Project Mesha: transforming the lives of rural women through

productivity improvements

Bidisha Barooah
International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)

Ritwik Sarkar
3ie

Priyanka Dubey
3ie

Avantika Bagai
3ie

Formative evaluation report

Accepted by 3ie: May 2020

Note to readers
This formative research report has been submitted in fulfilment of the National Rural
Livelihood Mission Professional and Advisory Service, and the grant title is Consolidation
of Evidence, Learning and Measurement Capacity for the National Rural Livelihood
Programme in India. The content has been copy-edited and formatted for publication by
3ie.

All content is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not represent the opinions of
3ie, its donors or its board of commissioners. Any errors and omissions are the sole
responsibility of the authors. All affiliations of the authors listed on the title page are
those that were in effect at the time the report was submitted. Please direct all comments
or queries to Bidisha Barooah at: bbarooah@[Link].

3ie receives funding for the National Rural Livelihood Mission from the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation. A complete listing of all of 3ie’s donors is available on the 3ie website.

Suggested citation: Barooah, B, Sarkar, R, Dubey, P and Bagai, A, 2020. Project Mesha:
transforming the lives of women through productivity improvements, 3ie Formative
evaluation report. New Delhi: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). Available
at: [Link]

© International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), 2020

ii
Contents
List of tables................................................................................................................. iv
Abbreviations and acronyms ....................................................................................... v
Glossary ....................................................................................................................... vi
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 About the programme ........................................................................................... 1
2. Objectives of the formative study ............................................................................ 3
2.1 Key questions ....................................................................................................... 3
3. Project Mesha and its theory of change .................................................................. 4
3.1 Theory of change .................................................................................................. 5
4. Evaluation: Design, methods and implementation ................................................. 6
4.1 Data collection for formative evaluation ................................................................. 6
4.2 Sampling ............................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Stakeholder mapping ............................................................................................ 7
5. Results of key evaluation questions ....................................................................... 8
5.1 Demographic profile of respondents...................................................................... 8
5.2 Significance of goats ............................................................................................. 9
5.3 Prevalent practices.............................................................................................. 10
5.4 Diseases and mortality ........................................................................................ 12
5.5 Accessibility of markets and services .................................................................. 14
5.6 Empowerment of goat farmers ............................................................................ 16
5.7 Self-help group function ...................................................................................... 17
6. Discussion of findings............................................................................................ 18
6.1 Validation of assumptions of theory of change .................................................... 19
6.2 Main recommendations ....................................................................................... 20
Appendix A.................................................................................................................. 22

iii
List of tables
Table 1: Demographic characteristics.............................................................................. 7
Table 2: List of key stakeholders ..................................................................................... 8
Table 3: Summary statistics of household sample of goat farmers .................................. 9
Table 4: Persons consulted during instances that led to death (total deaths = 50)......... 12
Table 5: Reported causes of death (total deaths = 50) .................................................. 13
Table 6: Summary statistics of purchase and sale of goats in the past two years .......... 15
Table 7: Distribution by age at which goats were purchased or sold.............................. 15
Table 8: Reasons for selling goats ................................................................................ 15

iv
Abbreviations and acronyms
BAHO Block Animal Husbandry Officer

FMD Foot and mouth disease

HH Household

SHG Self-help group

TVO Touring veterinary officer

v
Glossary
BAHO: A block animal husbandry officer (BAHO) oversees the implementation of
schemes and subsidies introduced by the Department of Animal Husbandry at block
level. A block is a local administrative unit.

Bihar Rural Livelihoods Promotion Society/JEEViKA: India’s Ministry of Rural

Development has restructured the Central Scheme Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar
Yojana into the National Rural Livelihoods Mission. As a first step in implementing the
Mission at state level, the Bihar government has designated the Bihar Rural Livelihoods
Promotion Society (locally known as JEEViKA) as the State Rural Livelihoods Mission.

The objective of the Bihar Rural Livelihoods Promotion Society is to enhance the social
and economic empowerment of the rural poor in Bihar through the institutional platform
of self-help groups, which were established under Swarnajayanti Gram Swarozgar
Yojana and have now been absorbed into the National Rural Livelihood Mission.1

Chiks: Chiks are goat traders or middlemen who purchase goats from farmers and sell
them to independent butchers or large meat markets. In some areas of rural Bihar, chiks
also act as butchers, slaughtering animals and selling the meat.

District animal husbandry officer: This title refers to the head of the Department of
Animal Husbandry at district level. The officer guides and instructs the institution
throughout the district. Official responsibilities also include implementation of government
schemes in cooperation with high officials.

Posiya: Posiya is a traditional practice of goat farming that is prevalent in rural Bihar.
According to this practice, two goat farmers enter into a (verbal) agreement in which one
loans a female goat(s) to another. In return, the borrower must take comprehensive care
of the goat. If the goat gives birth to more than one kid during the duration of the
contract, the lender and the borrower split the ownership of the litter. If the goat gives
birth to a single male kid, the adult goat is sold in the market upon attaining maturity.

Profit from the sale is split equally between the borrower and lender. If the goat gives
birth to a single female kid, ownership of the litter born from this goat is split between the
borrower and lender, and the mother goat is returned to the owner. The practice also
specifies that if a goat dies while in the care of the borrower, they are liable to
compensate the original owner for the loss incurred. This agreement is largely beneficial
for both stakeholders. In most cases, the borrower is able to eventually own a herd
without investing substantial capital, and the lender benefits from reduced costs.

Peste des petits ruminants (also known as sheep and goat plague): This is an
acute, highly contagious and economically significant transboundary viral disease among
sheep and goats. Caused by the peste des petits ruminants virus, it is associated with
high morbidity and mortality. It is regarded as the most economically significant viral
disease of small ruminants, particularly goats, in areas where these animals are

1
Bihar Rural Livelihoods Promotion Society website. Available at:
[Link]

vi
intensively reared. The disease clinically manifests as fever, necrotic stomatitis,
gastroenteritis, pneumonia and sometimes death. Outbreaks have dramatic
consequences for animal owners due to high associated mortality rates.2

SHG: A self-help group is an informal association of 10–20 women belonging to the

same village and sharing a common socioeconomic background. They are primarily
affinity-based savings and credit groups. They provide microfinance services such as
savings, credit, bank linkages, insurance, remittances and equity. They also offer
collectivisation and group activities. SHGs offer social security and social action on
various fronts including health, nutrition, food, gender and convergence, either directly
or through their federations.3

TVO: A touring veterinary officer is responsible for the treatment of ailing animals such
as vaccination and castration in the designated catchment area. TVOs travel to villages
to provide these services.

2
Information on the disease was sourced from the following websites: available at:
<[Link]
of-peste-des-petits-ruminants?query=petits%20ruminants>[Accessed April 2020];
<[Link] [Accessed April 2020]
3
This definition was sourced from the Aajeevika FAQ page ([Link] as
well as the website of NGO Pradan, the official NGO partner for JEEViKA in Bihar
([Link]

vii
1. Introduction
The importance of goats and other small ruminants to rural economies, and their
potential for income generation, risk mitigation and financial resilience have been well
recognised among livelihoods experts and practitioners. Goat farming requires fewer
materials and financial resources than raising large animals such as cattle and buffalo.
Thus, this can be a low-cost livelihood support model for the poorer sections of society
comprising the landless, women, small and medium farmers (South Asia Pro-Poor
Livestock Policy Program, FAO 2010).

In India, goats account for over one quarter of all livestock and provide livelihoods for an
estimated 33 million households, the majority being landless or marginal landholders
and/or farmers. A national representative survey of land and livestock holdings in India
found that landless farmers, or those with less than one hectare of land, comprise nearly
70 per cent of goat farmers (Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers
Welfare, 2016).4 Goats are primarily raised for meat and milk – markets that are growing
both nationally and internationally.

Despite the potential benefits from goat farming, the number of goats in India declined
between 2007 and 2012, unlike large ruminants.5 High mortality and morbidity among
goats indicates the low priority and limited investment these animals receive. 6

1.1 About the programme

Against this background, the Aga Khan Foundation – in collaboration with the Bihar
Rural Livelihood Mission (JEEViKA) and with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation – proposes to implement Project Mesha, a women’s empowerment project,
in four blocks of the Muzaffarpur district of Bihar. The study was implemented in 2016.

Mesha means ‘goat’ or ‘sheep’ in Sanskrit, and the programme’s stated objective is ‘to
transform and improve the quality of life of landless and marginal farming households in
Bihar, India, through improvements in small ruminant production’. Women who formed
self-help groups (SHGs) under the Bihar government’s JEEViKA programme will form
goat producer groups as part of Project Mesha.

The programme envisages the SHG platform as a nucleus for imparting new knowledge
and skills in goat rearing, as well as empowering women. In order to increase awareness
and provide chargeable goat-related services on the ground, the project proposes to
develop and train a cadre of women paraveterinarians (paravets) across villages. It is
hoped that this will ensure financial stability of the interventions from day one.

4
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, 2016. All India Report on Input Survey 2011-12,
Government of India. Available at:
<[Link] [Accessed 24th
April 2020]
5
The number of milch animals (in-milk and dry) among cows and buffaloes increased from 111.09
million to 118.59 million, an increase of 6.75 per cent between the 18th (2007) and 19th (2012)
editions of the Livestock Census. On the other hand, the goat population declined by 3.82 per cent.
6
The average mortality rate of adult goats is around 40 per cent and among kids it is 50 per cent
(Project Mesha documents). This was confirmed by interviews with experts from the Pusa Institute,
Bihar Veterinary College and the BAIF Development Research Foundation.

1
Pashu sakhis (small ruminant healthcare providers) will be selected from the SHGs on
the basis of their potential and interest in the work. The training will cover productivity
enhancement activities such as better feeds, vaccinations, deworming, improved
castration methods, formal marketing channels and hygienic shelters. Engagement in
SHG activities will provide a foundation upon which the women could build goat rearing
work. Decreased animal mortality and morbidity, improved goat health and subsequently
higher incomes are the main mechanisms through which the stated project objectives will
be achieved.

