Evaluation of FAO’s Contribution to the Republic of Kenya · 2019-03-27 · country programme evaluation series evaluation of fao’s contribution to the republic of kenya a joint

OFFICE OF EVALUATION

Country programme evaluation series

Evaluation of FAO’s Contribution to the

Republic of Kenya FINAL REPORT

CASE STUDY

May 2018

COUNTRY PROGRAMME EVALUATION SERIES

Evaluation of FAO’s Contribution to the Republic

of Kenya

A JOINT EVALUATION BY THE

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

OFFICE OF EVALUATION

KENYA INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

TEGEMEO INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT

May 2018

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Office of Evaluation (OED)

This report is available in electronic format at: http://www.fao.org/evaluation

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

© FAO 2018

FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.

All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected].

For further information on this report, please contact:

Director, Office of Evaluation (OED)Food and Agriculture OrganizationViale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153 RomeItalyEmail: [email protected]

Cover photo credits (top to bottom): ©FAO/Luis Tato (1st and 6th pictures), ©FAO/Thomas Hug (2nd picture), ©FAO/Simon Maina (3rd picture), ©FAO/Sarah Elliott (4th picture), ©FAO/Christena Dowsett (5th picture)

http://www.fao.org/evaluation

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Evaluation of FAO’s Contribution to the Republic of Kenya

iii

Contents

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................ vii

Acronyms and abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... viii

Executive summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 0

1.1 Purpose of the evaluation............................................................................................................ 0

1.2 Scope and objective of the evaluation ................................................................................... 0

1.3 Approach ............................................................................................................................................ 3

1.4 Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 4

1.6 Structure of the report .................................................................................................................. 4

2 Context ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Background and trends ................................................................................................................ 5

2.1.1 Country profile ........................................................................................................................ 5

2.1.2 Overview of Kenya’s agriculture, food security and nutrition situation ............ 5

2.2 FAO Programme in the Republic of Kenya ........................................................................... 7

2.2.1 FAO Country Programming Framework ........................................................................ 8

2.2.2 Overview of FAO’s field programme .............................................................................. 9

3 Assessment of FAO’s strategic positioning .............................................................. 11

3.1 FAO’s strategic relevance ........................................................................................................... 11

3.1.1 Alignment of FAO work to relevant policies and strategies ................................ 11

3.1.2 FAO response to emerging issues ................................................................................. 14

3.1.3 Missed opportunities .......................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Appropriateness of FAO’s response to devolution .......................................................... 15

3.3 Response to emergencies .......................................................................................................... 17

3.4 Partnership and coordination .................................................................................................. 18

3.4.1 Partnerships ............................................................................................................................ 19

3.4.2 Coordination .......................................................................................................................... 21

3.5 Normative values .......................................................................................................................... 23

3.5.1 Gender ...................................................................................................................................... 23

3.5.2 Nutrition .................................................................................................................................. 26

3.5.3 HIV/AIDS .................................................................................................................................. 29

3.6 Comparative advantage ............................................................................................................. 30


iv

4 Assessment of FAO’s contributions ......................................................................... 33

4.1 FAO’s contributions to Outcome 1 ........................................................................................ 33

4.1.1 Factors that have influenced the achievement of the results ............................. 37

4.1.2 Sustainability of results ...................................................................................................... 37


4.2.1 Conservation agriculture ................................................................................................... 38

4.2.2 Mariculture .................................................................................................................................. 40

4.2.3 Fruit and vegetable farming in West Pokot............................................................... 41

4.2.4 Post-harvest management to control aflatoxin ....................................................... 42

4.2.5 Progress regarding market access, diversification and value addition ........... 42




4.3.1 Results of FAO contributions .......................................................................................... 46




4.4.1 Relevance and targeting ................................................................................................... 50

4.4.2 Programme effectiveness at national and county governments ...................... 53

4.4.3 Sustainable livelihoods and markets ............................................................................ 54

4.4.4 Sustainability and coherence .......................................................................................... 56


4.5.1 Additional examples of FAO’s contributions............................................................. 56


5 Conclusions and recommendations ..................................................................... 59

5.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 59

5.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 60

6 Appendices ............................................................................................................. 63

Appendix 1. List of Key Informants .................................................................................................... 63

7 List of Case Studies ................................................................................................ 67

CASE STUDY. PROJECT: GCP/KEN/079/EC


v

Boxes, Figures and Tables

Box

Box 1: Evaluation Questions .......................................................................................................................... 1

Figures

Figure 1: Budget an projects ....................................................................................................................... 97

Figure 2: Total delivery 2013-2016 ........................................................................................................... 10

Figure 3: Issues partner organizations work on ................................................................................... 18

Figure 4: Number of FAO partnerships ................................................................................................... 19

Figure 5: FAO partnerships .......................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 6: Working groups by number of participant respondents .............................................. 30

Figure 7: Perception of FAO’s contribution to working groups .................................................... 22

Figure 8: FAO beneficiary profile according to vulnerability categories .................................... 51

Table

Table 1: Resource partners for FAO Kenya, 2013-2016 .................................................................... 10


vi

Map of Kenya

Source: Kenya Bureau of Statistics 2018


vii

Acknowledgements

The FAO Office of Evaluation (OED), the Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and

Analysis (KIPPRA) and the Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development

(Egerton University) would like to thank all those who contributed to this report.

This joint Country Programme Evaluation was prepared by a team led by Mr Roger

Miranda from the Office of Evaluation (OED), Dr Jackson Langat (Tegemeo) and Mr John

Nyangena (KIPPRA). The team was composed of: Ms Tala Talaee, Associate Evaluation

Manager from the FAO Office of Evaluation (OED), who covered resilience and livelihoods,

partnerships and coordinated the household surveys; Dr Birgitte Woel, who assessed

gender, nutrition, HIV and comparative advantage; Dr Jacob Wanyama, who reviewed

animal health and natural resource management issues; Mr Michael Odhiambo, who

addressed land matters; Mr Omeno Suji, who covered resilience and livelihoods; and Mr

Pierre Leguene, who conducted the case study on conservation agriculture. KIPPRA team

members: Dr Augustus Muluvi, Mr Joshua Laichena, Dr Mathew Muma, Ms Damiana

Ndambuki and Mr Nixon Murathi. Tegemeo team members: Mr Nicholas Odhiambo, Ms

Ephiphania Nthenya and Dr Dennis Otieno.

The evaluation team is grateful to all beneficiaries, stakeholders, Consultative Group

members and FAO staff who generously gave their time and efforts to provide materials,

documents and information that served as a foundation for the report. Special gratitude

goes to Mr Gabriel Rugalema, FAO Country Representative, and the senior country

management team for extending their full support as well as providing guidance and

advice. We also wish to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Ms Irene Kimani, Mr

Kaari Miriti and Mr Martin Corredoira. Thank you also to Ms Maria Alice Móz

Christofoletti for her invaluable assistance in the design, data processing and analysis of

the Household Survey.


viii

Acronyms and abbreviations

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

ASAL Arid and Semi-arid Land

ASDS Agricultural Sector Development Strategy 2010-2020

CA Conservation Agriculture

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program

CCPP Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia

CIDP County Integrated Development Plan

CPE Country Programme Evaluation

CPF Country Programming Framework

EDE Ending Drought Emergencies

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GAP Good Agriculture Practices

GEF Global Environment Facility

HIV Human immunodeficiency virus

IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development

JASSCOM Joint Agriculture Sector Steering Committee

KIPPRA Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

NDMA National Drought Management Authority

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NRM Natural Resource Management

PPR Peste des Petits Ruminants


1

Executive summary

Introduction

1. The Office of Evaluation (OED) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO) has been conducting country programme evaluations since 2005 to provide

accountability to Member Nations, national governments and development partners, while

also drawing lessons and making recommendations that will be useful for FAO’s future

engagement in a country. The Republic of Kenya was selected as one of the countries in

which to carry out a Country Programme Evaluation (CPE) in 2016. The majority of the work

took place in 2017.

Purpose and scope

2. The purpose of the Kenya CPE is to provide feedback to better orient FAO’s programme

with a view to making future Country Programming Frameworks (CPF) more impactful and

relevant to the needs of the country. The overarching evaluation questions were:

• Strategic positioning: Are we doing what is needed?

• Programme contribution: Are we making a difference?

3. The Kenya CPE covers the period between 2013 and 2016. The evaluation examined the

five outcome areas found in the CPF and the cross-cutting issues of gender, nutrition and

HIV.

Approach

4. Since the adoption of the Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness, the international

community has given increasing attention to country ownership of development processes;

in this vein, the Office of Evaluation (OED) considers the principle of national ownership of

evaluations as a cornerstone in conducting its work. In keeping with this principle, the

Office of Evaluation (OED) conceived the evaluation as a joint endeavour.

5. The CPE was carried out by three entities: the Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and

Analysis (KIPPRA), the Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development

(Tegemeo) and the Office of Evaluation (OED). The three partners designed the evaluation,

carried out the data collection and prepared the report. Evaluation tasks were divided as

follows:

• all three organizations contributed to assessing FAO’s strategic positioning

• KIPPRA evaluated contributions in CPF Outcomes 1,3 and 5

• Tegemeo evaluated contributions in CPF Outcome 2

• the FAO Office of Evaluation (OED) evaluated contributions in CPF Outcome 4

6. A case study of FAO’s “flagship” project on conservation agriculture (GCP/KEN/079/EC) was

also conducted. This project falls under Outcome 2 of the CPF.


2

7. Data was obtained by the use of mixed methods, with the majority collected through

interviews with stakeholders responsible for/engaged in agriculture (at national and county

levels) as well as through document reviews. A total of 529 key informants were

interviewed comprising of FAO staff, national and county government staff, civil society,

development partners and beneficiaries (295 farmers through focus groups). Over

80 percent of the persons interviewed were female. A total of 13 counties were visited by

the evaluation team.

8. 14. Additionally, a total of 752 households were surveyed as part of the data collection for

the case study on conservation agriculture (CA) and FAO’s work on resilience (Outcome 4).

Key Findings

9. The evaluation findings are organized along the evaluation criteria of strategic positioning

and programme contributions.

Strategic positioning

Finding 1. Strategic relevance: FAO’s CPF (2014-2017) and programme of work is aligned to

important national development plans, strategies and policies. Alignment is better at national

level and less so at county level. The degree of alignment is one of the elements that permit FAO

to be strategically positioned as an important partner for national stakeholders.

Finding 2. Response to emerging issues: FAO’s response to emerging needs was appropriate,

although at times there were delays occasioned by lengthy procedures at the FAO Office of

Evaluation (OED). The responses also lacked a comprehensive strategy to ensure targeted

beneficiaries were reached.

Finding 3. Response to devolution: FAO’s response to devolution allowed it to accompany

county governments as they transitioned into their new roles related to agriculture. The county

office model, both in terms of approach and sustainability requires detailed assessment in order

to determine its continuity.

Finding 4. Response to emergencies: FAO has responded appropriately to emergencies by

providing material and/or technical support. Response effectiveness has been hampered by

delays in procuring inputs.

Finding 5. Partnership and coordination: FAO has established successful partnerships and has

played an important role in various coordination fora. Partners consider the collaboration with

FAO as very valuable. Partnerships for FAO are an important mechanism for conducting and

implementing its programme. It has established partnerships with a diverse number of

stakeholders, both formally or ad hoc. FAO implements activities primarily through government

entities and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the areas of food security and agriculture

production (with a focus on conservation agriculture). Other partnership areas include livestock

production and animal disease control, plant disease control and surveillance, research and

resilience activities.

Finding 6. Partnership and coordination: While responding to the changes brought on by

devolution, FAO became a valuable partner in various forums at the national and county level.

Besides FAO having acted as one of the main facilitators in training county agriculture staff as

soon as the devolved units were in place, they have also been actively engaged in the fora that

guide the setting of priorities in matters relating to agricultural development at the county and

national level.


3

Finding 7. Gender: Despite contributions in most of the gender focus areas, the CPF did not

address them in a meaningful manner. An opportunity for incorporating them using a systematic

approach to mainstreaming gender in FAO’s work was missed. As a result, few or modest gains

were made in relation to the four objectives of FAO’s policy on gender.

Finding 8. Nutrition: FAO has made acceptable progress in mainstreaming nutrition in its

programme. The contributions cover the main areas addressed in FAO’s nutrition strategy

although there is ample room for embedding the topic through a more systematic approach.

Finding 9. HIV/AIDS: FAO’s work on HIV/AIDS, as it relates to its mandate, is minor. Although

there is a lack of a corporate level strategy/approach, there is an opportunity for FAO to integrate

the subject matter in its programme as part of the work carried out by the Nutrition Unit.

Finding 10. Comparative advantage: FAO’s comparative advantage resides in its technical

expertise and ability to tap into a vast network of specialists and knowledge sources. This

advantage is amplified due to stakeholders perceiving it as an honest-broker and neutral partner.

Programme contributions

Finding 11. Outcome 1: FAO’s contributions to achieving Outcome 1 are of note, especially

given the complexities that arose due to the evolving context (devolution). Emphasis has been

given to supporting policy and strategy formulation at the national level.

Finding 12. Outcome 1: FAO’s support of the Joint Agricultural Sector Steering Committee

(JASSCOM) is very pertinent and is valued highly by stakeholders.

Findings 13. Outcome 1: There were significant policy-related issues implemented in other

outcome areas with little support from the policy team.

Finding 14. Outcome 2: FAO’s contributions to achieving Outcome 2 are significant given the

evidence of increased production gains reported, diversification of crops and inroads in accessing

markets. Activities have increased adoption of conservation agriculture principles, improvements

in post-harvest management practices, value addition along the chain and resilience to shocks.

Increasing access to financial resources and other inputs remains a challenge.

Finding 15. Outcome 2: Mariculture initiatives show promise, with positive effects on

beneficiaries identified, including increases in income and diversification in sources of nutritious

food.

Finding 16. Outcome 2: FAO support to enhance access to market and value addition by

facilitating linkages and collaboration with the private sector actors is valuable, yet farmer’s

groups must be empowered to identify market opportunities and negotiate contracts on their

own.

Finding 17. Outcome 2: Procurement procedures have impacted negatively the implementation

of some interventions, adversely affecting effectiveness in those cases.

Finding 18. Outcome 3: FAO contributions pertaining to land were appropriate as they

supported the development of an implementation framework and procedures for the

recognition, protection and registration of community land rights.

Finding 19. Outcome 3: The initiatives related to the natural resource management (NRM) in the

context of a changing climate, though varied in scale and approach, allowed beneficiary

communities to benefit from the skills and practices promoted. Targeted communities report

making better use of resources and being more resilient to shocks.


4

Finding 20. Outcome 4: Relevance of resilience interventions was enhanced through the use of

baselines to understand context at the community level. However, linkages between programme

design and targeting, especially in the form of diversified support packages that include

consideration for other vulnerability amplifiers, were lacking.

Finding 21. Outcome 4: FAO technical support, especially the contributions of the Resilience

Team for Eastern Africa (RTEA), at national level with the National Drought Management

Authority (NDMA) and with county veterinary services and laboratories, was appreciated.

However, policy support failed to cascade to county levels, and capacity development in animal

health was concentrated primarily in cross-border areas.

Finding 22. Outcome 4: Emergency projects at community level, with the exception of Pastoral

Field Schools (PFS) and the radio programme, focused on short-term disaster relief and did not

systemically include support for long-term resilience building.

Finding 23. Outcome 4: Sustainable livelihoods including livelihood diversification for resilience

building was undertaken but limited in scope and scale.

Finding 24. Outcome 5: FAO efforts ensured that expertise and knowledge were available to

stakeholders, data on food security, diseases and other issues were generated and that early

warning and information management systems were at the disposal of decision makers.

Conclusions

Conclusion 1. FAO’s programme for the period 2013-2016 was closely aligned with the

Government of Kenya’s priorities, agricultural development strategies and policies. The

Country Programme Framework was useful in that it set the main lines of work that

addressed identified needs, yet allowed amplitude to address unforeseen, emergent issues.

FAO response to emerging needs was largely appropriate, although at times there were

delays occasioned by internal processes.

Conclusion 2. FAO’s response to devolution was suitable given the changing context,

allowing it to accompany county governments as they transitioned into their new roles.

Having a presence in counties gives FAO an intimate understanding of the local situation

while also improving coordination with county governments and enabling the

development of diverse partnerships with various stakeholder organizations working in the

respective counties. Nonetheless, as devolution takes hold and other mechanisms of

coordination between counties and the national government become consolidated, the

county office model, both in terms of approach and sustainability requires detailed

assessment in order to determine its continuity.

Conclusion 3. FAO has been successful in establishing partnerships and collaborative

relationships with a diverse number of actors at the national and county levels in the areas

addressed by the CPF. The partnerships were highly valued as were FAO’s contributions to

various fora due to the quality of its technical inputs and effective facilitation role. There

are opportunities for engaging in partnerships in the area of gender and HIV/AIDS in order

to improve FAO’s programme in relation to those topics.

Conclusion 4. The CPF did not address cross-cutting issues in a meaningful manner, thus

missing an opportunity for embedding gender mainstreaming, nutrition and HIV/AIDS in

FAO’s subsequent programme. As a result, few or modest gains were made in relation to

the four objectives of FAO’s policy on gender that were assessed, while modest progress

was noted in mainstreaming nutrition. On the other hand, FAO’s work on HIV/AIDS, as it


5

relates to its mandate, was barely perceptible. The new CPF can be an opportunity for

building on the progress achieved, developing a comprehensive approach to including

those topics in future programming.

Conclusion 5. FAO has a strong comparative advantage in areas within its mandate.

Stakeholders attribute this to its technical expertise, ability to tap into a vast network of

specialists and a comprehensive knowledge products base. This advantage is amplified due

to stakeholders perceiving it as an honest-broker and neutral partner.

Conclusion 6. FAO has made important contributions under the outcome areas contained

in the CPF, working with multiple stakeholders at the national and county levels, including

the public and private sector, communities and academia. Thanks to the support of donors,

measurable results have been obtained, whether in terms of scale (i.e. conservation

agriculture), reach (i.e. policy support, information systems), improved livelihoods (i.e.

access to markets and diversification) or increased resilience (capacity building and

resource management), to name but a few. Although there are areas for improvement (i.e.

access to inputs, accompanying devolved functions, leveraging M&E, etc.), the new CPF

cycle provides an opportunity to reflect and adjust in order to build upon the gains.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1. FAO should continue playing an important role, as well as consolidate

the results obtained to date, by using the new CPF design process to address issues

identified.

10. FAO is considered an important and credible partner that has made significant

contributions to the sector. As evidenced, despite the many gains, there are areas which

can benefit from measures aimed at improving programme design and delivery.

11. Suggested actions:

• Policy: Support the adoption of a national agricultural policy. Current draft agriculture

policy has been overtaken by events creating an opportunity for the provision of FAO

support. Likewise, FAO should position itself to support tracking of policy impacts

through country STAT.

• Independent of the substantive topics being addressed, initiatives with a policy

component need to be supported more systematically by the policy unit. The aim is

to ensure FAO has a holistic approach and quality assurance processes in place that

focuses policy efforts in a complementary manner.

• Devolution: The nature and form of FAO’s continued engagement with counties

needs to be reviewed in light of the changes that have taken place in the last few

years. The review should include an assessment of the merits of having county offices,

objectives that are desired and viability of a model dependent on specific projects for

financing, among others. The review should engage all stakeholders, fostering a

participatory process that also contributes to managing expectations regarding FAO’s

work at county level. The review should present management with different scenarios

for moving forward.

• Resilience: Increase capacity within the country office in the area of resilience and

food security, creating a dedicated position for this purpose. As part of the tasks that

need to be conducted there is: developing a dedicated country strategy in resilience,

forging stronger linkages between FAO/NDMA at county level, and facilitating


6

incorporation of resilience into CIDP through Community Managed Disaster Risk

Reduction (CMDRR) for example.

Recommendation 2. FAO should build upon its work to date on cross-cutting issues

(gender, nutrition and HIV/AIDS) and be more proactive in mainstreaming these in its

programme, focusing on supporting upstream level activities. Programme content and

approach should be fully in line with the respective FAO strategies and objectives.

12. Many of the gender focus activities were one-time efforts, often awareness or training

while nutrition-related actions were more upstream in nature (i.e. policy work, advice). As

was pointed out, there were hardly any HIV/AIDS associated actions. An opportunity for

expanding its work on cross-cutting issues, in a systematic fashion, presents itself.


• General: An increased effort in mainstreaming cross-cutting issues may require

reinforcing existing in-house capacities (i.e. through training) in subjects and methods

relevant for the changed focus. There may as well be need for organizational changes

(i.e. establishing cross-cutting focal points in each unit).

• Gender: FAO should develop a comprehensive approach to including a gender

perspective in its work and take advantage of opportunities such as supporting the

development of the Kenya gender strategy for agriculture. It should be noted,

though, that Ministry of Public Service, Gender and Youth has been tasked with

developing gender strategies and action plans for all sectors, which means that the

individual ministries depend on the capacity of the implementing ministry. Support

from FAO on this may help the process.

• HIV/AIDS: FAO should develop an approach to incorporate the topic in the

programme of work that can include partnering with specialized organizations. If

aiming at strengthening the nutrition situation in the worst affected areas with the

view to reduce the risk of HIV and complement medical treatment to those persons

living with HIV/AIDS, the geographical selection of areas of interventions should be

reconsidered. Further guidance and support from headquarters should be requested.

14. The two higher level recommendations include elements derived from CPF Outcome 1 and

4 but there are other suggestions that, although more specific, can inform decision-making

as the new framework is designed. These include recommendations for the following

outcomes:

Outcome 2

Recommendation 3. FAO needs to improve planning processes in order to ensure timely

procurement of goods and services.

Recommendation 4. FAO capacity building support to farmer groups should emphasize

training on how to negotiate and secure the most favourable contracts, market conditions

and opportunities analysis and the use of table banking as an option to access financing.


7

Outcome 3

Recommendation 5. Support the development and implementation of systems to monitor

progress on implementation of policies on land and natural resource governance and

management.

Recommendation 6. Assist county governments so that they include in their CIDPs county

strategies and plans that prioritize NRM issues that FAO has supported.

Recommendation 7. Focus more on cross-boundary natural resources management issues

in Water, Forest, Rangelands etc. since these shared resources require a multi-county

approach.


0

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of the evaluation

1. The purpose of the Kenya Country Programme Evaluation (CPE) is to provide feedback to

better orient FAO’s programme with a view to make future CPE’s more impactful and

relevant to the needs of the country.

2. Country programme evaluations are a means for the Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations (FAO) to be accountable to the Government and non-government

partners and resource partners in the country, as well as all Member Nations. It seeks to

contribute to learning at corporate, regional and country levels by drawing lessons and

making recommendations that will be useful for FAO’s future engagement in the country.

Besides providing lessons specifically on FAO’s work in Kenya, the evaluation aims to enrich

FAO’s synthesis of findings and guidance for its country-level support. In addition to

providing advice to management and staff at the national level on how to improve the

impact and relevance of FAO’s programme, the evaluation set out to identify potential

areas for future interventions in line with FAO’s comparative advantage given that a new

Country Programming Framework (CPF) is to be prepared in the near future.

3. The main audiences for the evaluation, to which most of the findings and

recommendations are addressed, are the FAO Representative, the Country Office staff and

the Government of the Republic of Kenya. Other important users of the evaluation are the

Regional and Subregional Offices and FAO as a whole, including divisions at headquarters

and other Country Offices that may benefit and build on lessons learned and good

practices. Further users of the evaluation are FAO’s partners within the broader

development community, including resource partners, non-governmental organizations

(NGOs), implementing partners and other United Nations agencies. The evaluation also

aspires to provide a means for FAO to be accountable to beneficiaries, and in particular

vulnerable groups in Kenya that it has sought to assist.

1.2 Scope and objective of the evaluation

4. The Kenya CPE covers the period between 2013 and 2016. The evaluation examined the five

outcome areas found in the Country Programming Framework and looked at regional

initiatives and the organization’s Strategic Objectives (SO), assessing the country

programme’s alignment to them.

5. The evaluation also covered the following cross-cutting issues: gender, nutrition and HIV.

6. The specific objectives of the CPE are to:

• assess the strategic relevance of FAO’s interventions in responding to country needs;

• assess FAO’s contributions to results and outcomes in areas identified in the CPF under

the five priority areas;

• identify lessons learned as well as causes of successes and failures;

• identify gaps in FAO’s country programming and potential areas of future work.


1

7. The work of the CPE was guided by the Evaluation Questions in Box 1.

Box 1: Evaluation questions

Strategic positioning: Are we doing what is needed?

Strategic relevance

• To what extent is FAO’s programme aligned with national development plans, strategies

and policies? Are there any gaps or missed opportunities?

• How relevant has FAO’s approach been in a devolved system of government? What are

the challenges facing FAO in delivering on the CPF in a devolved context? What are the

opportunities this creates? How can FAO improve its approach/engagement with county

governments?

• Has FAO responded appropriately to needs, as they arise, as a consequence of natural

hazards (i.e. droughts)?

• To what extent has FAO addressed other acute and structurally important challenges in

Kenya, as determined by the Government, in line with the areas of FAO’s mandate and

competencies (e.g. food security)?

Partnership and coordination

• How effectively did FAO engage in partnerships and to what extent were these

partnerships complementary and synergetic?

• Were there any challenges in working in partnerships? How did this impact on delivery of

the FAO programme? Were there any missed partnership opportunities? If YES, what

were the missed partnership opportunities?

• To what extent has FAO supported the coordination (of actors) in agricultural

development and in food security and nutrition sectors?

• How relevant, necessary or appropriate has the technical support provided by FAO

headquarters, Regional Office for Africa (RAF) and Subregional Office for Eastern Africa

(SFE) been?

Comparative advantage

• What role has FAO played vis-à-vis other development actors (national and counties, civil

society, the private sector and other international development partners)? Was the role

complementary, supportive, competitive or substitutive?

• Did FAO draw from its own comparative advantage? In which areas did FAO utilize its

strengths to the greatest/least extent?

Normative values

• To what extent has FAO taken into account United Nations normative values and

principles such as equity, gender and human rights in the design and implementation of

its programme?

• To what extent have cross-cutting issues been mainstreamed in the implementation of

initiatives (HIV, nutrition and gender)?


2

Programme contribution: Are we making a difference?

For each CPF Outcome:

Relevance

• How appropriate have FAO’s activities been with regard to achievement of the planned

CPF outcome?

• How appropriate have FAO’s activities been with regard to the achievement of the

national (or county) agricultural priorities?

• In the areas of capacity development, and in providing policy and technical advice, has

FAO supported the right actors? Has it provided holistic technical and functional support?

• In direct support, has FAO targeted the poorest and most vulnerable households and

responded to their needs, including women and young people?

Impact and effectiveness

• What changes (e.g. behavioural changes, institutional changes, policy changes, technical

adaptations, tangible socio-economic benefits, etc.) did FAO’s interventions contribute

to? Have livelihoods and food security been affected by results on the medium and long-

term and how?

• To what extent have these changes resulted in progress towards the desired outcomes?

• Who among the target groups have benefitted most/least from the changes and why?

• Are there unintended changes or outcomes?

• What are enabling factors that contributed to the achievement of results? Were there any

limiting factors? What actions are needed to overcome barriers that are limiting

progress?

Sustainability of results

• To what extent are the changes achieved sustainable?

• To what extent are the interventions or results owned by beneficiaries?

• Are there exit strategies in place in FAO activities/interventions? Where applicable, to

what extent have these been followed?

Coherence and synergies

• To what extent is FAO’s programme coherent? Is the CPF an appropriate and useful

framework? If NO, what needs to be done in order to make it an appropriate and useful

framework?

• To what extent have FAO’s regional initiatives provided coherent and/or complementary

support in view of achieving the CPF results?

• Has FAO’s knowledge base (normative products, guidelines, publications, etc.) been

effectively utilized at country level in the areas of FAO’s comparative advantage? How, if

at all, has knowledge and lessons learned generated at country level been effectively

shared at the regional and global levels?


3

1.3 Approach

8. The FAO Office of Evaluation (OED) considers the principle of national ownership of the

development process as a cornerstone in conducting its work. As such, it recognizes that

national governments and inhabitants of member states are the intended beneficiaries of

the assistance provided by FAO, and thus have a stake in making the assistance as relevant

and effective as it can be. As primary stakeholders, therefore, they have the right to know

whether this was indeed the case, and how FAO’s contributions could be further improved.

Based on this principle, the Office of Evaluation (OED) makes every effort to promote

national ownership of its evaluations, especially CPEs and project evaluations.

9. Past experience shows that the value of forward-looking evaluations such as CPEs is greatly

enhanced if there is strong national involvement. To this end, the Office of Evaluation (OED)

pursued a joint evaluation approach for the Kenya CPE. Two organizations were identified

for having the experience and capacity to join the process: the Kenya Institute for Public

Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA) and the Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and

Development (Tegemeo). The two organizations have extensive experience in FAO’s

domain of work and are respected both in Kenya and internationally.

10. The three organizations signed Letters of Agreement outlining the roles and responsibilities

as well as resource allocations for conducting the evaluation. The partnership resulted in

the creation of a single evaluation team, with each organization designating an Evaluation

Manager to participate in the Management Group leading the day-to-day activities.

Evaluation tasks were divided as follows:

• all three organizations contributed to assessing FAO’s strategic positioning

• KIPPRA evaluated contributions in CPF Outcomes 1,3 and 5

• Tegemeo evaluated contributions in CPF Outcome 2

• the FAO Office of Evaluation (OED) evaluated contributions in CPF Outcome 4

1.4 Methodology

11. The evaluation covers the period between 2013 and 2016 and used an outcome harvesting

approach1 where outcomes/results were selected and the evidence of FAO’s contribution

was sought. During the period under review, FAO’s programme delivery was almost

USD 28 million. Results were identified by reviewing various documents and conducting

initial interviews with country team members. A shortlist was made through purposive

sampling, based on a given results’ linkage with other CPF outcome areas, geographical

distribution and size of budget of the project that led to it. A final selection was made by

the evaluation team following consultations with FAO sector heads.

12. A case study of FAO’s “flagship” project on conservation agriculture (CA) (GCP/KEN/079/EC)

was conducted. This project falls under Outcome 2 of the CPF.

13. Data for the evaluation was obtained through review of various project reports; among

them FAO annual reports, project documents, technical reports and other relevant

documents. These reviews provided the evaluation team with insights into the FAO

1 The approach was deemed as appropriate for fulfilling the evaluation purpose, in particular to measure a variety

of contributions made by FAO during the period.


4

programme in Kenya. The bulk of the data was collected through interviews with

stakeholders engaged in agriculture drawn from the national and county level. A total of

529 key informants were interviewed comprising of FAO staff, national and county

government staff, civil society, development partners and beneficiaries (295 farmers

through focus groups). Over 80 percent of the persons interviewed were female. A total of

13 counties were visited by the evaluation team. The counties visited were determined by

the location of where the respective results selected for assessment manifested themselves.

The counties covered are Turkana, Marsabit, Samburu, Laikipia, Muranga, Nakuru, Makueni,

Tana River, Kwale, Tharaka Nithi, Kilifi, Kitui and Machakos. Additional information was

obtained through 16 focus group discussion with direct beneficiaries.

