Support for pastoral and agro-pastoral communities affected by the La-nina phenomenon: OSRO/KEN/101/CHA
- What was the project (title)?
- Support for pastoral and agro-pastoral communities affected by the La-nina phenomenon: OSRO/KEN/101/CHA
- Which County, country, sub-region, region
- Kenya
- Is it In-country, cross border, regional or continental?
- In-country
- Was it a single-donor funded projects or multi-donor?
- Single-donor
- Who was/were the funding agency(ies)
- CERF funding
- Project duration, in terms of duration of the project and the time frame, when the project was implemented
- Not reported.
- Was it an Emergency situation or long term projects?
- 2011-2012
- What Emergency situations was it addressing?
- Drought and floods
- What crisis was the project related to (refer to the table on crisis timelines)
- 2011-2012
- What were the shocks arising from the situation in order of priority?
- Depletion of pasture; fodder and water posing a danger to the survival of livestock.
- Animal disease.
- Crop wilting and poor harvests.
- What were the needs which arose from the shocks in order of priority?
- Animal health support
- Alternative sources of feed/pasture
- Soil and water conservation practices to conserve the moisture for crop growth.
- Food support/diversification
- Short Overview, including rationale
- The UN OCHA situation report indicated a depressed and poorly distributed October-December 2010 short-rains as a result of the La Nina. This scenario led to prolonged dry spells across the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASAL) of Kenya that rely on the short rains for livestock and crop production. The La Nina effect interfered with livestock production in the pastoral and agro-pastoral parts of the country, with mortality rates estimated at around 5%. The Kenyan meteorological department predicted extension of the La Nina phenomenon realized during the short rains to the long rains that were expected from March to April 2011. Hence the fear of worsening the scenario. This meant there was a high food deficit at the household level and the need for coordinated assessments and pre-emptive responses to mitigate the impact of La Nina and save livelihoods.
- Project objective(s)
- Principal objective: Support the most vulnerable men and women affected by the La Nina Phenomenon in selected drought-pronee pastoral and marginal agricultural areas to protect and rebuild their livelihood assets.
Specific objectives:
- To provide immediate and timely support to men and women pastoralists to protect and rebuild their livestock assets
- Increase the resilience of the vulnerable men, women, girls, and boys affected by La Nina in selected marginal agricultural areas
- Did the objective address the shocks presented?
- yes
- To what extent did the objective address the shock?
- Moderate
- Intervention Type (refer to the table provided) – pre, during or post emergency
- Pre-emergency, veterinary and animal health support
- Pre, during-emergency, de-stocking
- During-emergency, financial support
- Post-emergency, re-stocking
- Pre-emergency, diversification
- Given the emergency situation, was the intervention chosen the most appropriate?
- yes
- Which other interventions could have been more appropriate when either replaced or bundled with what was implemented?
- Bundle with the provision of alternative water sources.
- Major Activities or Activity Areas
Activity for specific objective 1
- Protection of the community assets which are mainly livestock through mass treatments, de-worming and vaccinations.
- Rebuilding of community assets through livestock fairs and re-stocking affected households with chicken.
- Facilitate livestock off-take and slaughter de-stocking where the livestock are in bad condition, The first initiative injects cash into the community enabling them buy essential commodities while the second initiative provides both cash and food in form of meat for the community.
Activities for specific objective 2
- Implement Cash for Work activities where vulnerable men and women construct soil and water conservation and water harvesting structures that increases their resilience. In this approach, the cash for work will help to meet the immediate needs such as food, medical and school fees thereby protecting the assets while the constructed structures will improve resilience to future droughts.
- Provide vulnerable men and women with suitable vegetable and drought tolerant crop seeds for planting.
- Training of vulnerable men and women on crop production technologies
- Were the activities chosen addressing the needs?
- How was the input measure? And what were the figures?
- Refer to Table 1.
- To what extent did the activities address the needs?
- Moderate
- Can the activities be continued in the future without the project support?
- Yes, some of the activities
- What were the Expected outcomes and Impacts?