Similar community-based programmes for the improvement of goat farming practices

are currently being implemented in other Indian states. There is also some indication
that such approaches are successful in increasing productivity, incomes and resilience
among poorer households. For example, a community-based service programme for
small ruminants in Rajasthan’s Udaipur district found that adoption of improved health,
feeding and breed management among goat keepers led to better sales (ImGoats
2013).7

The Aga Khan Rural Support Programme in India previously implemented a similar
project in Jhirniya block, Khargone, Madhya Pradesh. The project found that increased
outreach of vaccination services, selection and promotion of community animal health
workers, and enhancement of their capacity led to a significant reduction in mortality
and an increase in the goat population.8

The feasibility of project implementation and its subsequent impacts are determined by
a number of context-specific enabling factors and challenges. The objective of this
formative study is to understand and assess the context in which Project Mesha would
be implemented, and to inform the project’s implementation, monitoring and evaluation
systems.

This formative study was implemented in selected villages of the Muzaffarpur district of
Bihar, one of the poorest states of India. The majority of Bihar’s population is rural
(89%, higher than the national average of 72%) and approximately 34% of rural Bihar’s
population lives below the poverty line. The state is characterised not only by its
poverty, but also low literacy rates: 63.82%, as opposed to the national average of
74.04%, and female literacy is even lower at 53.7%. 9

However, Bihar is one of the few Indian states whose goat population has gradually
increased. It reported the third-largest number of goats in the country (12.15 million) in
2012, an increase of over 19 per cent from 2007, and one of the highest goat population
densities in the country (Livestock Census 2012). The predominant breed of goat in Bihar
is the Black Bengal, considered to be one of the world’s finest for meat and leather.10

7
Available at: [Link]
india/ [Accessed 11 April 2016].
8
De A, 2016. Strengthening goat-based livelihoods in Jhirniya block, Khargone district, Madhya
Pradesh, End Term Evaluation Report.
9
All statistics are from the 2011 Census of India.
10
This information was gained through interviews with experts from the Pusa Institute, Bihar
Veterinary College, the International Livestock Research Institute and the BAIF Development
Research Foundation.

2
2. Objectives of the formative study
There are three main objectives of this formative study:
1. To gain a contextual understanding of goat rearing and management practices, as
well as the associated demand- and supply-side constraints, in Muzaffarpur district
in Bihar. This will subsequently inform the implementation of Project Mesha;
2. To validate the proposed theory of change for Project Mesha; and
3. To inform the output and outcome indicators that could be tracked at baseline,
as well as in midline and endline impact evaluations.

2.1 Key questions

2.1.1 Objective 1: Gaining contextual knowledge

Specifically, the formative study will endeavour to address the following questions to
inform this objective:
• What goat farming practices are followed in this area?
• What is the contribution of goats to overall household income?
• Who are the key stakeholders and decision makers in goat rearing and
management in Muzaffarpur?
• What are the market linkages for the sale and purchase of goats?
• What is the existing healthcare system in this area?

2.1.2 Objective 2: Validation of the theory of change

While answering the key questions related to contextual understanding, we will additionally
verify some key assumptions underlying the proposed theory of change for Project Mesha.
We identified the following as key assumptions that could impact the project:
• That the SHGs are present and functioning in the project area;
• That there is demand for preventive healthcare, management practices and
related services among goat farmers;
• That it is feasible to develop a cadre of community health service providers and
producer groups from goat farmers in the area; and
• That women have agency to make economic decisions regarding goats.

This study administered a household-level questionnaire designed to gather data on

goat mortality, morbidity, purchase and sale. It conducted focus group discussions with
SHG members to understand the working of these groups, as well as qualitative key
stakeholder interviews.

2.1.3 Objective 3: Informing output and outcome indicators

Household-level questionnaires and qualitative interviews were piloted during this period
to assess the feasibility of data collection and inform the indicators to be collected, as
well as their frequency and aggregation.

The report is structured as follows: Section 3 describes Project Mesha and its objectives
in detail, along with its proposed theory of change. Section 4 describes the evaluation
methods used in the formative study. Section 5 discusses key findings of the evaluation
questions, and Section 6 concludes the report by summarising implementation
challenges, our validation of the assumptions underlying the proposed theory of change,
and proposed recommendations.

3
3. Project Mesha and its theory of change
The Aga Khan Foundation’s Project Mesha was conceptualised with the goal of
‘transforming the lives of women SHG members through productivity improvements in
small ruminants’. The project seeks to transform and improve the quality of life of landless
and marginal farming households in Bihar, India, by: improving small ruminant
production; increasing and strengthening the role of women in the small ruminant value
chain; and demonstrating an implementation model that can be expanded at significant
scale through public investment.

The Bihar Rural Livelihoods Promotion Society (also known as JEEViKA) is operating at
a significant scale, having established 186,000 SHGs with 2.3 million women members
and with plans to reach 15 million women by 2022. In view of the important role of women
in goat rearing and the significance of the practice for the poor in Bihar, Project Mesha
aims to use the institutional platform of female SHGs to strengthen and improve goat
rearing as a viable income earning opportunity. The project targets resource-poor
households within four blocks of Muzaffarpur district, demonstrating a model that
JEEViKA could potentially upscale to other districts.

In order to benefit 50,000 women SHG members, the project will initially develop a cadre
of 250 female small ruminant health workers – each pashu sakhi would therefore
potentially reach 200–300 households (800–1,000 goats). It is expected that this
coverage would ensure the viability of pashu sakhis through income earned from regular
vaccination against major diseases, deworming and other preventive health services.

Project Mesha will also seek to diversify the services of pashu sakhis and build their
capacity to provide these services. To enable them to establish themselves as small
ruminant preventive health service providers and gain acceptability and recognition
among goat farmers in the area, the project will provide an output-based monetary
incentive for the first two years.

The establishment of a cadre of cluster paravets has been proposed as the key link
between pashu sakhis and the vaccine and dewormer supply chain, with 1 cluster
supporting 10 pashu sakhis. The cluster paravets will be primarily responsible for
facilitating bulk sourcing of vaccines and dewormers and making these available to
pashu sakhis based on schedules developed by the pashu sakhis in consultation with
SHG members. In order to facilitate and contribute to the sustainability of the cluster
paravet cadre, Project Mesha will similarly provide an output-based incentive to the
clusters for the first two years.

Key project activities will include developing the entrepreneurial skills of pashu sakhis
and cluster paravets, diversifying the ‘service basket’, and undertaking a sustained
community information campaign regarding the benefits of preventive vaccination and
deworming. Investing in strengthening women’s SHGs will facilitate collective action for
women’s rights, entitlements and economic empowerment. The project will also develop
SHG-based community insurance models for goat rearing wherein SHG members
collectively decide a premium amount for goat mortality. This will then be contributed
voluntarily to a group insurance fund to be paid out to members in case of goat mortality
or predation.

4
The project will form technical partnerships to provide ongoing support for development
and administration of the training module for pashu sakhis and cluster paravets. This will
include training of Project Mesha staff to administer the curriculum to ensure sustainability,
supporting development of the supply chain for vaccines and dewormers (including
facilitation of linkages with private sector suppliers), and supporting diversification of the
service portfolio for pashu sakhis and cluster paravets.

3.1 Theory of change

The ex-ante theory of change for Project Mesha was created by the Agriculture Learning
and Impacts Network. It demonstrates the implementation of a sustainable model for the
delivery of preventive health services and livestock extension at significant scale
(benefiting 50,000 SHG members in four blocks) in order to reduce high levels of
mortality and enable goat rearing to develop as a viable income earning opportunity for
women SHG members.

Project Mesha will use the collective SHG forum to build the community knowledge base
on goat rearing, improve husbandry practices, and enable women goat farmers to
advance further up the small ruminant value chain from their current limited role in the
production and rearing. In parallel, project interventions will prioritise training and
capacity building of women SHG members on their rights and entitlements. This is
meant to increase women’s social empowerment and contribute to their enhanced role
at both household and community levels.

The viability of the above practices will be determined by the project’s success along the
following three major outcomes:

Increased income
The first key outcome is an increase in incomes from small ruminant rearing. To attain
this, the project uses a comprehensive integrated approach that prioritises reduction in
goat mortality and a simultaneous focus on improving the knowledge base and practice
around the management of goat flocks.

National studies indicate a large unmet demand and supply gap for goat meat, which is
presently the most expensive meat available, retailing at 50–150% higher than chicken
meat. The predominant breed in the area is the Black Bengal (and its variants), one of
India’s finest meat breeds. Additionally, the Black Bengal is known for its prized leather
value and high kidding rate. Twinning is a common trait, with triplets and quadruplets
also reported.

Investments in reducing mortality, improving production, and facilitating access to

markets for female goat farmers can potentially increase incomes and lead to the
development of a recognised goat-rearing cluster that contributes healthy, disease-free
goats to the market.

Women’s empowerment
The second key outcome is the increased empowerment of women, which is perceived
as the critical link that translates income gains from increased production to a greater
role for women in goat rearing and improved well-being and status within the household
and community. Increased access and control over incomes from goat rearing is

5
expected to translate into improved nutrition and health outcomes for women. This is a
key hypothesis that Project Mesha will assess.

Working through and further building the collective strength of SHGs, and linking these
institutions to higher federations such as producer companies for goat marketing, is
expected to further improve the status and recognition of women at household and
society levels. Towards achieving this outcome, the project will focus interventions on
training and capacity building of women SHG members with regard to improved
management of goat flocks, increased access to and control over productive resources,
community insurance for goats and an increased role in decisions related to income from
goat sales.

In partnership with non-profit Anandi, Project Mesha will prioritise the development of a
training curriculum for women’s empowerment, leadership and decision-making both
within the household and community, and an increased role in the small ruminant value
chain. Project Mesha will focus on building a shared goal among SHG members: to
strengthen and increase incomes from goat rearing, and take collective decisions to
improve goat productivity.

Adoption of approaches by the State Rural Livelihoods Mission

The final key outcome is the adoption of programme approaches by the State Rural
Livelihoods Mission, thereby potentially reaching one million women. The project will
converge and work within existing women’s SHGs to demonstrate approaches that can
be replicated at scale through the Mission.

Integrating small ruminant productivity improvement interventions into JEEViKA SHG

platforms is the best approach to test whether National Rural Livelihoods Mission SHGs
can be used for agricultural interventions. Simultaneously, Project Mesha will work
closely with the state Department of Animal Husbandry, leveraging existing schemes of
the department for small ruminant farmers. Replication and upscaling of project
approaches will, therefore, follow two strategic pathways: through the institutional
platform of women’s SHGs under JEEViKA; and through schemes, programmes and
technical collaboration with the Department of Animal Husbandry.

