REPUBLIC OF KENYA
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK AND FISHERIES
AGRICULTURAL SECTOR DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT PROGRAM
(ASDSP)
MOMBASA COUNTY CNA REPORT
2014/15
CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT
A process focused on establishing a baseline of existing capacities within individuals,
organizations/ institutions and the enabling environment and identification of their capacity
gaps, in the selected value chains in Mombasa County.
2
Institutional and Capacity Development Technical Working Group
Members
Ms. Kamuli B.L
Institutional & Capacity Development Officer
Agricultural Sector Development Support Program
County Coordinating Unit, P.O.BOX 80941-80100 Mombasa,
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 041- 2491662/0723924387
Dr. Linus Kosambo
Senior Scientist
Kenya Industrial Research Development Institute
P.O Box 82422 - 80100 Mombasa
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 0728403697
Mr. Swaleh M. Sheikh
Department of Livestock Production
Kisauni Sub County
P.O Box 90725-80100 Mombasa
Email: [email protected]
Tel: 0722211385
Mr. Barasa Mang’eni
TUCONET
P.O Box 8195-80100
Mombasa
Email:[email protected]
Tel: 0710149803
Mr. Stephen Nteere
Yes Youth Can, Coast
P.O Box 98382-80100 Mombasa
Email: [email protected] ; Tel: 0728913960
3
Acronyms
ASCU Agriculture sector coordination unit
ASDS Agriculture sector development strategy
ASDSP Agriculture sector development support program
AS Advisory Services
ATC Agriculture Training Center
ATDC Agriculture Technology Development Center
CLUSA Cooperative League of the United States of America
CNA Capacity Needs Assessment
ICD Institutional & Capacity Development
ICD-TWG Institutional & Capacity Development-Technical Working Group
KALRO Kenya Agricultural Livestock & Research Organization
KIRDI Kenya Industrial Research Development Institute
KMA Kenya Marine Authority
NRM/SI Natural Resource Management/Social Inclusion
PSI Population Services International
TOT Training of Trainers
TUCONET Tuliza Community Network
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
VC Value Chain
VCD Value Chain Development
YYC Yes Youth Can Coast
4
Table of Contents
INSTITUTIONAL AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP MEMBERS ........................................ 2
ACRONYMS................................................................................................................................................................. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
MESSAGE FROM THE COUNTY COORDINATOR, ASDSP ............................................................................................... 8
MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK AND FISHERIES. ........................ 9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................................................................10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................................11
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 0
1.1 PROGRAMME SCOPE ...................................................................................................................................................... 0 1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE CNA PROCESS AND THE NEED FOR CNA IN ASDSP CONTEXT .................................................................. 1 1.3 REVIEW OF CNA PROCESS AND LITERATURE ON PREVIOUSLY DONE CNA .................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 CNA Process Phase 1 ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.2 Focused Group Discussions ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.3 CNA Process Phase II ................................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 STRATEGIC DIMENSIONS FOR CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................................... 7
2 CNA METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 WHO DID WHAT? ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 HOW IT WAS DONE .................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.1 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Data Entry and cleaning ............................................................................................................................ 10 2.2.3 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 10 2.2.4 Target institutions ..................................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.5 Tools used to collect data/information ..................................................................................................... 11
3 CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES .....................................................................................................12
3.1 ENABLING ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.1 Amaranthus Leaves Value Chain ............................................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Indigenous Chicken Value Chain ............................................................................................................... 14 3.1.3 Mixed Fish Value Chain ............................................................................................................................. 17
3.2 ORGANIZATIONAL .................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.2.1 Main Activities of the Groups/organizations/institutions ......................................................................... 21 3.2.2 Organization involvement in the development of ASDS ........................................................................... 22 3.2.3 Stipulation of organization’s mandate to involve in ASDS pillars ............................................................. 22 3.2.4 Relationship with ASDSP ........................................................................................................................... 25 3.2.5 Collaboration with ASDSP ......................................................................................................................... 27 3.2.6 Capacities of the Organizations to Engage in the Management of ASDSP Operations. ........................... 28 3.2.7 Sector studies and research ...................................................................................................................... 30 3.2.8 Monitoring and Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 32
3.3 OUTCOME - INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES OF STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................. 34 3.3.1 Summary of Capacity of Mombasa ASDSP Stakeholders .......................................................................... 34 3.2.2 Overview of Sector Wide Coordination Component .................................................................................. 36 3.3.3 Overview of Natural Resource Management and Social Inclusion Component ........................................ 37 3.3.4 Overview of Value Chain Development ..................................................................................................... 37 3.3.5 Capacities in Sub Counties ........................................................................................................................ 38
5
3.3.6 Organizations Capacities in Mombasa County ......................................................................................... 46 3.3.7 Gender Implications .................................................................................................................................. 61 3.3.8 Capacity of Value Chain Consultative Group............................................................................................. 78 3.3.9 Capacities of Stakeholders within the Value Chains ................................................................................. 81
3.4 MAJOR SECTOR INITIATIVES ....................................................................................................................................... 89 3.4.1 County ....................................................................................................................................................... 89 3.4.2 National .................................................................................................................................................... 89 3.4.3 International ............................................................................................................................................. 89
3.5 GAPS, PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATION ................................................................................................................. 89 3.5.1 Gaps .......................................................................................................................................................... 89 3.5.2 Feasible twinning ...................................................................................................................................... 90 3.5.3 Partnerships and collaborations ............................................................................................................... 90
3.6 CONSTRAINTS OF THE CNA PROCESS ........................................................................................................................... 90
4 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................90
5 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................91
6 APPENDICES .....................................................................................................................................................92
6.1 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES .............................................................................................................................................. 92 6.2 LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 95 6.3 GROUPS INTERVIEWED ............................................................................................................................................. 96 6.4 CNA TOOLS ........................................................................................................................................................... 97
6.4.1 Focus Group Discussion Guide for Capacity Needs Assessment for Enabling Environment ...................... 97 6.4.2 INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT ....................................................... 99 6.4.3 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN ORGANISATIONS. ........... 108
6
List of Figures FIGURE 2 1: GENDER REPRESENTATION ...................................................................................................................................... 20 FIGURE 2 2: ORGANIZATIONS MANDATE AND INVOLVEMENT OF ASDSP .......................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 2 3: INTERVIEWED KEY INFORMANTS .............................................................................................................................. 26 FIGURE 2 4: COORDINATION MANDATE ..................................................................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 2 5: ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVEMENT .............................................................................................................................. 30 FIGURE 2 6: ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVEMENT IN M&E .................................................................................................................. 32 FIGURE 3 1: AVERAGE CAPACITIES OF STAKEHOLDERS IN ASDS COMPONENTS: SWC, NRM & SI AND VCD ........................................... 35 FIGURE 3 2: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF STAKEHOLDERS WITH VARIOUS CAPACITIES IN ASDSP COMPONENTS ........................................... 35 FIGURE 3 3: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF STAKEHOLDERS WITH RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES IN SWC .............................................................. 36 FIGURE 3 4: PERCENTAGE OF STAKEHOLDERS WITH RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES IN THE FIVE AREAS OF THE NRM & SI COMPONENT ................. 37 FIGURE 3 5: PERCENTAGE OF MOMBASA STAKEHOLDERS WITH VARIOUS CAPACITIES IN VCD ............................................................... 38 FIGURE 3 6: AVERAGE CAPACITIES OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM THE SUB COUNTIES OF MOMBASA IN THE 3 ASDSP COMPONENTS .................. 39 FIGURE 3 7: DISTRIBUTION OF THE CAPACITY OF STAKEHOLDERS IN MOMBASA .................................................................................. 40 FIGURE 3 8: EDUCATION LEVELS OF THE SAMPLE OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED FOR THE CNA .......................................................... 41 FIGURE 3 9: FROM MASTERS DEGREE TO SCHOOL CERTIFICATION: EDUCATION LEVELS RESPONDENTS INTERVIEWED ................................. 42 FIGURE 3 10: MOMBASA SUB COUNTIES CAPACITY IN PARTNERSHIP AND NETWORKING UNDER SWC .................................................... 42 FIGURE 3 11: MOMBASA SUB COUNTIES CAPACITY IN PARTNERSHIP AND NETWORKING UNDER SWC .................................................... 43 FIGURE 3 12: AVERAGE CAPACITY LEVELS IN NRM COMMUNITY ACTION OF STAKEHOLDER FROM MOMBASA SUB COUNTIES .................... 44 FIGURE 3 13: PERCENTAGE OF CAPACITIES OF STAKEHOLDERS NRM COMMUNITY ACTION IN THE SUB COUNTIES OF MOMBASA ................ 44 FIGURE 3 14: AVERAGE CAPACITIES OF STAKEHOLDERS OF MOMBASA SUB COUNTIES IN VC ORGANIZATION .......................................... 45 FIGURE 3 15: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF CAPACITIES IN VC IN MOMBASA SUB COUNTIES.............................................................. 46 FIGURE 3 16: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN ASDSP COMPONENTS .................................... 46 FIGURE 3 17: PERCENTAGE CAPACITIES OF STAKEHOLDER FROM VARIOUS GROUPS IN ASDSP COMPONENTS ......................................... 47 FIGURE 3 18: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM A CROSS SECTION OF ORGANIZATION FROM MOMBASA COUNTY ..................... 48 FIGURE 3 19: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS WITH RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES ............................ 48 FIGURE 3 20: AVERAGE CAPACITIES IN SWC OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM VARIOUS GROUPS OF ORGANIZATIONS IN MOMBASA COUNTY .......... 49 FIGURE 3 21: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES. .................... 49 FIGURE 3 22: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATIO IN COORDINATION UNDER SWC ................................ 50 FIGURE 3 23: SUMMARY AVERAGE CAPACITIES OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN NRM & SI .................................... 51 FIGURE 3 24: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN NRM & SI ISSUES ........................................... 52 FIGURE 3 25: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF STAKEHOLDERS OF VARIOUS ORGANIZATION IN NRM & SI COMPONENT ................................... 53 FIGURE 3 26: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF ORGANIZATION IN EQUITABLE ACCESS TO NRM, CCA AS & TECHNOLOGIES ................................... 53 FIGURE 3 27: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM ORGANIZATIONS IN EQUITABLE ACCESS AND USE OF NRM SERVICES ................. 54 FIGURE 3 28: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF ORGANIZATIONS IN NRM CC PLANNING ................................................................................. 55 FIGURE 3 29: AVERAGE CAPACITIES OF ORGANIZATION IN TEN NRM CC PLANNING CAPACITY ISSUES .................................................... 56 FIGURE 3 30: AVERAGE CAPACITIES OF ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING IN MOMBASA COUNTY IN VCD ..................................................... 57 FIGURE 3 31: AVERAGE CAPACITIES OF ORGANIZATIONS OPERATING IN MOMBASA COUNTY IN VCD ..................................................... 58 FIGURE 3 32: AVERAGE CAPACITIES OF ORGANIZATION FROM MOMBASA COUNTY IN FIVE VCD ISSUES .................................................. 58 FIGURE 3 33: CAPACITIES OF ORGANIZATIONS FROM MOMBASA COUNTY IN PRIVATE-PUBLIC INVESTMENT ............................................. 59 FIGURE 3 34: AVERAGE CAPACITIES OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN PP INVESTMENT............................................ 59 FIGURE 3 35: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS IN VCD TECHNOLOGIES UPSCALING AND OUT-SCALING 60 FIGURE 3 36: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF STAKEHOLDERS DRAWN FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATION IN THREE CAPACITY ISSUES VCD ................... 61 FIGURE 3 37: COMPARISON OF THE CAPACITY OF STAKEHOLDERS FROM MOMBASA COUNTY AS A FUNCTION OF GENDER .......................... 61 FIGURE 3 38: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF MALE AND FEMALE STAKEHOLDERS OF VARIOUS CAPACITIES OF SWC, NRM & SI AND VCD .......... 62 FIGURE 3 39: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF FEMALE AND MALE STAKEHOLDERS IN SWC COMPONENT OF THE ASDSP ....................................... 63 FIGURE 3 40: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF MALE AND FEMALE STAKEHOLDERS OF VARIOUS CAPACITIES IN SWC ......................................... 63 FIGURE 3 41: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF MALE AND FEMALE STAKEHOLDERS IN SIX CAPACITY AREAS OF SWC OF ASDSP ............................... 64 FIGURE 3 42: PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE AND MALE STAKEHOLDERS WITH VARIOUS CAPACITIES IN SIX CAPACITY ISSUES UNDER SWC ............. 65 FIGURE 3 43: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF FEMALE AND MALE STAKEHOLDERS IN NRM & SI COMPONENT OF ASDSP .................................... 65 FIGURE 3 44: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE AND MALE STAKEHOLDERS WITH VARIOUS CAPACITIES IN NRM & SI OF ASDSP ............... 66 FIGURE 3 45: GENDER SPECIFIC AVERAGE CAPACITIES OF STAKEHOLDERS IN FIVE CAPACITY AREAS OF NRM & SI ...................................... 66 FIGURE 3 46: PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE AND MALE STAKEHOLDERS WITH VARIOUS CAPACITIES IN FIVE CAPACITY AREAS OF NRM & SI .......... 67
7
FIGURE 3 47: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF FEMALE AND MALE STAKEHOLDERS IN VCD COMPONENT OF SDSP ............................................... 68 FIGURE 3 48: PERCENTAGE MALE AND FEMALE CAPACITIES IN VCD ................................................................................................ 68 FIGURE 3 49: AVERAGE FEMALE AND MALE CAPACITY IN FIVE VCD CAPACITY AREAS ........................................................................... 69 FIGURE 3 50: PERCENTAGE OF MALE AND FEMALE STAKEHOLDERS WITH VARIOUS CAPACITIES IN FIVE CAPACITY AREAS OF VCD .................. 70 FIGURE 3 51: AVERAGE FEMALE AND MALE CAPACITY IN FIVE AREAS IN INTRINSIC VALUES OF SWC COMPONENT ..................................... 71 FIGURE 3 52: PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE AND MALE STAKEHOLDER WITH VARIOUS CAPACITIES IN FIVE AREAS OF INTRINSIC VALUES ................ 71 FIGURE 3 53: FEMALE AND MALE CAPACITY IN SEVEN CAPACITY ISSUES UNDER AWARENESS AND KNOWLEDGE OF NRM CC AND CCA ......... 72 FIGURE 3 54: PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE AND MALE STAKEHOLDERS WITH RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES IN NRM CC AND CCA CAPACITY ISSUES ..... 73 FIGURE 3 55: FEMALE AND MALE CAPACITY IN FOUR ISSUES OF SOCIAL INCLUSION AND PROTECTION SERVICES OF SWC COMPONENT .......... 73 FIGURE 3 56: PERCENTAGE FEMALE AND MALE STAKEHOLDERS WITH RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES IN SOCIAL INCLUSION AND PROTECTION SERVICES
................................................................................................................................................................................. 74 FIGURE 3 57; AVERAGE CAPACITY OF FEMALE AND MALE STAKEHOLDERS IN EQUITABLE MARKET ACCESS ................................................. 75 FIGURE 3 58; PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE AND MALE STAKEHOLDERS WITH VARIOUS CAPACITY IN 4 EQUITABLE MARKET ACCESS ISSUES ........... 75 FIGURE 3 59: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF FEMALE AND MALE STAKEHOLDERS IN ACCESS TO FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE SERVICES ISSUES ............ 76 FIGURE 3 60: PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE AND MALE WITH VARIOUS CAPACITIES IN ACCESS TO FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE SERVICES ISSUES ...... 76 FIGURE 3 61: AVERAGE CAPACITY OF FEMALE AND MALE STAKEHOLDERS IN INNOVATIVE VALUE TECHNOLOGY ISSUES ................................ 77 FIGURE 3 62: PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE AND MALE STAKEHOLDERS IN INNOVATIVE VALUE CHAIN TECHNOLOGIES ...................................... 78 FIGURE 3 63: VCCG AND NON-VCCG MEMBERS' CAPACITIES ACROSS THE THREE ASDSP COMPONENTS ............................................. 78 FIGURE 3 64: VCCG AND NON-VCCG MEMBERS CAPACITIES IN SIX CAPACITY AREAS IN SWC ............................................................. 79 FIGURE 3 65: VCCG AND NON-VCCG MEMBERS' CAPACITY IN FIVE CAPACITY AREAS OF NRM & SI COMPONENT OF ASDSP ................... 80 FIGURE 3 66: AVERAGE CAPACITIES OF VCCG AND NON-VCCG MEMBERS IN FIVE CAPACITY AREAS OF VCD ........................................... 80 FIGURE 3 67: VALUE CHAIN STAKEHOLDERS’ CAPACITIES OF IN THE THREE ASDSP COMPONENTS ......................................................... 81 FIGURE 3 68: PERCENTAGE OF VALUE CHAIN STAKEHOLDERS OF VARIOUS CAPACITIES IN THE THREE COMPONENTS OF ASDSP .................... 82 FIGURE 3 69: AVERAGE INDIGENOUS VALUE CHAIN STAKEHOLDERS' CAPACITIES IN SWC, NRM & SI AND VCD OF ASDSP ...................... 82 FIGURE 3 70: AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF MIXED FISH VALUE CHAIN STAKEHOLDERS’ CAPACITIES ............................................................ 83 FIGURE 3 71: VALUE CHAIN STAKEHOLDERS' CAPACITIES IN SIX CAPACITY AREAS OF SWC .................................................................... 84 FIGURE 3 72: VALUE CHAINS STAKEHOLDERS' CAPACITIES IN FIVE CAPACITY AREAS OF NRM & SI ......................................................... 84 FIGURE 3 73: VALUE CHAINS STAKEHOLDERS' CAPACITIES IN FIVE CAPACITY AREAS OF VCD .................................................................. 85 FIGURE 3 74: VALUE CHAINS STAKEHOLDERS' CAPACITIES IN COMMUNITY ACTION CAPACITY ISSUES ....................................................... 86 FIGURE 3 75: VALUE CHAIN STAKEHOLDERS' CAPACITIES IN FIVE CAPACITY ISSUES OF VC ORGANIZATIONS DEVELOPMENT .......................... 87 FIGURE 3 76: VALUE CHAINS STAKEHOLDERS’ CAPACITIES IN PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 87
List of Tables TABLE 1 TABLE SHOWING THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLITICAL UNITS IN MOMBASA COUNTY ............................................................. 1 TABLE 2: CNA ACTIVITIES 16
TH APRIL – 30
TH JUNE 2014 ................................................................................................................ 4
TABLE 3: FGDS RESPONDENTS ................................................................................................................................................... 5 TABLE 4: CNA FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS SCHEDULE................................................................................................................... 6 TABLE 5: CNA ACTIVITIES 16TH OCTOBER 2014 TO 12TH FEBRUARY 2015 ....................................................................................... 6 TABLE 6: INSTITUTIONS AND INTERVIEWEES ................................................................................................................................ 11 TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES: AMARANTHUS LEAVES VALUE CHAIN ...................................................................................... 12 TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES - INDIGENOUS VALUE CHAIN ................................................................................................... 15 TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES - MIXED FISH VALUE CHAIN .................................................................................................... 17
8
MESSAGE FROM THE COUNTY COORDINATOR, ASDSP
The Agricultural Sector development Support
Program was formulated in 2012. This program
was formulated to operationalize the
Agricultural Sector Development Strategy
(ASDS, 2010-2020) which was a means to
deliver the 10 percent economic growth target
set for the Agricultural Sector in Vision 2030.
The Goal of the Program is to support the
transformation of the Agricultural Sector into
an innovative, commercially oriented,
competitive and modern industry that will
contribute to poverty reduction and improved
food security in rural and urban Keya. One of
the means of achieving this goal is through
development of a transparent system for realizing agricultural sector coordination, harmonization and an
enabling institutional environment for the realization of ASDS. Mombasa County is the gateway to Kenya
and cannot be ignored on matters of food security, employment creation and poverty reduction.
In Mombasa County, there is high potential for urban and peri-urban agriculture. For these potential to be
exploited all the players in the sector need strong capacities to exploit this opportunity. Several sector
institutions also lack the necessary capacity to exploit this potential. For these capacities to be improved,
there is need to establish the capacity level for both individual and institution players in the agricultural
sector.
This capacity needs assessment is therefore a key activity towards the transformation of the Agricultural
Sector in Mombasa County. I urge all stakeholders in the Agricultural Sector to read the report carefully, so
that they can help address some of the capacity gaps identified and hinder the Agricultural Sector
development in the County.
Finally, I wish to appreciate the Mombasa ASDSP Institution Capacity Development Technical Team for their
tireless efforts to make this work a success. God bless you for your tireless efforts in ensuring quality work
is done.
This report was compiled after an intensive data collection exercise. It is therefore a baseline for capacity
assessment in Mombasa County for any interested student, player or partner in the agricultural sector.
E. M. Odundo (Mrs.)
ASDSP County Coordinator
MOMBASA COUNTY
9
MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
LIVESTOCK AND FISHERIES. Capacity Needs Assessment (CNA) provides an
opportunity for identification of gaps which if
not addressed may impede speedy realization of
the goals and objectives outlined in the
Agriculture Sector Development
Strategy Program. Industry players in the three
identified value chains (leafy amaranthus,
indigenous poultry and mixed fish) for Mombasa
County need some requisite knowledge, skills,
exposure and resources to catalyze the rate of
filling in the gaps in the value chains. The CNA
will provide a useful guide to developing an
objective and comprehensive capacity building
program. To ensure that needs that were
identified in the report are fast tracked. The CNA team could be challenged to produce an
implementation plan and an inherent monitoring and evaluation process to assist in making
periodic review.
The team has produced the first report of this kind and all who participated in the process should
equally be interested in supporting the implementation process for transformation of Agriculture
Sector and competitive venture with improved livelihoods.
Mr. Jonathan Sulubu
Chief Officer, Department of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries
MOMBASA COUNTY.
10
Acknowledgements Capacity Needs Assessment is focused in Sub-component 1.2: Capacity Building Support for the
Sector and ASDSP Implementation whose focus is development of capacity to drive sector wide
coordination and to implement the ASDSP. The CNA process was carried out with the aim of
gathering data and information, designed to measure and document the gaps and needs of the
critical players in selected viable value chains in Mombasa County.
The CNA process was conducted between April and February 2015 (in two phases that is
16th April – 30th June 2014 (Phase I) and 16th October 2014 to 12th February 2015 (Phase II),
covering the 4 old sub-counties in the Mombasa County and encompassing the two new sub-
counties (Nyali and Jomvu).
The specific objectives of Capacity Needs Assessment were to:
To establish a baseline of existing capacities within individuals, organizations/institutions
and the enabling environment and identify their capacity gaps.
To isolate and strengthen capacities of various actors in ASDSP and enable them to
participate effectively in the implementation of the program.