14. Additionally, a total of 752 households were surveyed as part of the data collection for the

case study on conservation agriculture and FAO’s work on resilience (Outcome 4). The

survey was conducted in Makueni and Kitui and was a follow-up exercise to a baseline

survey carried out two years prior.

15. To address partnership and coordination, a questionnaire was sent to FAO partners at the

national and county levels. A total of 105 responses were received equating to a response

rate of 25 percent. Government employees accounted for more than half (57 percent) of

the respondents, followed by international NGOs (13 percent), United Nations agencies

(10 percent) and academia (10 percent). Respondents from the national NGOs were limited

(5 percent), with the remaining coming from the private sector and bilateral partners.

1.5 Limitations

16. The joint nature of the evaluation involved lengthy negotiations which delayed its start. This

was particularly the case in getting approval of Terms of References and signing of Letters

of Agreement. Likewise, having to adapt to different internal procedures within the partner

organizations meant delays in getting logistics in place, drafting and revising the various

inputs and the final report.

17. Data collection coincided with the start of the electioneering period and some targeted

respondents, particularly at the county level, were not readily available.

18. The outcome harvesting approach adopted for the evaluation limited the number of results

that were looked at. This means that the findings herein cannot be generalized and

interpreted as being representative of the whole FAO programme in Kenya during the

period. Nonetheless, the evaluation team considers that the results that were assessed were

the key ones and thus provide useful insights, as for example, the case study on

conservation agriculture. This is further reinforced by the fact that results for all five CPF

Outcomes were selected for the evaluation.

1.6 Structure of the report

19. This report is divided into five sections: after the introduction, Section 2 provides an

overview of Kenya and FAO’s programme in the country. Section 3 covers FAO’s strategic

positioning while Section 4 addresses FAO’s contributions during the period under

evaluation. Section 5 presents conclusions and recommendations.


5

2 Context

20. This section covers the context under which FAO’s programmes was conducted. Section

2.1.1 provides a brief description of socio-economic information on Kenya while 2.1.2 gives

an overview of the agricultural sector. A description of FAO’s country programme, including

resource allocation, is provided in subsection 2.2.

2.1 Background and trends

2.1.1 Country profile

21. Kenya is located in East Africa and borders Ethiopia to the North, South Sudan to the North

West, Uganda to the West, Republic of Tanzania to the South and Somalia and Indian

Ocean to the East and South East respectively. Kenya has a population of 45 million.2 The

country has an area of 582 646 square kilometres though only 16 percent of the land mass

is of high and medium potential. Commercial agriculture is undertaken in this portion,

which is distributed as crop land (31 percent), grazing (30 percent) and forests (22 percent)

and the rest is used for settlement. The remaining 84 percent of land mass is arid and semi-

arid land (ASALs) suitable for ranching, agro-pastoralism and pastoralism.

22. The country has the largest economy in East Africa with an estimated gross domestic

product (GDP) of USD 70.53 billion and a per capita income of USD 1 361 (KNBS 2017). The

country has made significant structural and economic reforms that have contributed to

sustained economic growth in the past decade. In the past three years the economy grew

at an average rate of 5.6 percent.

23. The natural resource-based sectors (agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, tourism, water

supply and energy) account for about 42 percent3 of GDP. The sectors also account for

more than 70 percent of employment. However in recent years most of the resources,

particularly rangelands and water have declined, with adverse effect on GDP contribution.

24. A number of challenges confronting Kenya include ecosystem overexploitation, pollution,

natural disasters, climate change and a relatively high population growth. These will

exacerbate Kenya’s economic performance, food and nutrition security, poverty rate,

inequality (currently at 45 Gini coefficient) and youth (12-34 years of age) unemployment,

(currently estimated at 22.7 percent).4

2.1.2 Overview of Kenya’s agriculture, food security and nutrition situation

25. In the Constitution promulgated in 2010, agriculture is devolved with the national

government responsible for policy, while county government are responsible for

implementation. Agriculture is the mainstay of the Kenyan economy contributing to one-

quarter of the national GDP valued at USD 4.5 billion and indirectly another 27 percent

valued at USD 5.1 billion through linkages with manufacturing and service sectors (KNBS,

2017). The sector accounts for 65 percent of the value of total exports and is the source of

2 Kenya National Bureau of Statistics: KNBS (2017) Statistical Abstract. 3 Given the studies reviewed (which provide estimation of ranges of figures) used in this paragraph, the total

exceeds 100 percent. 4 National Gender and Inequality Commission (2016). Status of equality and inclusion in Kenya.


6

60 percent of the total employment and 80 percent of the rural employment. Smallholder

agriculture is the dominant mode of production. This contributes to 70 percent of marketed

production. Thus, agriculture influences other sectors of the economy besides supporting

livelihoods of rural vulnerable groups such as pastoralists, the landless and subsistence

farmers.5 For example, 75 percent of those employed in the manufacturing sector are

employed in agro-based industries.6

26. Agriculture is identified as one of the sectors expected to contribute to the 10 percent

annual GDP growth rate contemplated in the Kenya Vision 2030 (Government of Kenya,

2007).7 This will be realized through transforming smallholder agriculture from subsistence

to an innovative, commercially-oriented and modern agricultural sector. The Vision

identifies reforming of agriculture institutions, increasing productivity, value addition and

land use reforms as critical areas of achieving high agriculture performance.

27. The land reforms are defined in the national land policy of 2009.8 The policy identifies a

number of challenges including rapid population growth, breakdown in land administration

and land delivery procedures, inadequate participation by communities in the governance

and management of land and natural resources; general deterioration in land productivity;

and inadequate environmental management and conflicts over land and land-based

resources. These pressures have adversely impacted on the land sector, resulting in

fragmentation; deterioration in land quality; underutilization and abandonment of

agricultural land; tenure insecurity; disinheritance of women and other vulnerable groups,

wanton destruction of forests, catchment areas and areas of unique biodiversity; and

desertification in the ASALs. All these manifestations have a direct bearing on agriculture

and rural development.

28. The Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) 2010-2020 is the main policy

document in agriculture. It aims to ensure food security and prosperity by 2020,

commercializing agriculture and promoting public and private sector agricultural

development. ASDS was informed by the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development

Programme (CAADP) Framework.9 This influenced its approach and programming

directions, especially the emphasis on food and nutrition security and sustainable

agriculture.

29. Agricultural productivity has remained very low over the last decade and the potential of

the sector has not been fully exploited. For example, the average yield for maize has over

the years stagnated at 1.3 tonnes per hectare (Ha) while milk production has remained

below 5 litres per cow per day (Government of Kenya, ASDSP, 2011). This is due to a

number of factors: key among them the large number of smallholder farmers who own less

than 5 acres, low application of modern technologies, lack of access to affordable credit,

5 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2015). Green economy sector study on agriculture in Kenya.

p.34. 6 KIPPRA. (2014). Kenya Economic Report 2014. 7 Government of Kenya 2007. Kenya Vision 2030. 8 Government of Kenya 2009. Sessional paper no. 3 of 2009 on national land policy. 9 CAADP was endorsed in 2003 by the African leaders under the New Partnership for Africa's Development

(NEPAD) as a plan of action to put agriculture back onto the development agenda. The goal of CAADP is to guide

countries achieve an average annual growth rate of 6 percent in agriculture by stimulating agriculture

development and elimination of hunger and food insecurity, through the integration of farmers into a market

economy.


7

frequent droughts and floods, reduced effectiveness of extension services and gender

inequalities that constrain resource access, among others. In addition, the sector’s financing

remains low at between 4 and 5 percent of the national budget which falls below the

10 percent commitment under the Maputo Declaration.

30. Since 2006, there has been a general decline in food production characterized by deficits of

the main staples including maize, rice, wheat, beans, millet and sorghum. The country is

however self-sufficient in meat products. The majority of food insecure households are

found in pastoral counties of Eastern, North-eastern and Northern Kenya and rely on food

relief during droughts and floods. These areas often experience droughts leading to water

and pasture shortages, resource-based conflicts and poor animal conditions which result in

famine.

31. Food and nutrition insecurity can be attributed to a number of factors which affect food

availability and access. These include severe and frequent droughts and floods due to

climate change, high costs of domestic food production due to high fertilizer prices, high

global food prices, monoculture crop practices, regional trade barriers, border closures for

trade, low productivity, low income among a substantial proportion of households due to

poverty, post-harvest losses and acidification of soils by diammonium phosphate (DAP)

fertilizers which limit maize production among others. The Government has responded to

food insecurity using three main policy interventions; supply, prices and income-related

policies.10

32. The food security situation in Kenya is monitored by the Kenya Food Security Meeting

(KFSM) and in particular by its technical subcommittee, the Kenya Food Security Steering

Group (KFSSG). The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) is one of the key

instruments of the country’s food security information system. The IPC was introduced in

2007 and is based on the KFSSG’s food security assessment done twice a year - for the long

rains (July/August) and the short rains (January/February). IPC information is used by KFSM

stakeholders for taking decisions on food security and nutrition matters.

2.2 FAO Programme in the Republic of Kenya

33. The Republic of Kenya became a Member Nation of FAO in 1964, and in 1977 FAO

strengthened its presence through the establishment of a fully-fledged representation in

Nairobi. In recent years, FAO’s support to the country’s national development priorities has

taken the form of technical cooperation, policy support, emergency assistance and joint

programmes along with other United Nations agencies. The main areas of work are policy

development support, agricultural productivity and commercialization, natural resource

management (NRM), resilience, knowledge sharing and capacity development across the

various sectors. FAO partners include the Ministry of Agriculture, the National Drought

Management Authority, county governments and NGO’s to name but a few.

34. FAO is an active participant at various levels within the Kenya Food Security Meeting,

including co-chairing the Kenya Food Security Steering Group and chairing the sustainable

livelihoods working group. Within this context, FAO supports food security assessments,

data collection and analysis as well as capacity building efforts on food security and

nutrition at county level.

10 Government of Kenya 2011. Agricultural Sector Development Support. Programme Document.


8

35. FAO has a full-fledged representation with its main office in Nairobi and 14 sub-offices,

with a total decentralized presence in 21 counties (out of 47).

2.2.1 FAO Country Programming Framework

36. The Country Programming Framework is the principal instrument that defines the

development priorities for collaboration between FAO and Kenya. The current CPF covers

the period between 2014 and 2017 and has five outcomes, with gender mainstreaming,

HIV, nutrition and disaster risk management (DRM) as cross-cutting issues. These outcomes

are:

• Outcome 1: Agricultural-based livelihoods and sectors are supported by an enabling

policy, strategy and investment environment that promotes equality and inclusivity.

• Outcome 2: Productivity of medium- and small-scale agricultural producers increased,

diversified and aligned to markets.

• Outcome 3: Improved management of land, water and other natural resources for

enhanced food security and socio-economic development at national, county and

community level.

• Outcome 4: Improved livelihood resilience of targeted, vulnerable populations.

• Outcome 5: Access to and use of information, innovation, a global pool of knowledge

and expertise drives holistic growth in the agricultural sector.

37. The CPF adopts a programmatic approach, whereby interventions are to contribute across

outcomes. It emphasizes food and nutrition security, encompassing support on policy

development, technical backstopping, planning and capacity development. The CPF aims to

achieve a more competitive and productive agriculture and increased food security for

Kenyans. Ultimately CPF aims at eradication of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in

Kenya.

38. Almost half of the total budget of the programme over the period under evaluation (2013-

2016), was invested in Outcome 4 (resilience). FAO’s work in this area included support to

livelihood diversification, managing rangeland resources, animal health and supporting the

national government and counties through the development of resilience baselines and

investment mapping among others.

39. The second largest allocation was in Outcome 2 (agricultural productivity, diversification

and market alignment). FAO’s work under this Outcome focused primarily on conservation

agriculture. The third largest resource allocation was for Outcome 3 (natural resource

management). Work in this area included water issues, land tenure and climate-smart

agriculture.


9

Figure 1: Budget and projects

Source: Compiled by evaluation team from FPMIS

40. Implementation of the CPF is supported by three regional initiatives. The first is “Renewed

Partnership to End Hunger in Africa by 2025” which calls for countries to promote actions

towards zero hunger in line with the targets set within the CAADP framework. The second is

“Sustainable production intensification and value chain development in Africa” aiming for

agricultural diversification, productivity and competitiveness, in a value chain context. The

third initiative is “Building Resilience in Africa’s Drylands” which aims to strengthen the

resilience of livelihoods to shocks, threats and crises as well as building institutional

capacities to prepare for, coordinate and manage effective responses.

2.2.2 Overview of FAO’s field programme

41. Over the evaluation period (2013-2016),11 total delivery of FAO’s programme in Kenya is

estimated at USD 27 828 000.12 The majority of delivery is undertaken by implementation of

30 country level projects, as well as 17 regional and global level projects.13 The table below

shows decreasing emergency delivery, as well as increasing delivery for technical

cooperation projects. The sharp increase in delivery over the 2014-2015 period is due to

the start of three European Union-funded projects in the areas of natural resource

management, livestock and good agricultural practices (GAP).

11 Only projects operationally active during this period have been included. 12 Total delivery to Kenya combines emergency and technical cooperation funding. 13 Only those projects indicated by the Country Officers as having a significant Kenya component, i.e. number of

activities implemented have been included.


10

Figure 2: Total delivery 2013-2016

Source: FPMIS

42. The European Union has been the largest donor for FAO-Kenya over the same period,

funding 63 percent of the budget for country level projects. The second largest is Sweden,

followed by FAO through funding of Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) projects.

Table 1: Resource partners for FAO Kenya, 2013-2016

Donor Number of

projects Budget Actual expenditure

Percentage of total

budget

European Union 5 28 285 402 19 149 781.66 63%

Sweden 3 4 095 773 3 838 768.12 9%

FAO 10 3 544 190 2 196 973.35 8%

Germany 1 2 592 471 2 519 810.43 6%

IFAD 1 1 996 915 429 663.49 4%

Italy 2 1 195 011 619 753.09 3%

UNO 1 997 775 957 578.94 2%

UNDP 1 890 000 889 843.18 2%

WFP 1 500 000 499 803.73 1%

OCHA 1 519 947 399 721.72 1%

MTC -

MasterCard 1 109 649 0 0%

USA 1 100 000 95 965.42 0%

Total 30 44 827 133 31 647 785.66 100%

Source: Compiled by evaluation team from FPMIS


11

3 Assessment of FAO’s strategic positioning

43. This section addresses the question: Are we doing what is needed? The findings are

organized by the evaluation criteria for strategic positioning as described in the evaluation

matrix. Section 3.1 discusses the strategic relevance of the Country Programming

Framework, while Section 3.2 examines FAO’s response to devolution. Section 3.3 looks at

the Office’s response to emergencies and 3.4 discusses partnership and coordination issues.

Section 3.5 reviews how programmes reflected normative values (cross-cutting issues) and

Section 3.6 assesses FAO’s comparative advantage.

3.1 FAO’s strategic relevance

Finding 1. FAO’s CPF (2014-2017) and programme of work is aligned to important national

development plans, strategies and policies. Alignment is better at national level and less so at

county level. The degree of alignment is one of the elements that permit FAO to be strategically

positioned as an important partner for national stakeholders.

3.1.1 Alignment of FAO work to relevant policies and strategies

44. The alignment of FAO’s ‘CPF and programme of work was evaluated against key national

policies and strategies; among them the Kenya Vision 2030, the Agriculture sector

Development strategy 2010-2020, the National Food and Nutrition Security Policy, the

Common Programme Framework for Ending Drought Emergency (EDE) and the National

Land Policy. Alignment was also evaluated against the United Nations Development

Assistance Framework (UNDAF) for Kenya 2014–2018.

45. The CPF was prepared in a consultative manner with the Government of Kenya and

development partners through a series of workshops and bilateral discussions. The process

sought to ensure that the CPF contained national agricultural priorities and objectives as

defined by government policies and leveraged FAO’s comparative advantage. The process

resulted in the CPF being aligned with key development plans, strategies and policies,

providing the basis on which FAO built its programme of work.

46. As the devolved system of governance was just beginning, an additional workshop was

held in order to incorporate emerging county priorities. Nonetheless, some county

stakeholders consider that those interactions were insufficient and that for the

development of the next CPF, FAO has to engage county stakeholders more effectively. The

evaluation considers that this was indeed a missed opportunity but considers that given the

nascent stage of devolution; all stakeholders were still trying to come to terms with the new

system and faced a myriad of challenges to adapt accordingly.

47. The major lesson from the development of the CPF is that participatory processes are slow

and difficult especially when dealing with such a diversity of actors as FAO works with.

However, such participatory processes are important for ensuring ownership of the final

product by partners. Such ownership is critical for implementation of the country

programme. To ensure participation of stakeholders and partners in the development of

the CPF, sufficient time and resources should be provided for the process, especially since

county governments and communities have to be engaged.

48. The findings presented in Section 4 demonstrate the high degree to which the FAO

programme is aligned to key national policies and strategies, therefore being an important


12

contributor to achieving nationally determined goals. FAO’s vision of “A world free from

hunger and malnutrition where food and agriculture contribute to improving the living

standards of all, especially the poorest, in an economically, socially and environmentally

sustainable manner” correspond to Kenya’s aspirations in the Vision 2030 and the

Agricultural Sector Development Strategy. By taking a strategic approach, through the CPF,

FAO interventions contributed towards the respective government priorities.

49. Kenya Vision 2030: This is Kenya’s long-term development blueprint which aims to

transform the county into a middle-income county by 2030. The Vision targets a GDP

growth rate of 10 percent per annum and agriculture is expected to play a key role. To

achieve this growth, transforming smallholder agriculture from subsistence to an

innovative, commercially-oriented and modern agricultural sector is critical. This is to be

realized through:

• transforming key institutions in the sector including agriculture, livestock, forestry and

wildlife to promote agricultural growth;

• increasing productivity of crops, livestock and tree cover;

• promoting land-use policies to improve utilization of both high- and medium-potential

lands;

• increased investment in irrigation for both crops and livestock development;

• improved market access through better supply chain management at local, regional

and international markets;

• increasing value addition to farm, livestock and forestry products.

50. These strategies are addressed by the CPF through Outcomes 1 (Outputs 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and

1.4); Outcome 2 (Outputs 2.1-2.4); Outcome 3 (Outputs 3.1 and 3.2) and Outcome 5

(outputs 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3).

51. Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) 2010-2020: The policy has the

objective of ensuring food security, commercializing agriculture and promoting public and

private sector agricultural development. The ASDS’ target is to reduce the number of

people living below absolute poverty to less than 25 percent and reduce food insecurity by

30 percent. The ASDS identifies creating a sound policy framework a priority in guiding the

development of agriculture.

52. FAO’s programme is aligned to the ASDS. Outcome 1 of the CPF focuses on creating an

enabling policy environment in agriculture, a challenge identified in ASDS and Outcome 2

on increased productivity and market access. Outcome 3 responds to the ASDS through

activities addressing land use practices and agroforestry. Outcome 4 is relevant to the

ASDS’ approach to ASAL especially in the context of resilience to shocks. Outcome 5

focuses on innovations in agriculture such as access to and use of information to increase

productivity. The ASDS prioritizes “climate-smart agriculture" which is a component of

conservation agriculture as well as to building resilience, both being major focus areas of

FAO’s programme in the country.

53. Examples of FAO’s programmatic alignment with other strategies, policies and plans

include:

54. Common Programme Framework for Ending Drought Emergency (EDE): EDE Common

Programme Framework was formulated to address the problem of drought in Kenya ASAL

counties by facilitating cooperation and synergy across sectors, actors, geographical areas


13

and levels of operation. It represents an important shift in policy, from one that relies on

reacting to the effects of drought as they arise, to one that actively seeks to reduce

vulnerability and risk through sustainable development. The EDE has six pillars: i) peace and

security; ii) climate-proofed infrastructure; iii) human capital; iv) sustainable livelihoods; v)

drought risk management; and vi) institutional development and knowledge management.

55. CFP Outcomes 1, 2 and 4 respond to EDE Pillar 4, while Outcome 5 responds to Pillars 5

and 6.

56. The National Land Policy: The National Land Policy was adopted in 2009 as a principle

policy on land management in Kenya. It asserts the priority of the Government to

operationalize the new framework for land governance and management and related

reforms.

57. CPF Outcome 3 responds to the national land policy mainly through support to formulation

of the Community Land Act and institutional support at county and local levels.

58. Sessional Paper No. 8 of 2012 on the Sustainable Development of Northern Kenya

and other Arid Lands: The aim of the policy is to facilitate sustainable development in

Northern Kenya and other arid lands and to strengthen the resilience of ASAL communities

to drought through various means including land and natural resource management,

livestock production and marketing, and livelihood diversification.

59. CPF Outcomes 2, 3 and 4 and various FAO programmes address the objectives of the

sessional paper through activities on rangeland management, and natural resource

management, conservation agriculture and resilience building.

60. County Integrated Development Plans (CIDPs): The 2010 Constitution devolved

agriculture and in line with this county developed County Integrated Development Plans

and agriculture sector plans to guide development in the sector. The CIDPs for counties

covered in this evaluation incorporated one or more of the following issues: conservation

agriculture, disease surveillance, disaster risk management and resilience, and control and

rangeland management. These issues were addressed to one degree or another in FAO’s

programme.

61. United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 2014-2018: Kenya is a

“Delivering as One” country and UNDAF was developed under that framework. It comprises

four strategic results: i) transformational governance; ii) human capital development; iii)

inclusive and sustainable economic growth; and iv) environmental sustainability, land

management and human security.

62. CPF Outcome 1 corresponds to UNDAF Strategic Result 1; Outcomes 2 and 4 are in line

with Strategic Result 3, while Outcome 3 corresponds to Strategic Result 4. FAO’s

programme of work for the period evaluated is aligned to UNDAF.

63. In relation to alignment, the evidence collected through document reviews and interviews is

corroborated by the partner survey. The survey found that 84 percent of respondents

consider that FAO’s work is aligned with national needs and priorities (while the remaining

16 percent did not know).


14

3.1.2 FAO response to emerging issues

Finding 2. FAO response to emerging needs was appropriate, although at times there were

delays occasioned by lengthy procedures at the FAO Office of Evaluation (OED). The responses

also lacked a comprehensive strategy to ensure targeted beneficiaries were reached.

64. During the period 2013-2016, Kenya experienced a number of developments which had

potential to affect its food and nutrition security. For example, commercial viability of oil

discoveries in Turkana County was confirmed, which triggered a rush for land in the county.

FAO responded by developing a programme to sensitize the county and community about

the impact of the oil discovery. However, not much progress was realized since only an

information system was set-up.

65. In Tana River County there were conflicts between farmers and pastoralists overgrazing

rights. This particularly affected the Tana Delta which is a dry season grazing zone and

attracts a large number of livestock from the hinterland, as well as from North Eastern

Counties. FAO was requested by the county government and facilitated a community

resource mapping and supported the drafting of a Land and Livestock Grazing Control Bill.

However, in addressing drought emergencies in the county, the evaluation team was

informed of late delivery of the feeds, and often no budget provision was provided to

ensure their delivery to the individual recipients. Thus only beneficiaries with the ability to

access the feeds from the county level benefited most.

66. Another response of FAO to emergencies was in controlling disease outbreaks occasioned

by drought in ASAL counties. FAO successfully supported the County Veterinary

Departments to carry out emergency mass vaccination campaigns in Samburu and

Marsabit. This resulted in the vaccination of more than 75 percent of the sheep and goat

population against Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR) disease. Furthermore, after an appeal

from a number of counties affected by the Acute Camel Disease Syndrome in 2015 and

2016, FAO facilitated the veterinary teams to collect samples for diagnosing the disease.

FAO was also involved in the supply of animal feeds to address drought emergencies.

Additional data as to the effectiveness of these types of activities are detailed in Section 4.4.

3.1.3 Missed opportunities

67. During the evaluation period, there were several areas where the Ministry of Agriculture,

Livestock and Fisheries expected FAO to contribute but did not. The CPF period coincides

with the process of transitioning to a devolved governance system, and collaboration with

the Ministry county government capacity building to facilitate implementation of national

polices was a missed opportunity. FAO could have partnered with the Ministry, for example,

to develop training modules for county governments. Again, the fluid nature of the

devolution process presented competing priorities and resource constraints prevented

addressing all needs.

68. FAO worked through the civil society organizations (CSOs) in the land sector in the reform

agenda. Despite the important role played by CSOs in advocacy and lobbying, lack of a

framework meant that FAO engaged them on an ad hoc basis. This resulted in slow pace of

the adoption of the National Land Policy and related Bills.


15

3.2 Appropriateness of FAO’s response to devolution

Finding 3. FAO’s response to devolution allowed it to accompany county governments as they

transitioned into their new roles related to agriculture. The county office model, both in terms of

approach and sustainability, requires detailed assessment in order to determine its continuity.

69. FAO responded to devolution by opening offices at counties and working directly with

county governments - in line with the CPF. Through this approach, FAO was able to adjust

its work to county priorities, establish close working relationships and facilitate

collaboration between key stakeholders. This approach enabled FAO to engage more

effectively with county level stakeholders and was an appropriate response at that juncture.

70. FAO offices are hosted by county governments, often in the county agriculture premises

themselves. It is important to note that the FAO county offices are not “mini-FAO country

offices”; most County Programme Officers are funded by KEN/079 (Conservation

Agriculture project) yet their presence is leveraged by other FAO initiatives within that

context. Making FAO county offices dependent on a project is risky in terms of

sustainability and can also potentially lead to unclear reporting lines. The future of the

county office model should therefore be reviewed in light of the lessons learned to date

and the goals to be pursued through the new CPF.

71. A total of 14 county offices were opened and are run by their respective County

Programme Officers.

72. The approach taken by FAO has been viewed differently by the stakeholders. Some FAO

partners at the national level were of the view that FAO should focus on the areas where it

has comparative advantage (in their opinion) - policy and capacity building. From their

perspective, FAO work should have been at national level and only support the counties in

implementing projects and programmes. The other issues they raised were the efficiency

and effectiveness of FAO’s expansion in the long-run, since it would not be sustainable to

cover all the 47 counties. It was noted that even in those counties where FAO has opened

offices its presence is very thin as most of the offices had only one technical staff and a

driver. Turkana County for example, had just one County Coordinator and a driver. In Tana

River County, there was no staff since the end of the project GCP/KEN/077/EC, but even

when the project was operational it had just one person on the ground.

73. Some FAO programme staff believe that the complaints stem from the fact that although

devolution implies a loss of resources and functions by central government stakeholders,

they view themselves as interlocutors and therefore FAO should not be “in the field”. Those

programme staff reject the suggestion that FAO is positioning itself as a direct

implementer, insisting that all they do is support county governments and local partners.

County level stakeholders (County Government, civil society and the community) viewed

the decentralization positively. They highlighted the benefits that come with FAO’s

presence - especially the fluid interactions the approach allows fostering a closer dialogue,

as well as permitting readjustments of plans when need arise. They appreciated the fact

that by working directly with the County Government, FAO has been responding

appropriately to Counties’ needs. The majority of respondents to the partner survey

consider that as a result of having a presence at the county level, FAO’s programme of work

is better aligned to local needs and priorities through a better understanding of realities in

situ.


16

74. The partnership between FAO and county agriculture authorities for the implementation of

the IPP-GAP14 project is a typical example of how the Organization has supported the

devolution process. Through its field presence, FAO is in an advantageous position by

developing close relationships with county authorities. It has also facilitated capacity

building of county agriculture authorities and extensions services on specific issues that are

part of county priorities, such as value chains, conservation agriculture and good

agricultural practices; all important elements for local authorities to carry out their new

functions in a devolved context.

75. There are a number of challenges facing FAO as it seeks to deliver in a devolved context:

• Devolution implementation: The transition to a new system itself required a period

of adjustments and clarification for all involved. Devolution of agriculture and land

administration is ongoing, with the national and county level structures still in the

process of adapting to roles. The transition places partners like FAO in a difficult

situation, as it results in friction and delays as new processes at both levels of

government are established.

• Lack of understanding of FAO’s mandate: There is lack of a common understanding

by county governments on what FAO can do. Not surprisingly, county governments

often prioritize infrastructure and equipment, and tend to judge the utility of

development partnerships by how much of these it delivers. Managing stakeholder’s

expectations is important and through better communication can go a long way in

bringing clarity as to FAO’s role in counties.

• Lack of clarity within FAO to the devolution process: There are issues of

coordination and support between FAO projects because the County Programme

Officers are mainly focused on tasks associated to the specific projects they work for

and have technical expertise in. There are also questions about how FAO can balance

its new role at the county level with its mandate as a technical agency to avoid being

perceived as another project implementer.

• Lack of harmonized policies across counties: Counties have tended to have differing

policies on cross-cutting issues and implementation approaches - especially as regards

to natural resources management. For example, in Samburu and Marsabit, FAO

supported controlled system of grazing where animals were moved in different blocks

depending on drought conditions. However, neighbouring counties without any

regulations would drive their animal into the county and destabilize the grazing

pattern.

76. Devolution has created need for FAO’s technical advice and support at both national and

county levels, as the Government endeavours to establish and build capacity of structures

to deliver on agriculture and rural development. FAO is strategically placed with its in-

house technical expertise, global network and long experience to provide the support the

national and county governments need at this point in time.

14 Increased productivity and profitability of smallholder farmers through promotion and upscaling of good

agricultural practices and conservation agriculture in productive semi-arid areas of Kenya (IPP-GAP) –

GCP/KEN/079/EC


17

77. As the changes brought on by devolution take root and with the new CPF on the horizon,

FAO can engage in a process of reflection and dialogue with all partners in the search for

the most appropriate and sustainable way for it to implement its programme in a devolved

context.

3.3 Response to emergencies

Finding 4. FAO has responded appropriately to emergencies by providing material and/or

technical support. Response effectiveness has been hampered by delays in procuring inputs.

78. When drought occurs, pasture and water are depleted and markets disrupted, eventually

leading to food insecurity. Outbreaks of both human and animal diseases are common

during droughts. In extreme form, droughts lead to widespread human and animal deaths.

79. For example, during the drought of 2016 in Samburu and Marsabit, FAO responded to

livestock disease outbreak by supporting the County Veterinary Departments to carry out

emergency mass vaccination campaigns. It provided vaccines and drugs against Peste des

Petits Ruminants, Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP). FAO also provided cold

chain equipment and county staff allowances. This support was appropriate as it enabled

the Veterinary Department to adequately respond to diseases outbreaks occasioned by the

droughts.

80. At the same time, FAO collaborated with the National Drought Management Authority

(NDMA) and County Department of Livestock Production in Marsabit to facilitate

destocking through improved markets and emergency slaughter of weak animals. FAO also

supported the provision of feed supplements in form of concentrates, rehabilitation

boreholes, provision of fast moving spares for boreholes and fuel subsidies. Furthermore,

prior to drought emergency response, FAO supported both the analysis of forage

availability through the Predictive Livestock Early Warning System (PLEWS) tool and rapid

assessments of the drought situation which were used by other stakeholders for donor

appeal and response planning.

81. During the period under evaluation, Kenya had issues with aflatoxin for which FAO teamed

up with the National Food Safety Coordination Committee to draft a Code of Practice (COP)

for mycotoxin controls in cereals. At county level, it facilitated testing15 of aflatoxin levels in

maize available in the markets, at farm level and in schools implementing a school feeding

programme.

