M&E plan Indonesian Dutch programme on food security: poultry & dairy sector

Transcription

1 M&E plan Indonesian Dutch programme on food security: poultry & dairy sector Version Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen UR 1

2 Abbreviations CDI M&E WP ASG CVI DG DGLAHS EKN FAPET FEMA IPB MSM WUR Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen UR Monitoring and Evaluation Work Package Animal Sciences Group at WUR, the Netherlands Central Veterinary Institute at WUR, the Netherlands Director General Directorate General for Livestock & Animal Health Services, Indonesia Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Faculty of Animal Science at IPB, Indonesia Faculty of Human Ecology at IPB, Indonesia Institut Pertanian Bogor (Agricultural Institute Bogor) Maastricht School of Management, the Netherlands Wageningen University & Research, the Netherlands 2

3 Contents Abbreviations... 2 Introduction about the programme Work Package 1: Consumer awareness Theory of Change Monitoring Work package 2: Poultry Processing Theory of change Monitoring Work package 3: Poultry farming systems Theory of Change Monitoring Work Package 4: Dairy feed improvements Theory of change Monitoring Monitoring and Evaluation Communication and reporting

4 Introduction about the programme The Governments of Indonesia and the Netherlands work together on strengthening the food security situation in Indonesia. This bilateral food security programme centres on the priority commodities identified by the Indonesian Government, including vegetables, fish, poultry meat and dairy products. For the latter two commodity sectors the Animal Sciences Group (ASG) of Wageningen University & Research (WUR) in the Netherlands had prepared a general work plan and estimate in September The Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Jakarta (EKN) thereupon contracted ASG to implement the inception phase of this programme. The inception phase started on 1 November 2013 and was concluded by the end of March The food security programme in the poultry and dairy sectors is implemented in close cooperation with the Directorate General for Livestock and Animal Health at the Ministry of Agriculture (DGLAH of the MoA). The focus will be on West Java as main production and sourcing area of dairy and poultry meat products for Jakarta and other main urban centres. The supply chain partners comprising input suppliers, primary producers, processing companies, traders and consumers will be the main target groups of this programme. The overall goal of the livestock components of the Dutch Indonesian programme on food security and agribusiness development in the livestock sector was formulated as follows: Viable models for domestic production and supply of affordable, nutritious and safe animal-based products are developed. With the development and testing of these models the programme contributes towards higher income levels of Indonesian smallholder producers and improved access to affordable and safe animal protein products among urban consumers. This is in line with the overall aims and strategies of the Indonesian policy on self-sufficiency in the production of major agricultural commodities and the Dutch policies on food security (see text box). Food Security When people have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life at all times, we speak of food security. Commonly, the concept of food security includes both physical and economic access to food. The Dutch food security support foresees outcomes in one or more of the following areas: (a) sustainable increase in food production; (b) more efficient markets for agricultural and food products; (c) improved access to healthy and safe food; (d) an enabling environment for agribusiness development. This programme exists of three work packages (WP): 1. WP 1: Consumer awareness and supply chain initiatives 2. WP 2: Improving poultry processing standards 3. WP 3: Poultry farming systems 4. WP 4: Dairy feed improvements The following sections describe for each work package (WP) the Theory of Change (ToC) and this will be monitored. The ToCs have been developed in consultation with the WP leaders. They map how we think that change happens within the different work packages. A workshop with all WP leaders was held in order to explore linkages between the work packages and to learn from one another. The ToC for each WP is first illustrated visually and in the case of WP 1 followed by a narrative explaining the logic from top to bottom. After the ToC, we outline how results will be monitored within the different work packages. 4

5 1. Work Package 1: Consumer awareness 1.1 Theory of Change Sphere of interest Evaluation and dissemination activities under this WP Implementers Impact Target group Other stakeholders Outcome Output Assumptions Beyond the scope of this Increased number of urban consumers buy cooled and frozen poultry meat Poultry meat will remain at a similar pricelevel (in relation to other food products and keeping the inflation in mind). There will be no scarcity or a significantfood safety crisis; consumer behaviour willchange during times of food crises. Other WP Chain parties involved in this will succeed in developing a cooled poultry chain that can deliver cooled poultry meat (availability& affordability). Chain parties involved in this will succeed in developing a cooled poultry chain that can deliver the safety and quality standards that (future) Indonesian consumers prefer and produce sufficient to meet the market demand of Jakarta. Sphere of control Government support for the design and of the campaign Accreditation bodies for halal certification Governorate of DKI Jakarta Slaughterhouses Directorate of Veterinary Public Health at DGLAH Indonesian consumer organisation Retail Associations Increased consumer awareness of cooled and frozen poultry products Steering committee approves consumer campaign Increased consumer intention to buy cooled and frozen poultry products Consumer campaign implemented Implementing the consumer campaign Consumer campaign developed Developing the consumer campaign Communication plan developed Developing the communication plan Increased number of urban consumers that desire to consume cooled and frozen poultry products Middle and higher income segment of consumers in Jakarta region IPB FEMA Schuttelaar Indonesian PR company LEI Wageningen UR Sphere of influence Results communicated to relevant stakeholders as in input for discussions on policies, laws and regulations that support the transition towards consumption of cooled and frozen poultry meat Communicate results to relevant stakeholders Baseline and endline reports Impact analysis, including baseline and endline done on the impact of the consumer campaign Consumers participating in the first consumer survey are easily to be traced andfound for the second survey A division of regions for the consumercampaign is possible, so that a group isexposed to the campaign and anothergroup is not exposed. This is important tohave a control group. Sufficient resources (interviewers and otherprofessional staff, funds, IPads forcomputer aided data collection and compilation, etc.). 5 Consumer survey done in inception phase

