republic of kenya country strategic opportunities programme · 2013-08-13 · eb 2013/109/r.14 iv...

Note to Executive Board representativesFocal points:

Technical questions: Dispatch of documentation:

Nadine GbossaCountry DirectorTel.: +254 20 762 1028e-mail: [email protected]

Deirdre McGrenraHead, Governing Bodies OfficeTel.: +39 06 5459 2374e-mail: [email protected]

Executive Board — 109th SessionRome, 17-19 September 2013

For: Review

Document: EB 2013/109/R.14

EAgenda: 7(a)(i)

Date: 13 August 2013

Distribution: Public

Original: English

Republic of Kenya

Country strategic opportunities programme

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

EB 2013/109/R.14

i

Contents

Abbreviations and acronyms iiMap of the programme area iiiSummary of country strategy 1I. Introduction 1II. Country context 1

A. Economic, agricultural and rural poverty context 1B. Policy, strategy and institutional context 2

III. Lessons from IFAD’s experience in the country 3A. Past results, impact and performance 3B. Lessons learned 4

IV. IFAD country strategic framework 5A. IFAD’s comparative advantage at the country level 5B. Strategic objectives 5C. Opportunities for innovation 6D. Targeting strategy 6E. Policy linkages 7

V. Programme management 7A. COSOP monitoring 7B. Country programme management 7C. Partnerships 7D. Knowledge management and communication 8E. PBAS financing framework 8F. Risks and risk management 8

AppendicesCOSOP consultation process 1Country economic background 5COSOP results management framework 6Previous COSOP results management framework 9CPE agreement at completion point 10Project pipeline 15

Key filesKey file 1: Rural poverty and agricultural/rural sector issues 29Key file 2: Organizations matrix (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and

threats [SWOT] analysis) 36Key file 3: Complementary donor initiative/partnership potential 53Key file 4: Target group identification, priority issues and potential response 60

EB 2013/109/R.14

ii

Abbreviations and acronyms

ALFA Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food AuthorityASAL arid and semi-arid landASAP Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture ProgrammeASCU Agricultural Sector Coordination UnitASDS Agricultural Sector Development StrategyCAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development ProgrammeCKDAP Central Kenya Dry Area Smallholder and Community Services

Development ProjectCOSOP country strategic opportunities programmeCPE country programme evaluationCPMT Country Programme Management TeamKJAS Kenya Joint Assistance StrategyKM knowledge managementM&E monitoring and evaluationMDG Millennium Development GoalMHP medium-to-high potentialMKEPP Mount Kenya East Pilot Project for Natural Resource ManagementNRM natural resource managementPBAS performance-based allocation systemPROFIT Programme for Rural Outreach of Financial Innovations and TechnologiesSDCP Smallholder Dairy Commercialization ProgrammeSNCDP Southern Nyanza Community Development ProjectUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentUTaNRMP Upper Tana Catchment Natural Resource Management Project

EB 2013/109/R.14

iii

Appendix IV

[Click here and insert EB ../../R

..]

Map of the programme area

EB 2013/109/R.14

iv

Appendix IV

[Click here and insert EB ../../R

..]

Summary of country strategy

1. This third country strategic opportunities programme (COSOP) 2013-2018 forKenya is aligned with the country’s long-term development blueprint, the KenyaVision 2030, and the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy 2010-2020. TheCOSOP, which has been developed with a predisposition towards scaling up, buildson IFAD's comparative advantage and lessons learned during implementation of theprevious COSOP.

2. This country strategy is more focused, emphasizing intensification, value addition,market access and sustainable natural resource management in the agriculturalsector. The core target group remains vulnerable smallholder farmers andagropastoralists, including young people and woman-headed households. TheCOSOP has three strategic objectives in line with the Medium-Term InvestmentPlan: 2010-2015 towards the Vision:

Strategic objective 1: Gender-responsive, climate-resilient andsustainable community-based natural resource management isimproved. This objective will contribute to maintaining ecological integrity,natural capital and biodiversity, while improving degraded lands throughsound soil and water conservation techniques, with a view to mitigating andadapting to climate change and variability.

Strategic objective 2: Intensification: Access of vulnerable ruralwomen, men and youth in target areas to productivity-enhancingassets, technologies and services is improved. Achievement of thisobjective will: sustainably improve smallholder agricultural and livestockproduction, including small-scale irrigation; enhance the performance ofservice providers; and improve productive infrastructure.

Strategic objective 3: Value addition and marketing: Sustainableaccess of vulnerable rural women, men and young farmers,agropastoralists and entrepreneurs to improved post-productiontechnologies and markets is enhanced. This objective aims to promotemarket-oriented production and increased access to markets by smallholders,as well as sustainable investments in market information systems and marketand road infrastructure for marketing groups and related enterprises.

3. These objectives will be pursued through both ongoing operations in Kenya andnew programmes implemented during the COSOP period. IFAD will invest someUS$110 million over the five years of the COSOP. This will comprise performance-based allocation system allocations for 2013-2015 and 2016-2018 of an estimatedUS$100 million and an Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme grant ofUS$10 million. The COSOP has been formulated with a predisposition towardsscaling up that will enable the Kenya programme to contribute effectively tobringing targeted rural dwellers out of poverty.

EB 2013/109/R.14

1

Republic of Kenya

Country strategic opportunities programme

I. Introduction1. This new country strategic opportunities programme (COSOP) 2013-2018 will be

implemented within the framework of the Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy (KJAS).It builds on IFAD’s experience and comparative advantage in Kenya. Thepreparation process was highly participatory, involving stakeholder and high-levelconsultations in: the National Treasury and the 10 agriculture-sector ministries;United Nations agencies, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, World Food Programme, United Nations Development Programmeand United Nations Human Settlements Programme: UN-Habitat; the United StatesAgency for International Development (USAID); and NGOs, farmers’ umbrellaorganizations and the private sector – under the guidance of the CountryProgramme Management Team (CPMT). The process included reflections on theimplementation of previous COSOPs and a country programme evaluation (CPE).These led to the definition of priority areas for IFAD intervention in the context ofthe development priorities of the Government of Kenya, which are highlighted in:the Kenya Vision 2030, the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) 2010-2020 and the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP),as well as the IFAD Strategic Framework 2011-2015.

II. Country contextA. Economic, agricultural and rural poverty context

Country economic background2. Kenya has a land area of 569,140 km² and an estimated population of 41.6 million

people (2011),1 70 per cent of whom live in the medium-to-high potential (MHP)areas in the centre and west of the country. The remaining 30 per cent live in aridand semi-arid lands (ASALs), which constitute 84 per cent of the land mass andhost 70 per cent of the national livestock herds, which meet a substantial part ofthe population’s dietary need for meat. The gross national income per capita wasestimated at US$810 in 2010. The Kenyan economy is highly vulnerable to internaland external shocks. In 2008, the economy suffered from the global financial crisis,significant post-election civil disruptions and drought. The annual growth rate of theeconomy before 2008 of 6-7 per cent was cut back by 2.5 per cent by the droughtof 2008-2011.2 The GDP growth rate fell to 4.4 per cent in 2011 from 5.8 per centthe previous year, while the World Bank projected growth rates of 5 per cent for2012 and 5.5 per cent for 2013. Services and agriculture represent about 49 and25 per cent of GDP respectively. Following the first peaceful election in March 2013since the introduction of the multiparty system in the 1990s, the United Nationsassesses that the scene is set for growth and development towards the ambitiousKenya Vision 2030.

3. Climate change is one of the major challenges to the Kenyan economy. An initialestimate in 2012 of the immediate amounts needed to address the current andfuture challenges of climate change was US$500 million per year. Other challengesto economic development include: delays in privatization, high lending rates,corruption and waste, insecurity, poor infrastructure and high unemployment.Kenya’s Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index improved from2.2 in 2011 to 2.7 in 2012, partly due to the more robust checks and balances for

1 World Bank, World Development Indicators 2012 (Washington, D.C., 2012).2 Republic of Kenya, Kenya Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) for the 2008-2011 Drought(Nairobi, 2012).

EB 2013/109/R.14

2

improved fiscal accountability introduced by the new constitution, including therequirement of public vetting of all key public appointees to limit the access ofcorrupt officials to public office.

Agriculture and rural poverty4. The agricultural sector accounts for 65 per cent of Kenya’s exports and employs

80 per cent of the workforce. Industrial crops contribute 17 per cent of agriculturalGDP and 55 per cent of agricultural exports, while food crops contribute 32 per centof agricultural GDP, but only 0.5 per cent of exports. The Kenya Vision 2030identifies agriculture as one of the six key economic sectors expected to drive theeconomy to a projected 10 per cent economic growth annually over the next twodecades. Kenya’s agriculture is predominantly rainfed. Irrigation accounts for only1.7 per cent of total agricultural land, but 18 per cent of the value of agriculturalproduce, demonstrating its potential to increase productivity. Other challengesfacing the sector include: (i) inadequate budgetary allocations; (ii) climate changemore severely affecting ASALs, which have some of the highest levels of povertyincidence; and (iii) population pressure leading to land degradation, with populationdensity reaching 300 people per square kilometre in the environs and watershed ofMount Kenya, which is a source of water for more than 50 per cent of the Kenyanpopulation. The livestock subsector employs about 10 million people andcontributes 17 per cent of agricultural GDP. In ASALs, livestock accounts for90 per cent of employment and 95 per cent of household income. ASALs have greatdevelopment potential, but droughts, conflict, weak institutions and infrastructure,and the recent discovery of oil deposits in Turkana County pose challenges to thesustainability of agricultural livelihoods.

5. The agriculture sector declined by 4.3 and 2.5 per cent, respectively, in 2008 and2009, but grew by 6.4 per cent in 2010, although by only 1.5 per cent in 2011(affected by drought in most parts of the country and floods in others) – very muchin tandem with the growth performance of the economy. About 45.9 per cent ofKenyans lived in poverty in 2005, the incidence being higher (49.1 per cent) inrural areas, which host 83 per cent of poor people. The poverty line in 2005/2006was 1,562 Kenya shillings (KES) per month per adult equivalent for rural areas,while the food poverty line was KES 988. The Long Rains Assessment Report 2011by the Kenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSSG) indicated that approximately12 per cent of the rural population was food insecure, most of it being communitiesliving in ASALs, which have been impacted severely by the recent droughts.

B. Policy, strategy and institutional contextNational institutional context

6. Following a reduction in government extension staff, the private sector is becomingmore involved in service provision. However, private-sector service capacity invalue chain analysis and business development is still weak. Other important non-state actors in the agriculture sector include farmers’ and community-basedorganizations. Three new laws signed in January 2013 are expected to streamlineKenya’s policy and institutional environment. The Land Act (2012) mandates theNational Land Commission to recommend policies on land, acquire land for publicpurposes, regulate the use of any land in the public interest, and allocate land forinvestment purposes. The commission is expected to reorient the use of land as aproductive asset, rather than a prestige title. This could increase access to landthrough renting for productive purposes. Thus access to land could become a biggerchallenge for many smallholder farmers with the gradual incursion of internationalbiofuel production companies into the rural landscape of Kenya. The Agriculture,Livestock, Fisheries and Food Authority (ALFA) Act (2012) established an authorityto oversee the operations of the agriculture sector, including licensing, lawenforcement and registration of farmers. ALFA is mandated to: administer theCrops, Livestock and Fisheries Acts; promote and regulate the production,

EB 2013/109/R.14

3

processing, marketing and transportation of agricultural products; advise theGovernment on agricultural policy; and build the capacity of county governments inrelation to agriculture. Under the Crops Act (2012), ALFA will: formulate policies forthe development of scheduled crops; facilitate marketing and distribution of crops;conduct farmer training; and establish and enforce standards. The role of countygovernments will include development of crops, plant disease control, soil andwater conservation, markets and cooperative societies.

National rural poverty reduction strategy7. The rural poverty reduction strategy for Kenya is captured mainly in: the Kenya

Vision 2030; National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Arid and Semi AridLands (Kenya) (2007); Plan of Action (2008-2012) to Implement the National Policyon Gender and Development (2008); Kenya’s third National AIDS Strategic Plan2010-2013 (2009); the CAADP Compact (2010); and ASDS. The Vision is hinged onthree pillars: economic, to maintain sustained growth of over 10 per cent perannum over the 25-year period 2005-2030; social, to achieve equitable socialdevelopment in a clean and secure environment; and political, to develop anaccountable, democratic political system. Under the economic pillar, the vision is totransform agriculture into a commercially oriented, modern sector by reforminginstitutions, increasing productivity, transforming land, developing ASALs andincreasing market access. Accordingly, the priorities of ASDS include transformingkey institutions to promote agricultural growth; increasing productivity; introducingland-use policies; developing more irrigable areas in ASALs; improving marketaccess by smallholders; and adding value to agricultural products for variousmarkets. The CAADP Compact has five strategic objectives, similar to the ASDSpriorities: increasing productivity and promoting commercialization andcompetitiveness; increasing market access; furthering sustainable natural resourcemanagement (NRM); reforming institutions; and promoting private-sectorparticipation in agricultural development. The priorities identified for the agriculturesector during 2006-2015 by the National Policy for the Sustainable Development ofASALs include increased area under small-scale irrigation, improved extensionservices and produce marketing, and access to credit by farmers’ associations. ThePlan of Action to Implement the National Policy on Gender and Development aimsto remove impediments to equal access to economic and employment opportunitiesfor men and women, and promote sustainable livelihoods and environmentalsustainability. The constitution requires that not more than two thirds of electivepublic positions may be occupied by one gender. The Kenya National AIDS StrategicPlan aims to reduce the number of new infections by at least 50 per cent – andAIDS-related mortality by 25 per cent.

Harmonization and alignment8. Development partners in Kenya harmonize their activities through the KJAS.

Through the 17 sector working groups, partners coordinate and share analysis,reviews and fiduciary assessments. Coordination of agriculture-sector activitiestakes place mainly through the Agriculture Sector Coordination Unit (ASCU), whilecoordination of climate change response is through the National Climate ChangeSteering Committee, with secretarial support being provided by the Climate ChangeSecretariat under the Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. TheUnited Nations agencies coordinate their activities under the United NationsDevelopment Assistance Framework.

III. Lessons from IFAD’s experience in the countryA. Past results, impact and performance9. The following projects were implemented during the second COSOP period: Central

Kenya Dry Area Smallholder and Community Services Development Project(CKDAP), Mount Kenya East Pilot Project for Natural Resource Management(MKEPP), Southern Nyanza Community Development Project (SNCDP), Smallholder

EB 2013/109/R.14

4

Horticulture Marketing Programme (SHoMaP), Smallholder Dairy CommercializationProgramme (SDCP), Programme for Rural Outreach of Financial Innovations andTechnologies (PROFIT) and Upper Tana Catchment Natural Resource ManagementProject (UTaNRMP), the last two being new projects financed under the secondCOSOP. Useful results have been recorded by these projects in NRM andenvironmental conservation, community development and income generation. Withsupport from MKEPP, 15 water resource users’ associations are implementingsubcatchment management plans, and the Ministry of Education, Science andTechnology has now adopted the project-initiated school greening programmenationwide. Through CKDAP, about 86 per cent of households gained access todomestic water within five kilometres, and farmers are obtaining 3 litres of milk perday from crossbred goats, compared with 0.5 litres from local breeds. ThroughSDCP, over 400 dairy groups were trained in proposal writing and have accessedUS$0.95 million in credit from financial institutions. Through investment, milkproduction has increased from 4 to 10 litres/cow/day. Through SNCDP,11.6 per cent of households have reported improved asset ownership, comparedwith a target of 20 per cent, while 11 per cent of the target population now hasaccess to an improved source of water. IFAD-assisted grant projects have alsoprovided useful research and demonstration results in soil and water conservationtechnologies (Green Water Credits), utilization of cow waste for biogas production(Heifer International Kenya), adaptation of crop and livestock species to ASALs(Africa Harvest), and improved access of poor rural women to financial services(Kenya Women Finance Trust).

10. Supervision of IFAD projects in 2012 indicated an improvement in financialmanagement, especially in timely flow of funds, receipt of counterpart funds,compliance with IFAD disbursement and reporting procedures, fewer auditanomalies, and improvement in internal controls. Challenges remained, related toslow absorption of funds due to project-related constraints, weakness in themanagement of fixed assets, and delays in procurement processes that often led tounderachievement against budgets.

B. Lessons learned11. Major lessons from the previous COSOP, as summarized by the CPE, have informed

the design of this COSOP:

Modest investments in NRM and climate adaptation, well integrated intoproject activities, have a significant positive impact on project outcomes asdemonstrated by the MKEPP experience. The new projects will fully integrateNRM and climate change adaptation for effective poverty reduction.

IFAD’s contribution to improving rural incomes and livelihoods wasconstrained by: the highly varied nature of activities; insufficient attention topolicy dialogue and partnerships; and an exclusive focus on MHP areas andnon-exploitation of the economic potential of ASALs. This COSOP focuses ontwo priority themes.

Sustainable NRM and intensification of agricultural production with linkages tomarkets. The first new project will target ASALs, linking with otherinterventions in the area, including the Joint Initiative on Disaster RiskReduction and Resilience-Building for Food Security in ASALs by the Rome-based agencies. The projects under the COSOP have built-in provisions forstronger partnerships, as is already happening with a European Union projectunder design. The IFAD country office (ICO) capacity for involvement in policydialogue will be built up.

The Government and other partners value IFAD’s participatory and bottom-upapproaches, its focus on rural small farmers, emphasis on community-drivendevelopment and grass-roots institution-building.

EB 2013/109/R.14

5

Longer-term engagement with scaling up must be planned strategically. ThisCOSOP has been formulated with a predisposition towards scaling up. Itsresults management framework is based on the lessons learned, and strategicobjectives are defined to include outcomes from both ongoing and newprojects.

There is room for improvement in government performance in a number ofareas, including the low budgetary allocation to agriculture, weak projectimplementation capacity at the district level, and the fragmentation ofinstitutional architecture. This COSOP will address potential capacityconstraints at the county level through capacity-building for public-sectorstaff, as well as capacity development and increased use of NGOs and private-sector and community-based service providers. The new laws enacted for thesector will streamline the institutions.

Weak linkages between grants and investment operations. Under this COSOP,the development and management of grant projects will be supervised inparallel with loan projects.

Government and project staff members are highly appreciative of thepermanent physical presence of the country programme manager in Nairobifor timelier project supervision and implementation support.

IV. IFAD country strategic frameworkA. IFAD’s comparative advantage at the country level12. From experience, IFAD’s comparative advantage in contributing to rural poverty

reduction in Kenya consists in: (i) supporting agricultural value chains andsustainable multiple-benefit approaches to agricultural intensification; (ii) practisingparticipatory community development; (iii) strengthening the resilience ofecosystems and livelihoods; (iv) building grass-roots institutions; and(v) promoting gender equality and the empowerment of rural women. In thisCOSOP, IFAD will draw on the comparative advantage of PROFIT to guaranteeconsistency across the country programme in increased access to financial services.

B. Strategic objectives13. Strategic objective 1: Gender-responsive, climate-resilient and sustainable

community-based natural resource management is improved. This objectivereflects the ASDS, CAADP and ASAL policy priorities of sustainable NRM, and theNational Climate Change Response Strategy (2010), as well as IFAD’s strategicobjective of a natural resource and economic asset base for poor rural people thatis more resilient to climate change, environmental degradation and markettransformation. This objective gives IFAD the opportunity to intervene in ASALs.The proposed interventions include support for the preparation of community-basedNRM plans, pastoral field schools, animal health systems, community-based, water-efficient systems, watershed management, protection of natural wetlands,mitigation of human wildlife conflict, and diversification of household livelihoods.The anticipated results include: participatory conservation and sustainable land use,and range and water resource management. The Adaptation for SmallholderAgriculture Programme (ASAP) will support the establishment of a vulnerabilitybaseline link with climate-change-related results from projects, and multibenefitactions to strengthen livelihoods and reduce vulnerability. A key outcome indicatorwill be the number of smallholder household members whose climate resilience hasbeen increased because of ASAP.

14. Strategic objective 2: Intensification: Access of vulnerable rural women,men and youth in target areas to productivity-enhancing assets,technologies and services is improved. This objective reflects the ASDS, CAADPand ASAL policy thrusts of increased productivity, commercialization and

EB 2013/109/R.14

6

competitiveness of agricultural commodities and enterprises, and IFAD’s strategicobjective of access of poor rural people to services, improved nutrition, higherincomes and increased resilience to a changing environment. The key elements ofthe objective include: access to advisory services and training in climate-resilientcrop and livestock production practices; animal health services; smallholderirrigation facilities; and improved land management practices.

15. Strategic objective 3: Value addition and marketing: Sustainable access ofvulnerable rural women, men and young farmers, agropastoralists andentrepreneurs to improved post-production technologies and markets isenhanced. This objective reflects the ASDS, ASAL policy and CAADP priorities ofincreased market access, and IFAD’s strategic objective of enabling poor ruralpeople and their organizations to manage profitable, sustainable and resilient farmand non-farm enterprises or take advantage of decent work opportunities. IFAD willsupport interventions in production efficiency, improved post-productiontechnologies, business and entrepreneurship skills training, access to producemarkets and market information, sustainable investments in physical infrastructure(e.g. storage and processing), eco-efficiency in water and energy use and wastemanagement, and linkages to rural financial services. IFAD support will continue totarget small community roads that connect smallholders to feeder and main roads.

C. Opportunities for innovation16. The COSOP envisages several opportunities for scaling up of innovations and pilots

by the Government, IFAD, donor agencies, the private sector and South-Southcooperation. Under strategic objective 1, innovations will cover the content oftraining in sustainable NRM and rainwater harvesting, formulation of community-based plans aimed at improving NRM and rural livelihoods, integration of climatechange adaptation for enhanced resilience of ecosystems with livelihoods,mechanisms of payment for ecosystem services, low-carbon technologies for valuechain development and employment creation, improved access to land forcultivation in the forest reserve buffer zone, and use of mapping and theGeographic Information System (GIS) as NRM tools. Under strategic objective 2,attention will be paid to holistic extension systems to ensure that the introducedtechnologies for intensification take into account climate change, mechanisms forreaching women and youth, efficient and sustainable technologies, and reduction ofvulnerability to risks and shocks. Under strategic objective 3, innovative ways mustbe found to strengthen pastoral groups, reinforce marketing structures in strategicsites, access credit, and foster public/private partnerships along the agriculturalvalue chain. This COSOP will participate in corporate initiatives to estimate thenumber of people who will be brought out of poverty through IFAD interventions inKenya. The design of new projects under the COSOP will specify indicators onoutreach and expected impact on poverty levels. For ongoing projects, impactassessments will be conducted to measure poverty reduction using the nationalpoverty line.

D. Targeting strategy17. Strategic objectives 1 and 2 will focus more on ASAL and MHP agroecological areas,

respectively, while strategic objective 3 will be pursued in both areas. Poverty dataat location level will be used to select focal development areas with large numbersof vulnerable people. Targeting will also consider the potential for scaling up. Thecore target group will consist of poor households depending on agriculture for theirlivelihoods and capable of generating a marketable surplus. The targeting strategywill focus on women, youth, agropastoralists and pastoralists who can benefit froman increase in their technical knowledge and organizational capacities to enhancetheir incomes.