The CNA process was carried successfully with the assistance and participation of many partners. I
take this gracious chance to appreciate and thank the following for their contribution that led to
the completion of Capacity Needs Assessment Process. First and foremost is to God who gave us
the strength, ability and wisdom to carry out the whole process without many hitches. I also
appreciate and thank the ASDSP Mombasa County Coordinator, Mrs. Esther M. Odundo, for her
guidance, support and participation throughout the CNA process. Much thanks goes to the County
Director of Agriculture, for his guidance and support to the ICD-TWG team throughout the CNA
process. The Director of Yes Youth Can Coast for provision of their vehicle, fuel and driver during
the field visits.
The county extension staff that participated and coordinated the value chain actors in their
respective sub-counties for the ICD-TWG team. To the CCU staff for the team work accorded
throughout the exercise. To the drivers who took the ICD-TWG team to the field.
To all stakeholders and value chain actors who contributed in one way or another in the validation
of the report. Last but not least, to the ICD-TWG team, bravo for the time, commitment and team
work, that eventually guaranteed the production of this CNA report.
Beatrice. Kamuli
Institutional & Capacity Development Officer
ASDSP
MOMBASA COUNTY
11
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Capacity Needs Assessment (CNA) was organized by the Agriculture Sector Development Support Program (ASDSP). The objective of the assessment was to establish a baseline of existing capacities within individuals, organizations/ institutions and the enabling environment and identify their capacity gaps for ASDSP to initiate appropriate capacity development interventions. To realize this objective, an Institutional and Capacity Development Technical Working Group (ICD-TWG) was constituted and trained to carry out these CNA on the three selected value chains in Mombasa County, i.e. Leafy Amaranthus, Indigenous chicken and Mixed Fish. The CNA focused on the three ASDSP core intervention areas (Component 1, 2 and 3); that is-Sector-wide Coordination & Joint Programming (SWC), Natural Resource Management & Social Inclusion (NRM & SI) and Value Chain Development (VCD) respectively. The CNA was carried out in the former four sub-counties namely, Changamwe, Likoni, Kisauni and Mombasa; incorporating the new sub-counties Nyali and Jomvu. The findings revealed various capacity levels at Individual, organizational and enabling environment dimensions. This report details the methodology, key findings on capacity strengths and gaps emerging from the analysis of the three dimensions. The methodology used was identification of respondents through stakeholder analysis and power matrix and basing the selection on the three value chains for the county. The respondents included the organizations, institutions and individual key actors in the selected value chains in Mombasa County. Data collection methodologies involved administration of individual questionnaires, key informant interviews and focus group discussions. The CNA team determined the capacities of the respondents based on gap analysis, which involved identification of gaps between the desired and the actual capacities. This CNA established that the highest and lowest capacity gaps existed in value chain development (VCD) and Sector wide coordination (SWC) components of ASDSP, respectively. Comparatively, 47% of stakeholders had little or no capacity in SWC, 50% of stakeholders had little or no Capacity in Natural Resource Management and Social Inclusion (NRM & SI) with 61% of the stakeholders having little or no capacity in VCD. Under SWC, the highest capacity gap was in Policy, M&E, Partnership & Networking and Coordination in which 74%, 56%, 52% and 51% of stakeholders from Mombasa had little or no capacity, respectively. Under NRM & SI component, little or no capacity levels of stakeholders were found to be at 68% in NRM & Climate Change (CC) planning, at 65% in NRM, CC & Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and at 61% in NRM, CCA Advisory Services & appropriate technologies. In VCD, the highest capacity gap was in VC technologies up-scaling and out-scaling in which 78% of the stakeholders had little or no capacity. The CNA established that the stakeholders in the 4 sub-counties of Mombasa lacked threshold capacity in VCD. It also emerged that Kisauni and Likoni sub counties had the least capacity in all the ASDSP components. Of the 5 categories of organizations assessed i.e. Government institutions, Private entrepreneurs, Producer groups, NGO’s and Community groups, the latter possessed the lowest capacity in all the ASDSP components. The CNA further determined that women had lower capacity than men in VCD. However, gender parity was noted in SWC and NRM & SI components. The CNA also studied the capacity of Value Chain Core Group (VCCG) members. It was found that the capacity of Mombasa VCCG members was lower than that of non-members in all the ASDSP components. The study established that stakeholders from the 3 Value Chains (VC’s) lacked the threshold capacity in VCD. On the other hand, all the stakeholders possessed the threshold capacity in SWC. In conclusion, the CNA study in Mombasa county established that there is an acute need for capacity development in VCD, Policy, M&E, Partnership & Networking, Coordination, NRM CC planning, NRM CC & CCA and NRM CCA, AS & AT.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROGRAMME SCOPE
Agriculture Sector Development Support Programme (ASDSP) is a program that was formulated by Kenya’s Agricultural sector coordinating unit (ASCU) to be implemented initially for 5(five) years It is a Sector wide program and reflecting the Program’s sector-wide nature, it supports interventions at the national level as well as in all of the 47 counties established under the new Constitutional order. In Mombasa County, the ASDSP County Coordinating Unit, comprised of ten staff, started its operations in February 2013 and it covered four (4) Sub Counties which are now Six (6).
ASDSP Institutional and Capacity Development Technical Working Group (ICD-TWG) in Mombasa was trained by ASDSP at Agriculture Training Center (ATC) Mtwapa, in Kilifi County, from 14th to 17th April 2014, to carry out “Capacity Needs Assessment and document the gaps and needs of the critical players in selected value chains in Mombasa County.
The overall goal of ASDSP is to support the “transformation of Kenya’s agricultural sector into an
innovative, commercially oriented, competitive and modern industry that will contribute to
poverty reduction, improved food security and equity in rural and urban Kenya”. The Program
Purpose is “to increase equitable incomes, employment and food security of both male and
female target groups as a result of improved production and productivity in the smallholder farm
and off-farm sectors”.
The core focus/interventions of the program is to facilitate demand-driven, stakeholder-led and
coordinated efforts by relevant public and non-public sector actors – especially private sector
agents - to strengthen critical value chains of local as well as national importance with a view not
only making the prioritized value chains commercially efficient but also to ensure that they are
environmentally resilient and accessible to poor and vulnerable farming constituencies and that
they contribute towards improved food security. In order to facilitate the establishment of an
enabling policy, institutional and financial environment for this effort, the Program additionally
supports sector-wide coordination, policy development and harmonization and alignment of
development partner support to the sector
The Value Chains identified for Mombasa County and selected through prioritization by the
Stakeholders were Leafy Amaranthus Value Chain, Indigenous Chicken Value Chain and Mixed Fish
Value Chain.
Mombasa County is situated in the South Eastern part of the Coast Province. It is the second
smallest of the six (6) Counties in the region, covering an area of 229.7 km2 with an average of
129.1 km2 being Arable land. The total urban area is on average 140.6 km2 excluding 65 km2 of
water mass. It borders Kilifi County to the North, Kwale County to the South and West and the
Indian Ocean to the East. The County lies between latitudes 300 80’ to the East and 40 10’ South
of the Equator and between Longitudes 390 60’ and 390 80’ east of Greenwich Meridian.
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
1
The County has 6 constituencies namely Changamwe, Jomvu, Likoni, Mvita, Kisauni and Nyali
which are also the six sub counties. The County has 30 wards, 7 divisions, 18 locations and 30 sub-
locations.
Table 1 Table showing the Administrative and Political units in Mombasa county
Sub-county Area (Km2) No. of Locations No. of Sub-Locations
Mvita 14.6 7 11
Kisauni 22.9 2 6
Nyali 106.3 2 3
Likoni 41.1 4 6
Changamwe 29.0 3 5
Jomvu 16.0 2 4
Total 229.9 20 35
Source: Mombasa County Development Plan (2013)
1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE CNA PROCESS AND THE NEED FOR CNA IN ASDSP CONTEXT
Capacity Needs Assessment is the process of identifying capacity gaps and selecting a plan of
action on how to address the gaps. It involves use of platforms, designing monitoring indicators,
action plan development, data collection & analysis and framework for CNA in ASDSP. It can be
done in 3 dimensions.
Figure 1 1: Map of Mombasa County
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
2
1. Individual (like CCU individual specialists; individual members within the partnerships)
2. Organizational (CCU as a unit; Organizations in ASDSP)
3. Enabling Environment (On policy documents.)
Capacity Needs Assessment provides analysis, discussion, judgments, problem-solving and
teamwork in a systematic, transparent and participatory way of considering capacity-
strengthening needs, appropriate interventions and the resources to meet these needs.
Capacity Needs Assessment is focused in Sub-component 1.2: Capacity Building Support for the
Sector and ASDSP Implementation. The main focus for this sub-component is development of
capacity to drive sector wide coordination and to implement the ASDSP. The direct impacts are
expected to be:
(a) Sector wide coordination of training objectives and training implementation, and
(b) The harmonization of capacity building inputs by actors in the sector.
The final impacts will be improved capacity in the extension system, both government and
private; and the efficient use of capacity development resources.
It is important to develop institutional and organizational capacity to pursue effective sector-wide
coordination and to implement the ASDSP. To achieve this, it is imperative to identify and address
capacity building needs pertaining to wider sector coordination, and ensure appropriate
coordination and alignment with other sector-wide capacity building initiatives. The proposed
Capacity Needs Assessment was therefore designed to measure and document the gaps and needs
of the critical players in selected value chains in Mombasa County. The CNA will highlight the main
organizational bottlenecks that hinder the development of the selected value chains.
Capacity development had been pulled back in ASDSP since we had no guidelines. However the
CNA process kicked off in March 2014 when institutional & capacity development officers in the 47
Counties were taken through TOT training on capacity needs assessment (17th -21st March 2014),
at Morendat Hotel, Naivasha. The main objectives of CNA process was to conduct a Capacity
Needs Assessment, to isolate and strengthen capacities of various actors in ASDSP and enable
them to participate effectively in the implementation of the program; that is, to establish a
baseline of existing capacities within individuals, organizations/institutions and the enabling
environment and identify their capacity gaps.
The Institutional & capacity development officers then trained the ICD technical working groups in
their counties and developed a CNA proposals to carry out CNA process in their Counties. The ICD
officers from Lamu, Kilifi, Mombasa and Kwale Counties participated in organizing, coordinating
and facilitating the training of the ICD-TWG teams from Lamu, Kilifi, Mombasa and Kwale Counties
at ATC Mtwapa from 14th to 17th April 2014 on Capacity Needs Assessment in preparation to
carrying out the CNA process in their respective Counties.
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
3
The ICD TWG teams developed CNA proposals during the CNA training at KARI-Mtwapa that was
approved by NPS enabling the ICD-TWG to carry out the CNA process (Phase I) from 16th April to
30th June 2014 in Mombasa County.
The process covered the initial four (4) constituencies of Mombasa County, namely, Changamwe,
Kisauni, Likoni and Mombasa with the new sub counties of Nyali and Jomvu being covered under
Kisauni and Changamwe respectively. The target group for the capacity needs assessment was a
broad variety of public and private sector agricultural related organizations at County and National
levels involved in the three prioritized value chains.
1.3 REVIEW OF CNA PROCESS AND LITERATURE ON PREVIOUSLY DONE CNA
The main activity clusters in the CNA process were:-
1. Preparations
2. Data Collection
3. Data Analysis and Report writing
4. Validation
5. Printing of Reports
6. Dissemination
The CNA process was carried out in two phases that is 16th April – 30th June 2014(Phase I) and
16th October 2014 to 12th February 2015 (Phase II). Phase I was mainly about preparation and first
part of the data collection while phase II consisted of data collection, data entry, cleaning, analysis
and report writing. It also included Stakeholders Validation, final report writing and printing of the
reports after which they were disseminated to NPS.
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
4
1.3.1 CNA Process Phase 1
The CNA activities carried out in this phase were as indicated herein:-
Table 2: CNA activities 16th April – 30th June 2014
Date Activity Objectives
16th April 2014
CNA preparation meeting that was held at the CCU office with ICD TWG and CC
a) Reviewing the proposal budget
b) Plan CNA activities for 17th -27th June 2014 at KARI Mtwapa.
c) Get feedback on the Data Entry tool.
30th April 2014
Introduction of CNA team to CSC members
a) Introduction of CNA team to CSC members b) Brief CSC members of the CNA Process
17th– 21st June 2014.
CNA TWG Study planning, preparation and literature review workshop
a) Discuss CNA Process Guidelines and the CNA Process Cluster 1.
b) Identify and come up with the list of Interviewees along the County’s VCs for the KII and FGDs.
c) Notify all the listed interviewees on the interview dates, time and venues and book KII interview appointments.
d) Define the schedule of activities in the first two clusters and assign tasks to members- for interview exercise.
e) Plan the stakeholders CNA sensitization workshop, identify and invite the participants.
f) Start the Literature Review & Background information analysis for the CNA County report.
23rd June 2014
CNA sensitization workshop for VC stakeholders held at the Kenya School of Government, Mombasa
a) Sensitize stakeholders on the CNA process.
b)Inform stakeholders of the CNA dates, venues, time and the selected VC actors, for KII and FGDs.
24th – 26th June 2014
Data collection (FGDs) a) Collect data through FGDs in the county from 24th – 26th June 2014
27th June 2014
Mtwapa wrap up & FGDs/KIIs planning meeting for the team
a) Discuss the FGDs activities carried out on 24th – 26th June 2014.
b) Discuss and finalize plans for key informant interviews on 28th – 30th June 2014 by the ICD TWG team.
28th -29th June 2014
KII administration by team members
To administer KII tool to selected groups/ Organizations and Institutions in the county
30th June 2014
Wrap up meeting for the team To compile the activities report
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
5
1.3.2 Focused Group Discussions
The FGDs targeted 10 people per group of respondents aligned to VCs in the County (amaranthus
leaves, indigenous chicken and mixed fish).
Mobilization of respondents drawn from the sub-counties was done by Agricultural extension
officers in liaison with the ICD TWG members. Some of the participants were retired civil servants
engaged in farming.
The groups that participated in the FGDs were as listed in the table below.
Table 3: FGDs Respondents
NO AMARANTHUS LEAVES VC INDIGENOUS CHICKEN VC
MIXED FISH VC
1 Miritini Farmers producers Young mothers Bamburi fish market vendors
2 Jitoni farmers group Youth Bunge Soko mjinga
3 Changamwe visions self-help group
Chaani community unity Pirates BMU
4 Dept. of Agric Farmers Old town BMU
5 Ganahola women group Jitegemee self-help group Sauti ya mkulima
6 Jitahidi self-help group Village elders Kitanga juu BMU
7 Tunaweza women with disability Muungano wa wana vijiji Mtongwe fish vendors (mama samaki)
8 Kisauni farmers forum
9 Kiembeni Farmers
10 Shanzu Farmers
11 Kamba poultry
ICD TWG team held CNA Focus Group Discussions on 24th to 26th June 2014. The ICD TWG paired
to cover one FGD per day for three days:-
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
6
Table 4: CNA Focus Group Discussions Schedule
TEAM NAME 24th June 2014 25th June 2014 26th June 2014
Tononoka hall
Mombasa
Sub-county
Licodep Shelly
Likoni Sub-
county
Frere Town
hall Kisauni
Sub-county
Licodep -
Likoni Sub-
county
Chaani
social hall
Changamw
e Sub-
county
1 Dr. L. Kosambo
Stephen Nteere
2 Swaleh Sheikh
Barasa Mang’eni
3 ICDO and M&E0 Supervised the discussions across the sub-counties in sessions.
1.3.3 CNA Process Phase II
The ICD team carried out the CNA process II activities as stipulated in the table below.
Table 5: CNA activities 16th October 2014 to 12th February 2015
Date Activity Objectives
16th Oct 2014 CNA II preparation meeting held at
the CCU office with ICD TWG and CC
a)Reviewing the CNA II budget
30th Oct 2014 CNA preparation meeting with
Extension staff
1. Reviewing the final list of the Interviewees.
2. Identify areas to find the interviewees.
3rd Nov. 2014 CNA II final preparation meeting held
at the CCU office with ICD TWG
Finalize preparations for CNA individual and KII
interviews
5th -21st Nov
2014
Administration of CNA tools
(Individual and KII questionnaires)
a) To administer 90 Individual questionnaires
b) To administer 12 KII questionnaires
24th-28th Nov
2014
Data entry and cleaning To Enter and do cleaning of data (individual , KII
& FGD questionnaires)
1st -5th Dec
2014
Data Analysis and report writing To do Data summaries (charts, graphs, tables,
comments; Draft Report
28thJan 2015 CNA Validation Workshop
preparation meeting
To plan for CNA Validation Workshop
29thJan 2015 CNA Validation Workshop Stakeholders to Validate the CNA report by ICD
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
7
Team
12th Feb 2015 Final report writing To develop the final report for submission to NPS
No similar CNA process had been done previously in the county hence justifying the need for the
process under ASDSP.
1.5 STRATEGIC DIMENSIONS FOR CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT
There are three Dimensions for Capacity assessment as follows;
Enabling environment for ASDSP activities and its partnering entities
This encompasses assessment of external influences as regards the legal context, policy,
clear rules and regulations, and interaction with other organizations within the
agricultural sector.
Organizational set-up for food security and value chain related activities
This recognizes the assessment of the vision, objective, mandate, structure, vitality,
leadership and management of organizations within the agricultural sector.
Individual
This entails assessment on education, knowledge, skills, Competencies and experience of
individuals within the agricultural sector.
2 CNA Methodology
The CNA team identified the respondents during the CNA training at Mtwapa in April 2014,
through stakeholder analysis and power matrix while basing the selection on the three value
chains for the county (Amaranthus leaves, Indigenous chicken and Mixed Fish).
The extension officers were involved in the selection of respondents for the FGDs and Individual
interviews. The respondents included the organizations, institutions and individual key actors in
the selected value chains in Mombasa County.
The CNA team used a methodology based on gap analysis, which involved identification of gaps
between the desired and actual capacities of respondents with reference to the ASDSP
intervention areas (Sector- wide coordination, NRM/SI and VCD).
THE DESIRED CAPACITY (where do they want to be)
THE CAPACITY GAP (Areas of intervention)
THE ACTUAL CAPACITY (where they are currently)
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
8
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
9
2.1 WHO DID WHAT?
The CNA process was undertaken by the ICD technical working group comprising five members
listed herein:-
1. Kamuli Beatrice ASDSP (ICDO)
2. Dr. Linus Kosambo KIRDI
3. Mr. Swaleh Sheikh LIVESTOCK DEPARTMENT
4. Mr. Stephen Nteere YES YOUTH CAN, COAST
5. Mr. Barasa Mang’eni TUCONET CBO
The whole process was team work-led in planning, data collection, data entry, cleaning, data
analysis, stakeholder validation and report writing.
As part of the Private Public Partnership, Yes Youth Can Coast office provided transport (vehicle
and driver) for the CNA process II from 5th to 21st November 2014. The same office also hired
transport for the team that picked them at strategic agreed places to the field.
The County Director provided a vehicle for the exercise during training of ICD TWG team; data
entry and analysis both done at KARI, Mtwapa.
Extension officers from the sub counties assisted in identification, selection and invitation of the
respondents, identification of the venues and coordination of activities between the ICD TWG and
respondents.
ASDSP CCU provided logistical support through facilitation, transport, equipment (Desk top,
projector, printer and laptop) and stationery. Unconditional support from the County Coordinator
and the CCU members was readily available throughout the whole process.
ICD TWG members voluntarily used their individual laptops, cameras. The members worked for
extra days using their own vehicles and facilitation especially when attending several rescheduled
KII meetings.
2.2 HOW IT WAS DONE
Individuals, Organizations and Value Chain Actors’ capacities and their understanding of ASDSP
were assessed in the following way:
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
10
2.2.1 Data Collection
The respondents identified through stakeholder analysis and power matrix, included
organizations, institutions and individual key actors in the selected value chains in Mombasa
County.
Using structured questionnaires prepared by the ASDSP National office, the team collected data/
information from selected respondents by administering the questionnaires at three levels:-
i) Individual context
ii) Organizational dimension
iii) Enabling environment dimension
2.2.2 Data Entry and cleaning
Data collected from the field was entered in CNA data analysis excel sheets prepared by the team
members. Data cleaning was done to ensure all entries were done correctly and no information
was left out.
2.2.3 Data Analysis
The collected information was analyzed and synthesized. Respondents’ capacity levels were
assessed on the basis of the components and the sub-counties needs analysis to establish the
actual and desired capacities while establishing the capacity gaps using various variables as agreed
upon by the CNA team.
(i) Capacity Levels
Capacity levels were identified on the basis of existing gaps between actual and desired capacities.
(ii) Making conclusions and giving recommendations
The CNA team prepared a draft Capacity needs assessment report presented it to stakeholders in
a validation workshop before preparing the final CNA report to be submitted to the NPS.
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
11
2.2.4 Target institutions
Table 6: Institutions and Interviewees
S/No Institution Person Interviewed Post Held
1
Dept of Agric, Livestock and Fisheries Jonathan Sulubu;
County director of
Agriculture; Acting
Chief officer DALF
2 Department of Agriculture, Livestock
and Fisheries – Livestock Mary S. Mwabaya;
County Director of
Livestock
3 Kongowea Market Central
Committee Traders Association Peter Nyaga -
Secretary (Chairman
Nyumba Kumi)
4 Kenya Agriculture and Livestock
Research organization (KALRO) M. N Njunie; Centre Director
5 KENCHIC LTD
Dr. Hassan Ali
Mohammed Regional Manager
6 kuku kienyeji shanzu group Rosemary Gitau Founder member
7
Fisheries Collins Ndoro;
County Director of
fisheries
8 TULIZZA CBO Sophie Mwakazi; Chairperson
9 Directorate of veterinary services-
sub-department of livestock Dr. David K. Kehara;
County director
veterinary services
10 Maimun Fishing Tackles Rashida Murtaza; Director
11 KIRDI Dr. Linus Kosambo Ag. Center Director
12
KEMFRI Patrick Gwada
Centre director
Mombasa
13 EPC Sarah Mwandawiro Director
2.2.5 Tools used to collect data/information
The CNA team used the following three data collection tools developed based on the three
dimensions:
• Individual questionnaire
• Key informant interview (KII) questionnaire
• Focus Group Discussion (FGD) questionnaire.
In order to generate information on stakeholders necessary for program implementation, the ICD
TWG had earlier identified the respondents through SWOT Analysis, Stakeholder power / influence
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
12
and Power Interest Matrix. The extension officers from the sub counties assisted in the final
selection of the respondents identified.
3 Capacity Needs Assessment Outcomes
3.1 ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
The issues in Enabling Environment involved:
• Policy and legal frameworks
• Economic frameworks and budgets to the sector
• Commitment to policy and accountability mechanisms, and
• Governance issues and power structure.