6 Narrative Consumer Awareness Work package 1 will work on increasing awareness of cooled and frozen poultry meat among middle and higher income consumers in the Jakarta. Awareness is regarded as a precondition for stimulating intentions to buy cooled and frozen poultry meat. Stronger intentions will contribute an increased number of consumers will desire cooled and frozen poultry meat. These three determinants of behaviour are the main focus of WP 1. It should be noted that the actual buying of cooled and frozen poultry meat is beyond the scope of this as this depends largely on availability and pricing of cooled and frozen of poultry meat. The other components of this aim to contribute to availability of cooled and frozen poultry meat, though. Furthermore, it is assumed that once the middle and higher segments buy cooled and frozen poultry, the lower economic segments will copy this behaviour. A key output of the WP package is a consumer campaign. The campaign is expected to influence awareness, intention and desire to consume cooled and frozen poultry meat. The campaign will be targeting the middle and higher income segment of consumers in the Jakarta region. The campaign will be based on the insights gained through a consumer survey that was conducted during the inception s inception phase. The extent of the impact of the consumer campaign on awareness, intention and desire, will be studied with an impact analysis comparing baseline findings with end-line findings (a before and and after design). The findings of the baseline and end-line studies will communicated and discussed with the relevant stakeholders so that they can be used as input for discussions on policies, laws and regulations that support the transition towards consumption of cooled and frozen poultry meat (also in other WPs). For the campaign to lead to awareness, intention and desire for cooled and frozen poultry meat the following assumptions are relevant: - Chain parties involved in this will succeed in developing a cooled poultry chain that can deliver cooled poultry meat (availability & affordability). - Chain parties involved in this will succeed in developing a cooled poultry chain that can deliver the safety and quality standards that (future) Indonesian consumers prefer and produce sufficient to meet the market demand of Jakarta. The implementing partners of the campaign are: LEI Wageningen UR; Schuttelaar; IPB FEMA; Indonesian PR company and an Indonesian Market Research company. Other relevant stakeholders include the Indonesian consumer organisation, retail associations, producers organisations, directorate of veterinary public health at DGLAH, association of slaughterhouses, governorate of DKI Jakarta, governates in the direct surroundings of Jakarta and the accreditation bodies for halal certification. 6

7 1.2 Monitoring NUMBER RESULTS VERIFIABLE INDICATORS Outcome 1 Increased consumer Awareness of cooled and awareness of cooled and frozen poultry meat frozen poultry meat among middle and higher (=outcome consumer segment of urban awareness on food safety consumers and quality of poultry meat increased in MoC; food safety and quality has been replaced by cooled and frozen based on research during inception phase) Outcome 2 Increased intention to buy cooled and frozen poultry meat among consumers (= linked to outcome indicator increased number of urban consumers demand safe poultry products in MoC) (= related to impact indicator consumption levels of quality dairy and poultry meat among poor segments of urban consumers increased in MoC) Outcome 3 Increased number of urban consumers that desire to consume cooled and frozen poultry products (= outcome indicator increased number of urban consumers demand safe poultry products in MoC) Intention to buy cooled and frozen poultry meat among middle and higher segment of urban consumers Perceptions (desire) of cooled and frozen poultry meat among middle and higher segment of urban consumers MEANS OF VERIFICATION WHO IS Awareness Intention Desire (Action)(AIDA) study Impact analysis, including baseline and endline done on the impact of the consumer campaign AIDA study Impact analysis, including baseline and endline done on the impact of the consumer campaign AIDA study Impact analysis, including baseline and endline done on the impact of the consumer campaign Questionnaire to be developed in WP 1 - Gemma Questionnaire to be developed in WP 1 - Gemma Questionnaire to be developed in WP 1 - Gemma WHEN Baseline: October 2015 Endline: December 2016 Baseline: October 2015 Endline: December 2016 Baseline: October 2015 Endline: December 2016 REQUIRED Already budgeted in WP 1 Already budgeted in WP 1 Already budgeted in WP 1 7

