4th iecab symposium held 1-15 august 2011 challenges of livestock projects implementation by...

4th IeCAB Symposium held 1-15 4th IeCAB Symposium held 1-15 August 2011August 2011

CHALLENGES OF LIVESTOCK CHALLENGES OF LIVESTOCK PROJECTS IMPLEMENTATION BY PROJECTS IMPLEMENTATION BY

COMMUNITIES: THE CASE OF MERUCOMMUNITIES: THE CASE OF MERUGOAT BREEDING PROJECT, KENYAGOAT BREEDING PROJECT, KENYA

Mugambi, D., K.Mugambi, D., K.1*1*, Maina, M, Maina, M22, Mugambi, J.N, Mugambi, J.N11

11Ministry of Livestock Development, P. O. Box 38-60602, Kianjai, Kenya; Ministry of Livestock Development, P. O. Box 38-60602, Kianjai, Kenya; 22Department of Agricultural Science and Technology, Kenyatta University, P. Department of Agricultural Science and Technology, Kenyatta University, P. O. Box 43844, Nairobi, Kenya.O. Box 43844, Nairobi, Kenya.

**33Corresponding author e-mailCorresponding author e-mail: : [email protected]

Presented at the 4th e-Conference on Agricultural BioSciences (IeCAB 2011), held online from1st -15th August 2011 at

http://www.m.elewa.org/econferenceIeCAB.php


Background InformationBackground Information

Projects are designed, funded, and Projects are designed, funded, and implemented to achieve their set objectivesimplemented to achieve their set objectives

Many studies have identified several Many studies have identified several challenges of project implementation that challenges of project implementation that rendered many projects unsuccessful rendered many projects unsuccessful including lack of ownership by beneficiaries, including lack of ownership by beneficiaries, lack of adequate capacity among the lack of adequate capacity among the implementers, poor financial management, implementers, poor financial management, and poor information communication.and poor information communication.

The Meru goat project is struggling to meet The Meru goat project is struggling to meet its set objectives at the moment, despite its its set objectives at the moment, despite its past known high performance. past known high performance.


ObjectiveObjective Specific ObjectivesSpecific Objectives Determine the leadership Determine the leadership

challenges of project challenges of project implementationimplementation

Identify the financial Identify the financial management challenges management challenges of project implementationof project implementation

Determine the Determine the information information communication communication challenges of project challenges of project implementationimplementation

Broad: To determine Broad: To determine the challenges of the challenges of project project implementation of implementation of the community-the community-based goat breeding based goat breeding project in Meru, project in Meru, Kenya.Kenya.


Research MethodologyResearch Methodology

Study design: Descriptive surveyStudy design: Descriptive survey Target population: 150 chairmen of the dairy Target population: 150 chairmen of the dairy

goat breeding groupsgoat breeding groups Sampling strategy and sample size: The Sampling strategy and sample size: The

Fischer’s formula was used to arrive at the Fischer’s formula was used to arrive at the sample size, 72. Random sampling was sample size, 72. Random sampling was undertakenundertaken

Data collection tools: A semi-structured Data collection tools: A semi-structured questionnaire and literature reviewquestionnaire and literature review

Data analysis: Descriptive statisticsData analysis: Descriptive statistics and and bivariate correlations (SPSS)bivariate correlations (SPSS)


Results: LeadershipResults: Leadership

58% agreed that they were involved in 58% agreed that they were involved in electing their officials where the elected had electing their officials where the elected had attained a minimum of primary school level of attained a minimum of primary school level of education (.39, P<.001)education (.39, P<.001)

54% indicated that leaders weren’t 54% indicated that leaders weren’t performing their roles well. A similar number performing their roles well. A similar number indicated that they were not concerned to get indicated that they were not concerned to get tasks done well. 72%-not adhering to the set tasks done well. 72%-not adhering to the set rules. 55%- don’t encourage members to rules. 55%- don’t encourage members to express own views on the project express own views on the project


Results: Leadership contdResults: Leadership contd…..…..

69%-ineffective in acquiring and protecting 69%-ineffective in acquiring and protecting project resources.project resources.

65%-don’t practice participatory 65%-don’t practice participatory managementmanagement

Regional leaders; 55% of the respondents Regional leaders; 55% of the respondents indicated that that the regional leaders indicated that that the regional leaders were incompetent were incompetent


Results: Financial ManagementResults: Financial Management

Over 55% indicated poor ManagementOver 55% indicated poor Management 79%-untimely budgets79%-untimely budgets 80%-Budgets not approved in a general meeting80%-Budgets not approved in a general meeting 76%-budgets not updated in cases of new 76%-budgets not updated in cases of new

informationinformation 83%- Grants and loans improperly managed.83%- Grants and loans improperly managed. 78%- Financial information not readily available78%- Financial information not readily available 82%- financial year not indicated82%- financial year not indicated


Results: Financial Management Results: Financial Management Contd..Contd..

80%- Balance sheet, income and expense 80%- Balance sheet, income and expense accounts not prepared on a quarterly basisaccounts not prepared on a quarterly basis

Regional Leaders: 80% of the respondents Regional Leaders: 80% of the respondents indicated that the regional leaders as indicated that the regional leaders as being incompetent, not accountable, and being incompetent, not accountable, and not transparent on all project financial not transparent on all project financial matters.matters.


Results: Information Results: Information CommunicationCommunication

51%- indicated there being poor information 51%- indicated there being poor information communicationcommunication

76%- no mechanism to collect important data 76%- no mechanism to collect important data and information from within the project areaand information from within the project area

57%-Management don’t gather relevant 57%-Management don’t gather relevant information from sources outside the project information from sources outside the project areaarea

67%- information not easily available67%- information not easily available Regional: do not collect and communicate Regional: do not collect and communicate

relevant project information to those requiringrelevant project information to those requiring it on a timely basis.it on a timely basis.


Conclusions and Conclusions and RecommendationsRecommendations

Election of community leaders should not only be Election of community leaders should not only be based on educational level and processes based on educational level and processes (democracy), but require to be expanded to such (democracy), but require to be expanded to such other areas as integrity and commitment with the other areas as integrity and commitment with the view to capturing effective community project view to capturing effective community project leadersleaders

Where the community lacks the capacity to handle Where the community lacks the capacity to handle financial management, qualified financial financial management, qualified financial personnel should be out sourcedpersonnel should be out sourced

Govt policy on project monitoring, supervision and Govt policy on project monitoring, supervision and backstopping of community-based projects is backstopping of community-based projects is necessary for sustainability.necessary for sustainability.


The EndThe End

Thank YouThank You

4th iecab symposium held 1-15 august 2011 challenges of livestock projects implementation by...

Documents