EB 2013/109/R.14

7

E. Policy linkages18. With the focus on commercialization of smallholder agriculture, IFAD will provide

capacity-building support to key private-sector actors and umbrella farmerorganizations to increase their participation in policy dialogue. IFAD’s expectationsfor policy dialogue outcomes will also focus on a strengthened knowledge base inclimate resilient livelihoods and ecosystems, as well as community-basedenvironments and NRM. Based on the experience in Kenya, IFAD will pursue thefollowing approaches to policy dialogue: (i) participation in relevant sector workinggroups, identifying key policy issues and pursuing these with the Government,including improving private-sector participation in project implementation;(ii) strengthening the capacity of government agencies to formulate nationalpolicies; (iii) supporting organizations of rural people to enable them to participatein policy dialogue; (iv) operationalizing national policies at county and projectlevels, such as the new ALFA Act; (v) creating opportunities for regional or South-South sharing of policy experience and approaches; and (vi) agreeing on policyreforms prior to project implementation.

V. Programme managementA. COSOP monitoring19. Under the guidance of the IFAD country director, the CPMT will monitor

implementation of the COSOP through: (i) the COSOP results managementframework; (ii) annual portfolio reviews; (iii) half-yearly and annual projectprogress reports; (iv) supervision and implementation support missions; and(v) the annual Results and Impact Management System (RIMS) report. Periodicportfolio implementation reviews and surveys will be conducted to assess thephysical and financial progress and results of each project. The indicators in theM&E system of IFAD projects will be linked to those in the COSOP resultsmanagement framework and the National Integrated Monitoring and EvaluationSystem (NIMES), which monitors results for the Kenya Vision 2030.

B. Country programme management20. Under the umbrella of the CPMT, the country director will manage the COSOP. The

ICO will: (i) ensure regular communication between IFAD and relevant partners, incollaboration with the IFAD desk officer in the National Treasury; (ii) ensuresynergies across loan and grant operations and non-lending activities;(iii) coordinate project supervision and implementation support for loan and grantprojects; (iv) participate in policy dialogue forums; (v) undertake knowledgemanagement (KM) activities to facilitate sharing of lessons learned in IFAD-supported activities, partly as an input to policy dialogue; and (vi) search for newideas, opportunities and partnerships, to be shared within the CPMT. With thelessons learned and the decentralized governance system under the newconstitution, it is proposed that projects be coordinated by a lean coordination teamsteered by a suitable lead ministry and supported by relevant public- and private-sector service providers, who will sign annual performance contracts with theproject coordination team on the basis of which project funds will be advanced foragreed activities.

C. Partnerships21. IFAD will continue to strengthen partnerships with government agencies,

development partners, farmers’ organizations, the private sector and researchbodies in its effort to make the necessary knowledge and resources available toenable poor rural people to overcome poverty. Most of these strategic partnershave already been incorporated into the CPMT. Non-state actors will be contractedby the projects for selected services. IFAD will strengthen existing partnerships withinstitutions such as the World Agroforestry Centre, the International LivestockResearch Institute, the International Soil Reference and Information Centre, and

EB 2013/109/R.14

8

the RAIN Foundation for support in the development of sustainable NRM andclimate-resilient development approaches. Community-based organizations willincrease their engagement in support to more inclusive targeting, linking farmers tomarkets and services, and managing rural infrastructure at the community level.Partnerships will be pursued with research institutes and universities for thepossible use of graduate students and staff in relevant research, baseline surveys,trend analysis and impact assessment.

D. Knowledge management and communication22. IFAD will support ASCU and the External Resources Department of the National

Treasury, which maintains a central electronic database of projects, to facilitate theexchange of information on the IFAD programme with other donors andstakeholders. The ICO will continue to work with the six IFAD Kenya thematicgroups (agriculture/livestock, water/irrigation, environment, communitydevelopment/rural finance, financial management/procurement and M&E/KM) toanalyse implementation progress and proffer solutions to project challenges. And itwill use joint supervision missions, the CPMT and the IFAD website to shareknowledge. A focus under this COSOP will be to use past lessons moresystematically to inform project design and implementation, policy dialogue andpartnership activities. Accordingly, the COSOP will stipulate better resourcing of theM&E/KM function in projects, in order to analyse and document implementationlessons, improve interproject exchange and provide input to policy dialogue.

E. PBAS financing framework23. This COSOP will cover two performance-based allocation system (PBAS) cycles:

2013-2015 and 2016-2018. Based on current PBAS scores and criteria, the IFADfunding available for the COSOP is about US$110 million, with US$56.7 millionprojected for 2013-2015. Scores for the indicators used to determine the countryallocation for the first year of the COSOP period are shown in table 1.Table 1PBAS calculation for COSOP year 1

Indicators COSOP year 1

Project-at-risk (PAR) rating 5.00

Rural-sector performance 3.80

IDA reallocation index (IRAI) score (2010) 3.80

GNI per capita (U$S) (2010) 810

Total population (millions) (2011) 40.5

Table 2Relationship between performance indicators and country score

Financing scenarioPAR rating

(+/- 1)

Rural sectorperformance score

(+/- 0.3)

Percentage change in PBAScountry score from base

scenario

Hypothetical low case 2 3.99 -24 %

Base case (2006/2007) 3 4.29 0 %

Hypothetical high case 4 4.59 28 %

F. Risks and risk management24. The following major risks foreseen for the COSOP period will be mitigated as

follows: (i) social destabilization arising from the elections in March 2013 – this willbe taken into account in the design of new projects through the distribution ofgeographical areas of intervention and inclusion of beneficiaries with different socio-political affiliations; (ii) transitional destabilization from a change of political actors

EB 2013/109/R.14

9

at the national level and hence a change of focus of demand for IFAD support toKenya, and decentralization to counties with changes in administrative, financialand procurement management guidelines and responsibilities – the COSOP will beshared with the new central administration after the elections and agreement ofstrategic objectives reconfirmed or negotiated; project design will take thedecentralization requirements and opportunities into account; and (iii) increasedfiduciary risk associated with new processes and structures under the counties thathave a degree of autonomy from the central government – the new constitutioncontains a more robust system of checks and balances and institutions to assureimproved governance and fiscal accountability. The Public Expenditure and FinancialAccountability (PEFA) report published in 2012 identified opportunities forstrengthening high-level process controls, while IFAD’s adoption of a risk-baseddisbursement approach is leading to a structured financial management assessmentof projects at the design and implementation stages; (iv) unfavourable policyenvironment for IFAD interventions, related to input subsidies, marketing ofagricultural products, and pace of privatization in the sector, etc. – there will befocused policy dialogue in partnership with others; capacity-building andinformation-sharing support for policy formulation at the national level and forincreased participation in policy dialogue at the local level; and cost provision ineach new project for policy issues; and (v) economic and social conflicts andenvironmental hazards associated with oil exploitation that pose a risk for thedevelopment of ASALs with the recent discovery of oil deposits in parts of northernKenya – IFAD will monitor developments in the oil industry, maintain dialogue withthe relevant authorities, and factor any issues into the design of the new projects.

Appendix I EB 2013/109/R.14

1

COSOP consultation processA. Establishment of an extended Country Programme Management Team(CPMT) to include key stakeholders/resource group like Development Partners (DPs) andthe private sector given by the CPMT during the annual COSOP review at Embu, 7-9March 2012.B. Desk review. Review of relevant documents containing secondary data relatingto: (i) overall country context including, economic, agriculture and poverty situation inKenya (ii) Government’s priorities and strategy for poverty reduction, (iii) the activities ofthe ongoing IFAD-supported projects in the country, (iv) the activities of otherdevelopment partners, and regional initiatives like those related to climate change andthe Horn of Africa. Principal among these documents are the following:

Initial concept proposals submitted for COSOP 2013-2018- Project Proposal for Improving Youth Productivity in Modern Agriculture (Y-MAP),

Ministry of Agriculture, 2012;- Concept Paper for the Proposed Development of Irrigation in Western and Rift Valley

Regions, Ministry of Water and Irrigation, Republic of Kenya, January 2012;- Concept Paper for Phase 2 of the Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Programme,

Ministry of Livestock Development, March 2012.- Concept papers for support to SDCP and SNCDP, Heifer International Kenya, May

2012.IFAD documents- Project Development Reports for Mount Kenya East Pilot Project for Natural Resources

Management (MKEPP), December 2002; Southern Nyanza Community DevelopmentProject (SNCDP), December 2003; Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Programme(SDCP), December 2005; Smallholder Horticulture Marketing Programme (SHoMaP),April 2007; Proposed Supplementary Loan to the Republic of Kenya for the SouthernNyanza Community Development Project, December 2008; Programme for RuralOutreach of Financial Innovations and Technologies (PROFIT), September 2010;Upper Tana Catchment Natural Resource Management Project (UTaNRMP), April2012;

- Republic of Kenya, Country strategic opportunities programme, September 2007;- Targeting Policy, Reaching the Rural Poor, November 2006;- IFAD Policy on Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment, April 2012;- Climate Change Strategy, IFAD, May 2010;- Environment and Natural Resource Management Policy, IFAD, 2011;- IFAD Strategic Framework 2007-2010, November 2006; and 2011-2015, May 2011;- Impact Assessment, CKDAP, May 2008; MKEPP, May 2009; SNCDP, July 2011;- Mid-Term Review, SNCDP, May 2009; MKEPP, June 2009; SDCP, January 2011;- The 2012 Annual Report on Results and Impact of IFAD Operations (ARRI): Policy

Dialogue. Issues Paper: Independent Office of Evaluation. IFAD, 2012;- Annual Review of Portfolio Performance, 2010-2011, Programme Management

Department, IFAD, December 2011;- Medium-Term Plan for IFAD9 (2013-2015), Programme Management Department,

Second Draft, May 2012;- Community of Practice and Learning Alliance for Scaling Up in Agriculture and Rural

Development, Draft Concept Note, July 2012.Economy- Kenya: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, IMF, July 2010: First Medium Term Plan

(2008-2012), Kenya Vision 2030, Office of The Prime Minister, Ministry of State forPlanning, National Development and Vision 2030, GOK, 2008;

- Kenya National Human Development Report 2009, Youth and Human Development:Tapping the Untapped Resource, UNDP, June 2010;

- Economic Survey 2011, Presented by Hon. Wycliffe Ambetsa Oparanya, EGH, MP.Minister of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, May 2011;

- Leading Economic Indicators, KNBS, February 2012;


2

- Public Expenditure Review, Policy for Prosperity 2010-2012, Key Highlights from theAgriculture Sector, GOK, 2012;

- World Bank Development Indicators, WB Website.Poverty- Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey (KIHBS) 2005/06 (Revised Edition), Basic

Report, KNBS;- Components of the Income Aggregate: “Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey

(2004/05)”, Prepared for the Rural Income Generating Activities (RIGA) Project1 ofthe Agricultural Development Economics Division, Food and Agriculture Organization,January, 2010;

- Agricultural Growth and Poverty Reduction in Kenya: Technical Analysis for theAgricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) – Medium Term Investment Plan(MTIP). ASCU, GOK, April 2012;

- UNDP International Human Development Indicators, website;Agricultural policy- National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Arid and Semi-Arid Lands of

Kenya, Office of the President Special Programmes, April 2007;- Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy 2007-2012;- Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) for sub-Saharan Africa, 2011,

World Bank, 2012;- Ministry of Agriculture Strategic Plan 2008-2012, Ministry of Agriculture 2009;- Agricultural Sector Development Strategy, 2010–2020, GOK, 2010;- Medium Term Plan 2013-2017, Concept Note, Office of the Prime Minister, Ministry of

State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030, June 2012;- Kenya: Report on the Review of Use of Country Financial Management Systems by

Donor Financed Projects, Period of Review_ FY 2011/2012, Ministry of Finance (MOF)and the Public Finance Management – Donor Group (PFM-DG), The World Bank andEmbassy of Denmark (DANIDA) Nairobi, August 2012;

- Draft Medium term investment plan (MTIP) 2010 – 2015: CAADP, Kenyan NationalAgricultural Food Security Plan. ASCU, GOK, 2012;

Agriculture- An Audit of Public Expenditure: The case of the Agriculture and Rural Development

Sector, KEPCO, 2010;- Feed the Future FY 2011-2015 Multi-Year Strategy, June 2011;- The contribution of Livestock to the Kenyan Economy, Livestock Policy Initiative, A

Living from Livestock, IGAD LPI Working Paper No. 03-11, September 2011;- Kenya County Fact Sheets, Commission on Revenue Allocation, December 2011;- Kenya Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) 2008-2011 Drought, GOK with

technical support from the European Union, United Nations, and World Bank 2012;- Humanitarian Bulletin East Africa, 24 March-13 April; 13-27 April 2012, OCHA;- FSNWG UPDATE, Food Security and Nutrition Working Group- Central & Eastern

Africa, Update April 2012;- The State of Food and Agriculture 2012, FAO, 2012;- Thinking Systematically About Scaling Up: Developing Guidance for Scaling Up World

Bank-supported Agriculture and Rural Development Operations: The Case ofCompetitive Grant Schemes for Agricultural Research and Extension. ARD.Washington DC 20433, World Bank, August 2012;

- Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Ensuring Sustainable Food Securityunder Land, Water, and Energy Stresses. European Report on Development, 2012,IFPRI et al., October 2012;

- FAO, WFP and IFAD, The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Economic Growth isnecessary but not sufficient to Accelerate Reduction of Hunger and Malnutrition. FAO,Rome, 2012;

- Climate Change and Food Security. A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts onFood Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome 2012,HLPE, 2012;


3

Environment- Economics of Climate Change Kenya, Stockholm Environment Institute, 2009;- Review of the Economic Impacts of Climate Change in Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi,

Tahia Devisscher, ACC, October 2009;- Adapting agricultural public extension services to climate change: Insights from

Kenya, C.I. Speranza et al, German Development Institute DIE_GDI, CETRAD Kenya,Ministry of Water and Irrigation GOK, December 2009;

- Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation Preparedness in Kenya, 2010 HeinrichBöll Stift ung, East and Horn of Africa, 2010;

- Transforming Landscapes, Transforming Lives, The Business of Sustainable WaterBuffer Management, main authors Frank van Steenbergen, Albert Tuinhof andLenneke Knoop,Wageningen, The Netherlands: 3R Water Secretariat, 2011;

- Proposed Upper Tana Natural Resource Management Project (UTaNRMP), StrategicEnvironmental Assessment, IFAD, April 2012;

- Natural Resource Management and Biodiversity Conservation in the Drylands ofEastern and Central Africa, ASARECA, 2012;

Land- The Government Lands Act, Chapter 280, Revised Edition, 2009 (1984);- The Registered Land Act, Chapter 300, Revised Edition, 2009 (1989);- Technical note: Land and natural resource tenure security in Kenya and implications

for IFAD, H. Liversage, 2012.Gender

- National Gender and Development Policy, Ministry of Gender, sports, Culture andSocial Services, November 2000;

- The Kenyan Strategic Country Gender Assessment, PREM and ESSD - Africa Region,World Bank, October 2003;

- Kenya Country Gender Profile, African Development Bank, October 2007;- World Development Report 2012, Gender Equality and Development, World Bank

2011.Health- Kenya National AIDS Strategic Plan 2009/10–2012/13, Delivering on Universal Access

to Services, Office of the President, November 2009;- Development Aid and Access to Water and Sanitation in sub-Saharan Africa, Working

Paper Series n° 140, African Development Bank Group, November 2011.C. Initial COSOP formulation workshop

This workshop started the formal consultations for the RB-COSOP preparation processand covered the following (see Annex 1):

(a) Opening remarks (highlighting GoK priorities in keeping with the Kenya Vision2030 and Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy)

(b) COSOP Formulation Plan(c) Clarification of the TOR and logistics (including identification of CPMT and

counterparts to work with the COSOP formulation consultants)(d) Reflection on desk review findings(e) Reflection on perspectives of different stakeholders for IFAD(f) Existing proposals (concept notes from the agriculture sector ministries)(g) Reflections on proposals for possible harmonization(h) Way forward (strategic foci for next COSOP)

D. Consultations/interactions around the initial formulation mission(a) Consultations with the GoK, CPMT, DPs and the private sector; in-house

workshops on strategic focus, rural sector issues, Results Management Framework(RMF), pipeline issues, innovation and scaling up

(b) Preparation of the draft RB-COSOP(c) Presentation of the draft RB-COSOP to the Mission Debriefing Workshop (where

the key thematic areas and related strategic objectives were endorsed by theextended CPMT), see Annex 2

(d) Presentation of recommendations in an aide memoire at the wrap up meeting heldin the Ministry of Finance on 18 May 2012.


4

E. Follow-up Formulation Mission (7-20 October 2012)The mission started with a workshop to debrief stakeholders on actions taken sincethe last mission in May, review the draft concept notes prepared after the Maymission, and develop the programme for the mission. The workshop was followed bythe review of additional information, further consultations with key stakeholders, andrefinement of the Results Management Framework. The mission ended with thestakeholders’ workshop where the results of the mission were shared withparticipants including presentation of the revised concept notes. Key observations andrecommendations of the mission were summarized in an Aide Memoire which waspresented at the wrap meeting held in the Ministry of Finance on 18 October 2012.See Annex 3.

F. COSOP Validation (18 February 2013)The wrap-up and validation meeting was held in Nairobi following the in-house reviewof the COSOP. The meeting endorsed the three strategic objectives and the proposedPBAS allocation. The validation memo is attached as Annex 4.

G. Write-shop on potential models for scaling up (19-21 February 2013)The COSOP wrap-up meeting was followed by a write-shop in Nairobi involvingstakeholders of the Kenya CPMT as well as IFAD country office staff from Rwanda andTanzania, and staff from IFAD headquarters. The write-shop which was facilitated bythe Strategic Planning Division (SPD) of IFAD developed models that can be scaled upunder the Kenya COSOP, and the process will be replicated in other countries. SPDhas adopted the Kenya COSOP for corporate learning in the application of scaling upat the COSOP formulation stage.

Appendix II EB 2013/109/R.14

5

Country economic backgroundLand area (km2 thousand) 2012 [1] 569Tot. population (million) 2011 (provisional) [7] 39.5Rural Population (% total) 2010 [1] 78Population density (people per km2) 2011 69Social IndicatorsPopulation (average annual population growth rate)2007-2010 [1]

2.6

Crude birth rate (per thousand people) 2010 [1] 38Crude death rate (per thousand people) 2010 [1] 11Under 5 mortality rate (per 1000 live births) 2010[1]

85

Life expectancy at birth (years) 2010 [1] men 55women 58

Number of rural poor (million) (2005/2006,approximate) [3]

14.17

Poor as % of total rural population 2005 [1] 49.1Total labour force (million) 2010 [1] 15.5Female labour force as % of total 2010 [1] 46EducationPrimary school completion rate (%) 2005 [1] 91Adult literacy rate (%) 2008 (rural) [4]2008 men (rural men) [4]2008 women (rural women) [4]

77 (72)82 (79)71(65)

Education expenditure (public spending as % ofGovernment expenditure) 2010 [1]Education expenditure (public spending as % ofGDP) 2010 [1]

17.2

6.7NutritionMalnutrition prevalence, children under height forage (% of children under 5) 2009 [1]

35.2

Malnutrition prevalence, children under weight forage (% of children under 5) 2009 [1]

16.4

HealthHealth expenditure, total (as % of GDP) 2010 [1] 4.8Health expenditure/capita (current USD) 2010 [1]Physicians (per 100,000 people) 2002 & 2004 [1]

3710

Population with access to an improved water source(%) 2010 [1]

rural 52urban 82

Population with access to improved sanitation (%)2010 [1]Mortality rate, under 5 (per 1,000 live births) [1]

3285

Agriculture and FoodFood imports (% of merchandise imports) 2010[1]

12

Fertilizer consumption (kg per ha of arable land)2009 [1]

32.4

Food production index (2004-2006=100) 2007-09[1]

110.3

Cereal yield (kg per ha) 2007-2010 [1] 1 512Employment in agriculture (as % of totalemployment) 2005 [1]Manufacturing food, beverages & tobacco (% GDP)2011 (provisional) [7]Livestock production index (2004-2006=100)2007-09 [1]

61

3.2

115.3Land UseAgricultural area as % of land area 2012 [5]Pastures as % of land area 2012 [5]Permanent cropland as % of land area 2009 [1]Arable land as % of land area 2009 [1]

48.137.41.19.5

Forest area as % of total land area 2010 [1]Irrigated land as % of arable land [5]

6.11.9

Irrigated land as % permanent cropland [5] 20.6[1] World Bank, World Development Indicators[1b] World Bank, Development Economics LDBDatabase (note: 2010 data are preliminary estimates)[2] Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Report Kenya, June2012[3] KIHBS, KNBS 2007[4] GoK 2008, Statistical Abstract, Government Printer[5] FAO latest figure website[6] UNDP, African Human Development Report, 2012[7] KNBS, Economic Survey 2012

[8] The figures provided in [7] for GDP per activity add up to88.3 per cent, to this 11.7 per cent of taxes less subsidies onproducts are added to reach 100 per ceNT

KENYA COUNTRY DATA SHEETGDP per capita (current USD) 2010 [1]GDP per capita growth (annual %) 2007-2010[1]GNI per capita (USD) 2011 [6]

7952.0

1,492Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) 2007-10[1]

12.3

Exchange rate (October 2012):USD 1 = Kenyan Shilling (KES) 85.1Economic IndicatorsGDP (constant 2000 USD million) 2010 [1] 18 988Average annual rate of growth of GDP1982-1992 [1] 4.41992-2002 [1]2002-2006 [1]2007-2010 [1]

2.04.14.2

2010 & 2011 [7] 5.8 & 4.4Sectoral distribution of GDP% agriculture & forestry & fisheries 2010 & 2011(provisional) [7]

22 & 24.5

% mining & quarrying/construction 2011 (prv.) [7] 0.7 & 4.3% manufacturing 2011 (provisional) [7] 9.4% services 2011 (provisional) [7] [8] 49.4Consumption 2010General government final consumption expenditure(as % of GDP) [1b]

16.6

Household final consumption expenditure, etc. (as% of GDP) [1b]

74.4

Gross domestic savings (as % of GDP) [1] 16Balance of Payments (KES Million)Exports 2011 (provisional) [7] 511 038Imports 2011 (provisional) [7] 1 315 671Balance of trade 2011 (provisional) [7] -804 633Current account balance 2011 (provisional) [7] -296 024Foreign direct investment, net inflows 2010 (USDMillion) [1]

186

Government FinanceOverall budget deficit (% of GDP) 2010 (est.) [1b] 5.8Total expenditure (% of GDP) 2010 [1] 22.4Total external debt (current USD million) 2010 [1] 8 400External debt stocks (as % of GNI) 2010 [1] 26.9Total debt service (% of exports of goods, services& income) 2010 [1]Public debt to GDP (2011/2012) [2]

4.4

50.7Real interest rate (%) 2010 [1] 11.9Lending interest rate (%) 2010 [1] 14.4Net ODA received (as % of GNI) 2010 [1] 5.1Net ODA received per capita (current USD) 2010 [1]

40GenderPopulation female (% of total) 2010 [1]Labour participation rate female(% of female population ages 15+) 2010 [1](male=72; total population=66)Maternal mortality ratio (modeled estimate, per100,000 live births) 2008 [1]Pregnant women prenatal care (%) 2009 [1]Ratio of girls to boys in primary and secondaryschool (%) 2009 [1]

50.1

61

530

92

95PovertyIncome share by lowest 20% 2005 [1]Poverty gap at rural poverty line 2005 [1]Poverty headcount ratio at rural poverty line(% of rural population) 2005 [1]Poverty headcount ratio at 1.25 USD a day (PPP)2005 [1]Income Gini coefficient 2005 [6]

4.817.5

49.1

43.447.7

InfrastructureRoads paved (% total) 2009 [1] 14.3EnvironmentCO2 Emissions (metric tons/capita) 2007 & 2008[1] 0.3

6

Appendix III

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

COSOP results management framework 2013-2018

Country strategyalignment

Key Results for COSOP COSOPInstitutional/Policyobjectives (inpartnership mode)

A. Kenyan Vision2030

B. MTP 2008-2012

C. AgriculturalSector DevelopmentStrategy (ASDS)National ASALsPolicy

D. ComprehensiveAfrica AgriculturalDevelopmentProgramme(CAADP)

E. Kenya JointAssistance Strategy(KJAS) and its toolson the GOK side i.e.the Agricultural SectorCoordination Unit(ASCU).

F. MTP 2013-2017(Roadmap)

COSOP strategicobjectives

SO1: (NaturalResources andclimate resilience)Gender responsive,climate resilientand sustainablecommunity-basednatural resourcesmanagement in thetarget areasimproved.