8 NUMBER RESULTS VERIFIABLE INDICATORS Output 1 Consumer campaign Publication of the implemented campaign (= output indicator consumer education and awareness campaign developed and implemented in MoC) (=related to outcome improved marketing systems in respective supply chains ) MEANS OF VERIFICATION WHO IS WHEN Review of publication of the Gemma October 2015 campaign November 2016 Steering committee approves consumer campaign REQUIRED No budget required to check whether this has been published Implement consumer campaign Output 2 Consumer campaign developed (= output indicator consumer education and awareness campaign developed and implemented in MoC) Consumer campaign ready to be implemented Review of consumer campaign materials to be launched Gemma September- October 2015 No budget required to check whether this has been developed Develop consumer campaign Output 3 Communication plan developed (= needed for output indicator consumer education and awareness campaign developed and implemented in MoC) Communication plan Review of communication plan document Gemma March September 2015 No budget required to check whether this has been developed Develop communication plan 8

9 NUMBER RESULTS VERIFIABLE INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION WHO IS WHEN Output 4 Consumer survey on Consumer survey done Report on consumer survey Gemma January 2014 purchasing behaviour of (during poultry meat done inception (= related to output phase) indicator better understanding of consumer behaviour ) Output 5 Baseline and endline report on impact analysis of the consumer campaign Impact analysis including baseline and endline done on the impact of the consumer campaign Output 6 Results communicated to relevant stakeholders (= linked to outcome indicator policies, laws and regulations implemented that support the transition towards a safer poultry production and consumption based on documentation and dialogue in MoC) Baseline and endline report finished Joint closing meeting of the (not budgeted for in WP1) with relevant stakeholders. Review of baseline report Gemma Baseline report: ready by November 2015 Endline report: ready by end of Minutes of meeting Frank End of the REQUIRED No budget required to check whether this has been done Already budgeted in WP 1 Overall budget Communicate results of impact analysis to relevant stakeholders 9

10 2. Work package 2: Poultry Processing 2.1 Theory of change 10

11 2.2 Monitoring NUMBER RESULTS VERIFIABLE INDICATORS Impact 1 Reduction of poultry slaughtering # and kind of pollution in the city reported incidents of (= linked to impact indicator poor food safety at reduced poultry meat related slaughter houses at food safety incidence in MoC) wet markets in (=linked to outcome indicator Jakarta Increased animal welfare and food safety in the broiler subsector in West Java ) Impact 2 Increased quantity of poultry meat marketed (retail) that meets food safety standards (= impact: urban consumers access to safe animal protein products increased in MoC) (=outcome indicator More poultry meat marketed that meet safe certified standards in MoC) (= related to impact indicator consumption levels of quality dairy and poultry meat among poor segments of urban consumers increased in MoC) (=related to outcome improved marketing systems in respective supply chains ) Outcome 1 (NKV = Veterinary Public Health Authority) Improved waste management and good hygienic practices in the slaughter plant (e.g. handling of ice for cooling) (=output improved poultry processing standards and practices (safety and quality) in MoC) (= linked to output indicator Policies, laws and regulations implemented that support the transition towards a safer poultry production and consumption Volume of certified poultry products leaving participating slaughterhouses Number of NKV certificates issued to participating slaughterhouses # participating slaughterhouses that render blood and have waste water treatment Number of water treatment plants MEANS OF VERIFICATION WHO IS Food surveillance inspection Frank and Peter will reports from public health meet with Governor inspectors in Jakarta to see who is responsible for data collection and reporting what kind of data is being collected in Jakarta - September, 2015 Collect and review records from participating slaughterhouses Review records NKV participating slaughterhouses Visits to participating slaughterhouses to survey and observe current processing practices Peter to organise collection and review records slaughterhouses and report NKV collect info from contact provincial veterinary public health authority and report on this Peter to organise visits and interviews of managers (survey) Peter to describe WHEN Baseline: September tbd Endline: June 2017 Baseline: once slaughterhou ses are selected Endline: June 2017 Baseline: once participating slaughterhou ses are selected Endline: June 2017 REQUIRED To be defined Review records: tbd Review NKV records: tbd Observation visits and survey: tbd 11

12 NUMBER RESULTS VERIFIABLE INDICATORS (based on documentation and installed at dialogue) in MoC) participating slaughterhouses Outcome 2 Improved skills and knowledge among slaughterers at pilot facilities (=linked to output indicator approaches and capacities for promoting food safety standards are in place in Western Java in MoC) Outcome 3 Improved insights among government (nat, prov, loc) in economic, environmental and chain consequences of modernising slaughtering practices (=linked to output indicators better understanding of socioeconomic drivers of current practices in MoC) (= linked to output indicator Policies, laws and regulations implemented that support the transition towards a safer poultry production and consumption (based on documentation and dialogue) in MoC) # participating slaughterhouses whose waste is reused (collected) Skill and knowledge improvement needs reported by participating slaughter plants # of trained slaughterhouse staff (managers and employees) that show improved skill and knowledge Level of understanding of employment, s, income, logistics, blood/water pollution of modernising practices among key government officials MEANS OF VERIFICATION WHO IS processing practices incl. waste (water) treatment based on data collected and report SWOT analysis (visits to participating slaughterhouses to survey and observe current processing skill and knowledge) Evaluation of training (evaluation forms) Visits to participating slaughterhouses to survey and observe processing skill and knowledge Interviews with government officials at different levels (national, province, district) Ferry to report on SWOT analysis (Richard Merxs) Ferry to organise evaluation of training and report Peter to organise visits and interviews of managers (survey) Peter to describe processing skill and knowledge and report Ferry to organise 3-4 interviews Ferry to describe insights and report WHEN Baseline: once participating slaughterhou ses are selected Immediately after training: once staff members are trained Endline: June 2017 Mid-term: September 2016 REQUIRED SWOT analysis: Evaluation of training: Observation visits and survey: tbd Interviews officials: tbd 12