82. Despite being appropriate and flexible, FAO’s response to emergencies was at times

characterized by late delivery of critical supplies and slow procurement processes. For,

example in the provision of feeds, the procured feeds arrived late and took long to reach

the intended communities due to lack of transport. Only those farmers with the capacity to

pick the feeds by themselves benefited from this support.

83. FAO’s work in resilience is critical, in strategic terms, as a means to mitigate and address

emergency situations. The expertise and experience the Organization allows it to be well

positioned to further consolidate gains in the long-term.

15 In Meru, Embu, Kitui, Machakos and Makueni counties.


18

24

26

27

27

28

31

51

52

55

55

58

74

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Fisheries /Blue economy

Social protection

Water management

Other (please specify)

Youth

WASH

Livestock/pastoralism

Natural Resource Management…

Nutrition

Agricultural production

Resilience and livelihood support

Food security

3.4 Partnership and coordination

Finding 5. FAO has established successful partnerships and has played an important role in

various coordination fora. Partners consider the collaboration with FAO as very valuable.

Partnerships for FAO are an important mechanism for conducting and implementing its

programme. It has established partnerships with a diverse number of stakeholders - both

formally or ad hoc. FAO implements activities primarily through government entities and NGOs in

the area of food security and agriculture production (with a focus on conservation agriculture).

Other partnership areas include livestock production and animal disease control, plant disease

control and surveillance, research and resilience activities.

Finding 6. While responding to the changes brought on by devolution, FAO became a valuable

partner in various forums at the national and county level. Besides FAO having acted as one of

the main facilitators in training county agriculture staff as soon as the devolved units were in

place, they have also been actively engaged in the fora that guide the setting of priorities in

matters relating to agricultural development at the county and national level.

84. The profile of FAO’s partners provides insight into its work and approach. A survey of FAO

partners in various coordination groups at the national and county levels, as well as those

programme resource and implementing partners was conducted. Nearly half of

respondents were government authorities (national and county), while the rest were from

international NGOs, United Nations agencies, national NGOs, academia, private sector,

bilateral organizations and resource partners.

85. The types of work partners engage in (see Figure 3) indicate a high degree of

complementarity amongst the stakeholders, with nearly three-quarters of partners working

in the area of food security (74 respondents, 64 percent) and half in resilience (58

respondents, 50 percent).

Figure 3: Issues partner organizations work on

86. Almost all partners work with rural populations (91 percent), followed by peri-urban and

urban with 60 percent and 53 percent respectively. This corresponds to smallholder farmers

falling within FAO’s mandate and also represents existing linkages to reach different types

of beneficiaries (e.g. urban). Similar to FAO, partners also have concentrated activities and


19

resources in the ASAL and coastal areas. Western and Eastern Kenya have relatively less

activities, although partners report more activities than FAO in these areas.

3.4.1 Partnerships

87. The majority of respondents had recent activities implemented in partnership with FAO:

nearly half of all respondents had some ongoing activity with FAO in 2016. During the

evaluation period under evaluation, the number of partnerships increased yearly, reaching

60 in 2016 (Figure 4). The average duration of a project-based partnership is almost two

years, while slightly less than a quarter of those lasting longer than four years. Trends that

emerged from the survey show a tendency towards short- to medium-term programming,

a trend especially visible in cases of emergency support.

Figure 4: Number of FAO partnerships

88. Partner’s perceptions on working with FAO during various phases of the project cycle are

very positive. The types of partnerships are varied in both subject and nature. Some

examples include:

• With different arms of government involved in addressing aflatoxin, FAO along with a

team from National Food Safety Coordination Committee drafted a guide and a code

of practice for mycotoxin controls in cereals.

• Collaborated with Kenya Meteorological Department to share early warning alerts to

the farmers in relation to weather forecasts.

• Through the Agricultural Sector Development Support Programme (ASDSP), FAO

facilitates meetings in counties, which bring together all stakeholders to brainstorm on

issues geared towards improving productivity through diversification and marketing of

agricultural produce.

• FAO supported County and State Department of Veterinary Services in the counties of

Isiolo, Marsabit, Samburu, Garissa, Turkana, to control key livestock diseases (namely

PPR and CCPP) thus protecting important livelihoods assets for beneficiary

communities. On the other hand, the state Department of Veterinary of Services

questioned the rationale of FAO’s approach to devolution by working directly with


20

county veterinary departments. In their view, FAO should only provide technical

support and does not need to have a presence at the county level. They felt FAO

needs to develop a clear partnership strategy vis-à-vis devolution.

• IPP-GAP is implemented in partnership with county agriculture authorities and relies

partly on public extension services for the implementation of the farmer groups

training programme on conservation agriculture and agribusiness. The partnerships

facilitate capacity building of county agriculture authorities and extensions services on

specific issues that are part of county priorities, such as value chains, conservation

agriculture and good agricultural practices.

• As part of IPP-GAP, FAO also worked with private extension services, mainly members

of farmer groups and community-based organizations (CBOs) due to the limited

number of available public extension workers given the targeted coverage foreseen by

the project. This partnership included a vast training programme of extension services,

which is seen by agriculture county authorities as a major contribution to the

devolution process.

• FAO partnered with financial institutions such as the Rabobank Foundation, Universal

Traders Sacco and Imarika Sacco to provide affordable rural finance products and

services. The efforts have not been successful though with the main reason being risk-

averse attitude of most farmers towards credit.

89. FAO has an overall well-functioning collaborative process (Figure 5) across all the areas of

the project cycle, especially during implementation of activities. There is some room for

improvement of efforts during needs assessments, project design and when planning

activities. Likewise, when providing feedback and updates to partners during the

implementation phase.

90. Nearly half of implementing partners who responded (42) indicated they had participated

in a training or workshop held by FAO. Capacity development of partners, in particular

national and county level government staff, occurred in various areas over the 2013-2017

examples mentioned throughout the report.

Figure 5: FAO partnerships

91. Partners consider the benefits of working with FAO are primarily related to the quality of

FAO’s technical contribution, the professionalism and competency of its staff and the

intrinsic value of its reputation and breadth of its reach as a United Nations agency.


21

Additional benefits include opportunities for capacity development and synergies with

other actors in the areas of collaboration.

92. Feedback on the challenges of working with FAO brought out a number of common

themes. Time-consuming administrative procedures and delays in payment/deliveries is by

far the most cited challenge when working with FAO. Three other challenges stand out,

each reported by one respondent: the lack of a dedicated land expert16 as a difficulty; an

over-interest on the part of FAO to only work in ASAL areas; and finally a hands-on

approach to implementation rather than "letting the Government take the lead." This last

one can be interpreted as a residual issue derived from the devolution process.

3.4.2 Coordination

93. FAO is an active participant in a large number of coordination groups at county and

national levels. Feedback17 on FAO’s contribution to coordinating bodies and working

groups came from a broad cluster of areas (Figure 6).

94. There is an overall positive perception (Figure 7) of FAO’s contributions to the various

working groups it participates in. The data from the survey was in line with the positive

feedback obtained during interviews with stakeholders.

95. The primary inputs of FAO to working groups are technical and these are very appreciated,

as are other efforts such as capacity development of members, support for resource

mobilization and as a reliable facilitator. Its contribution as co-chair of the Agriculture and

Rural Development working group was a key achievement where and it has a solid

reputation as an effective facilitator.

96. Among areas where FAO was relatively less active include support to decision-making, as

well as reactivity to member requests/continued communication. Areas were stakeholders

consider FAO should concentrate in order to improve its performance in coordination in

the future are: increased coordination work at county level, support a broader range of

stakeholders involved and support to improving organizational performance of various

coordinating bodies.

16 There was no dedicated land expert at the time of the evaluation, though one joined soon afterwards. 17 There were 79 respondents.


22

Figure 6: Working groups by number of participant respondents

Figure 7: Perception of FAO’s contribution to working groups

97. FAO has a diverse range of partnerships in Kenya, concentrated in the areas of its technical

competency. The quality of partnerships with the Government and NGOs is overall positive,

although there is room for improvement in the areas of increased collaboration for project

design and increased focus on capacity development and coordination at the county level.

98. The majority of FAO partners have a favourable perception of FAO’s increased

decentralized presence, in particular to enhance the relevance and effectiveness of its

activities and support to counties. Certain risks were identified, however, such as the need

to avoid “replacing” county governments and inadvertently creating a dependency cycle.

Some central government stakeholders questioned FAO’s partnership approach in light of

devolution.


23

99. In the area of coordination, FAO was very favourably viewed by partners for the quality and

continuity of its participation in a large number of working groups related to its areas of

work. FAO is seen as a technical partner with the complementary soft skill of facilitation

which increases the effectiveness of its contribution at this level.

3.5 Normative values

100. Up until 2013, FAO had not implemented projects where gender, nutrition and HIV/AIDS

were prominently featured. In 2013 during the formulation of the CPF, there was an

attempt to have gender and nutrition specific CPF outcome, but it was decided that the

topics should be mainstreamed in the remaining outcomes instead. This was primarily due

to the perception that it would be very difficult to obtain funds for such an outcome and

that it would be better to have the various initiatives incorporate the elements thereby

dividing the resource requirements throughout the portfolio of projects.

3.5.1 Gender

Finding 7. Despite contributions in most of the gender focus areas, the CPF did not address

them in a meaningful manner. An opportunity for incorporating them using a systematic

approach to mainstreaming gender in FAO’s work was missed. As a result, few or modest gains

were made in relation to the four objectives of FAO’s policy on gender.

101. Kenya has signed and ratified various international instruments to promote gender equality,

including the Beijing Declaration and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Part 2 of the Constitution of Kenya (2010) takes a

broad approach to gender equality and has led to the development of national policies and

strategies including the Gender Policy of 2011. The policy emphasizes, among others,

equity and equality of women and men, ensuring that interventions do not result in

inequitable gender roles and relations and also gender responsive planning,

implementation and evaluation of policies, programmes and projects.

102. Vision 2030’s Social Pillar sets the frame for national promotion of gender equality, and the

Agricultural Sector Development Strategy 2010-2020 recognizes human and social

development as enabling factors for the agricultural sector, including a gender

mainstreaming policy for the wider agricultural sector. As a result, the Medium Term Plan II

(2013-2017) details subsector and institutional mainstreaming of gender in policies,

strategies and action plans as it, among others, reflects the gender intentions presented in

the ASDS. The gender strategy for agriculture is still pending.

103. In 2013 FAO published its “Policy on Gender Equality - Attaining Food Security Goals in

Agriculture and Rural Development” with the goal “To achieve equality between women

and men in sustainable agricultural production and rural development for the elimination

of hunger and poverty”. The policy identifies five Objectives, the first four of which are

useful in assessing FAO’s programme: 1) Women participate equally with men as decision

makers in rural institutions and in shaping laws, policies and programs; 2) Women and men

have equal access to and control over decent employment and income, land and other

productive resources; 3) Women and men have equal access to goods and services for

agricultural development, and to markets; and 4) Women’s work burden is reduced by

20 percent through improved technologies, services and infrastructure.


24

104. To achieve the objectives, the policy identifies nine focus areas where FAO is to work. FAO’s

contributions during the period, grouped under those focus areas, were:

1) Generating and communicating the evidence base through the use of sex-

disaggregated data to substantiate the importance of closing the gender gap

for achieving FAO’s overall mandate

• Data involving people-centred activities have gender-disaggregated data.

2) Developing and sharing gender equality norms and standards for agricultural

policies and programmes

Activities included:

• Leading training in gender integration in the National Adaptation Plan (NAP)

including introducing the "Methodological Framework for Addressing Gender

Dimensions in Inclusive Natural Resource Governance”;

• Preparing a TCP to facilitate the development of a gender sensitive food and

nutrition security component of the Jumuia ya Kaunti za Pwani (JKP) economic

blue print.

3) Building and disseminating knowledge on rural women’s needs and priorities in

all of FAO’s areas of work

Activities/outputs included:

• Two policy briefs for Turkana and Tana River Counties with technical support

from UN Women;

• Two studies: “Situational Analysis and Gender/Youth Assessment in Turkana

County” and “Women and Youth’s Access to Community Land in Tana River and

Turkana Counties”;

• Enabling the Training of Facilitators (ToF) on organizational analysis of producer

organizations;

• With support from FAO Rome (ESP):

o under FMM/GLO/103/MUL implemented a project in Nandi County on

gender and dairy value chain;

o developed a regional proposal on Rural Women’s Economic Empowerment

covering Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania;

o as part of FMM/GLO/117/MUL, an urban food systems project, addressed

gender and nutrition issues.

4) Ensuring that gender analysis is incorporated in the formulation,

implementation and evaluation of all field programmes and projects

• Though this is a requirement, only one project carried a gender analysis before

its implementation - GCP/KEN/073/GFF.

5) Sharing comparative data on how effectively countries are closing the gender

gap in different technical areas of agriculture and rural development

• No activities were recorded.

6) Ensuring that rural women’s needs and priorities are documented, heard and

addressed in all the processes that FAO leads and supports

The efforts in this were diverse:

• FAO was part of a team that organized share fair on gender and resilience;


25

• FAO, through its Resilience Team for Eastern Africa (RTEA), recruited an expert in

collaboration with UN Women to document best practices on gender and

resilience;

• FAO produced a short video on the impact of aflatoxin on women;

• Carried out a training on Improving Gender Equality in Territorial Issues (IGETI)

for Tana River County (part of a European Union-funded project);

• Facilitated a stakeholders meeting on: Natural Resources Management - A

Methodological Framework for Gender inclusive NRM;

• Sensitized conservation agriculture Master Trainers and Training of Facilitators

on Gender and Value Chains - Machakos and Kwale workshops;

• Supported conceptualization and launch of “Enable women to benefit more

equally from agri-food value chains (FMM/GLO/103/MUL – Component 2).

7) Ensuring that none of FAO’s efforts perpetuate gender inequality or worsen

discrimination against women

• Under the European Union-funded project, RAELOC, the gender unit sensitized

all 47 counties on the need to integrate gender, HIV/AIDS and Gender-based

Violence in livestock development planning through the inter-cluster forums.

8) Working with partners to learn how FAO’s support for gender equality in

agriculture can be made more effective

There were no activities relating directly to the focus areas. However, one activity

touched on the area:

• FAO partnered with UN Women to validate situational assessment on women

and youth access rights to community land (reported under focus area #3).

9) Developing internal structures and systems that promote gender equality, and

ensuring equal participation of men and women in decision-making in FAO

The list18 of FAO staff shows the following gender balance:

• Head of unit and senior management: six men and five women, with three of the

five women heading a single or two-person area;

• Technical staff: 60 percent men, 40 percent women with significantly more

women in the areas headed by a woman. Since there are more women in the

cross-cutting units such as gender, policy, nutrition and monitoring and

evaluation (M&E), the number of women employed in technical units is relatively

less.

105. Most of the gender focus areas were not incorporated into the CPF in a meaningful

manner. Nonetheless, the actions taken during the period under evaluation are in line with

the policy and were a positive start though all nine focus areas require long-term efforts.

With such clear focus areas, it is surprising that there were no indicators developed for each

of these as part of a larger plan, especially in the absence of more specific guidance in the

CPF. Such overarching plan would have provided direction for work on gender, while also

generating evidence at outcome level and not only of inputs/outputs. For example, in focus

area 1, to only have gender-disaggregated data is not sufficient to measure gender equality

at outcome level.

18 June 2017.


26

106. Overall, many of the activities were one-time efforts, often awareness or training, all of

which require follow-up actions and monitoring. Areas 3 and 8 require long-term efforts as

outcome of policymaking and research takes time and may not show sufficient progress

within a four-year period.

107. One gender intervention deserves attention, partly because it yielded fast first results, and

partly because it is a case for FAO to learn from. This concerns the activities addressing land

right issues for women in Turkana and Tana River. The Gender Unit managed to create

some very first attitude changes on which FAO can build upon. The learning from this case

is that despite applying gender mainstreaming in the preparation and planning phase,

gender is not automatically being absorbed by all levels of actors. There is therefore need

for: i) following up on partner commitment; ii) ensuring that what should have been

delivered was in fact delivered – and recording this; iii) planning long-term, sequential

activities, as “hit-and-run” activities rarely generate lasting changes.

108. Several field visits found that women form a majority of all farmers’ groups and that they

do have some influence on agri-production-related decisions. Unfortunately, the lack of

indicators and monitoring of these measures mean that there is insufficient evidence to

that effect and only anecdotal evidence is available.

109. Another challenge was the inconsistent inclusion of the topic in UNDAF. Notably, gender

does not appear in FAO inputs to UNDAF. One major reason was the use of pre-established

UNDAF input formats by many United Nations agencies. These had no or little cross-cutting

elements but concentrated on agency-specific mandates.

110. It should be emphasized that the responsibility for incorporating gender does not lie with

the gender focal person/gender officer alone; it is a shared responsibility of management,

heads of units and all implementing staff. It is not possible to incorporate gender

mainstreaming effectively, efficiently and meaningfully unless senior management

prioritizes it and allocates resources for doing so.

111. In brief, there have been relevant efforts aimed at gender mainstreaming in FAO activities.

The short-term and/or one-time efforts, for which there was funding, cannot be expected

to produce long-term changes.

3.5.2 Nutrition

Finding 8. FAO has made acceptable progress in mainstreaming nutrition in its programme. The

contributions cover the main areas addressed in FAO’s nutrition strategy although there is ample

room for embedding the topic through a more systematic approach.

112. Kenya has faced severe food insecurity problems, attributed to frequent droughts, high

costs of domestic food production, high global food prices, and low purchasing power for a

large proportion of the population. Each year two to four million people are in need of

external food aid. Undernutrition contributes to an estimated one-third of all deaths to

children under five. More than one-third of children are stunted, and stunting.19

113. The National Food and Nutrition Security Policy (FNSP 2011) encompasses all aspects of

food and nutrition security and addresses wider social aspects such as the relation between

19 Kenya National Nutrition Action Plan 2012-2017, p.1.


27

food security and education and social, cultural and political factors in accessing food. It

also includes measures for resilience and climate change.

114. The Kenya National Nutrition Action Plan 2012-2017 (KNNAP) attempts to prevent extreme

malnutrition through 11 areas of interventions.20 Out of these, Priority Areas 3, 4 and 7-11

are all relevant for FAO, either in terms of support of nutrition sensitive agriculture or

support of policy and advocacy work. The KNNAP states that there is insufficient

understanding of linkages between food security, basic education, and water and sanitation

strategies on one hand and nutrition on the other. It also stresses the need to sensitize

policymakers and programmers on the causal factors of malnutrition and influence them to

address malnutrition in a holistic approach and broad manner.21 FAO’s Nutrition Strategy,

with its four principles, provides a framework to address those elements. Likewise, the

strategy is aligned to the Food and Nutrition Security Policy.

115. On the other hand, the CPF tangentially addresses nutrition as four out the five related

outputs deal with farmer training, while the principles have far wider coverage with regard

to stakeholders and types and levels of support. Nonetheless, as will be shown below, the

Nutrition Unit implemented many activities that were not planned outputs in the CPF. In

line with both the “Strategy and Vision for FAO’s Work in Nutrition”22 and the Scaling Up

Nutrition (SUN) network’s objectives, the KNNAP presents FAO with an opportunity to

further foster linkages between nutrition-relevant sectors and institutions as well as in

supporting similar linkages at national policy levels.

116. FAO, through its Nutrition Unit, has made in-roads both in terms of awareness-raising and

through its technical inputs to various instruments and fora. These include:

1) Policy work

Technical Inputs to:

• the food and nutrition security policy implementation framework;

• the ending drought emergencies Common Programming Framework;

• the National Youth in Agriculture Strategy;

• national school health policy;

• home grown school meals programme implementation guidelines;

• the development of the National maternal, infant, and young child nutrition

(MIYCN) guideline.

2) Use of FAO guidelines/knowledge products

• nutrition guidelines made by FAO headquarters have been extensively

disseminated to partners in Kenya, through the coordinator of the Nutrition

Technical Forum (at Ministry of Health).

Provided support to:

• the Kenya Food Composition Tables (FAO plays a leading role);

20 Kenya National Nutrition Action Plan 2012-2017, p. VIII-X. 21 Kenya National Nutrition Action Plan 2012-2017, Chapter 1.4. 22 Section 15 p.4, section 19 p.5 and section 20 p. 5 in the 2012 Strategy and Vision for FAO’s Work in Nutrition

provides for measures addressing nutrition reflecting FAO intentions to “impact on households and diets and the

nutritional status of individuals through policies, programmes and investments of governments and in

collaboration with development and implementing partners, such as civil society”.


28

• the development of Healthy Diets Guidelines (led by Ministry of Health, with

support from FAO and the World Health Organization - WHO);

• the National Education Curriculum Reform process to integrate food and

nutrition education (led by Ministry of Education, and FAO facilitates the process

and provides technical/financial support).

3) Capacity development

• facilitation of face-to-face good composition modules training (by FAO) of

university nutrition and food science lecturers and interested NGO partners -

who form the Steering Committee of the food composition tables;

• support through TCPs and other regional projects that targeted Kenya as one of

the countries. For example, the smart fish project nutrition sensitization to health

workers on the benefits of fish and community trainings on fish preparation and

the Regional Initiative Bee Keeping project where farmers were trained on use of

honey in food preparation and its nutritive value;

• face-to-face sensitization of nutrition lecturers in eight universities in Kenya, on

the application of ENACT Nutrition modules (by FAO) for undergraduate

university education.

4) Coordination and policy work

• the Food and Nutrition Linkages working group - co-chaired by the Ministry of

Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries and FAO;

• school nutrition technical working group - as member and provides technical

input;

• SUN United Nations Network - as member and provides technical input.

117. The efforts identified are spread across all four focal areas with activities at upstream

supporting ministries in developing systems and structures through which they can

promote better/safer nutrition. Dissemination of the nutrition guidelines has been extensive

and was well received by stakeholders, although it was mentioned that these are mainly

applicable only at higher levels of work. Users requested that the guidelines be adapted

locally, with versions aimed at downstream use. The dissemination has also taken place

through the Food and Nutrition Linkages Work Group, which is chaired by the Ministry of

Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries. Partners are already making use of this information and

especially in programming and impact monitoring. For example, the Women Dietary

Diversity score has been adopted by a number of partners.

118. The financial and technical support provided by FAO towards the Food Composition Tables

was highly regarded by participating stakeholders and seen as of great importance given

the changes that have taken place since the last iteration in the 1990’s. The support

contributes to selecting nutritious agricultural products and teaching households about

better food composition. Outside its traditional scope of work, the Nutrition Unit provided

support to review the new primary school curriculum, incorporating a nutrition perspective.

119. Efforts have been made into sensitizing other sector staff in the office on the need to

involve the nutrition team at the project development stage. Although this has resulted in

more projects incorporating a nutrition dimension (i.e. the United States Agency for

International Development (USAID) Crops project, RAELOC etc.), this practice was yet to be

consolidated. A shortcoming of FAO’s work during the period evaluated was in not having

incorporated cross-cutting issues (such as nutrition) into the logical frameworks of

projects/initiatives at the design stage in a more consistent fashion, adversely affecting the


29

attainment of desired outcomes due to a lack of financial resources being assigned.

Similarly, deficiencies in monitoring do not allow for a full picture to emerge in terms of

participation rates and achieving output targets as per the CPF.

120. Contributions have been made through a range of partnerships with ministries, other

United Nations agencies, steering groups, committees and universities. One partner stated

that “FAO Kenya’s support of nutrition has yielded results that contribute significantly to an

enabling environment”. Partners also mentioned some potential nutrition-related areas in

which FAO could engage in the future:

• documentation of good food-nutritional practices in Government of Kenya projects

• framework for Food and Nutrition Policy 2012

• there is need for a Nutrition Action Plan

• data on the linkage between agri-based productivity and nutrition status

• focus on vegetables and fruit production for healthy diets

• capacity building in nutritious agri-based products, storage, handling and packaging

3.5.3 HIV/AIDS

Finding 9. FAO’s work on HIV/AIDS, as it relates to its mandate, is minor. Although there is a lack

of a corporate level strategy/approach, there is an opportunity for FAO to integrate the subject

matter in its programme as part of the work carried out by the Nutrition Unit.

121. Kenya has one of the largest populations in terms of the number of people living with HIV,

estimated at 1.5 million in 2015. Roughly 36 000 people died from AIDS-related illnesses in

the same year. There are now 660 000 children orphaned by AIDS.23 Prevalence in the

country is highly regional, with most affected communities located in areas in which FAO

has not been the most active.

122. The Kenya AIDS Strategic Framework 2014/2015 – 2018/2019 advocates for a cross-sectoral

approach to HIV/AIDS and identifies prevention and living with AIDS as some of the key

areas of intervention. The framework mentions agriculture as one of the sectors in which

there is a need to establish stronger collaboration among stakeholders. The framework calls

for efforts in the agriculture sector to: “Enhance the capacity and the political will of the

agricultural sector to respond actively to HIV and AIDS by providing empirical data to guide

agricultural policymakers in the areas of poverty reduction, food and nutrition security, use

of antiretroviral drugs, and advancing gender equality”.24

123. Additionally, the Ministry of Health published the Kenya HIV Prevention Revolution Road

Map (2014) calling for a shift of focus from biomedical interventions to a cross-sectoral

approach with shared responsibility. This is pertinent for FAO’s work, as it provides a basis

for inclusion of HIV in all types and levels of activities.

124. FAO has no policy or strategy to guide its work on HIV/AIDS, a fact which has contributed

to relegating the issue at country level. However, FAO has published a wide range of

papers, guidelines and other documents on the subject, among others a series of manuals

23 http://www.unaids.org/en/regionscountries/countries/kenya 24 Kenya AIDS Strategic Framework 2014/2015 – 2018/2019 p.21.


30

on “The Role of Nutrition in the AIDS Response”. Several documents assess the impact of

HIV/AIDS on agriculture.

125. The CPF mentions HIV/AIDS as a cross-cutting issue that would be mainstreamed

throughout the programme of work, though there is little evidence that this was the case.

Currently, FAO’s work on HIV/AIDS falls under the purview Gender Unit.

126. Since FAO’s focus is on food security and nutrition, inclusion of HIV/AIDS is of course

appropriate. With a global mandate to make poor families food secure, FAO implicitly

supports prevention since well-nourished people are more resistant towards HIV than

malnourished and sick people. Likewise, proper nutrition plays an important role in

increasing the effectiveness of treatments. For these reasons, it seems more logical to

assign HIV/AIDS-related initiatives to the Nutrition Unit.

127. Apart from an initiative on the “Sensitization of 47 counties on the need to integrate

gender, HIV/AIDS and Gender-Based Violence in livestock development planning”, there

are no records of HIV/AIDS related activities. The evaluation team was unable to determine

to what degree the topic was given prominence. Apart from these trainings, there have

been no direct HIV/AIDS interventions in the period under evaluation.

3.6 Comparative advantage

Finding 10. FAO’s comparative advantage resides in its technical expertise and ability to tap into

a vast network of specialists and knowledge sources. This advantage is amplified due to

stakeholders perceiving it as an honest-broker and neutral partner.

128. FAO is considered by partners and stakeholders alike as a valuable, credible actor given its

technical competencies, for the support it provides and the standing it has earned as a

neutral player. A stakeholder illustrated the point by stating: “FAO’s main comparative

advantage over other partners is that it has a database and expertise on agriculture and

innovation as well as technical staff well versed with the subject areas. FAO has a lot of

information especially in the area of evidence-based policy planning and acts as a strategic

adviser on the same. Based on this comparative advantage, and as part of the work it

conducts under Outcome 5, FAO Kenya established and tested a Predictive Livestock Early

Warning System, conducted resilience studies in Marsabit, Isiolo and Meru counties,

supported the Kenya Food Security Steering Group in undertaking Short Rains and the

Long Rains Food Security Assessments in 23 ASAL counties, provided guidance in

development of a roadmap for strengthening agricultural statistics in the agriculture sector

and developed the capacities of Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries technical

officers on these initiatives. FAO also supported […] the strengthening of agricultural

statistics […] which was a response to the request by the Ministry of Agriculture through the

Cabinet Secretary to FAO to help improve data collection - Country STAT, a first of its kind

in Kenya”.

129. Creating and supporting partnerships among relevant actors both at the central and county

levels was repeatedly mentioned as a positive aspect of FAO’s ability to act as a convener.

For example, FAO facilitated links among departments with no previous prior collaboration

such as between Ministries of Health (nutrition) and Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and

Fisheries. Partners suggested that this should be extended to include all agri-related sectors

or relation between ministries and research (i.e. in areas such as food security and

nutrition).


31

130. Under Outcome 2 (productivity and alignment to markets) FAO’s comparative advantage in

technical matters has emerged through its support to enhance the capacities of small-scale

producers in the crop, livestock and fisheries sub-sectors, facilitating market linkages and

promoting access to financial services. FAO’s global position as a reputable development

organization with staff who have extensive technical knowledge on approaches for reaching

smallholder farmers; connecting them with inclusive market systems; and value chain

analysis and development is highly valued. Through its in-house expertise or by leveraging

its networks, FAO has built the capacity of local partners, implementers and communities.

This is exemplified in the conservation agriculture project where a cascading effect was

achieved with Master Trainers (MT) training Trainers of Farmers who subsequently trained

farmers.

131. FAO’s long-standing presence in the country has made the Organization a trusted partner

in its ventures. This has rung true for the conservation agriculture project where FAO acted

as an honest-broker between farmers and private business to increase market access (e.g.

Azuri and East African Maltings Limited). Likewise, as a neutral actor, it can convene

different stakeholders and promote collaboration. For example, in Makueni County FAO

officers frequently meet with NGOs and other local stakeholders working in the county to

facilitate dialogue and coherence of the projects undertaken in the area. This approach

promotes coherence so there is a lower risk of two stakeholders duplicating efforts. These

sessions provide a space for all stakeholders to reassess their role and contribution to

agricultural development projects in the county.

132. Another area in which FAO’s comparative advantage is clear is in the area of resilience.

Following FAO’s process of integration of emergency and development activities into a

single FAO Representation at country level, FAO positioned itself as a key actor in the area

of resilience, poised to combine emergency and development activities to enhance

medium- and long-term development results. This is reflected in its position as co-lead

agency of Pillar 4 of the Ending Drought Emergency framework on sustainable livelihoods.

However, although FAO is uniquely positioned to create the link between emergency and

development, implementation of the priorities of Pillar 4, especially at the county level, has

been stalled.

133. During the evaluation period, FAO contributions have also been noted by several

stakeholders to Pillar 5 of the EDE in the technical area of food security data collection and

analysis in Nairobi, which largely consists of supporting capacities of NDMA staff to

conduct food security assessments. This is in line with FAO’s technical competencies and

reinforces FAO’s role as a coordinator and convener for the Kenya Food Security Steering

Group. Combining two institutional strengths of FAO, its capacity for food security analysis

as well as its convening capacity, effectively creates a comparative advantage in the area of

early warning information for resilience. Indeed, FAO is already leveraging this comparative

advantage, in particular with support of the regional capacities of FAO’s Resilience Team for

Eastern Africa (RTEA) and FAO’s support to the food security capacities of the

Intergovernmental Authority on Drought (IGAD) and has been noted by members of the

Kenya Food Security Steering Group for its important technical contributions.

134. However, while FAO combines its convening power with its technical advantage well at

national level and in the area of food security information, at decentralized level leveraging

its comparative strengths has seen less progress. FAO partnerships at county level are still


32

works in progress; FAO lacks consistent links with NDMA at county level and has limited

cooperation with non-state key resilience actors at that level.