3.1.1 Amaranthus Leaves Value Chain
(i) Main Highlights
DATE: 24TH & 25TH JUNE 2014
VENUE: WESLEY METHODIST HALL-TONONOKA & LIKODEP HALL-LIKONI
Table AMARANTHUS LEAVES VALUE
Table 7: Summary OF Outcomes: Amaranthus Leaves Value Chain
AREA FINDINGS CHALLENGES
a) The policy,
legal frameworks
and Socio - Cultural
influences.
The groups could not identify
and did not know when the
laws were either formulated
or last reviewed.
While there is inadequate
involvement of vulnerable
groups such as women and
disabled during policy
formulation and enactment
of laws, The groups
recognized Njaa Marufuku
and Constituency Aids
Control Council (CACC)
grants as avenues through
which vulnerable groups had
been assisted.
Poor land tenure system
(squatter problem)
Water pollution by sewage
and industrial wastes
Availability of Certified seed
from Ministry of Agriculture
is not consistent.
Marketing.
Value addition- No skills in
preservation
No engagement from County
Government
Irrigation services are lacking
Fertilizers not available
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
13
The belief in old agricultural
cultural practices is still a
hindrance among
communities in achieving
high yields.
Both physically and visually
impaired persons are
disadvantaged in agriculture.
Price fluctuations of the
product
Transportation problem
The business is perceived to
be for Asians who are not
willing to share their seed
with local farmers
Youth do not perceive
amaranthus farming as an
income generating activity
Stigmatization
White amaranthus not
readily marketable as the red
variety
Poor infrastructure
Assistance to buy tractor
from National government
not forthcoming
b)
Commitment and
accountability.
The group had very little
knowledge on how to
hold both county and
national governments
responsible and
accountable to existing
resources with relation
to agriculture.
FADCs were identified as platforms of
ensuring commitment and accountability
during implementation of agriculture
related policies, Laws, strategies and
programs
c) Budget
allocation for
agriculture sector
activities;
Inadequate Political good
will is seen to have an
effect to funds allocated
for agricultural sector
development in
Mombasa County .
Very few members of the
group had the
knowledge on Available
budgetary allocations at
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
14
county and national
levels.
Njaa marufuku and
Constituency Aids
Control Council (CACC)
grants, KWFT, Equity
Bank loans were
identified as regular
financial sources .
The groups identified;
World vision, Action Aid,
USAID, Aphia plus as
organizations offering
help.
The groups had poor
record keeping habits
and inadequate capacity
to monitor expenditures.
d) Governance and
power relations
The groups had very little
influence in
establishment of
institutions in the sector,
funding, service
provision, accountability
and equitable
distribution of resources
due to inadequate
knowledge and capacity
to do so.
(ii) RECOMMENDATIONS
Develop strategies to dignity or elevate farming
More funding for seeds and equipment
Have consistency in supply of seed to farmers
3.1.2 Indigenous Chicken Value Chain
25TH & 26TH JUNE 2014
VENUE: FREERE TOWN HALL, METHODIST HALL-TONONOKA and CHAANI CHIEFS HALL.
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
15
(i) Main Outcomes
Table 8: Summary of Outcomes - Indigenous Value Chain
INDEGINOUS CHICKEN VALUE CHAIN
AREA FINDINGS CHALLENGES
a) The policy,
legal frameworks
and Socio - Cultural
influences.
• The groups identified by-laws on
urban poultry farming, NEMA laws
on waste disposal, veterinary act
and public health laws on food
handling and transportation. But
could not know when the laws
were either formulated or last
reviewed.
• There is inadequate involvement
of vulnerable groups such as
women and disabled during policy
formulation and enactment of
laws. The groups however
recognized Njaa Marufuku and
Constituency Aids Control Council
(CACC) grants as avenues through
which vulnerable groups had been
assisted.
• The belief in old agricultural
cultural practices is still a
hindrance among communities in
achieving high yields.
• Both physically and visually
impaired persons are
disadvantaged in agriculture
• Disease attacks for bird’s not
vaccinated / poor vaccination
procedures.
• High cost of drugs and
commercial feeds.
• Ineffective drugs and
vaccines;(counterfeits/expire
d)
• Predator attacks
• Insecurity: high incidents of
theft.
• Poor access to the seed
(chicks) due to the long
waiting list of seed from
reputable sources.
• Inadequate knowledge and
skill of husbandry
• Restrictions from existing
county bylaws.
• High cost charges from public
health. (handling fees-ksh10
per bird)
• Restrictions from landlords.
• Inadequate awareness on the
availability of feeds (formula)
for indigenous chicken.
• Inadequate finances
b) Commitment
and accountability.
Participants had little
knowledge on how to hold
both county and national
governments as well as
private and public
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
16
institutions responsible
and accountable for
available agricultural
sector development
resources.
Financial assistance from
the national government
through Njaa marufuku
grants initiative was
identified.
Technical assistance by
agricultural officers
through Field days,
demonstrations, ASK
shows, world food days
and agricultural exhibitions
were recognized.
Focal Area Development
Committees (FADCS) and
farmers groups were
recognized as platforms of
ensuring commitment and
accountability during
implementation of
government programs,
policies, strategies and
laws.
c) Budget
allocation for
agriculture sector
activities;
Inadequate Political good
will is seen to have an
effect to funds allocated
for agricultural sector
development in Mombasa
County.
Very few members of the
group had the knowledge
on Available budgetary
allocations at county and
national levels.
Njaa marufuku and
Constituency Aids Control
Council (CACC) grants,
KWFT, Equity Bank loans
were identified as regular
financial sources.
The groups identified;
World vision, Action Aid,
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
17
USAID, Aphia plus as
organizations offering
help.
The groups had poor
record keeping habits and
inadequate capacity to
monitor expenditures.
d) Governance
and power
relations
The groups had very little
influence in establishment
of institutions in the
sector, determination of
funding, evaluation of
services provided and
checks on accountability of
responsible authorities
due to inadequate
knowledge and capacity to
do so.
(ii) RECOMMENDATIONS
Enforcement of existing laws on security.
Increased training of farmers on good husbandry practices
Provision of low interest loans to farmers by banks, county and National government.
Increased surveillance and enforcement on counterfeit poultry drugs/vaccines/feeds
3.1.3 Mixed Fish Value Chain
VENUE: LICODEP HALL- LIKONI and METHODIST HALL-TONONOKA
DATE:24TH&26THJUNE2014
(i) Main Outcomes
Table 9: Summary of Outcomes - Mixed Fish Value Chain
AREA FINDINGS CHALLENGES
a) The policy,
legal frameworks
and Socio - Cultural
influences.
The groups had inadequate
knowledge on the existing
policies, legal framework and
laws due to lack of
involvement during
formulation of fish related
laws and policies. Kenya
Fisheries Dept, Kenya
Inadequate awareness on
existing fish related laws,
policies and regulations.(only
made aware when they
break the law and are taken
to court).
Lack of proper fishing
accessories to warrant deep
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
18
Maritime Authority (KMA),
County Government and
public health laws, policies
and regulations were
identified by participants
(licensing, restricted fishing
grounds and recommended
fishing gears)
There is inadequate
consideration of vulnerable
groups such as women and
disabled during policy
formulation and enactment
of laws.
The belief in old agricultural
cultural practices is still a
hindrance among
communities in achieving
high yields.
Both physically and visually
impaired persons are
disadvantaged in agriculture
sea fishing for high yields.
Too many
licenses/levies/fees and
requirements by relevant
authorities/agencies.
Lack of laws/policies that
protect the most vulnerable
in the sector (visually and
physically handicapped).
Women vendors being the
majority, are challenged with
unfair practices from male
fishermen (sexual
exploitation/harassment)
especially when the catch is
low.
Fishing is dominated by old
men. The youth lacking
interest in the sector.
Negative attitude of women
towards sea fishing. Men
predominant in fishing
activities.
Inadequate storage facilities
(cold rooms).
Conflicts between the fisher-
folk and other institutions
e.g. Kenya Navy and KPA.
b)
Commitment and
accountability.
The group had very little
knowledge on how to
hold both county and
national governments
responsible and
accountable to existing
resources with relation
to agriculture.
Beach Management
Units (BMUs) were
recognized as only
platforms of ensuring
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
19
commitment and
accountability during
implementation of fish
related policies, Laws,
strategies and programs.
c) Budget
allocation for
agriculture sector
activities;
Groups had little
knowledge on Available
budgetary allocations at
county and national
levels.
Njaa marufuku and CACC
grants were identified as
sources of funding .
Loans from Rafiki micro
finance, KWFT, Aphia
plus and Equity bank.
The group had poor record keeping
habits and inadequate capacity to
monitor and evaluate funds.
d)
Governanc
e and power
relations
The group had very little
influence in
establishment of
institutions in the sector,
funding, service
provision, accountability
and equitable
distribution of resources
due to inadequate
knowledge and capacity
to do so.
(ii) RECOMMENDATIONS
Enforcement of existing laws on security.
More training of fishermen on proper fishing practices and vendors on good business
practices.
Provision of low interest loans to farmers by financial institutions,
Increase grants from county and National governments.
Increased surveillance and enforcement on counterfeit fishing accessories.
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
20
3.2 ORGANIZATIONAL
Organizational assessment evaluates the level of organizational performance. An assessment of
this type will determine the skills, knowledge, and ability needs of an agency. It also identifies
what is required to alleviate the problems and weaknesses of the agency as well as to enhance
strengths and competencies. Organizational assessment takes into consideration factors such as
changing demographics, political trends, technology, and the economy
Capacity Needs assessment at organizational level used the KII Interviewing questionnaires.
Interviewees were selected mainly from the groups/Institutions and organization working with
ASDSP, Mombasa County. The selection was done during the ICD-TWG CNA training, through
SWOT Analysis. The Groups/organizations/institutions included:-
1. Department of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries-(Agriculture)
2. Department of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries – (Livestock)
3. Department of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries – (Fisheries)
4. Kongowea Market Central Committee Traders Association
5. Kenya Agriculture and Livestock Research organization (KALRO)
6. KENCHIC LTD
7. Kuku Kienyeji Shanzu group
8. TULIZZA CBO
9. County director veterinary services
10. Maimun Fishing Tackles
11. KIRDI
12. KMFRI
13. EPC
Figure 2 1: Gender representation
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
21
The gender representation was as indicated in the table above. Of the 13 interviewed, 8 were
male and 5 were female. This means 61.54% and 38.46% representation of male and female
respectively in selected groups/Institutions and organization working with ASDSP, Mombasa
County.
3.2.1 Main Activities of the Groups/organizations/institutions
The activities of the interviewed Groups/organizations/institutions were as listed below:-
Agri-business activities
Agriculture Mechanization services e.g. irrigation, soil and water conservation
Animal disease control & Animal health extension
Aqua culture development
Bargaining power
Community awareness; HIV/Health, Public health
Contribute to policy formulation and advocacy
Develop pond nets and liners
Feeding program for OVC's
Fish quality control and value addition
Fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance in the county
Formulate services policies on livestock
Garbage collection, repairs, market rates
High quality seed production
Incubation of eggs services through' artificial incubator
Oversee county government activities/services e.g. lighting, security (against pick
pocketing)
Promote appropriate livestock technologies to farmers
Provide advisories to fishermen
Provision of agricultural extension services
Provision of Livestock extension services
Rearing of indigenous poultry
Research in aquatic waters-natural and social science research
Research on Food crops, Livestock, horticulture and industrial crops, Natural
resource management
Sale of Day old chicks
Reverse engineering and equipment fabrication
Safeguard human health
Sale of fertilized eggs
Sale of fishing gear and farm tools
sale of poultry equipment
Solid waste management
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
22
Technical back up(Lab with lesser machine)
Technology and business incubation
Technology transfer
Water quality and pollution control in aquatic environment
3.2.2 Organization involvement in the development of ASDS
The analysis showed that the organizations were involved in many ways in the development of
ASDS: - Through:
Contributing ideas in future direction of Agriculture sector;
Drafting of proposal;
Extension.
Identification of fisheries stakeholders;
Identification of viable projects for fish VC in ASDSP and Phasing out NALEP.
Knowledge management;
Pair with stakeholders e.g. millers;
Partnerships;
Representation in meetings & at headquarters level;;
Research and Gumboro vaccine,
Visit farmers on site;
Kongowea Market Central Committee, Traders Association and Tuliza CBO were not
involved in any way.
Activities that the organizations were involved in related to achieving aspirations of ASDS were:-
carry out survey, extension of livestock improvement services
Development of Agricultural sector policy
Fish VC upgrading strategies
Identification of value chains, mobilization of value chain actors;
Knowledge management
Knowledge management e.g., market data and analysis
Linkages in PPP (Partnership with other departments && organizations)
Livestock data base development
Mombasa county steering committee in implementation of ASDSP
Mombasa county steering committee in implementation of ASDSP
Research, partnership, technologies generation and dissemination
Youth and social services
3.2.3 Stipulation of organization’s mandate to involve in ASDS pillars
The ASDS pillars are six, that is:-
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
23
Increased productivity and commercialization
Promote private sector participation,
Promote sustainable land and natural resource management
Improve agriculture services,
Increase market access, competitiveness and trade
Promote effective coordination and implementation in agriculture sector.
The analysis sort to understand the Pillars that the selected organizations mandate stipulate its
involvement.
The Figure above indicates the following:-
Organization’s whose mandate clearly stipulate involvement in ASDS six Pillars are
Department of Livestock, Kongowea Market Central Committee Traders Association,
KENCHIC LTD, Kuku Kienyeji Shanzu group, Fisheries department, Directorate of veterinary
services, KEMFRI and EPC.
Department of Agriculture, Kenya Agriculture and Livestock Research organization (KALRO)
and TULIZZA CBO indicated that their mandates do not clearly specify involvement in
promoting effective coordination and implementation in agriculture sector; while
Maimun Fishing Tackles mandate does not demand involvement in Promoting sustainable
land and natural resource management; improving agriculture services and Increasing
market access, competitiveness and trade.
KIRDI mandate requires involvement in Promoting private sector participation and
Promoting effective coordination and implementation in agriculture sector only.
Figure 2 2: Organizations mandate and involvement of ASDSP
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
24
(ii) Mandate to collect information
The data indicated that department/unit mandated to collect information on the selected
organization’s work in relation to the above mentioned pillars of ASDS were as follows:-
Animal Production Section
Communications and relations department
Fisheries statistics
No specific unit but information collected through field extension officers, reports, meetings, workshops
No. each staff is mandated
Outreach and partnership;
Research and technology
The office bearers-committee members especially the executive
Use sub-county officers for information collection
The Secretary
(iii) Information Management
How does your organization manage information?
2.5.1 A collection system is in place in all the selected groups/ institutions and organizations.
Information is mainly collected through:-
(iv) Information Storage
2.5.2 How is it stored (probe the type of storage)
The analysis indicates that the types of data storage include:-
Computer, Laptops,
Monthly and annual basis
Hard copies, Soft copies
Computer external hard disks; flash disks
CDs
o collect and send data to Nairobi every month; a data analyst in
Nairobi
o Daily basis on market days
o Monthly meetings
o Database on animal health
o Field officers at sub-county level
o Field visits, observations
o The chairperson, then secretary and finally the members.
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
25
Files
No soft copy but Keep hard copies with secretary
on computers and backed by a server
Soft copies, System of disease surveillance and reporting
Written(hardcopy):; soft copy in staff computers, laptops, smartphones
Written(hardcopy):; soft copy in staff computers, laptops, smartphones
(v) Information Retrieval
2.5.3 Is there a method of retrieval (probe on how access is managed)
chairperson directs sec to avail the copies
Data bank(server)
Data Centre
Hard copies in store and library
Internet
Officer in charge of retrieval
Through filing system
Written information is in files; soft copies from computer
(vi) Information Dissemination
2.5.4 Information Dissemination (website, newsletter, brochure, radio, TV etc.)
Dissemination methods enlisted include:-
Annual reports
Brochures, Radio, News letters
Departmental head stores information (soft), Brochures
no website
Personal emails, Agriculture marketing website
Radio talk shows, field days, brochures, shows e.g. Mombasa show
Radio talk shows, field days, brochures, shows e.g. Mombasa show
The information and documentation services; publish; has library services; data
center; website; newsletter; brochures
Through meetings and SMS's
Through trainings, Brochures, Booklets
3.2.4 Relationship with ASDSP
ASDSP works with many actors. With some of these, ASDSP has entered into a formal
agreement, a PARTNERSHIP (MoU, MoA or other contract), with others ASDSP COLLABORATES
without formal agreement.
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
26
(i) ASDSP Partners
The chart below shows the groups/ institutions and organizations relationship with ASDSP.
The diagram indicates that of the interviewed Key Informants from targeted groups ,
institutions/organizations, 8 were Partners while 5 were Collaborators.
This gives an indication that the Partners are about 38.46% and Collaborators are 61.54%.
(ii) What the partnership entails
As members of CSC play custodian role of ASDSP activities in the County.
Farmers mobilization, Technological transfer
Baseline survey; participate in stakeholder for a
(iii) Partnership Benefits
Organizations benefit from the partnership arrangements
ASDSP promotes skills in writing and development of concept notes and proposals;
Value chain identification;
M & E capacity building
Bring stakeholders together; forum for information exchange
Interest in entering into a partnership with ASDSP
The Collaborators all indicated an interest in entering into a partnership with ASDSP
(iv) Areas of interest as partners
Amaranthus Value Chain; Market information and analysis
Capacity building of staff and fisheries stakeholder
Knowledge management and Partnerships or networking
Figure 2 3: Interviewed Key Informants
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
27
Research and knowledge management
Research on better breeds, Value addition, Training and capacity building for farmers
3.2.5 Collaboration with ASDSP
The study revealed that all the organizations were collaborating with ASDSP in one way or
another. Collaboration indicated by the survey included:-
Members of CSC who play a custodian role of ASDSP activities in the County.
Community mobilization
Awareness for new technologies
Data collection and analysis
Proposal vetting, monitoring and evaluation
Identification of fisheries stakeholders, Identification of fish VC, Identified capture fish VC
with ASDSP, Upgrading capture fish VC
Workshops and Seminars
Knowledge management and partnership
Market information and analysis;
Amaranthus Value Chain - Member (Treasurer)
Participating in implementation
Promotion of local poultry
(i) Relationships with other stakeholders in ASDSP
County government
Department of livestock
KALRO (research) e.g. when in need to certified seeds;
NGOs and CBOs in marketing, community mobilization, group formation and
registration
Private sector(businesses)
Public health
Slaughter house owners/outlets
Social and gender dept.
Veterinary investigation laboratories & Pharmaceutical companies
(ii) Types of relationships with other stakeholders are:-
Collaboration for synergies in community programs especially mobilization
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
28
County government coordinate market traders; Better services from county
governments; Traders - represents them on market
Administration/Security concerns; Agriculture Dept - market data
Meteorological department; weather forecasts,
Co-operative department; Organize fishermen into co-operatives,
KMA; sea safety
Offer training; research output exchange (collaboration)
Partnership/collaboration in enhancing technology adoption and commercialization
of agricultural sector working relationship e.g. advice, information networking and
technical advice
Market associations
3.2.6 Capacities of the Organizations to Engage in the Management of ASDSP Operations.
These capacities relate to strategic and organizational functions of the organization and include
coordination, conducting studies and research, information management, engaging in
partnerships and undertaking monitoring and evaluation in relation to ASDSP.
(i) Sector Coordination
Functional relationship with ASDSP (e.g. governance, management, technical)
Cooperation from groups and , technical, Management and governance from ASDSP
Governance, Public awareness
Management of ASDSP within the county
Technical : Poultry (indigenous)
Technical input: Animal health, Safeguarding public health, Poultry disease control, Control
of slaughter houses
(ii) Functional Relationships Activities
Activities that define the functional relationships (e.g. M&E, policy dissemination, co-ordination)
Approve annual work-plan and budget of ASDSP i.e. being members of CSC; Monitoring
and evaluation
Approve annual work-plan and budget of ASDSP i.e. being members of CSC; Monitoring
and evaluation
Co ordination
Farm visits and technical support
M& E
Participation in county steering committee and value chains platform meetings
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
29
Policy dissemination; national oceans and fisheries policy, fisheries Act Cap. 378
Technology transfer/dissemination
Training on fish farming,
(iii) Coordination mandate
Organization co-ordination mandate in regard to functional relationships
The collaboration mandate is in the following areas.
Coordinating with traders, transporters, county government, Agric. Dept.
Information sharing.
Leads poultry development in the county
mandate has been taken to the lower eastern and coast regions
(iv) Channels of Communication
Channel (pathways and means) of communication organizations
a) ASDSP
Emails, Phone calls, SMS, Meetings, Seminars
Announcement at meetings; printed reports; notices from meetings; mobile phones
Member of value chain platform
Exhibitions
Official letters
Personal contacts. Periodic, quarterly, half yearly, annually reports.
Figure 2 4: Coordination Mandate
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
30
Website
workshops for stakeholders
b) Other stakeholders
Barazas, posters, telephone, institutions (churches & schools)
E-mails, Letters, Text messages
Phone calls, SMS, Meetings, Seminars
Annual exhibitions; announcements at meetings; shows.
(v) Effectiveness of Channels of Communication
Effectiveness of the channel mentioned above
A combination of channels offers the most effective communication
Email more effective than telephone/sms but generally very effective when combined
Phone calls, SMS’s and Meeting are most effective.
When used alone, Email is the least effective because of accessibility and cost of internet
3.2.7 Sector studies and research
(i) Organizations Involvement
Organizations involvement in ASDS related studies and research
The analysis recorded that the organizations are involved through:-
Baseline survey
Development of breeds
Development of identified VC's
Participate actively (filling questionnaires); validation
Figure 2 5: Organizations Involvement
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
31
Participating in CNA
(iii) Knowledge sharing
Organizations share knowledge with other knowledge generators through:-
Emails, Phone calls, SMS, Meetings, Seminars
Phone calls and workshops
Publication; project report to ASDSP
Quarterly, Annual reports
Annual fisheries bulletin
provide data to stakeholders e.g., Agric. Department
Outreaches
On demand
(iv) Sources of Agriculture Sector information
a) Main source of organizations information/data pertaining to the agriculture sector
Data collection; technology generation; literature review
Fisher folk; (fishermen and fish traders)
Internal correspondence among staff members and stakeholders (memos. Letters Reports)
Brochures, Reports, Documentaries
Internet services (Wi-Fi)
Director of veterinary services (custodian of disease reporting) world animal health
organization
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics
Phone calls, emails, workshops
Farmers e-networks e.g. www.aviagen.com, worldpoultry.net, hedrix-genetics.com
Research stations; Agricultural information and resource center in Nairobi;
Trainings, seminars, workshops; educate members
(v) Networks of Information Exchange
Networks for information exchange on various themes of the ASDSP organization involvement
County coordinating unit (CCU)
Formative process
KALRO
Poultry farmers groups (Internet)
Ministry of Agriculture, livestock and fisheries;
Poultry value chain platform
VC platforms and VCCG meetings
CSC meetings
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
32
3.2.8 Monitoring and Evaluation
(i) M&E in Organizations
Organizations involvement in carrying out M&E activities
Figure 2 6: Organizations involvement in M&E
Back to office ; quarterly technical reports
Monitor criteria of joining the group, ability to do poultry keeping and performance of
poultry.
