WATER, LIVESTOCK AND GARDENS (WLG) EVALUATION

Transcription

WLG PROJECT PHASE 3, 4 & 5 EVALUATION REPORT
WATER, LIVESTOCK AND
GARDENS (WLG)
EVALUATION REPORT
2015
IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD
2002-2014
SACDEP Oversight Team:Mr. J. N. Mutura,
i Kimwea and Elizabeth Wanjiru
Wilson
Evaluation Team: Julius Muchemi, Arend De
Haas, Faith Muniale, Mirima Nyambura,
Florence Muniale and Peninah Karanja
PROFILE OF THE EVALUATION PARTNERS
de
Sustainable Agriculture and Community Development Programme (SACDEP) is a Kenyan
development Organization. It was registered in 1993 under the Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGO’s) coordination Act (1990). SACDEP has its headquarters located in
Thika Town – Kiambu County about 40 kilometers North of Nairobi. SACDEP has
established an “Agriculture and Development Training Centre” within its compound. Since
registration the Agency has worked with a case load of 3000-5000 families at any given
year. To date SACDEP is proud to showcase over 60,000 Households, whose standard of life has dramatically
improved. Currently, SACDEP is working with 6,500 farmers in 11 Counties, in 4 regions of Kenya thus; Eastern,
Central, Coast and Rift Valley.
GLS Treuhand Zukunftsstiftung Entwicklung means GLS Foundation for Future
Development. It is a German organization with its head office in Bochum.
GLS Treuhand works in 20 Countries spread over Africa, Asia and Latin
America. The organization has over 88 projects implemented through
different partners in 6 wide themes of Agriculture, Environment, Energy,
Education, Health and Micro-credit. In Africa, GLS Zukunftsstiftung Entwicklung is working in 7 countries.
ERMIS Africa was founded in 1999 and registered in Kenya in 2004. The
organisation provides strategic support to development partners including
donors and their intermediaries, governments, civil society organisations,
networks and think-tanks. We provide a range of services that include (i)
Project design and implementation support; (ii) Design and implementation
of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems; (iii) Safeguards policies including Strategic Environmental Assessment,
Environmental Impact Assessment/ Audit, Resettlement Action Plan, and Indigenous Peoples Planning
Framework; (iv) Community Consultation and Participation; (iv) Community Mapping of Cultural and Natural
Landscape using GIS and Remote sensing, Web technologies and GPS-aided methodologies; (v) Development
of Ecosystem Management Plans including Participatory Forest Management Plans, Watershed and Subcatchment Management Plans; and Participatory Land Use Plans (PLUPS).
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary....................................................................... V
1.0
Introduction .......................................................................2
1.1
Purpose of the Evaluation ...............................................2
1.2
Evaluation Scope ............................................................2
1.3
Evaluation Questions .....................................................4
1.4
Project Description.........................................................4
2.0
Methodology......................................................................7
2.1
Evaluation design ............................................................7
2.2
Evaluation Methods ........................................................7
WLG project reports .......................................................................7
2.3
Sampling Framework ......................................................9
2.4
Data Collection and Analysis ...........................................9
3.0
key results and findings ...................................................12
3.1
Relevance ......................................................................12
i.
Relevance of Plans, Strategies and Interventions
14
ii. Consistency of objectives, activities and outputs with intended outcomes and impacts
iii. Changes in Project Context & Validity of Objectives 20
iv. Achievement of WLG project Goal
23
3.2
Effectiveness .................................................................27
i.
Achievement of Objectives
27
ii. Achievement of Outcomes
29
iii. Short / intermediate /medium term outcome of the project 30 30
iv. Performance in Reaching Targeted Groups
31
v. Major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives 32
3.3
Efficiency ......................................................................33
i.
Cost-Effectiveness
33
ii. Timeliness in Achievement of Objectives
35
iii. Project Implementation Efficiency
35
3.4
Impacts .........................................................................36
i.
Equalization of opportunities for both men and women 36
ii. Improvement of social infrastructure
36
iii. Poverty reduction
39
iv. Cross-sectoral Impact
43
v. Affected Beneficiaries:
43
3.5
Sustainability .................................................................45
i.
Sustainability Measures
47
ii. Persistence of benefit beyond the funding phase
49
4.0
CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................53
5.0
RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................55
6.0
Selected Case Studies - Lessons Learnt ………………...58
7.0
Draft Implementation Plan ...............................................64
8.0
Annexes .............................................................................65
iii
16
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BMZ
CEO
ERMIS Africa
FLIPs
GLS
HH
NGO
WLG
PE
PM
PSFs
RPA
RPC
SACDEP-K
WGG
WLG III
iv
Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development – Germany
Chief Executive Officer
Environmental Research Mapping and Information Systems
Farmer Learning and Information Points
Zukunftsstiftung Entwicklungshilfe
House Hold
Non-Governmental Organization
Water Livestock and Gardens
Project Evaluation
Project Manager
Practicing Skills Facilitators
Regional Project Area
Regional Project Coordinator
Sustainable Agriculture Community Development Programme
Water, Goats and Gardens Project
Water, Livestock and Gardens Project Phase 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This evaluation of Water Livestock and Gardens (WLG) was undertaken between November 2014
and February, 2015. The purpose of the evaluation was to provide an insight on three project
aspects that included: (i) an account of the funds utilized, (ii) project output, outcome and impact on
target community; and (iii) based on the results of aspect (i) and (ii), provide recommendations in
respect to improved planning and implementation of future phases or projects. The WLG evaluation
focused on three project phases – including WLG III (1998 to 2001); WLG IV (2002 to 2005); and WLG
V (2010 to 2014) - and three thematic project interventions (Water harvesting technologies,
livestock production, Gardens.) which were implemented in eight geographic areas (Kiambu,
Nyandarua, Laikipia, Murang’a, Embu, Machakos, Kitui and Kajiado Counties).
Evaluation Indicators: The evaluation utilised DAC criteria and standards by focusing on project
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. A total of 18 evaluation questions
were utilised to generate answers about the WLG project performance with respect to the DAC
criteria.
Evaluation Design and Methods: The evaluation exercise combined exploratory and descriptive
evaluation design. Three evaluation methods were used: (i) Documentation review of relevant
documents that included relevant policy and legislative documents and project documents; (ii)
Interviews with key informants including households, artisans, and project staff using a structured
questionnaire, focused group discussions with community members; iii) Field observations to
document showcased projects that provide learning opportunities; and (iv) Dissemination workshop
which brought together beneficiaries and project collaborators drawn from the three WLG project
phases and representing 7 project operational areas and with gender and intergeneration
considerations.
Sampling frame work: A total of 43 farmer groups and 437 households were purposely sampled
using a [5x3] simple stratified randomisation based on 3 project phases (WLG 3, 4, and 5) and 5
project themes (water, livestock, garden, renewable energy and agro-processing).
Data Collection Tools: The evaluation utilised Smartphone-aided to administer the questionnaire
and submit/transmit the resulting data to web-based server.
Data Analysis: The data submitted to the web—server was downloaded on computer in CVS format
then converted to Ms Excel format. The data was cleaned and analysed and results presented in
tables and charts. Spatial data were analysed and results presented using GIS software (ArcGIS 10.2
and QGIS). Conclusions, recommendations and a draft implementation plan were drawn and
discussed.
Challenges: The WLG project evaluation was faced with two challenges: (i) lack of baseline data for
providing the ante-status of the project areas and beneficiary; (ii) Inadequate household progressive
records for the project activities as farmers hardly keep detailed records;(iii) lack of clear records
about details of project activities by project participants as human being have a memory lapse when
a project is implemented over a long period of time like the 12 years for WLG phase 3 project was
implemented.
v
The challenges were overcome by developing questionnaire that would look at both the ante, during
implementation and current status of the WLG project. In addition, the periodic reports by SACDEP
for the WLG project provided a basis for establishing progressive data and information on project
inputs, activities and outputs and impacts.
WLG PROJECT RELEVANCE:

Results indicate that WLG project had a policy, geographic, interventional, and beneficiary
relevance. The project is complimenting the national and county government development
agendas and priorities. The main policies to which the project is aligned to include: Vision
2030 and County Integrated Development Plans. According to vision 2030 the government
has committed itself and appealed to its development partners to address the challenges
facing semi-arid and arid areas.

The project is addressing Kenya’s rural livelihood challenges which include: access to safe
and clean water for household use, provision of water for livestock production and
smallholder farmers, low household incomes, unemployment, inequality in opportunities for
both women and men, and environmental degradation.

The WLG project objectives and activities were consistent with the intended outcomes and
impacts. The development of water harvesting structures led to realization of 10 litres per
day per household. This is higher than WHO standards which is about 2.9 litres per capita
per day, as the WLG achieved 10 litres is as well used for watering livestock and gardens.
Livestock production was increased by introducing an estimated 2 high quality livestock
breeds per household. This resulted in improved food, nutrition and income security for the
vulnerable households. Agriculture production was also improved through modern farming
techniques including high yielding crops providing food security, variety of crops providing
diverse nutritional requirements, and seed store ensuring timely planting and consequently
high yields. Renewable energy technologies, biogas and energy saving stoves were
successful introduced and up-taken by farmers which resulted in saving a total of 115,458.5
kg of wood fuel. The project managed to build the capacities of 56,704 farmers on principles,
skills and practices of sustainable agriculture.

The WLG project has experienced context changes related to climate, demography, and
governance. There has been continued climate changes and increased weather variability.
The population has continued to increase with a remarked high dependency ratio of working
age (youths and young adults) and non-working ages (children and the aged). Kenya’s
governance system has changed with devolved governance that has established national and
county government. The devolution has affected the smooth operations of agriculture
extension due to budgetary, staffing and coordination challenges.
PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS:

The WLG project objectives were achieved with a success rate of 116%. A total of 56,704
farmers were reached with training services on water harvesting technologies, improved
livestock breeds and husbandry, market gardens, agro-processing, renewable energy
vi
technologies and environmental conservation. The project resulted in poverty reduction by
38.40%1.

The WLG project reached the targeted vulnerable communities and households with a
success rate of 110%, and targeted climatically marginalized areas geographic areas with a
success rate of 100%.

The project realized the intended outcome that included improved access to clean and
adequate water for household; increased income from saving on medical expenditure in
treating water borne diseases; improved health and time spent by women to fetch water for
household and watering livestock; sustained food, nutrition, and incomes from livestock,
gardens, and agro-processing. In addition, renewable energy led to access to low cost,
healthy and clean energy for households.

The achievement of the WLG project objectives were accelerated by adequacy of funding,
financial probity and competent project staff. The disabling factors included the nascent
policy and legislation formulation platforms at the county government which requires time
and resources to fully capture and entrench the views, need and priorities of communities in
relevant policies and legislation. In addition, the politically instigated election violence of
2007 were a challenge as they created a new category of community referred to as “Families
in Transition” that had to be targeted by WLG 5. Further, the violence resulted into political
polarization among warring communities, and either disruption of development investments
or slowing down their performance.
PROJECT EFFICIENCY:
1

The WLG project activities were implemented in a cost-effective manner due to use of low
cost approaches. The project utilized farmer groups are entry point into the community and
as a way of mobilizing and organizing community member. Mass training was cost effective
as it enables the assembling of large crowds of community members around local and
nationally organized events without additional cost of mobilizing the community.

Training sites and demonstration units were cost-effective as they served as training venues,
information dissemination and exchange on agriculture issues between multiple
development partners and farmers, thus reducing the cost of renting multiple venues and
financing duplicated meetings. Pooling of training materials and tools within these training
sites, demonstration units and agriculture development areas is a cost effective strategy for
resourcing training sites instead of individual farmer group or households. Community
contribution which at estimated at 62.56% was a cost-effective strategy for ensuring that
farmers are able to support the project interventions beyond the WLG funding phase.

The project activities were achieved in a timely manner as they were synchronized with
farmers seasonal activity calendar. In addition, the project was efficiently implemented by
clustering contiguous farmer groups and households into single agriculture development
areas using pooled training sites and resources.
Table 3.5.3. Poverty Reduction Index based on household incomes and saved expenditure
vii
PROJECT IMPACT

The WLG project achieved a high equalization of opportunities for women – who constituted
61% of the project beneficiaries, noting the numerous cultural barriers that prohibit women
participation in development projects and ownership of assets.

The project managed to improve the communities’ social infrastructure which acts as driver
for implementation of activities and realization of outcome and impacts. The established
social infrastructure include: cattle dips, livestock sheds, seed banks and stores, small
irrigation schemes, and water harvesting structures.