4. Evaluation: Design, methods and implementation

4.1 Data collection for formative evaluation

The key questions proposed for this formative evaluation were examined using a mix of
quantitative and qualitative methods exploring both demand- and supply-side constraints
and opportunities. On the demand side, household-level quantitative surveys were
conducted among goat farmers. Additionally, since Project Mesha proposes to use
women’s SHGs as an institutional platform for the programme, focus group discussions
were organised with SHG members who were also goat farmers. On the supply side,
key informant interviews were conducted with block- and district-level veterinary officials,
chemists, private veterinarians and untrained animal health service providers.

6
 4.2 Sampling

Project Mesha will be implemented in four blocks of Muzaffarpur district: Bochaha,

Moraul, Musahri and Sakra. For this study, two villages were randomly selected from
each block using the Primary Census Abstract of 2011 as the sampling frame. The
demographic characteristics of these villages are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic characteristics

District Villages HHs Population SCs Male Female Cultivator Agricultural

literacy literacy HHs labourers
Bhagwanpur 1,346 6,147 1,068 (17%) 1,520 1,022 138 (10.25%) 703 (11.43%)
Bochaha Parati 615 3,338 188 (5.6%) 919 614 2 (0.32%) 4 (0.11%)
Mirapur 2,072 10,778 1,685 (15%) 3,521 2,488 477 (23%) 1,246 (11.56%)
Moraul Nigopur 669 3,067 1210 (39%) 1,056 723 200 (29.89%) 616 (20%)
Rohua Apuch 1,163 5,738 451 (7.8%) 1,711 1,171 138 (11.8%) 549 (9.56%)
Musahri Bhotaulia 144 673 283 (42%) 169 118 0 (0%) 55 (8.17)
Narsinghpur 387 1,901 204 (10.7%) 587 377 70 (18%) 164 (8.62%)
Sakra Khanpur Pearey 216 936 351 (37.5%) 291 189 6 (2.7%) 2 (0.21%)
Note: HH = household; SC = scheduled caste.

For the household survey, 4 goat-rearing households were selected from each village;
the study surveyed a total of 8 villages and 32 households in the sample frame.
Purposive sampling was adopted to select households in which members were available
and agreed to be interviewed. The survey was targeted at the household member
involved in the day-to-day activities of rearing goats.

There were two components of the household survey. The first was a quantitative
section that collected information on current herd size, mortality and morbidity, costs of
goat rearing and socioeconomic characteristics of the household. The second
component comprised detailed interviews on management practices, household division
of labour and decision-making related to rearing goats.

4.3 Stakeholder mapping

While piloting the study tools, a stakeholder mapping exercise was conducted with staff
of the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme in India to understand perspectives on goat
rearing among all stakeholders along its value chain. We identified the following as key
stakeholders in the value chain of goat rearing: goat farmers, middlemen who link
households to the goat meat market, health service providers (formal and informal) and
meat sellers or butchers.

Table 2 shows the list of key stakeholders interviewed in each block. However, their
importance, availability and accessibility varied across villages and blocks. For example,
goat farmers from Musahri could easily access the block animal husbandry officer
(BAHO). On the other hand, farmers in other villages mostly depended on chemists and
vets.

7
Table 2: List of key stakeholders

Stakeholders Bochaha Moraul Musahri Sakra Total

Block animal husbandry officer 1 1 1 1 4
Butcher 1 1 1 1 4
Drugstore keeper 1 1 1 1 4
Community buck service provider 1 1 - - 2
Community mobiliser - - - 1 1
District animal husbandry officer 1
Expert 2
FGD with SHG members 2 2 2 2 8
Homeopathic doctor - - 1 3 4
Households interviewed 8 8 8 8 32
Private vet 1 1
Untrained service provider - - - 1 1
Touring veterinary officer - 1 - - 1
Village organisation leader 1 - - - 1
Total 66
Note: FGD = focus group discussion

5. Results of key evaluation questions

5.1 Demographic profile of respondents

Our quantitative analysis is based on the following household sample. In a total sample
of 32 households, 7 were Muslim, 13 were from scheduled castes and 12 were from
other backward castes.11 Thirteen households (40%) were fairly new to the trade and
had adopted goat farming in the past three years. This could suggest that the value of
goat farming is slowly being recognised.

Interesting patterns of gendered division of labour were observed. Goats are primarily
reared by women, who are involved in the daily management and upkeep of goats in 31
of the 32 sampled households. Yet, only 30 per cent of those respondents identified
themselves as one of the principal earning members of the household, suggesting that
income from goats is perceived to be a secondary source of household income.

The descriptive statistics of our household sample are summarised in Table 3. On

average, small and marginal landholders with an average holding of 0.2 acres farm
goats. These goat keepers are likely to be older women (with an average age of 41
years) with low levels of education. The poor economic status of these households is
reflected in the finding that 45 per cent of principal earning members from the sample
were working as daily wage labourers. In our sampled villages, JEEViKA has not yet
attained saturation levels, which is confirmed by the finding that 37 per cent of
respondents were not members of SHGs.

11
Anecdotal evidence suggests that Muslim households are more likely to have larger herds.
Given the purposive nature of our sampling, this is an underestimate.

8
Most households do not farm goats at scale and the quality of the herd is poor. The
average goat herd in the sampled household comprises approximately five goats. On
average, respondents reported that around 13 per cent of their herd was sick or
unhealthy. None of the respondents reported having administered any vaccine to their
goats. Although far from universal, deworming practices were more common, and about
two goats per herd were likely to have been dewormed.

Table 3: Summary statistics of household sample of goat farmers

Mean SD
Age of primary carer of goat (in years) 41.46 11.86
Highest level of education completed (in years) 1.69 3.20
SHG member (1 = yes, 0 = no) 0.63 0.49
Household size 6.16 3.14
Land owned (in kathas) 2.48 4.15
Herd size 4.72 2.07
Number of kids 2.31 1.45
Number of posiya 0.56 1.05
Number of goats vaccinated this year 0.00 0.00
Number of goats dewormed this year 1.94 2.38
Number of goats currently sick or unhealthy 0.63 0.83
Note: SD = standard deviation.

5.2 Significance of goats

Our qualitative interviews highlighted the significant role goats play in the economic lives
of their owners. The majority of respondents reported that they rear goats to supplement
household income; goats were seldom reported as the principal income source. Yet their
importance cannot be underestimated – goats are viewed as a quick and easy source of
income requiring low investment:

Goat rearing is beneficial for us. If we work hard and invest our time, we will get
profit. We sell goats twice a year. –– Respondent from Musahri block, Rohua
Apuchh village, who owns six goats.

With most respondents dependent on small-scale farming and working for daily wages,
they are often constrained for liquidity. However, selling goats provides easy access to
cash in times of need. This point was emphasised particularly by women whose husbands
live away from home for work. The income from goats is used to pay for their children’s
education, weddings and festivals, health emergencies and daily household needs. Thus,
goat farming contributes to increasing the financial resilience of poor households:

It’s their ATM. –– Aga Khan Rural Support Programme field staff.

When I need money, I will sell them. — Respondent from Moraul block, village
Mirapur, who owns four goats and whose husband works in a marble factory in town.

If there is any emergency health-wise or any other emergency, I will sell them.
— Respondent from Bochaha block, Bhagwanpur village, with five goats.

9
Why are goats more often farmed by women than men? One possible answer is that
they are easy to manage. Respondents in female-headed households mentioned that
small ruminants, such as goats, are easier to maintain than large animals, such as cows
and buffaloes, which need more and sustained resources. Several women reported that
goat farming provides them with an opportunity to engage in a meaningful activity to
earn income instead of being idle at home. The death of a goat due to disease leads to
loss of livelihood and depletion of family income. Some households also said that some
goats would not be sold as they were being raised for religious sacrifices.

5.3 Prevalent practices

We now examine the prevalent practices involved in goat farming in our study area,
based on interviews with households and key stakeholders.

5.3.1 Feeding
Most respondents follow a mix of extensive and intensive feeding practices. They graze
their adult goats (i.e. four months and older) on common pastureland or in uncultivated
or fallow fields twice a day for a few hours. After grazing, the goats are brought back to
the house and given a feed mix consisting of ground maize, wheat and husk, along with
some water. Some respondents reported feeding goats raw grains or leftovers from the
food cooked for the family. This feeding practice may be far from ideal and, indeed,
dangerous. Almost all vets we interviewed said that feeding goats raw grain or stale food
causes bloating, which may prove to be fatal.

Some respondents further stated that if they are unable to take their herd out to graze on
some days (particularly in the monsoon months from June to September), they feed
them green fodder such as leaves and grass. But respondents also raised the concern
that, with shrinking pastureland, the availability of green fodder is decreasing, and these
traditional feeding practices are being challenged.

Respondents also raised concerns about feeding kids. Black Bengals are a highly prolific
breed, but their milk-producing capacity is the lowest among small ruminants. Most
respondents claim to depend on other sources of milk, such as cow milk, to feed the
kids. This comes as an additional out of pocket expense for households that do not have
other milch animals.

5.3.2 Housing
According to small ruminant experts, BAHOs, touring veterinary officers (TVOs) and
chemists, goats are best suited to medium and consistent temperatures, and should not
be exposed to weather extremes. Goats are at high risk of disease when exposed to
seasonal change, and their highest mortality rate is recorded during the monsoon
season and in winter. This makes appropriate shelter a critical element for the
maintenance of goats.

However, we found that almost 50 per cent of respondents did not have a separate
shelter for their goats, who were instead kept in a corner of their home. Among those
who kept their goats in a separate shelter, most used kutcha (mud brick), or semi-pucca
(semi-permanent) structures with a mud floor. Most of these shelters retained animal
droppings and water, and were generally in filthy and poor condition. This contrasted
with the separate shelters provided for other large ruminants.

10
Other households without a separate shelter for their herd kept them outside during
summer and brought them into the house at night. During winters, tirpal (tarpaulin) are
used to create makeshift shelters, and sacks are wrapped around the animals to keep
them warm. It is possible that households do not invest in permanent separate shelters
because of the costs involved in their maintenance. Kutcha shelters are unable to
withstand the rain and must be refurbished every year. This is costly for households, and
some respondents reported spending around INR2,000 (approximately USD26) 12 to
maintain shelters for their goats.

5.3.3 Breeding
As with feeding and housing practices, we found that breeding practices in our villages
were mostly undertaken incorrectly. Goats typically conceive their first kid by the time
they are six months of age, although from our interviews with experts, this should be 8–9
months. The gap between pregnancies is usually 2–4 months, although some
respondents have reported this to be as low as 20 days.