COSOP outcome indicators related to thestrategic objectives (fromprojects/programmes) (*)

Hectares of land improved through soil/waterconservation methods.

Number of community action NRM (water andland) plans included in local government plans.

Hectares of receded rangelands improved. Number of smallholders benefiting from payment

for eco-system services. Number of NRM groups operational/ functional. Percentage increase in women in NRM and water

users management committees. Number of smallholder household members

whose climate resilience has been increasedbecause of ASAP.

Increase in hectares of land under climateresilient practices.

Number of community groups, including women’sgroups, involved in ENRM and/or Disaster RiskReduction (DRR) formed or strengthened.

Percentage change in water use efficiency bymen and women.

Baseline In 2010/2011 over 2,880 ha of land was

reclaimed. Water storage per capita realized in 2010/2011

was 4.6 m³. Soil erosion resulting from deforestation and

inappropriate agricultural practices on fragilesoils and sloping land reduces agriculturalproductivity by 2% per year (MKEPP).

COSOP milestone indicatorsshowing progress towardsstrategic objective (*)

Groups involved in NRMformed/strengthened.

Smallholder farmers trainedin sustainable NRM.

Rainwater harvesting systemsconstructed or rehabilitated.

Number of farm level storageof groundwater actionsimplemented.

Community-based NRM plansformulated.

Rewards, compensation andco-investment received bysmallholders for stewardshipof natural resources.

Specific policy/institutionalambitionsrelated to the strategicobjectives (the COSOP policydialogue agenda)

Support dialogue on andcontributing to strengtheningthe knowledge base in climateresilient livelihoods andecosystems as well ascommunity basedEnvironment and NaturalResource Management(ENRM).

Facilitation of local andregional institutions throughPPP that link poor rural peopleto payment of rewards forenvironmental services

Support re-orientationtowards sustainable access ofpoor rural men and women toland use for productivepurposes;

Pilot and assess new modelsof diversified service deliveryinvolving private sector andother service providers;

Enhance linkages ofProgramme/Projects M&E withsector wide M&E forsupporting the scaling-upagenda.

Support greater private sectorparticipation in projectimplementation, includingthrough capacity building

Facilitate capacity building offarmers associations andcommunity groups for

SO2:(Intensification)Access of the poorrural women, menand youth in thetarget areas tosustainable and

Number of service providers operationally self-sufficient

Number of farmers reporting production/yieldincreases (crop and livestock).

Percentage women and men farmers adoptingecologically sound technologies (agriculture andlivestock) increased to 20 percent by 2018.

Number of groups managing infrastructure

Poor men, women and youthaccessing advisory services.

Beneficiaries trained inclimate resilient cropproduction practices andtechnologies.

Beneficiaries trained inclimate resilient livestock

Appendix III

EB 201 3/10 8/R

. 6

7

Appendix III

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

productivityenhancing assets,technologies andservices improved.

operational/functional. Incremental hectares of crop grown. Increase in the percentage of agricultural

activities managed by youth by type (individualsand groups).

Baseline In the public sector the ratio of frontline

extension worker (FEW) to farmer was recordedas being about 1:1,000 as opposed to the desired1:400.

7 percent of women access extension services. Kenya has an irrigation potential of 1.3 million

hectares. Currently 105,000 ha of irrigation isexploited, a further 540,000 ha could bedeveloped with the available water resourceswhile the remaining area would require waterharvesting and storage.

production practices andtechnologies.

Households receivingfacilitated animal healthservices.

Land under smallholderirrigation schemesconstructed or rehabilitated.

Poor men, women and youthaccessing more land underintensive production.

Smallholder farmers trainedin sustainable landmanagement.

Community based land useplans formulated.

Land under improvedmanagement practices.

participation in policy dialogue

Support the development,piloting, testing andadaptability of successfulmodels of Value ChainDevelopment includingmarket linkages (e.g. some ofthe models to be tested mayinclude Cluster DevelopmentApproach, Hub, CommercialVillage Market, One VillageOne Product (OVOP)).

SO3: (Value additionand markets):Sustainable access ofpoor rural women,men and youngfarmers, agro-pastoralists andentrepreneurs in thetarget areas toimproved post-productiontechnologies andmarkets enhanced.

Number of farmers using purchased inputs. Number of functioning market access roads

constructed/rehabilitated. Number of functioning market, storage,

processing facilities. Number of marketing groups operational/

functional. Number of enterprises operating after three

years. Percentage increase in marketing groups with

women in leadership positions. Percentage increase in marketable surplus per

annum. Prices of crop and livestock rise due to better

marketing strategies. Number of farmers and entrepreneurs accessing

financial services and the amountsBaseline Post-harvest losses at least 30 percent, in the

absence of severe outbreaks. 91 percent of total agricultural exports are

currently in raw or semi-processed form. Close to 20 percent of Kenyans have a bitumen

road located one km or less, while 65.8 percentcan reach a tarmac road after travelling 5 ormore km.

Smallholder farmers trainedin post-production,processing and marketing.

Market access roadsconstructed/rehabilitated.

Market, storage, processingfacilities constructed and/orrehabilitated.

Marketing groups formedand/or strengthened.

Smallholder farmers inmarketing groups.

Smallholder farmers trainedin business andentrepreneurship enterprisesaccessing facilitated financialservices.

8

Appendix III

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

Country Strategy AlignmentKenyan Vision 2030. Targets: Increased contribution of agriculture to the GDP by more than KES 80 billion per year, economic growth of over 10 percent per annum.MTP 2008-2012: Aimed at increasing real GDP growth from 7 percent in 2007 to 10 percent by 2012. Targets: Agriculture and livestock to grow at 6-8 percent; irrigate anadditional 1.2 million hectares of land; establish five disease-free zones for livestock and facilitate export of livestock and livestock products; rehabilitate and protect forests infive water towers; and water storage and harvesting.Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) has six thematic areas, working through six Thematic Working Groups. First strategic thrust corresponds to SO2 andSO3: increasing productivity, commercialization and competitiveness of agricultural commodities and enterprises; Second strategic thrust corresponds to SO1: developing andmanaging the key factors of production. Targets: Agricultural sector: to achieve an average growth rate of 7 per cent per year over the next 5 years. Exploit 9.2 million ha ofirrigation potential in the ASALs. By 2015: to reduce the number of people living below the poverty line to less than 25 percent to achieve the first MDG; reduced food insecurityby 30 percent to surpass the MDGs; increased contribution of agriculture to the GDP by more than KES 80 billion per year; divest from all state corporations handlingproduction, processing and marketing that can be done better by the private sector; reformed and streamlined agricultural services such as in research, extension, training andregulatory institutions to make them effective and efficient. MOA Strategic Plan 2008-2012: Increase funding to research institutions to 2 percent of GDP.National ASALs Policy: Investment priority area 5.0 Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Development corresponds to SO2: increase the area under cultivation through small-scale irrigation development, improve agriculture and extension services, and undertake drought-related livestock interventions and promote camel production; and SO3:develop marketing of agricultural produce, develop abattoirs in key strategic sites and encourage establishment of farmer associations to access credit. Investment priority area1.0 Natural Resource Management corresponds to SO1: strengthen community-based natural resource management and related institutions, address land tenure and land-useissues, encourage tree planting and afforestation.Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) First strategic drive corresponds to SO2: increasing productivity and promotingcommercialization and competitiveness of all crops, livestock, marine and fisheries and forestry; and SO3: promoting commercialization and competitiveness of all crops,livestock, marine and fisheries and forestry; Second strategic drive corresponds to SO3: increasing market access through development of cooperatives and agri-business;Third strategic drive corresponds to SO1: Developing and managing the national water resources, land resources, forestry, and wildlife in a sustainable manner; Fourthstrategic drive corresponds to SO2 and SO3: Reforming agricultural service, credit, regulatory, processing and manufacturing institutions for efficiency and effectiveness; Fifthstrategic drive corresponds to SO1, SO2, SO3: Promoting private sector participation in all aspects of agricultural development. Target: Six percent annual growth of theagricultural sector and 10 percent of budgets to the agricultural sector.MTP 2013-2017: The COSOP document takes into account the priorities being considered under MTP 2013-2017 which include food security; value addition of agriculturalproducts; expanding existing and new markets; irrigation; community-based approaches; climate change; disaster preparedness; enhancing PPP arrangements(*) IndicatorsOutcome and milestone indicators are intended for design for scale and they should be considered during the design stage.As part of detailed design, in the first year of COSOP implementation a baseline will be defined this will be transferred in the work for future projects. In the meantime availablemeasurable indicators and proxy baseline data will be used.Indicators will be disaggregated by gender and age.

Appendix IV EB 2013/109/R.14

9

Previous COSOP results management frameworkObjective Status at COSOP Design Status as at June

2012Comments

Overallobjective:Empower ruralPoor in Kenya toreduce poverty ona sustainablebasis.COSOP SO1:Capacity of public,private sector andcivil societyorganizations indelivering servicesrequested by therural poor, isstrengthened.

Number of rural poor servedby public, private and civilsociety organisations isincreased by 45% by 2012

Number of women onmanagement committeesincreased to 30% by 2012

Number of CAPs included ingovernment plans (60%).

Overall programmeassessment not done. Butimpact assessment survey(IAS) for MKEPP in 2012indicates:

19% of focal areacommittees had womenchairmen; women inleadership positions rosefrom 40% to 48-52%;48% of project committeemembers trained werewomen.

47 CAPs developed; 17WRUAs formed; 2 WRUAsfunded by WSTF

Considerable investmentwas made by mostprojects to build thecapacity of public serviceproviders. But manytrained staff ended upbeing transferred to otherpositions, or evenlocations as happenedwith the splitting ofdistricts. Some farmerorganizations were alsoassisted with capacitybuilding so as to trainfarmers on groupempowerment. Women inleadership positions haveincreased in mostprojects. Severalcommunity projects ininfrastructure have beensupport by the localauthorities and provisionmade for theirmaintenance

COSOP SO2:Access of ruralpoor to,and theirutilization of,appropriatetechnologies,markets, andcommunity-owned ruralinfrastructureis improved

Number of farmers adoptingtechnology recommended bythe project (25% by 2012).

Number of householdsreporting an increase in netmargins (40% by 2012).

Reduction of roads in badcondition from 43% of roadnetwork to 20% by 2012.

Agricultural productivityincreased by 18% by 2012crops and livestock

!0% increase in volume ofmarketable surplus annually.

Overall programmeassessment not done.

But IAS for MKEPPindicates 58% ofhouseholds have adoptedvarious soil and waterconservation measures and63% new crop varieties.

Farmers who adoptedimproved practicesreported 71% increase inincomes for crops and 55%for milk.

Farmers reported 100%increase in milk yield and75% weight gain for use ofupgraded dairy goats.

Adoption rates differedfor different technologies,but high net marginshave been reported fordairy, banana andvegetable production.Marketable surplus hasincreased in the highmedium potential areasbut in the ASALs,increased production hascontributed more towardsincreased food security.

COSOP SO3:Access of ruralpoor tofinancial servicesand investmentopportunities isimproved

Number of enterprisesoperational by type.

Percentage of portfolio atrisk.

Number of active borrowers.Number of active savers.

Overall programmeassessment not done..

But SNCDP has achieved80% of value of savingstargeted, 115% of target ofactive borrowers, and 72%growth in the number ofshares mobilized

The key intervention forthis objection is PROFIT,but as at mid-2012, thisproject has not taken offeffectively. A solidfoundation has been laidfor implementation andthe results will show inthe next COSOP.

Appendix V EB 2013/109/R.14

10

CPE agreement at completion point1. IFAD has funded 15 projects in Kenya since the first project was approved in 1979.The total cost of the project portfolio is US$378 million, including US175 million in loansfrom IFAD, US$72 million in counterpart funds from the Government and US$131million in cofinancing. Currently, six projects are on-going. IFAD-supported projects inKenya aim to promote agricultural production and productivity, social infrastructureincluding health, domestic water and sanitation, natural resources and environmentmanagement, agricultural value chain development, institutional development, andrural finance.

2. This is the first country programme evaluation (CPE) of Kenya by the IndependentOffice of Evaluation of IFAD (IOE), since the Fund started its operations in the countryin 1979. The CPE had two main objectives to: (i) assess the performance and impact ofIFAD-supported activities in Kenya; and (ii) generate a series of findings andrecommendations to serve as building blocks for the formulation of the forthcomingKenya results-based country strategic opportunities programme (COSOP), which will beprepared jointly by IFAD and the Government of Kenya following the completion of theevaluation.

3. This agreement at completion point captures the main findings from the CPE (seesection B below) as well as the recommendations (see section C below) IFAD and theGovernment of Kenya agree to adopt and implement within the specific timeframes.These agreed recommendations will be tracked through the President‘s Report onStatus of Implementation of Evaluation Recommendations and Management Actions,which is presented to the IFAD Executive Board on an annual basis by the Fund‘sManagement. IOE‘s role is to facilitate the process leading to conclusion of thisagreement.

A. Main Evaluation Findings

4. Overview. The results of the IFAD-Government of Kenya partnership in the lastdecade have been generally encouraging, especially recognizing that the partnershipwas at its lowest levels in the 1990s due to the suspension of IFAD activities in thecountry. Among other areas, the CPE found useful results in natural resourcesmanagement and environmental conservation, community development, and theintroduction over time of approaches that favour income generation andcommercialization of small farmers as a means to rural poverty reduction.

5. At the same time, the CPE underlines that, the highly varied nature of sub-sectoractivities financed through IFAD-supported projects in Kenya and insufficient attentionto policy dialogue and partnerships with bilateral and multilateral donors haveconstrained the Fund from contributing even more widely to improving rural incomesand livelihoods. Moreover, its largely exclusive focus, in the past, on medium to highpotential areas in the south west of the country has also not enabled the Fund tocontribute to exploiting the enormous economic potential in the arid and semi-aridlands, where around 30 per cent of all rural poor people live in Kenya.

6. Specific findings. IFAD‘s participatory and bottom-up approaches as well asemphasis on community development, and grass-roots institution building are valuedby the Government and all main partners in Kenya. These characteristics, including itsfocus on rural small farmers, distinguish IFAD from other donors in the country. Theyare critical for building ownership at the local level that can contribute to bettersustainability of benefits. Projects have also promoted domestic water supply, sanitationfacilities and public health infrastructure, even though these are not areas of IFAD‘scomparative advantage and should be reconsidered in the future to limit thefragmentation of the country programme. A number of innovations have been


11

introduced through IFAD-funded projects and there are examples of scaling up.However, both innovation and scaling up are not driven by a coherent agenda and arepursued currently on an ad-hoc basis.

7. IFAD‘s performance as a partner in Kenya has been satisfactory in the past decade.To its credit, useful efforts have been made to effectively reactivate a suspendedportfolio in the 1990s. Since 2000, IFAD prepared two COSOPs for Kenya, financed sixnew loans, established a country presence with an out posted CPM and Associate CPM inKenya, shifted to direct supervision and implementation support in all on-going and newoperations, set up a proactive country programme management team with various in-country partners, and established its first regional office in Nairobi headed by a portfolioadviser. IFAD has however not engaged sufficiently in policy processes and indeveloping strategic partnerships.

8. On the other hand, the CPE underlined a number of areas of concern regarding theperformance of Government, including weak project implementation capacity at thedistrict level, small allocation of counterpart funds in the context of IFAD-supportedprojects, insufficient commitment to policy implementation, slow flow of funds, andinadequate financial management, auditing and procurement processes. Althoughimproving gradually, its national budget allocation to the agriculture sector hasconsistently fallen short of the 10 per cent target enshrined in the 2003 Maputodeclaration. The fragmentation of its institutional architecture - with ten differentministries dealing with agriculture and rural development - has created dispersion ofresources and challenges in the delivery of projects and their co-ordination. TheGovernment appears now to be seriously concerned in revitalizing the sector, and hasrecently issued a new agriculture sector development strategy, signed the CAADPCompact, and adopted a new national constitution. Moreover, the Ministries of Finance,Planning, Agriculture, Livestock, Water and Irrigation, Public Health, and Gender,Children and Social Development, have designated desk officers who follow IFADmatters in a timelier manner.

9. IFAD has provided a number of country-specific grants to Kenya including global andregional grants that cover Kenya, inter-alia, on rural finance, sustainable land use,promotion of traditional drought resistant crops, agriculture water management,prevention of HIV/AIDS, knowledge management, and livestock production andmarketing. The grants have been useful in undertaking research on key topics ofconcern to the country programme. However, the evaluation found that there areopportunities for better linkages between grants (especially global and regional grants)and investment operations. It also noted that grant recipients in Kenya were not fullyaware of other grant activities in the country, thus limiting possible synergies amongthem and across the investment portfolio.

10. As in a large number of IFAD-supported operations globally, efficiency of operationsin Kenya is the weakest performing evaluation criteria covered by the CPE. Some of thereasons for weak efficiency include slow procedures for replenishing project specialaccounts, delays in payment of services, high overall project management costs as aproportion of total project costs, multiple components and institutions involved inproject execution, and in some cases, cost overruns that are hard to explain. Ensuringbetter efficiency therefore is an area that merits concerted attention and efforts in thefuture.

11. The Kenya country office in Nairobi has enabled the Fund to gain a betterunderstanding of country context and develop greater communication and dialogue witha range of partners. The Government of Kenya, project staff and others are highlyappreciative of the permanent physical presence of the CPM in Nairobi. Being based inthe country, the CPM is able to provide more timely project supervision andimplementation support, even though the country office‘s overall capacity and resources


12

to engage in policy dialogue remains constrained. This is partly due to the vast amountof work in the design of new operations and managing the six projects that arecurrently under implementation, but also due to the fact that the policy agenda andpriorities are not sufficiently defined. The relationships, roles and responsibilitiesbetween the Kenya country office and IFAD‘s regional office for East and SouthernAfrica have yet to be fully articulated.

12. The IFAD regional hub set up in Nairobi in 2007 was developed into a full-fledgedregional office at the beginning of 2011, the first such decentralised organizationstructure in any of the five geographic regions covered by IFAD operations. Theportfolio adviser is supported by three technical experts on gender, land and financeissues. The evaluation believes the establishment of such a regional office is aninteresting innovation, as it provides an opportunity to bring IFAD closer to the groundin order to more effectively support the activities it finances throughout the region.However, the evaluation could not find any evidence of analytic work that led to theestablishment of the regional office in Nairobi, nor why such an office was first set up inEast and Southern Africa region. In any case, moving forward, there is a need todevelop more clarity on the organizational structure of the regional office, itsrelationships with headquarters and the various country programmes in the region, thetechnical expertise that should be housed there, and its work programme.

B. Recommendations

13. The below recommendations have been agreed by the Government of Kenya andIFAD.

14. Recommendation 1:

a. Future geographic and sub-sector priorities. The next COSOP should be built onthe foundations of IFAD‘s comparative advantage and specialization in Kenya. The newCOSOP should specify that IFAD will include loan-funded investments in the arid andsemi-arid lands, which has a large untapped economic potential (e.g., in irrigated cropfarming and livestock development) and is home to around 50 per cent of all rural poorin Kenya. This would be consistent with the Government‘s own priorities of developingthe arid and semi-arid lands to promote national economic development. The COSOPshould specifically analyse, among other issues, the poverty profile of the rural poor inarid and semi-arid lands, the prevailing institutional capacities and infrastructure tosupport economic development, as well as the opportunities for partnership with otherdonors who could provide essential complementary inputs. Working in the arid andsemi-arid lands (ASALs) can also contribute to enhancing efficiency of IFAD-fundedprojects, in light of the poverty incidence in those areas. Moreover, the COSOP shouldclearly define a narrower set of sub-sectors to prioritise in the future, includingcommodity value chaindevelopment with greater engagement of the private sector, small-scale participatoryirrigation development especially in the arid and semi-arid lands, livestockdevelopment, agriculture technology to enhance productivity and long-term soil fertility,and natural resources and environmental management. The COSOP should explicitlyarticulate thematic areas that will not be covered by IFAD interventions in the future,including domestic water supply, health and sanitation, as they are not areas whereIFAD has a comparative advantage.b. Deadline: COSOP period, 2013-2018c. Responsible entity: IFAD and Government of Kenya


13


a. Development approach. IFAD should continue working on community developmentand promote participatory and bottom-up approaches to agriculture and ruraldevelopment, building strong grass-roots institutions and investing in gender equalityand women‘s empowerment. These are IFAD trademarks and areas of support highlyappreciated by Kenyan partners. As such, IFAD‘s renowned development approachshould be weaved into its broader efforts aimed at commercialization and promotingsmall farming as a business. For example, contributing to empowerment of smallfarmers through training and promoting grass-roots institution development (e.g., dairycooperatives) would provide them greater access to markets and better prices.b. Deadline: COSOP period, 2013-2018c. Responsible entity: IFAD and Government of Kenya


a. Innovation and scaling up. The next COSOP should clearly highlight areas whereinnovation will be pursued in the country programme, following a thorough assessmentof areas where the introduction of innovation in agriculture can contribute to betterresults in reducing rural poverty. Some examples to consider in Kenya include small-scale participatory irrigation and water management in arid and semiarid areas toensure sustainable use of ground water, and the engagement of the private sector,such as supporting small firms that can provide agro-processing services for livestockvalue addition. The new COSOP should devote emphasis to scaling up for wider povertyimpact. This will however require greater investment in building partnership withmultilateral development banks and other donors as well as engage the Government inpolicy dialogue, based on good practice examples and lessons emerging from the field.b. Deadline: COSOP period, 2013-2018c. Responsible entity: IFAD and Government of Kenya


a. A more integrated country strategy. The new COSOP should more preciselyarticulate how the various IFAD instruments (loans, regional and country grants, policydialogue, partnership building and knowledge management) will complement each otherand contribute towards the achievement of country programme objectives. Forinstance, this will require attention to ensuring synergies across investment operations,across regional and country specific grants, as well as across investment operations andgrants and non-lending activities (policy dialogue, knowledge management andpartnership building). The non-lending activities will need to be resourced adequately, ifthey are to truly contribute to strengthening coherence within the country programme.In terms of priority for policy dialogue, based on the experience from IFAD-supportedprojects, the Fund could support Government in developing new and refining existingpolicies for livestock development especially in arid and semi-arid areas, watermanagement, and private sector engagement in small-scale agriculture. Partnershipswith the AfDB, FAO, USAID and World Bank should be strengthened, especially inidentifying options for co-financing operations and scaling up, as well as undertakingjoint policy dialogue with Government on key agriculture and rural development issues.b. Deadline: COSOP period, 2013-2018c. Responsible entity: IFAD and Government of Kenya


a. Better government performance. The Government will need to ensure that it putsin place the necessary supporting policy and institutional framework, as well as allocatethe required resources, that will lead to the regeneration of pro-poor growth in thecountry‘s agriculture sector. In particular, the Government will need to ensure that its


14

auditing, financial and procurement systems are strengthened to ensure responsible useof IFAD loan funds, as well as work towards increasing its share of counterpart funds inIFAD-supported projects. On its side, IFAD can provide support to capacity building ofgovernment officials for better service delivery at the local level, support theGovernment in the implementation of the national irrigation policy, and contribute toimproving its financial and procurement systems to ensure more timely flow of fundsand due diligence in use of resources.b. Deadline: COSOP period, 2013-2018c. Responsible entity: IFAD and Government of Kenya

19. Recommendation addressed to IFAD:

a. IFAD’s physical presence in Kenya. The country office could play a greater role inevidence-based policy processes, which will however require allocating the requiredresources and time. The role of the CPM in policy dialogue should also be reflectedadequately in his/her annual performance evaluation system objectives. It is essentialthat the relationships between the Kenya country office and the IFAD regional office inEast and Southern Africa be rapidly outlined and communicated to all concerned inKenya and throughout the region. It is recommended that the regional office‘sorganizational structure be articulated clearly, including its relationships withheadquarters and the various country programmes in the region, the technical expertisethat should be housed there, and its work programme. In this regard, it would beadvisable to develop specific indicators that can be used to evaluate the performanceand contribution of the regional office at an appropriate time in the future, includingindicators that might shed light on value for money of the regional office. Similarly, itwould be useful for ESA to prepare a periodic progress report on the regional office forthe IFAD Senior Management, outlining the achievements and challenges of such adecentralised organizational arrangement.b. Deadline: End 2011c. Responsible entity: IFAD

Appendix VI EB 2013/109/R.14

15

Project pipeline

CONCEPT NOTE 1CLIMATE RESILIENT COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

PROJECT

Justification and rationale1. The project will contribute to the economic and social pillars of Vision 2030, with a focus

on the intervention areas of the ASDS and CAADP related to promoting sustainable landand NRM and climate resilient livelihoods.