The WLG project had at its disposure several indicators of poverty to assess its impact in
poverty reduction. These key indicators included: income, unemployment and joblessness,
extent of poor health, education disadvantage, and inadequacy of housing and poor
environmental conditions. Based on a cluster of indicators that included household income,
access to safe and clean water, food security and employment opportunities for families, the
WLG project reduced poverty among the target households by 38.40%.

The WLG project had cross-sectoral impacts that included: multiple socio-economic benefits,
soil fertility, access to safe and adequate water for household; reduced labor for women and
men; improved food, nutrition and income security for household.
PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY

WLG project instituted several sustainability measures to ensure that the project positive
impacts or changes continue not only beyond the project but also in a manner that
communities’ needs continue to be met under the current emerging local and national
conditions.

The key instituted sustainability measures include: logical project design that created interlinkages among the various intervention hence creating synergy that propels the continuity
of all the project interventions. Farmer groups approach is considered a synergistic approach
where members collectively tackle common challenges and benefit from each through
farmer-to-farmer linkages and joint activities and efforts. The achieved social infrastructures
provide a supportive framework for all the community members regardless of their varied
vulnerabilities. Improved germplasm and animal genetic material that are adapted to the
target climatic areas are critical in ensuring continued high agriculture productivity.
Technology development and transfer where locally trained artisans are supporting
technology uptake, maintenance, and transfer among farmers is considered a sustainable
technology development in the WLG project area.
LESSONS LEARNED:

viii
Access to water for farming unlocks agriculture potential of any given land regardless of the
prevailing climatic conditions

Agro-processing units can combine several value added products to optimize use of
infrastructure and income

Community contribution is key to project sustainability

Exposure opens undiscovered doors of marketing

Farmers group is an ideal model for entry into communities, discovering early innovative
farmers, cost-effective implementing projects and marketing of products

Funding invigorate underperforming projects (This means that communities initiate projects,
without external funding. Such projects do not perform optimally due to funding challenges.
When such projects receive funding support from external sources, the start performing well
(invigorate = revitalize =revive)

High genetic materials combined with sound agronomic practices and agro-processing for
value addition results in high quality yields and increased incomes

Improved farming results in increased yield and income and consequently improve
livelihood

Intergeneration is a critical strategy in ensuring farmer group and project sustainability

Low cost agriculture technologies are easy to replicate with respect to skills and cost of
materials

Multiple interventions cater for the diverse farmers needs

Training unlocks hidden potential among farmers

When community are trained they can solely finance their development interventions which
increases project sustainability
Conclusions

Relevance: The WLG project has overall relevance score of 71.7% based on stakeholders
perceptions. The high relevance is attributed to the designed considerations that informed
the WLG project phases which is aligned to Kenya’s policy and development agenda on semiarid lands with respect to agriculture, livestock, water surface levels, and agro-processing.
The phasing of the project (WLG III (2002 to 2005); WLG IV (2006 to 2009); and WLG V (2010
to 2014), is tandem with Kenya’s political regimes that influences policies and development
agenda. In every political regime the ruling party prepares a manifesto guides policy,
legislation and development agenda which considerations for community needs, geographic
vulnerabilities, demography, governance, and climate change considerations. Synchronizing
WLG with Kenya’s policy and development agenda creates synergy in addressing the local
community’s needs, complementing government development support and efforts, and
creating sustainability for continuity of project interventions, and amplifies project outputs,
outcomes and impact.

Overall, the WLG attained a geographic coverage of 110% which was more than the planned
areas. This was attributed to the replication of project interventions by farmers beyond the
ix
initially planned geographic areas. The project achieved 228.81% of the planned
interventions (Water Harvesting Structure; Livestock production; Gardens; Energy and
Training). The WLG project achieve the set goal access to safe and clean water improved
92.2%; water for households increased by 33.8%; water for gardens increase by 39.3%,
water for livestock increased by 24.5%. This in turn led to an increase in crop production by
72% while livestock production increased by 74.4%. The results was increase in water for
domestic and agriculture and increased food production for household.

The WLG project context has changed over the phases. The key changes include:
i)
Governance –Notably Kenya governance system change from 2010 with the
promulgation of a new constitution (Constitution of Kenya, 2010). This has led to
creation of National and County Government. The county government has ben
vested with the mandate of formulating sub-national policies; carrying out such
functions trade development and regulation, implementation of national policies on
crop and animal husbandly, and natural resources and environmental conservation
including soil and water conservation and forestry, and water and sanitation
services.
ii) Demography: Kenya’s population has grown by 44.01% (31 million to 45 million).
The dependency ratio although decreasing, has remained high (78% youth and
66.3% elderly). Thus, there is increased demand for livelihood support to match the
population growth and support the youth and the elderly.
iii) Climate change: The biosphere climate has continued to increase in unabated scale
with a marked increase in temperatures that lead to increased weather variability
occasioned by increased droughts, pests, diseases insurgencies. The results is
increased vulnerability for marginalised communities, groups and households.
2

Effectiveness: The WLG project had an effectiveness performance of 83.3% with respect to
satisfactorily achieved the planned objective with an estimated rate of 112%. This was
mainly attributed to adoption and replication beyond planned levels. The project outcomes
were equally satisfactorily achieved. Water harvesting increased water for household which
was used for domestic, livestock and gardens. Livestock and crop production were improved
and resulted in additional incomes for the households (USD 0.33 from livestock and USD
5.56 from agro-processing) and improved nutrition from milk, meat, fruits, vegetable,
cereals and grains. The WLG project improved equalization of opportunities for both women
and men who constituted 61% and 39% of project beneficiaries respectively.2 The project
addressed the endemic social marginalization by reaching out to all the categories of
communities with the project operational area who included agro-communities, pastoral,
agro-pastoral and families in transition.

Efficiency: The WLG project has an overall efficiency performance index of 73.3% with
respect of cost, time and approach efficiency. The WLG project was implemented utilising
cost-effective approaches including farmers group, mass training, community-wide training
sites and demonstration units, community contribution (estimated at 62.56% of the total
Table 3.5.1
x
project cost) and synchronizing project activities with the seasonal calendar. These
approaches were effective with respect of optimizing value for funds, saving training time,
and optimizing training resources by using the planned resources to train many communities
than it would have otherwise been possible.