Buck services are easily available at the village level; the cost varies across villages,
ranging from INR50–100 for a local breed to INR100–200 for other breeds, which are
known as bakkar. Artificial insemination services initiated by the government are
available for large ruminants but absent for small ruminants in the district.

Castration of bucks happens from 1–2 months of age. Charges vary from INR50 to
INR100 per castration, depending on the service provider, and include a tetanus
injection.

5.3.4 Health management practices

The majority of respondents adopt curative rather than preventive health practices for
goats. Home remedies are usually the first option and are quite common for symptoms
such as bloating and diarrhoea. Chemists and vets have raised concerns that medical
advice is sought only when a sick goat exhibits serious symptoms and distress. Often
this is done too late and the animal does not recover from an otherwise curable disease.

Perhaps the only exceptions to this practice are deworming and the administration of
deworming pills without consultation, which are common practices among respondents:

If goats have diarrhoea, they treat it with deworming medicines. –– Respondent

from Sakra who had four goats and had given goats as posiya. Her primary
source of income has been goat rearing since her husband died.

Pharmacists from the Musahri and Sakra blocks mentioned that more than 80 per cent
of goat farmers from different villages come to purchase deworming pills regularly.
However, the farmers are not aware of the exact deworming cycle, and pills are often
administered when goats fall ill instead of following the cycle. The practice of giving
goats liver tonics and a few other medicines was found to be common, as this is
believed to increase meat content by increasing the animals’ weight. The chemists,
however, do not believe these tonics do much.

12
Conversion valid as of 19 April 2020: INR76.50 = USD1.

11
5.3.5 Knowledge and awareness
From our discussion on prevalent practices, we conclude that there was limited
knowledge of best practices, potential diseases and medicines among goat farmers. For
instance, none of the respondents in our household survey were aware of vaccination.
Instead, we came across a few goat farmers who were prejudiced against vaccines and
believed that goats died because of the vaccines. Of course, it is hard to assess if the
lack of awareness is because of lack of information or non-availability of vaccines.

Another example of lacking awareness is the misplaced view on colostrum. Colostrum

feeding increases the chances of kid survival by boosting the immune system. This
practice is quite common for cows, yet colostrum feeding was absent among goat
farmers. Most of the goat farmers reported extracting the colostrum and throwing it away.

Chemists and vets corroborated this lack of awareness. A chemist from Musahri block
mentioned that villagers continue to follow traditional home remedies instead of medical
treatments from trained service providers. There have been no attempts, by either the
private or public sector, to educate and inform farmers of new methods of goat farming:

Community people react out of hearsay and not on the basis of their intelligence.
They believe more in superstition and magical powers. — Chemist from
Musahri.

Similar thoughts were seconded by chemists and other stakeholders in other blocks.

5.4 Diseases and mortality

High goat mortality was reported in our sample. Of the total households sampled, 11
reported no deaths in the past two years, while the remaining 21 reported an average of
2.43 goat deaths per household in the same time period. For an average herd size of
five goats, this translates to 24 per cent mortality per household in the past two years.

Our estimate of average goat mortality is lower than Project Mesha estimates.
However, this must be interpreted with caution as households’ recall for periods beyond
a year was poor, indicating that the number of deaths measured is likely to be an
underestimate.

In total, 21 households reported 50 deaths in 2 years. For each of the 50 deaths, Table 4
shows responses to the question of who was consulted when these animals fell ill. For
38 deaths, no one was consulted and respondents reported that the goats died suddenly
before they could take any action. In eight cases, a chemist or a trained vet was
consulted.

Table 4: Persons consulted during instances that led to death (total deaths = 50)

Person consulted before death Number of deaths

No one 38
Drugstore keeper 4
Vet 4
Homeopath 1
Local informal vet 3

12
Most respondents reported diseases and general poor health to be the main causes of
death among goats (Table 5). The majority of service providers mentioned that the
common diseases prevalent in Muzaffarpur area are pneumonia and worm infestation,
and most goat deaths can be attributed to these.

Peste des petits ruminants (sheep and goat plague) is prevalent, but its prevalence rate
is being estimated through symptoms alone. The initial symptoms are diarrhoea,
coughing, lesions in the mouth area and watering of nose and eyes. For 8 of the 16
cases where the cause of death was reported to be due to disease, respondents listed
diarrhoea, frothing and fever as symptoms. Of course, government officials could not
confirm this, as peste des petits ruminants can only be diagnosed through lab tests.

As Muzaffarpur is a low-lying region with frequent waterlogging, liver flu is another

prevalent disease affecting goats in the area. There have also been cases of foot and
mouth disease, rabies, blue tongue, tetanus and ticks. According to the district animal
husbandry officer, meningitis is prevalent, but there is very little awareness of it among
goat farmers.

Additionally, homeopathic doctors reported health problems that no other service

providers mentioned. These are restricted masticating, bloating because of overeating
and infertility. Bloating leads to pressure on the thoracic cavity, which exerts pressure on
the lungs causing difficulty in breathing and eventual death. There is no medical
treatment for bloating.

Stillbirths accounted for 12 per cent of reported deaths. Although this is a sizable
proportion, service providers reported that they have not received any cases of
brucellosis. Instead, they attributed stillbirths to malnutrition and low birthweight among
kids, particularly when goats deliver triplets and quadruplets.

In an equal number of cases, respondents said that they do not know why their goats
died. This indicates lack of awareness about animal diseases, healthcare and cures for
small ruminants.

Table 5: Reported causes of death (total deaths = 50)

Reported cause of death Number of deaths

Diseases 16
Don't know 6
Extreme weather 4
Others 7
Poor health 11
Stillbirths 6

The problem of goat mortality in the Muzaffarpur region is multidimensional. Animal

husbandry experts point out that proper feeding, breeding, housing and health
management practices can reduce goat mortality by half. While bad management
practices and lack of awareness among farmers may indeed contribute to goat mortality
and morbidity, the problem is made worse by endemic disease and the lack of even
basic healthcare facilities. We investigate this further in the subsequent qualitative
analysis.

13
5.4.1 Health facilities and services
Goat farmers mostly depend on local drugstore keepers for medicines and medical
advice. Almost every village has access to a private drugstore, often within one or two
kilometres of the village. In our interviews with animal husbandry experts and trained
vets, such as BAHOs, this was raised as an important concern. Untrained service
providers treat symptoms rather than diseases and often their diagnoses may be
incorrect and lead to death.

Perhaps the dependence on this informal sector is due to farmers’ limited access to
public animal health centres, which are located at the block and district levels. Even
though villages close to the block headquarters may have easier access to the animal
dispensary or hospital, the quality of services is far from satisfactory. Several of our
respondents claimed that the BAHO often did not have the requisite medicines or
equipment for even basic healthcare.

We observed the ramshackle infrastructure of these dispensaries during our visits.

One respondent said that she had once taken her goat to the BAHO, but the
dispensary did not have the medicine prescribed by him. She eventually had to buy
the medicines from a chemist and felt that was a waste of her money.

The poor quality of the public system was echoed in our interviews with BAHOs. The
public system is severely constrained by a lack of both human and physical resources.
According to the BAHO at Musahri, almost 50 per cent of staff positions at the block
level are vacant. A well-functioning animal health centre requires a cadre of livestock
assistants and TVOs for door-to-door visits. These positions have not been filled in
most of the blocks.

In some blocks, the BAHO doubles as a TVO, responding to house calls after office
hours.13 Medicines and vaccines are seldom regularly available in public dispensaries
and the BAHO at Musahri complained of the lack of vaccines even for large ruminants.
Although BAHOs are expected to hold a yearly routine vaccination drive for cattle, this
could not take place last year because the vaccines were not made available.

Almost all service providers (both private and public) pointed out the lack of adequate
support from the government for small ruminants. Vaccines for goats have not been
procured and provided in public health centres. Most are expensive, and the
government has not attempted to incentivise their uptake through subsidies.

5.5 Accessibility of markets and services

This section discusses our observations on the sale and purchase of goats and
associated mechanisms from the household surveys and interviews.

From our total sample of 32 households, 11 reported no purchase or sale of goats in

the past two years.14 In the remaining 21 households, the average number of goats

13
We found that in three out of four blocks, the BAHO was also responsible for providing the
services of a TVO.
14
The reason cited for not selling goats in most cases was that the animals were being raised for
religious sacrifice.

14
bought and sold in the past two years was 2.5 (Table 6). Table 7 shows the age at
which goats were bought or sold, as reported by respondents, indicating that the
majority were sold when they were possibly still growing (at 4–6 months).

Moreover, when probing for the reasons behind selling goats, we found that 23 of the
49 goats were sold because they were sick or unhealthy (Table 8). The average selling
price of goats in our sample was INR2,016 but this varies greatly according to their
health and age. The average price of goats sold for being sick or unhealthy was half
that of goats sold as a response to a general need for money.

Table 6: Summary statistics of purchase and sale of goats in the past two years

Mean SD
Number of goats bought 2.5 2.34
Number of goats sold 2.6 1.84
Note: SD = standard deviation. Sample restricted to 21 households that reported purchases or
sales.

Table 7: Distribution by age at which goats were purchased or sold

Age % bought % sold

0–3 months 7 0
4–6 months 20 47
7–11 months 0 12
One year or above 0 20
Adult 60 4
Kid 13 14

Table 8: Reasons for selling goats

Number of goats sold Amount received (INR)

Difficult to manage 5 3,175
General need for money 19 2,380
Sickness/poor health 23 1,508
Other 2 1,500
Total goats sold 49 2,016

5.5.1 Access to markets

Market linkages in the sale of goats are well defined. Typically, chiks (butchers who visit
the homes of owners) purchase goats. One expert mentioned that goats are products for
which the market reaches out to sellers, rather than sellers reaching out to the market.
Often chiks and small-time butchers act as middlemen who procure goats from
households and then sell them to the retail market.

This practice has its fair share of disadvantages. Although it may be argued that it
reduces the transaction cost for the seller, the net benefits for the seller remain
questionable, as they may not be aware of the best possible price in the market. Usually,
all farmers in the same village sell to one chik, indicating that there is very little
competition among buyers.

15
The price received by farmers for their goats may not be the best price for yet another
reason: chiks rarely use standard scales to weigh goats.15 Butchers obtain a higher
value for the goat by selling parts separately, whereas goat farmers receive payment for
its meat content alone. Many of our respondents expressed dissatisfaction about the
price at which they sell their goats. 16

5.5.2 Other services

In villages where wandering bucks are not available, goat farmers depend on
commercial buck service providers. Most farmers reported that accessibility is not an
issue; the majority of service providers were within a range of less than two kilometres.
However, they were dissatisfied with the practice of having to pay again for the same
services if the goat did not conceive on the first attempt.