13 NUMBER RESULTS VERIFIABLE INDICATORS Outcome 4 Improved skills and knowledge Skill and knowledge among advisors and inspectors improvement needs (= output indicator approaches reported by and capacities for promoting food Department /Ministry safety standards are in place in Western Java in MoC) Output 1 Management of slaughterer plants have received advice and business support (= linked to output indicator realistic and competing supply models developed for hygienic slaughtering practices Advice on hygiene, waste management and management of a slaughter plant Output 2 Business plans for small and medium slaughterhouses (linked to outcome indicator Economic viability of improved practices in broiler sub-sector in MoC) (=linked to output indicator realistic and competing supply models developed for hygienic slaughtering practices in MoC) # of managers of slaughterer plants that have received advice on hygiene and waste # of managers of slaughterer plants that have received business plan support # of business plans developed by poultry slaughter plants MEANS OF VERIFICATION WHO IS Evaluation of training Peter to organise (evaluation forms) evaluation of training and report Reports from advice meetings and business plans reviews Ferry & Peter WHEN Immediately after training: once staff members are trained September 2016, 2017 Business plans documents Ferry September 2016 REQUIRED Evaluation of training: Asking 5/6 slaughterhouses what they want/need support with Developing business plans for specific slaughter plants Output 3 Knowledge development with BPPT (=linked to output indicator evidence based models documented and innovations brought to scale ) Memorandum of Cooperation Reports/presentations on BPPT tested waste improvements Review MoC & other documents Peter September

14 NUMBER RESULTS VERIFIABLE INDICATORS Partners sign MoU. Facilitate presentations of improvements Output 4 Staff of slaughter plants have been trained on hygiene and waste management (=linked to output indicator approaches and capacities for promoting food safety standards are in place in Western Java in MoC) # of plants of which the staff is trained # participants in training MEANS OF VERIFICATION WHO IS Attendance list including names, plant name, gender, age, position/ function / responsibility in the plant Peter WHEN September 2016, 2017 REQUIRED : Implementing the capacity building programme for slaughters Output 5 Modules and materials for capacity building programme developed (=linked to output indicator poultry curriculum developed ) # and type of material developed Review Training material documents Peter September 2016 Developing modules and materials for capacity building Output 6 Multi-stakeholder meetings Facilitate meetings with government, slaughter-houses, private sector to inform about scenario study and business plans # and type of meetings/workshops # of public and private sector partners informed on outcome of scenario studies Minutes of meetings and workshops Peter & Ferry in cooperation with Centras September

15 NUMBER RESULTS VERIFIABLE INDICATORS Output 7 Scenario study including policy Results of scenario advice about improvement of the study are captured in poultry meat supply chain a presentation or (=linked to output indicators report better understanding of socioeconomic drivers of current practices MEANS OF VERIFICATION WHO IS Scenario study report Ferry presented to steering committee WHEN September 2015 REQUIRED Studying different scenarios for their impact on employment, s, transport and environment Output 8 District advisors of food safety control authority (NKV) trained Training inspectors and auditors of food safety control authority (NKV) Output 9 Provincial inspectors of food safety control authority (NKV) trained Training inspectors and auditors of food safety control authority (NKV) # and type / level of Staff trained by age and gender # and type / level of Staff trained by age and gender Attendance list including names, department, gender, age, position/ function / responsibility in the department Attendance list including names, department, gender, age, position/ function / responsibility in the department Peter Peter September 2016, 2017 September 2016,