Impact: The WLG project resulted in numerous impacts. (i) improvement of community
irrigation schemes, and water harvesting structures; (ii) equalization of opportunities for
women by targeting 61% of total project beneficiaries; (iii) water improved 92.2%; water for
households increased by 33.8%; water for gardens increase by 39.3%, and water for
livestock increased by 24.5%; (iv) crop production increased by 72%; (v) livestock production
increased by 74.4%; (vi) reduction in poverty by 38.40%; (vi) provided safe and renewable
energy for 211 households thus saving wood fuel by 50% (115,458.5 kg of wood fuel).

Sustainability: The WLG project has a sustainability index of 70.0% with respect to the
continuity of the project impacts/change and benefits beyond the funding phase. This is
attributed to adopted sustainable approaches to project implementation that included:
logical project design approach, implementation approach that recognizes farmers selfdetermination principles, establishment of social infrastructures, improvement of
germplasm and animal breeds, low cost technology development and transfer cycle with an
adoption rate 54.42%, financing modalities that include both external sources of funding and
farmers contribution (62.56%).
RECOMMENDATIONS

Project relevance: WLG project should in future planning and project implementation make
consideration to the changing project context: Population and demographic trends,
Devolved Government, and Climate change. Specifically the project should consider
increasing funding levels, establishing and strengthening linkage to the County Government,
mainstreaming climate change adaptation and mitigation intervention.

Project Effectiveness: Notably WLG project has focused more on (i) establishing production
assets (water structures; livestock breeds, sheds and dips; and crop germplasm and stores),
(ii) building capacity for production; and (iii) venturing into value addition during WLG 5. In
order to enhance WLG project effectiveness, future planning should consider strengthening
the already established social infrastructure, value-addition interventions (agro-processing
units), and market linkages while allowing for replication of the already established
interventions.

Project Efficiency: WLG has already developed cost-efficient approaches that is working
within the existing socio-cultural and climatic circumstances of the project operational area.
Future planning should consider strengthening these approaches:
i)
xi
Farmer Group as an approach to entry and organising communities members should
be strengthened especially with respect to motivating youths to join the group,
incentivizing elderly people as source of traditional knowledge in such issues as
climate change, assisting groups to go through the storming, norming and
performing as the case may be for each farmer group, creating of more sustainable
banking system both in cash and agriculture products e.g. seeds.
ii) Farmer Training as an approach to building the capacity of farmers with knowledge,
skills, and approaches. The training should be structured into both formal and
informal training approaches. (a) WLG should develop formal training programmes
for the youth by establishing training centre where the youth undergo through
graduated training course that could last from 2 weeks to 2 years. The trainees
should be well selected to meet the objective of the WLG project. Informal training
should continue at the Farmer Group level for the community members who are not
able to join the formal training. (b) Training should also be strengthened through
documentation of manuals that can be used various training programmes; (c)
training through media should also be explore by utilising low-cost vernacular radio
programmes

Project Impacts: WLG project had numerous impacts that need to be systematically tracked,
documented, and shared. This would be impossible without a robust and transparent
monitoring system for the monitoring and reporting of WLG activities, outputs, outcomes
and impacts. The monitoring should consider the best monitoring approach, e.g. DAC criteria
and standard, the monitoring questions and indicators, the monitoring methods including
tools and technology, the role of project beneficiaries and WLG staff and donor in the
monitoring process.

Project Sustainability: The WLG project has established sustainability approaches which
need to be continuously develop, refined, tested and implemented. These approaches
should consider the current governance system in Kenya, especially devolved government as
well as Farmer groups resource mobilisation, networking, and linkages strategies.
xii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Purpose of the evaluation,
Evaluation scope
Key questions.
Short description of the project / programme evaluated
Relevant frame conditions
1.1
Purpose of the Evaluation
The evaluation of the WLG project aimed at providing an insight on three aspects that included: (i) an
account of the funds utilized; (ii)outputs, outcomes and impacts on the target community; and (iii)provide
towards improved planning and implementation of future phases/projects.
1.2. Evaluation Scope
The evaluation scope with respect to project phases and implementation duration, project themes,
geographic coverage, and target beneficiaries was a described below.
i.
Project Phases: The evaluation focused on 3 WLG
phases which have progressively been under
implementation over the last 18 years.
ii.





Project Themes: The evaluation focused on 3
themes that included:
Agriculture
Livestock
Water harvesting
Renewable energy (biogas)
Cross cutting issues (Leadership)
Table 1.1: WLG phases
Phases