2. The proposed project will: demonstrate incursion into the ASALs as recommended bythe CPE; explore partnership with the RBAs in the implementation of the joint initiative;exploit other funding opportunities including the Adaptation for Smallholder AgriculturalProgramme (ASAP) and the Green Fund, for addressing climate change andenvironmental and NRM towards rural poverty reduction; benefit from the proof ofconcept provided by earlier IFAD-assisted projects such as the Green Water Credit; andleverage the comparative advantage of IFAD as reflected in the Strategic Framework2011-2015, with focus on: (i) a natural resource and economic asset base that is moreresilient to climate change, environmental degradation and market transformation, (ii)poor rural women and men and their organizations able to manage profitable,sustainable and resilient farm and non-farm enterprises or take advantage of decentwork opportunities, and (iii) poor rural women and men and their organizations able toinfluence policies and institutions that affect their livelihoods.

Project Objectives3. The objectives of the proposed project are: (i) rural communities empowered for

sustainable NRM; (ii) climate resilience has been increased among smallholderhousehold members; (iii) natural asset-based rural livelihoods sustainably improved;and (iv) land and water resources sustainably improved. The objectives are linked to thetargets in the COSOP Results Management Framework of increased areas of land underimproved soil and water conservation and rangeland management, increased functionalNRM groups with stronger women participation in management, increased inclusion ofcommunity NRM plans in local government plans; and increased number of smallholderhousehold members whose climate resilience has been increased.

4. The expected outcomes of the interventions include: participatory conservation, andsustainable land use, range management and water resource management.mechanisms of payment for ecosystem services (e.g. for carbon sequestration and landdegradation control) in the form of reward, compensation and co-investment, lowcarbon technologies for value chain development and employment creation, improvingaccess to land for cultivation in the forest reserve buffer zone, and use of mapping andGIS/GPS as NRM tools, greater access to multiple-benefit technological options thatincrease yields, strengthen resilience to risks and shocks, enhance environmental goodsand services, and reduce poverty. Specifically for ASAP, the outcomes will include:increase in hectares of land under climate resilient practices; number of communitygroups, including women’s groups, involved in ENRM and/or Disaster Risk Reduction(DRR) formed or strengthened; and percentage change in water use efficiency by menand women. The COSOP policy objectives to be supported by the project include: (a)dialogue on and contribution to strengthening the knowledge base in climate resilientlivelihoods and ecosystems as well as community based environment and NRM; and (b)facilitation of local and regional institutions through public-private partnerships that linkpoor rural people to rewards for environmental services.


16

Ownership, Harmonization and Alignment5. The Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources (MEMR) is spearheading a

consultative process to operationalize the National Climate Change Response Strategy(NCCRS) of April 2010, through the Kenya Climate Change Action Plan (KCCAP). Inaddition, the Parliament passed the Climate Change Authority Bill in June 2012. Boththe bill and the action plan will guide all government and development partner activitiesaimed at addressing climate change issues in Kenya, and may require the realignmentof the proposed project as well as relevant ongoing interventions. The rationalization ofthe agricultural sector ministries as required by the new Constitution and the revision ofthe sector working groups under the Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy (KJAS) willstrengthen the move towards the harmonization of institutional arrangements forinterventions aimed at sustainable NRM and promotion of climate resilient livelihoods.

6. The Medium Term Plan (MTP) of the ASDS and the CAADP Kenya National Food SecurityPlan 2010-15 assert that intensification of production (in the short term) in the HighRainfall Areas (HRAs) will provide adequate food to meet the needs of the country up to2015. But beyond that, the country will depend also on the ASALs. Investment in thenecessary infrastructure, establishing a sustainable base for improved livestock andfood crop production, and linkage to markets for the produce, will be importantrequirements for the ASALs to play the expected role in food security for Kenya. Theownership of the interventions is ensured through alignment with the priorities of ASDS,CAADP, NCCRS, African Adaptation Programme (UNDP/JICA), Environment Managementand Coordination Act (EMCA) and the flagship projects identified under the WaterCatchment Conservation Master Plan, such as the Green Schools Initiative, Soil andWater Conservation, Wildlife Migration Corridors, Tree Planting and Climate Change.ASAP-supported activities will be enhanced through partnership with institutions such asthe Climate Change Secretariat of the MENR, the Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit(ASCU), and the RBAs.

Components and activities7. Three major components are envisaged:

8. Climate resilient and sustainable NRM - support for preparation of community-based NRM plans (including biodiversity assessment), pastoral field schools (plannedgrazing, fodder production, exclusion), animal health systems, community-based waterefficient systems (irrigation/rain water harvesting), watershed management, protectionof natural wetlands, mitigation of human wildlife conflict, and diversification of thelivelihoods of the households, national and community decision making, includingvulnerability mapping (also coping mechanisms and indigenous/traditional survivalstrategies to climate change of smallholders and agro-pastoral systems); support foragro-meteorological services (Kenya Meteorological Department) and Early WarningSystems; capacity building (learning, results-based monitoring and evaluation (M&E),knowledge management (KM) and training) which focus on climate proofing ofcommunity-based NRM plans, defining tools and mechanisms to measure greenhousegas (GHG) emissions avoided and/or sequestered and to monitor climate changeadaptation impacts; development and mainstreaming of climate change adaptation intoall economic activities to be supported under the project; establishing synergies withthe MENR new initiative “Modeling Food Security in the Context of Sustainable NRM”;support for biodiversity conservation including for orphaned crops such as cassava andsorghum; scaling up of promising innovations such as (i) catchment conservation, (ii)rain water harvesting, (iii) agro meteorological information, a radio station (RANET) isalready operational but limited to two counties with Safaricom (cell phone providers) asa key partner, (iv) wildlife migration corridors, (v) renewable energy, and (vi) efficientmanagement of invasive species for energy production; support for policy dialogue forintegrating adaptation best practices into policies and for scaling up, drawing on thelessons learned from project implementation, especially policies that hinder or facilitatesustainable land management, value addition and market access, and anchored on an


17

effective monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system; exploring opportunities for south-south cooperation, cross-learning and twinning as tools for capturing knowledge andscaling up community and institutional capacity on adaptation, for example for climate-resilient roads, greening of value chains using cleaner technologies, bio-energy andrenewable energy-efficient technologies, recycling of livestock waste as organicnutrients for soil, invasive species control in pasture lands, pilot schemes on weatherindexed insurance, payments for ecological services, community carbon sequestration.

9. Although the Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme (ASAP) grant will beblended with the first project focusing on NRM, it will support eligible activities in thewhole COSOP. ASAP will support the establishment of a vulnerability baseline at theearly stage of design once the target area has been defined, link with the climatechange related results from MKEPP and other projects, and support multi-benefit actionsto strengthen livelihoods and reduce vulnerability. The actions to reduce vulnerabilitywhich aim to increase natural, human, social, physical and financial capital will include:strengthening the asset base through sustainable increases in productivity, diversifyingfarming systems, integrating learning and capacity building for farmers on climate riskmanagement, promoting equity and inclusion of vulnerable groups in the riskmanagement initiatives, and increasing access to information and facilitating knowledgesharing across geographical boundaries related to climate change adaptation. A keyoutcome indicator for the ASAP will be the number of smallholder household memberswhose climate resilience has been increased because of ASAP.

10. Community empowerment – mobilization of communities into viable groups foreconomic decision making and for action for sustainable NRM; support for semi-pastoralism, in line with the ongoing modification to the traditional wandering lifestylewhereby the pastoralist women and children make a home at a particular place to whichthe herders (men and young males) return after trekking in search of pasture, andwhich Government is encouraging in order to make basic services (education andhealth) economically available at such places; capacity building in community-basedNRM, particularly environment and ecosystem conservation in collaboration with localauthorities and the relevant government services; capacity building for livestockfarming (which is the main livelihood in the ASALs) including conservation of fodder,genetic improvement, disease control, value addition in meat and milk, and marketaccess linkages. (v) gender mainstreaming in NRM; gender responsive community-based NRM, requiring women empowerment and inclusion in all decision making toachieve sustainability in interventions; mapping of culture norms in the target areas toensure that culture sensitive empowerment strategies are used.

11. Rural livelihoods – support for multiple benefit interventions that optimize theefficient use of soil moisture, water and energy, and reduce soil carbon emissions andpost-production and marketing losses. Examples of promising multiple benefitapproaches, ready for scaling up include: conservation agriculture, landscapeapproaches, integrated farming systems (crop and livestock), integrated pestmanagement, integrated nutrient systems, participatory rangeland management, use ofimproved location-specific crop seed and livestock varieties, agro forestry (treenurseries, exploitation of indigenous trees such as gum arabica), run-off and waterharvesting systems; special support to youth related to training in businessmanagement, value addition and market access; use of the cluster approach tofacilitate climate change risk management and integration of climate resilient activitiesin the value chain.

Costs and financing12. The indicative new resources available for this project is US$ 66.5 million, with US$

56.5 million anticipated from the 2013-15 PBAS cycle and US$ 10 million from ASAP.These figures will be refined during the design of the project. Since the project will bedesigned with a scaling up mindset, drawing on the balance of resources of relevant


18

ongoing projects and exploring co-financing from other partners, the actual cost of theproject may eventually be much higher. Some of the partners foreseen for this projectinclude the other RBAs (WFP and FAO), the European Union, RAIN Foundation andvarious funds for climate change adaptation, such as Climate Change Adaptation Fund,the financing mechanism for the United Nations Convention for CombatingDesertification (UNCCD), the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change(UNFCCC), and the new Green Fund.

13. ASAP will support a micro watershed/landscape/ecosystem approach as the primary unitof project interventions, which is also instrumental for ensuring connectivity of assets(natural, social and economic assets) for maximum results and impact; scaling up ofmultiple benefit approaches for sustainable agricultural intensification; and the greeningof the value chains. A tentative breakdown of the cost among the components is givenin the table below.

Table 1: Project costs and financing

Component Budgetin US$ (million)

Loan/ GrantClimate resilient and sustainable natural resource management 22.0Community empowerment 15.0Rural livelihoods 17.0Project coordination and management and policy 12.5Total 66.5

Organization and management14. The appropriate ministry to anchor this project will be determined at the design stage.

The important consideration for selection will be the capacity and capability of theministry to spearhead project interventions. To address the CPE concern on the cost ofthe project management unit (PMU), a lean structure is proposed to be closelyassociated with the lead agency. This unit will comprise the Project Coordinator,Coordinator for NRM, Accountant, and Coordinator for M&E/Knowledge Management.Other facilitators will be recruited on a need basis.

Monitoring and Evaluation indicators15. A draft logical framework, indicating the outcomes, outputs and indicators for the

project is attached as Annex 1. The logical framework is related to the ResultsManagement Framework of the COSOP. The baselines to enable the determination oftargets for the key indicators will be established during the design of the project orlatest in the first year of project implementation.

16. Annex 2 indicates the ASAP project selection criteria. These will also be adapted asindicators for the appropriate results in the logical framework. ASAP tracking indicatorswill capture the number of climate resilient CBNRM plans, the number of serviceproviders and extension agents trained in technology transfer for climate changeadaptation, and the number of functional community environmental groups. ASAP willsupport a vulnerability baseline, impact assessments and produce a set of knowledgeproducts from environmental and NRM adaptation experiences for facilitating scaling upat county and national levels. Examples of products include: studies and disseminationof information from the proposed vulnerability mapping for informed decision making,green jobs creation and climate resilient value chains.

17. The M&E framework of the project will be aligned to the government’s NationalIntegrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES) and will incorporate a sector-wide approach to development. Other monitoring indicators will track change in food


19

security, household income, private sector investments along the value chain and thenumber of farmers linked to domestic and external markets

Risks18. Climate-related risks will be addressed through: (i) strengthening the community-based

Early Warning Systems (crop and livestock), including suitable communication systemsfor dissemination and feedback; (ii) mainstreaming climate resilience in programmes,plans and policy; and (iii) partnership with institutions such as the Kenya MeteorologicalDepartment of MENR, the National Environment Trust Fund (responsible for supportingbest environmental initiatives), the Department of Resource Survey and RemoteSensing (DRSRS), the WFP/ICRAF (for vulnerability mapping), and the Kenya CleanerProduction Centre (which monitors pollution control and works in collaboration with theprivate sector).

Timing19. The establishment of the vulnerability baseline would be done as soon as the political

system has settled down after the elections and a decision has been made on thepotential participating counties in this project. It is targeted to present the project forBoard approval in September 2014.

20

Appendix V

IEB

2013/109/R. 14

Annex 1: Draft Project Logical Framework

Results Hierarchy Indicators Means ofVerification

Assumptions

Goal:Contribute to reduction of rural poverty in the project areas with a special focuson ASALs

Percentagedecrease inpoverty levels

Percentageincrease innumber ofhouseholds withincreased climateresilience

Household surveys

Surveys Communities

,Government,developmentpartners andkeystakeholdersdevelop andsustaincollaborativeapproach tonaturalresourcemanagement(NRM)

Development Objectives:(Natural resource management and climate resilience) Gender responsive,climate resilient and sustainable community-based natural resourcesmanagement in the target areas improved

Ha. of landimproved throughsoil/waterconservationmeasures

Increase in cropyields

Baseline survey andmonitoring reports

Outcome 1: Rural communities empowered for sustainable naturalmanagement and climate change resilience

No. of people intarget areastrained in climateresilientmanagement ofnatural resources


Output 1.1: Operational and functional NRM community Level ofawareness onNRM issues withinparticipatingcommunities.

Baseline andfollow-up surveyson awarenessabout NRM issues

Media reports onNRM issues

Output 1.2: Action plans with inbuilt climate resilient provisions NRM capacity ofcommunityorganizations.

No. of CAPapplications

Baseline andfollow-up surveyson awarenessabout NRM issues

Media reports onNRM issues

Output 1.3: Community based plans included in local government planninginstruments.

No. of actionplans preparedfunded/implemented

Documented actionplans.

Output 1.4: Gender involvement in decision making processes No. of women indecision making

21

Appendix V

IEB

2013/109/R. 14

Outcome 2: Climate resilient, and sustainable land and water resourceuses benefitting local people and wider community improved

No. of householdswith access to safewater.

Ha of landdegradation reduced

Levels of chemicaland microbialpollution inwaterways.

Household surveys(baseline and follow-up).

Bathymetricsurveys in reservoirs.

Water qualitymonitoring surveys.

Output 2.1: Resilient climate agro-systems for sustainably managed land andwater resource improved.

Ha of landrehabilitated and/orprotected

Estimated rates ofsoil loss fromfarmlands.

Reports onactivities undertaken

Soil lossmeasurements atrepresentative sitescovering the mainfarming systems.

Output 2.2: Land conservation improved Ha coverage, no.oftechnologies/practices


Output 2.3: Water use efficiency improved Ha coverage, no.oftechnologies/practices


Output 2.4: Pasture management system improved Ha coverage, no.oftechnologies/practices


Output 2.5: Energy use efficiency enhanced Ha coverage, no. oftechnologies/practices


Output 2.6: Improved and rehabilitation/ restoration Ha coverage, nr oftechnologies/practices


Output 2.7: Sustainable water management improved Structures, silt loadreduced, waterflows improved

No. of WUAsfinanced


22

Appendix V

IEB

2013/109/R. 14

Outcome 3: Natural assets- based rural livelihoods sustainablyimproved.

Level of incomegenerated andassets acquired byparticipatoryhouseholds

Baseline survey andfollow-up reports

Output 3.1: Natural resources-based livelihoods packages and options adaptedto agro-ecological and socio-economic contexts enhanced.

No. of agriculturalpackages tested anddemonstrated.

No. of tonnes ofseed produced anddistributed

Increased income

Reports on trials,demonstrations andresearch results.

Measurements ofenterpriseproductivity andprofitability.

Output 3.2: Increase in level of income generated and assets acquired byparticipating households.

No. of participantsengaged in adoptingand/or improvingincome-generatingactivities.

Project reports onCIG income-generating activities.

Farmer field schoolrecords.

Output 3.3: Reward for environmental services Increased incomeof participatingcommunities

Output 3.4: Access to services % access toservices

Baseline andfollow-upmeasurements ofthese keyenvironmentalparameters.


23

CONCEPT NOTE 2AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION AND MARKET ACCESS PROJECT

Justification and rationale1. The proposed project will address SO2 and SO3 of the COSOP. SO2 is aligned to

the first strategic thrust of ASDS on increasing productivity, commercialization andcompetiveness of agricultural commodities and enterprises. It is also aligned tointerventions priority area 5.0 of the National Policy for the SustainableDevelopment of ASALs, which seeks to promote equitable access to small-scaleirrigation, access to extension services, and safeguards to land tenure. SO3 isaligned to the first strategic thrust of ASDS on post-production technologies andmarkets; and investment priority 5 of the National Policy for SustainableDevelopment of ASALs on developing markets for agricultural produce (abattoirs),and support to the establishment of farmer associations to access credit. SO3 isalso in line with the CAADP pillar on increased market access through cooperativesand agri-business.

2. The project is aligned to the IFAD Strategic Framework 2011-2015 objectives of: anatural resource and economic asset base of poor rural women and men that ismore resilient to climate change, environmental degradation and markettransformation; poor rural women and men and their organizations able tomanage profitable, sustainable and resilient farm and non-farm enterprises or takeadvantage of decent work opportunities; and poor rural women and men and theirorganizations able to influence policies and institutions that affect their livelihoods.The project will achieve these strategic objectives by supporting market orientedproduction along the value chain, storage and processing, roads infrastructuredevelopment, and strengthening of market related groups and enterprises.

Project Objectives3. The objectives of the proposed project are: (i) intensification of crop and livestock

production through access to productivity enhancing technologies and services;and (ii) increased value addition and profitable access to markets. The objectivesare linked to the targets in the COSOP Results Management Framework of:increased adoption of ecologically sound technologies by farmers, increasedproduction and yields, increased marketable surplus, increased operationally self-sufficient service delivery, increased amounts of functional road and marketinfrastructure, and increased number of operating enterprises after three years.

4. The project will support a change in mindset towards scaling up in the agriculturalsector through market oriented production and market access. Financial outreachto project participants will be facilitated by PROFIT which is developing sustainableapproaches to increased access to financial services. The project will support thedevelopment and strengthening of farmer associations to better respond to thenew paradigm, with emphasis on entrepreneurship and private sector investmentsand service provision. Tested models such as the cluster development approachwill be applied to promote commercialization of crop and livestock productionthrough support to market information and networks, all aimed at scaling up in theagricultural sector.


24

Ownership, Harmonization and Alignment5. Government plans to mobilize resources through the Agricultural Sector

Development Support Programme (2013-17) and the Medium Term InvestmentPlan (2013-17) to achieve the ASDS and CAADP goals of: increasing productivity,commercialization and competitiveness; promoting private sector investment andparticipation in all aspects of agricultural development including research;promoting sustainable land and natural resources management (NRM); reformingand improving delivery of agricultural services and research; increasing marketaccess and trade; and ensuring effective coordination and implementation ofinterventions. Kenya is moving towards using a sector wide approach (SWAp) toachieve the above goals and expects development partners to increasingly complywith the requirement to pool their resources in the framework of the sectordevelopment programme. IFAD, however, recognizes that its resources cannot beapplied to budget support. The coordination of interventions in the agriculturalsector is by the Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit (ASCU). The proposedrationalization of the agricultural sector ministries as required by the newConstitution, the passage of the new Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Act(ALFA), and the revision of the sector working groups under the Kenya JointAssistance Strategy (KJAS) will strengthen the move towards the harmonization ofinstitutional arrangements for interventions aimed at sustainable agriculturalintensification and access to markets.

6. The Kenya National Food Security Plan 2010-15 highlights that, in the short term,intensification of production in the High Rainfall Areas (HRAs) will provideadequate food to meet the needs of the country up to 2015. But beyond that, thecountry will depend also on the ASALs. The challenge of assuring food securitytherefore requires: investment in capacity building of the key actors along theimportant food value chains; investment in infrastructure, especially roads,markets, electricity, water, storage and processing facilities; promotion of agri-business and value addition; and facilitation of local and regional trade. Thesedevelopments will guide IFAD activities under the COSOP and may require therealignment of the proposed project as well as relevant ongoing interventions.

Components and activities7. Two major components are envisaged.