16 3. Work package 3: Poultry farming systems 3.1 Theory of Change 16

17 3.2 Monitoring NUMBER RESULTS Impact 1 Increase in broiler farmers income from broiler business for selected broiler farms (=similar to impact Increase in dairy and broiler farm households income as in MoC) (=linked to impact indicator Increased annual farm income over the year ) Outcome 1 Improved productivity and animal welfare in poultry production farming systems (=similar to outcome Improved productivity of poultry and dairy production farming systems in MoC) (=linked to 50% of broiler farmers trained and supported by the programme will have a >30% productivity increase ) Outcome 2 Improved poultry production practices (=output improved smallholder poultry production practices in MoC) (=output in MoC and indicator of the outcome improved marketing systems in the respective supply chains ) VERIFIABLE INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION WHO IS Estimate of annual income Baseline among selected broiler Medion (farm of the broiler farm (based on farmers through data recording supervisors with feed margin per 100 broilers sheet. broiler farmers - per round) collect data) Percentage of broiler farmers trained and supported by the programme that has a productivity increase Productivity increase indicators: 1. feed conversion ratio 2. Body Weight at earlier age 1. body weights sat laughter age 3. profits 4. s Animal welfare indicators: 1. Broiler temperatures 2. mortality # trained farmers that apply Animal Focused Management (AFM) After of new elements or concept, experimental houses and control houses will be followed using the data recording sheets. Baseline among selected broiler farmers through data recording sheet. After of new elements or concept, experimental houses and control houses will be followed using the data recording sheets. Review if the forms for animal behaviour observations are filled in correctly WUR assist development form and data analysis Medion (farm supervisors with broiler farmers - collect data) WUR assist development form and data analysis Sander Medion farm supervisors with broiler farmers WHEN REQUIRED Baseline: Subresult 2015 Q3 1.3 and 1.6 After interventi on: 2016 Q4 Baseline: 2015 Q3 After interventi on: 2016 Q4 Baseline: 2015 Q3 After interventi on: 2016 Q4 Subresult 1.3 and

18 NUMBER RESULTS Outcome 3 Increased commercial uptake of improved broiler house model (related to indicator of the outcome Enhanced sustainability in the broiler and dairy sub-sectors in the MoC) (=linked to increased number of farmers part of effective and economically viable supply chain arrangements in dairy and poultry sectors in MoC?) (=linked to outcome indicator economic viability of improved practices in broiler sector is proven in MoC) (=related to outcome improved marketing systems in respective supply chains ) Outcome 4 Increased insight into effective innovations in broiler farming practices (broiler farm model) (=linked to output indicator best practices are developed and analysed ) (=linked to outcome indicator economic viability of improved practices in broiler sector is proven in MoC) Outcome 5 Increased AFM knowledge and skill among selected broiler farmers (= a step in between the outcome farmers selling broiler farmers according to GAP standards ) Outcome 6 Increased capacity to support innovations by broiler farms among private and public service providers VERIFIABLE INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION WHO IS # of farms that adopt the Sales and client records Medion Medion with model in Phone survey broiler farms assistance from WUR Documentation on innovations # and types of visitors at Medion pilot farm # of trained broiler farmers that show improved skill and knowledge after training # of trained trainers # of relevant graduates from targeted vocational training institutes Outcome 7 Improved vocational training # participating vocational training institutes Review documentation Register visits and keep recording Assessment of knowledge by means of a knowledge test before and after training for broiler farmers Review records ToT Review records targeted vocational training institutes Sander Medion Sander, Medion PTC+ Medion Participating training institute WHEN REQUIRED 2017 TBD 2017 throughou t Before and after training tbd 2017 tbd Records participants Sander 2017 tdb Linked to Subresult

19 NUMBER RESULTS Output 1 Report on results of prototype farms (= output indicator of improved information for supply chain partners and support organisations in the broiler and dairy sub-sectors in MoC) output indicator best practices are developed and analysed in MoC) VERIFIABLE INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION WHO IS Reports with data available Individual reports to each on: participating broiler farmer Financial return on investment Report with overall results Mortality rates FCR Weight of broilers at slaughter age Animal health indicators Productivity indicators Sander, Medion 2016 Q3 Q4 WHEN REQUIRED Subresult 1.8 (=linked to output indicator evidence based models documented and innovations brought to scale ) : Evaluate outcome of prototype pilot broiler farms Output 2 Broiler house prototypes constructed : Construction of broiler house prototypes at selected broiler farms Output 3 Report on improved design of broiler house Permits issued Building is completed Review records on permits Review records on building plans Observations Medion 2016 Q3 tbd Report approved by partners Report approved by partners Sander, medion 2016 Q2 tbd : Assess current performance among selected broiler farms Output 4 Broiler farm managers at selected broiler farms trained in AFM (=linked to output indicator broiler farmers trained in GAP+ in MoC where GAP has been replaced by AFM) : Train broiler farmers # of participating broiler farmers trained Reported satisfaction with training trainees Attendance list including names, name of employer / business, gender, age, position/ function / responsibility Satisfaction questionnaire among trained broiler farmers (survey monkey) Medion 2015 Q Q4 Linked to subresult

20 NUMBER RESULTS Output 5 Individual business innovation plan for selected broiler farms developed (=linked to outcome indicator increased number of farmers part of effective and economically viable supply chain arrangements in poultry sector and economic viability of improved practices in broiler sector is proven in MoC) VERIFIABLE INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION WHO IS WHEN REQUIRED # of individual business Review business plans Sander, Medion 2016 Sub result plans developed 1.4 # business plans with Linked to estimate of improvements subresults 2.3; 2.4; 2.5 : Develop business innovation plans with selected broiler farmers Output 6 Report on broiler farmer capacity development needs (=linked to output indicator better understanding of socioeconomic and financial drivers for current practices ) Approved report on need assessment of farms Review and approval by partners Sander, Medion 2015 Q3 tbd : Assess current performance among selected broiler farms Output 7 Trainers trained : Train trainers of broiler farmers # of trainers trained Attendance list including names, name of employer / business, gender, age, position/ function / responsibility Sander, Medion 2016 tbd Reported satisfaction with training trainees Satisfaction questionnaire among trained broiler farmer trainers (survey monkey) 20