WGG 1:
Implementation
period
 1993 and 1995,

WGG 2:
 1998 and 2001
Not Covered

WLG 3:
 2002 to 2005,
Covered

WLG 4:
 2006 to 2009
Covered

WLG 5:
 July
2010
March 2014.
iii.
Beneficiary Categories
The evaluation focused on 3 categories of beneficiaries who included the following:
i.
ii.
iii.
2
Households for household-based activities
Households for community-based activities
Artisans for Water harvesting and Biogas artisans
Comment
Not covered
to
Covered
iv.
Geographic coverage:
The evaluation target 8 counties where the 3 WLG
project phases have been under implementation. In
addition, the evaluation targeted 18 sub-counties
spread within the 18 counties where various specific
project activities are located (Figure 1 and Table
1.1). The specific location of the 3 phases included
the following list and summary (Table 1.2):
 WLG Phase 3
 Githunguri in Kiambu District
 Kandara in Murang'a District
 Makuyu in Murang'a District
 Ndithini in Machakos District
 Masinga in Machakos District
 Mwala in Machakos District
 WLG phase 4
 Githunguri in Kiambu County
 Migwani in Kitui County
 Gachoka in Embu County
 Ol-kalou in Nyandarua County
 Rumuruti in Laikipia County
 Kajiado Central in Kajiado County
 WLG phase 5
 Kiambu RPA covering Githunguri and
Ndeiya Divisions, Kiambu County
 Mbeere RPA covering Gachoka Division,
Embu County
FIGURE 1: WLG PROJECT AREA
 Mwingi RPA covering Migwani Division,
Kitui County
 Kajiado RPA covering Kajiado Central and Loitoktok Divisions (Kajiado County)
 Nyandarua RPA covering Ol-kalou and Ol’Jororok (Nyandarua)
 Laikipia RPA covering Rumuruti and Ng’arua Divisions (Laikipia County)
Table 1.2. Geographic Coverage of WLG Phases
County
1. Kiambu
2. Murang’a
3. Machakos
4. Kitui
5. Embu (Mbeere)
6. Nyandarua
Sub-Counties
WLG 3
1. Githunguri
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
WLG 4
1. Githunguri
Kandara
Makuyu
Ndithini
Masinga
Mwala
2. Migwani
3. Gachoka
4. Ol-kalou
7. Laikipia
5. Rumuruti
8. Kajiado
6. Kajiado central
3
WLG 5
1. Githunguri
2. Ndeiya
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Migwani
Gachoka
Ol-kalou
Ol’Jororok
Rumuriti
Ng’arua
Kajiado central
Ol-oitoktok
1.3. Evaluation Questions
The evaluation methodology, process and reporting was guided by the DAC criteria and
standards. The DAC criteria and standards consist of a set of 5 criteria and respective questions
that leads to the fulfillment of the criteria. The set of criteria include: relevance, efficiency,
effectiveness, impact and sustainability. The evaluation was thus guided by a set of 17 questions
drawn from the DAC criteria and standards (Table 1.3).
Table 1.3. DAC Criteria and Standard and corresponding evaluation questions
DAC Criteria
Relevance
RELEVANCE
1. Did we plan the right thing?
2. Did we do the right thing?
3. To what extent are the objectives, planned activities and planned outputs consistent with the intended outcome
and impact?
4. Are there differences between the time when the program/project was designed and today?
5. To what extent are the objectives of the project/program still valid?
6. Has the goal of the project been achieved or not achieved?
7. Which are the qualitative and quantitative indicators to support either decision?
1. To what extent were the objectives achieved?
2. What are the short or intermediate-term medium term (intended or unintended) outcome of the project?
3. To what extent was the selected target group reached?
4. What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
1. Were activities cost-efficient?
2. Were objectives achieved on time?
3. Was the program or project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
1. What has happened as a result of the project? (intended and unintended impacts, equal opportunities for women
and men, improvement of social and economic infrastructure, poverty reduction, cross sectoral impact or other
relevant cross-cutting issues including soil, biodiversity, seed security, water access, food, nutritional and income
security, replication of training tools such as water tanks, biogas units, livestock enterprises and savings and credit)
2. What real difference has the activity brought about for the beneficiaries? (what would have happened without the
activity?)
3. How many people have been affected?
4. To what extent will the positive impacts or changes of the project continue?
5. Which measures are implemented in order to support sustainability?
6. To what extent can the benefits of the project persist after funding ceases?
7. What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the
project?
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Impact
Sustainability
1.4. Project Description
SACDEP KENYA has been implementing “Water Livestock and Gardens (WLG)’ through 182
farmer groups targeting 5,293 household-based and 29 community micro-projects (Table 1.4
and 1.5 and Annex Table 8.3).
4
The project aimed at contributing to poverty reduction and Self Determination for 5,293
Households directly and 598 households indirectly through community based projects such as
cattle dips, Dams and Wenyewe
Table 1.4: Number and distribution of Farmer Groups
irrigation scheme.
Phase
Project area
No
of
Farmers
Groups
9
No of
Women
No of
Men
Total
HH’s
In order to achieve this, the
project adopted Agriculture WLG 3 Githunguri
110
165
275
(Kiambu)
Principles and Practices that
Kandara (Murang’a)
10 172
132
304
focuses on equipping smallholder
Makuyu (Murang’a)
10 127
132
259
farmers with relevant skills that
Ndithiini
10 208
95
303
(Machakos)
enable
them
utilize
their
Masinga (Machakos)
10 211
101
312
potential, generate steady income
Mwala (Machakos)
9 206
87
292
and make a living out of WLG 4 Githunguri
8 226
28
254
(Kiambu)
Sustainable Agriculture. Thus,
Gachoka (Embu)
8 165
45
210
they would be expected to create
Migwani (Makueni)
8 254
62
316
food, nutrition and income
Ol-kalou
9 163
90
253
(Nyandarua)
security specifically, the project at
Rumuruti
10 212
39
251
focused on skills provision by
Kajiado
8 215
25
240
disseminating
skills
and WLG 5 Kiambu
10 229
92
321
knowledge to small holder
Embu
10 293
72
365
Mwingi/
Kitui
11
263
121
384
farmers in the key project
Nyandarua
13 245
82
327
thematic
areas
of
Water
Laikipia
16 240
83
323
harvesting, Crop & Livestock
Kajiado
13 264
40
304
182 3803
1491
5293
improvement, Value Addition of TOTAL
crop and livestock products as
well as use of renewable energy on the farm. The total beneficiaries for the 3 phases of the WLG
project shows that a total of 71.85% women benefited directly from the project interventions. As
women constitute the venerable members of the society, WLG project hence reached a majority
of the venerable members across the three project phases. (Table 1.4)
Table 1.5: Categories and Distribution of cut-across Community Projects
County
1. Kiambu
2. Murang’a
3. Kitui
4. Machakos
5. Embu (Mbeere)
6. Nyandarua
7. Laikipia
8. Kajiado
Total
5
Total
Cattle