5.5.3 Demand for services and willingness to pay

There is a general willingness to pay for health services among goat farmers. Apart
from medicines and health services, some of our respondents said they would be willing
to pay for feeding materials and vitamins, which help in improving the quality and
quantity of meat. The amount they may be willing to pay varied from INR20 to INR500
annually. Some respondents said they would be willing to pay if the service was
provided at their doorstep, was effective and taken up by others:

Will there be credit facility available? I am ready to pay, just keep my goat
disease free. — Respondent from Sakra, who is a traditional goat farmer.

I am ready to accept and pay for services if my neighbour also agrees for same.
— Respondent from Sakra, who had started goat rearing recently and believed in
following practices that were prevalent in the neighbourhood or village.

5.6 Empowerment of goat farmers

This section presents findings on intra-household decision-making with respect to goat
rearing. During the household survey, respondents were asked about the family
member responsible for making decisions related to the health, sale and purchase of
goats. We found that women, who were mostly involved in the day-to-day care of goats,
also made these major decisions.

Out of 32 households, 22 respondents claimed that women were the main decision
makers with respect to goat health. Five respondents reported that the male head of
household made all major decisions related to the goats, even though women were the
primary caretakers. The remaining five respondents reported that the decisions were
made jointly by the husband and wife, or collectively by the family.

In households where other livestock were reared, men were the primary decision
makers and caretakers for large ruminants such as cows or buffaloes. Some houses
reported that while women decided when to buy and sell the goats, it was their
husbands who bargained on their behalf and sometimes took part of the proceeds.

15
The usual practice is to estimate the meat content by holding the goat’s spine.
16
During the festivals of Holi and Eid ul Bakr sellers get a better price than any other time in the
year.

16
A few households also reported that men took the entire amount from their wives and
invested it in their businesses. The majority of respondents also claimed that the person
making the decision to buy or sell also decided how to utilise the money earned. Our
findings suggest that women who take care of goats also have the agency to make all
major decisions on any economic transaction related to goats:

We raise and take care of the goats, so we keep the money earned from them.
–– Focus group respondent in Musahri block.

5.7 Self-help group function

Project Mesha expects to leverage the existing SHG platform to roll out the pashu sakhi
model. A major assumption in the implementation of the project is the proper
functioning of SHGs under JEEViKA. The field team conducted 8 focus group
discussions with SHG members in each of the villages, as well as 1 in-depth interview
with a village organisation leader and 1 interview with a community mobiliser. The focus
group discussions were not restricted to goat farmers. The key findings in this section
highlight the perceptions of SHG members regarding SHG functions and activities
conducted under JEEViKA.17

The women who participated in these discussions were mostly illiterate (although some
could write and sign their names) and from poor economic backgrounds. Most were
eligible for some form of social protection, and reported having at least a ration card, a
‘BPL’ (below the poverty line) card or a ‘MGNREGA’ (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment) card.

We also found a general awareness about the purpose and functions of SHGs. Most
women were aware of different government schemes and subsidies, such as the
provision of bicycles for girls upon reaching grade nine, the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, and
the provision of subsidised rice through their SHGs. They were aware of the benefits of
SHGs. Most felt that SHGs helped in weeding out the traditional moneylenders who
charged them high interest rates on loans.

The quality of SHG function can be determined through adoption of the key principles of
Panchasutra (or five norms) under the National Rural Livelihoods Mission: weekly
meetings; weekly savings; regular lending and borrowing; timely loan repayment; and
regular and accurate maintenance of books of accounts. Among our sample of SHGs,
we found that all held regular weekly meetings where members deposited INR10 with
the community mobiliser. A typical SHG meeting started with all members praying
together, followed by the tallying of records, collection of the week’s deposit money, and
discussions on topics such as maternal and child health, and sanitation.

There were some groups whose activity was confined to loaning and inter-loaning. The
office bearers were usually the most literate women in the group, most of whom had
received an induction and soft skills training under JEEViKA. Many of the village
organisation and SHG leaders were given training on how to manage and maintain their
books and other records.

17
The team could not access the SHG books and other records because they did not have the
requisite permission and clearance to do so. Hence, they could not confirm whether the SHGs
were following proper protocol.

17
However, the main activities of SHGs remain lending and borrowing. Several women
reported that they had taken loans from SHGs but these were mostly consumption
loans to make small investments in their household enterprises. Interestingly, we found
that some respondents had taken loans for investment in large ruminants; only one
SHG member reported taking a loan to buy goats. Perhaps one reason for this is their
perception of goat farming as a high-risk business. With high mortality and low sale
prices, farmers may not find it profitable to take loans for investments in goats.

We observed that there was an unmet demand for SHG activities. Participants from all
focus group discussions reported that they were promised multiple vocational and
entrepreneurial trainings, which they were yet to receive. Most women felt that their
SHGs were not functioning to their full capacity, and much more could be done to
promote livelihoods.

6. Discussion of findings
This report is based on a small-sample quantitative and qualitative study of key
stakeholders in goat farming in eight villages of Muzaffarpur, Bihar. The main objective
was to understand the opportunities and challenges that could influence the
implementation and eventual impact of Project Mesha.

We provide a brief summary of the report’s key findings below:

What is the contribution of goats to overall household income?

Goat farming may not be considered a main income-generating activity, but it has an
important role in improving financial resilience and reducing vulnerability among asset-
poor households without a steady stream of income. It is a low-investment activity that
can be undertaken by women and the elderly. The potential benefits of goat farming are
well-understood among households, and we found that a few have recently taken up
goat farming. However, this is not being undertaken at scale, and herd sizes remain
small. One possible reason is that goat farming is also viewed as risky, given the high
rates of mortality and morbidity among these animals.

What goat farming practices are followed in this area?

Most goat farmers follow basic management practices that make these animals more
susceptible to disease. Feeding practices include a mix of grazing and providing feed-
mix and leftover home-cooked food. Goats are also usually kept in conditions that make
them vulnerable to diseases. Very few farmers adopt preventive healthcare approaches
of providing good nutrition and day to day care. This, however, stems from a lack of
awareness about best practices of goat farming.

Who are the key stakeholders and decision makers in goat rearing and management in
Muzaffarpur?
Most goat farmers are women. They are the primary caregivers of goats and make key
decisions about their health, sale and purchase. Other key stakeholders in the
ecosystem of goat farming are health service providers such as chemists, animal
husbandry officers, private vets and untrained vets. Chiks and butchers also play an
important role, acting as the link between farmers and the market. The relative
significance of each of these stakeholders varies across villages.

18
What are the market linkages for the sale and purchase of goats?
Market linkages for the sale of goats are very well-defined and developed. Chiks and
butchers collect goats from the owner’s doorstep, thereby reducing transaction costs for
farmers. This is particularly important for women farmers, for whom barriers to mobility
may be higher than men. The net benefits of this system however need to be explored
further. There are no producer groups or farmers’ cooperatives for goat farmers in the
project area. With multiple farmers selling to a small set of chiks, the bargaining power
of farmers may be limited. Most chiks and small butchers act as middlemen and sell the
animals at a much higher price in the retail market.

What healthcare systems exist in this area?

Both formal and informal healthcare systems exist in Muzaffarpur. The formal system
includes BAHOs, TVOs and other trained doctors, whereas untrained health service
providers and chemists are part of the informal system. The quality of services in the
formal animal healthcare system is poor, with a large number of positions for
professional staff remaining vacant (high vacancies) and lack of basic infrastructure
such as cold storage for vaccines and medicines . As the formal system does not meet
the demands of goat farmers, it is not surprising that the informal system is large and
growing. Again, the quality of services provided by untrained or semi-trained providers
remains unclear. People rely on both systems depending on their availability and
accessibility.

6.1 Validation of assumptions of the theory of change

We next summarise our validation of the main assumptions of Project Mesha’s

proposed theory of change.

Self-help group functioning

Project Mesha will use SHGs as the platform for their community-based activities and
training. This makes the adequate functioning of SHGs an important factor for project
implementation. Contrary to what we had expected, SHG saturation has not been
achieved in our sampled villages, and only 63 per cent of households we surveyed
were members. SHG members have a mixed opinion regarding the functioning and
overall performance of SHGs.

The focus group discussions provided insight into perceptions of the quality of SHG are
functioning; while some appeared to be working well in terms of loaning and inter-
loaning, others had initiated only limited activities. The role of SHGs has remained
restricted to providing loans and savings. However, there was a clear demand for more
training and livelihoods-related activities through SHGs.

Demand for preventive healthcare, management practices and related services among
goat farmers
Given the high mortality and morbidity of goats, most farmers interviewed were willing
to pay for the services of a community-based health service provider. This willingness
was, however, not unconditional; while some farmers said they would pay if these
services were delivered at home, others asked for alternative payment options and the
facility to purchase services on credit. This has implications for the delivery, packaging
and pricing of services of the community healthcare provider.

19
Much of the demand may be latent. Some farmers do not wish to purchase these
services because they are not aware of the benefits. Moreover, demand for services
does not necessarily ensure adequate uptake, due to the number of factors involved in
people’s behaviour. In rural areas, behaviour is often determined at the community level
and households are influenced by the attitudes or norms of their neighbours. We
suggest that activities to generate awareness and demand for services must be
considered at the beginning of the programme.

Feasibility of developing a cadre of community pashu sakhis from goat farmers

We see some operational challenges here. Most goat farmers are illiterate women aged
in their early forties. Compared to younger women, they may have limited mobility,
networks and communication skills. Therefore, identifying pashu sakhis may be a
challenge. Training must be tailored to their understanding. There will be a need for
constant support to these pashu sakhis, at least in the initial phase of the project. The
maintenance of vaccines and medicines would also require close monitoring, given the
poor existing infrastructure.

Women’s empowerment and agency

Goat rearing has an important role to play in the intra-household decision-making
structure. As mentioned earlier in the report, women are the primary caretakers and
decision makers with regard to goats. Thus, there is substantial potential to improve
women’s economic positions through this project.