21 NUMBER RESULTS Output 8 Specific ToT and materials for broiler farming developed (=linked to output indicator poultry curriculum developed ) VERIFIABLE INDICATORS MEANS OF VERIFICATION WHO IS Approved training materials Review and approval by partners Practical broiler farming guide for general use Sander, Medion 2016 Q3-2017Q2 WHEN REQUIRED Sub result 3.3 : Develop broiler farmer training of trainers modules and materials Output 9 Report on broiler farming service providers capacity development needs Approved report on need assessment of farms Review and approval by partners Sander 2015 Q3 tbd : Assess current capacity development needs among selected training broiler farming service providers (private and public) Output 10 Specific modules on animal focused management (AFM) materials for broiler farming developed : Develop broiler farmer training of trainers modules and materials Output 11 Report on need for improvements in curriculum of vocational training institutes Approved training program Training material includes a scoring lists for AFM parameters Approved report on assessment of curriculum of vocational training institutes Review and approval of training materials Review and approval by partners Sander 2015 Q Q4 Sander 2016 tbd Linked to subresult 3.1 : Assess current curriculum of vocational training institutes 21

22 4. Work Package 4: Dairy feed improvements 4.1 Theory of change 22

23 4.2 Monitoring NUMBER RESULTS VERIFIABLE INDICATORS Impact 1 Increase in dairy farm gross revenue : households income Annual income from milk (=similar to impact Increase in sales of farmers in dairy and broiler farm selected farmer groups households income as in MoC) (=linked to impact indicator Increased annual farm income over the year ) (=linked to impact indicator level of investment in farming system ) Outcome 1 Improved cow productivity (=similar to impact Increase in dairy and broiler farm households income as in MoC) (linked to outcome improved productivity of poultry and dairy production farming systems ) (=linked to outcome indicator >25% higher and more consistent level of milk production per cow ) net income: Gross margin (IDR) Milk minus Feed = Milk revenue total feed s (including feed s of non-producing animals) of farms in selected farmer groups Total net income: Net income from dairy farming on demo farms Average kg milk per cow per day on farms in selected farmer groups Average milk production per cow per day on selected demo farms (9*2 farms) MEANS OF VERIFICATION Data (amount of milk * milk price) from dairy coop on milk sales from farmers in selected farmer groups Data (feed s and income from milk sales) from dairy coop on feed purchases and milk sales Farm survey among selected farmers Data on all s and income from dairy farming captured in farm accounts kept by demo farmers Data (average amount of milk delivered/ no of cows in milk) from dairy coop Farm survey among selected farmers Data collected by means of milk production recording at farm level WHO IS WUR-LR/TNI: Data to be collected and processed by field officers WUR-LR/TNI: Data to be collected and processed by field officers WUR-LR/TNI: Third party implementing survey WUR-LR/TNI: Data to be collected and processed by field officer WUR-LR/TNI: Data to be collected and processed by field officer WUR-LR/TNI: Third party implementing farm survey WUR-LR/TNI: Data to be collected and processed by field officer WHEN Baseline: 2015 End-line: 2017 Baseline: 2015 End-line: 2017 Baseline: 2015 End-line: 2017 Baseline: 2015 End-line: 2017 REQUIRED Estimated base- and end-line plus evaluation : See impact 1 above Part of See impact 1 Monthly records Part of 23

24 NUMBER RESULTS VERIFIABLE INDICATORS Average reproduction status of cows on selected demo farms (9*2 farms) Outcome 2 Improved feeding practices adopted (=linked to outcome indicator improved feed rations adopted by >50% of dairy farmers at cooperatives or in farmers groups included in the programme ) (=linked to outcome indicator improved fodder supplies used by >50% of farmers at cooperatives or in farmers groups included in the programme ) (=linked to outcome indicator higher nutritional value of feed rations for dairy cattle ) Outcome 3 Economic viability of improved rations are proven (=related to outcome indicator economically viable supply chain arrangements in dairy and poultry sectors ) No of farmers who adopted improved feeding practices (including improved rations) in selected farmer groups Types of improved feeding practices (e.g. concentrate feed utilization; use of improved foragers, better crop residue utilization) adopted in selected farmer groups Number of farmers using the improved quality concentrate feeds in selected farmer groups Types (quality) of specific concentrates used on farms in selected farmer groups Types (quality) of rations fed to different categories of cows (on the demo farms (2*9)) Feed s (fodder/ concentrate) per kg milk Margin: Income from milkfeed s MEANS OF VERIFICATION Data to be collected from breeding records to be kept at farm level Farm survey Farm survey Farm survey Farm survey Recording and analysis of data of regular weighing and sampling of rations (quality assessment) Review of records of feed and milk production and financial accounts at demo farms WHO IS WUR LR/TNI: Data to be collected and processed by field officer WUR-LR/TNI: Third party implementing farm survey WUR-LR/TNI: Third party implementing farm survey WUR-LR/TNI: Third party implementing farm survey WUR-LR/TNI: Third party implementing farm survey WUR-LR/TNI: Data to be collected and processed by field officer WUR-LR/TNI: Data to be collected and processed by field officer WHEN to be processed annually Baseline: 2015 End-line: 2017 Baseline: 2015 End-line: 2017 Baseline: 2015 End-line: 2017 Baseline: 2015 End-line: 2017 monthly REQUIRED Part of See impact 1 See impact 1 See impact 1 See impact 1 Part of 2015, 2016, 2017 Part of 24