Dip
0
0
2
0
2
3
3
1
11
Small Irrigation
Scheme
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
8
Dams
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
4
10
1
0
3
0
3
4
9
9
29
Photo on smallholder Poultry Enterprise
6
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1. Evaluation design
The evaluation exercise utilized exploratory and descriptive designs.
i.
Exploratory Evaluation design: This design utilized to define the sampling framework,
determining the sample size for both the farmer groups and households, the indicators
sufficient to inform the evaluation questions, and the evaluation methods to be applied to
answer the evaluation questions.
ii.
Descriptive Evaluation design: This was utilized to gain an in-depth understanding of the
WLG project performance in terms of planning (relevance), implementation (efficiency and
effectiveness), and impacts and sustainability.
2.2. Evaluation Methods
The evaluation exercise utilized a battery of methods to answer the evaluation questions derived
from the DAC criteria and standards (Table 2.1). The methods include:
Documentation review: This involved the review of related literature including (a) national
and county policies, legislations and plans; and (b) WLG project reports (Table 2.1)
i.
Table 2.1 Documentation reviewed
Documentation Review
Key documents reviewed
National and County
 Constitution of Kenya, 2010
policies, legislative and
 Kenya Vision 2030
 County Integrated Development Plans (Embu, Embu, Murang’a,
planning document
Laikipia, Machakos, Kajiado)
WLG project reports
 Planning documents, End of phase report, Bills of quantities, Audited
Accounts
Interviews with Key Informants: This involved structured interviews with officials of
farmer groups, and questionnaires to beneficiary households and Artisans for Biogas and
water pans.
Focused Group Discussions: This involved structured interviews with officials of farmer
groups and through a dissemination workshop of the draft report.
ii.
iii.
The methods were interchangeably used to collect indicators for the various evaluation questions for
purposes of ensuring comprehensive coverage of the questionnaires and consistency of results
through a triangulation process (Table 2.2).
7
Table 2.2: Evaluation methods utilized in the WLG Evaluation
Evaluation Method
Evaluation
Evaluation Questions
Design
 Relevance: Did we plan the right thing? Did we do the right thing? To what extent are
Exploratory Documentation review
 WLG project reports
the objectives, planned activities and planned outputs consistent with the intended
Design
outcome and impact? Are there differences between the time when the programme/
project was designed and today? To what extent are the objectives of the project/
programme still valid? Has the goal of the project been achieved or not achieved? Which
are the qualitative and quantitative indicators to support either decision?
 Impacts: (What has happened as a result of the project? What real difference has the
Interviews with Key informants:
 Farmer Group
 SACDEP Staff
Descriptive
Design
Documentation Review:
 National and County policies,
legislative and planning
 WLG project reports
Key informants interview:
 Farmer Groups Members
(Households)
 Artisans (Biogas and Water
Harvesting Structures)
 SACDEP Staff
activity brought about for the beneficiaries? (what would have happened without the
activity?); How many people have been affected?
outcome and impact? Are there differences between the time when the
programme/project was designed and today? To what extent are the objectives of the
project/programme still valid? Has the goal of the project been achieved or not achieved?
Which are the qualitative and quantitative indicators to support either decision?
outcome and impact?
outcome and impact? Are there differences between the time when the
programme/project was designed and today? To what extent are the objectives of the
project/programme still valid? Has the goal of the project been achieved or not achieved?
 Effectiveness: To what extent were the objectives achieved? What are the short or
intermediate-term medium term (intended or unintended) outcome of the project? To
what extent was the selected target group reached? What were the major factors
influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
Focused Group Discussion:
 Farmer Group Officials and
Committees
 SACDEP staff
 Effectiveness: To what extent were the objectives achieved? What are the short or
intermediate-term medium term (intended or unintended) outcome of the project? To
what extent was the selected target group reached? What were the major factors
influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
Field Observations
 Projects site
 Sustainability: To what extent will the positive impacts or changes of the project
continue? Which measures are implemented in order to support sustainability? To what
extent can the benefits of the project persist after funding ceases? What were the major
factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the
project?
 Effectiveness: Were activities cost-efficient? Were objectives achieved on time? Was the
programme or project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
Case Studies
8
2.3. Sampling Framework
The evaluation exercise utilized structured randomized sampling framework to ensure that all the
factors under consideration were fulfilled while ensuring objectivity and freedom from biasness
(Table 2.3).
i.
Structuring the Sample: The factors used to structure the sampling framework included:
project phases (WLG 3, 4 and 5); (b) project themes – Agriculture, Livestock, Water and
Energy; and (c) geographic coverage across the 8 counties; (c) accessibility to project site
over the limited evaluation period
ii.
Sample size: The evaluation utilized Fishers Equation to determine the sample size for the
farmer group and the corresponding households to be interviewed.
Sample Size (n) =Z 2 * (p) * (1-p)
C2
Where:
Z = standard variate (1.96) which correspond to 95% confidence interval
, p = proportion of beneficiaries with improved livelihood,
c = confidence interval, expressed as a decimal.
i.
Randomization: The households to be interviewed were randomly selected for each
category for each county using Ms Excel formulation [RANDBETWEEN (bottom, top)],
The farmer group to be involve in the evaluation were selected using a [5 x 3] stratified random
selction design. The 5 represented the five project themes (water harvesting, livestock, Gender,
Agro-processing, and energy) while the 3 represented the three WLG project phases [WLG 3, 4 and
5].
The households were selected through simple randomization using the famers groups membership
register to generate Ms Excel based a farmer members list. The desired number of household
determined using Fishers Equation was then randomly selected using the Ms Excel formulation
[RANDBETWEEN (bottom, top)],
Where

