During the winter months, ADRA Ukraine implemented the “FROST” project (Fodder Relief for Overcoming Severe Temperatures), aimed at supporting the livelihoods of vulnerable households. The initiative lasted three months starting in December of last year and provided financial assistance for purchasing feed for livestock and poultry.

The project reached 77 households in the Kharkiv region (Barvinkove community, Novomykolaivka starosta district), each receiving UAH 14,700. This support helped families preserve their farms, strengthen food security, and get through the winter period more easily amid the war.

Project Manager Maryna Potiekha shares insights into the project’s implementation and impact.

— Maryna, how did the idea for the “FROST” project emerge, and why was this type of support especially relevant now? Who were the donors and partners?

— The idea for the “FROST” project arose from the real needs we observed while working in front-line communities and regularly discussing them with humanitarian partners during coordination meetings. For many rural families, livestock is not just part of everyday life, it is their primary source of food and income. People get milk, meat, eggs, and can sell surplus products to support their families.

However, due to the war, job losses, rising prices, and overall economic exhaustion, keeping animals has become critically difficult. People often said they could barely provide for themselves, while also needing to buy feed, hay, veterinary supplies, and maintain proper conditions for their animals. Many were left with only one option: to sell their livestock or reduce their farming activities.

That is why we decided to support people in a way that would help them preserve their livelihoods and maintain the ability to provide for themselves in the future.

The donor of the project was ADRA International, and implementation was carried out by the ADRA Ukraine team in coordination with local authorities.

— Why was the Kharkiv region, specifically the Barvinkove community and Novomykolaivka starosta district, selected for implementation?

— When selecting the location, we considered several key factors. First, the project’s initial budget was limited, so we needed to choose an area where the assistance would have the greatest practical impact. Second, we focused on communities with a high dependence on agriculture and livestock.

Kharkiv region is one of the areas most affected by the war. The Barvinkove community and Novomykolaivka starosta district are predominantly agricultural, and many residents traditionally maintain households. For a large portion of families, this is not an additional activity, it is a matter of survival.

We also considered the specific need for this type of assistance and the lack of coverage by similar programs. Coordination with clusters and local authorities helped us define the target area.

— What key needs did you identify before launching the project?

— Before launching the project, we consulted with local authorities, the community, and potential participants. It became clear that the main issue was the financial inability to maintain livestock during the winter period.

People lacked funds for feed, compound feed, hay, veterinary medicines, repairs of farm buildings, and insulation of animal shelters. We also saw that many families were at risk of losing their only stable source of food.

For many, selling a cow, goat, or other livestock would mean becoming even more dependent on humanitarian aid in the future. That is why supporting livelihoods was extremely important.

— Why did the cash-for-fodder format become the most effective solution in this context?

— We chose a cash-based approach because it allows people to decide for themselves what their most urgent needs are. Each household has a different situation: some keep cows, others goats, others poultry, and some have multiple types of animals.

Accordingly, their needs vary. Some primarily need feed, others hay, others veterinary medicines or repairs. A standardized aid package would not effectively cover such diverse needs.

The cash approach allowed people to use resources where they were most needed and also supported local markets and vendors.

— How were the 77 households selected?

— The selection process had several stages to ensure transparency and fairness. First, we worked with local authorities and analyzed information about vulnerable groups and livestock ownership.

Priority was given to families who kept livestock and belonged to vulnerable categories: people with disabilities, large families, single parents, unemployed individuals, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and elderly people.

We then announced an open call for applications and held an information day where residents could learn about the program and apply. The team verified eligibility and coordinated with local authorities.

As a result, 77 households were selected.

— What challenges did you face during winter implementation, and how did you overcome them?

— The main challenge was difficult weather conditions and an unusually harsh winter. Snow, ice, and poor road conditions made it hard to reach settlements for information campaigns, registration, and follow-up activities.

To overcome these challenges, we adapted travel schedules, coordinated closely with local authorities, used favorable weather windows, and planned field activities flexibly.

The team worked based on real conditions on the ground to ensure that no planned activity was lost.

— How important was cooperation with local authorities and the community?

— Cooperation was a key factor in the project’s success. It allowed us to quickly inform residents, organize applications, and obtain important local data for proper participant selection.

Local authorities also provided premises for registration, helped with communication, and supported overall coordination.

Community trust in local structures encouraged more active participation.

— What results were achieved during the three months of implementation?

— The main result is that people did not sell their livestock and were able to continue keeping it during the critical winter period. Many participants said they could purchase feed, hay, insulate animal shelters, and provide necessary treatment.

For many families, this meant preserving a stable source of food: milk, meat, eggs, and other products.

We also received positive feedback from local authorities: some participants began selling surplus products at local markets, producing cheese, and selling milk or meat. Thus, the program not only supported households but also positively impacted the local economy.

— Were there any participant stories that particularly stood out?

— One story that stayed with us is about a woman around 75 years old from a village in the Barvinkove community. Even after some time, it was still difficult for her to recall those events.

During the occupation, when fighting was approaching the village, she realized she had to leave urgently. The most painful part was not leaving her home, but leaving her animals: goats, a cow, and chickens she had raised for years. She cried recalling how she opened the gate and let them go, hoping they would at least have a chance to survive.

For others, these might be just animals, but for her, they were much more: they were her life, her daily work, her stability. After de-occupation, she returned home and found her life destroyed.

Despite her age, she did not give up. She started rebuilding the place for animals, bought a goat on credit, and even kept it inside her house at first. Later, she gradually restored the shelter and bought chickens.

She says she still dreams of buying a cow again, though she understands how difficult it is financially. Even having milk and eggs for herself now helps her survive.

The project support allowed her to buy hay, feed, veterinary supplies, and strengthen her farm. Most importantly, she said it gave her hope that it’s not too late to rebuild.

This story deeply moved me, it showed incredible human resilience.

— Which decisions proved most effective during implementation?

— One of the most effective decisions was program flexibility. Initially, funds were intended mainly for feed, but after speaking with participants, we saw the need for repairs, insulation, veterinary supplies, and other expenses.

We coordinated with the donor and approved a more flexible use of funds, which significantly improved effectiveness.

— What did the team learn from implementing “FROST”?

— We once again realized how important it is to listen to people and be ready to adapt approaches to real needs.

We improved our selection mechanisms, field coordination, community engagement, and adaptive project management.

— What does it mean to you personally to see the results of such projects?

— It means seeing that even relatively small support can truly change people’s lives. It is not only about assistance but also about giving hope.

People in front-line communities are incredibly strong. They sustain villages, support local production, markets, and the country’s economy.

Such projects also have a strong psychological impact. Having a farm, caring for animals, working, and seeing purpose in the future is also a form of recovery.

— Do you see potential for scaling this type of support?

— Absolutely. I see strong potential, especially in rural communities affected by the war, occupation, or economic decline.

In many such communities, people rely on their own farms. Livestock provides both food and income. That is why supporting livelihoods is critically important.

Unfortunately, current support is much smaller than the actual need. Many people are motivated to rebuild but lack initial resources. Even small assistance can make a big difference.

Such programs are not just humanitarian aid: they are effective tools for early recovery. They help people become more self-reliant, reduce dependency, stimulate local markets, and preserve economic activity.

With broader funding and systemic support, these initiatives can be scaled across many regions of Ukraine.

— What needs remain relevant now in the livelihoods sector?

— Support for livestock remains highly relevant. People also need support for small businesses, equipment, start-up capital, and resources to grow their own activities.

Many people want to expand their farms or start small businesses but lack funds.

That is why it is crucial to support those who are motivated to work and rebuild their communities.