Field visits, reports during CSC meetings
Fisheries monitoring team(National), BMU monitoring
Technical officers carry at county M&E
Trainer in M&E
(ii) M&E information Sharing
How is the information developed from these monitoring activities shared?
Reports
Seminar dissemination
Through personal and group interaction
Association meetings
Documentations
Shared with Nairobi office (HQs) only. Others must request
During group meetings (Quarterly), AGM meeting.
M&E reports
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
33
M&E meetings every 6 months ;(mid-year review).
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
34
3.3 OUTCOME - INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES OF STAKEHOLDERS
Capacity needs assessment (CNA) study was done on a sample of ASDSP stakeholders from
Mombasa County. The sample represented a cross section of stakeholders from three value
chains selected for development by the ASDSP intervention. These were: fish, indigenous chicken
and leafy amaranthus value chains. Sampling was also designed to include stakeholders from the
four sub-counties of Mombasa: Changamwe, Kisauni Likoni and Mombasa.
Stakeholders from national and regional organizations offering services in all the four sub-counties
were also included. To carry out the CNA of individual stakeholders from Mombasa, a structured
individual questionnaire was used. The questionnaire was designed to cover the three
components of ASDSP: Sector-wide Coordination (SWC), Natural Resources Management and
Social Inclusion (NMR SI) and Value Chain Development (VCD).
The collected data was analyzed to establish the actual capacity levels and gaps of Mombasa
County stakeholders in specific capacity areas and issues. The capacity needs assessment was
done to reflect the effect of a number of variables such as location, gender and organization.
Under location, the data analysis aggregated the stakeholders according to their location of
operation; Mombasa, Changamwe, Kasauni, Likoni, Mombasa and Regional (for stakeholders with
national or regional mandates). The capacity of the stakeholders was also analyzed in relation to
their organization of origin. These organizations were categorized as: Government Institutions,
Private Entrepreneurs, Producer Groups, Community Groups and NGOs & Development Agencies.
Five capacity levels were set in this investigation. These were, no capacity (1), little capacity (2),
good capacity (3), very good capacity (4) and excellent capacity (5). Actual and desired capacities
were determined during the interview and used to compute the capacity gap. A threshold
capacity of 3 was set for the assessment.
3.3.1 Summary of Capacity of Mombasa ASDSP Stakeholders
The CNA of the ASDSP stakeholders from Mombasa established that the highest capacity gap
existed in the value chain development (VCD) component of the ASDSP program. The capacity
level in VCD component did not meet the threshold of 3 (good capacity) set for the assessment.
On average, the stakeholders had little capacity (2) on capacity issues in the VCD component. On
the other hand, Mombasa County stakeholders had an average of good capacity (3) in SWC and
NRM & SI components.
The study also established that the stakeholders interviewed expressed a desire to attain very
good capacity in all the ASDSP components (Figure 3.1). The CNA established that 47%, 50% and
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
35
61% of the stakeholders had little or no capacity in SWC, NRM & SI and VCD components,
respectively (Figure 3.2).
This demonstrated that stakeholders from Mombasa had better capacity in SWC than VCD. It was
therefore concluded that more focus on capacity building should be placed in the VCD component.
It was also found that, 85% 81% and 85% of the stakeholders expressed a desire to be at least very
good (4) in SWC, VCD and NRM & SI, respectively (Figure 3.2).
15
0
14
0
20
1
32
1
36
0
41
1
34
14
36
14
29
19
15
34
9
36
8
34
4
51
5
49
3
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity
Sector Wide Coordination NRM and Social Inclusion Value Chain Development
Ave
rage
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs (
%)
No Capacity Little Capacity Good Capacity Very Good Capacity Excellent Capacity
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
Sector Wide Coordination NRM and Social Inclusion Value Chain Development
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rsSummary Capacities
Figure 3 1: Average capacities of stakeholders in ASDS components: SWC, NRM & SI and VCD
Figure 3 2: Average percentage of stakeholders with various capacities in ASDSP components
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
36
3.2.2 Overview of Sector Wide Coordination Component
Six capacity areas within the SWC component were selected for the CNA. These were:
1. Coordination
2. Partnership and Networking
3. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E).
4. Policy
5. Intrinsic Values
6. Integrity and Equity.
The CNA established that 47% of the stakeholders interviewed had no or little capacity in SWC
issues as compared to only 19% who had very good or excellent capacities (Figure 3.2). However
the desire to attain good or excellent capacity was high. This was noted in the high percentage of
stakeholders (85%) who expressed the desire be excellent. Further analysis of the SWC
component and its capacity areas revealed that the highest capacity gaps existed in capacity areas
of policy, M&E, partnership & networking, and coordination where 74%, 56%, 52%, 51%
respectively, of Mombasa stakeholders had little or no capacity. In comparison, an average of 15%
and 30% Mombasa County stakeholders had little or no capacity in areas touching on intrinsic
value and integrity & equity, respectively (Figure 3.3).
It was noted that the most important capacity area to focus on building is in policy and M&E.
However it is noteworthy that the highest desire for capacity building was in intrinsic values,
integrity & equity and partnership and networking in which 96%, 92% and 85% of Mombasa
County stakeholders expressed the wish to have at least good capacity. This was significantly
18
0
11
0
23
0
30
0 0 0
7
0
34
1
41
1
33
0
44
1
15
1
23
0
30
18
31
15
32
2221
19
47
4
45
8
15
32
13
36
12
32
4
42
27
30
19
33
4
49
5
49
0
47
1
37
11
66
5
59
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
SWC - Coordination SWC - Partnership &Networking
SWC - M&E SWC - Policy SWC - Intrinsic Values SWC - Integrity andEquity
Ave
rage
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs (
%)
No Capacity Little Capacity Good Capacity Very Good Capacity Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 3: Average percentage of stakeholders with respective capacities in SWC
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
37
higher than the 79% of the stakeholders who desired to have at least good capacity in policy and
M&E issues.
3.3.3 Overview of Natural Resource Management and Social Inclusion Component
The CNA established that half of the stakeholders had no or little capacity in matters of natural
resources management and social inclusion with 14% expressing very good and excellent
capacities. The desire to develop at least good capacity in NRM & SI was very high at 99% (Figure
3.4).
The CNA considered five capacity areas within the NRM & SI component for further analysis:
1. Awareness, knowledge and appreciation of NRM, climate change (CC) and climate change
adaptation (CCA).
2. Equitable access and use of NRM, weather, CC, CCA advisory services and appropriate
technologies (AT)
3. NRM CC planning
4. Social inclusion (SI) and protection services
5. Community action capability
3.3.4 Overview of Value Chain Development
The CNA study found that the highest capacity gap was in the ASDSP component of value chain
development where an average of 61% had little or no capacity in the capacity areas studied. Only
20
0
19
1
25
1
5
02
0
45
1
42
1
43
0
30
0
20
0
26
15
31
17
25 24
45
8
53
65
45
5
42
3
38
13
32
20
23
4
38
3
40
3
37
8
60
5
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
NRM & SI -Awareness &Knowledge NRM, CC &
CCA
NRM & SI - EquitableAccess NRM, CCA AS &
Tech.
NRM & SI - NRM CCPlanning
NRM & SI -Social Inclusionand Protection Services
NRM & SI - CommunityAction Capability
Ave
rage
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
No Capacity Little Capacity Good Capacity Very Good Capacity Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 4: Percentage of stakeholders with respective capacities in the five areas of the NRM & SI Component
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
38
11% of the respondents were found to have good or very good capacities. This capacity gap was
reflected in the proportion of 81% of the respondents who desired to have good capacities as
compared to 85% and 99% of the SWC and NRM&SI respondents, respectively.
Further analysis of capacity areas under value chain development established that the highest and
the lowest capacity gaps among the stakeholders existed in value chain technologies up-scaling &
out-scaling; and value chain organization development in which 78% and 50%, respectively had
little or no capacity (Figure 3.5). The study established that the areas where capacity building
emphasis should be focused are in technology up-scaling & out-scaling, finance & insurance and
access to market. However it was noted that Mombasa county stakeholder desired that their
capacity should be built in all areas of VDC. This was exemplified by the finding that 77%, 79%,
81% and 82% of the stakeholders expressed the desire to be at least good in VC technologies
upscaling, access to market, finance and insurance, PP in VC development and VC organization
development, respectively.
The study established that highest priority for capacity building effort should be directed to value
chain technology up-scaling and out-scaling.
3.3.5 Capacities in Sub Counties
(i) Average Sub Counties Capacities across the ASDSP Components
The CNA study considered capacity building issues disaggregated according to the four Sub
Counties of Mombasa County. Comparison was made on the capacity issue in Changamwe,
Kisauni, Likoni, and Mombasa and among stakeholders with regional/national mandate. It was
established that an average of low capacity of 2 (little or no capacity) in VCD development of
12
1
14
0
15
1
21
1
36
0
38
0
37
0
45
1
43
0
42
1
36
17
37
18
29
19
24
17 17
21
9
25
9
35
8
30
10
35
3
43
4
57
3
47
2
49
1
46
1
34
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
VCD - CV Orgs Dev. VCD - PP in VC Devt. VCD - Access to Market VCD - Financial &Insurance Services
VCD - VC Tech Upscalingand Outscaling
Ave
rage
Pe
ren
tage
of
Stak
eh
old
ers
No Capacity Little Capacity Good Capacity Very Good Capacity Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 5: Percentage of Mombasa stakeholders with various capacities in VCD
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
39
existed in the all the 4 sub counties of Mombasa County (Figure 3.6). However the regional
organization exhibited a threshold capacity of 3 (good). The same trend of low capacity was
observed in NRM & SI issues in which all the sub counties, except for Mombasa Sub County where
the stakeholders were found to have an average of good capacity.
Capacity in sector wide coordination was evenly poised with Kisauni and Likoni having an average
of low capacity (2) while Changamwe and Mombasa were found to have an average of good
capacity (3). The regional/national organizations were found to be having an average of good (3)
capacity across all the three ASDSP components. It can be therefore concluded that the sub
counties with lowest capacities across all three components are Kisauni and Likoni. Capacity
building efforts should be therefore focused on these two sub counties.
The recommended focus was supported by the expressed desire of the stakeholders studied. It
was found that the desire of the stakeholders from Kisauni and Likoni was relatively lower than
the other sun counties. The stakeholders desired an average capacity of 4 (very good) as
compared to others who wanted to attain a capacity level of 5 (very good). This may be
interpreted as a modest desire driven by their low actual capacity level.
(ii) Proportionate Capacities in the Sub Counties
Further analysis was carried to determine the capacity levels and gaps in the sub counties with
specific references to the three sub components of the ASDSP. It was determined that the highest
and the lowest capacity gaps existed in Likoni’ value chain development and regional
organizations’ value chain development capacities, respectively. In these areas, 74% and 24% of
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
Sector Wide Coordination NRM and Social Inclusion Value Chain Development
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Changamwe Kisauni Likoni Mombasa Regional
Figure 3 6: Average capacities of stakeholders from the sub counties of Mombasa in the 3 ASDSP Components
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
40
the stakeholders drawn from Likoni and Regional organizations had little or no capacity,
respectively (Figure 3.7).
It was also noted that in Changamwe, 49%, 56% and 66% of the stakeholders had litle or no
capacities in SWC, NRM &SI and VCD issues, recpectively. It is therefore instructive that the areas
of foci in Changamwe ought to be in NRM & SI and VCD. In Kisauni on the other hand, 48%, 43%
and 62% of the stakeholders had litle or no capacities in SWC, NRM &SI and VCD issues,
recpectively. The main focus of capacity building in Kisauni can be considered to be in VCD. A
similar analysis done for Likoni revealed that 52%, 55% and 74% of the stakeholders had litle or no
capacities in SWC, NRM &SI and VCD issues, recpectively. It can be concluded that NRM & SI and
VCD issues should be tackled when designing capacity building training for Likoni stakeholders.
Special emphasis should be given to VCD capacity development.
Mombasa sub county had 46%, 51% and 56% of the stakeholders with litle or no capacities in
SWC, NRM &SI and VCD issues, recpectively. It is apparent that the capacities in Mombasa is
averagely poised. However, capacity need exists in VCD component. Finally, amond the
regional/national institutions,24%, 30% and 26% of the stakeholders had litle or no capacities in
SWC, NRM &SI and VCD issues, recpectively. From this finding, it can be concuded that these
institutions with regional and natioonal mandate possess relatively higher capacities than the
other sub counties of Mombasa.
It was inferred that the capacity in sector wide coordination was high at the regional level due to
available knowledge among institutions carrying regional mandates with well-trained officers as
compared to other groups of stakeholders in Kisauni, Changamwe, Likoni and Mombasa sub
16
19
25
17 16 1719
15
25
14 14
18
0 03
33
37
41
31
27
45
33
40
49
31
3738
24
30
23
29 29
22
41
52
34
31
27
20
31
35
31
61 60
54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
ActualCapacity
ActualCapacity
ActualCapacity
ActualCapacity
ActualCapacity
ActualCapacity
ActualCapacity
ActualCapacity
ActualCapacity
ActualCapacity
ActualCapacity
ActualCapacity
ActualCapacity
ActualCapacity
ActualCapacity
SWC NRM & SI VCD SWC NRM & SI VCD SWC NRM & SI VCD SWC NRM & SI VCD SWC NRM & SI VCD
Changamwe Kisauni Likoni Mombasa Regional
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs (
%)
No Capacity Little Capacity Good Capacity Very Good Capacity Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 7: Distribution of the capacity of stakeholders in Mombasa
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
41
counties. It was also postulated that the high capacity gaps witnessed in Kisauni Sub County is due
to high illiteracy levels and inadequate awareness on the issues presented to the respondents.
(iii) Sub County Education
In order to ascertain the possible reasons underlying the variations in the capacities noted across
the sub counties, further analysis was done the education and training levels of the stakeholders in
Mombasa (Figure 3.8).
Kisauni and Changamwe attracted highest certificate and diploma holders. Likoni had highest no.
of respondents that had not completed secondary education. None of the respondents in Kisauni,
Likoni, and Changamwe had a degree (Figure 3.9).
0
2
1
6
9
0
8
Mombasa
Phd Masters Degree Diploma Certificate 2° School Certificate Below 2° School Certificate
35
38
50
50
0
Certificate
Mombasa Likoni Kisauni Changamwe Regional
23
19
25
25
50
Diploma
Mombasa Likoni Kisauni Changamwe Regional
31
38
25
25
17
Below 2° School Certificate
Mombasa Likoni Kisauni Changamwe Regional
23
19
25 25
50
35
38
50 50
31
38
25 25
17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Mombasa Likoni Kisauni Changamwe Regional
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Masters Degree Diploma Certificate 2° School Certificate Below 2° School Certificate
Figure 3 8: Education levels of the sample of stakeholders interviewed for the CNA
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
42
(iv) Sub County Capacity in Partnership and Networking
Specific sector wide coordination issues were further analyzed to discern areas of interest that are
important in considering capacity building.
Three issues were considered:
(1) Advocacy and Negotiation Skills
(2) Skills to Network, and
(3) Skills to Partnership
On these issues, the capacity of the stakeholders from Kisauni was found to be generally below
the threshold of 3, viz., the sub county had an average little or no capacity on the three selected
themes under SWC (Figure 3.10).
Kisauni had the highest capacity gap both in networking skills and Advocacy and negotiating skills.
Consistently good capacity was noted in Likoni, Mombasa and the regional organizations. It was
also noted that Likoni stakeholders, who had scored relatively lower capacities, had an average of
3 (good capacity) in the areas selected for special attention.
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
5
-2
2
4
-2
2
5
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-1
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
Advocacy and Negotiation Skills Skills to Network Skills to Partnership
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Changamwe Kisauni Likoni Mombasa Regional
Figure 3 9: From Masters Degree to school certification: education levels respondents interviewed
Figure 3 10: Mombasa sub counties capacity in Partnership and Networking under SWC
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
43
The distribution of the capacities in the selected areas under SWC was determined to identify the
areas that need capacity building (Figure 3.11). In Kisauni, 63% of the stakeholders possessed little
or no capacity in advocacy and negotiation skills, as compared to 45%, 41% and 33% in
Changamwe, Likoni and Mombasa sub counties, respectively. This is an illustration of the trend of
a lower capacity among Kisauni stakeholders in the capacity area of partnership and networking.
(v) Sub Counties Capacity in NRM Community Action
In order to determine the key issues related to Community Action within the NRM & SI sub
component among the sub counties in Mombasa, 3 issues were selected for further analysis: (a)
Mobilization Skills, (b) Organization Capabilities, and (c) Self-Actualization. It was established that
all the 4 sub counties possessed the capacity threshold of 3 (good capacity) (Figure 3.12). All the
stakeholders involved in the study were considered to have good capacity in the selected area.
However, the stakeholders from Likoni and Mombasa expressed lower desire to build their
capacities in the NRM & SI areas selected.
8
33 33
17
813
50
25
13
5
40
35
20
11 11
33 33 33
17
42
25
63
55
30
15
37
30
11
50
17
25
58
13
38
50
15
55
30
4
15
30
52
33
67
25
58
8 813
50
25
13
5
40 40
1519
3033
7
33
67
50
33
75
10
35
26 26
48
17
83
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
Changamwe Kisauni Likoni Mombasa Regional
Ave
rage
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs (
%)
Advocacy and Negotiation Skills Actual Capacity Advocacy and Negotiation Skills Desired Capacity Skills to Network Actual Capacity
Skills to Network Desired Capacity Skill to Partnership Actual Capacity Skill to Partnership Desired Capacity
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-1
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
3
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
Community Action - MobilizationSkills
Community Action - OrganizationalCapability
Community Action - Self Actualization
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Changamwe Kisauni Likoni Mombasa Regional
Figure 3 11: Mombasa sub counties capacity in Partnership and Networking under SWC
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
44
Consistent desire for higher attainment of capacities was observed in Changamwe, Kisauni and in
Regional/National Organizations. However, it was deduced that Kisauni had the biggest capacity
gap in community action mobilization skill, organizational capability and self-actualization. The
threshold capacity observed was clarified by the high percentage with good to excellent capacities,
i.e., 73%, 75%, 85%, 88% and 100% of Mombasa, Changamwe, Likoni, Kisauni and Regional
Stakeholders, respectively (Figure 3.13).
(vi) Sub County Capacity in Development of Inclusive VC Organizations
To determine the capacities in the regions of Mombasa, five capacity issues VC organization were
analyzed:
(1) Formation of linkages,
(2) Advocacy and Lobbying,
(3) Business Development Skills,
(4) Value Chain Mapping,
(5) Establishing Networks
25
42
25
813
75
1315
40 40
5
26
48
19
7
83
17
8
92
100
10
65
47
33
56
100
33
17
2530
3530
57
22
56
11
4
100
8388
35
60
15
26
59
25
33 33
8
25
63
13
5
20
45
20
107
11
59
15
7
83
17
5
45
55
11
19
70
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
Changamwe Kisauni Likoni Mombasa Regional
Ave
rage
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Community Action - Mobilization Skills Actual Capacity Community Action - Mobilization Skills Desired Capacity
Community Action - Organizational Capability Actual Capacity Community Action - Organizational Capability Desired Capacity
Community Action - Self Actualization Actual Capacity Community Action - Self Actualization Desired Capacity
Figure 3 12: Average capacity levels in NRM Community Action of stakeholder from Mombasa Sub Counties
Figure 3 13: Percentage of capacities of stakeholders NRM Community Action in the Sub Counties of Mombasa
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
45
It was established that Changamwe, Kisauni and Likoni had lower capacities than Mombasa and
the regional organizations in issues related to formation of linkages, advocacy & lobbying, business
management skills, value chain mapping and establishing networks (Figure 1.14). Stakeholders
from Changamwe and Kisauni lacked the threshold capacity in all the five capacity issues of
development of inclusive VC organizations. Stakeholders from these two areas were found to
possess on average, little capacity (capacity level 2) in the studied five capacity issues. The same
trend of little capacity was observed in Likoni, except that the stakeholder from this area
possessed good capacity (capacity level 3) in advocacy and lobbying.
Generally, Kisauni has the biggest gap in capacity while Mombasa has the highest actual capacity
in the selected issues among the sub counties of Mombasa. The observed trend of lower capacity
in Changamwe, Kisauni and Likoni was reflected, for example in the 67%, 51%, 60%, respectively of
the stakeholders possessing little or no capacity in formation of linkages (Figure 3.15).
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
VC Orgs - Formation ofLinkages
VC Orgs - Advocacy andLobbying
VC Orgs - Biz Mgt Skills VC Orgs - VC Mapping VC Orgs - EtablishingNetworks
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Changamwe Kisauni Likoni Mombasa Regional
17
50
25
813
38
50
15
45
30
5 5
1922
41
117
50
33
8
50
42
13
25
63
20
35
45
19
63
17
83
25
33 33
63
38
20
35
25
15
7
37 3733 33
25
50
38
45
40
4 4
15
59
17
42
50
56
4
17 17
50
0
17
6770
813
50
25
1315
55
15
26
52
4
50
33
17
52
25
17
50
63
38
10
60
15
107
33
41
15 1717
75
25
75
30
35 35
22 22
56
83
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
Changamwe Kisauni Likoni Mombasa Regional
Ave
rage
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
VC Orgs - Formation of Linkages Actual Capacity VC Orgs - Formation of Linkages Desired Capacity VC Orgs - Advocacy and Lobbying Actual Capacity
VC Orgs - Advocacy and Lobbying Desired Capacity VC Orgs - Biz Mgt Skills Actual Capacity VC Orgs - Biz Mgt Skills Desired Capacity
VC Orgs - VC Mapping Actual Capacity VC Orgs - VC Mapping Desired Capacity VC Orgs - Etablishing Networks Actual Capacity
VC Orgs - Etablishing Networks Desired Capacity
Figure 3 14: Average capacities of stakeholders of Mombasa Sub Counties in VC Organization
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
46
3.3.6 Organizations Capacities in Mombasa County
(i) Summary of Organizations Capacity in Mombasa County
The stakeholders interviewed in the CNA were categorized according to the organizations or
umbrella of operation. Five main categories were used in the study. These were:
1) Government Institutions
2) Private Entrepreneurs
3) Producer Groups
4) Community Groups
5) Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Developmental Agencies.