Table 1; outcomes
| Targets | Achievement | Proportion achieved | |
| Impact | A total of 134,000 individuals to benefit from the CERF interventions. | A total of 132,284 individuals benefitted from the CERF intervention. | 98.7% achieved. |
| Outcome | |||
| Outcome 1: Livelihood assets of pastoral men and women affected by La Nina protected and rebuilt. | A total of 1,000,000 livestock receive treatments, vaccinations and are de-wormed (Note: whilst the project only procure 155,000 doses of vaccine collaboration with the department of veterinary services ensured that additional vaccine is availed from the government stocks). | A total of 1,281,089 livestock were reached through vaccination treatments and de worming over 70% were small stock. 207,003 small stocks vaccinated against PPR, 65,185 Goats against CCPP. The remaining almost a million were de worming, treatments, and other vaccinations. Some 2,870 poultry vaccinated against NCD | Achieved. |
| Stress related animal diseases reduced. | Stress related animal diseases reduced-mainly through treatment and vaccination activities. | achieved | |
| Reduction in the spread of CCPP and PPR. | Spread of CCPP and PPR reduced due to vaccination activities. | achieved | |
| A total of 1,000 households restocked with chicken. | 5,000 poutry re-stocked to vulnerable communities in Kitui and Makueni. In addition, a total of 1000 people trained in poultry husbandry practices. | achieved | |
| A total of 1000 HH benefit from the purchase of livestock for slaughter. | Information not presented | ||
| A total of 2000 HH benefit from the distribution of the meat from slaughtered animals. | Information not presented | ||
| Outcome 2: Vulnerable men, women, girls and boys in selected marginal agricultural areas supported through Cash for Work activities to meet immediate needs and build resilience to future droughts. | A total of 2,000 vulnerable men and women receive cash for work activities to support their households. | Information not presented | |
| Some 1,000 acres under and water conservation. | 1,066 acres of land conserved by digging terraces through Vouchers for Work. | achieved | |
| 10 water harvesting structures constructed. | 5 sand dams constructed in Kitui. | Not achieved, 50% delivered. | |
| 10 metric tonnes of seeds of drought tolerant crops and 500 kgs of vegetable seeds distributed to vulnerable men and women. | 15mt of drought tolerant seeds distributed and planted by 3,000 household through Seed Vouchers and Fairs approach. In addition, 10,300 fruit and tree seedling distributed through Seed Vouchers and Fairs | Achieved | |
| 2,000 men and women trained in crop production technologies and diversification. | TOT conducted for 120 FFS facilitators and 1000 people trained in poultry husbandry practices. | Not achieved | |
| Outcome 3: Networking, collaboration or support to the relevant ministries so as to fast track or enhance the implementation of technical activities at grassroots and the provision of the necessary inputs. | District Steering Group committee meetings attended for information and planning.
| Not reported | |
| 5 Inter-agency and government departmental meetings for coordination and harmonization of activities attended. | Not presented |
- What were the measurements of the expected outcomes?
- Quantification
- What were the targets each outcome (quantify)?
- Refer to Table 1.
- Who were the Partners involved?
- FAO
- NGOs: CARE, PACIDA, VETWORKS, ACTED, VSF–B, CDOE and CDOK.
- The government departments in this case the Veterinary, Livestock and Agriculture departments.
- What roles did they play in each activity?
- FAO-lead implementer: carried out day to day monitoring of the project activities.
- The government in collaboration of NGOs: helped in the selection of the beneficiaries and implemented the project activities.
- To what extent was the roles played integral to the activities success?
- Important
- What Project Cost (In cash and in-kind)
- US$ 670,000
- Can the costs be broken down to activities? this would be a good measure of input
Table 2: budget
| 12. CERF Project Budget | ||||||
| Budget Lines | Cost Breakdown | |||||
| Unit | Quantity | Unit Cost | Total (USD) | |||
| A. Supplies/commodities/equipment/transport | ||||||
| Cold Chain (see annex) | Fridge | 6 | $ 1,500.00 | $ 9,000 | ||
| Vaccination syringes | Syringe | 50 | $ 37.50 | $ 1,875 | ||
| Drenching syringes | Syringe | 200 | $ 1.25 | $ 250 | ||
| Visibility materials (T shirts) | T shirts | 300 | $ 16.25 | $ 4,875 | ||
| De-wormers | 500 ml | 3,200 | $ 6.25 | $ 20,000 | ||
| Antibiotics (see annex) | 100 ml bottle | 3,200 | $ 3.125 | $ 10,000 | ||
| Multivitamins | 100 ml bottle | 1600 | $ 3.125 | $ 5,000 | ||
| CAHW drug kits (see annex) | Kit | 28 | $ 250.00 | $ 7,000 | ||
| Vaccines (PPR vaccine and CBBP) | Doses | 155,000 | $ 0.10 | $ 15,500 | ||
| Poultry (pre vaccinated 4 week old KENBRO chicks delivered to project site) | bird | 5,000 | $ 3.00 | $ 15,000 | ||