Bottom = Farmer group with the lowest number of membership which is
generally 1

Top = Farmer group with the highest number of membership which varies
across the various Farmer group
2.4. Data Collection and Analysis
The required questionnaires were developed into a Smartphone running application that was designed using
Open data Kit running on an Android operating system. The application utilized the internally build GPS,
camera, video and timestamp and data entry forms for the various application modules.
9
The gathered data was submitted in real-time onto a web based cloud servers that received all the data from
the various enumerators who were simultaneously gathering data in different WLG project sites. The data was
them downloaded and migrated into Ms Excel and SPSS for further analysis. In addition, the resulting maps
were composed using ArcGIS and Qgis applications.
Results were presented using various forms of charts including Bar graphs and Radar as well as Tables.
Table 2.3: Sampled Farmer Groups and Households
Phase
Project area
No of Farmers
Groups
Planned
Evaluated
No
Members
WLG 3
Githunguri
9
3
Kandara
Makuyu
10
10
3
3
Ndithiini
10
3
Masinga
10
3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
12
12
27
17
19
30
27
30
8
8
11
9
10
6
11
12
18
9
30
12
25
36
17
34
20
24
18
17
22
42
40
21
27
21
31
23
33
14
11
12
9
12
10
11
9
9
10
13
13
10
11
10
12
10
12
8
29. Karweti Farmers Club;
22
10
30. Gathugu West
16
9
31. Muungano SHG;
28
11
32. Riandama SHG
17
9
33. Kathwagia SHG
10
7
34. Umiisyo wa Mathina;
35. Kivai SHG;
13
20
8
10
36. Nzakato SHG
34
12
37. Matangi ADU;
22
10
38. Rurii Matangi ADU;
32
12
39. Huho-ini Thayu ADU
26
11
40. Kilimo Bora;
23
10
41. Mwenje Maendeleo
25
11
42. Naretisho- Marantua;
31
12
43. Ilmeejoli/Parmuat
11
7
1,017
437
Gikii SHG;
Kadgat SHG
Githuya SHG
Thagira SHG;
3KM SHG
Wikatyo Wa Aimi Muthesya SHG;
Wendano wa Kathukini SHG
Witethye SHG;
9. Vinduka na Ivinda
WLG 4
WLG 5
Machakos/Mwala
9
3
Githunguri
8
3
Gachoka
8
3
Migwani
8
3
Ol-kalou
9
3
Rumuruti
Kajiado
Kiambu
10
8
10
3
3
3
Embu (Mbeere)
11
3
Nyandarua
13
3
Kajiado
10
3
Mwingi– Makueni
Laikipia
TOTAL
10
16
13
182
3
3
10. Ngatanio
ya
Unduuani
Ndovooini
11. Myamakimi;
12. Kanini Kaseo;
13. Osa Vinya ADU
14. Kigumo TBA;
15. Jikaze SHG;
16. Korokoro SHG
17. Kaburiri SHG;
18. Kavairi SHG;
19. Kabaru SHG
20. Wikililye SHG;
21. Kwangolo SHG;
22. Kaame SHG
23. Mahuani SHG;
24. Gikaba SHG;
25. Barigi SHG
26. Solar Panel SHG
27. Nashipai SHG
28. Kaibere Development Group;
na
of
No of HH
Interviewed
Photo on Biogas Utilization in one of the project Areas
11
3.0 KEY RESULTS AND FINDINGS
1. Findings from Evaluation Questions
a) Relevance
b) Effectiveness
c) Efficiency
d) Impact
e) Sustainability
2. Project context analysis
3. Equity and Gender incorporation
Relevance: Did we plan the right thing? Did we do the right thing?
To what extent are the objectives, planned activities and outputs
consistent with the intended outcome and impact? Are there
differences between the time when the programme/project was
designed and today? To what extent are the objectives of the
project/programme still valid? Has the goal of the project been
achieved or not achieved?
Which are the qualitative and
quantitative indicators to support either decision?
3.1. Relevance
Evaluation of project relevance focused on the relevance of plans, appropriateness of interventions,
consistency of objectives and planned activities with intended outcome and impacts; changes in
project context, validity of project objectives, and achievement of project goals.
Results from stakeholders’ perceptions indicate that the WLG project was 71.1% relevant.
This was attributed to the fact that the WLG project addressed critical community felt needs
that include access to clean and safe drinking water, adequate and nutritious food, and safe
and clean energy.
Findings indicated the relevance of the WLG project progressively increased across the
phases WLG 3 (56.67%), WLG 4 (71.67%) and WLG 5 (85.00%) (Figure 10 and Annex
Table 8.5). This was attributed to increased awareness, understanding and refinement of the
WLG project phases as the beneficiaries, SACDEP and other stakeholder conceptualized
and contextualized the project.
90,0%
80,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
0,0%
Relevance
WLG 3
56,7%
WLG 4
71,7%
WLG 5
85,0%
Figure 2: WLG stakeholders scoring of WLG project relevance
12
Stakeholders indicated that what was planned and implemented was to a great extent, 86.7%
and 80.0% respectively, relevant to beneficiaries’ needs and development partners’
aspirations. In addition, the stakeholders indicated that planned objectives, outputs and
activities scored as moderately (63.3%) consistent with the intended outcome and impacts.
This was attributed to the fact that the implementation of project interventions is still
ongoing and the realization of outcomes and impacts will take a while. Further, the
stakeholders indicated with a score of 73.3% that there was a difference between the time
when the project was planned and today. They noted that the population had increased,
impacts of climate change have intensified, and that efforts to devolve governance through
country government structures on ongoing. Thus, they scored the continued validity of the
project as still valid (73.3%) and the achievement of the project as average (50%) (Figure 11).
AVERAGE SCORE
90,0%
80,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
0,0%
AVERAGE SCORE
1. Did we
plan the right
thing?
2. Did we
do the right
thing?
86,7%
80,0%
3. To what
extent are
the
objectives,
planned
activities and
planned
outputs
consistent
with the
intended
outcome and
impact?
63,3%
4. Are there 5. To what
differences
extent are
between the
the
time when
objectives of
the
the
program/proj project/progr
ect was
am still valid?
designed and
today?
73,3%
73,3%
6. Has the
goal of the
project been
achieved or
not
achieved?
50,0%
Figure 3: Stakeholders scoring on WLG project Relevance
Overall there was an increase between the phases with respect to the various relevance
elements considered (Figure 12)
13
100,0%
90,0%
80,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
0,0%
1. Did we
plan the right
thing?
2. Did we
do the right
thing?
WLG 3
80,0%
80,0%
3. To what
extent are
the
objectives,
planned
activities and
planned
outputs
consistent
with the
intended
outcome and
impact?
70,0%
WLG 4
90,0%
70,0%
WLG 5
90,0%
90,0%
4. Are there 5. To what
differences
extent are
between the
the
time when
objectives of
the
the
program/proj project/progr
ect was
am still valid?
designed and
today?
6. Has the
goal of the
project been
achieved or
not
achieved?
50,0%
30,0%
30,0%
50,0%
80,0%
90,0%
50,0%
70,0%
90,0%
100,0%
70,0%
Figure 4: WLG project Stakeholders' scoring of the project relevance
i.
Relevance of Plans, Strategies and Interventions
In determining whether SACDEP and GLS
German planned the right thing and whether they Relevance: Did we plan the right thing? Did we do the right
thing?
did the right thing, we analyzed the (i) relevance
of interventions, (ii) logical flow and build-up of the interventions, and (iii) uptake / adoption
/replication of the planned livelihood improvement interventions (Table 3.1, Annex Table 8.3 and
Figure 2).
a) National Policy Relevance: Results indicate that the planning adopted by the WLG project