It was generally observed that the highest capacity building need exists in value chain
development as three out of the five organizations had an average of little capacity (capacity level
2) in this area. Relatively higher capacity exists in sector wide coordination in which only
community groups had little ca capacity of 2 (little capacity) (Figure 1.16).
The other four categories of organizations had an average capacity of 3 (good capacity) in sector
wide coordination. It was also noted that community groups possessed consistently lower
3
5
-1
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
Capacity Gap ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
Capacity Gap ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
Capacity Gap
Sector Wide Coordination NRM and Social Inclusion Value Chain Development
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and Development Agencies
Figure 3 15: Percentage distribution of capacities in VC in Mombasa Sub Counties
Figure 3 16: Average Capacity of Stakeholders from various organizations in ASDSP Components
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
47
capacity across the three components of the ASDSP than the other categories of organizations. In
VCD, stakeholders from government institutions and NGOs & Development Agencies had
threshold capacity. This was augmented by the 40%, 30%, 24% of private entrepreneurs, producer
groups and community groups, respectively, as compared to 66% and 68% of stakeholders from
Government Institutions and NGOs & Development Agencies who possessed at least good capacity
in VCD (Figure 3.17).
(ii) Organizations Capacity in Sector Wide Coordination
Capacity needs of the considered organizations in sector wide coordination issues were analyzed
to determine the specific areas of interest. Sector wide capacity needs assessment established
that on average, community groups is the category of the organizations with the highest capacity
needs. Community groups were rated to have an average little actual capacity (capacity level of 2)
in SWC (Figure 3.18). Government Institutions and NGOs & Developmental Organizations had the
highest level of desire to have excellent capacities.
3
27
40
1614
16
26
42
14
2
14
40
27
17
2
19
38
27
12
4
13 12
47
26
11
9
23
67
16
29
55
8
54
38
1
34
43
31
69
25
38
7
25
37 40
812
36
30
18
4
43
31
6
1
14
21
50
15
1
8
24
65
15
31
53
8
3436
32
68
5
28
37
15
27
33 32
8
16
54
23
7
27
48
22
2 3
30
44
22
2
64
53
27
35
82
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
Government Private Entrepreneurs Producer Group Community Groups NGOs and DevelopmentalAgecies
Ave
rage
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Sector Wide Coordination Actual Capacity Sector Wide Coordination Desired Capacity NRM and Social Inclusion Actual Capacity
NRM and Social Inclusion Desired Capacity Value Chain Development Actual Capacity Value Chain Development Desired Capacity
3
33 2
3
54 4 4
5
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and DevelopmentAgencies
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Sector Wide Coordination Actual Capacity Sector Wide Coordination Desired Capacity Sector Wide Coordination Capacity Gap
Figure 3 17: Percentage Capacities of Stakeholder from Various Groups in ASDSP Components
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
48
Gen
erally, Government institutions had the highest actual capacity in SWC while NGOs, Development
agencies, community groups, producer groups and private entrepreneurs attract the highest
capacity gaps in that order. This was illustrated by the high average percentage of stakeholders
from government institutions with at least good capacity (Figure 3.19).
Components specific analysis was done to establish the level capacity gaps among the five
categories of organizations considered in the CNA study (Figure 3.20).
3
27
40
1614
16
26
42
14
2
14
40
27
17
2
19
38
27
12
4
13 12
47
26
11
9
23
67
16
29
55
8
54
38
1
22
34
43
31
69
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Cap
acit
y
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
Government Private Entrepreneurs Producer Group Community Groups NGOs and DevelopmentalAgecies
Ave
rage
Per
cen
tage
of
Stak
eho
lder
s
Sector Wide Coordination Actual Capacity Sector Wide Coordination Desired Capacity
3
5
3
4
3
5
2
4
4
5
3
4
3
5
3
4
2
4
3
4
2
4
2
4
3
5
3
5
2
4
2
4
2
4
3
4
2
4
2
4
3
4
3
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
3
4
2
4
2
4
3
5
3
5
2
4
2
4
3
5
2
4
3
5
2
4
3
5
3
5
2
5
2
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
SWC - Coordination SWC - Partnership &Networking
SWC - M&E SWC - Policy SWC - Intrinsic Values SWC - Integrity andEquity
NRM & SI -Awareness& Knowledge NRM,
CC & CCA
NRM & SI - EquitableAccess NRM, CCA AS
& Tech.
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and Development Agencies
Figure 3 18: Average capacity of stakeholders from a cross section of organization from Mombasa County
Figure 3 19: Average percentage of stakeholders from various organizations with respective capacities
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
49
Six thematic issues within the SWC component were analyzed. All the organizations were
observed to possess the least capacity in policy. Conversely, all the organizations were considered
to have the threshold capacity of 3 (good capacity) in intrinsic values and issues involving integrity
and equity. It was also noted that at least 3 out of the 5 categories of the organizations studied
had low capacity in coordination, M&E and policy matters. It can therefore be concluded that
these are the areas that need more focus for capacity building. The capacity gap in coordination,
M&E and policy matters was further illustrated by the high percentage of stakeholders having little
or no capacity in these areas (Figure3.21).
(iii) Organization Capacity in Coordination
Specific consideration was made on aspects of coordination as a thematic issue under sector wide
coordination. Nine capacity issues were analysed under coordination (same coding as in the
graph):
1. Planing
2. Management Skills
3. Computer Skills
2
15
45
18 19 22
3327
17
1
22
51
20
7
0
23
39
27
10
15
16
4337
0
9
64
9 9 9
3125
38
60
27
55
18
0 0
39
46
11
40
29 29
43
0 0
60
9
27
36
18
96
19
69
60 0
27
36
27
9 7
29
36
21
7
14
0
57
29
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
No
Ca
pa
city
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Ca
pa
city
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Ca
pa
city
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Ca
pa
city
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
No
Ca
pa
city
Litt
le C
apac
ity
Go
od
Cap
acit
y
Ver
y G
oo
d C
apac
ity
Exce
llen
t C
apac
ity
Government Private Entrepreneurs Producer Group Community Groups NGOs and DevelopmentalAgecies
Ave
rage
Pe
rcen
tage
of
Stak
eho
lder
s
SWC - Coordination Actual Capacity SWC - Coordination Desired Capacity SWC - Partnership & Networking Actual Capacity
SWC - Partnership & Networking Desired Capacity SWC - M&E Actual Capacity SWC - M&E Desired Capacity
SWC - Policy Actual Capacity SWC - Policy Desired Capacity SWC - Intrinsic Values Actual Capacity
SWC - Intrinsic Values Desired Capacity SWC - Integrity and Equity Actual Capacity SWC - Integrity and Equity Desired Capacity
Figure 3 20: Average capacities in SWC of stakeholders from various groups of organizations in Mombasa County
Figure 3 21: Average percentage of stakeholders from various organizations and their respective capacities.
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
50
4. Research Skills
5. Knowledge Management
6. M&E
7. Knowledge of Agriculture Sector Issues
8. Extension Management
9. Communication Skills
The average actual capacity levels of stakeholders sampled from the 5 categories of
organization was determined for each of the above coordination issues (Figure 3.22).
It was observed that:
a) Stakeholders from Government Intitutions possessed a threshold capacity level of 3
(good capacity) across all the nine capacity issues under coordination.
b) All organizations had threshold capacity of 3 (good capacity) under the communication
skills thematic issue.
c) All the 5 categories of organizations, except for Government Institutions, possessed
average low capacity of 2 (little capactiy) in research skills as a thematic issue.
At least 2 categories of organizations had little capacity in all thematic issues exept in knowledge
of agriculture sector issues and communication. It was concluded that M&E skills, research,
knowledge management, and knowledge on agriculture sector issues capacity gaps are highest
among producer groups and private entrepreneurs.
3
5
-2
4
5
-1
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
4
5
-1
4
5
-1
4
5
-1
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
5
-2
3
5
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
2
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and Development Agencies
Figure 3 22: Average capacity of stakeholders from various organizatio in coordination under SWC
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
51
(iv) Organizations Capacity in NRM and SI
In this CNA study, analysis was made to determine the level of actual capacity, desired capacity
and capacity gap found in various stakeholders drawn from the five categories of organizations.
The study established that the least capacity level was found among the community groups and
private entrepreneurs on matter related to natural resources management and social inclusion.
These two categories of organization possessed an average capacity level of 2 (little capacity)
(Figure 3.23).
Government institutions, Producer Groups and NGOs && Developmental Agencies were judged to
possess an average capacity level of 3 (good capacity) in issues defined in the NRM & SI
component. It was also noted that all the organizations, except NGOs & Development Agencies
expressed the need to possess an average capacity level of 4 (very good capacity). Only the NGOs
and Developmental Agencies wanted to be capacity built up to a level of excellence (5).
A detailed analysis of the NRM &SI issues among the 5 categories of organization revealed three
main trends:
(i) Government Institutions had higher capacities than the other organizations.
(ii) Apart from the Government Institutions, all the organization possessed below threshold
capacities in Awareness and Knowledge in NRM CC and CCA.
(iii) All the organizations have threshold capacities in NRM & SI Social Inclusion and Protection
Services and Community Action Capability.
3
2 2
2
2
44
4 4
5
-1
-2-2
-2-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and DevelopmentAgenciesA
vera
ge C
apac
ity
of
Stak
eh
old
er
NRM & SI - Equitable Access NRM, CCA AS & Tech. Actual Capacity
NRM & SI - Equitable Access NRM, CCA AS & Tech. Desired Capacity
NRM & SI - Equitable Access NRM, CCA AS & Tech. Capacity Gap
Figure 3 23: Summary average capacities of stakeholders from various organizations in NRM & SI
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
52
It was therefore be concluded that NRM &SI –CC planning and Awareness & knowledge posted the
highest capacity gaps across all respondents at organizational level. It was concluded that
Government Institutions had the highest actual capacities in NRM &SI –CC planning and
Awareness & knowledge, equitable access to NRM and NRM-CC planning (Figure 3.24).
Analysis of the proportions showed that 29%, 52%, 48%, 51% and 35% of the stakeholders from
Governmental Institutions, Private Entrepreneurs, Producer Groups, Community Groups and NGOs
& Developmental Agencies, respectively, had at most little capacities in NRM & SI issues (Figure
3.25). It is therefore clear from this finding that the most focus should be placed in building the
capacities of private entrepreneurs and Community Groups on matters related to NRM & SI.
3
5
-1
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
3
5
-1
4
4
-1
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-1
3
5
-1
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
5
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity Capacity
Gap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity Capacity
Gap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity Capacity
Gap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity Capacity
Gap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity Capacity
Gap
NRM & SI -Awareness &Knowledge NRM, CC &
CCA
NRM & SI - EquitableAccess NRM, CCA AS &
Tech.
NRM & SI - NRM CCPlanning
NRM & SI -Social Inclusionand Protection Services
NRM & SI - CommunityAction Capability
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and Development Agencies
43
1512
19
14
25
1
37 36
43
21
38
8
40
15
30
8
31
21
50
7
24
8
31
18
57
6
36
15
32
25
65
53
4
34
1
43
68
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Actual Desired ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
Governmental Agencies Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Group NGOs and DevelopmentalAgencies
NRM and Social Inclusion
Ave
rage
Per
cen
tag
of
Stak
eho
lder
s
No Capacity Little Capacity Good Capacity Very Good Capacity Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 24: Average capacity of stakeholders from various organizations in NRM & SI issues
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
53
This notwithstanding, 89%, 84%, 91%, 73% and 100% of the stakeholders from the Governmental
Institutions, Private Entrepreneurs, Producer Groups, Community Groups and NGOs &
Developmental Agencies, respectively, expressed the desire to possess a capacity level of at least 4
(very good capacity) in NRM and SI issues.
(vi) Organization Capacity in Equitable Access and Use of NRM Services
Analysis was carried out to determine the capacity of organizations operating in Mombasa in the
capacity area of equitable access and use of NRM services (Figure 3.26).
In addition, ten capacity issues were considered for detailed consideration under the capacity area
of equitable access to NRM, weather, climate change services and technologies of the NRM & SI
Component. These were:
1. Disaster preparedness
2. Adaptation against climate hazards
3. Entrepreneurship and business development
4. Developing attitude on self-reliance
5. Intensification and diversification of agriculture
6. Efficient use of soils, water and biodiversity
7. Identification and minimization of hazardous inputs
3
2 2
2
2
44
4 4
5
-1
-2-2
-2-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and DevelopmentAgencies
NRM & SI - Equitable Access NRM, CCA AS & Tech. Actual Capacity NRM & SI - Equitable Access NRM, CCA AS & Tech. Desired Capacity
NRM & SI - Equitable Access NRM, CCA AS & Tech. Capacity Gap
Figure 3 25: Average percentage of stakeholders of various organization in NRM & SI Component
Figure 3 26: Average capacity of organization in equitable access to NRM, CCA AS & Technologies
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
54
8. Climate forecasting and climate change prediction
9. NRM climate change adaptation technology transfer
10. Social targeting and affirmative action
This study established that on average, stakeholders from all the organizations, except those from
Government Institutions, possessed actual capacity level of 2 (little capacity). Stakeholders from
the Government Institution sampled had a capacity level of 3 (good capacity) for equitable access
of NRM, CCA and technologies.
Further detailed analysis was made on the capacities levels of stakeholders sampled from the 5
categories of organization disaggregated against the ten thematic issues under equitable access to
NRM CCA and technologies in the NRM & SI ASDSP Component.
It was established that generally all the stakeholders sampled from the 5 categories of
organizations, apart from Government Institutions, had low average capacity level of 2 (little
capacity) in four (4) of the ten (10) thematic issues addressed under the equitable access to NRM
CCA and technologies (Figure 3.27). These four thematic issues are: Disaster preparedness (issue
1), adaptation against climate hazards (issue 2), climate forecasting and climate change prediction
(issue 8) and NRM climate change adaptation technology transfer (issue 9). Highest average
capacity was noted in thematic issue of entrepreneurship and business development where all the
organizations, except from community groups, had capacity level of 3 (good capacity). It was
noted that Government institutions had an average actual capacity level of 3 (good capacity)
across all the capacity issues studied in this section.
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
3
4
-1
3
4
-2
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-1
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-1
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-2
3
5
-2
2
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-3
2
5
-2
3
5
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and Development Agencies
Figure 3 27: Average capacity of stakeholders from organizations in equitable access and use of NRM services
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
55
Certain salient observations were also made:
a) Private entrepreneurs had good actual capacity in thematic issues 3, 4, 6.
b) Producer Groups had good actual capacity in thematic issues 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10.
c) NGOs and Developmental Agencies had good capacities in thematic issues 3, 5, 6 and 10.
d) Community Organization had low capacity (level 2) in all the thematic issues.
(vi) Organizations Capacity in NRM & CC Planning
Assessment of the capacity of ASDSP stakeholders from Mombasa in NRM CC Planning established
that all the organizations, except Government Institutions had capacity gap that require building
(Figure 3.28). Private Entrepreneurs, Producer Groups, Community Groups and NGOs &
Developmental Agencies possessed an average of 2 (little capacity) in NRM CC Planning.
Further analysis was done on the capacity levels of stakeholders drawn from the five categories of
organizations on 10 thematic issues under NRM & CC Planning:
1. Skills in NRM & CC planning and mapping
2. Disaster preparedness
3. Adaptation against climate hazards
4. Entrepreneurship and business development
5. Intensification and diversification of agriculture
6. Efficient use of water, soils and biodiversity
7. Identification and minimization of hazardous inputs
8. Skills on access to climate information
3
2 2
22
44 4 4
4
-1
-2-2
-2
-2-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and DevelopmentAgencies
NRM & SI - NRM CC Planning Actual Capacity NRM & SI - NRM CC Planning Desired Capacity NRM & SI - NRM CC Planning Capacity Gap
Figure 3 28: Average capacity of Organizations in NRM CC Planning
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
56
9. Climate forecasting and CC prediction
10. NRM CCA technology transfer
It was found that generally all the organizations lacked the threshold capacity in all the ten
capacity issues (Figure 3.29). The main exception was Government Institution that possessed an
average of good (3) capacity in all the NRM CC Planning issues. Another exception was the
capacity of Private Entrepreneurs who possessed an average of good capacity (3) in
entrepreneurship and business development, understandably.
This analysis therefore revealed dramatic trend in capacity levels of the stakeholders drawn from
the 5 categories of organizations.
(vii) Summary Organization Capacity in VCD
Capacity Needs Assessment of the value chain development component established that there is
need to carry out capacity building in VCD in most of the organizations studied. It was established
that stakeholders from the private entrepreneurs, producer groups and community groups
possessed an average of 2 (little capacity) in VCD issues. Stakeholders drawn from the
Governmental Institutions and NGOs & Developmental Agencies were rated to have an average
capacity of 3 (good capacity). All the organizations expressed the desire to at least very good
capacity in VCD (Figure 3.30).
3
4
-1
3
4
-2
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
3
5
-2
3
4
-1
3
5
-2
3
5
-1
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-3
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-3
2
4
-3
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Act
ual
Cap
aci
ty
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
aci
ty
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
aci
ty
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
aci
ty
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
aci
ty
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
aci
ty
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
aci
ty
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
aci
ty
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
aci
ty
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
aci
ty
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and Development Agencies
Figure 3 29: Average capacities of organization in ten NRM CC Planning capacity issues
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
57
To clarify the above general trend in VCD, analysis of capacity needs was done to establish the
proportion of respondents among the studied organization possessing various capacities. This
analysis revealed that 33%, 60%, 70%, 75% and 33% of the stakeholders drawn from the
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs, Producer Groups, Community Groups and NGOs &
Developmental Agencies, had little or no capacity in value chain development (Figure 3.31).
It was established that the NGOs & Developmental Agencies had the highest capacity while the
producer groups had the lowest capacity in value chain development. It can therefore be
concluded that in order to develop the capacities in the selected value chains, it is important to
focus on the producer groups.
5 4
27
0
16
0
27
03
0
28
2
33
1
54
0
48
0
30
0
37
13
32
2123
15
2225
44
0
1518
8
25
7
57
2
39
2218
15
64
0
53
0
27
0
35
2
82
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
Actual Desired Actual Desired Actual Desired
Government Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Communities NGOs and DevelopmentalAgencies
Value Chain Development
No Capacity Little Capacity Good Capacity Very Good Capacity Excellent Capacity
3
2 22
3
4 44 4
5
-1
-2-2
-2-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and DevelopmentAgencies
Value Chain Development Actual Capacity Value Chain Development Desired Capacity Value Chain Development Capacity Gap
Figure 3 30: Average capacities of organizations operating in Mombasa County in VCD
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
58
In order to point out the critical issues of capacity building in the VCD component, average
capacities were computed against the five VCD sub component issues (Figure 3.32): (1) VC
organizations development; (2) Private partnership in VC development; (3) Access to market; (4)
Financial and insurance services; (5) VC Technologies up-scaling and out-scaling
The analysis revealed the following trends:
(i) Government Institutions possessed the threshold of good capacity in all the five VCD issues.
(ii) Government Institutions consistently expressed the desire to possess excellent capacity in
the 5 VCD issues.
(iii) All the organization, except Government Institutions did not possess the capacity threshold
in technologies up-scaling and out-scaling.
(iv) Private organizations and Community Groups lacked the threshold capacity in all the 5 VCD
issues studied.
It was concluded that producer groups are doing moderately well in terms of access to market and
both financial and insurance services. Individual entrepreneurs were noted to be having the
highest capacity gap in accessing financial and insurance.
(viii) Organizations Capacity in PP Investment in VC Development
Analysis was done to determine average capacities in private-public investment of stakeholders
from various categories of organizations were determined for the VCD component. It was found
that private entrepreneurs and community groups have little capacity (2) in private-public
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
2
5
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
VCD - CV Orgs Dev. VCD - PP in VC Devt. VCD - Access to Market VCD - Financial & InsuranceServices
VCD - VC Tech Upscaling andOutscaling
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and Development Agencies
Figure 3 31: Average capacities of organizations operating in Mombasa County in VCD
Figure 3 32: Average capacities of organization from Mombasa County in five VCD issues
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
59
partnership in value chain development (Figure 3.33). On average Government Institutions,
producer groups and NGOs & Developmental Agencies have a threshold capacity of 3 in PPP.
Further analysis was done with three variables within the PP investment capacity issue: (1)
Partnership skills; (2) Networking skills; (3) Resources mobilization skills (Figure 3.34).
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Actual Capacity DesiredCapacity
Capacity Gap Actual Capacity DesiredCapacity
Capacity Gap Actual Capacity DesiredCapacity
Capacity Gap
P&P Invest. - Partnership Skills P&P Invest. - Networking Skills P&P Invest. - Resources Mobilization
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and Development Agencies
Figure 3 33: Capacities of organizations from Mombasa County in private-public investment
Figure 3 34: Average capacities of stakeholders from various organizations in PP investment
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
60
Further evaluation of the 3 variables established that Government institutions possesses the
capacity threshold of 3 (good capacity) in the three areas studied under PPP. Private
entrepreneurs showed good capacity in networking skills but had little capacity in partnership
skills and resources mobilization. Producer groups and NGOs, like the government institutions had
good capacity in all the three PPP issues considered. However, Community groups had little
capacity in all the 3 areas of PPP studied.
(ix) Organizations Capacity in VC Technologies Up-scaling and Out-scaling
The CNA established that, with the exception of the government institutions, the stakeholders
drawn from other organization possessed an average of little capacity in value chain technologies
upscaling and out-scaling (Figure 3.35).
Further, assessment was done on the capacity of stakeholders in three issues under value chain
technologies upscaling and out-scaling:
(1) Analytical Skills
(2) Value Chain Upgrading Knowledge
(3) Applied Research Skills
The study found out that all the organizations considered, except Government Institutions had
significant capacity gaps in the three capacity issues studied (Figure 3.36). Private entrepreneurs,
producer groups and NGO & Development Agencies possessed an average of 2(little capacity) in
the VCD issues. Community groups were found to have no capacity in applied research skills.
3
2
2 2
2
4
44 4
5
-2
-2 -2 -2 -2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and DevelopmentAgencies
VCD - VC Tech Upscaling and Outscaling Actual Capacity VCD - VC Tech Upscaling and Outscaling Desired Capacity
VCD - VC Tech Upscaling and Outscaling Capacity Gap
Figure 3 35: Average capacity of stakeholders from various organizations in VCD technologies upscaling and out-scaling
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
61
3.3.7 Gender Implications
The CNA study in Mombasa County established that there was no significant difference in the
capacity of male and female stakeholders in ASDSP component of SWC and NRM & SI. However,
there was a significant gender differences in VCD, where female stakeholder on average possessed
lower capacity than their male counterparts (Figure 3.37).