33

4 Assessment of FAO’s contributions

135. This section addresses the question: Are we making a difference? The findings are

organized by CPF Outcomes using the evaluation criteria for programme contribution

described in the evaluation matrix as a basis. The process through which the results that

were selected for assessment (outcome harvesting) is described in the methodology

section above. Section 4.1 discusses Outcome 1 on enabling policy environment; Section

4.2 examines Outcome 2 on productivity; Section 4.3 looks at Outcome 3 on natural

resource management and Section 4.4 discusses Outcome 4 on resilience. Section 4.5

reviews Outcome 5 on knowledge products.

4.1 FAO’s contributions to Outcome 1

Outcome 1. Agricultural based livelihoods and sectors are supported by an enabling policy,

strategy and investment environment that promotes equality and inclusivity.

Finding 11. FAO’s contributions to achieving Outcome 1 are of note, especially given the

complexities that arose due to the evolving context (devolution). Emphasis has been given to

supporting policy and strategy formulation at the national level.

Finding 12. FAO’s support of the Joint Agricultural Sector Steering Committee (JASSCOM) is very

pertinent and is valued highly by stakeholders.

Finding 13. There were significant policy-related issues implemented in other outcome areas

with little support from the policy team.

136. Outcome 1 of the CPF aims to support both the national and county governments in the

development, adoption and implementation of relevant policies, legislation, strategies and

investment programmes. This was meant to support the agricultural sector through the

provision of technical assistance for agricultural policy development, as well as fostering

policy dialogue, institutional strengthening and generation of evidence to inform policy

formulation.

137. The main recipients of FAO support under this outcome were the following:

• Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries - FAO provided technical advice in

developing the agriculture policy and the national youth in agriculture strategy;

• Ministry of Health - worked with FAO on inputs into the new education curriculum;

• Ministry of Lands and National Land Commission - FAO provided support in drafting

the Community Land Act;

• Counties governments (i.e. Marsabit, Turkana and Tana River) - FAO provided technical

support in the formulation of land governance guidelines.

138. The evaluation assessed five results under Outcome 1:

1. An overarching agricultural policy and a national youth in agriculture strategy

139. The importance of agriculture in Kenya’s economy cannot be overemphasized, yet the

sector has operated without an overarching policy framework. Delivery of this result was

meant to usher in a policy framework to consolidate reforms that have taken place in the

sector in recent years while guiding future growth. The national youth in agriculture


34

strategy was expected to address the duo challenge of aging farmers and low involvement

of youth in agriculture. The strategy was developed to feed into the overarching policy.

140. The Food and Nutrition Security Impact, Resilience, Sustainability and Transformation

(FIRST), a strategic partnership between FAO and the European Union, provides the Ministry

of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries policy assistance and capacity development. The

support covers three areas: developing coherent sectoral and cross-sectoral policy and

programme frameworks for food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture (FNSSA)

strengthening human and organizational capacities for FNSSA and supporting inclusive and

evidence-based governance and stakeholder coordination mechanisms for FNSSA.

141. Through FIRST, FAO seconded a Senior Policy Adviser to enhance Ministry of Agriculture,

Livestock and Fisheries’ capacity to formulate and implement policies. The adviser was

instrumental in reviewing ASDS and proposing the formulation of a new agricultural

development strategy that is consistent with the devolved system of governance and is

compliant with the latest regional and global commitments such as the Malabo Declaration

and the SDGs which focus on sustainable development and ending hunger by 2030. In

addition, the officer provided technical input in the establishment of a Joint Agriculture

Sector Steering Committee and in the preparation of Kenya’s biannual review report under

the Malabo Declaration. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries stakeholders were

very appreciative as to the substantive support received, acknowledging a qualitative

improvement (through discussions and draft proposals) in the work conducted as a result.

The evaluation found that some directors at the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and

Fisheries, who constitute the technical team, were not clear on the working modalities with

the adviser to optimize his service.

142. Likewise, with FAO support, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries prepared a

draft overarching Agriculture Policy and a National Youth in Agriculture Strategy (NYAS).

Whilst the strategy was finalized, the policy was yet to be adopted by the parliament. There

is evidence of FAO interventions boosting youth participation in agriculture in the selected

counties.

143. The ASDS identifies declining youth participation in agriculture as one of the challenges

facing the sector. This is caused by the high rural-urban migration by the youth unwilling to

participate in what is considered a traditional and poorly remunerated enterprise. The

national youth agriculture strategy was therefore formulated to attract the youth into

agriculture through commercialization. As a result of the NYAS, the Government set aside

KES 2 billion (USD 20 million) to implement the National Youth in Agriculture Strategy.

Implementation of the strategy was piloted in Kilifi, Nyamira, Busia and West Pokot

counties through youth groups and included value addition.

2. Establishment of the agriculture sector inter-governmental coordination mechanism

144. This result entailed establishment of the Joint Agricultural Sector Steering Committee

between the national and county government for effective management of agriculture. It

responds to the Intergovernmental Relations Act (2012) that calls for a framework to be

established for consultation and cooperation between the two levels of government and

amongst county governments.

145. FAO, in partnership with German Agency for International Cooperation (GiZ), Agricultural

Sector Development Support Programme, Agriculture and Rural Development Group,


35

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and World Food Programme (WFP) supported the

institutionalization of a coordination structure between the national and county level. FAO’s

role, mainly through the FIRST Senior Policy Officer, was to provide technical support to the

Intergovernmental Forum meetings and the establishment of Inter-governmental

Coordination/Steering Committee and Inter-governmental Secretariat. The Policy Officer

also provided technical support to the establishment of the Food and Nutrition Security

Council (FNSC) as a broader inter-ministerial structure under the Office of the President or

the Deputy President.

146. The support provided by FAO and its ability to leverage its convening role is considered by

stakeholders as valuable, particularly as the process of devolution takes root. The support

from FAO has been practical and geared to provide decision makers with concrete inputs.

For example, FAO commissioned a study in 2015 assessing the enabling environment for

the achievement of food and nutrition security in Kenya (phase 2) through support from

the FIRST initiative. The study informed the design of the Joint Agricultural Sector Steering

Committee itself.

147. FAO’s work has contributed to the consolidation of the coordination mechanism between

the Council of Governors and the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries. FAO

enjoys good will from the national government and the Council of Governors, and this has

facilitated dialogue between the two levels of government and reduced suspicion that

characterized the initial stages of devolution. An effective coordination of agriculture

between the two levels of government is critical allowing for better synergies.

3. Strengthened government capacity at national and county level to coordinate and

enhance partnerships in the food and nutrition security

148. Closely linked to the coordination mechanism explained above, this result was meant to

support the realization of the Food and Nutrition Security Policy objective of building the

capacity and ensuring availability of quality and timely data, information and to support the

formulation and management of integrated food and nutrition security strategies,

programmes and action at national and county level.

149. To this end, and using the coordination mechanism described as a forum, FAO (with the

support of FIRST) developed technical notes as part of technical assistance to the

government to strengthen monitoring, mapping and analysis of policies, legislations,

programmes and investments. Further, FAO provided technical and financial inputs towards

a Biodiversity Conference on Food and Nutrition to promote indigenous crop production

and consumption, and also technical support in development of national infant feeding

complementary recipe guidelines and job aid. As explained in the nutrition section earlier,

FAO has made inroads in embedding the topic in its work, though it can benefit from a

more systematic approach.

4. Advocacy for integration of nutrition and agriculture in the national review of the

curriculum for primary and secondary education

150. One of the policy objectives of the Food and Nutrition Security Policy is to create

awareness to enhance knowledge among Kenyans about good basic nutrition required to

live a healthy and active life. One of the strategies to achieve this is to improve nutrition

and nutrition education in schools with an emphasis on good nutrition practice and


36

positive food habits, and enhancing nutrition-related adult education amongst the general

population.

151. Consistent in its work under Outcome 1, FAO advocated for the integration of nutrition in

the national review of the curriculum for primary and secondary education. The evaluation

found that the hygiene and nutrition activities therein are one of the key elements for lower

primary in the new education curriculum framework. This was enabled by working with the

Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries and Ministry of Education through FAO’s

facilitation. The curriculum states that ‘the learner shall be engaged in practical activities

that promote healthy eating and hygiene practices that contribute to healthier lifestyles.

Through FAO’s support, nutrition was consistently integrated into the basic education

curriculum framework adopted in 2017.

152. Little progress has been reported in the case of the secondary education curriculum as the

review process for it had not commenced at the time of the evaluation.

5. Capacity of county governments to implement policies and develop investment plans

153. Under schedule IV of the Constitution, agriculture was devolved25 with national government

being exclusively responsible for agricultural policy formulation while the county

governments are responsible for the implementation. County governments are expected to

formulate County Integrated Development Plans and Agriculture Sector Plans (ASP) to

guide investments in the sector.

154. During the early stages of devolution, FAO’s efforts to directly deliver policy support to the

county governments was frustrated by transition challenges including lack of clarity about

distribution of powers, roles and responsibilities between national and county

governments, slow pace of transferring powers and confusion at county level about the

nature of devolved powers. Due to this, progress was slow in building the capacity of

county governments to “domesticate” national policies at county level and develop

investment/sector plans.

155. The evaluation found partial evidence on FAO’s capacity building support to county

government in developing local policies. Of the counties visited, there was no evidence of

FAO supporting agriculture sector plans as such though one county incorporated

conservation agriculture in its CIDP as a direct result of working with FAO on the issue.

156. FAO also supported the mapping of community land and natural resources in Gururi

Dayate in Tana River County. Grazing Management Committees for each site were

established and membered trained. In addition, FAO provided technical input in the

development of Community Grazing bylaws as well as the County Grazing Control Bill,

2016. The grazing bill sets regulations on livestock movement as a disease control measure

while ensuring sustainable rangeland. The process has resulted in a better sense of

ownership of the rangeland by the community. However, there remain challenges in

25 Functions devolved to the county government include crop and animal husbandry; livestock sale yards; county

abattoirs; plant and animal disease control; and fisheries. Other functions that indirectly support agriculture

development include licensing and control of undertakings that sell food to the public; veterinary services

(excluding regulation of the profession); trade development; and regulation for markets and cooperative

societies.


37

enforcing the regulations due to high influx of livestock from the north eastern counties of

Kenya during extreme drought.

157. The evaluation found that FAO had facilitated development of land and livestock grazing

control bills in Tana River Samburu, Marsabit and Isiolo counties. These are meant to

formalize traditional grazing systems to improve pastoral communities’ capacity response

to drought emergency. The control bills were based on traditional methods of rangeland

management which set aside dry grazing areas; this improved the adaptive capacity of the

pastoralists to drought.

4.1.1 Factors that have influenced the achievement of the results

158. A number of factors constrained delivery of Outcome 1:

• A size of the team working on the deliverables was a limiting factor to providing

substantive support to other outcomes’ policy-related activities and to stakeholders at

the county level. The FAO policy team comprises of two members which limits their

participation in policy activities beyond Outcome 1. For example, FAO provided

technical advice in the development of the community land act and was supporting the

development of Regulations to operationalize the Act. This addresses both CPF

Outcome 3 on “improved management of land, water and other natural resources” as

well as Outcome 1 on “enabling policy, strategy and investment environment”,

although the policy team did not participate to any significant extent in activities

related to drafting the land act.

• Lack of clarity on the devolution of agriculture during the early stages of devolution

slowed down FAO work activities. FAO started working directly with the county

governments but faced several challenges.

• Deficiencies in technical capacity at the county level to design and implement policies

and investment programmes as well as interpret/”domesticate” national

policies/strategies/plans is a challenge that is still present. This was evidenced by very

few numbers of counties with agriculture sector strategies and plans aligned to their

CIDP.

• Lack of data and weak monitoring and evaluation systems in stakeholder institutions

constrained policy impact evaluation beyond tracking outputs.

4.1.2 Sustainability of results

159. The changes achieved under Outcome 1 are sustainable to the extent strategies, policies

and plans remain in place. The results those instruments aim to achieve are dependent on

many factors (i.e. resources, implementation, etc.) that are beyond the control of FAO and

are at the sole discretion of the national and county governments. Beyond that, the process

is fluid. For example:

• linking youth products to markets and financial institutions under the national youth

strategy is meant to ensure sustainability of the results;

• the adoption of the food security and nutrition action plan (2018-2022) makes it an

official framework for public funding;

• the coordination mechanism established under JASCCOM is embedded in law. This

enables the two levels of government to allocate human and financial resources to


38

sustain its activities. Currently, the framework is supported by a secretariat comprising

of staff from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries and Council of

Governors.


Outcome 2. Productivity of medium- and small-scale agricultural producers increased,

diversified and aligned to markets

Finding 14. FAO’s contributions to achieving Outcome 2 are significant given the evidence of

increased production gains reported, diversification of crops and inroads in accessing markets.

Activities have increased adoption of conservation agriculture principles, improvements in post-

harvest management practices, value addition along the chain and resilience to shocks.

Increasing access to financial resources and other inputs remains a challenge.

Finding 15. Mariculture initiatives show promise, with positive effects on beneficiaries identified,

including increases in income and diversification in sources of nutritious food.

Finding 16. FAO support to enhance access to market and value addition by facilitating linkages

and collaboration with the private sector actors is valuable, yet farmer’s groups must be

empowered to identify market opportunities and negotiate contracts on their own.

Finding 17. Procurement procedures have impacted negatively the implementation of some

interventions, adversely affecting effectiveness in those cases.

160. Outcome 2 of the CPF aims to support improvements in productivity, diversification, and

post-harvest management and market linkages for targeted value chains. The support

provided by FAO under this Outcome included the use of conservation agriculture (minimal

tillage, crop rotation and maintenance of soil cover) and good agricultural practices (the

use of appropriate varieties of drought tolerant crops, the use of certified seed, timely

planting, correct fertilizer application, and improved post-harvest storage management) in

order to increase agricultural productivity. The sectors targeted were both traditional ones

and mariculture. Ultimately, the desired result was to increase incomes, yields, prices and

trade volumes.

161. The main counterparts of FAO’s support under this outcome were the Ministry of

Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, multiple county state departments of agriculture,

farmer organizations and the private sector. FAO collaborated on issues of conservation

agriculture, aflatoxin and market access.

162. The evaluation assessed four result areas under Outcome 2:

4.2.1 Conservation agriculture

163. Conservation agriculture is a resource saving agricultural approach that strives to achieve

acceptable profits together with high and sustainable production levels while concurrently

conserving the environment. It is based on three main principles: minimal mechanical soil

disturbance, permanent organic soil cover and diversified crop rotations. It aims to produce

high crop yields while reducing production costs, maintaining soil fertility and conserving

water. It is a way of achieving sustainable agriculture and improve livelihoods. It also

involves crop diversification that can translate into varied nutritional sources for families.


39

164. FAO, with the support of the European Union, implemented the project “Increased

productivity and profitability of smallholder farmers through promotion and upscaling of

good agriculture practices and conservation agriculture in productive semi-arid areas of

kenya (IPP-GAP)”26 as its primary effort on conservation agriculture. The project strategy

put the emphasis on developing new and improved market opportunities as a driving force

to promote conservation agriculture and good agricultural practices.

165. The evaluation considers that the approach chosen is appropriate as it is relevant to

farmer’s needs and priorities, and addresses their dependence on middle men for

marketing their produce. This strategy also takes into account lessons learned from past

experiences, where NGOs have promoted conservation agriculture essentially putting the

emphasis on production, and that generated low levels of CA adoption. Refer to the Case

Study for a more detailed explanation of the work and results achieved through this

project. Key elements include:

• In five groups out of six included in the case study, interviews with farmers revealed a

strong commitment of farmer groups to CA. None of the groups had practiced CA

before the IPP-GAP and this engagement is therefore attributed to the project.

• Despite their strong engagement, the level of adoption of the three principles of CA

and proposed GAP varies. In line with the result of the household survey, minimum

tillage is the CA principle with the lowest level of adoption.

• According to informants at county level, adoption of CA and GAP has allowed

significant increases in yields and production. This was triangulated in the five groups

included in the study that have engaged in CA and where CA principles and GAP have

been adopted to a certain extent. Farmers reported having registered production

increase of 82 percent all crops included on an average, between their last crop before

adopting CA and their last harvest using CA. 50. This performance strongly suggests

that even with a partial adoption of CA and GAP, production gains are very significant.

• The main approach developed by the IPP-GAP to improve market opportunities for

farmers is the direct linkage created between farmer groups and final buyers, and the

establishment of marketing contracts. Four of the six groups included in the study have

achieved collective marketing, three of them through supply contracts with final buyers.

However, according to final buyers, farmers have almost never honoured quantities of

product agreed in contracts.

• On average, farmers who have applied CA and participated in collective marketing

processes have multiplied their agriculture income by a factor of almost four.

166. The case study confirmed the relevance of the project objectives and strategy to the needs

and priorities of farmers in Makueni and Tharaka Nithi counties. It also confirmed its

alignment with county authority priorities for agriculture development and resilience. As a

result, the project generated a relatively high level of adoption of CA principles as well as

significant increase of yields and production, in particular but not only when bad rainfalls

have affected production in conventional agriculture. Farmers have significantly increased

their income, allowing them to better address their basic needs and reducing negative

strategies that affect livelihoods, and invest in diversified livelihoods that potentially will

strengthen their resilience to shocks.

26 GCP/KEN/079/EC


40

167. Beyond the groups covered in-depth by the case study, the evaluation team found similar

patterns in other counties visited. For example:

• In Kitui County, 513 groups have been trained and have reached 15 000 farmers

besides supplying 75 groups with kits and CA equipment used at their demonstration

sites.

• In all the focus group discussions conducted in Makueni and Kitui counties, the majority

of the members’ groups have started practicing conservation agriculture in their farms.

Farmers reported increased yields which they attributed to CA and GAP.

• Alongside the training on GAP, they have also been trained on post-harvest handling;

proper drying up to the recommended moisture content levels, use of tarpaulin for

spreading grains in the sun, use of hematic bags for storage after drying, winnowing

and sorting. This has resulted in lower post-harvest loses.

• Most farmer organizations that are recruited to the FAO programme are registered as

self-help groups. In an effort to reduce on the administrative costs, the groups are

encouraged to join together and form umbrella organizations. Though the initial focus

was to create critical mass to facilitate direct financial dealings with Rabobank, the same

is very instrumental in facilitating bulking (aggregating) produce for collective

marketing. The main challenge in the contractual arrangements however is that the

farmer groups are not proactively involved in establishment of the arrangement and

hence this creates a dependency on the intervention by FAO, which would not be

sustainable in the long-run.

4.2.2 Mariculture

168. Mariculture is mainly practiced by Kenyan Coastal communities in Kilifi, Mombasa, Kwale

and Lamu counties. Mariculture is the farming of aquatic animals and plants in natural and

controlled marine and estuarine environments. This type of aquaculture helps in supplying

the much-needed requirements of dietary protein for the coastal population and is a

source of income which contributes to poverty alleviation. The evaluation looked at results

from two areas FAO has been supporting: hatcheries and seaweed production. Both of

these projects have a majority participation of women due to the nature of the work they

imply.

169. The Kibuyuni Farmers Seaweed Association in Kwale County has received support from FAO

for infrastructure improvements, capacity building and market access. FAO provided

resources for the construction of two drying sheds to aid in post-harvest management,

shielding the produce from rains. The sheds have reduced wastages and thus led to

increased output. Given there are few subject matter specialists in Kenya, FAO leveraged its

networks to secure experts from Senegal and Zanzibar on seaweed value addition to train

members. Initial steps were also taken to link the association to markets though these have

yet to result in stable purchasing arrangements.

170. The Mtongani Group in Kilifi County is a crab and milkfish farming initiative supported by

FAO that has also had a positive effect on members. FAO helped rehabilitate two ponds

which had been destroyed by the ocean. Members then took it upon themselves to

renovate two other ponds. FAO also assisted the group by training them on specification of

ponds, collection of seeds, record keeping and business plan formulation, feeding and feed

selection.


41

171. FAO introduced them to a crab trader who came with quality and quantity specifications

desired resulting in sales. Through collective sale of milkfish and crabs, organization

members report that their income has improved, with women now being able to contribute

more towards household’s expenditures than previously. Members interviewed report that

they have opened individual bank accounts and started saving. Anecdotal evidence

suggests that they have improved their nutritional intake through consumption of seafood.

172. Despite the progress shown through this effort, scaling-up such initiatives reveals that the

sector is also faced with a myriad of challenges which curtails growth. These include lack of

established hatcheries where the farmers can source for fingerlings and crablets leading to

overreliance on collection - which is time consuming - and getting quality and economical

feeds for mariculture which is costly and lacks efficient ingredients. It also becomes a

challenge to get enough fish stock for seed. Milkfish seeds are seasonal and are only

available between February and June each year.

173. To address these challenges, the Government in partnership with the private sector and

development organizations have come together to support mariculture through

programmes such as Kenya Coastal Development Project (KCDP) and Blue Growth Initiative

(BGI). As a result, plans are underway to establish three hatcheries for crab, fish and prawns.

4.2.3 Fruit and vegetable farming in West Pokot

174. FAO activities in the county were geared towards improved food security by facilitating and

enhancing productivity, with focus on women and youth for improved livelihoods of rural

communities through the project “Adding value and improving security and quality

production for organized producers of fruits and vegetable crops”.27 This was to be

achieved through fostering market access and targeted value chains for 2 000 households,

of which 30 percent were women.

175. The project introduced irrigated agriculture which enabled farmers to engage in agricultural

activities during off-season periods, for growing water melons, okra and other fruits, thus

contributing to improving the food security status of the county. It also procured inputs for

farmers (e.g. provision of ten water tanks and water pump systems) along the Wei Wei

River, which enabled them to engage in vegetable and fruit farming, increasing their

incomes.

176. Additionally, FAO established ten demonstration plots and three fruit nurseries in

collaboration with the county government to train farmers on good agricultural practices

and the need to diversify to viable crops. Therefore FAO:

• introduced new commercial crops such as green grams, water melon, chilli and fruit

trees, i.e. papayas and grafted mango seedlings in Masol and Lomut areas;

• constructed shelters in strategic points along the major roads so as to enable farmers

to sell their fruits;

• linked farmers to markets where they are able to sell their produce. The farmer groups

in Lomut, who are currently engaged in the production of dried mango chips, have

been linked by FAO to a local company, Azuri Ltd. that committed to buy 3 metric tons

27 KEN/080


42

of their product. FAO also assisted the farmer organizations through training and

construction of fruit dryers.

4.2.4 Post-harvest management to control aflatoxin

177. Aflatoxins are highly toxic to both humans and animals, with small-scale farmers’ harvests

being most susceptible to it. Its effects can occur throughout the food value chains, which

compromises food security and trade. In Kenya, the aflatoxin problem is widespread in

most parts of the country as a result of effects of climate change and movement of grains.

The Government has recognized the problem of post-harvest loses which stands at about

40 percent, affecting food availability in Kenya. It has come up with various interventions

including the establishment of National Food Safety Coordination Committee that

harmonizes inter-agency efforts to minimize conflicts and overlaps and to ensure the

protection of public safety and food trade, awareness creation, surveillance, drying and

storage.

178. FAO has supplemented the Government’s efforts by purchasing test equipment for

different counties and facilitated in conducting the tests, mounting awareness campaigns

and capacity building of both public health and agricultural officers on how to test aflatoxin

levels at county level.

179. Awareness created on the effects and causes of aflatoxin across the maize and related

grains’ value chains with localized testing for the same through kits provided by FAO

project have contributed to strengthening the push for more concerted efforts to contain

the menace. Individual farmers, through farmer organizations, have been sensitized on

grain handling procedures to minimize aflatoxin effect and the national government has

established a task force to work on the mitigation measures.

4.2.5 Progress regarding market access, diversification and value addition

180. Farmer groups supported by FAO have been able to access markets through improved

quality of agricultural products. This was made possible through training programmes

where the producers were trained on post-harvest management, business management

skills and value addition. Another good example, in addition to the ones above, is the

farmer groups visited in Lomut, who are engaged in the production of dried mango chips

and have been linked by FAO to a local company to sell their products. In addition, they

have introduced drought-resistant crops such as green grams and sorghum.

181. FAO has helped the group in marketing as they were trained on how to produce good

quality products which will fetch higher prices if they sell in bulk. They have started

collective marketing through their farmer groups which helps them obtain better prices

(slightly above market price).

182. There are numerous examples of farmers in the counties visited that only used to plant

local varieties of seeds for maize, beans, cow peas and pigeon peas. After their experience

with FAO, they have continued to grow the same crops but started using improved seeds.

As a result, their productivity increased and have had surplus to sell. They also diversified

their crops and started growing green grams, sorghum and vegetables.


43

183. The main challenge facing the farmers is the inability to attain the volumes required to

attract larger buyers. There is also a general fear by farmers to get into contracts before

production because of price fluctuation usually experienced at harvesting time.


184. Underlying the results assessed is a series of factors that provide insight into FAO’s

contributions. These include:

• The pool of expertise available in/to FAO fitted well in backstopping technical issues

despite the diverse topics and areas covered.

• The use of demonstration plots with proper utilization of farm inputs and

management subsequently gives a practical demonstration of the technologies of

reference.

• Content and curriculum that incorporates all the processes from the farming practices

to the agribusiness issues relating to financial and marketing coupled with group

dynamics was utilized in the training of Training of Trainers (ToT) and Training of

Farmers.

• Targeting existing groups/farmer organizations made the pace of implementation

move faster and seems to increase the likelihood of success (as per the CA case

study). On the other hand, it is not known to what extent this then excludes more

vulnerable segments of the population from participating.

• Most of the counties visited have made efforts to integrate FAO interventions in their

operation while a few with Kilifi and Makueni as examples, having actually

incorporated them to their CIDPs.

• The presence of FAO staff in counties has led to a close working and coordinating

relationship with stakeholders with few exceptions.

185. Similarly, other factors constrained delivery of Outcome 2:

• Although the evaluation did not assess matters pertaining to efficiency, issues related

to procurement were raised with such frequency that they could not be overlooked.

Procurement procedures have hampered the pace of implementation of some

interventions and hence compromised in the effectiveness of the projects. Cases of

reference of inhibiting procurement procedures is in the establishment of crabs’

hatchery in Kilifi, CA equipment in almost all the counties that the project is operating

in and acquiring aflatoxin testing kits. The county government procurement

procedures in certain cases however have also impacted negatively in procurement of

related facilities, for example, delayed establishment of milkfish hatchery being

financed by the Kilifi County Government.

• There is a time lag between delivery of farm products to the buyers and payment. The

pressure from financial needs of the farmers thus compels them to sell outside the

contracts signed by farmer groups.

• The counties that are targeted are in ASAL areas and have had adverse weather

variability in the period under evaluation. Kilifi County for example experienced

profound drought for three consecutive years running up to 2016 which has greatly

affected agricultural production and hence the potential impact of CA project has not

been fully realized.


44


186. The continued viability of the results as evidenced in Makueni County can be increased with

the incorporation of the FAO initiatives in the CIDPs and putting in place the mechanism

that facilitate operationalization of contracts. This step at the county level can ensure that

FAO’s actions have a place in the respective government’s priorities, budgetary allocations

and institutionalization of the processes, for example the allocation of budgets to

procurement of CA equipment by Makueni county and motivation of the private sector to

procure the same as in Kilifi County.

187. In Kwale and Kilifi counties, there is increased engagement from the residents to protect

the local mangrove forests and coastal areas fit for seaweed production. This action is

being taken as a direct response to human threats to the environment. CA practices

additionally lead to preservation of the productive areas as it allows for retained moisture

in the soil and conservation of nutrients.

188. The high level of ownership of the programmes by local communities is another factor

playing a key role in ensuring the continuity of the FAO initiatives in the country. The

coastal communities that were visited had a strong level of participation in preservation

activities by forming beach management units. They set-up demarcated boundaries along

the beach where they can apply their conservation practices. The Kibuyuni Farmers

Seaweed Association has marketed their conservation areas as a potential tourism

attraction, which could generate additional revenues to finance their conservation efforts.


Outcome 3: Improved management of land, water and other natural resources for

enhanced food security and socio-economic development at national, county and

community level

Finding 18. FAO contributions pertaining to land were appropriate as they supported the

development of an implementation framework and procedures for the recognition, protection

and registration of community land rights.

Finding 19. The initiatives related to NRM in the context of a changing climate, though varied in

scale and approach, allowed beneficiary communities to benefit from the skills and practices

promoted. Targeted communities report making better use of resources and being more resilient

to shocks.

189. Outcome 3 builds on FAO’s experience in implementing sustainable natural resource

management and climate change mitigation/adaptation programmes to address challenges

to the agricultural sector. It focuses on capacity building at the community and national

level on various issues including, Sustainable Land Management (SLM) and Integrated Pest

Management (IPM).

190. Activities under this Outcome are organized in two components: land and natural

resources. The land component provides support to responsible and equitable governance

of tenure of land at national and county levels. The activities focused on land

administration and tenure issues, land use planning, strengthening policy and institutional

capacity for management and governance of land. The natural resources component


45

sought to build the capacity of beneficiaries at national, county and community levels on

various specific technical areas such as climate–smart agriculture, sustainable land

management and soil and water conservation.

191. The main recipients of FAO support under this outcome were the following:

• Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning and the National Land Commission (NLC) and

County Governments of Turkana, Tana River, Samburu, Nandi, Marsabit, Laikipia, West

Pokot, Baringo: FAO provided technical support on the enactment of the Community

Land Act,28 County Spatial Planning Guidelines and on the Standards and Guidelines

for National Land Information Management System (LIMS) among others.

• County Governments: FAO engaged Lands Departments and County Assemblies in

eight counties on land governance and management such as the Tana River Animal

Grazing Control Bill 2016.

• Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries: FAO support to the Ministry included

technical advice in the formulation of the Kenya Climate Smart Agriculture Strategy

2017-2026 and training on participatory on geographical information system for

natural resource mapping.

• Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and Kenya Forestry Service: Technical

support was provided in the identification of key legal provisions for the promotion of

the REDD+ process, in introducing the "Methodological Framework for Addressing

Gender Dimensions in Inclusive Natural Resource Governance” and facilitated a multi-

stakeholder dialogue on National Adaptation Plans.

• Resource conflict Institute (RECONCILE) and land sector non-state actors (LSNSA): FAO

provided training for LSNSA on land governance and land management tools and

introduced land sector actors to the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible

Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food

Security (commonly referred to as VGGT) and to participatory methodology tools for

diagnosis of land rights such as Participatory and Negotiated Territorial Development.

• Community level: FAO undertook numerous initiatives including training on business

skills and disbursed grants to agroforestry farmer groups (through the Forest and

Farm Facility), participatory pasture production, development of agro-forest products

bio-enterprises and on energy efficient stoves (jikos).

192. The evaluation assessed the following five results:

1. Promotion of responsible and equitable governance of land and natural resources

193. Activities in support of the land component were implemented mainly through the project

‘Support for Responsible Land and Natural Resource Governance in Communal Lands of

Kenya’ (GCP/KEN/077/EC), which ran between January 2014 and July 2016, with activities at

the national level and in Tana River and Turkana counties.

2. Enhanced capacity of community clusters on formation and management of

conservancies for natural resource management

194. The main objective of this Output was to support capacity development of national, county

and community institutions to sustainably manage natural resources. FAO partnered with

28 At the time of this evaluation, FAO was supporting the development of Community Land Regulations for

implementation of the Act.