8. Stakeholder empowerment – training of communities in climate resilient cropand livestock production technologies and systems, especially proven models fromongoing projects; supporting economic interest groups to access productivityenhancing technology packages; strengthening farmer groups to sustainablyaccess markets; supporting adaptive research for sustainable production systems;and empowering women and youth for inclusion in all economic activities anddecision making processes through mapping of the cultural norms in the projectareas and developing acceptable inclusion strategies. The perception that youthtends to avoid the drudgery of farming will be addressed through the promotion ofon-farm processing, inputs supply and stocking business, market linkages andother agriculture related enterprises that will be of greater interest to the youth.Sustainability will be achieved through empowering communities to develop andstrengthen farmer associations and primary groups. The proposed cluster


25

development strategy could be a viable mechanism for sustaining and up-scalingproduction in the target areas.

9. Marketing infrastructure and services – promote sustainable: (i) privatesector led value addition through access to technologies and agro-processing, on-farm storage and marketing facilities; (ii) market access through information andnetworks; and (iii) access to financial services. Improved technologies can alsoaddress production problems which affect postharvest loss, as well as themanagement of aflatoxins at commercial and household levels for animal feed andhuman food.

Costs and financing10. The indicative new resources available for this project from IFAD is US$ 43.5

million from the 2016-18 PBAS cycle, with the tentative breakdown shown in thetable below. These figures will be refined during the design of the project. Sincethe project will be designed with a scaling up mindset, drawing on the balance ofresources of relevant ongoing projects, leveraging commercial bank funds forincreased access of project participants to financial services, and exploring co-financing from other partners, the actual cost of the project may eventually bemuch higher. Some of the partners foreseen for this project include the financialinstitutions currently working with PROFIT, the USAID, International FinanceCorporation of the World Bank Group and the European Union. IFAD funding of theproject will be mainly as a loan to the Republic of Kenya.

Table 1: Project costs and financing

ComponentBudget

in US$ millionLoan/Grant

Stakeholder empowerment for intensification of production 9.5Marketing infrastructure and services 25.0Project coordination and policy dialogue 9.0Total 43.5

Organization and management11. The appropriate ministry to anchor this project will be determined at the design

stage. The important consideration for selection will be the capacity and capabilityof the ministry to spearhead project interventions, including facilitating policydevelopment. To address the CPE concern on the cost of the project managementunit (PMU), a lean structure is proposed to be closely associated with the leadagency. This unit may comprise the Project Coordinator, Coordinator forEmpowerment, Accountant, Coordinator for Policy Dialogue, and Coordinator forM&E/Knowledge Management. Cluster coordinators will be recruited on a needbasis.

12. The Project Coordination and Policy Dialogue component will coordinate thesupport for creating an enabling environment for private sector investments,through public-private sector dialogue, research and policy analysis. Lessonslearned from project implementation would inform the review of the agriculturalsector policies that hinder or facilitate sustainable land management, valueaddition and market access. The policy dialogue subcomponent will be anchoredon an effective M&E system.


26

Monitoring and Evaluation indicators13.A draft logical framework, indicating the outcomes, outputs and indicators for the

project is attached as Annex 1. The logical framework is related to the ResultsManagement Framework of the COSOP. The baselines to enable the determinationof targets for the key indicators will be established during the design of the projector latest in the first year of project implementation. A summary description of thecluster development strategy is given in Annex 2.

14. The M&E framework of the project will be aligned to the government’s NationalIntegrated Monitoring and Evaluation System (NIMES) and will incorporate asector-wide approach to development. Other monitoring indicators will trackchange in food security, household income, private sector investments along thevalue chain and the number of farmers linked to domestic and external markets.

Risks15. Project related risks include: inability of economic interest groups to mobilize

resources for processing technologies; inability to access adequate markets due toinfrastructure constraints; inadequate incentives to attract private investments;and unfavourable government policies related to production intensification andmarket access. Mitigation measures will include project linkages with PROFIT forrural financial services; spot infrastructure improvement and linkage withappropriate government authorities for other related infrastructure; and policydialogue to address constraints to private investments in the target areas.Climate-related risks will be addressed through the other project under thisCOSOP: (i) strengthening the community-based Early Warning Systems (crop andlivestock), and (ii) mainstreaming climate resilience in programmes, plans andpolicy.

Timing16. Project design is expected to start in 2015 after some of the ongoing projects have

been completed and lessons and models generated which can be applied forscaling up of agricultural intensification and value addition.

Appendix V

IEB

2013/109/R. 14

27

Annex 1: Draft Project Logical Framework

Results hierarchy Indicators Means of verification AssumptionsGoal: Contribute to reduction of poverty in target areas Percentage decrease in poverty levels Household survey

Government,communities, privatesector develop asustainable mechanismfor policy dialogue

The emerginginstitutional frameworksupports innovations inagriculture

Development objective (SO2):(Intensification) Access of the poor rural women, men andyouth in target areas to sustainable and productivityenhancing assets, technologies and services is improved

No. of farmers accessing climate resilientcrop and livestock production systemsand technology

Baseline survey andfollow-up reports

Outcome 1: Poor women, men and youth in the target areasempowered in climate resilient crop and livestock productionpractices and technologies

No. of farmers trained in climate resilientcrop and livestock productiontechnologies and systems

Output 1.1: Access of poor women, men and youth toclimate smart crop and livestock production technologies andsystems improved

No. of farmers accessing climate resilienttechnologies

Output 1.2: Climate smart production of crops and livestockin target areas intensified

No. of farmers adopting climate resilienttechnologies and system


Output 1.3: Community based crop and livestockmanagement systems formed/strengthened

No. of farmer groupsformed/strengthened


Outcome 2: Community access to innovative crop andlivestock production technologies and services improved

Percentage increase in production andproductivity of crops and livestock


Output 2.1: Access to productivity enhancing technologiesand services sustained.

No. of participating farmer groupsaccessing technologies and services


Output 2.2: Crop and livestock productivity intensified Increase in Ha of crops and value oflivestock owned


Output 2.3: Commercialization of crop and livestockproduction upscaled

Change in value of crop and livestockmarketed


Outcome 3: Income and asset base of communities in targetareas improved

Change in income and assets base ofcommunities in target areas


Output 3.1: Access to ecologically sustainable crop andlivestock production technology packages enhanced

No. of farmers in accessing ecologicallysustainable crop and livestock productiontechnology packages


Output 3.2: Access to innovative crop and livestockproduction services sustained

No. of farmers sustainably adoptinginnovative production services


Output 3.3: Participation of women and youth in ecologicallysound crop and livestock production systems andtechnologies improved

No. of women and youth participating infarming groups


Appendix V

IEB

2013/109/R. 14

28

Development objective (SO3):(Value addition and markets): Poor rural women,men and young farmers, agro-pastoralists and ruralentrepreneurs in target areas have sustainableaccess to improved post-production technologiesand markets

No. of farmers adding value to produceand accessing markets

Baseline survey andmonitoring reports Government at sub-

national level createenabling environment forprivate investments

Communities,Government,development partnersand private sectorsupport innovative valueaddition and marketaccess models,particularly clusterdevelopment approach

Outcome 1: Farmers, agro-pastoralists and ruralentrepreneurs empowered to access value additiontechnologies and markets increased

No. of framers, agro-pastoralists andentrepreneurs trained in value additionand market linkages


Output 1.1: Investment environment for privatesector investments improved

Change in sub-national doing businessindicators


Output 1.2: Access to financial services/creditimproved

Value of financial services and creditextended to farmers and entrepreneurs


Output 1.3: Technical support services tocommunities in value addition technologies andmarkets sustained

Change in value of technical supportservices for value addition and marketaccess in target areas


Outcome 2: Income and asset base of communitiesimproved

Change in income and asset base ofcommunities in the target areas


Output 2.1: Participation of farmers, agro-pastoralists and rural entrepreneurs in valueaddition and markets improved

No. of farmers, agro-pastoralists andentrepreneurs adopting value additiontechnologies


Output 2.2: Markets infrastructure in the targetareas improved

No. of marketing facilities constructed Baseline survey andmonitoring reports

Output 2.3: Access to domestic and externalmarkets improved

Value of value added products sold indomestic and external markets


Outcome 3: Private sector investments in agro-processing and market linkages communities intarget areas improved

Value of private sector invested intarget areas

Output 3.1: Sustainable value addition andmarketing systems upscaled

Change in value added productsmarketed


Output 3.2: Training of farmers and ruralentrepreneurs in business skills sustained

No. of farmers and rural entrepreneurstrained in business skills


Output 3.3: Value addition and market accessmanagement systems formed/strengthened

No. of processing and marketinggroups functional in the medium term


Key file 1

EB 2 013/109/R

. 14

29

Key files

Key file 1: Rural poverty and agricultural/rural sector issues

Priority Areas AffectedGroups

Major Issues Actions Needed

Increase in theproductivity,commercializationandcompetitiveness ofthe crops subsector

All smallholderfarmers,especially poor,semi-subsistencesmallholderswith marketablesurplus

Inefficient land use in the form of idle andunder-utilized land in particular of high andmedium potential areas. Over-subdivision ofland into uneconomic units in some parts ofthe country while other land parcels in thepossession of large scale farm holdersremains unutilized. Limited equitable accessto irrigated land. Titles not kept up to date,limited access to land by women and youth.Weak land management institutions in ASALareas (Group Ranches and Trust land).Limited exploitation of high potentialpockets in ASALs;

Over-dependence on rain fed agriculture; Low productivity due to limited extension

and training services as a result of over-reliance on public extension services,coupled with low funding of the service. Lowapplication of contemporary science andtechnology such as genomics,biotechnology, modeling and informationcommunication;

Low productivity due to high cost andincreased adulteration of key inputs;

Low productivity due to limited coordinationand investment in research and lowapplication of agricultural technology andinnovation by farmers;

High post-harvest losses due to poorharvesting, storage and transportationfacilities.

Formulating and implementing appropriate policy and legal frameworks withspecific reference to enacting the Consolidated Agricultural Reform Bill;finalizing and implementing the national irrigation and national land useplanning policies and legal frameworks. Implementing policy and institutionalreforms to strengthen community based land and NR use planning, area-based to macro-level regional development planning of river basins and largewater bodies. Supporting appropriate decentralized and community-basedland registration or recording systems; strengthening measures for ensuringequitable access and tenure security in irrigation schemes;

Promotion of low cost irrigation technologies. Intensifying and expandingirrigation; improving rainwater harvesting and storage for agriculture; anddeveloping, rehabilitating and protecting river banks, water bodies and watercatchments. Developing community support and empowerment programmes.Formulating and implementing integrated basin-based developmentprogrammes;

Improving delivery of extension and training services by increasing thenumber of extension officers per farm household and outsourcing extensionand training services. Development of a more pluralistic and holisticextension system that involves Government along with the private sector andNGOs in provision.

Fertilizer cost-reduction investment programme involving purchasing andsupply chain improvements in the market for this input and the blending andlocal manufacturing of fertilizer. Actions needed would include working withthe private sector and reviewing farmer institutions' ability to import anddistribute fertilizer in bulk. The following would be needed: capacity buildingof farmers and farmers' organizations; efficient fertilizer ordering anddistribution process and provision of warehousing to address the inefficientand costly fertilizer importation and distribution structure that is currently inplace;

Improve coordination of agricultural research system establishing linkageswith producers, processors & marketing and education institutions; investingin research for improving seed quality; and increasing access of farmers tocredit facilities for purchase of improved inputs;

Research and development of technologies focused on post-harvest storageand handling and increasing access to credit for this purpose.

Key file 1

EB 2 013/109/R

. 14

30



Increase in theproductivity,commercializationandcompetitiveness ofthe cropssubsector/continued

All smallholderfarmers,especially poor,semi-subsistencesmallholderswith marketablesurplus

Inadequate value addition and agriculturalmarketing.

More extension linked to value addition and markets. Capacity building offarmers and farmers' organizations on grading and standardization. Thiswould be with specific reference to higher-value or differentiated agriculturaland food products (HVAF), good agricultural practices and international foodstandards for those wanting to export to international markets. Assistfarmers to form producer organizations to produce, process and market theirproduce within Kenya and for export including facilitating access to credit.Strengthening governance and technical capacity of Cooperatives, betterenforcement of the Cooperative act ensured by the Government andencouragement of community based organizations' and farmer groups’transformation into Cooperatives. Public-private partnerships andinvestments in agricultural marketing facilities (including market information)and rural infrastructure (including road development).

Increase in theproductivity,commercializationandcompetitiveness ofthe livestocksubsector

Livestockowners and/orPastoralists

Inadequate information on livestockpopulation;

Low productivity due to low quality breeds; Low productivity due to inadequate feeding; Low productivity due to heavy livestock

losses to diseases and pests; Inadequate marketing of livestock; Inadequate value addition and marketing of

animal products; Competition / conflicts over natural

resources, in particular grazing lands andwater;

Weak community-based grazing/ browsingand rangeland management institutions.

Establishing a centrally coordinated livestock database; Livestock breeding programmes and improved access to artificial

insemination services; Formulating sustainable grazing/browsing and rangeland management plans,

including strengthening of community based management institutions andconflict resolution mechanisms;

Range improvements and establishment of livestock feed reserves andinfrastructure development;

Improving animal health and quality assurance services through improvingaccess to veterinary drugs. Integrating development and management ofrangeland. Establishment of Disease-Free Zones in particular would involveimprovements in vaccination and disease control through a strengthenedveterinary department, movement controls and investments in livestockbreeding, range improvements and marketing infrastructure to raise thequality, quantity and value of processed meat animals that Kenya can export.Kenya's milk exports would also benefit from enhanced disease controlmeasures in the highlands;

More extension linked to value addition and markets and related capacitybuilding of livestock holders and livestock owners' organizations on gradingand standardization of dairy and other livestock products, with specificreference to higher-value or differentiated agricultural and food products(HVAF), good agricultural practices and international food standards for thosewanting to export to international markets. Assist farmers to form producerorganizations to produce, process and market their produce within Kenya andfor export, including facilitating access to credit. Strengthen governance andtechnical capacity of cooperatives, better enforcement of the Cooperative Act,and public-private partnerships and investments in agricultural marketingfacilities and rural infrastructure.

Key file 1

EB 2 013/109/R

. 14

31



DevelopingNorthern Kenya andother Arid Lands(specific issuesrelevant for ASALswhich would becomplementary tothose detailedabove for farmersand livestockholders in otherareas)

Pastoralists andagro-pastoralists inarid and semi-arid lands

Historical and on-going loss of rangelands tolarge-scale commercial ranchers, expandingcrop farming and forestry and wild-lifeconservation;

Inadequate policy and legal framework; Insufficient land under cultivation; Inter-ethnic and inter-clan conflicts,

banditry and livestock rustling; Low productivity due to inadequate

research; Low productivity due to heavy livestock

losses to diseases and pests; Low productivity due to inadequate

infrastructure; Low productivity due to limited access to

livestock inputs/services, including: (a)veterinary drugs due to insufficient numberof Community Animal Health Workers(CAHWs), and linkage failures betweenCAHWs and drug suppliers caused by limitedrevolving funds at the PastoralistAssociations (PAs), lack of accountability ofthe CAHWs, and drug shortages due tomassive buyouts by relief NGOs duringdroughts/disasters, (b) forage and smalllivestock equipment, due toagrovets/livestock input suppliers beinggenerally located in major towns and usuallyemploying itinerant representatives whovisit rural market centers on market days;

Marketing constraints to incomes due toscarcity of local markets, long distances toterminal markets (high movement/ feedingcosts, loss of quality and weight), poormarket information, low bargaining power ofsmall livestock holders, difficulties informing sustainable pastoralist groups dueto their mobility, little processing and valueaddition, demand affected by poor productpresentation, difficulties in getting productsapproved by Kenyan Bureau of Standards(KBS), poor handling of products.

Establishing legal frameworks to resolve land tenure issues and promotion ofland improvements by security of tenure including: strengthening sustainablerangeland management planning processes, strengthening the administrationof group rights by communities and community-based user groups. Relatedconflict prevention and management interventions such as peace building,pastoral codes, and conflict early warning and peace committees. Promotecross-border natural resource management initiatives;

Redressing the unfavorable policy environment for pastoralist activities,particularly for the development of private veterinary practices at the CAHWslevel, e.g. national legislation only allows veterinary doctors to dispensedrugs; however these doctors are not interested in employment in the ASALs.Enable groups to advocate for reducing the multiple taxes as livestock movebetween counties;

Increased emphasis on research on products suitable for production in theASALs. High yielding but disease resistant varieties would be a priority in thepastoral and other dry areas. These could include drought-tolerant crops(sorghum/millet and root crop systems), horticulture, and drought-tolerantmaize.Diversification is important in semi-arid regions where maize crops fail5 harvests out of 8. Given the shortage of forage, the increase in theproduction of forage, including agro-forestry tree species, is needed. TheGovernment could intervene towards multiplication of quality crops seedssuch as sorghum, legumes, millet, cassava, potatoes, among others, thatcannot attract commercial seed companies;

Establishment of livestock Disease-Free Zones for export markets; Finding solutions to limitations in input supply by agrovets by coordinating

higher-volume purchase through large suppliers and offering businesstraining courses. Improve distribution of forage through SMEs, as well asbusiness advice through service providers. Support the development ofprivate AI services;

Development of abattoirs and market development in key strategic sites.Development of cold storage. Development of market information systems.Road development.

Key file 1

EB 2 013/109/R

. 14

32



DevelopingNorthern Kenya andother Arid Lands(specific issuesrelevant for ASALswhich would becomplementary tothose detailedabove for farmersand livestockholders in otherareas)/continued

Pastoralists andagro-pastoralists inarid and semi-arid lands

Low production and productivity due toinadequate access to water;

Reduction of vulnerability of the populationalso due to over-dependence on pastoralactivities. In this context also need todevelop activities by women and youth andpromote more equitable access to irrigatedland;

Pastoralists try and adapt to climate change,for example camels are becoming moreimportant, but pastoralists are becomingless resilient as old coping systems thatprovided grazing reserves or allowed morefreedom of movement are curtailed withhuman population increases, as land is setaside for other purposes, or as recoveryperiods are reduced.

Difficulties in social services provision due tothe nomadic lifestyle;

Low access to credit.

Development of low cost water harvesting and irrigation infrastructure. Thereare 9.2 million hectares with the potential for crop production if put underirrigation, this is equivalent to the total farmland in the MHP parts of thecountry. The ASAL Development Project would initially be implemented in theTana and Athi River basins to bring between 600,000-1,000,000 ha underirrigation;

Development of mechanisms and safeguards for more equitable access toirrigated land by poor households, women and youth in government andcommunity based schemes;

Drought management systems established. Assisting pastoral communities indiversifying income sources including promoting camel production, supportingfisheries development, poultry, beekeeping, ostrich farming and game,harvesting of natural resources such as the neem tree and gum arabic andgum resins such as frankincense and myrrh which could have exportpotential, community managed tourism. Provide insurance schemes forproducers and businesses to minimise losses. In particular there is a need toincrease the involvement of women who in general in pastoral householdstend to have responsibilities such as the management of sheep and goats,the milking of livestock, and the management of milk in terms of domesticconsumption and milk processing. Women could be encouraged to play verysubstantial roles in the marketing of livestock and livestock products alsothrough capacity building and group formation;

Mobile schools. Other services in the human and livestock health sectors cancombine fixed and mobile facilities, such as mobile outreach camps, pastoralassociation drug stores, mobile community animal health workers and theprovision of bladder tanks to provide water where there is no need toconstruct permanent water facilities.

Key file 1

EB 2 013/109/R

. 14

33



EnvironmentalIssues

Ruralpopulation, withparticularreference topopulation withsmalllandholdingsfarming ondegraded landand pastoralistsin degradedrangelands

Growing need to adequately addressclimate change issues at institutional level;

Low and declining soil fertility; Improved local management of natural

resources.

Implementation of National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS) forall sectors and implementation of quick start projects in agriculture to roll outNCCRS. Increase of the level of awareness and capacity building in ClimateChange adaptation and mitigation in agricultural programmes, projects andactivities, among top managers, county/sub county staff and otherstakeholders. Encouraging practices with reduced external inputs whereappropriate. Promoting drought tolerant crops and high value traditionalcrops- higher yields/ resilience, soil and water conservation for intensification,water harvesting for crop production, adaptation and weather based indexinsurance;

Promote environmental conservation through, in the case of sustainableintensification: conservation agriculture, agroforestry and integrated farmingsystems with livestock management and, in the case of extensive livestockand rangelands management: improving grazing land management which hasthe second highest technical potential for mitigating C emissions (IPCC 2007),integrating trees (silvopastoral systems) to ramp up the potential for carbonstorage (along with other co-benefits);

Strengthening of community-based natural resource managementinstitutions.

Key file 1

EB 2 013/109/R

. 14

34



Gender Women,especiallyfemale heads ofhouseholds whoare widowed,deserted ordivorced.

Limited gender disaggregated data; Limited access to natural and productiveresources. Social practices deny many womenthe right to property ownership, and access tocredit, agricultural inputs, markets, andopportunities from membership of agriculturalco-operatives. Women rarely qualify for anycredit that is tied to collateral requirements,which are often based on a land title deed; Low exposure to agricultural services suchas extension due to: (a) development andintroduction of technology often withoutinvolving women, (b) multiple roles inreproduction, maintenance and productionconstituting heavy gender workloads andplacing limitations on women's time and theextent to which they can take advantage ofnew agricultural knowledge and skills throughextension networks or the media, (c) high rateof illiteracy among rural women, affecting theircapacity for absorbing and adopting new ideas,(d) lack of deliberate and reliable mechanismsfor specifically disseminating research findingsto women farmers. It is often assumed thatinformation aimed at the general public orfarmers generally will reach women. Theestablishment of reliable channels ofcommunication with women remains a bigchallenge in agriculture; Unexploited potential of women'sentrepreneurship which is mostly present infood processing, agro-processing, horticultureand retail trade and of women's groups; High poverty rates for women; Inadequate women's representation inlocal groups & management committees.

Development of gender disaggregated data and of indicators to monitorparticipation of women in economic development;

Increased access of women to land and strengthened land tenure security,including identifying community gardens for women’s groups;

Increased access of women to research results and extension services by thecreating of reliable channels of communication directly with women andadapting extension services to women's time constraints. Development oftechnologies relevant to the roles of women in agricultural production andfood processing. Increased access of women to education. The structure ofwomen’s groups in Kenya, provides a viable channel for out-reach by theGovernment and other development agencies: agricultural and otherextension officers should be seen to maximize the potential of the women’sgroups in their out-reach activities;

Need to encourage the increase in the size of women's businesses in whichthey are presently mostly sole traders. Need to encourage the developmentof women's groups many of which are engaged in agricultural and livestockdevelopment activities such as co-operative farming, horticulture, foodprocessing and marketing, zero-grazing, goat keeping and bee keeping;

Need to increase women' s access to finance, also by increasing theirawareness of and capacity to access and utilize the Women EnterpriseDevelopment Fund and the Women Investment Fund;

Need to build gender-mainstreaming capacity in public investmentprogrammes. Need to develop and implement anti-poverty programmes thatimprove access to food in the case of women living in abject poverty.Increased access to health and family planning services;

Increase participatory planning and the participation of women in decision-making.