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
1
4
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Actual Capacity DesiredCapacity
Capacity Gap Actual Capacity DesiredCapacity
Capacity Gap Actual Capacity DesiredCapacity
Capacity Gap
Analytical Skills Value Chain Upgrading Knowldege Aplied Research Skills
Government Institutions Private Entrepreneurs Producer Groups Community Groups NGOs and Development Agencies
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
Sector Wide Coordination NRM and Social Inclusion Value Chain Development
Female Male
Figure 3 36: Average capacity of stakeholders drawn from various organization in three capacity issues VCD
Figure 3 37: Comparison of the capacity of stakeholders from Mombasa County as a function of gender
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
62
Both sexes on average possessed comparably similar capacity, i.e., good capacity in SWC and NRM
& SI component (Figure 3.37)
Closer scrutiny of the gender implications in value chain development revealed that over 65% of
the female respondents possessed little or no capacity (below threshold capacity of 3 – good
capacity) in VCD issues as compared to 58% of the male stakeholders. Of the 65% of the female
with below threshold capacity, 24% had absolutely no capacity in VCD component (Figure 3.38).
The highest desire of female and male stakeholders for capacity building was in sector wide
coordination and NRM & SI. The highest desire was expressed by female stakeholders to have
their capacity built in SWC and NRM & SI, with 86% of them wanting to be good or excellent.
(i) Gender Capacity in SWC
The CNA analyzed the capacities of female and male stakeholders to determine whether there was
a significant gender-specific difference. The study established that, on average, there was no
significant difference between the capacity of male and female stakeholders in the capacity area
of SWC. Both sexes scored an average of good capacity in SWC, and desired to attain very good
capacity in this component (Figure 3.39).
16
0
13
0
15
1
12
0
17
1
24
0
30
1
35
0
33
0
41
0
41
1
41
0
34
15
34
13
37
16
34
14
31
17
25
22
15
33
14
35
9
32
9
38
7
34
10
33
5
51
4
51
5
51
3
48
4
48
0
44
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Sector Wide Coordination NRM SI VCD
No Capacity Little Capacity Good Capacity Very Good Capacity Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 38: Average percentage of male and female stakeholders of various capacities of SWC, NRM & SI and VCD
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
63
Evaluation of the proportionate capacities of the respondents showed that 57% and 48% of the
male and female stakeholders, respectively, possessed little or no capacity in SWC issues. On
average, the desire to be at least very good was high: 76% of both male and female stakeholders
(Figure 3.40).
3
4
-2
3
4
-2-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Capacity Gap
Sector Wide Coordination
Female Male
22
0
13
0
35
0
35
0
27
24
34
1313
31
14
35
3
45
4
51
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity
% Male % Female
No Capacity Little Capacity Good Capacity Very Good Capacity Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 39: Average capacity of female and male stakeholders in SWC component of the ASDSP
Figure 3 40: Average percentage of male and female stakeholders of various capacities in SWC
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
64
(ii) Gender Capacity in SWC Capacity Areas
The CNA study considered the six capacity areas under the SWC component. Analysis of the
responses of the stakeholders revealed that capacity gaps existed in both sexes on capacity areas
of partnership & networking, M&E and policy, where both male and female respondents
possessed little or no capacity (Figure 3.41). Both sexes, however, possessed the threshold
capacity in coordination, intrinsic values and integrity & equity issues.
There was also high level of desire among the stakeholders of both sexes to acquire higher
capacity in the respective SWC issues studied. The highest desire was in intrinsic value where both
male and female stakeholders expressed the desire to have excellent capacity (level 5).
The lowest desire was in partnership and networking in which both sexes wanted to attain an
average of good capacity (level 3) as compared to the desire to achieve very and excellent
capacities in all the other capacity issues under SWC.
These observations were further reflected in analysis of the percentage of the female and male
stakeholders with various capacities. Analysis revealed that 51%, 54% and 86% of the female
stakeholders had little or no capacity in partnership & networking, M&E and policy issues,
respectively (Figure 3.42). This trend was also observed among the male stakeholders, of whom
52%, 58% and 75% possessed little or no capacity in partnership & networking, M&E and policy
issues, respectively.
3
4
-2
2
3
-1
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-1
3
5
-2
3
4
-2
2
3
-1
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-1
3
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
apSWC - Coordination SWC - Partnership &
NetworkingSWC - M&E SWC - Policy SWC - Intrinsic Values SWC - Integrity and
Equity
Female Male
Figure 3 41: Average capacity of male and female stakeholders in six capacity areas of SWC of ASDSP
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
65
(iii) Gender Capacity in NRM &SI
On average, no gender disparity exists in the capacity of Mombasa stakeholders in NRM & SI.
Generally, both sexes possessed similar capacities across the capacities issues under the NRM & SI
component (Figure 3.43).
The CNA established that both sexes possessed on average good capacity (capacity level 3) and a
desire to have very good capacity in NRM & SI component of ASDSP. Analysis of gender-specific
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Capacity Gap
NRM and Social Inclusion
Female Male
18
12
18
3232
2
39
36
54
14
32
14
3532
14
29
50
24
32
21
32
3
52
7
5250
29
11
64
4
61
18
10
2729
11
35
42
1
31
38
2
15
1
29
23
31
14
2224
18
44
4
47
9
15
29
14
38
11
33
7
38
28 28
18
33
4
48
3
4744
2
42
12
67
7
58
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
SWC - Coordination SWC - Partnership &Networking
SWC - M&E SWC - Policy SWC - Intrinsic Values SWC - Integrity andEquity
Female No Capacity Female Little Capacity Female Good Capacity Female Very Good Capacity Female Excellent Capacity
Male No Capacity Male Little Capacity Male Good Capacity Male Very Good Capacity Male Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 42: Percentage of female and male stakeholders with various capacities in six capacity issues under SWC
Figure 3 43: Average capacity of female and male stakeholders in NRM & SI Component of ASDSP
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
66
distribution of the capacities among the stakeholders indicated that an average of 48% and 53% of
the male and female, respectively, had little or no capacity in NRM & SI issues (Figure 3.44).
Five capacity areas under NRM & SI were analyzed to establish actual capacities in relations to
gender Figure 3.45). Closer consideration and analysis of these capacity areas indicated that both
sexes lacked the threshold capacity in: (1) awareness and knowledge in NRM, CC and CCA; (2)
equitable access to NRM, CCA AS technologies; and (3) NRM CC planning (Figure 3.45).
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
NRM & SI -Awareness &Knowledge NRM, CC & CCA
NRM & SI - Equitable AccessNRM, CCA AS & Tech.
NRM & SI - NRM CC Planning NRM & SI -Social Inclusionand Protection Services
NRM & SI - Community ActionCapability
Female Male
15
1
12
0
33
0
41
0
37
16
34
14
9
32
9
38
5
51
3
48
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity
Male Female
NRM SI
No Capacity Little Capacity Good Capacity Very Good Capacity Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 44: Average percentage of female and male stakeholders with various capacities in NRM & SI of ASDSP
Figure 3 45: Gender specific average capacities of stakeholders in five capacity areas of NRM & SI
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
67
More attention was paid to the three capacity areas in which both sexes possessed little or no
capacity. In these areas of (1) awareness and knowledge in NRM, CC and CCA; (2) equitable access
to NRM, CCA AS technologies; and (3) NRM CC planning, 65%, 61%, and 76% of female stakeholder
and 61%, 61%, and 64% of the male stakeholder had little or no capacity, respectively (Figure
3.46).
The figures reflected significantly lower capacities than in areas of equitable access and NRM CC
planning than in social inclusion and community action capability, in which 34% and 22% of the
female stakeholders and 35% and 21% of male stakeholders possessed little or no capacity.
(iv) Summary Gender Capacity in VCD
Analysis Mombasa stakeholders in VCD revealed that there was significant difference in the
capacity of males and females in VCD component. Female stakeholders had significantly lower
capacity than the male stakeholders (Figure 3.47). On average, female possessed little capacity
(capacity level 2) in VCD whereas the male stakeholders had the threshold of good capacity
(capacity level 3).
Both sexes however expressed the desire to attain very good capacity in matters touching on VCD.
The capacity gap observed in the female and male stakeholders
16
0
16
0
25
03
02
0
54
0
45
0
51
0
31
0
21
0
21
12
30
13
21
25
46
6
54
5
40
1
40
1
39
0
29
0
19
0
29
18
32
19
28
24
43
9
52
76
41
4
38
4
31
12
29
2021
4
40
3
41
4
43
9
62
7
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity
NRM & SI -Awareness &Knowledge NRM, CC & CCA
NRM & SI - Equitable AccessNRM, CCA AS & Tech.
NRM & SI - NRM CC Planning NRM & SI -Social Inclusion andProtection Services
NRM & SI - Community ActionCapability
Female No Capacity Female Little Capacity Female Good Capacity Female Very Good Capacity Female Excellent Capacity
Male No Capacity Male Little Capacity Male Good Capacity Male Very Good Capacity Male Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 46: Percentage of female and male stakeholders with various capacities in five capacity areas of NRM & SI
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
68
Further analysis revealed that 58% and 65% of the male and female stakeholders, respectively,
possessed little or no capacities in VCD areas (Figure 3.48).
On the other hand, 11% and 10% of the male and female stakeholders possessed at least very
good capacity in VCD component of ASDSP. It was also noted that no female stakeholder had
excellent capacity as compared 4% of the male stakeholders.
17
1
24
0
41
1
41
0
31
17
25
22
7
34
10
33
4
48
0
44
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity
Male Female
VCD
No Capacity Little Capacity Good Capacity Very Good Capacity Excellent Capacity
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Capacity Gap
Value Chain Development
Female Male
Figure 3 47: Average capacity of female and male stakeholders in VCD component of SDSP
Figure 3 48: Percentage Male and Female capacities in VCD
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
69
(v) Gender Capacity in Five VCD Capacity Areas
Five capacity areas were analyzed to determine capacity gaps among female and male
stakeholders: (1) value chain organizations development; (2) public-private partnership in value
chain development; (3) access to market; (4) financial and insurance services; (5) value chain
technology upscaling and out-scaling. It was established that, on average, both female and male
stakeholders lacked the threshold capacity in capacity areas (3), (4) and (5). In these capacity
areas, both sexes were found to possess little capacity (capacity level 2) (Figure 3.49).
Difference between the male and female stakeholders was noted in capacity area (2), in which,
female stakeholders possessed little capacity while male stakeholders had good capacity. Both
female and male stakeholders however, possessed good capacity in value chain organizations
development.
The low capacity in access to market, financial & insurance services and VC technologies upscaling
and out-scaling was reflected in the higher percentages of stakeholders possessing little or no
capacity in these areas (Figure 3.50). It was found that 59%, 75% and 79% of the female, and 61%,
58% and 78% of the male stakeholders possessed little or no knowledge in issues (3), (4) and (5),
respectively. It can be further noted that the area that needs more effort in capacity building is
technologies upscaling and out-scaling, an area where 79% and 78% of the female and male
stakeholders, respectively possessed little or no capacity. In the area of VC organizations
development where both sexes possessed the threshold capacity, 46% and 53% of the female and
male stakeholders, respectively, had little or no capacity. In public-private sector partnership
where the male and female had capacity level 3 and 2, respectively, 63% of the female and 43% of
the male stakeholders had little or no capacity.
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
VCD - CV Orgs Dev. VCD - PP in VC Devt. VCD - Access to Market VCD - Financial & InsuranceServices
VCD - VC Tech Upscalingand Outscaling
Female Male
Figure 3 49: Average female and male capacity in five VCD capacity areas
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
70
In conclusion, five capacity areas were investigated under the VCD component of the ASDSP
Program in respect to gender Analysis of the responses of Mombasa stakeholders revealed that
both female and males stakeholders lacked threshold capacity in 3 out of 5 capacity areas studied.
However, Female stakeholders did not meet the threshold capacity in 4 of the areas studied. Both
sexes possessed threshold capacity in VCD organization development. The observations were
clarified in the analysis of the percentages of the gender possessing various capacities.
(vi) Gender and Intrinsic Values
Five capacity issues were analyzed under the capacity area of intrinsic values of SWC component.
These were: (1) performance under pressure & hardship; (2) interpersonal relationship; (3) public
relations; (4) customer relations; and, (5) team building. The CNA study established that both
sexes possessed the threshold capacities in all the five areas of intrinsic values studied (Figure
3.51). Both male and female stakeholders possessed an average of good capacity in all the 5
capacity issues of intrinsic values. The study found that there is no difference in the capacity of
male and female stakeholders’ issues of intrinsic values, i.e., both sexes scored an average of good
capacity (capacity level 3) in all the capacity issued considered.
The study established that 75%, 94%, 89%, 89%, 81% of the female stakeholders possessed at least
good capacity in pressure & hardship, interpersonal relationship, public relations, customer
relations and team building, respectively (Figure 3.52).
14
0
19
0
16
0
30
0
39
0
32
0
44
0
43
0
45
0
40
1
40
20
29
21
33
20
10
21
15
27
14
21
8
36
9
32
15
38
5
40
11
1
10
1
15
1
16
1
34
0
42
0
33
0
46
1
42
1
44
1
34
16
42
16
27
19
33
15
19 18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity
VCD - CV Orgs Dev. VCD - PP in VC Devt. VCD - Access to Market VCD - Financial & InsuranceServices
VCD - VC Tech Upscaling andOutscaling
Female No Capacity Female Little Capacity Female Good Capacity Female Very Good Capacity Female Excellent Capacity
Male No Capacity Male Little Capacity Male Good Capacity Male Very Good Capacity Male Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 50: Percentage of male and female stakeholders with various capacities in five capacity areas of VCD
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
71
This equally compared with the male respondents of whom 86%, 91%, 82%, 85% and 87%
possessed in at least good capacity in the respective capacity issues listed above. It was therefore
established that both sexes had the highest proportion of the respondents with at least good
capacity in interpersonal relationship.
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
1 2 3 4 5
Intrinsic Values
Female Male
25
0
7
0
11
0
11
0
18
0
39
11
54
4
57
0
57
4
46
4
25
29 29 29
21
43
25
29
21
32
11
61
11
68
11
57
7
68
14
64
13
2
9
0
18
2
16
0
20
0
44
2
56
2
42
4
38
4
42
4
33 33
22
31
24
29
38
24 24 24
9
62
13
67
16
64
9
71
11
71
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
Pressure & Hardship Interpersonal Relationship Public Relations Customer Relations Team Building
Female No Capacity Female Little Capacity Female Good Capacity Female Very Good Capacity Female Excellent Capacity
Male No Capacity Male Little Capacity Male Good Capacity Male Very Good Capacity Male Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 51: Average female and male capacity in five areas in intrinsic values of SWC component
Figure 3 52: Percentage of female and male stakeholder with various capacities in five areas of intrinsic values
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
72
(vii) Gender and Awareness and Knowledge NRM CC and CCA
The CNA study carried out analysis of seven capacity issues under the capacity area of awareness
and knowledge of NRM climate change (CC) and climate change adaptation (CCA):
1) Disaster preparedness
2) Adaptation to climate hazards
3) Climate forecasting CC prediction
4) Access and use of climate information
5) Identification and minimization of hazardous inputs
6) Intensification and diversification of agriculture
7) Efficient use of soils and biodiversity
The CNA study in Mombasa found that both female and male stakeholders possessed below
threshold capacities (an average of 2) in all areas of knowledge of NRM, climate change (CC) and
climate change adaptation (CCA) issues, except for male stakeholders who possessed a threshold
of good capacity in intensification and diversification of agriculture (Figure 3.53).
Analysis of the proportion of the stakeholders possessing different capacity levels indicated that
86%, 79%, 71%, 72%, 60%, 60% and 64% of the female stakeholders had little or no capacity in (1)
disaster preparedness, (2) adaptation to climate hazards, (3) climate forecasting & climate change
prediction, (4) access & use of climate information, (5) identification & minimization of hazardous
inputs, (6) intensification & diversification of agriculture, and (7) efficient use of water, soils and its
biodiversity, respectively (Figure 3.54). On the other hand, 71%, 71%, 61%, 62%, 62%, 49% and
51% of the female stakeholders possessed little or no capacity in the respective 7 capacity issues.
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Awareness, Knowledge and Appreciation of NRM, CC and CCA
Female Male
Figure 3 53: Female and male capacity in seven capacity issues under awareness and knowledge of NRM CC and CCA
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
73
(viii) Gender and Social Inclusion and Protection Services
The CNA analyzed the capacities of the stakeholders in Mombasa on 4 issues of social inclusion
and protection services. The results indicate that both female and male stakeholders possessed
the threshold capacity in the 4 issues studied: (1) gender skills, (2) gender mainstreaming, (3)
community mobilization and (4) gender targeting skills. There was no significant difference
between the sexes across the four capacities issues under social inclusion and protection services
(Figure 3.55).
3
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
5
-1
3
5
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
1 2 3 4
Social Inclusion and Protection Services
Female Male
11
0
18
0
25
0
18
0
14
0
14
0
14
0
75
0
61
0
46
0
54
0
46
0
46
0
50
0
7 7
14
11
14
25
18
14
29
11
36
7
32
7
4
57
4
61
7
43
7
54
7
46
0
54
4
54
4
36
4
29
7
32
4
32
4
43
4
39
0
39
18
0
20
0
29
0
24
0
22
0
16
0
22
0
53
0
51
0
36
2
38
4
40
2
33
0
29
0
2224
22 22
27
16
31
13
27
16
36
18
36
16
2
40
2
42
4
49
0
42
9
42
16
33
9
38
4
36
4
36
4
33
7
40
2
40
0
49
4
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
DisasterPreparedness
Adaptation ClimateHazards
Climate ForecatingCC Prediction
Access and Use ofClimate Info
Identificattion &Min Hazardous
Inputs
Intensification &Divers. Agric.
Efficient Use ofWater, Soils &
Biodiver.
Female No Capacity Female Little Capacity Female Good Capacity Female Very Good Capacity Female Excellent Capacity
Male No Capacity Male Little Capacity Male Good Capacity Male Very Good Capacity Male Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 54: Percentage of female and male stakeholders with respective capacities in NRM CC and CCA capacity
issues
Figure 3 55: Female and male capacity in four issues of social inclusion and protection services of SWC component
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
74
The finding that both female and male stakeholders had threshold capacity in the four capacity
issues of social inclusion and protection service was translated in the significant percentage of
both gender possessing at least good capacity (Figure 3.56). It was found that 58%, 64%, 79%%,
and 64% of the female stakeholder had good to excellent capacity in the four capacity issues,
respectively. The proportion of male stakeholders with good to excellent capacities was
comparable at 65%; 56%, 73%,and 66% in information management market analysis. It was also
apparent that the stakeholders had the highest capacity in issue (3) community mobilization, in
which 79% and 73% of the female and male stakeholders, respectively, had good to excellent
capacity
(ix) Gender and Equitable Access to Market
The CNA considered gender implications on equitable access to market among Mombasa
stakeholders. Five capacity issues were analyzed:
1) Market information management
2) Market analysis skills
3) Value addition skills
4) Agribusiness skills
5) Pre - & post-harvest production skills
It was found that both gender lacked the threshold capacity in all the five issues except for male
stakeholders who had good capacity in market analysis skills. It was also apparent that there was
4
0
4
0 0 0
4
0
39
0
32
0
21
0
32
0
43
14
46
4
54
4
43
4
11
36
14
36
18
32
14
39
4
50
4
61
7
64
7
57
9
0
11
02
02
0
27
0
33
0
24
0
31
0
47
11
42
11
42
7
42
79
31
7
29
20
31
13
27
9
58
7
60
11
62
11
67
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
Social Inclusion - GenderSkills
Social Inclusion - GenderMainstreaming
Social Inclusion - CommunityMobilization
Social Inclusion - TargetingSkills
Female No Capacity Female Little Capacity Female Good Capacity Female Very Good Capacity Female Excellent Capacity
Male No Capacity Male Little Capacity Male Good Capacity Male Very Good Capacity Male Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 56: Percentage female and male stakeholders with respective capacities in social inclusion and protection services
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
75
significant difference between the sexes when it came to the capacity area of equitable access to
market (Figure 3.57).
Further analysis of the stakeholders established that 53%, 60%, 57%, 57%, 64% of the female
stakeholders possessed little or no capacity in issues (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), respectively.
Comparably, 62%, 55%, 60%, 64% and 62% of the male stakeholders possessed little or no capacity
in the respective capacity issues (Figure 3.58).
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
1 2 3 4 5
Equitable Access to Market
Female Male
21
0
14
0
18
0
7
0
18
0
32
0
46
0
39
0
50
0
46
0
36
18
29
25
29
18
39
14
32
25
11
29
11
29
14
36
4
36
4
32
0
54
0
46
0
46
0
50
0
43
18
2
13
2
20
2
13
0
11
0
44
0
42
0
40
2
51
0
51
2
27
20
29
13
29
1820
22
29
22
4
31
11
36
9
24
11
33
7
22
7
47
4
49
2
53
4
44
2
53
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
Equitable Access toMarket - Info Mgt
Equitable Access toMarket - Mkt Analysis
Skills
Equitable Access toMarket - Value Addition
Skills
Equitable Access toMarket - Agribusiness
Skills
Equitable Access toMarket - Pre & Post
Production Skills
Female No Capacity Female Little Capacity Female Good Capacity Female Very Good Capacity Female Excellent Capacity
Male No Capacity Male Little Capacity Male Good Capacity Male Very Good Capacity Male Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 57; Average capacity of female and male stakeholders in equitable market access
Figure 3 58; Percentage of female and male stakeholders with various capacity in 4 equitable market access issues
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
76
(x) Gender Capacity in Access to Financial and Insurance Services
On the issue of the capacity of stakeholders to access to affordable financial and insurance
services, it was found that both sexes had below threshold capacity in all the 4 issues considered:
networking skills, negotiation skills, finance management skills and risk management skills, except
for male who had good capacity in negotiation skills (Figure 3.59).
Figure 3 59: Average capacity of female and male stakeholders in access to financial and insurance services issues
This was illustrated by the high percentage of the stakeholders with little or no capacity on these
issues (Figure 3.60).
Figure 3 60: Percentage of female and male with various capacities in access to financial and insurance services issues
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
1 2 3 4
Access to Affordabe Finance and Insurance Services
Female Male
32
0
32
0
21
0
36
0
43
0
43
0
50
0
43
0
14
21
14
21
7
21
4
21
11
39
11
46
21
36
18
32
0
39
0
32
0
43
0
46
13
0
11
2
13
2
24
0
38
2
42
0
44
0
44
0
42
13
33
11
31
16
24
20
4
36
11
36
9
31
4
31
2
49
2
51
2
51
2
49
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
Access to Fin. & Insurance -Networking Skills
Access to Fin. & Insurance -Negotiation Skills
Access to Fin. & Insurance -Fin. Mgt Skills
Access to Fin. & Insurance -Risk Mgt Skills
Female No Capacity Female Little Capacity Female Good Capacity Female Very Good Capacity Female Excellent Capacity
Male No Capacity Male Little Capacity Male Good Capacity Male Very Good Capacity Male Excellent Capacity
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
77
It was nevertheless noted that 75%, 75%, 71%, 71% of the female stakeholders and 52%; 55%, 57%
and 68% of the male stakeholders possessed little or no capacity in networking skills, negotiation
skills, financial management skills and risk management skills, respectively, (Figure 3.60). This
indicated that the female stakeholders are generally having little capacity to access to affordable
financial and insurance services.