46

Kenya Forest Service and county governments of Samburu and Marsabit to develop the

Forest and Landscape Restoration (FLR) programme. FAO has managed to secure a Global

Environment Facility (GEF) grant of USD 2.8 million to support Capacity, Policy and Financial

Incentives for participatory forest management in Kisiria Forest and integrated Rangelands

Management (GCP/KEN/073/GFF) in Samburu County. Similarly, under GEF-6, the FAO GEF

project to support restoration of arid and semi-arid lands of Kenya through bio-enterprise

development and other incentives under The Restoration Initiative (GCP/KEN/075/GFF) with

a budget of USD 4.1 million has been approved.

3. Improved capacities of national and county governments in climate change adaptation

and mitigation strategies

195. FAO worked in partnership with national and county governments to improve the capacity

to develop climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies in Laikipia, Muranga and

Taita Taveta. An innovative approach to extension service was the use of radio to

disseminate technical information to the community and create awareness during disease

outbreaks.

4.Enhanced capacity of extension officers and lead farmers on climate-smart agriculture

(CSA)

196. The effects of climate change on agricultural production and natural resources were

addressed through CSA approaches. Activities aimed to fill gaps in offering extension

services by enhancing capacity of extension officers and lead farmers in Muranga or Busia

or Uasin Gishu through project GCP/KEN/078/USA.

5.Strengthened capacity in sustainable use of natural resources

197. Low capacity in governance, management and sustainable use of water resources is a

challenge in Kenya’s rangelands. FAO partnered with relevant departments of the County

Governments in Samburu and Marsabit through project GCP/KEN/401/USA to strengthen

the capacity of individuals on sustainable use of natural resources.

4.3.1 Results of FAO contributions

198. Two major changes were achieved in land governance and management as a result of

FAO’s contribution: first, the establishment of a framework of institutions and procedures

for decision-making and dispute resolution over community land rights, and second the

enhancement of capacities of technical staff at national and county levels, as well as

communities, on land governance and management.

199. With FAO support, the Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning and National Land

Commission was able to achieve the enactment the Community Land Act and in developing

the National Spatial Plan as well as the County Spatial Planning Guidelines (a flagship

project in Vision 2030 and the development of which is foreseen by the National Land

Policy). FAO also supported the development of a county Spatial Planning monitoring and

oversight guidelines to ensure common standards and approaches in development of

County Spatial Plans as stipulated under the County Government Act 2012 and in

accordance with the National Spatial Plan. This support assists in the consolidation of

institutional processes and fulfilment of legal requirements.


47

200. Progress under the Outcome was also achieved through technical advice on land

governance, land management approaches, guidelines and tools provided to the staff of

Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning, National Land Commission and county land

departments. Participatory land and natural resource mapping undertaken in Tana River

County, for example, helped strengthen the capacities of communities on these issues,

enabling them to identify their land and natural resource base and prioritize its uses.

201. Another area of support was in training on the Voluntary Guidelines to integrate land

governance frameworks at national and county levels. In Turkana County, FAO trained

technical staff on Land Information Management Systems to prepare them to run the

County LIMS that was established with FAO support.

202. Strengthening the capacity of individuals on sustainable use of natural resources for

improved governance and management of water and grazing pastures was based on the

expressed needs of pastoralists in the targeted counties to access pasture and water

especially during drought. FAO supported the development of grazing management

bylaws, formation of community grazing committees and water management committees

and development of resource use maps. It also trained pastoralists in participatory

rangeland management - thus enabling these communities to manage their grazing lands

more effectively and diminishing potential conflict situations.

203. FAO interventions resulted in improved capacity of communities on rangeland

management and resilience to shocks. In Samburu and Marsabit, targeted groups are now

able to produce pasture (through reseeding) for conservation, use and sale. In Samburu,

the Kisima Livestock Marketing Group produced livestock feed supplements which they

distributed to households with weak animals during the drought. In addition, community

committees responsible for water and rangeland management are now operational in both

counties. The mandate of these committees extends to boreholes which were crucial

sources of water during the drought. These committees are being strengthened through

legislative measures such as the Tana River Animal Grazing Control Bill (2016) whose aim is

to establish a county legal framework for managing pastoral resources through the

collaboration of the county government, traditional institutions and communities.

204. The Forest and Farm Facility (FFF-GCP/GLO/495/MUL) programme facilitated the

transformation of small farmer groupings with limited capacities and non-business

orientation into market-based associations. In total 12 producer groups in Laikipia and

Nakuru counties were supported through small grants to build their organizational and

productive capacities. The FFF programme covered a total of 3 492 households thus

indirectly benefiting a population of about 20 000 people. The main outcome of the FFF

programme has been the increased awareness of the potential of Forest and Farm Producer

Organisations (FFPOs) to generate multiple socio-economic and environmental benefits

that would address food security, poverty alleviation and climate resilience. It was reported

that the FFPO’s were producing up to 100 000 seedlings per year.

205. The disease control capacity of the County Veterinary Service in Samburu and Marsabit

Counties has improved due to the use of innovative extension approaches such as

dissemination of technical information through radio, use of community-based diseases

Reporters to monitor, carrying of regular vaccination campaigns and provision of veterinary

services against diseases such as PPR and CCPP to complement the veterinary department.

FAO successfully introduced a mobile application, EpiCollect, for diseases surveillance and


48

reporting, thereby substantially improving the department’s capacity and speed for

monitoring and reporting diseases incidences across the country. However, it is difficult to

determine the extent to which this has led to healthy and productive animals as it depends

on other variables such as pasture and water availability.

206. The promotion of climate-smart agriculture at national and county level through training of

extension officers and lead farmers was appropriate as it addressed the need for farmers to

improve their mitigation practices against effects of climate change. In Muranga, Busia and

Uasin Gishu counties, a total of 103 extension officers and lead farmers were trained and

the evaluation confirmed that the farmers consulted in Muranga are now practicing

climate-smart agriculture. Similarly, the use of radio for the delivery of extension services

and dissemination of information of climate-induced disease outbreak enhanced the

adaptive capacity of pastoral communities to climate risk in Marsabit County.

207. It is also worth mentioning that FAO headquarters, the Regional Office for Africa (RAF) and

Subregional Office for Eastern Africa (SFE) have been available to support the land work of

FAO Kenya on a demand-driven basis. Much of the support was on technical clearance of

reports and support to programme development, but the office also received some support

in obtaining resources from SFE and headquarters - such as through GEF. FAO also

participates in meetings organized by the Transversal Support framework managed by SFE

and the Land Policy Initiative in Addis Ababa, which provide forums for sharing of

knowledge, practices and lessons learned between county land governance projects

supported by the European Union.


208. A number of factors constrained delivery of Outcome 2:

• There is a limited human resource capacity with sufficient extension experience and

technical knowledge in counties to complement FAO programmes. For example, the

livestock production unit in Samburu has only a few extension officers who cannot

reach all the wards. The same situation applies to natural resources management

where there is only one county staff in Samburu responsible for FAO-supported NRM

activities.

• Limited financial resources, whether from the FAO initiatives or those allocated by

county governments, limit the scale of the work in comparison to the needs.

• A number of interventions implemented in NRM are poorly linked. For example, it

was pointed out by the Nkoteya Conservancy members that whereas there has been

a lot of success in pasture production, lack of concurrent support for livestock offtake

through market linkages undermine this success, as livestock production does not

translate into increased earning.


209. Changes achieved in policy and institutional capacity development work are sustainable to

the extent that they are implemented in partnership with and integrated into the strategic

plans of the Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning, the National Land Commission and

county governments. Participatory planning and implementation with communities, as

happened with the natural resources mapping work with the Wayu community in Tana

River County increases chances on continued activities beyond FAO support as “ownership”

takes hold based on the results achieved.


49

210. Ownership of the changes achieved by the beneficiaries is assured by the fact that these

interventions are primarily aimed at supporting processes of the beneficiaries. At the

national level, the work that FAO has supported is work that falls within the framework of

the plans and strategies of the Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning and National Land

Commission. FAO support only improves delivery of what the institution is committed to

doing in furtherance of its mandate. The same is true of the support provided to county

governments and communities, which facilitates processes of these entities. For example,

strengthening the capacity of community institutions responsible for NRM in Marsabit

County is an important strategy in sustaining the results. The committees created in Tana

River County are expected to continue operating even after FAO’s initiative ends.

211. Activities on bio-prospecting are entrepreneurial in nature, a fact that makes them

appealing and beneficial to the communities. For example, the Forest Farmers Groups in

Laikipia and Nakuru County are managing centralized tree nurseries and producing

seedling for income are likely to continue even after FAO support comes to an end.

212. Most of the initiatives promoted by FAO are based on time tested and affordable

innovative technology. Examples are agroforestry, community-based diseases reporter

system and the use of radio for dissemination of extension messages are well established

approaches in promoting development in ASAL areas, thus conducive for adoption by the

beneficiaries. In Samburu County the radio extension programme supported by FAO was so

successful that it was taken up by the County Department of Agriculture for use in

disseminating extension messages to farmers.


Outcome 4. Improved livelihood resilience of targeted, vulnerable populations

Finding 20. Relevance of resilience interventions was enhanced through the use of baselines to

understand context at the community level. However, linkages between programme design and

targeting, especially in the form of diversified support packages that include consideration for

other vulnerability amplifiers, were lacking.

Finding 21. FAO technical support, especially the contributions of RTEA, at national level with

NDMA and with county veterinary services and laboratories, was appreciated. However, policy

support failed to cascade to county levels, and capacity development in animal health was

concentrated primarily in cross-border areas.

Finding 22. Emergency projects at community level, with the exception of Pastoral Field Schools

(PFS) and the radio programme, focused on short-term disaster relief and did not systemically

include support for long-term resilience building.

Finding 23. Sustainable livelihoods including livelihood diversification for resilience building was

undertaken but limited in scope and scale.

213. Outcome 1 of the CPF aims to build resilience of households that have insufficient

agricultural assets to produce adequate food for consumption and/or are too far from

markets to engage in commercialized production. Initiatives carried out under the outcome

are meant to mitigate the impact of shocks, increase livelihood options and improve

adaptive capacity. The main recipients of FAO support under this outcome were the


50

National Drought Management Authority, the Department of Veterinary of Services, county

governments, targeted communities and beneficiary households.

4.4.1 Relevance and targeting

214. The use of evidence to support programming was a noted endeavour of FAO in Kenya

during the time period, especially the baseline surveys carried out for select resilience

interventions (as part of Outcome 5). The household surveys, primarily using FAO’s own

Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis (RIMA), supported understanding of the

resilience context at the county level and also contributed directly to the pillar on

knowledge management within the Ending Drought Emergencies Framework. In addition,

baselines contributed to project monitoring and evaluation. The evaluation conducted a

follow-up survey which has been used by both the CA case study and in the assessment of

this Outcome (Figure 8).

215. The targeting of beneficiaries was based on lists provided by county governments.

Selection of beneficiaries is not a process that is linked directly to project design and

activities. Anecdotal evidence on results from projects shows a degree of appropriateness

of project activities. In Kitui and Makueni, for the two resilience projects implemented

“Reviving ASAL Economies through Livestock Opportunities and Improved Coordination”29

and a Swedish-funded emergency project,30 beneficiaries met criteria levels of high food

insecurity and shocks vulnerability. Nevertheless, de-linking these processes of beneficiary

selection and programme design could have led to failure to support the development of

comprehensive packages of support, including to diversify livelihoods and adapt to climate

pressures.

29 GCP/KEN/076/EC. 30 OSRO/KEN/401/SWE.

Evalu

ati

on

of

FA

O’s

Co

ntr

ibu

tio

n t

o t

he R

ep

ub

lic

of

Ken

ya

51

Fig

ure

8:

FA

O b

en

efici

ary

pro

file

acc

ord

ing

to

vu

lnera

bilit

y c

ate

go

ries3

1

31 F

AO

ben

efi

ciari

es

were

cla

ssifie

d in

to t

hre

e v

uln

era

bilit

y c

ate

go

ries

acc

ord

ing

to

th

e m

axi

mu

m n

um

ber

of

days

ad

op

tin

g a

ny c

op

ing

str

ate

gy.


53

4.4.2 Programme effectiveness at national and county governments

216. FAO policy analysis support to the national governments was noted during the period. FAO

was involved in the formulation of Pillar 4 (EDE) and remained engaged with NDMA

stakeholders and co-chairs to support pillar meetings. The team meets every three months

to discuss various issues, exchange good practices, develop plans on drought priority

interventions, as well as receiving updates from NDMA. The working group also undertook

a mapping exercise led by FAO on “who does what and where in the ASALs”, deemed

useful by stakeholders. However, policy and technical support to national resilience officers

did not directly cascade to the county level, where linkages between FAO and county

NDMA officers were limited.

217. FAO funded long and short rains assessments and supported NDMA capacities to conduct

food security analyses. FAO drafted the United Nations Office for the Coordination of

Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) drought appeal for sustainable livelihoods sector with pillar

group input on prioritization. FAO continues to support NRM work to improve grazing,

helping to develop a national strategy for eradication of PPR. FAO supported discussions

on gaps in national and regional animal health care policies, strategies and legal

frameworks that directly affect their epidemic-surveillance systems. In November 2016, FAO

organized a regional workshop in Tanzania for four East African Countries under context of

OSRO/RAF/ 407/USA project to discuss gaps in their national animal health policies,

strategies and legal frameworks that directly affect their epidemic-surveillance systems.32

218. Diseases that affect animals are controllable through regular scheduled vaccination

campaigns; however, county governments often do not have the capacity to acquire the

necessary vaccines and equipment. In Samburu, Marsabit and Turkana, FAO enhanced the

capacity of county departments of veterinary services through training and supply of

veterinary vaccines and drugs to mitigate against the effect of major livestock diseases such

as Peste de Petits Ruminants, Sheep Pox and Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia.

Through FAO’s Emergency Centre for Transboundary Animal Diseases (ECTAD), FAO in

collaboration with IGAD’s Centre for Pastoral Areas Development and Livestock

Development, African Union Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources (IBAR) and World

Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), built the capacity of the national and regional

laboratory service for more efficient surveillance of transboundary diseases. This was done

through upgrading the infrastructure of existing laboratories in geographically strategic

areas. FAO also supported the establishment of Laboratory and Epidemiology network

across the region for information. Through ECTAD, FAO has supported the drafting of a

laboratory Manual, currently awaiting validation.

219. In terms of diseases control, although mechanisms have been developed with the county

partners in terms of disease surveillance, especially in PPR, there is still need for continued

support in organizing vaccination campaigns. FAO’s work in foot-and-mouth disease was

limited to support meetings in early 2014 and coordinating information sharing between

Kenya and South Sudan when an outbreak was reported in Sudan.

32 http://www.fao.org/kenya/news/detail-events/en/c/463868/


54

Support to vulnerable households

220. Most indicators, both for the beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, fell during the period

under evaluation. This is possibly due to the extreme drought that was occurring at the

same time that the survey was being carried out. In several counties, nevertheless, FAO is

seen as a reliable partner to provide emergency support to drought prone communities.

221. In Samburu, Turkana and Marsabit where the community targeted earn their livelihood

from livestock, FAO interventions supported pasture rehabilitation through reseeding and

supporting vaccination campaigns at a critical period enabling animals to survive after a

period of drought. In Kitui and Makueni Counties, support for coordination mechanisms,

delivery of vaccines, training in water management, as well as training on how to sell in and

link to markets. The results of the survey showed that in the two counties, positive

outcomes for FAO beneficiaries include closer proximity to markets, increased proximity to

sources of water, and reduced disparities as compared to non-beneficiaries in terms of

access to public transport. Beneficiaries also reported better health than non-beneficiaries

in the 4-week period preceding the survey, and also reported to being slightly more food

secure than non- beneficiaries.

4.4.3 Sustainable livelihoods and markets

222. FAO implemented a number of Pastoral Field Schools (PFS) in ASAL areas, including in West

Pokot, Turkana, Marsabit, Kitui and Makueni. Successful PFS are a positive example of an

effective modality for long-term resilience building, as it provides a platform for the

development of locally-relevant, community driven techniques and solutions in response to

livestock production and management issues. The model is cost-effective with potential for

scalability. An additional benefit of the PFS approach is its potential to positively influence

community building and conflict resolution as it encourages dialogue and productive

exchange between communities; this is of particular importance in the region as human

security is a growing challenge.

223. The PFS and Farmer Field Schools (FFS) resulted in mixed to positive outcomes where they

were correctly implemented in Marsabit and Kitui. In Teso village in Marsabit County, the

farmers learned various coping techniques including pasture rehabilitation and bench

terracing across the hills that allowed them to harvest grass that was used in making

nutrition blocks for their animals and for sale. However, some cases of PFS were not

successful. In Turkana, one PFS group stopped the training mid-course as participants

migrated from the village where the PFS was being undertaken in search of pasture.

224. Diversification of livelihoods is a major adaptation strategy, and FAO supported several

small-scale pilot initiatives in this area. This included a European Civil Protection and

Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) funded project making charcoal from an invasive

species, prosopis, in improved kilns as a way of environmental conservation and improved

income for the communities. It highlights the inter-linkages between resilience and natural

resources management and serves as model that could be replicated in other areas with

similar challenges in need of livelihood options.33

33 Edward Kilawe - Forestry Officer Subregional Office for Eastern Africa (SFE); personal communication.


55

225. Introduction of poultry at household level also helped to reduce dependence on big

livestock. This was an effective way to empower women as poultry in most pastoralist

cultures is managed by women and sales proceeds were readily absorbed by the

household. In Kitui County, members of the FFS reported that they had been taught how to

make soap, and the group was in discussion with various supermarkets as sale outlets. The

interventions helped enhance target communities’ capacity to mitigate the impact of

shocks and improve their adaptive capacity through increasing livelihood options. However,

results remain small-scale; communities remain affected by challenges including increasing

poverty levels, conflicts, declining land productivity and biodiversity loss, and the effects of

climate change.

226. FAO, through the European Commission-funded Improved Community Drought Response

and Resilience, contributed to stakeholder’s co-management of livestock markets in

Laisamis in Marsabit and Lodwar in Turkana. FAO helped the livestock marketing

association develop memoranda of association for co-management of these facilities with

the county governments. However, the Community Managed Markets faced challenges by

livestock traders who at times evaded paying fees and providing information on purchases,

sometimes in collaboration with livestock collectors. The project was not able to

incorporate these social dynamic considerations and furthermore suffered a lack of a

coherent livestock marketing policy and legal framework under which the conservation and

management measure could be anchored and upscaled.34

227. In Samburu, Kirimon group ranch was organized by the county. The association received

training in group management, marketing and pasture land use. Kirimon is seeking now to

co-management and shared revenue of local livestock markets with county government to

ensure market maintenance. An additional marketing association in Kisima was trained to

produce livestock feed supplements to help animal survival and milk production during

periods of drought.

228. While FAO support focused on livestock inputs to support production and animal health,

the relatively reduced focus on diversified income and effective marketing linkages limited

programme effectiveness and sustainability. Households practicing livestock while also

diversifying income sources and benefitting from increased proximity to markets and

services are the most resilient. Many beneficiaries reported receiving livestock inputs which

led to slightly higher rates of livestock productivity, attributing this to FAO support. Overall,

there was a disproportionate focus on delivery of emergency input compared to support

modalities more conducive to building resilience.

229. Furthermore, results in terms of increased resilience perceived or otherwise, were not

conclusive to show medium- and long-term effects of programming. FAO household

beneficiaries are less likely to report perceived resilience, including ability to bounce back

from shocks, diversify sources of income, learning capacity and preparedness to face future

shocks.

34 FAO 2016; Final Project Report, Improved Community Drought Response and Resilience (OSRO/KEN/102/EC)

Implemented from 2 August 2011 to 29 February 2016.


56

4.4.4 Sustainability and coherence

230. Sustainability is likely for support to the technical capacities of NDMA, whose staff are

further equipped to conduct food security assessments. This is less the case with local

NDMA staff, which often has few linkages with FAO field officers. The innovative extension

approaches supported by FAO use of radio, community-based diseases reporters and

phone-based digital diseases reporting EpiCollect5 show encouraging signs of

sustainability. The approaches have been adopted by the County Ministry of Agriculture

and Livestock and Fisheries in Marsabit and Samburu. Although some face social and

political challenges, developing capacities of communities to access and link to markets can

be achieved and market linkages, when successfully established, tend to last. Gains in

sustained food security at household level were a marked absence of programme results.

231. The presence of the Resilience Team for Eastern Africa, ECTAD and IGAD strongly

complement and are coherent with country programme. The regional offices provide high

quality technical support, particularly in the form of ECTAD expertise in animal health and

for governmental capacities for running the Integrated Phase Classification tool. Regional

projects have also contributed to development of the community disaster risk response

plans in Mandera in cooperation with the NGO ACTED. However, support needs to be

better linked to ongoing country office projects which provide similar backing in other

areas.


Outcome 5. Access to and use of information, innovation, a global pool of knowledge and

expertise drives holistic growth in the agricultural sector

Finding 24. FAO efforts ensured that expertise and knowledge was available to stakeholders,

data on food security, diseases and other issues was generated and that early warning and

information management systems were at the disposal of decision makers.

232. Outcome 5 aims at leveraging the Organization’s knowledge base and technical resources

in order to promote growth in the agricultural sector. The “results” that are sought are

actually evidenced primarily in the work carried out under the other four CPF outcomes as

identified in the respective sections. Conceptually and substantively, “access to and use of

information” is a common denominator of all CPF outcomes. The contributions herein are

at the core of what was mentioned in the comparative advantage section of this report,

under Finding 10.

233. The main recipients of FAO support under this Outcome were all those that have already

been identified above.

4.5.1 Additional examples of FAO’s contributions

234. To complement the numerous cases already provided, other examples include:

• A web-based Predictive Livestock Early Warning System decision support tool was

developed by FAO in collaboration with Texas A&M University and the NDMA. A

Predictive Livestock Early Warning System Forage Condition Index was designed to


57

supplement existing NDMA environmental indicators.35 The tool integrates near real

time forage quantity assessment, short- and long-term forecasting of forage and

livestock water status. This allowed the stakeholders to examine risks and identify

potential trade-offs and responses associated with drought and changing climate.

• Grass rejuvenation is hard in Samburu and Marsabit counties, as they are arid areas

and prone to draught. As a consequence, the number of livestock that can be

sustained fluctuates depending on climatic conditions. The use of Predictive Livestock

Early Warning System assisted in producing satellite maps of areas likely to

experience draught and helped pastoralists to plan livestock movement.

• Capacity building for the county staff in Marsabit resulted in them being able to

develop resources maps to foster the rational use of resources by beneficiaries.

Through these maps, communities have come up with coherent

team/groups/committees which include grazing teams and are involved in grazing

and conservancy. They ensure grassing management plans are followed.

• FAO supported a radio programme on animal products, hygiene and disease

surveillance (more on this last element in the next example) that was aimed at raising

awareness and knowledge of farmers and livestock keepers on the need to observe

hygiene in handling milk and other animal products. It also aimed at building the

capacity of the pastoralists to enable them to detect signs of disease onset affecting

their livestock on their own and report to county authorities for action.

• One of the beneficiaries of this radio programme is the Ajaa Tisa Women Group in

Marsabit County. According to the group, the radio programme on animal product

hygiene was very useful and it made a difference to the group members as they are

now able to handle milk and meat products differently. They noted that cases of

children falling sick by consuming un-boiled milk have gone down considerably. Due

to access to the new information on hygiene, the members have set-up a clean area

for keeping the milk, and always wash the milking equipment with hot water to

sterilize them.

• Another advantage of the importance of the radio programme was it had broad

geographic coverage, given that Marsabit is quite vast and extension officers are not

able to cover the area due to limited number of staff. Through it, the Department of

Animal Health was able to reach a larger section of the community, identifying over

20 radio listening groups and conducting follow-up demonstrations with them.

• The digital pen technology (DPT) and EpiCollect5 innovations are designed to

strengthen animal disease surveillance. Initially, FAO assisted in the roll-out of DPT

but this was dropped due to the high costs and cumbersome operational

requirements and was replaced by EpiCollect5 (mobile phone data gathering).

EpiCollect5 provides disease surveillance data in real time with pictures and

geographical position system as an added value and evidence base on the data

quality.

• Through the radio programme just described, community members in Samburu and

Marsabit were trained on disease surveillance. FAO, in conjunction with the

departments of livestock in both counties, then trained community disease reporters

on disease reporting. The programme was aired in both Kiswahili and local languages

(Borana and Somali) in order to promote uptake. This resulted in an increase in

demand for extension services and livestock-related information in addition to the

adoption of good animal health and livestock production practices.

35 The Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) and the Vegetation Condition Index (VCI).


58

• The community disease reporters have assisted authorities in generating databases

on disease outbreaks, location and frequency. The community disease reporters

collect and transmit information through safe minimum standards to report both the

presence and absence of the diseases outbreak within their villages/wards. The

county officials get reports, compile and analyse them and share with stakeholders

(including FAO) to help them plan response interventions. This has helped the

Department of Veterinary Services in disease surveillance and reporting. Stakeholders

concur that animal mortality has greatly been reduced.

• The Monitoring and Analysing Food and Agricultural Policies (MAFAP) is a

programme working to create sustainable policy monitoring systems and carry out a

consistent set of policy and public expenditure analyses across a wide range of

agricultural value chains. In Kenya it is implemented through a partnership between

FAO, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, the Kenya Agricultural and

Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) and KIPPRA. It supports the Government to

identify, articulate and assess options for reforming food and agricultural policies. It

provides regularly updated analyses for the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and

Fisheries to improve policy frameworks for producers and consumers; prioritize

investments to increase agricultural production and improve farmers’ incomes and

food security.


235. Continued access to and use of information, innovation, a global pool of knowledge and

expertise to drive holistic growth in the agricultural sector is not a static, one-time event.

Per se, FAO’s core competency is its technical know-how and knowledge base. Independent

of the “vehicle” used (projects, programmes, trainings, etc.), as long as Member States

request support, there is a role for the Organization. Consolidating the gains achieved

through the use of FAO’s expertise is ultimately the responsibility of stakeholders. The

evaluation has provided examples of the measures taken in this regard.

236. Despite the success in leveraging and using the expertise and knowledge throughout its

programme of work, there are areas of improvement such as increasing the dissemination

of information to the intended users, overcoming language barriers and capturing local

knowledge. For example, information on adaptation to climate change, conservation

agriculture among others is mainly available on the FAO website and can only be accessed

by those who have access to technology, something which is not available in the rural

areas. The success of the radio programme can serve as a good practice for overcoming

those challenges.


59

5 Conclusions and recommendations

237. This section brings together the findings identified above and presents overarching

conclusions. A series of recommendations are also made in order to address the main areas

for improvement.

5.1 Conclusions

Conclusion 1. FAO’s programme for the period 2013-2016 was closely aligned with the

Government of Kenya’s priorities, agricultural development strategies and policies. The

Country Programme Framework was useful in that it set the main lines of work that

addressed identified needs, yet allowed amplitude to address unforeseen, emergent issues.

FAO response to emerging needs was largely appropriate, although at times there were

delays occasioned by internal processes.

Conclusion 2. FAO’s response to devolution was suitable given the changing context,

allowing it to accompany county governments as they transitioned into their new roles.

Having a presence in counties gives FAO an intimate understanding of the local situation

while also improving coordination with county governments and enabling the

development of diverse partnerships with various stakeholder organizations working in the

respective counties. Nonetheless, as devolution takes hold and other mechanisms of

coordination between counties and the national government become consolidated, the

county office model, both in terms of approach and sustainability requires detailed

assessment in order to determine its continuity.

Conclusion 3. FAO has been successful in establishing partnerships and collaborative

relationships with a diverse number of actors at the national and county levels in the areas

addressed by the CPF. The partnerships were highly valued as were FAO’s contributions to

various fora due to the quality of its technical inputs and effective facilitation role. There

are opportunities for engaging in partnerships in the area of gender and HIV/AIDS in order

to improve FAO’s programme in relation to those topics.

Conclusion 4. The CPF did not address cross-cutting issues in a meaningful manner, thus

missing an opportunity for embedding gender mainstreaming, nutrition and HIV/AIDS in

FAO’s subsequent programme. As a result, few or modest gains were made in relation to

the four objectives of FAO’s policy on gender that were assessed, while modest progress

was noted in mainstreaming nutrition. On the other hand, FAO’s work on HIV/AIDS, as it

relates to its mandate, was barely perceptible. The new CPF can be an opportunity for

building on the progress achieved, developing a comprehensive approach to including

those topics in future programming.

Conclusion 5. FAO has a strong comparative advantage in areas within its mandate.

Stakeholders attribute this to its technical expertise, ability to tap into a vast network of

specialists and a comprehensive knowledge products base. This advantage is amplified due

to stakeholders perceiving it as an honest-broker and neutral partner.

Conclusion 6. FAO has made important contributions under the outcome areas contained

in the CPF, working with multiple stakeholders at the national and county levels, including

the public and private sector, communities and academia. Thanks to the support of donors,

measurable results have been obtained, whether in terms of scale (i.e. conservation

agriculture), reach (i.e. policy support, information systems), improved livelihoods (i.e.

access to markets and diversification) or increased resilience (capacity building and


60

resource management), to name but a few. Although there are areas for improvement (i.e.

access to inputs, accompanying devolved functions, leveraging M&E, etc.), the new CPF

cycle provides an opportunity to reflect and adjust in order to build upon the gains.

238. Although a CPE aims to address higher, strategic level issues, it would be a missed

opportunity if conclusions relating to the five CPF outcomes were left out. It is also useful

to point these out as they provide context and assist in understanding the

recommendations. The following are some key takeaways:

• Outcome 1: Devolution presents new challenges in policy formulation,

implementation and monitoring but presents opportunities for FAO to engage with

intergovernmental coordination forum (JASC) and complementary bodies. There are

weak linkage between O1 and policy interventions in other outcomes.

• Outcome 2: There is slow uptake of new technologies and processes though this is

being addressed by continuous training of farmers. Dependence on FAO by

beneficiary groups for identifying markets can be overcome through capacity

building efforts for that purpose.

• Outcome 3: Given the national needs and priorities there is more to be done in the

areas of NRM and land. Emphasis to date has been limited geographically and

thematically.

• Outcome 4: The move from response to recovery and to linking emergency and

development is necessary and should be continued. Evidence suggests impact and

sustainability at beneficiary level is positive but limited.

• Outcome 5: Knowledge products and innovations have been generated and used.

These are highly valued by stakeholders.

5.2 Recommendations

Recommendation 1. FAO should continue playing an important role, as well as consolidate

the results obtained to date, by using the new CPF design process to address issues

identified.

239. FAO is considered an important and credible partner that has made significant

contributions to the sector. As evidenced, despite the many gains, there are areas which

can benefit from measures aimed at improving programme design and delivery.


• Policy: Support the adoption of a national agricultural policy. Current draft agriculture

policy has been overtaken by events creating an opportunity for the provision of FAO

support. Likewise, FAO should position itself to support tracking of policy impacts

through country STAT.

• Independent of the substantive topics being addressed, initiatives with a policy

component need to be supported more systematically by the policy unit. The aim is

to ensure FAO has a holistic approach and quality assurance processes in place that

focuses policy efforts in a complementary manner.