25 NUMBER RESULTS VERIFIABLE INDICATORS Outcome 4 Improved fodder supply and Quality of fodder produced fodder management and processed based on (=linked to output Increased scores on quality tests and high quality fodder production productivity data of new and supply ) forage species, quality of (=linked to output indicator crop residues, silage in pilots implemented; improved selected farmer groups fodder supply (including through new area forage production, improved cultivation& utilisation ) Cost fodders (new forages, silage) per kg (=linked to outcome indicator pilots implemented: improved fodder supply ) Outcome 5 Improved concentrate supply (=linked to outcome increased quality and availability of complete feed supplies for dairy farms ) Amount of fodder produced and fed at the demo farms # farms where fodder management takes pace: inputs and outputs in relation to fodder production on demo farms are monitored Quality test results of improved concentrate feed production (by different types) MEANS OF VERIFICATION Reports of testing results Cost analysis Analysis of production and feeding Recording of measurements at demo farms Reports of feed test results and production WHO IS WUR-LR/IPB Data to be collected and processed by IPB - FAS WUR-LR/ IPB (data to be collected and analysed) WUR-LR: Data to be collected and processed by field officers WUR-LR: Data to be collected and processed by field officers TNI in cooperation with coop and partners WHEN REQUIRED 2016, 2017 Part of 2016, 2017 Part of 2015, 2016, 2017 Part of 2015, 2016, 2017 Part of Part of (=linked to output indicator improved feed available, farm tested and evaluated Outcome 6 Economic viability of production of good quality concentrate (=linked to output indicator viable supply chain for good quality feed supply organised ) Amount of concentrate produced by cooperative (by types) Income from concentrate sales versus concentrate marketing and production s at coop level Analysis of production by cooperative Calculations of s and revenues WUR-LR/TNI: Data to be collected at coop TNI (data to be collected by field officer) 2015, 2016, 2017 Part of Part of 25

26 NUMBER RESULTS VERIFIABLE INDICATORS Outcome 7 Improved supply of ingredients Availability of raw for concentrate feed materials secured Outcome 8 Increased knowledge of extension workers and staff feed production regarding feeding dairy cattle and feed production linked to output improved information for supply chain partners and support organisations in the broiler and dairy sub-sectors ) Outcome 9 Increased knowledge of farmers regarding feeding dairy cattle and feed production (linked to output improved information for supply chain partners and support organisations in the broiler and dairy sub-sectors ) Quality test of raw materials Compare per feed nutrient unit: - IDR/gram Crude Protein (by DM) - IDR / K Cal ME Reported use of training insights among extension staff and feed plant staff Level of knowledge about basic feeding principles and feed formulation and production among extension staff and feed plant staff Level of knowledge with farmers on improved feeding practices increased MEANS OF VERIFICATION Contracts with suppliers Reports of testing results: proximate analysis, energy Ca, P, aflatoxin level WHO IS TNI TNI (in cooperation with field officer, Master Lab) Nutrition analysis TNI (data from Master lab and dairy coops) Survey among trainees Trainee selfassessment of knowledge by means questionnaire Self-assessment in the farm survey among farms in selected farmer groups WUR-LR/TNI: Third party implementing farm survey WUR-LR /TNI WUR-LR/TNI: Third party implementing farm survey WHEN REQUIRED 2015, 2016, 2017 Part of Part of 2015, 2016, 2017 Part of 2017 See impact /6 before and after training Part of 2015 and 2017 See impact 1 26