| International quality control costs for vaccine procurement | lump sum | 1 | $ 3,000 | $ 3,000 | ||
| Laptops | Lap top | 3 | $ 1,660 | $ 4,980 | ||
| Computer and Printers | Desk top | 3 | $ 1,300 | $ 3,900 | ||
| Sub-Total A: | —— | —— | —— | $100,380.00 | ||
| B. Personnel (staff, consultants, travel) | ||||||
| National Consultants (Agriculture) | Months | 9 | $3,500.00 | $ 31,500 | ||
| National Consultant Livestock | Months | 5 | $3,500.00 | $ 17,500 | ||
| HQ support – Operations Officer based in Rome | Months | 2 | $10,000.00 | $ 20,000 | ||
| Travel – 10 Monitoring / supervision visits of 5 days each @ a DSA rate of USD 100 per person per day. Each trip includes a driver and a technical officer | visits | 10 | $1,000.00 | $ 10,000 | ||
| Car hire for security escort | days | 50 days | $100.00 | $ 5,000 | ||
| Security escort Allowances | days | 50 days | $60 | $ 3,000 | ||
| Fuel | Litres | 5,000 | 1.1 | $ 5,500 | ||
| Sub-Total B: | —— | —— | —— | $92,500.00 | ||
| C. Training of counterparts | ||||||
| Sub-Total C: | —— | —— | —— | $0.00 | ||
| D. Contracts | ||||||
| CARE Kenya – Garissa – Activities include animal health initiatives (vaccinations, treatments, and de-worming. | LoA | 1 | $ 48,600 | $ 48,600 | ||
| PACIDA – Marsabit – Activities will be aimed at vaccinations, treatments and mass de-worming of livestock, & feed supplementation. | LoA | 1 | $ 40,000 | $ 40,000 | ||
| VETWORKS – Kitui & Makueni – Activities include treatments / de-worming and ectoparasite control. | LoA | 1 | $ 54,000 | $ 54,000 | ||
| ACTED – East Pokot – Activities will be mainly aimed at animal health initiatives of treatments and mass de-worming, community animal health workers will be trained to boost initiative. | LoA | 1 | $ 40,000 | $ 40,000 | ||
| VSF-B Garissa – Activities include animal health initiatives (vaccinations, treatments, and de-worming. | LoA | 1 | $ 50,000 | $ 50,000 | ||
| Catholic Diocese of Embu- activities involve cash for work. | LoA | 1 | $ 60,000 | $ 60,000 | ||
| Catholic Diocese of Kitui – activities involve cash for work. | LoA | 1 | $ 60,000 | $ 60,000 | ||
| PDA North Eastern- activities involve cash for work for construction of soil and water conservation and water harvesting structures that increases their resilience | LoA | 1 | $ 60,000 | $ 60,000 | ||
| Sub-Total D: | —— | —— | —— | $412,600.00 | ||
| E. Other Direct costs | ||||||
| Miscelanious costs (stationary, telephone, internet, office rent) | Month | 9 | $ 511.12 | $4,600.08 | ||
| Technical support services for agriculture inputs clearance, evaluation and reports elaboration | Unit | 1.00 | $16,088.00 | $16,088.00 | ||
| Sub-Total E: | —— | —— | —— | $20,688.08 | ||
| Subtotal project requirements | ||||||
| Subtotal project requirements amount | $626,168 | |||||
| Indirect program support costs (PSC) (not to exceed 7% of subtotal project costs) | ||||||
| PSC rate (Insert PSC percentage, max 7.00%) | 7.00% | |||||
| PSC amount | $43,832 | |||||
| Total CERF project cost | $670,000 | |||||
- What were the Actual Project Results (at Outcome and Impact Levels) – quantitative/qualitative
- Refer to Table 1.
- To what extent do they differ with the targeted outcome and impact levels (qualitatively and quantitatively)?
- Final report does not give full details of the final outcomes/output.
- What were the Major Challenges (highlight the gaps) to achieving the project outcome and impact in terms of funding, partners, community, natural calamities among other.
- This information is not provided in the final report.
- How were they a challenge in terms of quantity, quality, and time of the outcome?
- Not applicable.
- Success Factors (if applicable, indicate why the project was successful or NOT successful) funding, partners, community
- Not provided.
- Relevance (extent to which it served priority needs of target communities)
- The final report does not provide this information, but from the proposal side the activities implemented were inline in the needs of the beneficiaries.
- Effectiveness (comparison of what was to be delivered vs what was delivered)
- The report does not give conclusive information of the final output/outcome.
- Sustainability indicators (Proxy: Evidence of adoption and scaling-up and -out)
- The final report is not detailed enough to provide this information.
- Efficiency (value for money) – to be quantified separately using above and additional info
- To be computed, although there is no enough information from the final report.
- Lessons learnt? In terms of project analysis, design and implementation in every emergency situation and interventions
- Not provided in the final report.
- Categorization of intervention and why
- A set of interventions that we continue to invest in, based on impact and sustainability. The final report fails to give detailed information to support my choice, although the results look promising.
- Key references (ACTUAL sources of info used)
- Support to pastoral and agro-pastoral communities affected by the La-nina phenomenon. Final Report.