Key file 1

EB 2 013/109/R

. 14

35



Youth 75% of theKenyanpopulation whoare under 30years of age

Need to prepare the younger generation forthe future challenges of commercialagriculture for export and environmentalissues;

Limited access to natural and productiveresources. Traditional and social practicesdeny many young people the right toproperty ownership, putting them at adisadvantage in seeking access to credit,agricultural inputs, marketing outlets andopportunities accruing from membership ofagricultural co-operatives. In most cases,access to credit, training and improvedproduction techniques are linked to accessto land ownership.

Increased access of young people to land and strengthened land tenuresecurity, including identifying community gardens for youth groups;

Specific education and training and extension services targeted to ruralyouth.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

36

Key file 2: Organizations matrix (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats [SWOT] analysis)Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsMinistry ofFinance (MOF)

Staffed with professionals who areconversant with donor operations,economic and financial managementmatters. Competent subsidiary organsthat assist in the macroeconomicmanagement of the country (e.g. CBK,KRA). Able to mobilize considerableresources to finance development andrecurrent expenditures. Enforcement offinancial and procurement procedureshas improved. Micro-Finance Act (2006)to promote and regulate financialservices delivery.

Limited staff capacity to deal withexpanded donor support to Kenya.Unable to control ministerial votes asline ministries demand autonomy, whichsometimes encourages wastefulspending. Mounting debt and highrecurrent costs limit the availability offunds for investment expenditures anddevelopment priorities. Effects ofpolitical manipulations, e.g. payment ofbad guaranteed debts of StateCorporations, allocations such as to theConstituency Development Funds, overwhich it has no direct control. Weakinformation and communicationinfrastructure.

Harmonize donor support under KenyaJoint Assistance Strategy (KJAS). Moreclearly separate financial managementfunctions (MOF) from developmentcoordination functions (MSPNDV2030).Upgrade information andcommunication technology to efficientlymanage key expenditures and revenueparameters. Together with others suchas the Public Accounts Committee andPublic Investment Committee ofParliament, and the Kenya Anti-Corruption Authority, reduce misuse ofpublic resources. Strengthen ruralfinancial services.

Politically motivateddecisions can misdirectinvestment resources.Proper management ofpublic funds can becompromised ifprocurement,commitment andpayment proceduresare not adhered to.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

37

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsOffice of thePrime Minister,Ministry of Statefor Planning,NationalDevelopment andVision 2030

Well-defined and establishedinstitutional structures, consisting ofspecialized directorates at the HeadOffice, Central Project, Planning andMonitoring Units (CPPMUs), field-basedplanning units, as well as Semi-Autonomous Government Agencies(SAGAs). Strong establishedpartnerships with various developmentstakeholders in the country. Well trainedand skilled staff, with strongcommitment to their work. Soundstatistical, research, analysis andreporting capacity. Ability to coordinatemulti-sectoral projects. Developsstrategic policy papers such as the ERSand Vision 2030, which assistgovernment ministries to prepare sectorspecific strategies. Poverty indices for allconstituencies and districts. Includes theKNBS, which has the mandate to gatherinformation from all governmentministries, departments and statecorporations, and produces statisticalsurveys, abstracts and otherdocuments.

Lack of a supportive legal framework forplanning, coordination, monitoring andevaluation to secure enforcement of theplanning process. Planning divisionslocated in the line ministries do notfunction effectively as centers ofplanning and decision making in thoseministries. A weak, or not fullydeveloped and well-integratedMonitoring and Evaluation System.Inadequate human resource capacity atthe headquarters, CPPMUs as well as indistricts. Inadequate successionplanning. Weak linkages betweenplanning and resource allocation,particularly at the devolved level. Lackof a clearly articulated Information,Education and Communication Strategythat would enhance organizationalefficiency and effectiveness. The KNBShas inadequate capacity to collect dataand conduct all the studies that arerequired. Inadequate physical facilitiesand equipment at all levels. Inadequateclarity of functions and linkages betweenHQ, CPPMUs, District offices and SAGAs.

Renewed goodwill from keystakeholders including politicians, thecitizenry and Development Partners insupport of the implementation of Vision2030. Leveraging on the PMO toadvocate for a supportive framework toreinforce national planning,coordination and reporting and/orenactment of the Planning Act.Coordination of multi-sectoraldevelopment efforts, and assisting thetreasury in appropriate budgetaryresource allocation. Existence of PPPand linkages with CSOs. Bringinguniversities on board to undertakesocio-economic studies including inagriculture. Advances in public sectorreforms which further enhance nationalplanning, budgeting and assessment ofresults.

Weak governance andPublic SectorManagementChallenges such asinadequate humanresource base, weakinformation systems,rigid civil serviceprocedures andinadequate allocation ofbudgets. Publicmistrust of Governmentand the credibility of itstechnical reports. Highstaff turn-over. Verydynamic local andglobal political,economic, social,technological and legalcharges reflected inhigh oil prices, naturaldisasters and the like.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

38

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsMinistry ofAgriculture (MOA)and parastatals(including ADC,AFC, KARI,KEPHIS, HCDA,NCPB, PCPB)

Sound strategic documents, the SRA2004-2014, a Strategic Plan 2008-2012that respond to the ERS, and the ASDS2010-2020 that respond to Vision 2030and is aligned with the CAADP and MDGone and seven. A well-structuredextension services, dynamic andcommitted political leadership,committed, dynamic and competentworkforce, institutional capacity andpolicy arrangements. Governmentcommitment to enhance funding to thesector. Improved financial managementsystem, a growing private sector drivenvalue-chain. Responsive and strongfarming community. Well establishedresearch institutions, FTC’s. Adequateinfrastructure in horticulture sub-sector.Adoption of AgSWAp and coordination ofagriculture sector ministries throughASCU.

Low funding, considering its importancein the national economy. Inadequateoutreach of technical advisory serviceson the ground. Weak farmer-extension-research linkages, failure to quicklydisseminate available research findings.Lack of funds to provide credit tofarmers for enterprise investment; lackof management capacity and poorfarmer partnerships relations at AFC.Weak service delivery of regulatorybodies at field level. Poor governanceand accountability in key institutions.Poor succession management. Weak andunfavorable legal and regulatoryenvironment. Duplication andoverlapping of roles by severalinstitutions and stakeholders. Low anddeclining land fertility. High cost andincreased adulteration of key farm inputsand inability to produce competitively.Weak information management.Inadequate land management andenvironmental conservation.Dependence on rain-fed production.

A vibrant democratic leadership fromgrassroots to the national levels.Increased level of stakeholderparticipation. Collaboration within andoutside productive sector ministries.Review and update the policyframework under single umbrellalegislation. Promote irrigatedagriculture to reduce the impact ofunreliable rainfall. Focus oncommercialization. Work with thecooperative sector to find good marketsfor farmers produce. Encouragemultiple providers especially in theprivate sector to deliver extensionservices. Development partners underthe umbrella of KJAS are still keen tofund agricultural programs to avertfood shortages.

Unpredictable mergersand split in ministriesincluding transfer offunctions. Corruption,high staff turnover,conflicting policies andGovernment restrictionon recruitment oftechnical staff. Non-tariff barriers to trade.Lack of land use policy.Unfavorable macro-economic environment.Low adoption rates oftechnology by farmers.Inefficient markets andunfavourable domesticand external pricesmake agriculturalenterprisesunprofitable.Parastatals do notdeliver servicescommensurate withresources absorbed.Vagaries of the weatherand adverse effects ofclimate change.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

39

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsMinistry ofLivestockDevelopment(MOLD) andparastatals(CAIS, KDB,KMC)

Well trained and experienced staff withclearly defined responsibilities in eachdepartment. Availability of basicinfrastructure. Availability of animalgenetic lines. Goodwill from policymakers. Linkages with local, regionaland international research anddevelopment institutions. Good rapportwith stakeholders. Has the KenyaNational Dairy Master Plan (includingAction Plan and ImplementationStrategy) that identifies possibleinterventions and investments in theshort, medium and long term scenarios.

Low staffing levels. Inadequate andobsolete technology. Weakcommunication network between andwithin technical and support servicedepartments. Inadequate transportfacilities, tools and equipment. Low staffmorale arising from poor terms andconditions of service. Scatteredorganizational locations. Ageingtechnical staff and poor successionmanagement. Inadequate capacity inproject cycle management, qualityassurance and emergency preparedness.Weak policy and legal framework.Inadequate management informationsystems.

Increase exploitation of livestockresources. Improve access to local,regional and international markets.Availability of new bio-technologies.Use linkages with regional andinternational organizations in finance,trade, research and training. Existenceof a strong private sector involved inprocessing and value addition. Improvenetworking with other ministries.

Low funding. Embargoon recruitment oftechnical staff.Insecurity in livestockproducing areas.Prevalence of livestockdiseases, pests andpredatorsencroachment of cropfarming and settlementon grazing land. Unfairtrade practices.Environmentaldegradation, naturalcalamities and trans-boundary conflicts.HIV/AIDS. Over-exploitation of someresources. Corruption

Ministry ofFisheriesDevelopment andThe Kenya Marineand FisheriesResearchInstitute (KMFRI)

Promotes and facilitates developmentand management of fisheries sub-sector; has a strategic plan 2008-2012;identified policy priorities (e.g.Sustainable aquaculture development;Promotion of fish safety and qualityassurance, investment, value additionand marketing;and established collaborative linkageswith key stakeholders;

Marginalized or given low priority bypolicy makers, frequent movement fromone ministry to another leads to lack ofcontinuity and stability.

Forged linkages with Moi University -capacity building and research; LakeBasin Development Authority (LBDA);University of Nairobi (UoN); LakeVictoria Fisheries Organization andseveral United Nations Agenciesinvolved in fisheries.

Prevalent fish diseases

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

40

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsMinistry ofCooperativeDevelopment andMarketing(MOCDM)includingCooperativeCollege andCooperativeAlliance of Kenya

The Ministry has developed variousintervention tools that includeCooperative Development Policy, theMinistry’s Strategic Plan 2008 – 2012and other specific strategies includingthis Cooperative Marketing Strategy2009-2013.National institutions exist inthe country to support the cooperativemovement. The MOCDM is prepared toreduce its grip on the cooperativemovement under the new CooperativeSocieties Act (2004), and allowautonomy to strong and viable societies.The MOCDM oversees the operations offinancially strong Savings and CreditSocieties (SACCOs). The CooperativeBank has infrastructure for channelinginvestment funds to farmers. TheCooperative College has a growingpotential for capacity building services.Has strong cooperative organization likethe Kenya cooperative creameries(KCC). Diversity of Technical andprofessional staff.

Historical burden of interference in anddisruption of the functioning ofcooperatives. Poor governance recordamong cooperatives, lack of capacity todo proper business and lack of finances.Lack of financial discipline resulting inpleas to write off debts. Weakcoordination between the productionministries (MOA, MOLD) and themarketing ministry. Overlaps indepartmental functions in the Ministry.Low professional levels amongstcooperatives leaders and managers.Poor processing/packaging and brandingwithin the sector. Lack of credible datafor marketing and managementpurposes in the sector. Poorcollaboration and networking within theministry and amongst the cooperatives.Poor organization of the Ministry.Inadequate resources in the sector. Lackof marketing strategies. Inadequatecapacity especially in ICT. Poor attitudein the entire sector including theministry. Inadequate marketing skills.

Make the cooperative movement robustand accountable through a focusedstrategy and plan of action. Reducepolitical influence within the movement.Initiate policies towards privatization.Enhance cooperation with theproduction sectors. Huge marketpotential in the local, regional as wellas the global market. Strategicgeographical location, gate way to andfrom the East African region favors thecooperative movement. The revival ofthe Kenya National Federation ofCooperatives and New KCC. The KenyaVision 2030. Emergence of newmarkets in Fair and Organic Trade.

Political interference inthe management andoperation of thesocieties and markets.Uncertain politicalclimate, consumerpreference for importedproducts. Divisions incooperative societies.Adverse climatechange. Unfaircompetition. Resistanceto change in theministry and thecooperative movement.High debts in somecooperatives. Collapseof cooperativeinstitutions. Spiralinginflation and collapse ofglobal markets.Stringent global marketrequirements e.g.EURO-Gap Certification.Negative attitudetowards cooperatives.Poor infrastructure.Unfavorable taxregime. Agingmembership in thefarming cooperativesocieties.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

41

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsMinistry ofEnvironment andMineral Resources(MEMR) andsubsidiaryinstitutions(NEMA, KEFRI,KenyaMeteorologicalTraining College,Lake VictoriaEnvironmentManagementProgramme(LVEMP))

An Environmental ManagementCoordination Act, environment policyand a Forest Development Policy,geared to transforming the forestryservice. Has infrastructure such asgazetted forests, plantations, treenurseries. Has a forestry researchinstitution (KEFRI) and Kenya ForestService (KFS), and support frominternational organizations such asICRAF and UNEP. An institutionalstructure comprising of specializedtechnical departments and SAGA(s), ateam of qualified and experienced staff.Support from NGOs. NEMA has the legalbasis to address environmental issuessuch as industrial pollution, solid wastemanagement, and natural resourcesconservation. NEMA has a coordinationauthority over agencies mandated tomanage the environment.

Although there is a Forest Act 2005, theMENR operates within a weak policy andlegal framework on environment andnatural resources management. Lowbudgetary allocations, under-staffing,weak monitoring and evaluationmechanisms, weak enforcement of rulesand regulations, weak informationsharing framework, and weak andunsustainable partnerships withstakeholders. Forestry issues areerroneously made synonymous withenvironmental issues. Inadequateinformation, technology, capacity andresources for management ofenvironment and natural resources.Returns from environmentalprogrammes are usually long-term andadoption is often low.

Large mineral and other naturalresources base for utilization, largemarkets for minerals and other naturalresources domestically, regionally andeven internationally. Strengthen NEMAto enable it to better enforce standardsand assist the operationalization of theKenya Forest Service. Implement theForest Act 2005 and enhancecommunity management of forests.Prepare a strategic plan that can attractadditional funds. Mainstreamenvironmental concerns into projectsand programmes.

Political interferenceand uncertain politicalwill for environmentalconservation, high staffturnover, naturalcalamities like droughtsand floods; corruption,conflicting governmentpolicies and legislationsand poor environmentalgovernance. Uncheckedenvironmentaldegradation, loss ofbiodiversity andunsustainableexploitation of naturalresources due to vestedinterests. Fundingavailability does notmatch large resourcerequirements ofenvironmentalprogrammes.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

42

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsMinistry of WaterResources andIrrigation (MWI)and the waterinstitutions.

The Water Act (2002), national sectorpolicy (Water policy 2007) and WaterSector Investment Plan give direction toreform and investment in the sector.Advanced restructuring to provideservices more efficiently and effectively,through Water Services Boards, WaterResources Management Authority,Water Services Regulatory Board andWater Appeal Board. These institutionsare moving the sector from governmentdomination to stakeholder managementand control. They have a legal mandateto operate in their areas of jurisdiction.The water policy also underscores theimportance of rainwater harvesting aswell as water conservation. It staff withthe necessary competences forproviding the policy, coordination aswell as for resource mobilization.

The essence of the Reforms has notbeen internalized in most sections of theMinistry. It lacks an irrigation policy aswell as a land reclamation policy. Thelack of these instruments hamperseffective planning and implementation ofirrigation and land reclamationprogrammes. The data and informationsystem has not been harmonized andMonitoring and Evaluation System isweak. There is a lack of effectiveInformation, Education, andCommunication (IEC) Strategy. LowCapacities in the newly createdinstitutions. There is shortage of staffand/or skills in some areas in theMinistry, particularly for landreclamation activities and water qualityassurance. There has been poorsuccession planning in some sections.Inadequate resources at the districtlevel. Cross cutting issues such asgender, HIV, have not been given thedeserved attention.

Work with DPs to secure resources forcapital investment. Promote communitymanagement of water facilities. Seekfunding in order to expand irrigation ofhigh value crops. Make it moreattractive for the private sector toinvest in water projects. Adoption ofavailable appropriate indigenous waterharvesting/storage technologies maylead to reduce dependence onexpensive foreign technologies. Theexisting EMCA and regulations relatingto discharge of effluents has easedpressure on the Ministry's resources forsanitation services. There are manynon-state actors in the provision ofwater services whose resourcescomplement its resources in theprovision of water services.

Inadequate resourceallocation. Politicalinterference in accessand water rights. Weakmanagementcapacities. Continuedhuman settlements inwater catchment areasand destruction offorests have led todepletion of waterresources. Weakmeasures for ensuringequitable access toirrigated land by poorand vulnerablehouseholds, womenand youth. Lack of aharmonized nationalframework for themanagement of waterresources, includingtheir sources, limits theMinistry's capacity tofully play its leadershiprole in the sector.Unwillingness by somelocal authorities toimplement someaspects of the on-goingwater reforms. Lack ofcooperative frameworksfor the management ofshared waters in theregion hinders properplanning for theaffected waterresources.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

43

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsMinistry of Lands(MOL)

The MOL has qualified technical staff,including at district level, to plan,survey, adjudicate land and resolvedisputes. Has a land policy (2010) toimprove the land administration andaddress issues of fragmentation,disparities in land ownership,deterioration in land quality, squattingand landlessness, disinheritance ofsome groups and individuals, under-utilization and abandonment ofagricultural land, tenure insecurity andconflict.

Operated without land policy for a longperiod. Continued vested interests andconflict in land issues - “land matters aresensitive.” Need to transform the staffcomplement to become moretransparent and accountable. Paralleland illegal practices including fake landsales and legal land documents.Although being developed there is still alack of legal framework for the landpolicy and there is a need for developingimplementation capacity especially atthe County and community levels. Whilethere is a Land Policy a Land UsePlanning Policy is still being developed.

Operationalize the land policy that isacceptable to all stakeholders, withparticular attention to women andyouth’s rights. Create strongdecentralized and community-basedinstitutions to oversee the managementand utilization of land. Resolve pendingcases of land issues - grabbed land andadministration of group-owned land.Reorient staff to work for the commongood.

Political interferenceand ethnic conflict.Powerful vestedinterests by landedelites. Conflicts in landuse practices, e.g.environmentalconservation vs. forestexcisions andcultivation on steepslopes; human-wildlifeconflicts.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

44

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsMinistry of Forestry andWildlife, Kenya ForestryResearch Institute (KEFRI);Kenya Forest Service (KFS)

Has Forest policy 2007, Forest Act2005; Wildlife Conservation Policy;Wildlife Strategic Plan 2008-2012;Bio-Prospecting Strategy;KEFRI; Development of Forests andReafforestation, and WaterCatchment Area Conservationthrough projects like National ForestProgramme, MitiMingi Maisha Boraand Green Zones DevelopmentSupport. Unique wildlife resourcesand landscapes, well establishedand defined wildlife protection unitsand community programmes, goodinfrastructure in protected areas,committed and competentworkforce. Promotion of sustainableforest conservation throughrecognition and establishment ofCommunity Forest Associations.

Lack of proper information on thequantity and quality of biological assets.Lack of incentive schemes to recognizeexceptional performance, incompletesynergy between departments. Overreliance on external tourism which is nothelped by seasonality and low pricingand incomplete biodiversity inventory.Weak monitoring and evaluationmechanism. Face obstacles to treeplanting in ASALs. Inadequate use andapplication of InformationCommunications Technology coupledwith inadequate financial resources andinadequate marketing and research.

Government andcommunity support,investment opportunities inwildlife tour products andservices abound includingunexploited parks andreserves. Furthermore KWShas excellent training,research and educationfacilities, coupled withsupportive MOUs with otherinstitutions which should beexploited for the benefit ofthe organization. Theexpected review of policyand legislation will create aplatform for greater andclearer collaboration withvarious players in wildlifemanagement includingthose involved inbio-prospecting.Existence of internationalinstitutions like UNEP, UNDPand World Agro-Forestrycentre/ICRAF

Competing demand forland and weakgovernance. Generalinsecurity in some partsof the country resultinglargely from the influx ofillegal weapons. Poachingand human / wildlifeconflicts, as well as illegaltrade in wildlife products.Environmentaldegradation andencroachment inprotected areas as aresult of poverty andother socio-economicinequities poses problem.Global climatic changes,regional and local politicalinstability. Diminishingconservation areas, highcommunity supportexpectations, poor roadinfrastructure anddecreased funding fromTreasury.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

45

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsMinistry of RegionalDevelopment Authorities(MORDA)With Authorities like3

TARDA, KVDA, LBDA, ENNDA,ENSDA and CDA

Regional Authorities DevelopmentPolicy 2007. Strategic Plan 2008-2012;Oversight, Management, capacitybuilding and Development supportfor Regional DevelopmentAuthorities. Services provided byexperienced, qualified, dedicated,and well-equipped staff from sixdepartments. Achieved the covetedISO 9001:2008 certification in2008; focus on communityempowerment. Financial Supportfrom the Government anddevelopment partners. Existence ofwell-established RDAs countrywidewith clear legal mandates forintegrated Regional Development.Demand for balanced and equitableRegional DevelopmentImproved Public Sector ReformInitiatives.

Inadequate monitoring and evaluationcapacity in the Ministry and RDAs.Regional Development Policy not wellaligned with the existing legalframework and needs review.Slow restructuring and revitalization ofthe RDAs. Weak IT infrastructure.

Abundant natural resourcesfor integrated development.Opportunities forinvestments and wealthcreation through RDAs.Existence of Public PrivatePartnership policy.Support from developmentpartners.Availability of devolvedfunds to support regionaldevelopment programmes.

Overlapping andconflicting mandatesamong Governmentministries. Trans-boundary natural resourceissues/conflicts. Highpoverty levels in theregions under variousRDAs’ jurisdiction. Landtenure systems that arenot supportive of effectivedevelopment andmanagementinterventions.Resource-use conflicts inthe RDAs area ofjurisdiction. Highprevalence of HIV/AidsLow fundingEnvironmentaldegradation.

3(Tana and Athi Rivers Development Authority (TARDA).Kerio Valley Development Authority (KVDA).Lake Basin Development Authority (LBDA).Ewaso-Nyiro NorthDevelopment Authority (ENNDA).Ewaso-Nyiro South Development Authority (ENSDA).

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

46

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsOffice of the Prime Minister:Ministry of State for theDevelopment of NorthernKenya and Other Arid Areas

Created in April 2008 to enhancedevelopment of neglected areasthat cover more than 80% of thecountry and are home to about 10million people and approximately70% of the national livestock herd.Has established an ASAL Secretariatto lead and steer the process ofharmonisation, alignment andcoordination of development inNorthern Kenya. National Policy forthe Sustainable Development ofNorthern Kenya and other AridLands (2011). Focuses onagricultural/livestock, irrigation andtourism development and naturalresources management. Has severalprojects like Northern KenyaInvestment Fund; Arid LandsResource Management Project andHunger safety net.The Ministrythrough the DSGs has establishedpartnerships and networks withvarious stakeholders and this canbe harnessed for the good of thepeople.

It is relatively still new and may havenot gained concrete experience andgrasped critical issues on the ground.Persistence of livestock raiding & inter-communal violence in the ASALs.Inadequate security infrastructure.Limited presence of the formal judicialsystemLack of a regional framework to managecross-border conflict. Over-reliance onthe ALRMP II that ended in 2010, forcoordinating and spearheadingdevelopment at the district level. Lowlevels of staffing. Lack of technical staffto spearhead development initiatives ofthe ministry.