6.2 Main recommendations

1. Project Mesha should focus on generating awareness of animal diseases and

best practices of goat farming, while simultaneously focusing on health services
provided by pashu sakhis. Our interviews with experts suggested that good
management practices could bring a significant reduction in goat mortality.
Unless strategies are adopted to bring about change in the management
practices of goat farmers, the provision of medicines will not be effective in
reducing goat mortality.
2. The potential of goat farming to generate income, mitigate risk and increase
financial resilience should be highlighted through community campaigns in order
to generate demand for healthcare services. Non-SHG members form a
substantial proportion of goat farmers, and special attention is required to target
them. While we found a fair amount of demand for the services of goat health
workers, households are only willing to pay low fees for them. If the benefits of
goat farming are made obvious to the community, willingness to pay is likely to
increase.
3. The pricing and packaging of services of pashu sakhis will require innovative
approaches. We suggest that price schedules for various services are
developed in a participatory manner with the main beneficiaries.
4. The training modules for pashu sakhis should be piloted and revised to make
them comprehensible, given that most trainees are likely to be poorly educated.
We suggest exploring innovative approaches such as gamified learning.
5. There is a need to ensure that pashu sakhis obtain support through the project
period. This includes refresher courses, monitoring of the equipment and tools
provided, and feedback.

20
6. The main recommendations for output and outcome indicators are summarised
below, and were also discussed in meetings with the Agriculture Learning and
Impacts Network (please refer to Appendix C for detailed recommendations):
a. We recommend that the recall period for mortality, births, sale and purchase
is one year, and no longer. In formulating the recall period, we suggest that
this cover the three main festivals – Eid ul Fitr, Eid ul bakr and Holi – when
goat sales increase and prices rise.
b. We found that households do not report stillbirths when asked to report
mortality. Special attention should be paid to capture this indicator.
c. There is a considerable overlap of the social issues being discussed by
producer groups and SHGs, which we found to be redundant. The role of
producer groups may be to discuss livelihoods-related issues, as SHGs
already discuss social issues. A clear demarcation of the scope of producer
groups and SHGs is required.
d. We fielded a questionnaire with vignettes on women’s empowerment, but
this did not receive a positive response. Indeed, most women could not
relate to the settings we provided. 3ie does not have expertise in developing
empowerment questionnaires and we recommend that gender experts are
consulted for the development of these tools.

21
Appendixes
Appendix A: Study instruments (qualitative and quantitative) given below:

I. Formative Evaluation of a livelihood program for women through productivity

improvements in small ruminants in Bihar, India

Consent form

Namaste, My name is , and I am

working with 3ie. We are conducting formative research on Project Mesha in four
blocks of Muzaffarpur district. The blocks are – Bochaha, Moraul, Musahri, Sakra. I
would like to conduct an interview and this shall take about 45 minutes. This interview
shall be audio recorded if you permit for not lose out on any critical information that you
provide. Your participation is voluntary. You are free to choose not to participate.
Should you chose to participate you can withdraw at any time without consequences of
any kind. You may also refuse to answer any individual questions without
consequences. Can I tell you more about what your participation would entail? There
are no risks involved in your participation and we do not anticipate any personal
discomfort. The information that you share with us may help us improve programme
intervention on livelihoods.

I would like to assure you that your identity will be kept secret by not using your name,
birth-date, contact details or any other personally identifying information. All information
that you give will be used only for research purposes. At any point in the interview you
can choose not to answer any question or exit the interview midway and this will not
impact you negatively. What questions do you have?

We would like to proceed with the protocol if we have your consent.

Do you verbally give consent? Please confirm with YES/ NO (They have to say YES for
you to proceed).

If you have any questions now or in the future about your participation in the study
please contact Priyanka Dubey and Avantika Bagai (hand out visiting card).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This form has been read to me and I understand what is being requested of me as a
participant in the study – YES/ NO

I have been given satisfactory answers to

my questions – YES/ NO I have been
provided with the copy of this information –
YES/ NO

I permit to audio record

the interview – YES/ NO I
freely consent to
participate – YES/ NO

22
Investigator’s Initials

This questionnaire is for SHG members for HH interview.

Date of Interview: _/ / Name of Interviewer:

Village name: Tola: Respondent name:

Religion: Caste:

SECTION A: QUANTITATIVE SECTION

A. Household Roster

Please let us know some details of the members of your household. By household, we mean all those members who share a common
kitchen. Please include all members who may be away from home currently such as persons who send remittances. Please exclude
married daughters. Please fill in details of the respondent in the first row of the roster.

ID of HH Relationship Is he/she the Age Ever enrolled Can read and Highest level Principal Months in Is this member involved What daily
member to household in school? write a letter? of education Occupation the past year in the day-to-day care of activities related
respondent head? (0=No, 1=Yes, (0=No,1=Yes, completed? * in the last lived in the goats? (0=No, 1=Yes, to goats does this
(0=No, 1=Yes, 9=Don’t know) 9=Don’t (see code 12 months household? 7=Not applicable, member perform?
9=Don’t know) know) below) 9=Don’t know) (Qualitative input)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Education code: (0) illiterate (1) Class 1 (2) Class 2 (3) Class 3 (4) Class 4 (5) Class 5 (6) Class 6 (7) Class 7 (8) Class 8 (9) Class 9 (10) Class 10 (11) Class
11 (12) Class 12 (13) B.A./[Link]. (14)M.A./[Link]. (15) professional degree (16) diploma (17) literate but no formal schooling (18) Other-specify
* By principal occupation, we mean income generating activities that a person may be involved in. If a person is involved in multiple activities, ask them to
report the one that generates the highest income.

23
B. Household Income and Assets

1. Total land owned (mention units)

2. Total land cultivated (mention units)

3. How many of the following assets are owned by the household? (Enter 0 if none)

Code and Asset type a. Number Owned

Child Adult
01 Cow
02 Bull
03 Buffalo
04 Goat
05 Poultry
06 Horse/Donkey/Mule
Transportation
07 Bullock Cart
08 Bicycle
09 Motor cycle
10 Jeep/car
11 Tractor
Other goods
12 Radio/Tape Recorder
13 Television(TV) Black & White
14 Television(TV) Colour
15 Refrigerator
16 Fan
17 Telephone/ Mobile
18 Mattress
19 Pressure cooker
20 Cot/bed
21 Table
22 Chair
23 Sewing machine
24 Watch/Clock
25 Kerosene Stove
26 Kerosene/oil/gas lamp
Agricultural Goods
27 Pumpset
28 Thresher
29 Power tiller

4. Dwelling tenure:

(0) No dwelling unit (1) Owned (2) Rented (8) Other (specify)

5. Type of structure of house in which the household resides?

(1) Katcha/thatch (2) Katcha/tile (2) Semi-pucca (3) Pucca

24
 6. What is the type of material used for the floor of the house?

(1) Mud (2) Brick (3) Stone, tile, cement (8) Other (specify)

7. Number of separate rooms in the house (including kitchen)?

(1) One (2) Two (3) Three (4) More than three (8) Other (specify)

8. Where does your drinking water usually come from?

(1) Tap (2) Well (3) Handpump/Tubewell (4) Tank/Pond/Reservoir

(5) River/Canal/Lake (8) Other (specify)

9. How far is this source from your house?

(1) Within premises (2) Less than 0.5 km (3) 0.5 to 1 km (4) More than 1 km

10. What is the main source of lighting for your house?

(1) Electricity (2) Oil, Kerosene, Biogas (3) No lighting (8) Other (specify)

11. What kind of fuel is most often used for cooking in your household?

(1) LPG (2) Electricity (3) Kerosene (4) Coal (5) Firewood (6) Cow dung cakes

(7) Leaves/straw/thatch (8) Other (specify)

12. What type of toilet facility does your household have?

(1)No facility/bush/field (2) Own flush toilet (3) Shared flush toilet

(4) Own pit toilet/latrine (5) Shared pit toilet/latrine (8) Other (specify)

B. INFORMATION ON CURRENT GOAT HERD

Total Posiya Own Adult Kid How many How many How How many
(Indicate if were ever were many do have fallen
the goat vaccinated? dewormed you think sick at least
was taken last year? are of once in the
as posiya) (2015 and good past six
until now) health? months?
Male
Female

C. INFORMATION ON GOATS BOUGHT OR SOLD IN THE PAST TWO YEARS

Goat ID Bought/ Age when Male Amount in Reason Ever Dewormed

(Serial sold bought/sold /Female Rupees bought/sold Vaccinated the year of
number) bought/sold buying/selling

25
D. INFORMATION ON GOATS THAT DIED IN THE PAST 2 YEARS

Period # Died
Jan- May 2016
Jul- Dec 2015
Jan- Jul 2015

D.1 This table is to be filled based on each goat that had died in the past 2 years

Goat ID Did you consult If yes, Reason Died What did you do in response to
anyone? who? (Symptoms of diseases) the goat falling sick?

E. COSTS OF GOATS/ OTHERS

Goats/ per Others (Name

month animal)/ per month
Feeding
Shelter
Vaccination
Deworming
Other preventive medicines
Curative Medicine
Others costs related to goat health
Transactions costs

26
Qualitative section

1. What is the significance of goats that you own currently?

2. What herd size would be optimal for your current needs?
a. If the number mentioned is same as current, ask, why do they think so?
b. If not the same then, ask – what are the barriers in maintaining that herd size?
3. What are the feeding habits for goats that you practice?
a. What do you feed them?
b. How often in a day?
c. Do these differ by gender and age of the goats or by season?
4. What vaccinations have you been able to administer to your goats?
a. Do you think vaccines are important to be administered? Why? Why not?
b. Are you aware of the names of the vaccines?
c. Are you aware which vaccines provide protection against which disease?
d. Are you aware of the cycle of the vaccines?
5. When did you last give deworming pills to your goats?
a. How often do you give deworming pills?
b. Awareness on deworming cycle?
6. What do you do when your goats fall sick? Why?
a. How is the accessibility of vets/ clinics in terms of distance and services offered?
b. Do you get medicines from the same veterinarian for your goats?
c. Do you visit the chemist separately for any particular medicine (deworming pills?)?
d. Do you prefer a particular service provider? Why?
7. What kind of shelter do you provide to your goats?
a. Does the shelter provides protection during extreme conditions? Do you
rebuild shelters for extreme winter or summer?
b. What is the maintenance cost?
8. Would you be willing to pay for services received for your goat’s health?
a. Which services would be willing to pay for?
b. Which services you won’t pay for?
9. What is the reproductive cycle of the goats?
a. How many times do they reproduce in a year?
b. When does a female goat reach her sexual maturity?
c. How many reproductive cycles does she go through in her lifetime?
10. What services do you need to access wrt goats health at the village level?
a. List down all the services they need
b. who can offer them these services (Note: The common answer given is ‘Quacks’)
c. Whether these services are available at the village level?
d. What are the different challenges that you face in accessing these services? E.g.
cost of medicines, vet services, distance from the chemist shop, distance from the vet
clinic, etc?
11. What are the optimal conditions for sale of a goat?
a. Did you sell off your goat in last two years? Why?
b. What price did you get for it? Do you think you could have got more/ less price for
the same goat? Why?
c. How do you decide when to sell a goat for meat/for rearing/ milk?
d. Would you sell off a female goat? Why? Why not?
12. Who in your household takes decisions on buying/selling of goats?
a. What is the buying/ selling process?
13. Who takes decisions on goat health?
a. Taking to the vet?
b. Getting deworming pills

27
 c. Kind of shelter to be provided
d. Who is responsible for daily care activities of the herd?
14. Where do you purchase your herd from?