• Devolution: The nature and form of FAO’s continued engagement with counties

needs to be reviewed in light of the changes that have taken place in the last few

years. The review should include an assessment of the merits of having county offices,

objectives that are desired and viability of a model dependent on specific projects for

financing, among others. The review should engage all stakeholders, fostering a


61

participatory process that also contributes to managing expectations regarding FAO’s

work at county level. The review should present management with different scenarios

for moving forward.

• Resilience: Increase capacity within the country office in the area of resilience and

food security, creating a dedicated position for this purpose. As part of the tasks that

need to be conducted there is: developing a dedicated country strategy in resilience,

forging stronger linkages between FAO/NDMA at county level, and facilitating

incorporation of resilience into CIDP through Community Managed Disaster Risk

Reduction (CMDRR) for example.

Recommendation 2. FAO should build upon its work to date on cross-cutting issues

(gender, nutrition and HIV/AIDS) and be more proactive in mainstreaming these in its

programme, focusing on supporting upstream level activities. Programme content and

approach should be fully in line with the respective FAO strategies and objectives.

241. Many of the gender focus activities were one-time efforts, often awareness or training while

nutrition-related actions were more upstream in nature (i.e. policy work, advice). As was

pointed out, there were hardly any HIV/AIDS associated actions. An opportunity for

expanding its work on cross-cutting issues, in a systematic fashion, presents itself.


• General: An increased effort in mainstreaming cross-cutting issues may require

reinforcing existing in-house capacities (i.e. through training) in subjects and methods

relevant for the changed focus. There may as well be need for organizational changes

(i.e. establishing cross-cutting focal points in each unit).

• Gender: FAO should develop a comprehensive approach to including a gender

perspective in its work and take advantage of opportunities such as supporting the

development of the Kenya gender strategy for agriculture. It should be noted,

though, that Ministry of Public Service, Gender and Youth has been tasked with

developing gender strategies and action plans for all sectors, which means that the

individual ministries depend on the capacity of the implementing ministry. Support

from FAO on this may help the process.

• HIV/AIDS: FAO should develop an approach to incorporate the topic in the

programme of work that can include partnering with specialized organizations. If

aiming at strengthening the nutrition situation in the worst affected areas with the

view to reduce the risk of HIV and complement medical treatment to those persons

living with HIV/AIDS, the geographical selection of areas of interventions should be

reconsidered. Further guidance and support from headquarters should be requested.

243. The two higher level recommendations include elements derived from CPF Outcome 1 and

4 but there are other suggestions that, although more specific, can inform decision-making

as the new framework is designed. These include recommendations for the following

outcomes:


62

Outcome 2

Recommendation 3. FAO needs to improve planning processes in order to ensure timely

procurement of goods and services.

Recommendation 4. FAO capacity building support to farmer groups should emphasize

training on how to negotiate and secure the most favourable contracts, market conditions

and opportunities analysis and the use of table banking as an option to access financing.

Outcome 3

Recommendation 5. Support the development and implementation of systems to monitor

progress on implementation of policies on land and natural resource governance and

management.

Recommendation 6. Assist county governments so that they include in their CIDPs county

strategies and plans that prioritize NRM issues that FAO has supported.

Recommendation 7. Focus more on cross-boundary natural resources management issues

in Water, Forest, Rangelands etc. since these shared resources require a multi-county

approach.


63

6 Appendices

Appendix 1. List of Key Informants

1. This list represents a selection of key informants. There were over 500 persons interviewed

or that participated in focus group discussions in addition to the 700+ household surveys.

Name Organization/Role

National

1 Willy Bett Cabinet Secretary Agriculture

2 Prof Micheni Japhet Ntiba Principal Secretary, State Department of Fisheries

3 Dr Andrew Tuimur Principal Secretary, State Department of Livestock

4 Julius Kiptarus Livestock Production, State Department of Livestock

5 Anne Onyango Director Policy and Research, Ministry of Agriculture,

Livestock and Fisheries

6 Jane Wanjiru Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Head,

Home Economics Unit

7 Beatrice Mwaura Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, PEGRES

Coordinator

8 Gideon Gathaara Ministry of Environment & Natural Resources,

Conservation Secretary

9 Agustine Masinde Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning, Director of

Physical Planning

10 Mercy Meme Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning, Head of ICT

Dept.

11 Frank Orioh Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning

12 Mary Kembo Ministry of Lands and Physical Planning

13 Paul Obunde NDMA, Planning and Policy Manager

14 John Mwai Ministry of Health, Food Composition National

Coordinator

15 Gladys Mugambi Ministry of Health, Head of Nutrition Division

16 Paul Mwongera Ministry of Education, School Meals Unit

17 Dr Fibian Lukalo Director Research, National Land Commission

18 John Mwangi Drought Information Manager, NDMA

County

19 Daniel Bahanguma Chief Officer Dept. Agriculture, Livestock Development

and Fisheries, Kilifi

20 David Wanjohi Natural Resources Network (LAICONARN) Coordinator,

Laikipia

21 Emily Kioko County Coordinator FFFSPAK, Laikipia

22 James Mogere AD Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Laikipia

23 Joseph Waigwa- Ward Agriculture Desk Officer, Laikipia

24 Martin Mwangi Chief Officer, Agriculture, Livestock & Fisheries, Laikipia

25 Moses Njagi Agriculture County PAO, Laikipia

26 Peter Wangai CEO, Laikipia County Development Authority

27 Silvester Nyangan Agriculture County PO, Laikipia


64

28 Pakola Mustafa County coordinator for NDMA, Laikipia

29 Ali Fugicha LPO, Marsabit

30 Dr Chege Mugo Veterinary Officer, Marsabit

31 Aden Wako Veterinary Officer, Marsabit

32 Janet Ahatho AD/NRM, Marsabit

33 Sora Adano County Resilience Officer, NDMA, Marsabit

34 Godwin Kuria Kithinji Environmental Resilience & Social Inclusion Officer,

ASDSP, Muranga

35 Joseph Murigi Kahiu County Crop Officer, Muranga

36 Mary Kanyi Gaithuma County Coordinator, ASDSP, Nakuru

37 Caleb Kisienya- M&E Officer, ASDSP, Nakuru

38 Grace C. Kirui Country Director of Agriculture, Nakuru

39 Martin Mwangi Chief Officer, Nanyuki County

40 Dr Macharia AD Veterinary Services, Samburu

41 Francis Ng’ang’a SCLPO Samburu Central, Samburu

42 Tonny Lemprekerly Desk Officer NRM, Samburu

43 Omar Buketa CEC Lands, Agriculture & Irrigation, Tana River

44 Eng. Felix Mumba Deputy Director, Water, Tana River

45 Nzioka Wambua County Livestock Officer, Tana River

46 Samuel Baya County Director of Agriculture, Tana River

47 Simon Muriuki Sub County Director of Livestock, Tana River

48 Esther Lokwei Lokiyo Minister, Ministry of Lands, Turkana County

49 Mark Ewesit-Ewoi Chief Officer, Lands, Physical Planning, Housing & Urban

Management, Turkana

International stakeholders/CSO

50 Andrea Ferrero EU, Agriculture and Rural Development Sector

51 Duncan Marigi SIDA, Programme Manager, Agriculture and Rural

Development

52 Abduallahi Khalif Embassy of Switzerland to Kenya, Senior Regional Food

Security Advisor

53 Paolo Razzini Italian Development Cooperation

54 Onesmus Maina Senior Agricultural Economist, African Development Bank

55 Dr Mathias Braun GIZ, Programme Director, FS and Drought Resilience

Programme

56 Dr Isaac Lubetsi GIZ, Programme Officer (Marsabit)

57 Zebib S. Kavuma UN Women, Country Director

58 Nyambura Ngigu UN Women, Programme coordinator. Head of gender

working group

59 Grainne Moloney UNICEF, Chief of Nutrition

60 Paul Turnbull WFP, Deputy Country Director

61 Randall Purcell WFP, Senior Advisor and Manager, Rural Resilience

62 Shirley Odero WFP, Programme Associate, Protection and

Empowerment

63 Dina Aburmishan WFP, Nutritionist

64 Joyce Owigar WFP

65 Alan Kute WFP

66 Ladisy Komba Chengula World Bank, Lead Agriculture Economist

67 John Kahiu UN Habitat, Land Information Systems Specialist


65

68 Hani Abdelkader Elsadani Country Director, IFAD

69 Akinyi Nzioki IFAD, Consultant on gender

70 Brian Njoroge Family Health International 360, Nutrition Health

Programme.

71 Philip Kilonzo ActionAid, Manager Policy Research

72 Lawrence Kiguro World Vision, Associate Director, Livelihoods & Resiliency

73 James Ang’awa Anditi World Vision, Director, Operations Support

74 William Marwanga World Vision, Economic Development Specialist

75 Thomas Tarus World Vision, Country Food Assistance Manager

76 Samson K. Njenga Samaritan Purse, Senior Programme Manager

77 Godfrey Godana Guyo Head of Programs, CARITAS, Marsabit

78 Halkano Abkule Senior Programme Officer, CIFA, Marsabit

79 Shalom Magoma- Programme Manager, ACTED Kenya

80 Liliana Kamau Project Development Officer, ACTED Kenya

81 Hillary Ogina Project Officer, Social Cartography, Kenya Land Alliance

(KLA), Nakuru

82 Sellah Wanjekeche M&E Officer, Kenya Land Alliance (KLA), Nakuru

83 Stephan Lutz World Renew, Chair of CA Working Group

84 Shadrack Omondi Executive Director, RECONCILE, Nakuru

85 Ken Otieno Programme Coordinator, RECONCILE, Nakuru

86 Irene Mukalo Programme Manager, RECONCILE, Nakuru

87 Gabriel Naspam Executive Director, Turkana Development Organizations

Forum, Turkana

88 Raphael Leseketeti Chairman, Nkoteiya Conservancy, Samburu

89 Geophrey Sikei National Technical Manager, FEWSNET

Academia

90 Paul Gamba Egerton University

91 Dr Esther Muindi Pwani University, Lecturer, Crops Science Department,

Kilifi County

92 Jackson Mulinge Pwani University, Lecturer, Crops Science Department,

Kilifi County

93 Safari Ziro Deputy County Director for Agriculture, Kwale County

FAO

94 Gabriel Rugalema FAOR

95 Robert Allport Programme coordinator

96 Francisco Carranza Land and NRM Sector Head

97 Piers Simpkin Livestock Sector Head

98 Alessio Colussi Crops Sector Head

99 Mulat Demeke Senior Policy Officer

100 Anne Chele National Policy Officer

101 Queen Katembu Gender Officer

102 Ann Kinyua AFAO Administration

103 Jose Lopez RTEA

104 Simon Muhindi Food Security Analyst

105 Ruth Lehmann Communications Specialist

106 Martina Torma Communications Assistant

107 Folorunso Fasina ECTAD

108 Kaari Miriti M&E Officer


66

109 Angela Kimani Nutrition Officer

110 Sheila Koskei Head, Strategic Planning and Coordination Unit (+Youth)

111 Judy Maina National Youth Specialist

112 Tito Arunga Agribusiness Officer

113 Barrack Okoba Climate Smart Agriculture Expert

114 Husna Mbarak Land Programme Manager

115 Michael Kitonga Land and Water Officer

116 Phillip Kisoyan NRM Officer

117 Kamau Wanjohi Food Security Officer

118 Shadrack Musa County Programme Officer

119 Paul Kisiangani County Programme Officer

120 Eric Bosire County Programme Officer

121 Daniel Irura County Coordinator Turkana

122 Emmanuella Olesambu Emergency and Rehabilitation Officer

123 Jacqueline Were Operations Consultant

124 Amy Heyman Statistician

125 Edward Kilawe Forestry officer SFE

126 Matthew Abang Crops SFE/Subregional focal point for RI2

127 Ana Romero Fisheries and Aquaculture technical officers, SFE

128 Dia Sanou Nutrition SFE

129 Patrick Kormawa SFE Coordinator

130 James Musinga TCI

131 Luca Alinovi Former FAOR


67

7 List of Case Studies

Case Studies available at http://www.fao.org/evaluation/en/

Case Study. Project: Increased productivity and profitability of smallholder farmers through

promotion and upscaling of Good Agriculture Practices (GAP) and Conservation Agriculture (CA)

in productive Semi-Arid Areas of Kenya (IPP-GAP) - GCP/KEN/079/EC

http://www.fao.org/evaluation/en/

COUNTRY PROGRAMME EVALUATION SERIES


CASE STUDY. PROJECT: INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFITABILITY OF SMALLHOLDER FARMERS THROUGH PROMOTION AND UPSCALING OF GOOD AGRICULTURE PRACTICES (GAP) AND CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE (CA) IN

PRODUCTIVE SEMI-ARID AREAS OF KENYA (IPP-GAP) GCP/KEN/079/EC

A JOINT EVALUATION BY THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

OFFICE OF EVALUATION KENYA INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

TEGEMEO INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT May 2018

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Office of Evaluation (OED)

This report is available in electronic format at: http://www.fao.org/evaluation

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

© FAO 2018

FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.

All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected].

For further information on this report, please contact:

Director, Office of Evaluation (OED)Food and Agriculture OrganizationViale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153 RomeItalyEmail: [email protected]

Cover photo credits (top to bottom): ©FAO/Luis Tato (1st and 6th pictures), ©FAO/Thomas Hug (2nd picture), ©FAO/Simon Maina (3rd picture), ©FAO/Sarah Elliott (4th picture), ©FAO/Christena Dowsett (5th picture)

Evaluation of FAO’s Contribution to the Republic of Kenya – Case Study

iii

Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. The IPP-GAP ........................................................................................................................... 3

3. Findings .................................................................................................................................. 4

3.1 Part A: Strategic positioning ........................................................................................................................ 4

3.1.1 Alignment with national and county policies and priorities ................................................... 4

3.1.2 Appropriateness to the devolution process ................................................................................. 4

3.1.3 Partnership and coordination ............................................................................................................. 5

3.1.4 Cross-cutting issues ............................................................................................................................... 5

3.1.5 Comparative advantage........................................................................................................................ 6

3.2 Part B: Project contribution .......................................................................................................................... 6

3.2.1 Relevance of the project to the CPF ................................................................................................ 6

3.2.2 Relevance of the project to beneficiary needs and priorities ................................................ 7

3.2.3 Project impact and effectiveness ...................................................................................................... 8

3.2.3.1 Farmer groups’ engagement in CA .................................................................................... 8 3.2.3.2 Adoption of CA and GAP ....................................................................................................... 9 3.2.3.3 Increased yields, production and decreased production costs ............................ 14 3.2.3.4 Collective contract marketing ........................................................................................... 16 3.2.3.5 Increased income, improved access to basic needs, improved livelihoods .... 17

3.2.4 Factors that have influenced the results and sustainability ................................................. 18

3.2.4.1 Contributing factors to achievements and sustainability ....................................... 18 3.2.4.2 Limiting factors and challenges for sustainability ..................................................... 20

4. Conclusions and recommendations ...................................................................................... 23

4.1 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................... 23

4.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 24

5. Annexes ................................................................................................................................ 26Annex 1. Case study matrix .................................................................................................................................... 26

Annex 2. County selection criteria ....................................................................................................................... 39

Annex 3. Stakeholders involved in the case study ........................................................................................ 40

Annex 4. Application of CA principles in plots of farmers interviewed in the case study ............. 43

Annex 5. List of persons met during the field mission ................................................................................ 45

Annex 6. Field mission schedule .......................................................................................................................... 47


1

1. Introduction 1. The Office of Evaluation (OED) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO), in partnership with the Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA) and Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development conducted an evaluation of FAO’s Country Programme (2013-2016) in the Republic of Kenya in the period May-July 2017. As defined in the Terms of Reference (ToR) of the Country Programme Evaluation (CPE), the purpose of the exercise is to provide feedback to better orient FAO’s programme with a view to make future FAO CPF’s more impactful and relevant to the needs of the country. The CPE should contribute to learning at corporate, regional and country level, draw lessons and make useful recommendations for FAO’s future engagement in the country.

2. The ToR of the evaluation were prepared in an inception phase and define the methodology proposed for the CPE which includes, among several other qualitative and quantitative methods for information gathering and analysis,1 the development of a case study on the project Increased productivity and profitability of small holder farmers through promotion and up-scaling of Good Agriculture Practices (GAP) and Conservation Agriculture (CA) in productive Semi-Arid Areas of Kenya (IPP-GAP) – GCP/KEN/079/EC. This project has been chosen for the implementation of a specific case study due to its relevance in the Country Programming Framework (CPF) in terms of objectives and budget. In particular, it is the main project contributing to the second outcome of the CPF.2

3. The objective of the IPP-GAP case study is to contribute to the evaluation of Outcome 2 of FAO’s CPF in Kenya, and more specifically to describe and analyse positive outcomes and benefits in the life of beneficiaries, and the factors that have contributed to these outcomes or affected the success of the actions.

4. The case study is not representative of the whole IPP-GAP, but focused on a reduced number of counties and beneficiary groups and households, developing in-depth analysis of the outcomes and changes in their lives that could be attributed to the project or to which the project had contributed.

5. The scope of the study is therefore limited to two counties and six farmer groups, including two unsuccessful farmer groups in order to allow for comparison with successful farmer groups. The time scope is from the beginning of the implementation of the IPP-GAP activities with the selected groups to date.

1.1 Methodology

6. In order to achieve the overall and specific objectives of the case study, a list of evaluation questions was developed and integrated into a matrix (see Annex 1), based on the overall CPE matrix, that defines sub-questions, indicators, source of information and data collection methods for each evaluation question. Questions are structured in the matrix following the applied criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.

1 Document reviews, key informant interviews, focus group discussion, observation (site visits), case study, household survey, online questionnaire. 2 Agricultural productivity and production of medium and small-scale producers increased, diversified and aligned to markets.


2

7. As mentioned before, the study has a limited geographic scope of two counties that were selected based on several criteria in order to identify two where project implementation was most mature (see Annex 2). This resulted in Makueni and Tharaka Nithi counties being selected.

8. Considering the time available for field visits, six farmer groups were selected to carry for the case study, three in each county, composed of two successful groups and one less successful group.3 Successful groups were chosen from a list of 60 farmer groups that were appraised by FAO to be commercially viable, and selected for future capacity strengthening activities and that have signed trading contracts and supplied satisfactorily the production planned in the contacts. Less successful groups participated in all the planned capacity building activities implemented by the IPP-GAP but have not managed to sign a trading contract. Groups were selected by FAO Country Office, in agreement with the respective county authorities and validated by the consultant in charge of the case study.

9. A list of stakeholders based in Nairobi and the two selected counties involved directly or indirectly in the project was used to identify participants in the case study. (see Annex 3). Semi-structured interviews were conducted, individually or in focus groups. Separate focus groups were held for men and women, and individually with some male and female farmers in order to further analyse some key aspects. Twenty-one individual farmer interviews were carried out. The other methods used for gathering and analysing information were the review of available literature and direct observation. In addition, some quantitative data collected in a survey carried out for the purpose of the whole CPE have been used.

10. During June 2017, quantitative data was collected at household level in both Makueni and Kitui counties. The main purpose of the household field survey (HH) was to compare several indicators – regarding conservation agriculture, resilience and other aspects – among FAO’s beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries which were previously interviewed in July/August 2015.4

11. In order to provide support to the qualitative survey carried out in Makueni, the HH survey data presented in this report is exclusively from the beneficiaries from the GCP/KEN/079/EC project in that county. Thus, the following estimates correspond to a total of 295 households - 222 beneficiary households and 73 households that were not benefited by any programme between 2014 and 2017. It is worth mentioning that this specific sample is not representative for the Makueni County – since it is a part of the sampled HH for Kitui and Makueni counties.

3 Makueni successful groups: Kavuthu farmer group and Kitengei Commercial Village. Makueni less successful group: Ngokolani farmer group. Tharaka Nithi successful groups: Tharaka Poultry Self Help group and Mutethie Self Help group. Tharaka Nithi less successful group: Arise and Shine Self Help Group. 4 The sample selection was done in 2014 and was based on a multi-stage, cluster random sampling. The first stage was clustering the sub counties where critical mass of FAO interventions was taking place or planned to be implemented. Random selection of sampled households from the sub counties using Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) was utilized in order to reduce bias. ‘Treatment’ groups were sampled randomly from the FAO beneficiary lists while ‘control’ groups were sampled from the community using a systematic random cluster sampling method. The sampling precision used for the total sample was 3 percent.


3

2. The IPP-GAP 12. The IPP-GAP has a duration of 48 months and covers the period from mid-2014 to mid-2018.

It contributes to FAO’s Strategic Objective 2 (Increase and improve provision of goods and services from agriculture, forestry and fisheries in a sustainable manner) and to Outcomes 15 and 2 of the FAO CPF for Kenya.

13. The project aims at contributing to improving the livelihoods of rural farming populations in semi-arid Kenya by increasing their incomes, making them more resilient to climate shocks and reducing their vulnerability to poverty and food deficits. The project is based on two main approaches: i) the promotion of conservation agriculture (CA) and good agricultural practices (GAP); and ii) the creation of improved market linkages and opportunities, which should contribute to increase the graduation of small-scale farmers so that they engage on commercial-oriented farming.

14. The main activities planned in the project are:

Implementation of a large extension programme on CA and GAP in order to improve the knowledge and capacities of farmers, based on a cascade training from Masters of Trainers (MoT), Trainers of Farmers (ToF) to farmers, and on a farmer field school approach.

Development of an e-agriculture platform. Support institutionalization of CA and GAP support capacity of government, private

sector and NGO extension workers. Support the creation of new market linkages and modalities (collective contracts)

between famer groups and final buyers.

15. The project targets 80 000 direct beneficiaries in eight counties (Machakos, Makueni, Kitui, Tharaka Nithi, Laikipia, Meru, Kwale and Kilifi). Thirty percent of target beneficiaries should be women.

16. It has a total budget of EUER 9.5 million and is supported by the European Union.

17. The main partners of FAO for the implementation of the IPP-GAP are county authorities. Private extension services are also involved in the extension programme.

5 Agricultural-based livelihoods are supported by an enabling policy and investment environment.


4

3. Findings

3.1.1 Part A: Strategic positioning

3.1.1 Alignment with national and county policies and priorities

18. The IPP-GAP is aligned with the main national agriculture policy, the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) 2010-2020 through two aspects:

The ASDS clearly puts the emphasis on commercial agriculture: its mission is defined as an Innovative, commercially oriented and modern agriculture, and one of its two strategic thrusts is increasing productivity, commercialization and competitiveness of agriculture commodities and enterprises. One of the five interventions proposed for the crops and land development sub-sector is improving agribusiness and market access.

The ASDS includes the development of arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) as one of the main priorities, in particular as a strategy to strengthening food security in the country. However, while GAPs are mentioned for these areas, such as the development of drought tolerant crops and the correct use of fertilizers and manure, CA is not mentioned. In addition, for ASALs, the emphasis is put on livestock development and irrigated agriculture.

19. At county level, interviews with county agriculture authorities showed the project is clearly aligned with their priorities.

20. In Makueni, agriculture is the third priority of the Government in terms of resources invested, behind health and water. On agriculture, the priority is to increase production, productivity and profitability for farmers, through improved value chains that include grains, strengthen environmental conservation and resilience using CA and GAP.

21. In Tharaka Nithi, f0r lower zones that are part of ASALs, the priority is to support adaptation to climate variability and strengthen resilience and food security through improved cereals, legumes and horticulture value chains.

22. Interviews with agriculture county authorities also showed that CA is in process of being “institutionalized” in the two counties. Makueni County has not yet prepared a policy that includes CA explicitly, however, the county has invested in three tractors with CA equipment, which shows county authorities are determined to support the development of CA in the long-term. In Tharaka Nithi, an agriculture development policy that explicitly integrates CA has been elaborated and approved by the county assembly and is pending to be approved by the governor. According to agriculture authorities, resources have been budgeted to continue supporting CA through extension services.

3.1.2 Appropriateness to the devolution process

23. Interviews with FAO County Project Officers and county authorities in the two counties included in the case study showed FAO’s set-up at county level and the project approach is appropriate to supporting the devolution process.

24. FAO’s field offices and County Project Officers allow FAO to be very well positioned at county level, being a strategic and trustworthy partner of county authorities that consider FAO’s in-county presence a major advantage compared to other development institutions. This set-


5

up allows FAO to participate closely and influence technical and policy dialogue related to agriculture at county level. The ongoing institutional adoption of CA is a result of this proximity.

25. The IPP-GAP is presented by FAO to be the first project directly implemented by FAO, as compared to past practice of partnering with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that played an intermediary role between FAO and county stakeholders. In reality, the project is implemented in partnership with county agriculture authorities and relies partly on public extension services for the implementation of the farmer groups training programme on CA and agribusiness. FAO also worked with private extension services, mainly members of farmer groups and community-based organizations (CBOs) due to the limited number of available public extension workers given the targeted coverage foreseen by the project. This partnership included a vast training programme of extension services, which is seen by agriculture county authorities as a major contribution to the devolution process.

3.1.3 Partnership and coordination

26. As mentioned earlier, the direct partnership between FAO and county agriculture authorities for the implementation of the IPP-GAP is relevant to the objective of supporting the devolution process. It places FAO in a strategic position and fosters a close relationship with county authorities; allows for building capacities of county agriculture authorities and extensions services on specific issues that are part of county priorities, such as value chains, CA and GAP.

27. However, both FAO and county authorities have mentioned some challenges within this partnership. These are mainly due to the bureaucracy on both sides, which have occasionally delayed some activities, and the reluctance of county authorities to replace some extension workers that underperformed in their duties related to the project. In the case of FAO, bureaucracy is related to administrative process, particularly to the timely payment of extension workers and procurement of inputs.

3.1.4 Cross-cutting issues

28. The initial design of the IPP-GAP, as seen in the project document, only considers gender equality and women empowerment through the targeting of 30 percent of women as part of the direct farmer beneficiaries. In project implementation, this target has been exceeded.6 However, farmer group visits and interviews with county authorities showed this was not the result of a designed, proactive approach by FAO to promote women’s participation, but due to the simple fact that women are usually more represented than men in farmer group membership. According to women farmer’s focus groups, this is due to the fact that men are less present in villages, as they often go out looking for work and income elsewhere.

29. Be that as it may, interviews with FAO, county authorities and farmer focus groups showed that the large participation of women in farmer groups and IPP-GAP beneficiaries does not necessarily mean women obtain the full benefit of improved agriculture activities. Several gender gaps were mentioned, related to access to productive assets and the benefit of agriculture income, which were not addressed just by having quotas of women among beneficiaries. Interviews with FAO staff showed the country office does not count with a

6 The IPP-GAP interim report for the period December 2015 – October 2016 reports 72.2 percent of women among beneficiaries of training for example.


6

gender strategy based on an in-depth knowledge of gender inequity in agriculture in the country.

30. However, FAO included a specific session on gender among the 15 sessions that constitute the extension services and farmers training programme of the project. According to FAO, this session was focused on leadership and how women could strengthen their participation in issues such as mechanization and lack of marketing opportunities. The review of this training session module showed it is not specific to the context of Kenya. The case study did not collect evidence on possible outcomes generated by this training session.

31. Interviews with county agriculture authorities and FAO revealed that some opportunities to more actively promote gender equality and integrate youth in the benefits of the project were not fully taken. Although the project adopted a value chain approach, it did not intervene on agriculture processing, which could have specifically involved women and youth.

32. The case study did not allow understanding the extent to which nutrition issues were taken into account for the selection of value chains in the two counties, as contradictory evidence was collected on this matter. According to FAO, value chains selection were informed by markets, while other stakeholders said their benefit for nutrition was also taken in account. On the other hand, the project’s training programme included a specific session on nutrition and value chains.

3.1.5 Comparative advantage

33. Project stakeholders identified the following comparative advantages of FAO related to the IPP-GAP:

Technical knowledge: FAO has a vast amount of technical knowledge on CA, GAP and agribusiness, thanks to a large scientific and empirical library and network of professionals who can support and share past experiences and lessons learned. FAO staff, including County Project Officers, have benefited from this institutional knowledge, and translated it in the project’s implementation and capacity building programme.

FAO’s permanent presence in counties where the project is implemented allows for strong and good relationships with county authorities. It provides FAO with legitimacy to work on policy advise at county level.

The project puts the emphasis on commercial agriculture to promote CA adoption. This is seen as a relevant approach as compared with past projects implemented by NGOs that only focused on production and did not generate significant CA adoption. It includes the capacity of FAO to serve as an interlocutor and foster linkages with big retailers, which other development actors present in the counties don’t have.

Experience and capacities for implementing large-scale capacity building activities: the project succeeded in reaching a large group of stakeholders, including farmers and extension services, thanks to FAO’s experience in farmer field schools (FFS).

3.2 Part B: Project contribution

3.2.1 Relevance of the project to the CPF

34. The IPP-GAP explicitly aims at contributing to Outcome 2 (Productivity of medium and small-scale agriculture producers increased, diversified and aligned to markets) and 4 (Improved livelihood resilience of targeted, vulnerable populations) of the CPF.


7

35. The project is clearly aligned with Outcome 2 through its activities, and contributes particularly to the following planned outputs of the CPF:

Output 2.1: Improved productive capacity and reduced risk of medium and small-scale producers, with the promotion of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) and GAP, the promotion of strategic partnerships across value chains with private sector, promotion of good practices in post-harvest management, support to participatory extension methodologies.

Output 2.3: Improved agriculture market access and value addition along viable value chains, with the strengthening of capacity of farmers groups and producers in agribusiness development and management, in achieving standards for agribusiness, and promotion of access to agricultural market information.

Output 2.4: Improved access to financial services and products, with the promotion of linkages of farmers groups with financial service providers.

36. As for Outcome 4, the project only contributes to Output 4.3 (Good nutritional practices that build on existing local knowledge, attitude and practices, are promoted) through the specific training session on nutrition implemented with extension services and farmers. It is worth observing that the project has not intended supporting population specifically vulnerable to shocks and/or food insecure. The project intervenes in ASALs where farmers are in general exposed to erratic rainfalls and climate vulnerability. However, beneficiary farmer selection did not include any criteria aimed at targeting vulnerable populations. The only criterion taken into account was farmer group’s potential for engaging in commercial agriculture. The rationale was to promote “marketing champions” as a driving force for other farmers.

3.2.2 Relevance of the project to beneficiary needs and priorities

37. CA is particularly relevant to areas characterized by erratic rains and recurrent droughts, as it allows maintaining moisture in the soil. It is therefore particularly relevant to ASALs. This has been confirmed by agriculture authorities at both national and county level (with a higher level of adoption at county level, see Section 3.1.1). The two counties included in the case study have several agroecological areas, and agriculture authorities specifically consider CA relevant to ASALs, where agriculture is still highly dependent of rainfalls, in order to increase productivity and support households’ resilience to shocks.

Women in the focus group of the Mutethie Self Help Group (Tharaka Nithi) explained that the weather has changed in the last years, with less rainfall, resulting in more frequent crop failure and reduced harvests. To cope with this situation, men have to look for jobs outside the village. However, households had to change their food consumption and rely more on less preferred products, and animal ownership has decreased, as households had to sell their animals to meet their basic needs.

