mombasa county cna report - nafis.go.ke county cna report 2014/15 capacity needs assessment report a...

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


Tel: 0728403697

Mr. Swaleh M. Sheikh

Department of Livestock Production

Kisauni Sub County

P.O Box 90725-80100 Mombasa


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

mailto:[email protected]




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


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.


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.


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


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:-


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


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)


8


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:


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.


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


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


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


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.


15

(i) Main Outcomes

Table 8: Summary of Outcomes - Indigenous Value Chain

INDEGINOUS CHICKEN VALUE CHAIN


a) The policy,

legal frameworks


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


hindrance among communities in

achieving high yields.

• Both physically and visually


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


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,


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.


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


a) The policy,

legal frameworks


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


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


hindrance among

communities in achieving

high yields.

Both physically and visually


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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:-


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


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.


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

E-mail

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.


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


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


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


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


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


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

http://www.aviagen.com/


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


33

M&E meetings every 6 months ;(mid-year review).


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


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


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


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 (

%)


Figure 3 3: Average percentage of stakeholders with respective capacities in SWC


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


Figure 3 4: Percentage of stakeholders with respective capacities in the five areas of the NRM & SI Component


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


Figure 3 5: Percentage of Mombasa stakeholders with various capacities in VCD


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


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


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


Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f St

ake

ho

lde

rs (

%)


Figure 3 7: Distribution of the capacity of stakeholders in Mombasa


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


31

38

25

25

17

Below 2° School Certificate


23

19

25 25

50

35

38

50 50

31

38

25 25

17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


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


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


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


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


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


Figure 3 11: Mombasa sub counties capacity in Partnership and Networking under SWC


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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.


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


Figure 3 22: Average capacity of stakeholders from various organizatio in coordination under SWC


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


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


Gap

ActualCapacity


Gap

ActualCapacity


Gap

ActualCapacity


Gap

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


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


Figure 3 24: Average capacity of stakeholders from various organizations in NRM & SI issues


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


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


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


Figure 3 27: Average capacity of stakeholders from organizations in equitable access and use of NRM services


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


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


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


Figure 3 29: Average capacities of organization in ten NRM CC Planning capacity issues


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


3

2 22

3

4 44 4

5

-1

-2-2

-2-2

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6


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


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


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


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

P&P Invest. - Partnership Skills P&P Invest. - Networking Skills P&P Invest. - Resources Mobilization


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


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


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


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

Analytical Skills Value Chain Upgrading Knowldege Aplied Research Skills


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


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


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


Figure 3 38: Average percentage of male and female stakeholders of various capacities of SWC, NRM & SI and VCD


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


Male Female

NRM SI


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


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 - NRM CC Planning NRM & SI -Social Inclusion andProtection Services

NRM & SI - Community ActionCapability



Figure 3 46: Percentage of female and male stakeholders with various capacities in five capacity areas of NRM & SI


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


Male Female

VCD


2

4

-2

3

4

-2

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5


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


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



Female Male

Figure 3 49: Average female and male capacity in five VCD capacity areas


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 - VC Tech Upscaling andOutscaling



Figure 3 50: Percentage of male and female stakeholders with various capacities in five capacity areas of VCD


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



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


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


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.



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


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



Figure 3 56: Percentage female and male stakeholders with respective capacities in social inclusion and protection services


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



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


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




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


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



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


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


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



Ave

rage

Cap

acit

y o

f St

ake

ho

lde

rs


Figure 3 64: VCCG and non-VCCG Members capacities in six capacity areas in SWC


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


Gap

ActualCapacity


Gap

ActualCapacity


Gap

ActualCapacity


Gap

ActualCapacity


Gap

VCD - CV Orgs Dev. VCD - PP in VC Devt. VCD - Access to Market VCD - Financial &Insurance Services


Ave

rage

Cap

acit

y o

f St

ake

ho

lde

rs


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 - NRM CC Planning NRM & SI -Social Inclusionand Protection Services


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


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


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


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



Amaranthus Indigenous Chicken Fish

Figure 3 70: Average percentage of mixed fish value chain stakeholders’ capacities


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







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


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




Figure 3 73: Value chains stakeholders' capacities in five capacity areas of VCD


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


Figure 3 74: Value chains stakeholders' capacities in community action capacity issues


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


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


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


88


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.

…………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...……..

……………………………………………….…….…………………………………………....……..


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

………………….……………………………....………………………………….………...………………………………

…………………….…….…………………………………………....…


99

6.4.2 INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT

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


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


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


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


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


adaptation measures against climate related

hazards,

entrepreneurship and business development,


103

technologies developing attitudes on self reliance






NRM/CCA appropriate technology transfer

targeting and affirmative action

2.3

NRM CC planning

Skills on NRM mapping and planning,


adaptation measures against climate related

hazards,

entrepreneurship and business development,





skills to facilitate access and use climate

information


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.


104

Self actualization

Capacity Area

Capacity Issues


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


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


106

Capacity issue

Score

identified

Cross Cutting Values(Gender Mainstreaming,

Social Inclusion ,disability, Drug abuse, HIV and

AIDS)


107


108

6.4.3 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT IN

ORGANISATIONS.

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


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

…………………..…………………………………………………………………….……………

…………………………….……………………………………………………………………….…


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)?

……………………..……………………………………………………………………………….

………………….……………….…………………………………………………………….…..


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?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


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?


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)…………………………………………………………………………………………..


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?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………..…………………………………………………………………


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?

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………


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?

…………………………………………………………………………………


117


118


119


120

1

mombasa county cna report - nafis.go.ke county cna report 2014/15 capacity needs assessment report a...

Documents