Freedom/Opportunity

Jayati Devi stays in a neighbouring village. She often has to make some decisions in
her day to day life. I will now describe the decisions she might have to take. Please
suggest what Jayati should do when she is taking these decisions.

A. Jayati’s daughter studies in a government school. Jayati is planning to move her

daughter from the government school she currently goes to a private school. She will
have to pay Rs 10,000 as admission fees to the private school. However, her
husband wants to use this money to buy gifts for his niece’s marriage. He insists that
they can move their daughter to the private school next year. What do you think
Jayati should do?
1. Spend the money on the marriage
2. Admit her daughter in a private school
3. Others (Please specify)

B. Panchayat elections are coming. Jayati’s husband is asking her to vote for the political
party he supports. However, Jayati prefers to vote for other political party. What
should Jayati do?
1. Vote for the husband’s political party
2. Vote for her preferred political party
3. Others (Please specify)

C. How do you think Jayati should take this decision?

1. Decide herself
2. Let her husband decide
3. Have a discussion with her husband and decide
4. Others (Please specify)

D. Jayati would like to take a loan to purchase a cow to supplement the income of the
family by selling the cow’s milk. Jayatis’s husband is not sure whether buying a cow is
the best decision given the family’s low income. What should Jayati do?
1. Take a loan to purchase the cow
2. Do not purchase the cow
3. Others (Please specify)

E. Jayati wants to take a loan from the SHG from which she is a member to start a tea
stall in her village. However her husband and mother in law does not agree. What
should Jayati do?
1. Take the loan anyways to start the tea stall
2. Does not take the loan
3. Other

28
II. Formative Evaluation of a livelihood program for women through
productivity improvements in small ruminants in Bihar, India

In-depth interview Guide with animal husbandry experts. This includes regional
animal husbandry director, block animal husbandry officers and researchers.

Name: Place: Date:

Importance of Goats - Contextual

1. What are the major uses of goats in Bihar? In Muzaffarpur?
Probe:
a. Personal? (meat, milk, manure, etc.)
b. Commercial? (sale value, commodity value - produce)
2. What is the trend in goat rearing in Bihar? Explain.
Probe:
a. Data shows increase in goat population in Bihar. Explain.
3. How critical is goat rearing to rural livelihoods?
Probe:
a. What kind of livelihood improvement training practices has been implemented in
the past? Any case studies or reference?

Best practices
1. What should be the ideal feeding habits?
Probe:
a. Seasonal and geographical variations, if any? Explain.
2. What are the ideal healthcare steps that need to be taken?
Probe:
a. Important vaccinations
b. Vet check-ups – number and at what age (life-cycle)
c. Reproductive information

Prevalence of disease among goats in India

1. What are the different types of diseases that goats get infected and affected by?
The common diseases?
Probe:
a. What is the severity of these diseases? Frequency of the disease
b. Diseases by regions and weather? Is there any variation
c. Specific diseases prevalent in Bihar/ Muzaffarpur
2. Symptoms of each disease. Explain.
Probe:
a. Note down all the diseases that the expert mentioned
b. Specific diseases that leads to death of goats

Data sources
What would be the best data source to access on livestock, mainly goats?
Probe:
a. Where do we access it from?
b. Is there any particular report that we should not miss?

29
III. Formative Evaluation of a livelihood program for women through
productivity improvements in small ruminants in Bihar, India

Guide for SHG Members

Duration (Start time): Block name: Village name: Tola:

Date of discussion: / /

Place of discussion:

Details of SHG:

1. Name of SHG:

2. Name of the Community Mobilizer:_

3. Age of SHG: (note the

date of formation)

4. Number of members:

5. Have you formed VO:

6. Activities conducted at VO level:

Demogr
# Name Literacy Primary Secondary Caste Owns a
level Occupation Occupation (if BPL
(education) (probe if required) valid) card (Y or N)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

4. Go through the SHG books and attendance records. Look for details
that can indicate:
a. Participation – attendance, minutes of the meeting, etc.
b. Activities – process report/ brief

30
If SHG has bank linkage, review the bank account details and records (eg. Passbook
etc.) Note: Pictures need to be taken for all records.

Check if the records are with the SHG accountant

5. What are the main activities that you conduct within the SHG
Probe:
a. What activities have happened in past one year?
b. What activities are currently happening?
6. Does the SHG participate collectively at any given platform?
Probe:
a. Community events (eg. Community led campaigns- Immunization, sanitation,
against domestic violence, alcoholism etc.)
b. Elections
c. Grama sabha meetings
d. Any other
7. Did your SHG go through a formal induction and training on financial inclusion?
Probe:
a. When?
b. For how long?
c. What all did you cover?
8. What other training programmes have been introduced through your SHG?
Has any of these been directed towards animal husbandry?
Probe:
a. How many of you attended the training?
b. What was the training about?
c. What was the nature of the training programme?
d. Who conducted these training programmes?
e. Was it beneficial? Why? Why not?
f. Have you received training/ workshops about anything else? Like sanitation
during periods? Maternal health? Immunization of children? Etc.
g. Were there any trainings provided to improve/ help enhance the entrepreneurial
skills of the SHG members? Who conducted such trainings?
9. Have you taken loans from the SHG to invest in/ spend on livestock?
Note: AKF has forewarned us that they usually don’t take out loans to invest on/in livestock.
Probe:
a. Note how many of them in total have taken loans? (In last two years)
b. Ask them specifically if they invested/ spent on goats
c. Did you purchase any goats or spent on maintaining (vet check-up, medicines,
fodder, shelter, etc.)
d. Are there any other animal husbandry/ livestock related initiatives programmes
that has been undertaken by the SHG? Did you participate? Did you benefit from
this?
e. If none of the above, what were the loans taken for?
f. Who in your family decides to take loans?
g. Who in your family decides for what purpose the loan will be

31
 10. Are you aware of any government/ NGO/ SHG schemes/ policies on
animal husbandry currently being implemented in the area?
Probe:
a. Have you ever availed any of the benefits?
b. How did it benefit you?
11. What services do you need to access wrt goats health at the village level?
Probe:
a. List down all the services they need
b. who can offer them these services (Note: The common answer given is ‘Quacks’)
c. Whether these services are available at the village level?
d. What are the different challenges that you face in accessing these services? E.g.
cost of medicines, vet services, distance from the chemist shop, distance from the
vet clinic, etc?
12. Do you receive any other support from any agency? (govt., ngo, local network)
Pro
a. What kind of support do you receive?
b. What more support you would be happy to receive?
13. How much do you spend on your goats per month? Food, shelter, vaccines,
deworming pill, liver and calcium tonic
Pro
a. Would you be willing to pay for services for your goat’s health?
b. Which services would be willing to pay for?
c. Which services you won’t pay for?
14. What breed of goats do you normally rear?
Pro
a. Does Black Bengal meets your household and commercial needs?
b. If no, do you think a new breed should be introduced?
c. If no, do you think with certain services provided to you, Black Bengal will
be good enough to meet your needs?
d. What other type of goat breed do you rear?

End time:

32
IV. Formative Evaluation of a livelihood program for women through
productivity improvements in small ruminants in Bihar, India

Guide for AKDN Staff

1. Context of Muzaffarpur. Explain.

a. What is the weather like in Muzaffarpur area? Is it conducive for goat rearing?
b. Is it drought-prone area? Does that affect the goats? Is it currently
affected by drought?
c. Can you explain the demographic structure of the area?
i. Poverty levels (% if they have or pattern)
ii. Social structure (% and number if they have)
iii. What is the pattern of migration in this area?
d. Livelihood practices:
i. Agriculture
ii. Animal Husbandry
iii. Remittances
iv. Others
2. What are the best practices for goat rearing for following points?
a. Feeding
b. Vaccination cycle (explain the entire cycle for different vaccines. Also which
diseases vaccine protects the goats from)
c. Deworming (cycle, if any? Quantity?)
d. Shelter
e. Diseases
f. Optimal conditions for sale (age/weight)
g. Reproductive cycle
3. What do people practice in the area of Muzaffarpur for goat rearing?
a. Feeding
b. Vaccination cycle
c. Deworming
d. Shelter
e. Diseases
f. Optimal conditions for sale (age/weight)
g. Reproductive cycle
4. When does a female goat reach sexual maturity?
a. How many reproductive cycles does she go through during her lifetime?
5. Who do they go to when their goats fall sick? Why?
a. How is the accessibility in terms of distance and services offered?
b. Do they get medicines from the same veterinarian for your goats?
c. Do they visit the chemist separately for any particular medicine (deworming pills?)?
d. Do they prefer a particular service provider? Why?
6. Can you tell us the services available for goats in the Muzaffarpur area?
a. Veterinarians (vets, hospitals)
b. Local vet
c. Chemists (availability of medicines)
d. Any other service (IEC)
7. What are the regular activities that the members conduct through their SHGs?
8. What is your understanding on efficiency and quality of SHGs in the selected
blocks for intervention

33
VI. Formative Evaluation of a livelihood program for women through productivity
improvements in small ruminants in Bihar, India

Guide for Stakeholders which include vet (traditional, para-vet and trained), chemist and
butcher (local or from large markets)

Name: Place: Date:

Vet
15. Explain your role in terms of function that you perform at different levels –
hospital, village or block level?
Pr obe:
a. Do you do home visits? How? When? (on demand or is it part of your schedule)
16. What is the total number of vet centres in this area?
Pr obe:
a. Do they cater to different disease that goats get affected by in this region?
b. What is the catchment area of each of these vet centres?
17. How does the system of vet centres function?
Pr obe:
a. What is the structure of the hospital?
b. How many departments and doctors are there?
c. Number of regular and visiting doctors
d. How many of them are goat experts?
18. What are the main reasons for mortality of goats in Muzaffarpur area?
Pr obe:
a. Lack of infrastructure
b. Lack of information
c. Any other
19. What are the main diseases that infect goats in this region? Which are the
ones that lead to deaths?
Pr obe:
a. Note down all the diseases
b. Symptoms of all the diseases
c. Specific diseases that leads to death of goats
20. Is there any particular season that the goats get infected/ affected?
Pr obe:
a. Note down the seasonal variation for different diseases
b. What are the main reasons behind the infection?
21. How do you deal with epidemic diseases (specific to goats)
Pr obe:
a. Has there been any epidemic in past two years
b. What key steps did you take deal with it?
22. What proportion of people bring their goats to you or consult you?
Pr obe:
a. At what stage of disease do they come to you?
23. Vaccination cycle for goats. Explain.
Pr obe:
a. Note down all the vaccines and the disease that it protects from

34
Chemists (the one that sells medicine for livestock)
What is your catchment area?
Probe:
a. People from how many villages approach your chemist?