(xii) Gender Capacity in Innovative Value Chain Technologies
Three capacity issues under innovative value chain technologies were considered for gender parity
analysis:
(1) Analytical skills
(2) Value chain (VC) upgrading knowledge
(3) Applied research skills
The study established that the capacity of both sexes in innovative value technologies was below
the threshold. This low capacity was observed in all the three capacity issues studied: analytical
skills, VC upgrading knowledge and applied research skills (Figure 3.61).
The low capacity of both sexes is attested by the high percentage of stakeholders with little or no
knowledge in the three capacity issues studied. It was determined that 82%; 75% and 82% of the
female, and 76%, 78%, 80% of male stakeholder had little or no capacity in analytical skills, VC
upgrading knowledge and applied research skills, respectively (Figure 3.62).
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
1 2 3
Female Male
Figure 3 61: Average capacity of female and male stakeholders in innovative value technology issues
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
78
3.3.8 Capacity of Value Chain Consultative Group
The CNA analyzed the capacity of a sample of member of Mombasa Value Chain Consultative
Group (VCCG). The average capacities of the sampled members were compared with the non-
member stakeholders. It was found that, generally, the capacity of the Mombasa VCCG members
was lower than those of non-members across all the three components of ASDSP. Mombasa
VCCG members possessed on average little capacity (capacity level 2) in SWC, NRM & SI and VCD
(Figure 3.63).
43
0
32
0
43
0
39
0
43
0
39
4
11
29
21
25
14
29
7
43
4
39
4
39
0
29
0
36
0
29
36
0
31
0
36
0
40
0
47
2
44
2
22
16 16
2018 18
0
49
4
42
0
42
2
36
2
36
2
38
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity Actual Capacity Desired Capacity
Innovative VC Tech - Analytical Skills Innovative VC Tech - VC UpgradingKnowledge
Innovative VC Tech - Applied ResearchSkills
Female No Capacity Female Little Capacity Female Good Capacity Female Very Good Capacity Female Excellent Capacity
Male No Capacity Male Little Capacity Male Good Capacity Male Very Good Capacity Male Excellent Capacity
Figure 3 62: Percentage of female and male stakeholders in innovative value chain technologies
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-1
2
4
-1
2
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
Sector Wide Coordination NRM and Social Inclusion Value Chain Development
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Non-VCCG Member VCCG Member
Figure 3 63: VCCG and Non-VCCG Members' Capacities across the three ASDSP Components
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
79
It was noted that the VCCG members lacked the threshold capacity in SWC and NRM & SI even
when the non-members showed a general trend of having good capacity in the two ASDSP
components.
(i) VCCG Members Capacity in SWC Capacity Areas
Capacity of Mombasa VCCG members was considered in six capacity areas under SWC
components. It was determined that VCCG members lacked threshold capacity in four out of the
six capacity areas. These four areas were: (1) coordination, (2) partnership and networking (3)
M&E and (4) policy (Figure 3.64). It was therefore concluded that VCCG members require capacity
building in these areas. It was also apparent that both VCCG members and non-VCCG members
lacked threshold capacity in (1) partnership and networking, (2) M&E and (3) policy. Special
emphasis should be therefore paid in these three areas.
Non VCCG members had better capacities than the VCCG members in coordination. Both VCCG
and non-VCCG members possessed threshold capacities in (1) intrinsic values and (2) integrity and
equity capacity areas.
(ii) VCCG and Non VCCG Members Capacities in NRM & SI Capacity Areas
The capacities on VCCG and non-VCCG members were analyzed in five capacity areas under the
NRM & SI component of ASDSP. The study established that VCCG members and non-VCCG
members lacked capacity in 4 of the 5 and 3 of the 5 capacity areas, respectively. The capacity
areas where both groups lacked the threshold capacity were (1) awareness and knowledge of
NRM, CC and CCA, (2) equitable access to NRM, CCA AS and technologies, and (3) NRM CC
3
4
-2
2
3
-1
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-1
3
5
-2
2
4
-1
2
3
-1
2
4
-1
2
4
-2
3
4
-1
3
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
De
sire
d C
apac
ity
Cap
acit
y G
ap
SWC - Coordination SWC - Partnership &Networking
SWC - M&E SWC - Policy SWC - Intrinsic Values SWC - Integrity andEquity
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Non-VCCG Member VCCG Member
Figure 3 64: VCCG and non-VCCG Members capacities in six capacity areas in SWC
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
80
planning (Figure 3.65). Both VCCG and non-VCCG members had threshold capacity in community
action capability. However, non VCCG members possessed good capacity in social inclusion and
protection services as compared to VCCG members who had little capacity in this area.
(iii) VCCG and Non VCCG Members Capacities in Value Chain Development
Five capacity areas within the Value Chain Development (VCD) component of ASDSP were studied
during the CNA. It was found that VCCG members lacked capacity in all the five capacity areas
while the non-members were limited in three out of the five areas (Figure 3.66). This was a clear
difference in capacities of the two categories of the stakeholders.
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity Capacity
Gap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity Capacity
Gap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity Capacity
Gap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity Capacity
Gap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity Capacity
Gap
VCD - CV Orgs Dev. VCD - PP in VC Devt. VCD - Access to Market VCD - Financial &Insurance Services
VCD - VC Tech Upscalingand Outscaling
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Non-VCCG Member VCCG Member
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
2
4
-1
2
4
-1
2
4
-1
2
4
-2
3
4
-1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
NRM & SI -Awareness &Knowledge NRM, CC & CCA
NRM & SI - Equitable AccessNRM, CCA AS & Tech.
NRM & SI - NRM CC Planning NRM & SI -Social Inclusionand Protection Services
NRM & SI - CommunityAction Capability
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rsNon-VCCG Members VCCG Members
Figure 3 65: VCCG and Non-VCCG Members' capacity in five capacity areas of NRM & SI component of ASDSP
Figure 3 66: Average capacities of VCCG and non-VCCG members in five capacity areas of VCD
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
81
3.3.9 Capacities of Stakeholders within the Value Chains
The CNA assessed capacities Mombasa County stakeholders in the selected value chains: (1) leafy
amaranthus, (2) indigenous chicken and (3) mixed fish. The study established that, generally,
stakeholders in the three value chain lacked threshold capacity in value chain development (VCD).
On the other hand, the stakeholders from the three value chains possessed threshold capacity in
SWC. In NRM & SI, leafy amaranthus and mixed fish stakeholders had threshold capacity while
their indigenous chicken counterparts possessed little capacity (Figure 3.67).
The stakeholders from all the three value chains expressed an average desire to have very good
capacity (capacity level 4) in all the components of ASDSP. An average capacity gap of minus 2 (-2)
was recorded across the three components.
(i) Overview Leafy Amaranths Value Chains
Analysis of the response of the interviewees also considered the distribution of stakeholders’
capacities within the value chains. The study established that 50%, 47% and 63% of the
stakeholders in leafy amaranthus value chain had no or little capacity in Sector Wide Coordination,
NRM & Social Inclusion and Value Chain Development capacity issues, respectively (Figure 3.68).
The highest capacity was in SWC where 51% of the amaranthus value chain stakeholder possessed
good to excellent capacities. On the other hand only 19%, 11% and 8% of the amaranthus value
chain stakeholders were adjudged to have good to excellent capacities in SWC, NRM & SI and VCD,
respectively. The resulted showed clear differences in capacities of the stakeholders in the three
ASDSP components.
Figure 3 67: Value Chain stakeholders’ capacities of in the three ASDSP Components
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
82
The desire to have at least good capacity in the capacity areas of the ASDSP components was high,
with 84%, 85% and 82% of the stakeholders from the leafy amaranthus value chain wanting to be
at least very good in SWC, NRM & SI and VCD, respectively.
(ii) Overview of Indigenous Chicken Value Chain
The CNA found that 42%, 53%, 60% of Stakeholders from the indigenous chicken value chain had
no or little capacity in SWC, NRM & SI and VCD components (Figure 3.69). Conversely, 20%, 12%
and 12% of the indigenous chicken stakeholders were found to have very good to excellent
capacity in SWC, NRM & SI and VCD, respectively.
Figure 3 68: Percentage of value chain stakeholders of various capacities in the three components of ASDSP
Figure 3 69: Average Indigenous Value chain stakeholders' capacities in SWC, NRM & SI and VCD of ASDSP
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
83
The desire to achieve high capacity was high. On average, 83%, 83% and 78% of the indigenous
chicken stakeholders wanted to have very good to excellent capacity in SWC, NRM & SI and VCD
capacity issues, respectively.
(iii) Overview of Mixed Fish Value Chain
In fish value chain, 48%, 50% and 59% of the stakeholders had no or little capacity in SWC, NRM &
SI and VCD, respectively. Of all the fish value chain stakeholders interviewed, 18%, 24% and 12%
possessed good to excellent capacities in SWC, NRM & SI and VCD capacity issues, respectively.
(iv) Value Chains Stakeholders’ Capacities in SWC
The study established that the stakeholders drawn from the three value chains possessed the
threshold capacity in 3 out of the six capacity areas of SWC, viz., (1) partnership and networking,
(2) intrinsic values, and (3) integrity and equity (Figure 3.71).
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-1
3
5
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-1
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ired
Cap
acit
y
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ired
Cap
acit
y
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ired
Cap
acit
y
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ired
Cap
acit
y
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ired
Cap
acit
y
Cap
acit
y G
ap
Act
ual
Cap
acit
y
Des
ired
Cap
acit
y
Cap
acit
y G
ap
SWC - Coordination SWC - Partnership &Networking
SWC - M&E SWC - Policy SWC - Intrinsic Values SWC - Integrity andEquity
Amaranthus Indigenous Chicken Fish
Figure 3 70: Average percentage of mixed fish value chain stakeholders’ capacities
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
84
The CNA also established that the stakeholders from all the three value chains lacked capacity in
policy, scoring an average of capacity level of 2 (little capacity). It was also adjudged that
stakeholders from chicken value chain possessed comparatively higher capacity in M&E and
coordination than their counterparts in leafy amaranthus and mixed fish. In M&E and
coordination, indigenous chicken stakeholders possessed an average of good capacity as
compared to little capacity of the other two value chains.
(v) Value Chains Stakeholders’ Capacity in NRM & SI Capacity Areas
The CNA established that there were no differences in the capacities of stakeholders drawn from
the three value chains. Stakeholders drawn from the three value chains lacked capacity in three
out of the five capacity areas under NRM & SI but met the capacity threshold in the remain two
issues (Figure 3.72). The stakeholder possessed an average of good capacity in (1) social inclusion
and (2) community action capability. The stakeholder, however, had little capacity in (1)
awareness & knowledge in NRM, CC and CCA, (2) equitable access to NRM, CCA AS and
technologies, and (3) NRM CC planning.
(vi) Value Chains Stakeholders’ Capacities in capacity areas of VCD
CNA of Mombasa stakeholders sampled from three selected value chain focused on the five
capacity areas under value chain development (Figure 3.73):
(1) Value chain organizations development,
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
5
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
5
-1
3
5
-1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
NRM & SI -Awareness &Knowledge NRM, CC & CCA
NRM & SI - Equitable AccessNRM, CCA AS & Tech.
NRM & SI - NRM CCPlanning
NRM & SI -Social Inclusionand Protection Services
NRM & SI - CommunityAction Capability
Amaranthus Indigenous Chicken Fish
Figure 3 71: Value chain stakeholders' capacities in six capacity areas of SWC
Figure 3 72: Value Chains Stakeholders' capacities in five capacity areas of NRM & SI
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
85
(2) Public private partnership in value chain development,
(3) Access to market,
(4) Financial and insurances services,
(5) Value
chain
technologies up-scaling and out-scaling
The CNA determined that Mombasa stakeholders from the three value chains possessed little
capacity in (1) access to market, (2) financial & insurance services and (3) value chain (VC)
technologies upscaling and out-scaling (Figure 3.73). Another general trend noted was that
stakeholders belonging to amaranthus value chain were comparatively of lower capacity than the
others by having little capacity in all the five capacity areas of value chain development.
2
5
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
2
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
VCD - CV Orgs Dev. VCD - PP in VC Devt. VCD - Access to Market VCD - Financial & InsuranceServices
VCD - VC Tech Upscalingand Outscaling
Amaranthus Indigenous Chicken Fish
Figure 3 73: Value chains stakeholders' capacities in five capacity areas of VCD
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
86
(vii) Value Chains Stakeholders’ Capacities in Community Action
The CNA established that stakeholders from all three value chain possessed the threshold capacity
in community action capacity issues of mobilizations skills, organizational capability and self-
actualization (Figure 3.74).
(viii) Value Chain Stakeholders Capacities in VC Organization Development
Five capacity issues were considered under the value chain organizations development capacity
area:
(1) Formation of linkages
(2) Advocacy and lobbying
(3) Business management skills
(4) Value chain mapping
(5) Establishing networks
The CNA established that leafy amaranthus stakeholders lacked capacities in the development of
value chain organization in all the five capacities issues considered (Figure 3.75). Fish stakeholders
possessed the threshold capacities in all the five capacity issues. Indigenous chicken stakeholders
possessed threshold capacity in the formation of linkages, advocacy & lobbying and establishing
networks but possessed little or no capacity in value chain mapping.
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
3
4
-1
3
5
-2
3
5
-2
4
5
-1
3
4
-1
3
5
-1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
Community Action - MobilizationSkills
Community Action - OrganizationalCapability
Community Action - Self Actualization
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Amaranthus Indigenous Chicken Fish
Figure 3 74: Value chains stakeholders' capacities in community action capacity issues
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
87
(ix) Value Chains Stakeholders Capacities in Partnership Development
All the stakeholders possessed the threshold capacities in the three partnership development
issues, except for leafy amaranthus stakeholders who had little or no capacity in skills to
partnership (Figure 3.76).
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
5
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
Advocacy and Negotiation Skills Skills to Network Skills to Partnership
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Amaranthus Indigenous Chicken Fish
2
4
-2
2
5
-2
3
5
-2
2
5
-2
2
5
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
2
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
3
4
-1
3
4
-1
3
4
-2
3
4
-2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
ActualCapacity
DesiredCapacity
CapacityGap
VC Orgs - Formation ofLinkages
VC Orgs - Advocacy andLobbying
VC Orgs - Biz Mgt Skills VC Orgs - VC Mapping VC Orgs - EtablishingNetworks
Ave
rage
Cap
acit
y o
f St
ake
ho
lde
rs
Amaranthus Indigenous Chicken Fish
Figure 3 75: Value Chain stakeholders' capacities in five capacity issues of VC organizations development
Figure 3 76: Value Chains stakeholders’ capacities in partnership development
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
88
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
89
3.4 MAJOR SECTOR INITIATIVES
Major sector initiatives carried out by county, national /international actors highlighting capacity
development interventions in the enabling environment, for organizations, individuals and
communities
3.4.1 County
Development of County strategic plans
Formulation of County policies and regulations to harmonize the national laws with
County by-laws and regulations.
Devolution
KCDP coordinated by KMFRI
3.4.2 National
-Vision 2030
-ASDS
-Devolution
-Constitution 2010
-Agricultural Sector related Acts of parliament
-Njaa Marufuku, Kenya
3.4.3 International
-YYC program implemented by CLUSA
-APHIA Plus implemented by CLUSA, PSI and other organizations
3.5 GAPS, PARTNERSHIPS AND COLLABORATION
3.5.1 Gaps
Highest capacity gap: value chain development (VCD)
VCD component did not meet the threshold of 3 (good capacity)
Stakeholders had little capacity (2) on capacity issues in the VCD
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
90
3.5.2 Feasible twinning
(Refer to the original report)
3.5.3 Partnerships and collaborations
(Refer to the original report)
3.6 CONSTRAINTS OF THE CNA PROCESS
1. The Key informants were not available during the scheduled agreed time due to their
many commitments and impromptu meetings at the County.
2. The TWG members were forced to reschedule meetings to other days convenient to the
interviewees.
3. Enumerators’ were not budgeted for as this was not recommended, so the team had to
do data collection for additional days which were not funded
4. The individual tool was long and repetitive.
4 Conclusion
Delayed disbursement of funds that led to rescheduling of the activities affecting the start
and end period.
Delayed procurement of stationery by office (note books for CNA team; and Tonner).
The individual questionnaire had several repetitions in some sections.
Some individual respondents and KII’s were not available on the scheduled days despite
prior arrangements and appointments; which meant rescheduling for other days; this had a
vast impact to TWG activities.
The total numbers of days were few due to rescheduling of the activities hence the CNA
team had to work extra hard through their free time without allowance to achieve the
targets.
The analysis is vast and the time frame short to be able to analyze comprehensively all the
issues.
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
91
5 Recommendations
1. The report should be made available and read by all key stakeholders in the agricultural
sector.
2. Institutions/Organizations in the agricultural sector should strengthen synergies in their
collaboration and partnerships.
3. Agriculture extension services should be enhanced by allocation of more resources.
4. Due to high illiteracy levels identified in the study there is great need to enhance adult
education in the County.
5. Harmonization of County policies and regulations should be fast tracked for improved
service delivery.
6. Increased Public awareness on the policies and regulations governing the sector.
7. Inclusion of all stakeholders, especially the vulnerable members in the County in policy
formulation and implementation.
8. Non-governmental sector organizations, farmers groups and associations should beef
up networking, advocacy, negotiation and M&E skills.
9. More research initiatives required to strengthen the VCs in the County.
10. More awareness creation in disaster preparedness and climate change.
11. Encourage youth participation in agriculture sector by empowering and involving
them.
12. More empowerment programs to be initiated for the vulnerable in the County.
13. The gaps identified in the report should be addressed appropriately and timely.
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
92
6 APPENDICES
6.1 LIST OF INTERVIEWEES
S/N
o.
Name of
Respondent
Telephone
number
Sub -
County
Gender Organization
1 Amina A.
Mwajambia
0734255397 Likoni Female Dept. Agriculture, Livestock and
Fisheries
2 Amina Kemunto
Ondiek
Mombasa Female Indigenous poultry farmer
3 Antony Josai
Mjomba
0713104524 Mombasa Male Department of Agriculture
4 Baby Jackton 0728872407 Mombasa Female Tumato women group
5 Bobson Fadhili 0705796139 Mombasa Male Kwacha Afrika
6 Brendah Mukiri
Nteere
0738950798 Mombasa Female KENAFF
7 Catherine Peter 0723996038 Mombasa Female Kuinuana Women Group
8 Charles Mwakio
Mwambela
Mombasa Male Chaani Community unit
9 Choga Mwangwaru
Swaleh
0703830453 Mombasa Male Makumba Self Help Group
10 Christine Matole 0714 833882 Mombasa Female Sisi kwa sisi mwangala self-help
group
11 David Gambo 0722 336459 Mombasa Male Fisheries department
12 David Nderitu 0721 582609 Mombasa Female Coast farm care
13 Eliatha Mate 0711519200 Mombasa Male Nguvu Mpya Registered Farmers
14 Elizabeth Riga Mombasa Female ADS
15 Elvin Kibunja Tabu 0720 450819 Mombasa Male Kenchic limited
16 Erastus Sanga 0771053312/ m Male Dept. Agriculture, Livestock and
Fisheries
17 Esther Muraya 723225549 Mombasa Female One, two, three women group
18 Festus Mngo'ngo' Mombasa Male kcda
19 Florence Kagendo
Mati
Mombasa Female Amaranthus farmer
20 Francis Njoka 0728 960126 Mombasa Male Sisi kwa sisi mwangala self help
group
21 Fred Nyambane 0721 712727 Mombasa Male Poultry farmer
22 Fredrick Kioko
Mwanthi
789390710 Mombasa Male Mtongwe BMU
23 Hamisi
Mwakibarua
0727 745546 Mombasa Male Irrigation department
24 Hamisi Said 720854963 Mombasa Male Likoni BMU
25 Hamisi Salim
Mwamgonja
734651175 Mombasa Male Likoni BMU
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
93
26 Hellen Mbatha 727866276 Mombasa Female Tmatu Women Group
27 Herbert Kinoti 0723 507461 Mombasa Male Pwani Feeds
28 Hussein M
Mwanjirani
720111995 Mombasa Male Kashani Muungano Water
Project
29 Innocent Masira 0 Mombasa Male kcda
30 Isaac Njeru Gakuba Mombasa Male Kwamba Plantation
31 Jane Masakhalia 0717 157212 Mombasa Female Vitengeni self help group
32 Jemima Kilonzi
Nguyi
727553489 Mombasa Female Kuinuana Women Group
33 Jemima Makau 0724 564197 Mombasa Female One, Two Three women group
34 Joseph Odhiambo 0722 493952 Mombasa Male Agricultural Training Center-
Mtwapa
35 Josphat Moindi 0735 156190 Mombasa Male 0
36 JosphineItumbi
Makewa
Mombasa Female Mwangala Neema Women group
37 Jotham Mbashu
Mwanose
0733268291/071
7269318
Mombasa Male Tumaini Langu Development
Group
38 Kelly Konde Mbura 725256138 Mombasa Male Mwangale BMU
39 Kelvin Kibagendi 720756652 Mombasa Male 0
40 Mary Were Mombasa Female Young Mothers
41 Mbwana Babu 715191939 Mombasa Male Likoni BMU
42 Mgendi Josephat
Kalimbo
710236854 Mombasa Male Vision Self Help Group
43 Michael Mijomba Mombasa Male Bamburi Haller Foundation
(Baobab Trust)
44 Mohamed Abdalla 0717 697006 Mombasa Male Timbwani BMU
45 Mohammed
Kasiwa Kithi
727761464 Mombasa Male Mombasa integrated soild waste
46 Muhammed Ali
Mwazima
739468866 Mombasa Male Nguvu Mpya Contact Farmers
47 Naima Twahir Mombasa Female Oldtown BMU
48 Ngome Mukala
Mwinyi
714101292 Mombasa Male Pirates BMU
49 Noel Mwenga 726917759 Mombasa Male Self Employed
50 Omar Hamisi 0720 145913 Mombasa Male Timbwani BMU
51 Omondi Mohamed 0725 231290 Mombasa Male Eco-ethics international
52 Paris Njeri Mwai 0720 432379 Mombasa Female One, Two Three women group
53 Patrick Ekwam 0720 838985 Mombasa Male MESPT
54 Peter Ouma Chege 712653290 Mombasa Male Kazi ni Kazi CBO
55 Phillip Nzoka 717910648 Mombasa Male Individual farmer
56 Priscilla Bonareri
Obiero
Mombasa Female Chaani Community Unit
57 Priscilla Kabiru Mombasa Female 123 SHG
58 Purity Muthami
Nderitu
0720 899076 Mombasa Female Indigenous chicken VC
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
94
59 Rosemary Atieno 723356191 Mombasa Female One, two, three women group
60 Sammy Wachira 0728 786066 Mombasa Male Mwagosi youth bunge
61 Samuel Martin
Ngige
705761320 Mombasa Male Hilltop Sea food
62 Sarah Kusa Mombasa Female Department of Agriculture
63 Steven Otieno 729434000 Mombasa Male Mwagosi Youth Group
64 Susan Musau 726841467 Mombasa Female 123 Women Group
65 Tabitha Kizingo
Mwiwawi
725702090 Mombasa Female Peculiar Creations
66 Tabitha Koki 710135182 Mombasa Female Sisi Kwa Sisi SHG
67 Walter Opanda
Andati
Mombasa Male Muungano wa Wanavijiji
68 Zachariah Ouma
Onyango
Mombasa Male Jitengeni self help group
69 Zackaria Mwaniki 728646440 Mombasa Male Sisi Kwa Sisi SHG
70 Zena Saidi
Eliangiringa
0722 669228 Mombasa Female Agricultural Training and
Development Center(ATDC)
71 Zuhura Salim
Mwakumuna
724987601 Mombasa Female Mtongwe BMU
72 Rukia Jacob Mombasa Female Amaranthus leaves farmer
73 Peterson Migosi
Ondieki
707910466 Mombasa Male Indigenous poultry farmer
74 Patrick Maleya 0729033858 Kisauni Male Indigenous poultry farmer
Jonathan Sulubu; County director of Agriculture; Acting Chief officer DALF
Mary S. Mwabaya; County Director of Livestock
Peter Nyaga - Secretary (Chairman Nyumba Kumi)
Jonathan Sulubu; County director of Agriculture; Acting Chief officer DALF
M. N Njunie;Centre Director KARI
Dr. Hassan Ali Mohammed-Regional Manager
Rosemary Gitau- Founder member
Collins Ndoro; County Director of fisheries
Sophie Mwakazi; Chairperson
Dr. David K. Kehara; County director veterinary services
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
95
6.2 LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS S/No. Organization
1 ADS
2 ATC
3 ATDC
4 Bamburi Haller Foundation (Baobab Trust)
5 Chaani Community Unit
6 COAST FARM CARE
7 Dept. Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries
8 ECO-ETHICS
9 EPC
10 Kashani Muungano Water Project
11 KCDA
12 KEPHIS
13 KIRDI
14 KMFRI
15 KENAFF
16 KENCHIC LTD
17 Kenya Agriculture and Livestock Research organization (KALRO)
18 Kongowea Market Central Committee Traders Association
19 KWS
20 MAIMUN FISHING TACKLES
21 MESPT
22 Muungano wa Wanavijiji
23 DEPT OF TRADE
24 Pwani Feeds
25 TULIZZA CBO
26 Tumaini Langu Development Group
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
96
6.3 GROUPS INTERVIEWED
Name of Group
1 123 SHG
2 Kuinuana Women Group
3 Kuku kienyeji shanzu group
4 Likoni BMU
5 Makumba Self Help Group
6 Kuinuana Women Group
7 Makumba Self Help Group
8 Muungano wa Wanavijiji
9 Mwagosi Youth Group
10 Mwangale BMU
11 Nguvu Mpya Registered Farmers
12 Old-town BMU
13 Sisi Kwa Sisi SHG
14 Tumaini Langu Development Group
15 Vision Self Help Group
16 Young Mothers
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
97
6.4 CNA TOOLS
6.4.1 Focus Group Discussion Guide for Capacity Needs Assessment for Enabling
Environment
ASDSP
Information supplied on this form is treated as confidential and restricted to the ASDSP
Focus Group Discussion Guide for Capacity Needs Assessment For Enabling Environment
SECTION 1: IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS
a) County……………………………………………………………………………..………………………
b) Name of Group ……………………………………………….…….……………………………....……..