Kavuthu farmer group leaders (Makueni) explained the lack of markets is one of the main challenges for the development of agriculture activities. Other main challenges are the lack of reliability of rains, lost of soil fertility and erosion that affect productivity. The group decided to engage in CA as it allows limiting soil erosion through soil coverage, keeping moisture in the soil (mulching and minimum tillage), support fertility (crop rotation, intercropping and cover crops). Other potential benefits of CA and GAPs are reducing delays in agriculture activities (ripping as compared to ploughing, chemical weed control as compared to manual control).


8

38. The project strategy put the emphasis on developing new and improved market opportunities as a driving force to promote CA and GAP. This strategy is found relevant to farmer’s needs and priorities, and addresses their dependence on middlemen for marketing their produce. Interviews with beneficiaries showed this dependence is a major factor that discourages farmers to invest and develop their agriculture activities, due to the low prices middlemen offer, especially when households have access to other livelihood opportunities than agriculture. Their strategy is then to develop these opportunities and only maintain agriculture activities for household food production.

39. This strategy also takes in account lessons learned from past experiences, where NGOs have promoted CA essentially putting the emphasis on production, and that generated low levels of CA adoption.

3.2.3 Project impact and effectiveness

3.2.3.1 Farmer groups’ engagement in CA 40. In five groups out of six included in the case study, interviews with farmers revealed a strong

commitment of farmer groups to CA. None of the groups had practiced CA before the IPP-GAP and this engagement is therefore attributed to the project. According to group leaders, in four of these five groups the proportion of members that have adopted the three principles of CA is between 27 percent and 100 percent.78

41. Interviews with group leaders, focus groups and individual farmers in these five groups showed that the majority of group members are clearly convinced of the benefit of CA, in terms of productivity gain, in their context of erratic rainfalls.

42. On the contrary, interviews in the sixth group, Arise and Shine in Tharaka Nithi County (included in the case study as a not successful group) showed a very low level of commitment to CA. Only five farmers out of 19 members have applied minimum tillage once, and only one

7 Kavuthu group: 18 farmers out of 67 members (27 percent), Ngokolani: 20 farmers out of 30 members (67 percent), Kintengei: 400 farmers out of 528 members (75 percent), Mutethei: 16 farmers out of 16 members (100 percent). 8 Data is not available for the fifth group (Tharaka poultry).

A farmer of the Arise and Shine Self Help group (Tharaka Nithi) who only experienced collective marketing once in 2014, explained that the group has not carried out collective marketing again due to lack of opportunities. He explained that on that occasion he extended the land he usually plants and practiced minimum tillage on one acre. This was the only time he practiced minimum tillage. He has not practiced it again due to the lack of new opportunities for collective marketing. He said it is not worth investing in agriculture and CA if the only marketing possibility is to local middlemen. He also said he would invest again in agriculture and CA if collective marketing opportunities come again, as agriculture can potentially bring him more income than other activities.

Other evidence shows this high level of engagement: Kitengei commercial village (Makueni) has invested in CA equipment and has bought 20 oxen rippers and 20 shallow weeders in 2017. Mutethie group uses the mulch planter that has been provided by the project for land preparation, with manpower. Most of the group members don’t have access to oxen and have organized themselves to help each other for the land preparation of their plots. Using the mulch planter with manpower is very hard work, which shows the commitment of these farmers.


9

farmer has adopted it several times. Farmers explained attendance to trainings was very irregular. Interviews with farmers and the FAO County Project Officer showed the main reason of this low engagement in CA was the quality of the Trainer of Farmer assigned to them. The case study did not find differences in the commitment with CA between successful groups and the other less successful group included in the study (Ngokolani, in Makueni County).

3.2.3.2 Adoption of CA and GAP 43. Despite the strong engagement of five farmer groups out of six described above, the level of

adoption of the three principles of CA and proposed GAP varies.

Minimum Tillage

Adoption of minimum tillage in Makueni County (household survey)

Figure 1: Difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries: adoption of minimum tillage

This figure shows that during the four years included in the project implementation period, project beneficiaries in Makueni County seem to have adopted minimum tillage to a larger extent than non-beneficiaries, especially in the March-May 2015 farming season.


10

Figure 2: Rate of adoption of minimum tillage among beneficiaries

However, according to Figure 2 adoption among project beneficiaries remains limited.

Both Figures 1 and 2 suggest a strong progression of minimum tillage among beneficiaries in 2015 and then a decrease of adoption. Below average performance of the 2016 short and long rains has led to a severe drought in the arid and semi-arid lands of Kenya. The rainfall performance was mainly related to La Niña and warm West Pacific sea surface temperatures and, as a consequence, limited crop production, pasture growth and water availability. This event can explain the large drop in the CA indicators between 2015 and 2016.

44. In line with the result of the household survey above, according to farmers, extension workers and FAO, minimum tillage is the CA principle that has the lowest level of adoption in the six groups included in the case study. However, the figures on the adoption of the three CA principles presented in paragraph 38, which also correspond to the proportion of farmers that have adopted minimum tillage, show a much higher level of adoption within these groups than overall in Makueni County (27 percent to 100 percent of group members in five groups). In addition to this, the majority of farmers only apply minimum tillage in a part of their plot and continue to plough the rest of their land (see Annex 4 for details on the application of CA principles according to interviewed individual farmers’ plots). Among the 21 farmers interviewed individually, 14 farmers have adopted ripping. Only five of them apply ripping in their entire plot.


11

Soil coverage

Adoption of soil coverage in Makueni County (household survey)

Figure 3: Difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries: adoption of soil coverage

As for minimum tillage, Figure 3 suggests that there is a higher level of adoption of soil coverage for beneficiaries than for non-beneficiaries, overall in Makueni County.

Figure 4: Rate of adoption of soil coverage among beneficiaries

Figure 4 indicates that there was a smooth progression of adoption of soil coverage practices in Makueni County, whether it is mulching or cover crops.

45. According to interviews with farmers and extension workers, soil coverage arrives second in term of adoption, with the majority of farmers applying it. 17 farmers among the 21 farmers interviewed individually have adopted it, and 14 apply it on their entire land. Interviews did not allow stating clearly which practice is most applied between mulching and cover cropping. However, cover crop adoption is facilitated by the common practice in conventional agriculture of intercropping, while in some cases competition between mulching and animal feeding for the use of crop debris has been mentioned.


12

Crop rotation

Adoption of crop rotation in Makueni County (household survey)

Figure 5: Difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries: adoption of crop rotation

According to Figure 5, it appears that there was a significant progression of adoption of crop rotation by beneficiaries as compared to non-beneficiaries over the analysed period: in 2014, more non-beneficiaries were practicing crop rotation, while in 2016 and 2017 this s was the inverse.

Figure 6: Rate of adoption of crop rotation among beneficiaries

According to Figure 6 it seems that adoption of crop rotation is higher as compared to minimum tillage and soil coverage, however it decreased among beneficiaries between 2014 and 2017.

46. According to stakeholders and farmers interviewed, crop rotation is the CA principle that is the most adopted in the groups included in the case study, by almost all farmers. This result is coherent with the figures found in the household survey. Adoption of crop rotation is facilitated by the fact that farmers are used to practicing it in conventional agriculture. However, farmers have changed their rotation system thanks to the project’s trainings and the evolution observed is therefore more qualitative than quantitative. 17 interviewed famers apply crop rotation out of 21 individually interviewed, 16 on their entire plot.


13

Good Agriculture principles

Adoption of herbicides in Makueni County (household survey)

Figure 7: Difference between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries: adoption of herbicides

As shown in Figure 7, there is some evidence that the project allowed for a smooth level of adoption of herbicides for beneficiaries as compared with non-beneficiaries, during the four seasons covered by the survey.

Figure 8: Rate of adoption of herbicides among beneficiaries

However, as presented in Figure 8, the adoption of herbicides appears to remain low among beneficiaries in Makueni County during the four years covered by the survey.

47. As in the case of CA principles, interviews with farmers, extension workers and FAO showed different levels of adoption of essential GAPs, such as use of quality certified seeds, appropriate application of fertilizers and manure, and use of herbicides.


14

48. Interviews showed that the regular use of certified seeds has increased thanks to the project. However, the majority of farmers still take their seeds from their harvest. Similarly, appropriate combination of fertilizers and manure is still limited, and farmers rely mostly on manure. The same is true for the use of herbicides for weed control. In the six groups visited, only two groups have adopted these practices to a large extent. All individual farmers of the Mutethie Group that were interviewed now systematically buy certified seeds, apply fertilizers and manure, and herbicides, while farmers of the Tharaka poultry Group mentioned using herbicides systematically and buying seeds and fertilizers sometimes when they can afford them.

3.2.3.3 Increased yields, production and decreased production costs 49. According to informants at county level, adoption of CA and GAP has allowed significant

increases in yields and production. This was triangulated in the five groups included in the study that have engaged in CA and where CA principles and GAP have been adopted to a certain extent. Farmers reported having registered production increase9 of 82 percent of all crops included on an average, between their last crop before adopting CA and their last harvest using CA. Among these 11 farmers, 3 of them have lost productivity due to bad rainfalls during the last cropping season.

50. This performance strongly suggests that even with a partial adoption of CA and GAP, production gains are very significant. Key informants commented in particular that CA allowed farmers maintaining a certain level of production during the October-December 2016 cropping season that was bad in terms of rainfall, as compared with farmers that have not applied CA. This finding is coherent with the results of the household survey on the perception that beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries have on the evolution of their productivity, presented below.

9 Production gains were estimated in 11 individual interviews.

Interviews with group leaders and individual farmers included in the case study, showed that the Mutethie Self Help Group is the group that has engaged the most in CA. All its members have adopted the three principles and the main GAPs promoted by the project. On the contrary, the Arise and Shine Self Help Group is the group that has the lowest level of adoption of CA and GAPs. Only five farmers out of 19 members of that group have tried at least once one or several of the CA principles. Only one farmer has adopted the three principles on several seasons and plans to continue.

Both groups are exposed to several factors that could support or limit their engagement. However from the discussion with farmers and FAO County Project Officers, the main factors that seem to differentiate the results in these two groups is the quality and engagement of the Trainer of Farmers. In the Mutethie Group, the ToF is a private extension worker, who is a farmer from the community, and is described to be particularly committed with the project. In the Arise and Shine Group, the ToF was perceived by members as not committed and carried out very short and irregular training sessions. Farmers said they did not understand several concepts included in the trainings.


15

Perception of the evolution of productivity in Makueni County (household survey)

Figure 9: Perception of the evolution Figure 10: Perception of the evolution of productivity among non-beneficiaries of productivity among beneficiaries

Based on the graph above, the proportion of beneficiaries who consider that their productivity increased between 2014 and 2017 is ten times larger than the proportion of non-beneficiaries – 35 percent vis-à-vis 3 percent. Concurrently, a majority of beneficiaries consider their productivity has decreased between 2014 and 2017 (55 percent), which may be linked to bad weather conditions during the period. However, a much higher proportion of non-beneficiaries (92 percent) have this perception.

Figure 11: Reasons for increased productivity

Also, among beneficiary farmers who perceive having increased their productivity, FAO interventions is pointed out as the main contributing factors (82 percent) for this increase.

51. Gains in terms of reduction of production costs are linked to the use of herbicides. Farmers who don’t apply herbicides don’t benefit from this gain. On the contrary, their production costs increase, as during the first seasons applying minimum tillage, until mulching reaches a level that allows for a reduction of weeds development, manpower costs for weeding increase.

All farmers of the Mutethie Group said their productions costs have decreased since they have adopted CA and GAPs. As an example, a woman producer said that with conventional agriculture, cost per acre was KES about 6 000, the main cost being labour for weeding. Since she adopted CA and GAPs, production costs are about KES 3 200 /acre. This reduction is entirely due to the adoption of herbicides that allows reducing labour costs. Other farmers of the group have also reduced land preparation costs as they were used to hiring a tractor for ploughing, and they now use a mulch planter.


16

52. Reduction of production costs has been estimated during individual interviews for eight farmers that apply herbicides in the two groups where a significant level of adoption of herbicides has been observed (Mutethie and Tharaka Poultry Groups). They reported having reduced their overall costs by 33 percent on an average. This figure includes increase on other costs than weed control such as purchase of seeds and fertilizers, which has increased with project intervention.

3.2.3.4 Collective contract marketing 53. The main approach developed by the IPP-GAP to improve market opportunities for farmers

is the direct linkage created between farmer groups and final buyers, and the establishment of marketing contracts.

54. IPP-GAP was directly involved in looking for final buyers interested in participating to the project. Four of the six groups10 included in the study have achieved collective marketing, three of them through supply contracts with final buyers, while Ngokolani Group only marketed once collectively to a broker. Contracts have been established with six final buyers.11 Two groups have also marketed collectively with brokers, in addition to final buyers. Mutethie Group, which was selected as a successful group, has not marketed collectively yet due to its limited membership (16 members) and therefore limited production. However, the group has joined a CBO recently with the aim of accessing collective contract marketing and is about to sign a first contract with the East African Brewery Limited (EABL). The second farmer group that has not marketed collectively, Arise and Shine Self Help Group, was selected in the study as a less successful group and is the group where a very limited engagement in CA was found.

55. The main interest for farmer groups for marketing collectively through a supply contract is having the guarantee to sell all their production at a price negotiated at the beginning of each farming season, usually higher than what brokers usually offer. Farmers have clearly understood the advantages of this and show commitment to this mechanism.

56. However, according to final buyers, FAO and farmer groups, farmers have almost never honoured quantities of product agreed in contracts. On the one hand, the production has not always reached the level that was expected. On the other hand, farmers have two other priorities that come before collective marketing for the use of their production. The first one is supplying food for their household. The second one is marketing immediately at harvest time in order to pay for school fees. In the absence of a specific mechanism to allow it, collective marketing does not facilitate immediate marketing and payment, because farmers groups need time for aggregating production of their members. As a consequence, the great majority of farmers sell a part of their production during the harvest to brokers.

10 Kavuthu, Kintengei, Tharaka Poultry, Ngokolani. 11 Imara, FRESCO, National Cereal Production Board, Dry Land Seed Company, East African Brewery Limited, Friken Limited.

Tharaka Poultry Group members said they used to sell their sorghum at KES 22 /kg to brokers, while they sell it at KES 32 /kg to EABL. For green grams, they used to sell it at KES 60 /kg to brokers, and they sell it now to Imara between KES 75 and 80 /kg.

A male farmer from the Tharaka Poultry Group said labour cost for weeding is KES 9 000/acre, while herbicide costs KES 2 000 /acre. As a consequence, he is now able to plant his 5 acres of land, while before he could only plant 3 acres.


17

57. The project partly reduced dependence of farmers on middlemen to market their production. According to FAO and farmer groups, another outcome generated by the new marketing opportunities is the increase of the competitiveness of the market. To date, the new market facilitated by FAO cannot really be considered as competitive, as only a few companies have participated to contract marketing with CA farmers. In addition, for several value chains (green grams, sorghum), only one company has participated to date.12 There could be, therefore, a risk to substitute dependence from brokers to one with a few companies. It is worth observing that at least in one case, a final buyer that had signed marketing contracts did not honour the contracts. Nevertheless, FAO and farmer groups reported that a number of brokers have increased their price in order to be competitive with final buyers and remain in the market. This is considered as a valuable unintended outcome of the project, which truly offers a variety of opportunities for farmers for marketing their product. Farmer groups explained that thanks to the training on agribusiness and through collective marketing their bargaining capacity increased and they are now able to better negotiate the price and conditions when they market their product.

58. Farmer group leaders consider the model of collective contract marketing as only one of various strategies farmer groups have in order to add value to their production. Another model that has been described is collectively storing production for several months and market products when the price increase due to seasonal patterns.

3.2.3.5 Increased income, improved access to basic needs, improved livelihoods 59. Focus group and individual interviews

revealed that the combination of a higher production, a higher quantity of product sold and a higher price through collective marketing provided farmers with an increased income. Income gains were estimated for seven farmers of three farmer groups through individual interviews. On an average, farmers who have applied CA and participated in collective marketing processes have multiplied their agriculture income by a factor of almost four.

12 East African Brewery Limited for sorghum, Imara for Green Grams, Bidco for sunflower.

Significant income increase have also been achieved in groups that have not benefited from higher price through collective marketing. In the Mutethie Group, all individual farmers interviewed described important gains. As an example, a farmer who was used to produce essentially for household food production and exceptionally had an income that could reach KES 5 000 when the season was very good, has perceived income comprised between 14 000 and KES 35 000 since he adopted CA and GPAs, depending on the quality of rainfalls.

Leaders of the most market-oriented group among the six groups included in the study, Tharaka Nithi Poultry, which has achieved four marketing contracts, explained that during the harvest of the October–December 2016 sorghum season brokers offered higher price than the price agreed in the contract the group signed with EABL. However, farmers decided to sell their product to EABL as they are interested in consolidating the relationship with this company that offers a permanent market for sorghum with fixed price.

Ngokolani Group (Makueni) has not participated yet in contract farming with the support of FAO. However, in 2017 the Group decided to market collectively to brokers. Thanks to collective approach and the skills they acquired on negotiating via the project, they managed to obtain a price of KES 70 /kg when the broker offered KES 65 /kg.


18

60. The majority of farmers in the six farmer groups visited were used to producing mainly for household food consumption and for paying school fees. The extra income they have gained has been used for the following purposes:

Paying school fees without implementing strategies that affect livelihoods: school fees are a main expense for households. They dedicate to it a significant part of their income, and often have to go into negative strategies, such as selling animals, go into debt or even sell major assets such as land. The extra income allowed to reduce these strategies and therefore played a role of protecting livelihoods.

Improve food consumption: the majority of farmers interviewed individually reported they had improved their consumption through increasing the frequency of consumption of more preferred products, such as rice, chapatti and meat, and through a higher food diversity with the consumption of fruits and legumes.

Investment in productive assets: the majority of farmers interviewed have invested part of their extra income generated by agriculture in a variety of assets that potentially will support the development of their livelihoods and contribute to their resilience. The first asset mentioned is animals, mainly goats, but also in a few cases improved poultry breed and cows. Other assets mentioned to a lower extent are water tank for rainwater harvesting, farm pond, petit trade kiosk. A few farmers have also paid labour for mulching and rented more land for agriculture.

Improve housing: several farmers have used their extra income to buy land for their future house, to contribute to the building of a house or to electrify their house.

3.2.4 Factors that have influenced the results and sustainability

3.2.4.1 Contributing factors to achievements and sustainability 61. Interviews with both FAO and agriculture authorities in the two counties included in the study

showed a strong commitment of county authorities on both CA and commercial agriculture using collective contracts. As mentioned in Section 3.1.1, the development of value chains is a priority for both counties, and they are in the process of institutionalizing CA in their policies. This factor, together with the fact that they have planned resources to continue supporting CA (already executed in the case of Makueni with the investment in three tractors with CA equipment), will support sustainability of the project achievements in the future.

62. In addition to that, Makueni County authorities have created a legal office with the aim of supporting the enforcement of agriculture marketing contracts. Two cases were reported, one of a contract that had been signed within the context of the project and a second one outside of it, where buyers did not honour the contract (one offered a lower price than the agreed one, and the other company did not buy any product). The legal office will play a role of representation of farmer groups as a legal body in order to ensure enforcement of contracts and access legal appeals in case contracts are not honoured.

63. Agriculture county authorities and extension staff consider very appropriate the training approach proposed in the project, which was new for them. The cascade training allowed

A farmer of the Mutethie Group explained he had sold, progressively. assets such as cows and land in order to pay school fees in the past, and that he was used to dedicating his entire agriculture production to these expenses. He said that thanks to the increased production he registered since he engaged in CA, he is now able to pay school fees without selling assets, and in addition he can keep part of his production enough for meeting his household’s food needs


19

covering an extended area and accessing a large number of farmers in a limited time. In addition to that, the project designed a 15-session training programme to the groups during the planting season, and sometimes during several seasons, while most projects usually train farmers for a significantly lower duration. This approach allowed for better follow-up of farmers participating in the project, and contributed to higher adoption of CA and GAP.

64. Together with the appropriateness of the training approach, FAO staff interviewed reported a good quality of extension staff in general that contributed to creating a positive dynamic in farmer groups, increasing their understanding and adoption of proposed practices. In some occasions, and particularly in one of the unsuccessful groups included in the case study, the quality of ToF was not appropriate and was a contributing factor of failure. The project involved 1 739 extension agents, including 763 government officials and 976 agents from the private sector. According to FAO County Project Officers, in general, private agents have shown higher commitment to the project and their farmer groups than government officials, which has resulted in better performance in terms of CA and GAP adoption. They also consider that private agents are more likely to continue extension work when the project ends.

65. Previous knowledge of CA has contributed to CA adoption. At least in Makueni, several NGOs have introduced CA in the past at a low scale. These projects didn’t achieve a high adoption; however, they created a knowledge base on CA that facilitated the understanding of its potential benefits. FAO County Project Officers consider adoption is clearly higher in sub-counties where CA had previously been introduced than in sub-counties where CA was totally new when the project started.

66. In general, agriculture inputs required for GAP are reported by farmers to be available locally, in particular in the case of certified seeds and fertilizers. It is not always the case for selective herbicides. Farmers of only three groups of the six included in the study said selective herbicides are available locally.

67. Final buyers show a strong commitment and interest for contracting small-scale farmers that apply CA. All the companies interviewed in the study explained both working with small-scale farmers and promoting CA are aligned with their social values. More importantly, these companies need to access more raw materials for their business and have seen the IPP-GAP as an opportunity to extend their production base and to secure production thanks to CA, especially in ASALs that are exposed to recurrent droughts. However, the limited capacity of farmer groups to supply raw material (as mentioned in Section 3.2.3, farmer groups who have signed marketing contract have almost never honoured fully the agreed quantities) could reduce the interest of final buyers for this strategy if they don’t see improvements.

In two of the three groups where selective herbicides are available locally (Mutethie and Tharaka Nithi Poultry), a significant part of members have adopted herbicides. However, in Tharaka Nithi herbicides are not always available. When not available, farmers who have a big land use their plough for weeding, which creates soil disturbance. In addition, the group leaders said selective herbicides are only available for green grams, and the lack of availability of herbicides for sorghum limits their capacity to sign larger contracts with EABL.


20

Box 1: Summary of factors that have contributed to achievements

3.2.4.2 Limiting factors and challenges for sustainability 68. A major factor found as limiting CA and GAP adoption is the financial capacity of farmers

for accessing inputs and equipment. Minimum tillage adoption is particularly affected by the lack of capacity of farmers to access both selective herbicides and CA equipment whether mechanized or towed by oxen. Weed development is higher during the first seasons of applying CA as compared to conventional agriculture and weed control has to be done manually if not done with herbicides. Same for manual ripping that limits farmer’s capacity to adopt it.

69. Persistent inaccurate beliefs on herbicides also contribute to its limited adoption - as does the presence in the market of fake chemicals that convince farmers in not believing in the efficacy of these products.

70. The IPP-GAP supported linkage between farmers and microcredit institutions through a partnership with the Rabobank foundation. However, in Makueni County only about 300 farmers, out of 10 000 participating in the project, have accessed this service, while it has not been effective at all in Tharaka Nithi. Deficiencies in the management of the Sacco selected by Rabobank Foundation to disburse funds have contributed to this limited impact.

71. Interviews with farmer groups showed the existence of table banking systems in almost all the groups and CBOs visited. These are saving-credit systems initiated by farmers themselves that serve multi-purposes: accessing inputs or equipment, borrowing money for paying schools fees or buying foods. The capacity of these systems is still very limited as farmers have a limited saving capacity. However, they could be considered as a potential alternative to the strategy followed by the IPP-GAP of linking farmers to formal banking system that present other inconvenients, such as the lack of confidence of both farmers and credit institutions, and the low presence at field level of these institutions.

Commitment of county authorities with both CA and value chain development

Appropriateness of the training approach

Quality of extension staff

Previous knowledge of CA in some areas

Availability of agriculture inputs

Commitment and interest of final buyers in engaging in CA with small-scale farmers


21

72. In general, CA equipment is not available. Only in one group visited farmers reported availability of CA oxen equipment locally, sold by local manufacturers trained by the IPP-GAP. Very few service providers offer mechanized CA equipment with only one group having access to such a service. Considering the project only provided CA equipment for demonstration in a limited number of farmer groups, the majority of the farmers that have participated in the project did not have an alternative other than manual labour to apply minimum tillage, which has limited its adoption.

73. As mentioned before, the priority given by farmers to supplying food for their household and to paying school fees limits their engagement in collective marketing, as they need immediate cash at the harvest. Collective marketing does not allow for an immediate payment due to the time necessary to aggregate the production of all farmers participating in the contract. Complementary mechanisms would be required, such as access to loans secured by the production or the capacity of farmer groups and CBOs to provide an advance on payment to farmers when they deliver their production.

74. Access to aggregation centres for farmer groups is a limiting factor for engaging in collective marketing. A few farmer groups own a storage facility and the majority of them rely on renting at high cost that limit the time they can access an aggregation centre.

75. FAO has played a central role in identifying final buyers, mostly in Nairobi, and in linking farmer groups and buyers. Farmer groups have had limited direct contacts with buyers and don’t seem to be fully empowered for looking for new buyers and negotiate the terms of marketing contracts. Some buyers, such as the East African Brewery Limited, have the capacity to engage through staff located in counties, and are able to maintain the relationships with farmer groups with whom they have signed contracts and create relations with new groups. However, other buyers, such as Imara, that only has one staff in the country, don’t have this capacity. According to FAO, the e-platform created by the service provider Esoko could play a role in linking farmers with potential or already engaged buyers. However, to date, Esoko did not succeed in engaging directly with farmers on its paid service. According to Esoko, this is one of the main reasons for changing its strategy and contract with development institutions such as FAO. The sustainability of commercial relationships created between farmers and final buyers seems therefore not to be guaranteed for all buyers.

Box 2: Summary of factors and challenges that limit achievements and sustainability

Limited financial capacity of farmers to access inputs and equipment

Persistence of inaccurate technical beliefs

Lack of marketing contract enforcement by farmers, due to their need to access cash as soon as possible at the harvest

Lack and high cost of aggregation centres

The Kavuthu Group is the only one that said oxen rippers are available on the local market. According to group leaders, half of the members have bought a ripper.

When CA mechanized service is available, farmers are likely to use it. In the Tharaka Poultry Self Help Group, three-fourth of the members hire a tractor equipped with a ripper to prepare their land, according to the group leaders. The other farmers don’t have the financial capacity to hire the tractor and use oxen plough.


22

Lack of farmer groups and county authorities empowerment for maintaining relationships with final buyers and looking for new market opportunities


23

4. Conclusions and recommendations

4.1 Conclusions

76. The case study confirmed the relevance of the project objectives and strategy to the needs and priorities of farmers in Makueni and Tharaka Nithi counties. It also confirmed its alignment with county authority priorities for agriculture development and resilience.

77. In the two counties, and in five farmer groups out of the six included in the study, several significant achievements have been identified. As a result of the large-scale and appropriate extension programme, the project generated a relatively high level of adoption of CA principles, which has resulted in significant increase of yields and production, in particular but not only when bad rainfalls have affected production in conventional agriculture. FAO’s involvement in creating new marketing opportunities has generated the establishment of collective marketing contracts with final buyers for half of the groups, which allowed them to reduce their dependence on middlemen and improve the value of their production. A fourth group has achieved a collective marketing agreement on its own with local brokers. An even more significant achievement is the increase of competitiveness of the market that diversifies opportunities for famer groups. As a result of both production increase and higher marketing price, farmers have significantly increased their income, allowing them to better address their basic needs and reducing negative strategies that affect livelihoods, and invest in diversified livelihoods that will potentially strengthen their resilience to shocks.

78. The sixth group included in the study did not achieve any of these outcomes. The main identified factor, as compared with other groups, is the low quality and commitment of the ToF involved in this community. More generally, private extension workers are considered to be more committed and to offer higher sustainability perspectives than government officials.

79. A number of remaining challenges that limit the extent of these achievements and their sustainability have also been identified:

reduced financial capacity of farmers, that limits their access to inputs and equipment and therefore the adoption of CA and GAP;

low availability of CA equipment, both oxen towed and mechanized, which has almost not been addressed by the project in the two counties;

lack of enforcement of marketing contracts, mainly by farmers who prioritize other uses of their production, but in some cases also by buyers;

lack of empowerment of farmer groups and county authorities in the search of new marketing opportunities and interlocution with buyers;

limited ownership of aggregation centres by farmer organizations that reduce the efficiency of this aspect of the value chains and marketing strategy options for farmers.

80. Value chain development is a clear priority for county authorities. CA has also been adopted and is in the process of being “institutionalized”. The interest and commitment of county authorities and the choice of FAO to implement the project in partnership with county agriculture authorities are factors that have supported the achievements of the project and offer perspectives of sustainability. Despite a clear interest for CA, the Ministry of Agriculture still prioritizes other measures, such as irrigation for agriculture development and resilience in ASALs. The IPP-GAP has not systematically collected or widely distributed evidence of the benefit of CA to date. It should put a strong emphasis on this aspect until the end of project


24

implementation period in order to promote adoption and institutionalization at national level.

81. The project has exceeded its target in terms of women participation among beneficiaries. However, women participation does not necessarily generate outcomes in terms of gender equality and women empowerment. More should be done in that sense.

4.2 Recommendations

82. Invest in evidence building on the benefits of CA in Kenya in order to support its adoption and institutionalization at national level for ASALs agriculture development. FAO has engaged late in building evidence on the project achievements. A monitoring system that will measure aspects such as CA and GAP adoption and outcomes has only started to be operational in the March-June 2017 farming season. At the moment of this case study, no overall data is therefore available on the benefits of CA and GAP. The Ministry of Agriculture showed interest in CA, but still considers other approaches such as irrigation and water harvesting as priorities for agriculture development and resilience building in ASALs. In the last year remaining for project implementation, FAO should put the emphasis on building the evidence base and presenting it to the Ministry of Agriculture and other stakeholders in order to support the institutionalization of CA at national level, which would support the sustainability and replication of the project’s achievements.

83. Adopt a more developed value chain approach in order to better address the challenges that still exist for CA adoption and marketing opportunities. The project put the emphasis on agribusiness through the creation of linkages between producers and final buyers. However, other aspects of the value chains, such as availability and access to inputs and equipment or the financial capacity of farmers, have been addressed superficially and represent challenges for the creation and sustainability of impact. Discussions are now ongoing between stakeholders for a second phase of the IPP-GAP. FAO should include a more developed approach on value chains in the second phase (were to proceed), that should be based on an in-depth value chain analysis in order to address thoroughly all the aspects that represent threats and challenges for effectiveness of the value chains. A value chain approach should also propose more emphasis on coordination between the stakeholders involved at county level, so that they can better understand the specific needs of each other and propose adapted solutions and services.

84. Formulate a gender strategy for the country office that proposes a more proactive approach to gender than quotas of women among project’s beneficiaries. Such a strategy should be based on an in-depth assessment and analysis of gender inequity in agriculture in the country.

85. Develop activities aimed at strengthening CA equipment availability at local level. FAO and extension services should carry out systematic training of local manufacturers on the production of oxen CA equipment. In a potential second phase of the IPP-GAP, FAO should also explore opportunities and relevant approaches to support the development of the provision of mechanized services. This could be done through the support to farmer groups and/or CBOs to access their own equipment, on the model of the Muungano Nguvu Yetu CBO in Makueni County. This CBO was supported by an NGO to acquire a tractor with CA equipment and is providing mechanized services to a large number of its members. The CBO is now saving resources to invest in a second tractor.