Goodwill from governmentto develop the region.Cognizance by thegovernment that Kenya willnot achieve sustainablegrowth if huge resources ofnorthern Kenya and otherarid lands remainundeveloped. Goodwill fromdevelopment partners andstakeholders. DevelopmentPartner (e.g. UN Agencies,JICA) interest in developingthe areas Collaboration withother ministries anddepartments. Existence ofmany NGOs and CBOs thatthe Ministry can work within the region.

Lack of goodunderstanding of northernKenya and other aridlands livelihood systemsby policy makers andimplementers. Loweconomic clout ofcommunities in northernKenya and other aridlands. High dependencyon livestock for livelihood.Low literacy levels. Highdependency on aid.Difficult terrain. Perennialinter-tribal/clan conflicts.High poverty levels thatmay impede participationof local communities ineconomic development.Reliance on otherministries and agenciesthat have their ownpriorities and performancecontracts in implementingdevelopment programmesin the region. Drought-prone environments.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

47

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsMinistry of Gender, ChildrenAnd SocialDevelopment(MGCSD)

MGCSD has a strategic plan (2008-2012). Existence of operationalservice guidelines, policies andregulations. Expertise on genderand children matters. Decentralizedservices. National Gender/ChildrenDatabase. Existence of Gender andSocial Development Committeesand Area Advisory Councils.Establishment of Women EnterpriseFund. Government emphasis ontransparency and accountability.Government adoption of ResultsBased Management. Gender andChildren friendly policies guidelines.Reforms in the legal sectorCollaboration at community level.Increased budgetary allocation forcash transfers for OVC’s. Mandatefor registration and capacitybuilding of local groups. Insists ongender mainstreaming in forestry.

Recently established (2008). Staffinglevels at the headquarters, provincialand district levels are low; most districtshave one or two staff members withlimited effectiveness. The ministry is notadequately funded possibly due to lackof a clear policy to direct its mandateand functions. Local Authorities used toprovide grassroots staff in the form ofCommunity Development Assistants.These staff have since been withdrawndue to lack of finance. Inadequateschemes of service. Inadequate policyand legislative framework. Inadequateskills for changing circumstances.Inadequate ICT infrastructure in fieldstations. Lack of research andinadequate data on gender and children.Inadequate decentralization of decisionmaking. Inadequate coordination,Monitoring and Evaluation mechanism inthe ministry. Slow disbursement ofWomen Enterprise Fund. Weak inter andintra-departmental linkages.

Put into action a clearstrategic plan that canattract additional funds. Usethe goodwill of governmentto implement pro-womeninitiatives, e.g. affirmativeaction, and lead in themainstreaming of gendermatters in public andprivate institutions. Re-employ CommunityDevelopment Assistants forgrassroots service delivery.Potential for partnership.Existence of CharitableInstitutions. Decentralizedtraining institutions.Political goodwillGoodwill from developmentpartners. Existence of localcommittees.

Uncertain politicalenvironment resulting infrequent reorganization ofGovernment functions.Interference emanatingfrom donor fundedprojects/programmes.HIV/AIDS pandemic.Breakdown of socialvalues and structuresleading to increased childabuse and Gender BasedViolence. Kenya has manycultures that are diverseand difficult to manage.Harmful cultural practicese.g. female circumcision,early marriages Risingnumbers of orphaned andvulnerable children due todiseases like HIVand AIDS, malaria andnatural calamities.. Lackof adequate resources toimprove its capacity.Limited capacity tosupport groups at fieldlevel.

Farmers’ Organizations(producer groups, commodityorganizations, KENFAP)

Common goal to deliver servicesand represent farmers’ interestsfrom grassroots to national level.Ability to organize inputsdistribution, sale of produce, takeloans, advocate for favourablepolicies. Ability to provide extensionservices to the members.Established network structures fromgrassroots to national level.Willingness by leaders to offervoluntary services.

Often weak management skills and lackof strategic plans and cohesiveness.Limited personnel especially at lowerlevels and limited financial resources.Not always adequate farmerrepresentation. General low level oforganization at producer level.

Potential to representfarmers’ interests andinfluence policy at nationallevel. Vehicles for improvedservice delivery to farmers.May play advocacy andlobby roles if leadership isproperly trained.

Poor management andlack of cohesion can leadto collapse of projects andfacilities. Sometimesprone to politicalinterference.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

48

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsResearch Institutions (e.g.Tegemeo, KIPRA, Universitieslike Nairobi, Kenyatta, JKUAT,Egerton and Moi)

Reasonable complement ofresearchers and researchinfrastructure, with wide experiencein the agricultural sector andmacro/institutional issues.Institutional linkages with otheruniversities and researchinstitutions. Independence inanalysis and presentation of criticalviews and advice. Priority ingovernment policy questions(KIPRA). Development Partnersupport.

Limited resources reduce the ability tocarry out research and make it funds-driven. Limited dissemination of findingsand follow-up on implementation ofrecommendations. Limited collaborationwith other institutions in the agriculturalsector. KIPRA is rather closelyassociated with the government agenda.Research not always linked to the needsand priorities of the rural poor.Some universities experience reducedability to attract highly qualified staffpartly due to their rural location.

Potential for collaborativeresearch aimed atinfluencing agriculturalpolicies. Potential incontributing toimplementation of theASDS. Scope forcollaboration with otherorganizations in the privatesector to improve therelevance and acceptabilityof policy findings.

Partial dependence ondonor funding foractivities - competition forresources. Risk thatunpopularrecommendations are notfollowed up, especially bygovernment. Politicalinterference. Competitionfor resources canundermine opportunitiesfor collaboration.

Rural Financial Institutions(e.g. K-rep bank, Equity Bank,KWFT, Faulu)

Long experience with financingmicro-enterprises in the country.High level of entrepreneurial staff tosupport operations and clients.Significant outreach, sometimeswith country wide offices especiallyin MHP areas. Have experiencedsignificant growth.

Have generally failed to financeagricultural production and havespecialized in supporting traders.Product characteristics, such as highinterest rates and strict repaymentschedules, often unsuitable foragriculture. Sometimes one-sided focuson loan recovery rather than clientperformance. Slow processing ofapplications.

Could share theirexperience with otherinstitutions willing to assistin savings mobilization or tofinance smallholders andinformal traders. Potentialto finance agriculturalmarketing, especiallyproduce with a shortproduction cycle and highvalue. Potential to replicatesuccessful experiences inother areas.

Increasing outreachfurther into rural areasmeans higher cost ofoperations. Productivityunder smallholderconditions is subject torainfall patterns,increasing risk.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

49

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsFood and Agricultural ResearchManagement (FARM) Africa

Started its work in Kenya since1985 and in 1986 had its firstproject in Northern Kenya known asthe Pastoralists DevelopmentProject (PDP). Focuses on: Pastoraldevelopment;Forestry/Agroforestry; Smallholderdevelopment; Communityparticipatory planning and research;capacity building; Buildingpartnership with otherorganizations; Dissemination andadvocacy. Has formed a number ofnetworks including the East AfricanGoat Development Network(EAGODEN), Kenya GoatDevelopment Network (KEGODEN)and Community Animal HealthNetwork (CAHNET). Charged withthe task of managing a regionalchallenge fund (MATF) funded bythe Gatsby and RockefellerFoundations and is currentlyimplementing the fourth phase ofthis fund. Has several projectsfocusing on women and youthempowerment.

Limited staff capacity may limit theextent of their outreach to all targetareas.

Collaborates with local andinternational organizations.Capable of mobilizing fundsthrough various sources.

Work in areas that areprone or vulnerable todroughts and floods;poverty-ridden areas withun-developedinfrastructure.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

50

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsParticipatory Ecological Land-Use Management (PELUM)Association – PELUM Kenya

Strategic Plan (2010-2014);effective, efficient and committedsecretariat and the National Board;existence of diverse, growing activemembership; Good will and supportfrom host organization– SACDEP-Kenya;Conducive work environment at theCountry Desk; established andoperational working systems andpolicies i.e. the Finance Manual andPersonnel Manuals; strong andfunctional organizational structurese.g. the National Board, AnnualGeneral Meeting etc.; sharing ofbest practices among members andstakeholders e.g. carrying outexchange visits. Visibility andrecognition in advocacy issues-PELUM-Kenya is active in anti-GMOcampaign, Fair trade, EPAs, etc.

Inadequate response to the pastoralcommunities and small scale farmers incoastal areas on issues affecting them;insufficient follow up with members instrengthening linkages; inadequateoffice space, land for demonstrations onecological land use practices andmanagement; low adoption of ”elum‟coverage; high donor dependence; lowlinkage strategies with media.Insufficient partnerships with Mediahouse hence a challenge in effectivemedia campaigns. Inadequate policiesaddressing HIV and AIDS in theworkplace, motor vehicle and genderInadequate M & E systems. Inadequateresources e.g. funds, human capacity,organizational capacities to handleemerging global issues of unfair trade,bio-fuels, climate change etc. . No clearresource mobilization strategy.No clear strategy to mainstream agri-business in development.

Existence of like-mindednetworks that support elumissues. Willingness ofdevelopment partners tosupport PELUM-Kenyaactivities. Public demandfor service delivery andrespect for communityrights. This is due to theincreased awareness bypublic on their rights andobligations of thegovernment and otherservice providers.Existence of informationfrom the world wide weband use of ICTs. Growingglobal interests to promotefarmer rights.Growing recognition andrespect of indigenous andlocal knowledge.Shift in food habits fromprocessed to unprocessedfoods. Global focus inpoverty eradication andwealth creation strategies inthe MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs)and Vision 2030.Political willingness toaddress environmentalmatters.

Climate change and itsimplications to land useand communities.Promotion of fuel crops(Agro fuel) possesses apotential threat to elumwhich promotes foodcrops.HIV and AIDS, drug andsubstance abuse and itsimpact on rurallivelihoods.Political instability andpoor governance thatpromotes negativeethnicity and misuse ofpublic resources.Prevailing global financialcrisis. Growing influenceby multinationalcompanies.High inflation and unfairtrading practices whichaffects the purchasingpower of thecommunities,transportation, fuel priceetc. Shifting donorinterests from the currentdevelopment agenda toemerging trends.Inadequate reinforcementof laws on protection ofIntellectual PropertyRights (IPR). Poorinfrastructure e.g. roads,railway.Limited investments inrural areas where peopleare more vulnerable andpoor. Some unfavorablelaws to protect small scalefarmers and poor landpolicies.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

51

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

NGOs (e.g. CAREKenya, KWFT,TechnoServe,Oxfam-Kenya,Action Aid, PRIDE,Catholic ReliefServices -CRS andWorld Vision)

Specific experience with povertyreduction, commercialization ofsmallholder agriculture. Closer to theprivate sector and small enterpriseswith potential for growth. Capacity toorganize smallholders, assists withproduction and marketing for highvalue marketing chains, and link toexternal resources. Well placed to playadvocacy role including addressinggender disparities. CARE InternationalKenya carries out significant initiativesin Civil Society OrganizationalStrengthening, Environmental servicesand Livelihoods. Its priority regions areNyanza Province (with a sub-office inKisumu), Kibera in Nairobi and NorthEastern Province (with sub-offices inGarissa, Dadaab, Elwak and Marsabit).CARE's Climate Change Response aimsto empower poor and marginalizedpeople to take action on climatechange at all levels and to buildknowledge for global change. Itsthemes focus on global policyengagement, adaptation, makingcarbon finance work for poor andmarginalized people and organizationalchange. CRS promotes microfinanceand agriculture.

Limited staff capacity. Projects are oftenlocalized mainly with demonstrationpurposes and limited outreach. Dependencyon limited short-medium term donorfunding.

Capacity to develop anddisseminate appropriatetechnologies. Capacity to traingovernment and other staff inspecific areas of expertise,such as participatory methodsand farmer organization.Potential vehicle forestablishing and strengtheningproducer groups. Potential tointroduce and test pilotactivities that can be replicatedunder IFAD/GOK programmes.

Reliance on NGOs withlimited capacity andchanging focus based ondonor funding and prioritiesmay adversely affectimplementation. Risk oflimited local capacitybuilding and creatingdependency on NGOservices, with subsequentlack of sustainability.

Key file 2

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

52

Organization Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities ThreatsPrivate SectorOperators (stockists,traders, processors,manufacturers)

Extensive networks in MHP areaslocated close to farmers. Advice oninputs is highly regarded bysmallholders. Often experiencedpersons with facilities instrumental intransferring produce from producers tomarket outlets. Good understanding ofdemand and supply situation.

Have limited technical knowledge andsometimes pass distorted messages tofarmers. Storage and retail facilities can beof poor quality. Products and servicesoffered are more profit-based than basedon farmers’ needs. Multiple levels ofoperators add to cost of inputs andproduce. Monopolize market informationand pay minimum prices to farmers. Adhoc and unreliable trade relationsdominate. Varying interest in andadherence to quality standards.

Meet high demand for qualityinputs. Complement reducedgovernment service deliveryby passing technical adviceand product informationthrough the supply chains.Improve stocking and reducecost of products in line withfarmers’ needs. More efficientmarketing arrangements toreduce cost and improvequality. Reduce number ofactors in the supply chains.Improved payments to farmerscan lead to increasedproduction.

Cases of sale of illegal orineffective products.Business competition hasthe risk of introducingbiased information tofarmers. Resistance ofcartels and dominance ofshort-term profit interests.Inadequate ruralinfrastructure limitingimproved trade practices.

Industryrepresentativebodies (e.g. AAK,FPEAK, STAK)

Representative bodies, knowledgeableregarding the concerns and prioritiesof their members, who play importantroles in the agricultural sector.Contributing to training and publicawareness campaigns. Initiatives onquality control and accreditationsystems. Contributing to review ofagricultural policies and legislation.Conversant with internationalstandards.

Small outfits with limited resources andcapacity, for example for traininginitiatives. Development issues are not thefirst priority of the industry, priority is(sometimes one-sided) representation ofmembers’ interests.Limited experience and involvement withsmallholder producers.

Potential to make morerelevant products available tosmallholder producers.Support role in capacitybuilding and accreditation fordistribution, storage, handlingand use of inputs. Potentialchannel to, for example,disseminate study findings ordraw attention to specificneeds of smallholders.Capacity to give farmers awider choice of inputs. Wellorganized channels forcommunication withsubstantial numbers inputsuppliers, processors andexporters. Members controlsubstantial investment funds.

Possibility of domination byone or a few largemembers. Regulations tendto favour imports over localmanufacturers, throughmultiple testing andregistration requirements.Focus on the interests ofindustry, which do notalways coincide with theinterests of smallholderfarmers. Changing laws,procedures andpreferences related toexport products.

Key file 3

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

53

Key file 3: Complementary donor initiative/partnership potential

Agency Priority Sectors and Areas of Focus Period of Current CountryStrategy Complementarity/Synergy Potential

AfricanDevelopmentBank (AfDB)

Improved livelihoods for vulnerable groups through agriculture (e.g.livestock, horticulture and farm improvement) and environmentalmanagement as well as skills development for enhancingemployability. Also pays attention to infrastructure development e.g.national roads, electricity, safe water, water resources management,women enterprise support and community empowerment)

Country Strategy Paper2008-2012

KJAS 2007-2012 partner

The third COSOP period will be characterizedby increasing harmonization amongDevelopment Partners (DPs) supporting theASDS, CAADP and the Horn of AfricaInitiative. Partners may include World Bank,UN Agencies, JICA, USAID, AfDB andDANIDA. The complementarity and synergypotential in the sector is high for the comingyears in support of AgSWAp.

At the strategic level, this will be achievedby using the KJAS, agreed between amajority of donors and the GOK, as acommon strategy document that will providegeneral guidance on the developmentpriorities to be supported.

At the operational level, the new ASDS andthe Code of Conduct for the agriculturalsector will provide a practical framework forthe alignment of existing and developmentof new DP-supported interventions. As hasalready been the case, the agricultural DPsector group/ Thematic Working Group andits dialogue with government will be theplatform used by DPs to share experienceand harmonize activities, gradually movingtowards a mix of better coordinated projectsand programmes, basket funding and SWAparrangements.

More specifically, ongoing and new IFAD-supported interventions have a strongsynergy potential with the followingoperations supported by other donors:(i) World Bank agricultural projects like:Enhancing Agricultural

Denmark(DANIDA)

Agriculture: Agricultural Sector Programme Support (ASPS, ASALareas). Water and Sanitation. Private Sector Development. Health.Environment. Business development and good governance

Danish Country Strategyfor Kenya 2005-2009(edited December 2010)KJAS 2007-2012 partner

EuropeanCommission/EU

Agriculture: Pesticides Initiative Programme; Kenya AgriculturalResearch Programme for Arid and Semi-Arid Lands; Implementationof a fisheries management plan for Lake Victoria; StrengtheningFishery Product Health Conditions in ACP/OCT countries; RuralPoverty Reduction and Local Government Support Programme.Environment. Community Development for EnvironmentalManagement Programme. Roads and Transportation.

Country Strategy Paperand Indicative Programme2008-2013KJAS 2007-2012 partner

Germany(DED, GTZ,KfW)

Agriculture: Private Sector Development in Agriculture (PSDA), MHPareas. Water and Sanitation: Smallholder Irrigation Programme Mt.Kenya Region. Health. Advice to SMEs and farmer associations toboost productivity, better exploitation of their markets, sustainablenatural resources management and climate change issues

2010-2013 Strategy forKenyaKJAS 2007-2012 partner

Japan (JICA) Agriculture: Smallholder Horticulture Empowerment Project (SHEMP,4 districts); Community Agricultural Development Project in Semi-Arid Lands (CADSAL). Water and Sanitation: Sustainable SmallholderIrrigation Development and Management in Central and SouthernKenya (SIDEMAN). Roads and Transportation. Land. Private SectorDevelopment. Education. Health. Environment. EconomicInfrastructure Development, Water, and Programme for CapacityDevelopment for Poverty Reduction (African institute for CapacityDevelopment – AICAD 2000-2012)

Annual country strategies.KJAS 2007-2012 partner

Sweden(Sida)

Promotion of democratic governance lies at the center of all activitiesunder the Sida strategy and links with governance are emphasizedthroughout the four programme areas: democratic governance, pro-poorgrowth, social development and sustainable natural resources.Agriculture: National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme(NALEP-II), national. Water and Sanitation. Land. Women enterprisessupport and community empowerment

SIDA Country Strategy2009-2013

KJAS 2007-2012 partner(new country strategy asAnnex to KJAS)

Key file 3

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

54

Agency Priority Sectors and Areas of Focus Period of Current CountryStrategy

Complementarity/SynergyPotential

United Kingdom(DFID)

wealth creation: supporting market development,access to finance and regional trade integration – tocreate 250,000 additional jobs for men and women•climate change: building resilience and supporting lowcarbon growth – to reduce losses from extreme climateevents by 0.5% of Gross Domestic Product •governance and security: supporting police and servicedelivery reforms and stronger accountability • health:providing bednets, maternal health and family planningservices • education: supporting schools in hard-to-reach slums and arid lands, and better teachermanagement –•hunger and vulnerability: providingcash transfers and investments in the arid lands•humanitarian emergency: providing funds andsupporting new policies • supporting girls: building theassets, health and education of adolescent girls –. Thisbuilds on the gender focus that runs throughout theKenya programme, targeting our health, education andwealth investments on the same girls.

DFID Operational Plan for Kenya2011-2015


Productivity Project for Kenya; TheKenya Agricultural Productivity andSustainable Land ManagementProject (KAPSLMP) and The KenyaAgricultural Productivity andSustainable Land ManagementProject (KAPSLMP), among others.(ii) USAID ‘ projects like Farmer toFarmer and KDDP complementarityin particular for EPHTFCP andSDCP;(iii) FAO’ project on SustainableIntensification of Crop Productionand Increased SustainableLivestock Production,complementarity for EPHTFCP andSDCP;(iv) JICA’s AICAD supportssmallholders in promotingagribusiness skills and valueaddition on agricultural products aswell as community empowerment.This enhances IFAD’s approaches tocapacity development of producerorganizations;(v) GTZ also focus on issues relatedto climate change that future IFADprojects/programmes will have topay attention to.

The Belgian Survival Fund (BSF) co-finances the CKDAP and the GEFco-financed the MKEPP replaced byUTaNRMP.

United States(USAID)

Agriculture: Farmer-to-Farmer Programme (2009-2013)(Feed the Future) focuses on oil seed, grain crops andhorticulture. Financial Inclusion for Rural Micro-Enterprises (FIRM).Kenya Maize Development Program;Kenya Dairy Development Program; Kenya Dairy SectorCompetitiveness (KDSC) Programme; Kenya HorticultureDevelopment Program (selected MHP areas); Kenya Drylands Livestock Development Programme and Partnershipfor Safe Poultry. Water and Sanitation. Private SectorDevelopment: Kenya Business Development Services(KBDS, supporting agriculture), MicroenterpriseDevelopment. Governance, Education. Health.Environment. Biodiversity management through natureconservation and eco-tourism.

Kenya’s Feed the Future (FTF)2011-2015 strategy targeting MHPand Semi-Arid areas.


United NationsAgencies

Operate under UNDAF and is based on three priorityareas namely: Improving Governance and realization ofhuman rights; Empowering people who are poor andreducing disparities and vulnerabilities; Promotingsustainable and equitable economic growth for poverty

UNDAF 2009-2013 (rooted inVision 2030)


Key file 3

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

55

and hunger reduction with a focus on vulnerable groups.

Additionally, the UNDAF focuses on four cross-cuttingthemes: gender equality; HIV/AIDS; migration anddisplacement and climate change.

FAO: Sustainable Intensification of Crop Production (e.g.Conservation and management of Pollinators...2009-2013; Improved Community Drought Response andResilience (ICDRR) 2011-2015); Increased SustainableLivestock Production (e.g. ICDRR 2011-2015 andImproved Food Security, Livelihoods, resilience ofVulnerable Pastoral Communities in the Greater Horn ofAfrica through Pastoral Field School Approach- 2011-2013); Sustainable Management and Use of Fisheries andAquaculture Resources (e.g. Support to Capacity Buildingto Promote Formal Marketing of Fish and Fish Productsfrom and within the Horn of Africa – 2011-2013; andSouth West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project – 2009-2014);Sustainable Management of Land, Water and GeneticResources and Improved Response to Global Environment(e.g. ICDRR 2011-2015; and Support to Pastoral andAgro-Pastoral Communities affected by the effects ofDrought 2011-2012); Enabling Environment for Marketsto improve Livelihoods (e.g. Agribusiness Support toSmallholders 2010-2012 and Regional initiative tosupport Vulnerable Pastoralists in the Horn of Africa2010-2013) and Improved Food Security and BetterNutrition 2011-2014.UNEP: Environment. UNICEF: Water and Sanitation,Education, Health. UN-Habitat: Land, Environment.UNDP: Energy, Empowering women and youth in micro-enterprise, Good governance, Supporting recovery oflivelihoods for resilient communities, Enhancing Progressin Attainment of MDGs and Environment. UNESCO:Education, Environment.

