market  Hub  for  provision  of  inputs  and  services  on  credit  without  collective  bulking  and  marketing  

   2.  Purpose  of  the  review  

The  focus  of  this  review  is  on  assessing  the  conformity  of  the  implemented  work  with  the  project’s  research  and  piloting  objectives  and  support  to  the  L&F  Program  objectives  in  Tanzania.  The  aim  of  the  review  is  to  evaluate  how  the  project  is  fostering  learning  in  view  of  achieving  the  expected  outputs  and  outcomes,  and  proposing  recommendations  to  rectify,  if  necessary,  any  shortcomings.  The  review  will  also  evaluate  how  the  project  is  contributing  to  the  Irish  Aid  (IA)  Tanzania  Country  Strategy  Paper  (CSP)  objectives.    The  review  will  identify  important  research  areas  that  are  currently  not  addressed,  examine  the  relevance  of  existing  partnerships  for  the  implementation  of  the  activities,  and  evaluate  the  appropriateness  of  available  human  resources  to  implement  the  project.  The  review  team  will  pay  particular  attention  to  the  DMH  approaches  and  explore  whether  the  project  has  considered  adequately  learning  experiences  from  past  similar  programs  in  the  region  and  progress  towards  achieving  the  intended  outcomes.  It  will  also  review  the  current  management  structure  and  its  implications  on  the  research  project.  Identification  of  data  gaps  and  issues  of  data  handling  and  sharing  among  partners  will  also  be  part  of  the  review.  The  results  of  the  review  will  allow  the  MoreMilkiT  management  and  implementers  to  make  necessary  adjustments.      3.  Key  evaluation  questions    Progress  towards  outcomes  

• What  progress  has  been  made  towards  the  MoreMilkiT  project  objectives  and   expected   outcomes?   What   can   realistically   be   achieved   within   the  

 

A-­‐5    

given   time   frame?   Specifically,   what   can   be   achieved   in   relation   to  generating  evidence  on  changes  from  interventions  on  the  following:    

o milk  production    o milk  prices    o gender  o income  o possible  influences  on  nutrition  (even  though  not  a  project  focus)    o perceptions  of  the  beneficiaries  of  the  project    o influencing  policy,  and    o visioning  beyond  project  time-­‐frame    

• How   relevant   and   feasible   is   the   current   field   research   approach   to  achieve  the  three  research  objectives?    

• To  what  extent  has  the  project  built  on  experiences  of  past  projects  in  the  region   in   terms   of   the  DMH   approaches   being   trialed?  How   can   this   be  improved?    

• Which   data   gaps   exist   and   need   provision   of   scientific   evidence   for  achieving  the  three  research  objectives?  How  can  they  be  addressed?    

• Which   issues   exist   around   data   management   and   how   they   can   be  addressed?    

• Which  research  areas  are  missing  or  need  to  be  strengthened  (economics,  gender,   scaling   approaches,   communication…)?   How   can   the   gaps   be  filled?    

Partnership  &  management  • How   adequate   are   the   available   human   and   financial   resources   to   the  

successful   implementation  of   the  project?  Which  expertise  and  activities  needs  to  be  strengthened?    

• Are   the   current   research   and   development   partnerships   adequate   for   a  successful  project?    

• How  effective  is  the  collaboration,  coordination,  and  working  relationship  among  key  partners?    

• How   is   the   project   supporting   and   contributing   to   the   CGIAR   Research  Program  on  Livestock  and  Fish?    

Lessons  learned  • Which  lessons  have  been  learned  so  far?    • How  should   the  research  be   further  developed   in   the   remaining   time   to  

end  of  the  project  or  subsequent  phase?    

 

A-­‐6    

4.  Review  methodology  

It  is  envisaged  that  the  review  team  will  employ  a  mixed-­‐methods  approach  to  ensure  that  the  findings  will  respond  to  the  purpose  of  the  review  and  answer  the  key  evaluation  questions.  The  approach  will  include  but  may  not  be  limited  to:    

• Document  Reviews:    project  documents  on  the  project  and  the  L&F  wikispaces  and  website  as  well  as  materials  assembled  by  the  project  management  and  partners  (e.g.,  baseline  data,  monitoring  data,  research  protocols,  project  reports,  L&F  program  reviews  etc  ),  since  the  start  of  the  project  

• Key  Informant  Interviews:  Managers  and  researchers  of  the  project  based  in  ILRI-­‐Nairobi  and  in  Tanzania  (Morogoro  and  Dar  es  Salaam),  L&F  program  director,  ILRI  senior  management,  Irish  Aid  

• Focus  Group  Discussions:  with  tertiary  stakeholders  (e.g.,  DDF  members)  or  value  chain  actors  associated  with  the  project.  (It  is  anticipated  that  the  quantitative  monitoring   data   being   gathered   by   the   project   is   adequate  for  quantitative  assessments)  

• Stakeholder   Analysis:   will   be   used   to   determine   the   effectiveness   of  partnerships   and   institutional   collaborations   forged   between   ILRI   and  partners    

• Field  visits:  to  project  sites  in  Morogoro  and  Tanga    

 5.  Review  team  composition  

The  review  team  shall  consist  of  3  persons  with  different  technical  expertise.  Core  expertise  required  is:    

• Livestock  production  economics    • Social  science  (socio-­‐economics,  social  geography,  gender)    • Agri-­‐business  and  • Growing  market  access  for  smallholders    • Managing  multi-­‐partner  agricultural  research  projects    • Monitoring  and  evaluation    • Livestock  expertise  in  Eastern  Africa  

   6.  Review  period      It  is  envisaged  that  the  review  will  take  place  during  June/July  2015  as  follows?  

• Document  reviews:  early-­‐June  2015,  1  day    • Field  visit  to    meet  key  informants:  mid  June  2015,  2  days  • De-­‐briefing  report  writing:    last  week  of  June  2015,  1  day  • Draft  Report  writing:  last  week  of  June  2015,  1  day    

 

A-­‐7    

• Final  Report  writing:  early  July  2015,  1  day      7.  Logistics      The  MoreMilkiT  project  leader  will  be  responsible  for  all  logistics.      8.  Deliverables      Based  on  the  above  stated  purpose  and  key  evaluation  questions  the  review  team  will  submit  the  following  deliverables:    

• a   short   written   report   on   its   findings   (not   more   than   5   pages)   for  presentation   at   the  debriefing  meeting;   this   report   shall   focus  on   issues  posed  by  this  ToR    

• a   draft   concise   report   of   not   more   than   35   pages   on   its   findings   and  recommendations   (to   be   checked   by   the   MoreMilkIT   team   for   factual  correctness)  

• a  final  report  of  not  more  than  35  pages  .