c) Date ………………………………………………………….……………………………………...…….
d) Facilitator’s name …………………………………………………………………………..……………..
SECTION 2: Guide the group to discuss the following
a) The policy, legal frameworks and Socio - Cultural influences.
i. Make the group identify laws, regulations, strategies and policies that they operate
under/that influence
their day to day operations and when they were last reviewed.
……………………………………………….…….………………………………….………...……..
……………………………………………….…….…………………………………………....……..
ii Find out if participation of the vulnerable in terms of social inclusion is a consideration in
the laws and policies.
…………………………………….…….………………………………….…………………...……..
…………………………………….…….……………………………………………………....……..
iii. Find out if there are socio cultural influences on agricultural sector.
……………………………………………….…….………………………………….………...……..
……………………………………………….…….…………………………………………....……..
b) Commitment and accountability.
i. Experiences of the group on commitment to accountability by national and county
governments, public and private institutions, on development of the agriculture sector.
…………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...……..
……………………………………………….…….…………………………………………....……..
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
98
ii. Can the group identify ways in which the national and county governments, is helping
them to achieve certain milestones
…………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...……..
……………………………………………….…….…………………………………………....……..
iii. The group members roles in ensuring Commitment and Accountability (e.g. advocacy,
participation in implementing committees)
…………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...……..
……………………………………………….…….…………………………………………....……..
c) Budget allocation for agriculture sector activities;
i. Group members’ awareness on budget allocations to Agriculture Sector (e.g.
National & County Governments, CDF, NGOs)?
…………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...……..
……………………………………………….…….…………………………………………....……..
ii. Group members’ access to funds
…………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...……..
……………………………………………….…….…………………………………………....……..
iii. Known sources of funds (Regular sources).
…………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...……..
……………………………………………….…….…………………………………………....……..
iv. Keeping and access of financial records on demand.
…………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...……..
……………………………………………….…….…………………………………………....……..
v. Monitoring systems for expenditure and budget.
…………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...……..
……………………………………………….…….…………………………………………....……..
d) Governance and power relations
How do you influence the following?
a) Establishment of institutions in the sector,
………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...………………………………
…Funding
………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...………………………………
…Service provision
………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...………………………………
…Equitable distribution of resources and
………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...………………………………
…Accountability
………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...………………………………
…………………….…….…………………………………………....…
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
99
6.4.2 INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
ASDSP
Information supplied on this form is treated as confidential and restricted to the ASDSP
INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
PERSONAL DETAILS
Name of the respondent………..………………………………..........................
County………………………………………………………..……….………
Age .…………………………………………………..………………………
Gender of the respondent
Organization……………………………………………………………………
OCCUPATION
2.1 Primary Occupation……………………………………………………………
2.2 Secondary Occupation ……………………………………..…………..………
2.3 What activities do you carry out in your primary and secondary occupation?
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
2.3.1 Primary occupation
a) ………………………………………………………………………………
b) ………………………………………………………………………………
c) ………………………………………………………………………………
d) ………………………………………………………………………………
e) ………………………………………………………………………………
2.3.2 Secondary Occupation
a) ………………………………………………………………………………
b) ………………………………………………………………………………
c) ………………………………………………………………………………
d) ………………………………………………………………………………
e) ………………………………………………………………………………
f) ………………………………………………………………………………
M F
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
100
3. EXPERTISE
What are your areas of expertise?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. ROLES
4.1 What is your general role in the agriculture sector?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4.2 What activities do you perform/intend to perform for agriculture sector? (Ask to clarify the
activities with regard to 2.3 above)
a) ……………………………………………………………………………………
b) ……………………………………………………………………………………
c) ……………………………………………………………………………………
d) ……………………………………………………………………………………
4.3 Are your current roles in agriculture sector related to your area of expertise or current
occupation?
If No proceed to question 5.
4.4 If yes, please specify how:
a) ……………………………………………………………………………………
b) ……………………………………………………………………………………
c) ……………………………………………………………………………………
d) ……………………………………………………………………………………
5. 0 EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS.
5.1 Indicate academic and professional qualifications starting with the highest.
Educational and professional
Qualification
(e.g. M.Sc. Degree, Dip, Cert)
Specific Discipline/Subject Matter
e.g. Agribusiness, HRM, management,
CPA (K),
No Yes
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
101
5.2 In your view what skills do you have and what skills do you need for your role in the
agricultural sector?
Three major Skills that you possess Perceived Skill gaps for the role you are
playing in the agricultural sector.
6.0 Individual Dimension
6.1 Component 1: Sector’ Wide Coordination
In column C in the table below, rate your capacity in the listed 5 capacity areas and capacity
issues.
A
B
C
Capacity Area
Capacity Issues
Skills, Knowledge, Aptitude
Adequacy
Scale 1-5
1=No capacity
2=Little Capacity
3=Good Capacity
4=Very Good Capacity
5=Excellent Capacity
Actual Desired
1.1 Co-ordination Planning
Management Skills
Computer Literacy Skills
Research
Knowledge Management
Monitoring and Evaluation
Knowledge on Agriculture Sector Issues
Extension Mgt
Communication Skills
1.2 Partnership &
Networking
advocacy and negotiation
skills to enhance networks
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
102
skills to enhance partnerships
1.3 Monitoring
and Evaluation
Monitoring and Evaluation skills
1.4 Policy policy dialogue, formulation and roll out
analysis
1.5 Mention
intrinsic values
above
Ability to work under pressure or hardship
environment.
Interpersonal relations,
Public relations,
Customer relations,
Team building,
1.6
Integrity/Equity
issues
Personal orientation on targeting and
affirmative action
7.0 Individual Dimension
7.1 Component 2: Natural Resource Management and Social Inclusion
Capacity Area
Capacity Issues
Skills, Knowledge, Aptitude
Adequacy
Scale 1-5
1=No capacity
2=Little Capacity
3=Good Capacity
4=Very Good
Capacity
5=Excellent
Capacity
Actual Desired
2.1
Awareness,
knowledge and
appreciation of
NRM, Climate
Change and CC
Adaptation
disaster preparedness for Value chain actors
adaptation measures against climate related hazards,
Climate forecasting, climate change prediction
facilitation of access to and use of climate
information
identification and minimization of the use of
hazardous inputs in value chain development
intensification and diversification of agriculture,
efficient use of water, soils, and biodiversity,
2.2
Equitable access
to and use of
NRM/weather/CC
A advisory
services and
appropriate
disaster preparedness for Value chain actors
adaptation measures against climate related
hazards,
entrepreneurship and business development,
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
103
technologies developing attitudes on self reliance
intensification and diversification of agriculture,
efficient use of water, soils, and biodiversity,
identification and minimization of the use of
hazardous inputs in value chain development
Climate forecasting, climate change prediction
NRM/CCA appropriate technology transfer
targeting and affirmative action
2.3
NRM CC planning
Skills on NRM mapping and planning,
disaster preparedness for Value chain actors
adaptation measures against climate related
hazards,
entrepreneurship and business development,
intensification and diversification of agriculture,
efficient use of water, soils, and biodiversity,
identification and minimization of the use of
hazardous inputs in value chain development
skills to facilitate access and use climate
information
Climate forecasting, climate change prediction
VC NRM suitability Mapping, skills for NRM/CCA
appropriate technology transfer
2.4: Social
Inclusion and
protection
Services
Gender skills
Gender Mainstreaming Skills
Community mobilization
Social targeting skills
2.5: Community
Action Capability
Mobilization skills
Organizational capabilities.
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
104
Self actualization
Capacity Area
Capacity Issues
Skills, Knowledge, Aptitude
Adequacy
Scale 1-5
1=No capacity
2=Little Capacity
3=Good Capacity
4=Very Good Capacity
5=Excellent Capacity
3.1
Inclusive value chain
organizations developed
Formation of linkages along the
VCs.
Advocacy and lobbying
Business Management Skills.
Value chain mapping
Establishing networks
3.2
Public and private
investment in VC
development increased
Partnership skills.
Networking skills
Resource mobilization
3.3
Equitable access to
market increased
Information Management
Market analysis skills
Value addition skills
Agri business skills
Pre and post production skills
3.4
Access to affordable
financial and insurance
services for value chain
actors improved
(including women, youth
and other vulnerable
groups)
Networking skills
Negotiation Skills.
Financial Management Skills.
Risk management skills.
3.5
Innovative and inclusive
value chains and VC
Analytical skills
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
105
8.0 Individual Dimension 8.1 Component 3: Value Chain Development
With the current educational, professional qualifications and other courses/trainings attended are
you able to effectively perform all your current duties under ASDSP?
If not, specify duties in ASDSP where you feel you are not able to perform adequately
S/No Specific duty/task unable to perform
effectively
what training do you require to improve
on your performance?
On a scale of 1-5 rate yourself on how you understand/deal with the following capacity issues
(1=No understanding; 2=Little understanding; 3=good understanding; 4=very good understanding;
5=Excellent understanding)
Capacity issue
Score
Institutional Capacity Development (Organizational
development)
Leadership Skills
Project development
Fund raising and Resource Mobilization
Peace Building
Partnerships development skills
Technical skills with reference to value chains
technologies up-scaled
and out-scaled. VC upgrading knowledge
Applied research skills
Yes No
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
106
Capacity issue
Score
identified
Cross Cutting Values(Gender Mainstreaming,
Social Inclusion ,disability, Drug abuse, HIV and
AIDS)
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
107
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
108
6.4.3 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN
ORGANISATIONS.
ASDSP
Information supplied on this form is treated as confidential and restricted to the ASDSP
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN
ORGANISATIONS.
SECTION 1: IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS
i. County……………………………………………………………………………………..
ii. Group/organization/institution……………………………….……………………………
iii. Is the organization registered and when (date dd/mm/yy)…………………………….……….
iv. Name and Position of key informant ………………………………………..……………
v. Gender - Male Female
vi. Main Activities of the Group/organization/institution
a. ……………………………………………………………..……………………..
b. ………………………………………………………………..…………………..
c. ……………………..………………………………………….…………………
d. …………………………………………………………………….……………..
vii. Interviewer’s name……………………………………………Date…………………..………..
SECTION 2: ASSESSING THE CAPACITIES OF ORGANIZATIONS TO UNDERSTAND THEIR OWN
INSTITUTIONAL MOTIVATION AND TO ALIGN THEM TO ASDS.
a) Was your organization involved in any way in the development of ASDS? (Probe further to
get specific roles of the organization in the development of the strategies)
………………………..…………………………………………………………………….……………
……………………………….……………………………………………………………………….…..
b) Is your organization involved in any activities related to achieving aspirations of ASDS?
(Research, extension, partnerships, knowledge management, etc)
………………………………………………………………………………………….………..………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..
c) Does the organization’s mandate clearly stipulate involvement in these areas? (Specify yes
or no in the box as appropriate)
Increased productivity and commercialization
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
109
Promote private sector participation,
Promote sustainable land and natural resource management
Improve agriculture services,
Increase market access, competitiveness and trade,
Promote effective coordination and implementation in agriculture sector.
d) Which department/unit is mandated to collect information on your organization’s work in
relation to the above mentioned pillars of ASDS?
…………………………………………………………………………………………….……………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….….
e) How does your organization manage information?
Is there a collection system
How is it stored (probe the type of storage)
Is there a method of retrieval (probe on how access is managed)
Dissemination (website, news letter, brochure, radio, TV etc.)
………………………………………………………………………………………….……………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..
SECTION 3: RELATIONSHIP WITH ASDSP
ASDSP works with many actors. With some of these, ASDSP has entered into a formal
agreement, a PARTNERSHIP (MoU, MoA or other contract), with others ASDSP COLLABORATES
without formal agreement.
a) Is your organization an ASDSP partner?
Yes No
If yes, what does the partnership entail?
……………………………………………………………………………………………….………
…………………………………………………………………….…………………………………b) How does your
organization benefit from these partnership arrangements?
…………………..…………………………………………………………………….……………
……………………………………………………………………………….………………….…..
If no, would your organization be interested in entering into a partnership with ASDSP?
Yes No
…………………..…………………………………………………………………….……………
…………………………….……………………………………………………………………….…
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
110
If yes, in what areas would you like to partner?
…………………..…………………………………………………………………….……………
…………………………….……………………………………………………………………….…
c) Is your organization collaborating with ASDSP?
Yes No
If yes, how?
……………………………………………………………………………………….……………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..
If no, would your organization be interested to collaborate with ASDSP?
Yes No
If yes, in what area would you like to collaborate?
………………………………………………………………………………………….……………
……………………………………..…………………………………………………………….…..
d) Does your organization have relationships with other stakeholders in ASDSP?
…………………………………..……………………………………………………………….…
…………………….……………….…………………………………………………………….…..
e) What types of relationships are there?
……………………..……………………………………………………………………………….
………………….……………….…………………………………………………………….…..
SECTION 4: CAPACITIES OF THE ORGANIZATION TO ENGAGE IN THE MANAGEMENT
OF ASDSP OPERATIONS
These capacities relate to strategic and organizational functions of the organization and include
coordination, conducting studies and research, information management, engaging in
partnerships and undertaking monitoring and evaluation in relation to ASDSP.
1) Sector co-ordination
a) What functional relationship does your organization have with ASDSP (e.g. governance,
management, technical)?
……………………..……………………………………………………………………………….
………………….……………….…………………………………………………………….…..
b) What activities define the functional relationships (e.g. M&E, policy dissemination, co-
ordination)?
……………………..……………………………………………………………………………….
………………….……………….…………………………………………………………….…..
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
111
c) Does your organization have a co-ordination mandate in regard to functional relationships?
NO YES
If Yes,explain
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……
d) What is the channel (pathways and means)of communication between your organization
and
i. ASDSP………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………
ii. Other
stakeholders?......................................................................................................................
e) How effective is the channel mentioned above?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………….………………………
2) Sector studies and research
a) Is your organization involved in ASDS related studies and research?
NO YES
If yes, explain how …………………………………………………………………………………………………..
b) How does your organization share knowledge with other knowledge generators?
3) Sector information
b) As an organization what is your main source of information/data pertaining to the
agriculture sector?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
c) Name any networks for information exchange on various themes of the ASDSP your
organization is involved in?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
4) Monitoring and evaluation
3 Is your organization involved in carrying out M&E activities? Yes/No
If Yes, how do you do it?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
4 How is the information developed from these monitoring activities shared?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
112
SECTION 5: CAPACITIES OF ORGANIZATIONS TO DEVELOP PROCEDURES FOR EFFECTIVE AND
EFFICIENT OPERATIONS
1) Operating procedures and processes
a) Does your organization have management standard
operating procedures (SOPs) and processes in place?
Yes/No
Interrogate the Financial management procedures
Does your organization have financial management procedures and systems?
Auditing
Budgeting cycle
Procurement
Source of funding
b) What are the limitations of management procedures and
processes if any?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2) Information management systems
a) Does your organization use/apply any information systems in its operations e.g. Enterprise
Resource Planning ERP, NAFIS? Yes/No
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
If YES how is it applied?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
b) What data collection methods do you use in your organization?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3) Stakeholder consultations
a) Does your organization consult regularly with other stakeholders? Yes/No
If Yes what formal arrangements are there to these consultations?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Has your organization factored in public and private sector partnerships? Yes/No
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
How was the partnerships initiated?
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
113
SECTION 6: CAPACITIES OF ORGANIZATIONS TO MANAGE HUMAN RESOURCES
a) Does your organization having optimal staffing levels? Yes/No
Cadre In-post Optimal Variance
Managerial
Technical Staff
Non Technical Staff
Total
b) How does your organization source for employees/consultants/experts to work with? Tick
as appropriate .This question allows for multiple responses
Employment bureaus
Advertisement through dailies
Internal sources
Referrals/relatives
Head hunting
Others (specify)……
……………………………………………………………………………..
c) On what basis do you assign roles and responsibilities to your employees/ Consultants/
experts? Tick as appropriate .This question allows for multiple responses
Experience
Skill level
Age
Performance
Education/Area of expertise
Others (specify)…………………………………………………………………………………………..
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
114
d) Do your employees have sufficient skills to carry out their roles in the organization? Yes/No
If No, in which area?
Cadre Challenges Why?
Managerial
Technical Staff
Non Technical
Staff
e) How do you monitor and evaluate performance of your employees/consultants/experts?
…………………………………………………………………………………………….………………
f) Is there a liaison Officer in your organization capable of engaging in public relations
Yes/No?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
SECTION 7: CAPACITIES OF ORGANIZATIONS ON KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
1. Policies on Knowledge Management.
a) Does the organization have a policy on knowledge management Yes/No?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
b) Do you have a unit managing internal knowledge?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Policy Awareness
a) Is your organization aware of agriculture sector policies and regulations? If so, which ones?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
b) What are the organization’s sources of information on agriculture sector development
policies? (Either in County, National or global entities)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…...…………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
c) Are sector policy documents and regulations easily available and accessible to employees?
Yes/No.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
d) Does your organize tap internal knowledge? Yes/No. If yes how do you do this?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………..…………………………………………………………………
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
115
3. Knowledge sources and access (Research)
a) Does your organization have internal and external ways to tap knowledge on various
thematic areas of relevance to the program? Yes/No
b) Does your organization have a research mandate on any theme of relevance to ASDSP? If
yes,
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
c) What is your mandate/theme?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……….....…………………………………………………………………
d) How does your organization utilize research data to influence policy decisions?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………..…………………………………………………………………
e) How is knowledge on various themes shared between your organization and mandated
institutions? (Mode, frequency and formats).
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………..…………………………………………………………………..
f) Do special interest groups have access to such knowledge?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………..
g) Are there informal channels existing in your organization for knowledge sharing?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………..…………………………………………………………………
4. Knowledge sources and access (Local Innovations)
a) Does your organization capture and share indigenous innovation? What examples exist of
such local innovations
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………….
b) Does your organization have capacity to facilitate access and use to such knowledge?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
116
SECTION 8: CAPACITY OF ORGANIZATIONS TO ENGAGE IN INFRASTRUCTURAL
DEVELOPMENT
Infrastructure
a) Does your organization have sufficient infrastructure and tools for carrying out activities
towards meeting objectives of your organization and those of ASDSP? (Vehicles,
computers, equipment, offices, labs, software, technology e.t.c). If no what is lacking?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
b) What infrastructural plans are there in place to advance value chain activities (Coolers,
market shades, shellers, oil press etc)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
c) Which of the infrastructural requirements in your plan are you able to provide?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………..…………..
d) Of those that are externally sourced, what ways does your organization have for soliciting
for funding infrastructural development?
…………………………………………………………………………………
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
117
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
118
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
119
ASDSP Mombasa County Capacity Needs Assessment Report
120
1