World Bank Agriculture: Enhancing Agricultural ProductivityProject for Kenya (since March 2010). The objective ofthe project is to assist GOK to increase access toagricultural inputs and technologies among targetedsmallholder farmers in selected districts. There are four

Country Assistance Strategy 2010– 2013KJAS 200—2012 Partner

Key file 3

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

56

components to the project, the first component being up-scaling the existing agricultural credit programme (KilimoBiashara). The project will build on the partnershipsalready established between the Government,International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), and EquityBank to leverage additional credit and scale up loans tofarmers. The second component is the up scaling theexisting input voucher scheme (Kilimo Plus) in selecteddistricts through the Government's National AcceleratedAgricultural Inputs Access Program (NAAIAP). The thirdcomponent is the up-scaling of the orphan cropprogramme. This component will focus on supplyingplanting materials of orphan crops to smallholder farmersin semi-arid areas. This will involve promoting farmerinvolvement in seed bulking and multiplication of orphanand other crops, including sorghum, cassava and millet.The Kenya Agricultural Productivity and SustainableLand Management Project (KAPSLMP) (since Sept.2010); Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project(since Nov.2010); Kenya: Adaptation to ClimateChange in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (KACCAL) (sinceJune 2010)Kenya Agricultural Productivity and Agribusiness Project(since June 2009) and Micro, Small and MediumEnterprise Competitiveness Project (since July 2004).Other projects focus on Water and Sanitation. Roads andTransportation. Land, Education and Health.

InternationalFertilizerDevelopmentCentre (IFDC)

Is a public international organization addressing criticalissues such as international food security, the alleviationof global hunger and poverty, environmental protectionand the promotion of economic development and self-sufficiency. IFDC focuses on increasing productivityacross the agricultural value chain in developingcountries. Recent IFDC Kenya projects includeAccelerating Agribusiness in Africa – Bridge (AAA-Bridge),2011-2012 through micro-projects such as theCompetitive Agricultural Systems and Enterprises (CASE)solution, Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM),fertilizer deep placement (FDP), fertilizer resourceassessments and market information systems (MIS).

Africa Soil Health Consortium(ASHC) (2010-2014)

The ASHC is a service provider toclients spanning public, private andacademic arenas whose daily workinvolves assimilating Integrated SoilFertility Management (ISFM)technologies into practice at locallevels. This may be linked very wellwith COSOP SO 1.

Key file 3

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

57

Alliance forGreenRevolution inAfrica(AGRA)

AGRA works to achieve a food secure and prosperousAfrica through the promotion of rapid, sustainableagricultural growth based on smallholder farmers. AGRAworks to transform smallholder agriculture into a highlyproductive, efficient, sustainable and competitive system,and do so while protecting the environment. AGRA’sintegrated programs in seeds, soils, market access, policyand partnerships and innovative finance work to triggercomprehensive changes across the agricultural system.AGRA’ programs also strengthen agricultural educationand extension, address the issue of efficient watermanagement, and strive to involve and train youth.

AGRA currently co-finances theIFAD supported project namelyPROFIT, and also collaborates withDFID and JICA, among other DPs.

InternationalCouncil forResearch inAgro-forestry(ICRAF)– World Agro-Forestry Centre

ICRAF focuses on intra- and inter-speciesbiodiversity, the farm-level interactions (Enhancingproductivity of agroforestry systems), the marketvalue chains (Improving tree product marketing forsmallholders.), land health (Reducing land healthrisks), climate variability and change (Climatechange adaptation and mitigation throughagroforestry) and the landscape context ofenvironmental services and policies (Supportingmulti-functional landscapes with trees forenvironmental services). Intensified collaborationwith sub-regional organizations and networks,especially ASARECA, CORAF, ANAFE AFF (AfricanForest Forum) and FANR-PAN). Good track recordand recognition for working on food security,poverty alleviation and environmentalenhancement, in a research–developmentframework.

Key file 3

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

58

TheInternationalLeadershipInstitute (ILI)

Offers workshop opportunities for corporate leadersto expand their understanding of internationalcultures through art exhibits, samplings of cuisineand spices, in addition to conversations withinternational leaders. The International LeadershipInstitute has developed more than ten years ofpartnership with Womankind Kenya. Members ofthe ILI have traveled to Garissa to supportcontinuing community programs in the North-eastern province and directed resources toconnecting organization in the region including theGarissa Hospital. Womankind Kenya exists tosupport the most vulnerable members of thecommunity, specifically women, destitute childrenand poor households of the North-eastern provinceand to build their capacity, knowledge and ability totake control of their lives.

InternationalCrops ResearchInstitute for theSemi-AridTropics(ICRISAT)

Strategic Thrust 1: Resilient Dryland Systems:Reducing vulnerability to drought and climatechange while increasing crop diversity and value.Strategic Thrust 2: Markets, Institutions andPolicies: Harnessing development pathways forinclusive prosperity.Strategic Thrust 3: Grain Legumes: Raising andsecuring productivity for health, income andsustainability.Strategic Thrust 4: Dryland Cereals: Increasingproductivity to help end hunger. Also focuses ongender and equity analysis as well as knowledgesharing and innovation.

ICRISAT Strategic Plan 2011-2020; ICRISAT’s Business Plan(2011–2015).

InternationalLivestockResearchInstitute (ILRI)

ILRI is funded by more than 60 private, public andgovernment organizations. Some of the keyprojects include: Enabling livestock based economies inKenya to adapt to climate change: A Review of paymentfor ecosystem (PES) services from wildlife tourism as aclimate change adaptation option (2011-2012);Evaluating the impacts of livestock and aquaculture

Projects running between 2010 -2014

Collaborates with different partners.For example, Partners in the projectof “evaluating the impact oflivestock and aquaculture”, includeEast Africa Dairy DevelopmentProject; Juhudi Kilimo; KenyaAgricultural Research Institute and

Key file 3

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

59

microcredit and value chain programs on women’sempowerment (2012-2013); Health, environmentalchange and adaptive capacity: mapping, examining andanticipating future risks of water-related vector-bornediseases in eastern Africa (2011-2014); Mutual learningof livestock keepers and scientists for adaptation toclimate change in pastoral areas (ASALs) (2010-2012).

Kenya Women Holding. Stands tobe a better partner as the nextCOSOP ventures into the ASALs.

Only lead DPs for major agricultural and rural development sectors are listed. In addition to the DPs and activities mentioned in the table, there are various smaller DP-supported interventions in the agriculture and rural development sector, and many interventions in other sectors. Besides those listed in the table, other KJAS partners arethe Government of Canada, the Government of Finland, the Government of France, the Government of Italy, the Government of the Netherlands, the Government ofNorway and the Government of Spain.

Key file 4

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

60

Key file 4: Target group identification, priority issues and potential response

Typology Poverty Level andCauses Coping Actions Priority Needs Support from Other

Initiatives COSOP Response

ASALs/Arid LandsPastoralists and agro-pastoralists of ariddistricts which represent11 out of the 39 ASALdistricts, 68% of thecountry's land mass and81% of the ASAL area.These areas have very lowpopulation densities.About 30% of the totalpopulation of Kenya livesin ASALs. In 1999 it wasestimated that about 13%of the total populationlived in 8 out of the 11districts of the arid lands.

These pastoralists/agro-pastoralists own about50% of the national cattleand small ruminant herdand 100% of the camelpopulation

Pastoralists and agro-pastoralists mainlyinhabit the ariddistricts. Large areasof the arid districtsare suitable only fornomadic livestockproduction;

There has been asubstantial historicaland ongoing loss ofrangelands to large-scale private ranchers,crop farmers and wild-life and forestryconservation areas;

Low and erraticbimodal rainfall, withshort high intensitystorms that produceconsiderable runoffand soil erosion.Water availability andaccessibility is highlyvariable and is a keyconstraint toproduction;

Soils generally of lowfertility and subject tocompaction, cappingand erosion. Only afew areas have soilssuitable for crops.Overgrazing due toincreased droughtintensity.

Community-basedmanagement of wetand dry seasongrazing areas anddrought reserves;

In Agro-EcologicalZones 6, 7pastoralismpredominates,especially browsinganimals and mobilelifestyle in search ofpasture and water.Exchange of livestockfor grain and otherconsumer goods. Alsocultivation (increasingcereal cropping inareas with adequatemoisture, hunting &gathering);

In Zones 5, 6transition cultivationof sorghum, millet,cowpea and greengram is practiced withcommunally grazedherds of animals.There is labor demandfor bird scaring,weeding and livestockkeeping;

Due to droughtconsumption byhouseholds of seedsnormally reserved forsubsequent planting.

Increased access towater sources;

Soil conservation andrehabilitation includingfor the rangelands andagricultural lands;

Research on productssuitable for the ASALs,high yielding anddisease/droughtresistant varieties;

Development ofservices for livestockincluding abattoir, AIservices and Disease-Free Zones;

Improved supply ofinputs such asveterinary drugs, forageand small livestockequipment;

Improved marketing ofanimals and animalproducts, processingand value addition;

Diversification ofincome activities wherepossible;

Access to appropriatemobile services in theeducation and humanand animal sectors andwater supply;

Reduction of conflicts.

Redressing unfavorablepolicy environment forpastoralist activities, e.g. fordevelopment of privateveterinary practices atCAHWs level and reducingmultiple taxes on livestock;

Private AI servicedevelopment (to besupported by GOK);

Commercial seed andprocessing companies whereapplicable;

Facilitation by GOK toimprove market access:information, structures androad infrastructure;

GOK to establish anddevelop droughtmanagement systems andmobile services. HungerSafety Net Programme(HSNP) to provide cashtransfers to vulnerablehouseholds and individuals;

Facilitation by the GOK ofaccess to insurance schemesand credit facilities;

Donors and NGOs to assist inincome diversification andsupply of social serviceswhere appropriate;

GOK involvement inestablishment of legalframeworks to resolve landtenure issues and conflicts.

Facilitate thecreation of CBOsincluding groupsof pastoralists,capacity buildingfor theirdevelopment;

Facilitate accessto credit andinsuranceschemes;

Facilitate theinvolvement ofthe privatesector inrelevant serviceprovision and inprocessing.

Key file 4

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

61



ASALs/Semi-arid landsPopulation of semi-ariddistricts which haveactivities falling in fourmain categories: areas with mixed rain-

fed and irrigationagriculture and higheconomic and politicaldisparities;

areas with encroachingagro-pastoral use bymarginalizedsmallholders;

areas withpredominantlypastoralist use in theeconomic and politicalperiphery; and

Semi-arid areas thatinclude protectedareas such as gamereserves, nationalparks, forest areas andtheir surroundings.

19 Districts are classifiedas semi-arid. (Theremaining 9 ASAL districtsare classified as havinghigh annual rainfall butwith pockets of arid andsemi-arid conditions). Thesemi-arid areas represent16% of the country's landmass and 19% of theASAL area.

In Agro-EcologicalZone 5 maize, cowpeaand pigeon pea (milletand sorghum wouldbe more appropriate)are grown; goatrearing (25% do notown livestock). Use ofanimal manure and oxploughing; seasonallyhigh demand for labor(weeding andharvesting). Majorproduction constraintsare soil erosion, lowfertility, overgrazingand frequentdroughts. Mostfarmers grow maizebut the rate of cropfailure is very high;

In Zone 4 maize,beans and cotton aregrown (improvedseeds and limited useof chemical fertilizer);local breeds of cattlepredominate, goats,sheep and poultry(use of crop residues).To minimize risksfarmers keeplivestock, practicemixed cropping andplant more droughttolerant crops such ascow and pigeon peas.Inadequate rainfalland a high incidenceof pests pose highrisks.

During recentprolonged drought2008-11, copingmechanisms includedmigration to otherareas for pastures andwater contributing toland degradationand overgrazing, herdsplitting, distresssales, and slaughter;consumption by thehouseholds of seedsfor subsequentplanting; food andfeed rationing andchange in mealcomposition shiftingfrom milk and milkproducts to morecereals; incomediversification andgeneration from non-pastoralactivities includingsubsidiary activitiesthat generate money,rural-urban migrationto provide casuallabor, drugs andsubstanceabuse, child abuseand immoralpractices, petty tradesuch as tea kiosks,harvesting sand, andenvironmentallydestructive practicessuch as charcoalburning and mineralmining.

Redressing the legacyof the loss ofrangelands;

Increased access towater sources;

Soil conservation andrehabilitation includingthe rangelands andagricultural lands;

Reduction of highincidence of pests;

Coping with frequentdroughts;

Research on productssuitable for the ASALs,high yielding anddisease/droughtresistant varieties;

Development ofservices for livestockincluding abattoir, AIservices and Disease-Free Zones;

Improved supply ofinputs (veterinarydrugs, forage and smalllivestock equipment);

Improved marketing ofanimals and animalproducts, processingand value addition;

Diversification ofincome activities wherepossible;

Access to appropriatemobile services in theeducation and humanand animal sectors andwater supply;

Reduction of conflicts.

Redressing unfavorablepolicy environment forpastoralist activities, e.g. foradministration of group-owned land, development ofprivate veterinary practicesat CAHWs level and reducingmultiple taxes on livestock;

Private AI servicedevelopment (to besupported by GOK);

Commercial seed andprocessing companies whereapplicable;

Facilitation by GOK toimprove market access:information, structures androad infrastructure;

GOK to establish anddevelop droughtmanagement systems andmobile services. HungerSafety Net Programme(HSNP) to provide cashtransfers to vulnerablehouseholds and individuals;

Facilitation by the GOK ofaccess to insurance schemesand credit facilities;

Efforts by NGOs to assist inincome diversification andsupply of social serviceswhere appropriate;

GOK involvement inestablishment of legalframeworks to resolve landtenure issues and conflicts.

Facilitate thecreation of CBOsincluding groupsof pastoralists,capacity buildingfor theirdevelopment;

Facilitate accessto credit andinsuranceschemes;

Facilitate theinvolvement ofthe privatesector inrelevant serviceprovision andprocessing.

Key file 4

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

62



Poorest, subsistencesmallholders andpastoralists

Lack of productiveresources, includingland and livestock;

Illiteracy, lack ofknowledge and skillswhich limitsopportunities;

Socially excluded fromcommunity-basedactivities;

No safety net, caughtup in hand-to-mouthsurvival;

HIV/AIDS and otherdiseases affect thosein the productiveages;

Inability to afford usercharges (e.g. water,health);

Environmentaldegradation.

Work as casuallabourers;

Resort tooverexploitation ofnatural resources;

Illicit businesses (e.g.brewing, commercialsex) for survival;

Asking assistancefrom others (agro-pastoralist/pastoralistcommunities dependmuch more onsupport from othercommunitymembers).

Improved access to landand tenure security(more for subsistencefarmers);

Welfare projects toprovide basic needs.

Investment in researchfor improving seedquality, implementationof fertilizer cost-reduction investmentprogramme;

Low-cost irrigationtechnologies andenvironmentalconservationtechniques;

Establishment oflivestock feed reserves;

Diversification ofsources of livelihood;

Improved healthfacilities;

Flexible approach tocost sharing andcommunitycontributions.

CBOs that focus on thepoorest communitymembers, e.g. orphans;

Resettlement and landbuying schemes;

Efforts by NGOs andgovernment to introducesafety nets such as cashtransfers.

Improved accessto land inirrigationschemes (forsubsistencefarmers);

Strengthencommunity-basedmechanismsthat support thepoorest, e.g.exemptionschemes;

Includeappropriate,low-costtechnologyalternatives andenvironmentalconservationtechniques;

Createopportunities fortheir inclusion ingroups andcommunitydevelopmentinitiatives;

Facilitatediversification ofincomeactivities.

Key file 4

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

63



Poor, semi-subsistencesmallholders andpastoralists withmarketable surplus

Low productivity dueto limited coordinationin and investment inresearch, extensionand training and lowapplication oftechnology/innovationby farmers;

Low productivity dueto high cost andincreased adulterationof key inputs;

Over-dependence onrainfed agriculture;

High post-harvestlosses and poorquality of produce dueto inadequate post-harvest storage andhandling;

Lack of or limitedalternative sources oflivelihood;

Pressure on land andother naturalresources. Inefficientland use in form ofidle and under-utilizedland and over-divisionof land intouneconomic units inparts of the country;

Limited access tocredit;

Illiteracy, lack ofknowledge and skills;

HIV/AIDS and otherdiseases;

Low prices forproduce.

Work as casuallabourers;

Sell cropsprematurely;

Sell off assets to meetemergencies;

Resort tounsustainableexploitation of naturalresources.

Capacity building forgroups aimed at betterproduction/marketing;

Investment in researchfor improving seedquality, implementationof fertilizer cost-reduction investmentprogramme;

Improving delivery ofextension and trainingservices includingenvironmentalconservation;

Low-cost irrigationtechnologies,intensification andexpansion of irrigation;

Improvement of animalhealth and qualityassurance services andestablishment ofDisease-Free Zones;

Range improvements,establishment oflivestock feed reservesand infrastructuredevelopment;

Storage and handlingfacilities and processingequipment;

Market access andbetter producer prices;

Improvements in landmanagement;

Credit; Transport infrastructure

improvement; Training on income

generating projects; Better health facilities.

This category of poor butcapable people is the targetgroup of most economic andsocial rural developmentinitiatives.

Core targetgroup forimprovedincomes throughgroup capacitybuilding andenhancedproductivity;

Capacitybuilding forimprovingservice provisionby GOK andfacilitate privatesectorinvolvement insupply ofrelevant servicesand facilities;

Includeappropriate pre-and post-harvesttechnologyalternatives andenvironmentalconservationtechniques;

Improvefinancial returnsfrom smallholderproduction andpastoralismthrough moreefficientmarkets;

Facilitatediversification ofsources oflivelihood;

Facilitate accessto credit.

Key file 4

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

64



Better off,commercially orientedsmallholders

Inadequate extensionsupport and advisoryservices linked tovalue addition andmarkets;

Inadequateagricultural marketingfacilities and ruralinfrastructure(including roaddevelopment);

Inefficient andunpredictable marketsoffering low returns;

Inadequate ruralfinancial services foragriculture.

Invest in irrigation; Develop long term

links with selectedtraders andprocessors;

Diversify resource andincome base.

More extension serviceslinked to value additionand markets. Thiswould be with specificreference to higher-value or differentiatedagricultural and foodproducts (HVAF), goodagricultural practicesand international foodstandards for thosewanting to export tointernational markets;

Improved marketfacilities, informationand access;

Improved ruralinfrastructure (roads);

Credit and investmentcapital.

Assistance to farmers byGovernment and donors forthe formation of producers'organizations to produce,market and process theirproduce within Kenya and forexport; in particularassistance by theGovernment of thegovernance and technicalcapacity of Cooperatives,better enforcement of theCooperative act andencouragement of thetransformation of CBOs andfarmers' groups intoCooperatives;

Private sector operators(traders, processors,supermarkets) seek reliablesuppliers;

Financial service providersare beginning to improveaccess to services for capableproducers;

Public-private partnershipsand investments inagricultural marketingfacilities and ruralinfrastructure (including roaddevelopment).

Not a prioritytarget group,but to beincluded incertaininterventionsbecause of theirinitiative,experience, andlocal leadershiproles;

Capacitybuilding forimprovingservice provisionby Governmentand facilitate theinvolvement ofthe privatesector in supplyof relevantservices;

Involvement insupport tocreation andcapacity buildingof CBOs,farmers' groupsandCooperatives;

Facilitate accessto credit;

Facilitate public-privatepartnerships.

Key file 4

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

65



Female headedhouseholds.Female headedhouseholds can includesingle, widowed, desertedor divorced.

High poverty ratesamongst women.Single women withland and other assetsare usually moreempowered;

Limited access tonatural and productiveresources (includingland ownership),disadvantaged inaccess to credit,agricultural inputs,marketing outlets;widows andabandoned womenoften exposed toclaims on assets byrelatives, turningthem destitute;

Very low exposure toagricultural servicesand appropriatetechnology (also dueto the lack ofadaptation of theseservices to women'smultiple roles andconsequent timeconstraints andabsence of reliablechannels ofcommunication);

Unexploited potentialof women'sentrepreneurship;

High illiteracy rate andinadequate women'srepresentation andtheir interests in localgroups, managementcommittees.

Sell off remainingassets to meethousehold expenses;

Resort to petty trade,subsistence farming,and illicit businesses(e.g. brewing,charcoal burning,commercial sex) forsurvival.

A number of socialprotection mechanismssupported by donorsare being implementedin Kenya, in particularthe Older Person CashTransfer) and Orphansand Children Cash-Transfer. Increase thesocial safety net,improve opportunitiesto deal with short-termfinancial crises andretain productive assetsand activities;

Increased women'saccess to land tenure;

Increased access ofwomen to extensionservices andagricultural technology;

Development ofwomen'sentrepreneurialactivities in foodprocessing, agro-processing, horticultureand retail trade byincreasing the size ofthese concerns anddevelopment ofwomen's groups inagricultural andlivestock activities;

Increased women'srepresentation;

Increased access tosocial services.

Public investmentprogrammes with gender-mainstreaming capacity.Programmes addressingspecific women’s issues (e.g.girls’ education, FGM,domestic violence) especiallyby NGOs;

Mutual support throughwomen’s groups, includingmerry-go-round savingsschemes;

GOK involvement inestablishment of legalframeworks to resolve landtenure issues;

GOK, donors and NGOinvolvement in increasingwomen's access to extensionservices and to appropriateagricultural technology andof entrepreneurial activitiesand women's groups;

CBOs giving greater weightto women;

Education, health and familyplanning services by GOK,donors and NGOs.

Facilitate thecreation ofwomen'sgroups, capacitybuilding for theirdevelopment;

Facilitate accessto credit;

Capacitybuilding forimprovingservice provisionby GOK andfacilitate theinvolvement ofthe privatesector in supplyof relevantservices;

Civic educationand legal adviceon land rights;

CIG access toland incommunity andGOK irrigationschemes.

Key file 4

EB 2013/109/R

. 14

66



Landless and nearlandless ruralhouseholds

Lack of mostfundamentalproductive asset, aviable landholding;

Large families withunreliable income,and lack of access tobasic services.

Hiring their labor tothose with land;

Engage in petty tradeand illicit businesses.

Access to productiveland;

Improved employmentopportunities;

Increase the socialsafety net and reducethe number ofhouseholds that fall intothis state.

More conducive land policybeing finalized;

Limited support to landbuying resettlement andredistribution schemes.

Increaseemploymentopportunities inthe commercialsmallholder sub-sector;


CIG access toland incommunity andGOK irrigationschemes.

Youth Low levels ofeducation andtechnical knowledge;

High rates ofunemployment.

Resort to existingopportunities ormigrate.

Adequate training inagricultural techniques.Access to modernagricultural technologiesin view of futureapplication ofcontemporary scienceand technology such asgenomics,biotechnology, modelingand informationcommunication. Specificsensitization toenvironmental issuesincluding climatechange;

Access to credit forstart-up.

GOK investment in upgradingof youth knowledge inagriculture.


CIG access toland incommunity andGOK irrigationschemes;

Facilitatecreation andcapacity buildingof youth in smallbusinessdevelopment,includinggroups;

Facilitate accessto credit.

republic of kenya country strategic opportunities programme · 2013-08-13 · eb 2013/109/r.14 iv...

Documents