27 NUMBER RESULTS VERIFIABLE INDICATORS Output 1 Feasibility system for small A fodder production scale commercial fodder system initiated as pilot production and introduced by partners if economic feasibility is proven Output 2 Output 3 Output 4 Output 5 System for improved quality control of raw materials and end products of concentrate Feasibility studied for improvement of facilities concentrate feed production (=linked to output indicator better understanding of socioeconomic and financial drivers for current practices ) Better sourcing of crop-residues developed Fodder conservation introduced (silage making) A concentrate quality control system developed accepted and introduced by partners Feasibility study implemented Crop residue sourcing improved and applied A fodder conservation system accepted and introduced by partners Output 6 Training materials Modules and materials for capacity building of KUD extension workers and dairy farmers on improved dairy feeding practices and feed production for feed plant staff Output 7 Output 8 Staff feed production of dairy coop trained Training of field officer, feed advisor, local DINAS staff MEANS OF VERIFICATION Minutes of progress meetings with partners Minutes of progress meetings with partners Report Minutes of progress meetings with partners Minutes of progress meetings with partners Review and use of existing and newly developed materials Number of staff trained Attendance records by subject should be kept by the cooperative Number of field officer, feed advisor, local DINAS staff trained by subject Attendance records by subject WHO IS WHEN REQUIRED WUR-LR 2017 Part of TNI 2017 Part of TNI/Ottevanger/ LEI? 2016 Part of WUR-LR 2017 Part of WUR-LR 2017 Part of WUR-LR/TNI Part of TNI WUR-LR/TNI 2015 thru 2017 Part of 2015 thru 2017 Part of 27

28 NUMBER RESULTS VERIFIABLE INDICATORS Output 9 Training of demo farmers Number of demo farmers trained by subject Output 10 Farmers of selected farmer groups trained Output 11 Farmers of other farmer groups of Dairy coop trained Output 12 Seminar to disseminate results feed pilots to other dairy coops and stakeholders (=linked to output indicator better understanding of socioeconomic and financial drivers for current practices ) Output 13 Meetings Dairy Cattle Feed Round Table Group to exchange and coordinate with other feed related s (=linked to output indicator better understanding of socioeconomic and financial drivers for current practices ) Number of farmers trained by subject Number of farmers trained by subject No of seminars No and types of attendees No of meetings No and types of attendees MEANS OF VERIFICATION WHO IS WHEN REQUIRED Attendance records WUR-LR 2015 thru 2017 Part of by subject Attendance records WUR-LR 2015 thru 2017 Part of by subject Attendance records WUR-LR 2015 thru 2017 Part of by subject Attendance records WUR-LR 2017 Part of Attendance records WUR-LR 2016 Part of 28

29 Monitoring and Evaluation The results table above provide an overview of how results will be monitored. In some cases this still needs to be accompanied by dedicated budgets. Each WP is responsible for monitoring its own results. The reason for this is that we regard monitoring of results as part of the work package management responsibilities. The main purpose of monitoring is to steer the process and to inform all partners on performance. The manager keeps oversight on this and supports where necessary. The main purpose of evaluation is to adjust and improve the s strategy. It also aims to stimulate learning by sharing insights within and outside the partnership. For this purpose the will undertake an internal Midterm review. This review will be coordinated by the M&E team. A peer review mechanism will be used to review each other s strategies and performance. This will be done in a one day workshop and 1 day preparation by each key team member second half of It involves reviewing the logic explained in the Theory of Change (see the previous sections) and adapting the theory and / or the of the. During the review stakeholders will reflect on the following questions: i. What are the main successes in relation to the issue being monitored during the last half year? Why? ii. What are the main challenges in relation to the issue being monitored during the last half year? Why? iii. What should be done differently in the future by i) you as a stakeholder; and ii) the as a whole? Why? And what has priority? iv. What advice would you give to someone else trying to do the same things in another area from the lessons you have learnt? As part of the end-evaluation of the, the peer review will be repeated at the end of the, mid In addition, the EKN might hire an external evaluator to conduct an end-of evaluation. Each review will result in a user-friendly report that may also be shared outside the partnership. The M&E team will be responsible for managing the review and the review report. Communication and reporting Internal communication within the team The team communicates internally per , telephone, face-to-face meetings and progress meetings every few months to update each other on new developments. To share final documents a google drive folder is used. The manager is responsible for ensuring M&E information is properly shared internally. External communication to other stakeholders / the outside world. The M&E information collected by the different stakeholders can only be used for the intended purposes if it is appropriately reported, shared, or communicated to the stakeholders of the Dairy and Poultry. The M&E findings of the could be communicated to all or certain stakeholder groups for accountability, decision-making as well as knowledge sharing and learning purposes. The manager is responsible for coordinating sharing of M&E information externally. 29

30 Reporting In order to ensure that reporting requirements are fulfilled; it is important to try and avoid overburdening the different individuals and organizations that will be involved. Subsequently, considerable effort should be made to align the reporting requirements with existing requirements. Furthermore, reporting on the should be kept to a minimum and focus only on the very essential information relating to a particular time period. In line with the overall purpose and principles of the M&E system; reporting should not be one-way. The manager is responsible for ensuring M&E information is properly reported. Other Communication Mechanisms Reporting is only one form in which information and knowledge can be communicated. It is highly beneficial to also use other forms of communication for different audiences. For example; posters, brochures, videos, radio, social media and events all of which can have much more impact than reports. It is recommended that the dairy and the poultry components each discuss internally how to organise this and to organise a seminar at the end of the to share main lessons learnt in a broader setting. 30