25

86. Support financial capacity for farmers to access inputs and CA equipment. Lack of financial capacity and access to credit for farmers is an important limiting factor for CA and GAP adoption. The IPP-GAP has facilitated linkages between farmers and credit service providers but it has not been effective. FAO should explore an alternative approach based on supporting existing table banking systems initiated by farmer groups with farmers’ savings. Such systems are more flexible than the formal credit institutions and benefit from a higher confidence of farmers. They also offer the possibility to serve multi purposes that correspond to challenges identified in this case study, such as access to inputs and equipment, and timely payment of school fees without selling part of the production to brokers.

87. Linked to Recommendation 5, FAO should explore the relevance in the context of Kenya of the concept of multifunctional warehouses applied by FAO in other countries. This concept associates the creation of community storing capacities and multi-purpose credit systems. It could be entrenched on the existing table banking systems and support complementary strategies for marketing already elaborated by some farmer organizations, such as production storage and sale as seasonal prices rise.

88. Put more emphasis on the empowerment of farmer groups and county agriculture authorities for the development of new market linkages. FAO has played a central role in the development of new market linkages between farmer groups and final buyers. Challenges have been found for the sustainability of at least a part of the relationships created and the development of new relationships. During the remaining period of implementation of the IPP-GAP, FAO should put the emphasis on empowering farmer groups and county authorities so that they can maintain and replicate the relationships that have been created.

Eval

uatio

n of

FAO

’s Co

ntrib

utio

n to

the

Repu

blic

of K

enya

– C

ase

Stud

y

26

5.

Anne

xes

Anne

x 1.

Cas

e st

udy

mat

rix 1

Part

A: S

trat

egic

pos

ition

ing:

Are

we

doin

g w

hat i

s nee

ded?

Stra

tegi

c re

leva

nce

# M

ain

Que

stio

ns

Sub-

ques

tions

Ev

alua

tive

crite

ria

and/

or in

dica

tors

D

ata

sour

ces

Dat

a co

llect

ion

inst

rum

ents

N

otes

2

To w

hat

exte

nt t

he

079

proj

ect

appr

oach

is

alig

ned

and

appr

opria

te

to

the

devo

lutio

n pr

oces

s?

2.1

To w

hat

exte

nt t

he

proj

ect

desig

n an

d im

plem

enta

tion

appr

oach

is

appr

opria

te

to

the

devo

lutio

n pr

oces

s?

2.2

To w

hat

exte

nt t

he

079

proj

ect

cont

ribut

es

to

build

ca

pacit

ies

at

coun

ty

leve

l in

th

e fra

mew

ork

of

the

devo

lutio

n pr

oces

s?

2.3

Wha

t ar

e th

e ch

alle

nges

facin

g FA

O in

de

liver

ing

in a

dev

olve

d co

ntex

t?

Sign

ifica

nce

of

mea

sure

s ta

ken

by

FAO

to

adap

t to

the

de

volu

tion

proc

ess

Appr

opria

tene

ss

of

capa

city

build

ing

activ

ities

to

the

need

s cr

eate

d by

th

e de

volu

tion

proc

ess

Type

of c

hal le

nges

Key

in

form

ants

: FA

O st

aff,

Coun

ty

offic

ials;

Doc

umen

t an

alys

is w

orks

heet

s

Sem

i-stru

ctur

ed

inte

rvie

w g

uide

s

Eval

uatio

n of

FAO

’s Co

ntrib

utio

n to

the

Repu

blic

of K

enya

– C

ase

Stud

y

27

3

Is th

e 07

9 pr

ojec

t re

leva

nt

for

stre

ngth

enin

g th

e re

silie

nce

to s

hock

s of

ben

efici

arie

s an

d m

itiga

te th

eir e

ffect

s in

th

e se

lect

ed

coun

ties?

2.4

Wha

t ar

e th

e op

portu

nitie

s th

is cr

eate

s?

3.1

To w

hat

exte

nt t

he

obje

ctiv

es,

activ

ities

and

te

chni

cal

optio

ns o

f th

e 07

9 pr

ojec

t ca

n co

ntrib

ute

to

crea

te

resil

ienc

e to

shoc

ks in

the

cont

ext

of

the

proj

ect

zone

s of i

nter

vent

ion?

3.2

Wha

t sy

nerg

ies

have

be

en b

uilt

betw

een

the

079

proj

ect

and

othe

r FA

O

proj

ects

ex

plici

tly

aim

ing

at

build

ing

resil

ienc

e?

Type

of o

ppor

tuni

ties

Rele

vanc

e of

ob

ject

ives

, ac

tiviti

es

and

tech

nica

l op

tions

to

the

nee

ds o

f th

e ta

rget

be

nefic

iarie

s re

late

d to

th

eir

vuln

erab

ility

to sh

ocks

Coor

dina

tion

betw

een

the

079

proj

ect

and

resil

ienc

e pr

ojec

t te

ams

durin

g th

e de

sign

and

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

proj

ect

K

ey

info

rman

ts:

FAO

offi

cials,

co

unty

of

ficia

ls,

deve

lopm

ent

partn

ers,

bene

ficia

ries

Doc

umen

t an

alys

is w

orks

heet

s

Sem

i-stru

ctur

ed

inte

rvie

w g

uide

s

FGD

gui

des;

Eval

uatio

n of

FAO

’s Co

ntrib

utio

n to

the

Repu

blic

of K

enya

– C

ase

Stud

y

28

Part

ners

hips

and

coo

rdin

atio

n

# M

ain

Que

stio

ns

Sub-

ques

tions

Ev

alua

tive

crite

ria a

nd/o

r in

dica

tors

Dat

a so

urce

s D

ata

colle

ctio

n in

stru

men

ts

Not

es

4 Ho

w e

ffect

ivel

y di

d FA

O

enga

ge

in

partn

ersh

ips

with

in

the

079

proj

ect?

4.1

In

wha

t ty

pes

of

partn

ersh

ips

did

FAO

en

ter

with

in

the

079

proj

ect?

4.2

To w

hat

exte

nt w

ere

thes

e pa

rtner

ship

s re

leva

nt

and

effe

ctiv

e co

nsid

erin

g th

e pr

ojec

t’s

obje

ctiv

e an

d th

e co

ntex

t of

the

targ

et c

ount

ies?

4.3

Wer

e th

ere

any

chal

leng

es

by

wor

king

th

roug

h pa

rtner

ship

s th

at m

ay h

ave

impa

cted

Typ

e of

pa

rtner

ship

s

Man

date

an

d ca

pacit

ies

of

parti

cipat

ing

partn

ers.

Cont

ribut

ion

of

partn

ers

in

the

leve

l of

ef

fect

iven

ess

of

the

proj

ect

impl

emen

tatio

n

Type

of c

halle

nges

Key

in

form

ants

: FA

O o

fficia

ls,

Gove

rnm

ent o

f Ke

nya

offic

ials,

co

unty

of

ficia

ls,

partn

ers

Doc

umen

ts:

Mee

ting

min

utes

, pr

ogre

ss

repo

rts

Doc

umen

t an

alys

is w

orks

heet

s;

Sem

i-stru

ctur

ed

inte

rvie

w

guid

es;

Eval

uatio

n of

FAO

’s Co

ntrib

utio

n to

the

Repu

blic

of K

enya

– C

ase

Stud

y

29

on t

he e

ffect

ive

deliv

ery

of th

e FA

O p

rogr

amm

e?

4.4

Are

ther

e ot

her

pote

ntia

l pa

rtner

ship

op

portu

nitie

s?

4.5

To w

hat

exte

nt h

as

FAO

su

ppor

ted

the

coor

dina

tion

of

acto

rs

wor

king

in

cons

erva

tion

agric

ultu

re

and

valu

e ch

ain?

Partn

ersh

ip

oppo

rtuni

ties

iden

tifie

d

Type

of

role

FAO

pl

ayed

Nor

mat

ive

valu

es

# M

ain

Que

stio

ns

Sub-

ques

tions

Ev

alua

tive

crite

ria a

nd/o

r in

dica

tors

Dat

a so

urce

s D

ata

colle

ctio

n in

stru

men

ts

Not

es

5 To

wha

t ex

tent

the

07

9 pr

ojec

t ha

s ap

plie

d FA

O

norm

ativ

e va

lues

an

d pr

incip

les

such

as

eq

uity

, ge

nder

, hu

man

rig

hts,

in t

he

desig

n an

d

5.1

How

did

FAO

ens

ure

that

UN

va

lues

an

d pr

incip

les

(i.e.

eq

ualit

y, di

gnity

, ac

cess

) w

ere

cons

ider

ed

durin

g pr

ojec

t des

ign?

Degr

ee

of

fam

iliar

ity

of

079

proj

ect

team

with

UN

va

lues

an

d pr

incip

les

Proc

esse

s in

pla

ce

that

pr

omot

e in

corp

orat

ion

of

Key

in

form

ants

: FA

O o

fficia

ls,

bene

ficia

ries;

partn

ers,

bene

ficia

ries

Doc

umen

ts:

proc

edur

es,

Sem

i-stru

ctur

ed

inte

rvie

w

guid

es

Doc

umen

t an

alys

is w

orks

heet

s

FGD

gui

des

Eval

uatio

n of

FAO

’s Co

ntrib

utio

n to

the

Repu

blic

of K

enya

– C

ase

Stud

y

30

impl

emen

tatio

n of

th

e pr

ojec

t 079

? 5.

2 Ho

w

are

the

UN

valu

es

and

prin

ciple

s pr

omot

ed

durin

g im

ple m

enta

tion?

thes

e du

ring

desig

n

Leve

l of

in

tegr

atio

n if

UN

valu

e in

th

e im

plem

enta

tion:

ta

rget

ing

the

mos

t vu

lner

able

, pr

omot

ion

of

gend

er e

quity

and

w

omen

em

pow

erm

ent

rout

ing

slips

, pr

ojec

t doc

s, pr

ogre

ss

repo

rts

Eval

uatio

n of

FAO

’s Co

ntrib

utio

n to

the

Repu

blic

of K

enya

– C

ase

Stud

y

31

Com

para

tive

adva

ntag

e

# M

ain

Que

stio

ns

Sub-

ques

tions

Ev

alua

tive

crite

ria a

nd/o

r in

dica

tors

Dat

a so

urce

s D

ata

colle

ctio

n in

stru

men

ts

Not

es

6

Wha

t ro

le h

as F

AO

play

ed i

n th

e ar

eas

cove

red

by

the

proj

ect

079

(con

serv

atio

n ag

ricul

ture

, va

lue

chai

n ap

proa

ch,

agrib

usin

ess,

etc.)

vi

s -à-

vis

othe

r de

velo

pmen

t ac

tors

at

na

tiona

l an

d se

lect

ed

coun

ty

leve

l?

6.1

Wha

t are

FAO

’s ar

eas

of

com

para

tive

adva

ntag

e in

th

ese

area

s?

Perc

eptio

n of

FA

O’s

com

para

tive

adva

ntag

e

Key

in

form

ants

: FA

O o

fficia

ls,

Gove

rnm

ent

of K

enya

of

ficia

ls,

coun

ty

offic

ials,

de

velo

pmen

t pa

rtner

s, co

mpa

rabl

e ac

tors

, be

nefic

iarie

s

Doc

umen

t and

w

ebsit

e an

alys

is w

orks

heet

s

Sem

i-stru

ctur

ed

inte

rvie

w

guid

es

FGD

gui

des

Eval

uatio

n of

FAO

’s Co

ntrib

utio

n to

the

Repu

blic

of K

enya

– C

ase

Stud

y

32

2 Pa

rt B

: Pro

gram

me

cont

ribut

ion:

Are

we

mak

ing

a di

ffer

ence

?

Rele

vanc

e

# M

ain

Que

stio

ns

Sub-

ques

tions

Ev

alua

tive

crite

ria a

nd/o

r in

dica

tors

Dat

a so

urce

s D

ata

colle

ctio

n in

stru

men

ts

Not

es

8 9

How

ap

prop

riate

ha

ve

079

proj

ect

activ

ities

be

en

to

achi

eve

the

plan

ned

CPF

outc

omes

, es

pecia

lly

Out

com

es 2

and

4?

In

the

area

s of

ca

pacit

y de

velo

pmen

t, po

licy

advi

ce

and

tech

nica

l ad

vice,

ha

s 07

9 pr

ojec

t su

ppor

ted

the

key

acto

rs

with

th

e ne

cess

ary

cont

ents

,

8.1

For

Out

com

es 2

and

4,

ha

ve

the

activ

ities

be

en: b

ased

on

need

s?

tim

ely?

com

plem

enta

ry to

ot

her a

ctiv

ities

(w

ithin

and

acr

oss

outc

omes

)?

9.1

Wha

t key

act

ors

have

be

en r

ecip

ient

s of

FAO

su

ppor

t in

thos

e ar

eas?

9.2

Wha

t kin

d of

sup

port

did

FAO

pro

vide

?

Exist

ence

of

need

s as

sess

men

t us

ed

for

the

proj

ect

desig

n

List

of k

ey a

ctor

s su

ppor

ted

Degr

ee

of

appr

opria

tene

ss o

f su

ppor

t pro

vide

d

Doc

umen

ts:

proj

ect d

ocs,

repo

rts,

eval

uatio

ns

Key

in

form

ants

: FA

O o

fficia

ls,

Gove

rnm

ent o

f Ke

nya

offic

ials,

co

unty

of

ficia

ls,

deve

lopm

ent

partn

ers,

bene

ficia

ries

Doc

umen

t an

alys

is w

orks

heet

s

Sem

i-stru

ctur

ed

inte

rvie

w

guid

es

Que

stio

nnai

res

FGD

gui

des

Eval

uatio

n of

FAO

’s Co

ntrib

utio

n to

the

Repu

blic

of K

enya

– C

ase

Stud

y

33

10

at

natio

nal

and

coun

ty le

vel?

Has

FAO

ta

rget

ed

the

appr

opria

te

hous

ehol

ds in

dire

ct

supp

ort,

inclu

ding

th

e po

ores

t an

d m

ost

vuln

erab

le

hous

ehol

ds

and

resp

onde

d to

the

ir ne

eds

(i.e.

inclu

ding

w

omen

and

you

ng

peop

le)?

9.3

To w

hat

exte

nt h

as

FAO

pro

vide

d th

e ac

tors

w

ith

the

nece

ssar

y ho

listic

te

chni

cal

and

func

tiona

l sup

port?

10.1

W

hat

hous

ehol

ds

wer

e ta

rget

ed

(per

ca

tego

ry)?

10.2

Wha

t ap

proa

ch d

id

FAO

take

to ta

rget

thos

e ho

useh

olds

(p

er

cate

gory

)?

Anal

ysis

of F

AO’s

appr

oach

to

ta

rget

ing

vuln

erab

le

popu

latio

ns

and

affe

cted

are

as

Impa

ct a

nd e

ffec

tiven

ess

# M

ain

Que

stio

ns

Sub-

ques

tions

Ev

alua

tive

crite

ria a

nd/o

r in

dica

tors

Dat

a so

urce

s D

ata

colle

ctio

n in

stru

men

ts

Not

es

Eval

uatio

n of

FAO

’s Co

ntrib

utio

n to

the

Repu

blic

of K

enya

– C

ase

Stud

y

34

11 12

Wha

t ch

ange

s ca

n be

ob

serv

ed

on

bene

ficia

ries

and

stak

ehol

ders

of 0

79

proj

ect

that

th

e pr

ojec

t co

ntrib

uted

to

(e.

g. b

ehav

iour

al

chan

ges;

inst

itutio

nal

chan

ges;

polic

y ch

ange

s; te

chni

cal

adap

tatio

ns;

tang

ible

so

cio-

econ

omic

bene

fits,

etc.)

?

Wha

t ar

e th

e co

ntex

tual

fa

ctor

s th

at h

ave

affe

cted

th

e ac

hiev

emen

t of

re

sults

of

th

e pr

ojec

t?

11.1

Wha

t ar

e th

e m

ain

chan

ges

in

bene

ficia

ry

agric

ultu

ral

prac

tices

, ac

cess

to

m

arke

t, liv

elih

oods

, in

com

e th

at

the

proj

ect

cont

ribut

ed

to?

12.1

Wha

t ar

e en

ablin

g fa

ctor

s tha

t con

tribu

te to

th

e ac

hiev

emen

t of

re

sults

?

12.1

.1 H

ow c

an t

hese

be

enh

ance

d?

Evol

utio

n of

ag

ricul

tura

l pr

actic

es,

in

mar

ket

acce

ss,

inco

me

and

livel

ihoo

ds

Enab

ling

and

limiti

ng

fact

ors

iden

tifie

d

Actio

ns n

eede

d to

be

take

n id

entif

ied

Doc

umen

ts:

proj

ect d

ocs.,

re

ports

Key

in

form

ants

: FA

O o

fficia

ls,

Gove

rnm

ent o

f Ke

nya

offic

ials,

co

unty

of

ficia

ls,

bene

ficia

ries

Doc

umen

t an

alys

is w

orks

heet

s

Sem

i-stru

ctur

ed

inte

rvie

w

guid

es

FGD

gui

des

Obs

erva

tion

Eval

uatio

n of

FAO

’s Co

ntrib

utio

n to

the

Repu

blic

of K

enya

– C

ase

Stud

y

35

12.2

Wha

t are

the

fact

ors

limiti

ng th

e ac

hiev

emen

t of

resu

lts?

12.2

.1

Wha

t ac

tions

ne

ed t

o be

tak

en t

o ov

erco

me

any

barri

ers

that

lim

it th

e ac

hiev

emen

t of

re

sults

?

Eval

uatio

n of

FAO

’s Co

ntrib

utio

n to

the

Repu

blic

of K

enya

– C

ase

Stud

y

36

Sust

aina

bilit

y of

Res

ults

# M

ain

Que

stio

ns

Sub-

ques

tions

Ev

alua

tive

crite

ria a

nd/o

r in

dica

tors

Dat

a so

urce

s D

ata

colle

ctio

n in

stru

men

ts

Not

es

13 14 15

To w

hat

exte

nt a

re

the

chan

ges

achi

eved

su

stai

nabl

e (i.

e.

econ

omic,

so

cial

and

ecol

ogica

l)?

To w

hat

exte

nt a

re

the

resu

lts

owne

d by

ben

efici

arie

s?

Wha

t m

easu

res

has

FAO

put

in p

lace

to

ensu

re c

ontin

uity

?

13.

1 W

hat

wer

e th

e en

ablin

g fa

ctor

s?

13.2

W

hat

wer

e th

e lim

iting

fact

ors?

14.1

How

is

owne

rshi

p m

anife

sted

?

15.1

Mea

sure

s in

clude

d in

the

pro

ject

des

ign

to

ensu

re

sust

aina

bilit

y of

th

e re

sults

Prac

tices

, be

havi

ours

, so

cio-

econ

omic

gain

s m

aint

aine

d

Bene

fi cia

ries’

perc

eptio

ns

List o

f mea

sure

s

Doc

umen

ts:

proj

ect d

ocs.,

re

ports

Key

in

form

ants

: FA

O o

fficia

ls,

coun

ty

offic

ials,

de

velo

pmen

t pa

rtner

s, be

nefic

iarie

s

Doc

umen

t an

alys

is w

orks

heet

s

Sem

i-stru

ctur

ed

inte

rvie

w

guid

es

FGD

gui

des

Obs

erva

tion

Eval

uatio

n of

FAO

’s Co

ntrib

utio

n to

the

Repu

blic

of K

enya

– C

ase

Stud

y

37

Cohe

renc

e an

d Sy

nerg

ies

# M

ain

Que

stio

ns

Sub-

ques

tions

Ev

alua

tive

crite

ria a

nd/o

r in

dica

tors

Dat

a so

urce

s D

ata

colle

ctio

n in

stru

men

ts

Not

es

16 17

How

and

to

wha

t ex

tent

ha

s FA

O

head

quar

ters

, Re

gion

al O

ffice

for

Af

rica

( RAF

) an

d Su

breg

iona

l O

ffice

fo

r Ea

ster

n Af

rica

(SFE

) pr

ovid

ed t

he

nece

ssar

y an

d ap

prop

riate

te

chni

cal s

uppo

rt?

Has

FAO

’s kn

owle

dge

base

(n

orm

ative

pr

oduc

ts,

guid

elin

es,

publ

icatio

ns,

etc.)

be

en

effe

ctiv

ely

used

at

th

e 07

9 pr

ojec

t le

vel

in t

he

area

s of

FA

O’s

16.1

W

hat

type

of

su

ppor

t ha

s be

en

prov

ided

?

16.2

Wha

t is

the

adde

d va

lue?

17.1

W

hat

norm

ativ

e pr

oduc

ts h

ave

been

use

d by

07

9 pr

ojec

t st

akeh

olde

rs?

17.2

Wha

t is

the

adde

d va

lue?

Type

and

util

ity o

f su

ppor

t pro

vide

d

List

of

prod

ucts

us

ed

and

thei

r ut

ility

in

th

e pr

ojec

t

Doc

umen

ts:

proj

ect d

ocs.,

re

ports

Key

in

form

ants

: FA

O o

fficia

ls (H

Q, R

AF, S

FE,

KEN

); co

unty

au

thor

ities

, pa

rtner

s

Doc

umen

t an

alys

is w

orks

heet

s;

Sem

i-stru

ctur

ed

inte

rvie

w

guid

es

Eval

uatio

n of

FAO

’s Co

ntrib

utio

n to

the

Repu

blic

of K

enya

– C

ase

Stud

y

38

18

com

para

tive

adva

ntag

e?

How

, if

at a

ll, ha

s kn

owle

dge

and

less

ons

lear

ned

gene

rate

d in

th

e pr

ojec

t be

en

effe

ctiv

ely

shar

ed a

t co

untry

, re

gion

al

and

glob

al le

vels?

18.1

Wha

t ca

pita

lizat

ion

activ

ities

ha

ve

been

ca

rried

out

in

the

079

proj

ect?

18.2

Ho

w

and

whe

re

have

they

bee

n sh

ared

?

List

of

activ

ities

sh

ared

Doc

umen

ts:

proj

ect d

ocs.,

re

ports

Key

in

form

ants

: FA

O o

fficia

ls


39

Annex 2. County selection criteria

Criteria representing potential factors of

differentiation of the project’s results Counties where these factors show better

results

Starting periods for the implementation of activities

Training activities have first started in Kitui, Machakos, Makueni, Tharaka Nithi

Refresher training on CA carried out between December 2015 and October 2016

Makueni, Meru, Tharaka Nithi, Laikipia

Level of participation of county authorities (Letter of Agreement signed for the overall supervision and monitoring of activities)

Machakos, Kitui, Makueni, Tharaka Nithi

Adoption of CA policies by county authorities Makueni, Laikipia

Access to credit for farmer groups Makueni, Machakos (before November 2015); Tharaka Nithi, Kitui (after November 2015)

Access through UTS in Makueni and Machakos

Linkages with trading companies - 30 000 MT of green grams and pigeon peas ordered in Tharaka Nithi, Kitui and Makueni

- Contracts established with premium price for soy bean and sunflower in Tharaka Nithi

- Sale of 39 MT of sorghum in Kuiti and Tharaka Nithi

- Sale of 131 MT of pigeon peas in Makueni


40

Annex 3. Stakeholders involved in the case study

Stakeholders Role in the project Role in the case study

FAO

Country office

Crops and agribusiness unit

Overall coordination and management of the project

Essential source of secondary (literature) and primary information

County sub-offices

County programme officers

Implementation of activities in their county

Essential source of information on the activities implemented and results achieved in the selected counties

Headquarters, Regional Office for Africa (RAF)

Technical units involved in the project

Technical support and provision of normative products

Source of secondary information. Remote interviews may be organized if necessary

Authorities

Ministry of agriculture No direct participation Source of information on national policies in the areas related to the project

County authorities

Executive committee members in charge of agriculture

Chief officers in agriculture

Directors of agriculture

Sub-county officers

Master trainers, extensionists

Main partner for the implementation of activities

Beneficiary of capacity development activities

Essential source of information on the activities implemented and results achieved in the selected counties, as well as on the outcomes of capacity development activities

Beneficiaries

Group leaders

Trainers of farmers

Farmers participants in trainings

Framers participants in field days

Main beneficiaries of the project Essential source of information on the relevance, efficiency, impact and sustainability of project activities


41

Farmers participants in marketing agreements

Farmers will be interviewed in focus groups and individually (men and women separated)

NGOs

Personnel in charge of agriculture, food security and resilience projects at national and county level

Extensionists

(Lutheran World Relief, Anglican Development Services, Comitato Europeo di Formazione Agraria, etc.)

Beneficiaries of capacity development activities

Participant to sectorial coordination

Source of information on the outcomes of capacity development activities, FAO’s comparative advantage and efficiency of coordination

Private sector

Service providers: agro-inputs, ploughing, extension services, etc.

Participate in agriculture value chains. Have benefited from capacity development activities

Source of information on the relevance, efficiency and sustainability of activities and benefits

Trading companies at national and county level

(East Africa Breweries Limited, BIDCO company, brokers, etc.)

Participate in agriculture products trading agreements

Source of information of the changes supported by the project in agriculture marketing systems and their sustainability

Agriculture credit service providers at national and county level

(Universal Traders Sacco, others)

Provide credit services to beneficiaries of the project

Source of information on the effectiveness and sustainability of the project’s activities related to agriculture credit

Project partners and service providers

E-platform (Mediae Company)

Mobile phone-based learning network service provider

Call centre service provider

E-voucher package (KCEP-CRAL)

Provide services to the project for the implementation of capacity building activities

Source of information on the effectiveness of the project’s related activities


42

Donors

European Union Provide funding of the project Source of information on the overall relevance of the project and quality of implementation


43

Annex 4. Application of CA principles in plots of farmers interviewed in the case study

Farmer group

Gender Land planted (acre)

Ripped Ploughed Zaï pits

Crop rotation

Mulching Cover crop

Kuvuthu (Makueni, successful)

F 1 0

(0%)

0,75

(75%)

0,25

(25%)

1

(100%)

0,25

(25%)

0,75

(75%)

F 6 0

(0%)

6

(100%)

0

(0%)

6

(100%)

6

(100%)

M 2 0,5

(25%)

1,5

(0,75%)

0

(0%)

2

(100%)

2

(100%)

M 1,5 0,5

(33%)

1

(66%)

0

(0%)

1,5

(100%)

0,5

(33%)

1

(66%)

Kitengei commercial village (Makueni, successful)

F 6 2

(33%)

4

(66%)

0

(0%)

6

(100%)

6

(100%)

M 3 1

(33%)

2

(66%)

0

(0%)

3

(100%)

1

(33%)

Ngokalani (Makueni, not successful)

F 3 3

(100%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

M 3,5 3

(86%)

0,5

(14%)

0

(0%)

3,5

(100%)

0

(0%)

2

(57%)

F 10 2

(20%)

8

(80%)

0

(0%)

2

(20%)

2

(20%)

Arise and Shine (Tharaka Nithi, not successful)

M 0 0

(0%)

4

(100%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

M 2 2

(100%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

2

(100%)

2

(100%)


44

F 2 0

(0%)

2

(100%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

F 1 0

(0%)

1

(100%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

Mutethie (Tharaka Nithi, successful)

M 3 3

(100%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

3

(100%)

3

(100%)

F 4 4

(100%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

4

(100%)

4

(100%)

F 7 4

(57%)

3

(43%)

0

(0%)

7

(100%)

7

(100%)

M 1,5 1,5

(100%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

1,5

(100%)

1,5

(100%)

Tharaka poultry (Tharaka Nithi, successful)

F 1,75 1,75

(100%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

1,75

(100%)

1,75

(100%)

M 11 0

(0%)

11

(100%)

0

(0%)

11

(100%)

11

(100%)

M 5 5

(100%)

0

(0%)

(0

(0%)

5

(100%)

5

(100%)

F 2 0

(0%)

2

(100%)

0

(0%)

2

(100%)

2

(100%)


45

Annex 5. List of people met during the field mission

Name Organization Function

Nairobi

Alessio Colussi FAO Head of Plant protection unit

Tito Arunga FAO Plant protection unit

Philomena Chege State Department of Agriculture

Stephen Wathome European Union

John Wachira Karivki BIDCO Lead agri-business development

Wycliffe Aua ESSOKO Content Manger

Emmanuel Soita ESSOKO Field operation manager

Dan Mutua Imara Agro Kenya Limited Manager

Lawrence Mania East African Malting Limited General manager

Makueni County

James Opiyo FAO County Programme Officer

Mary Muteti Makueni Country Authority Chief Officer Agriculture, fisheries, livestock

Jonhson Gachuli Tractor Applying Services Manager

Wilfred Nguzo Agriculture mechanization service Deputy manager

Victor Oluteyo Agriculture mechanization service Deputy director land development

Mike Nzuma United Traders Sacco Manager

Charles Ndungu ASDSP Leader

Joseph Musyoka Lutheran World Relief Coordinator CARE Project

Jacobus Kiilu County government CEC Agriculture, fisheries, livestock

Tharaka Nithi County

Ambrose Ngetich FAO County Programme Officer


46

Walter Mugambi County authority Chief officer Agriculture, livestock, fisheries

John Wahome Agrovet shop Manager

Abraham Maruta CARITAS Team leader

Keneth Mburia County authority CEC Agriculture, fisheries, livestock

Mary Gathinga County authority Crop development officer

Obadieh Munene County authority Agribusiness development officer

Samuel Mbaka Thamani Sacco Marketing manager

Peter Mutegi Mucee Tegemeo Enterprises Limited Manager

Beatrice Nkatha Muniji Sorghum Pioneer Agencies Director


47

Annex 6. Field mission schedule

Date Activity

28/05 Travel Madrid-Nairobi

29/95 Nairobi

Interview with FAO country office Interviews with stakeholders

30/05 Nairobi

Interviews with stakeholders 31/05 Travel Nairobi-Wote (Makueni county)

Interview with Master trainers and Trainers of Farmers Interviews with county authorities Interviews with service providers

01/06 Makueni county

Interviews with service providers and stakeholders Visit to Muungano Nguvu Yetu CBO Interview with FAO County Project Officer


Visit to Kavuthu farmer group Interviews with county authorities


Visit to Kitengei Commercial Village 04/06 Makueni county

Visit to Ngokolani farmer group Interview with FAO County Project Officer

05/06 Travel Wote-Chuka (Tharaka Nithi)

Interview with county authority Interview with MT and ToF Interviews service providers

06/06 Tharaka Nithi

Interviews with stakeholders Interview with county authority Interview with private extension staff

07/06 Tharaka Nithi

Interview with FAO County Project Officer Visit to Arise and Shine self-help group

08/06 Tharaka Nithi


48

Interview with service provider Visit to Mutethie self-help group Interview with FAO County Project Officer

09/06 Tharaka Nithi

Interview with service provider Visit to Tharaka Poultry self-help group Interview with cereal growing association

10/06 Travel Tharaka Nithi-Nairobi

11/06 Synthesis of preliminary findings

12/06 Nairobi

Interviews with stakeholders Interview with FAO Country Officer

Travel Nairobi-Madrid

OFFICE OF EVALUATIONwww.fao.org/evaluation

Documents

Evaluation of FAO’s Contribution to the Republic of Kenya · 2019-03-27 · country programme evaluation series evaluation of fao’s contribution to the republic of kenya a joint