2. How many people on an average purchase medicines for their livestock?

Probe:
a. Are the medicines different for different kinds of livestock?
b. How many people on an average purchase medicines for goats?
c. Is there any particular season that the traffic of people increase?
3. Do you have enough stock every time?
Probe:
a. Is the supply of medicines regular?
b. Is there any time that medicines don’t arrive in time? What do you do in that
case?
c. Do you sell any vaccinations that are used for animals?
4. Do you administer vaccine for animals?
Probe:
a. Do people come to you for administration of vaccines? Why?

Butcher/ Trader
1. Where do you get your stock from?
2. Do the local people also sell their stock to you? In what conditions do they sell
their stock to you? (Financial, health, etc.)
Probe:
a. Note down all the reasons.
b. Ask what are the different kinds of goat you receive?
c. Have you ever received diseases goats or is about to be diseased? What
do you do in that case?
3. How much does the goat cost you?
Probe:
a. What is the best possible rate that you can get and under what conditions?

35
Appendix B: Theory of change developed by ALINE

36
Appendix C: Recommendations on indicators (Indicators developed by
ALINE)

Indicator Who collects How 3ie's recommendations

Annual net cash income Survey Goat rearer
from small ruminants HH survey
Contribution of goat Survey Goat rearer
rearing to per capita HH survey
annual household income

Mean household asset Survey Goat rearer

score HH survey
Number of pashu sakhis Development Active pashu
providing services one organiser sakhi list
year after training Pashu sakhi
activity report
Number of training GalvMed Pashu sakhi
modules developed by training
GalvMed register
Number of pashu sakhis Development
trained organiser/
development
specialist
Number of pashu sakhis Development Pashu sakhi
with knowledge of the specialist survey
seasonal
vaccination/improved
husbandry calendar of
practices
Pashu sakhi attendance Development Pashu sakhi Number of meetings
at monthly review organiser meeting conducted for pashu
meetings register sakhis may be included
Number of times cold GalvMed GalvMed More clarity on failure is
chain for vaccines failed report required
Number of chemists that Development Variety of
keep full medication/ organiser medications/vaccines
vaccination in stock may be included
Number of times Development Pashu sakhi Instead, number of
vaccines/ organiser survey times when PS could
dewormers were not not provide timely
available when needed by vaccines/dewormers
goat rearers and the reason

37
Indicator Who collects How 3ie's recommendations
Number of pashu sakhis Development Needs a better
who develop formal/ organiser/ definition of how this is
informal partnerships for development measured
vaccine/ specialist
dewormers with
government veterinary
services/private retailers
Pashu sakhi/cluster Development
paravet profit margin on organiser
Bulk purchase of
vaccines/de-wormers
Number of awareness- Pashu sakhi
raising and sensitisation
meetings held
Number of men and Pashu sakhi
women trained in small
ruminant health
Number/% of goat rearers Development Recommend HH
with knowledge of the organiser survey or FGD for this
benefits of preventive
health services and
improved goat husbandry
practices
Number of households Development
paying for pashu sakhi organiser
services
Average monthly number Development Requires validation
of households reached by organiser from HH survey
pashu sakhis
Net monthly income Pashu sakhi/
earned per pashu sakhi development
organiser
Number of pashu sakhis Pashu sakhi/
who diversify service development
income sources beyond organiser
vaccination/deworming
(e.g. improved buck
services, stocking of
mineral blocks/mixture)
Number of women goat Pashu sakhi/
rearers providing development
supplementary feed to organiser
their goats

38
Indicator Who collects How 3ie's recommendations
Number of women goat Pashu sakhi/
rearers who have development
provided separate organiser
housing for goat flocks
Number of goat rearers Pashu
adhering to the full sakhi/develop
vaccination schedule for ment organiser
all their goats
Number of goat rearers Pashu sakhi/
following the quarterly de development
worming schedule organiser
Number of women goat Pashu sakhi/
rearers vaccinating their development
goats against PPR, ET organiser
and FMD
Number of women goat Pashu sakhi/
rearers following the development
quarterly deworming organiser
schedule
Goat weight at 6 months Development
and 1 year organiser
Mortality rate due to Pashu sakhi/
disease (adult/kid goats) Development
organiser
Number of women goat Development
rearers who are members organiser
of SHGs
Number of SHGs Pashu sakhi
collectively indenting for
vaccines/dewormers
Number of SHGs Pashu sakhi
collectively selling goats
Number of loans from Development
SHG funds for purchase organiser
of goats
Number of trainings Development
provided and number of organiser
participants
Number of goat producer Development
companies established organiser
and registered
Number of goat rearers Development
who are members of goat organiser
producer companies

39
Indicator Who collects How 3ie's recommendations
Size of small ruminant Pashu sakhi Goat rearer
holdings HH survey
Number of women goat Development Goat rearer
rearers that weigh their organiser adoption
goat before selling survey
Number of goats sold per Development Goat rearer
household organiser HH survey
Number of women Development Recall period should
changing the timing of organiser not exceed a year
goat sales to secure
better prices
Number of goats sold per Survey Goat rearer Recall period should
year per household HH survey not exceed a year
Number of women directly Survey Goat rearer Recall period should
selling goats in livestock HH survey not exceed a year
markets
Average price received for Survey Goat rearer Recall period should
sale of goats (in INR/kg) HH survey not exceed a year
Number of women Survey Women's
reporting an improvement empowerment
in status/quality of life survey
Number of women Survey Women's
reporting how empowerment
membership in SHGs has survey
enhanced livelihood
capability, contributed to
increase in incomes and
confidence
Number of training Anandi/
modules developed and development
delivered Specialist
organiser
Number of pashu sakhis Development
trained in providing specialist
women's empowerment
modules
Level of satisfaction with Development
the trainings organiser
Number of women's Pashu sakhi This may not be
empowerment training feasible for pashu
modules delivered by sakhis
pashu sakhis to producer
groups

40
Indicator Who collects How 3ie's recommendations
Number of producer group Pashu sakhi
members who have
participated in women's
empowerment training
sessions (by issue)
Number of producer group Pashu sakhi
members who have
participated in women's
empowerment training
sessions (by issue)
Number of sensitisation Pashu sakhi
meetings held
Number/% of male Pashu sakhi
participants in
sensitisation meetings
Number/% of husbands Development Women's
who support their wife's organiser empowerment
involvement in Project survey
Mesha
Number of social and Pashu sakhi/ Producer Recommend
economic issues taken up development group tracker livelihoods. SHGs too
by producer group organiser discuss socioeconomic
members/number of issues so we are
producer groups taking up concerned about the
social and economic overlap
issues
Increase in Pashu sakhi SHG records
number/quantum of SHG
loans provided for
productive, income-
earning activities
Number of socioeconomic Pashu sakhi/ Producer
issues taken up by development group tracker
producer group members organiser

Increase in women's Survey Women's SHGs are for women

leadership in community empowerment only. Should think of
groups (SHGs, VOs) survey their measures
(from baseline)
Increase in number of Survey Women's
women reporting sole and empowerment
joint decision-making in survey
the purchase of goats and
their healthcare (from
baseline)

41
Indicator Who collects How 3ie's recommendations
Increase in number of Survey Women's
women reporting sole and empowerment
joint decision-making in survey
the sale of goats (from
baseline)
Number of women Survey Women's
reporting an increased empowerment
role in other key decisions survey
within the household (e.g.
crops to be planted,
children's education) (from
baseline)
Increase in number of Survey Women's
women directly selling empowerment
goats in livestock markets survey
(from baseline)
Increase in women’s Survey Women's
control of income from empowerment
goat sales (from baseline) survey
Increase in the number of Survey Women's
women reporting a empowerment
diversification of survey
household diet
(consumption of
vegetables, pulses, meat,
milk, eggs) (from
baseline)
Number of pashu sakhis Technical Request from
trained in other districts by manager partner
Project Mesha staff and/or organisation
Project Mesha pashu
sakhis
Number of visits by SHG
members of other districts
to Project Mesha
Number of policy briefs AKF Patna Minutes of
developed meetings
Number of state/national AKF Patna Minutes of
workshops meetings
Number of studies, AKF M&E Emails/letters/
assessments, news team/PS minutes of
reports on small communication meetings
ruminants /
block manager

42
 Indicator Who collects How 3ie's recommendations
Number of requests Block Request
seeking information by manager/ letters/emails/
other development team leaders minutes of
organisations and meetings
government institutions
Number of learning events Recommend
organised with JEEViKA AKRSP team
community mobilisers (by
theme)
Number of JEEViKA Recommend
community mobilisers AKRSP team
trained
ASSUMPTION
Number of visits by AKF Request/email
government Patna/regional /
officials/representatives of manager/ letter from the
other organisations (by block manager organisation
theme)
Number of learning forum AKF Patna Minutes of
meetings at block/district meetings
and state levels (by
theme)
Number of programme AKF M&E Learning and
lessons documented and team communicatio
disseminated (by theme) ns strategy
Increase in district/state AKF Patna Review of
budget allocation for small state budgets
ruminant rearing and budget
report
Note: AKF = Aga Khan Foundation; AKRSP = Aga Khan Rural Support Programme; FMD = Foot
and mouth disease; PPR = Peste des petits ruminants; PS = pashu sakhi.

43