towards poverty improving is relevant Agriculture: Kenya aims to promote an innovative, commerciallyto Kenya’s vision 2030 foundations on oriented, and modern agricultural sector. This will be accomplished
through: (i) transforming key institutions in agriculture and livestock
“Enhanced Equity and Wealth Creation to promote agricultural growth; (ii) increasing productivity of crops
Opportunities for the Poor” and “human and livestock; (iii) introducing land use polices for better utilization
resources development”. In addition, the of high and medium potential lands; (iv) developing more irrigable
areas in arid and semi-arid lands for both crops and livestock; and
approach is in line with Vision 2030 (v) improving market access for our smallholders through better
14
supply chain management. Vision 2030 aims at adding value to our
farm and livestock products before they reach local and international
markets.
economic pillar which identifies agriculture as a key sector contributing to economic growth.
The WLG project has focused on sustainable agriculture as livelihood improvement intervention
noting that about 80% of Kenya’s population relies on agriculture as a source livelihood.
b) County Planning Relevance: A review of the various county integrated development plans
where WLG project has been operational indicate that its addressing the local development
challenges, needs and priorities (Table 3.3). These priority development needs include:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Water resources development :
Agriculture production
Livestock production
Agro-processing
Renewable energy
Training
c) Geographic Relevance: Kenya Vision 2030, has recommended that special attention be
given to investment in the arid and semi-arid districts, communities with high incidence of
poverty, unemployed youth, women, and all vulnerable groups. Thus the WLG project
geographic focal areas are quite relevant to the strategy of Kenya vision 2030 as they are
within the semi-arid zones of Kenya
d) Interventions Relevance: The WLG project has underscored the dependency rural
communities on agriculture towards improvement of their livelihood. However, this can
only be true if agriculture is approached from a sustainability perspective.
e) Principles of Sustainable Agriculture: Results indicate that WLG has considered the
principles of sustainable agriculture which include: economic viability, environmental
friendly, social justice, and culturally acceptable. In fulfilling this the WLG project combined
interventions that (i) improves household incomes, (ii) care for the environment, (iii) focuses
on vulnerable groups including women and communities living in ecologically challenge
areas , and (iv) to a greater extent introduces projects culturally practiced by the beneficiaries.
f) Principles of Planning: In addition, results demonstrate a logical flow in the way
interventions are organized. The project organizes the interventions in value chain approach
that include: quality animal breeds and crop varieties, farming skills, appropriate technology,
value addition and marketing.
Intervention Uptake /adoption / replication: Results indicate that communities were able to
uptake the interventions introduced by SACDEP, adopted the skills learned and replicated the
interventions (Figure 2). The adoption rate was calculated using the following equation.
𝑈𝑝𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝐴𝑑𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
=(
)%
𝑆𝐴𝐶𝐷𝐸 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 + 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡
15
Results indicate that all the four interventions
were adopted and replicated across the three
WLG project phases. There is an observed
cumulative and accelerated adoption of the
various interventions across the WLG project
phases – with WLG 5 being the highest,
followed by WLG 4 and 3. Livestock
interventions have the highest adoption rate,
following by Agriculture, the water
harvesting technology and finally Energy.
This is mainly due to the climatic conditions
which tends to suit livestock more than
agriculture. It’s is also observed that Water
WLG
WLG
5
WLG
4
3
FIGURE 5: ADOPTION RATE FOR THE VARIOUS INTERVENTIONS
harvesting structure were the key driving
force as it’s required by livestock, gardens and renewable energy.
ii.
Consistency of objectives,
activities and outputs with
intended outcomes and
impacts
Relevance:
 To what extent are the objectives, planned activities and outputs
consistent with the intended outcome and impact?
 Are there differences between the time when the
program/project was designed and today?
 Has the goal of the project been achieved or not achieved?
 Which are the qualitative and quantitative indicators to support
either decision?
Results indicate that objectives, planned
activities/inputs (Table 1.6) and outputs
(Table 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4) were consistent with the intended outcomes and impacts.
a) Households and Geographic Reach: The WLG managed to satisfactorily reach the
targeted community and household within the various project geographic operational with
an average success of 110% (WLG 3 achieving 120% and WLG 4 and 5 achieving 106%). In
addition the planned geographic coverage was reached across 8 semi-arid counties of Kenya
(Kiambu, Murang’a, Embu, Laikipia, Nyandarua, Machakos, Kitui and Kajiado) (Table 3.1).
16
Table 3.1. Project Beneficiaries and Geographic coverage across WLG 3, 4 and 5
Theme
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Beneficiaries
Planned:
Direct beneficiary 1,440 HH’s
Indirect beneficiary 5400
HH’s
Planned:
Planned:
Indirect beneficiary 7200 HH’s
Achieved:
1. A total of 1524 HH’s were
supported (mobilized and
trained)
2. Achievement was 106%
Achieved:
1. A total of 2,023 HH’s were directly
supported (mobilized and trained)
2. A total of 8,092 HH’s were indirectly
supported through farmer-to-farmer
training
3. A total of 7,200 HH’s were indirectly
supported through outreach education
forum
Planned:
1. Kiambu RPA covering Githunguri and
Ndeiya Divisions
2. Mbeere RPA covering Gachoka Division
3. Mwingi RPA covering Migwani Division
4. Kajiado RPA covering Kajiado Central and
Loitoktok Divisions
5. Nyandarua RPA covering Ol-kalou and
Ol’Jororok
6. Laikipia RPA covering Rumuruti and
Ng’arua Divisions
Achieved:
1. A total of 1746 HH’s were
mobilized
Geographic
coverage
Planned:
1. Githunguri in Kiambu
District
2. Kandara
in
Murang’a
District
3. Makuyu
in
Murang’a
District
4. Ndithini in Machakos
District
5. Masinga
in
Machakos
District
6. Mwala in Machakos District
Comments: All areas were
covered
Planned:
1. Githunguri in Kiambu District
2. Migwani in Mwingi District
3. Gachoka in Mbeere District
4. Ol-kalou
in
Nyandarua
District
5. Rumuruti in Laikipia District
6. Kajiado Central in Kajiado
District
Comments:
covered
All
areas
were
Comments: All areas were covered
b) Objectives, Output and Activities versus Outcome and Impact: The planned outputs
and activities were consistent with the intended outcome and impacts were consistent with
the planned outcomes (Table 3.2, Annex Table 8.4 and Figure 3)
17
Table 3.2. WLG project planned outputs, WLG funded, Community Contribution and Total across the WLG 3, 4, and 5
WLG 3
PLAN
NED
1,440
Beneficiary
Farmers
Group
Water
harvesting
Tanks
Shallow wells
Hand pumps
Dams
Energ
y
Gardens
Livestock
Small irrigation
schemes
Sahiwah
Cow shed
Cattle dips
Dairy Goats
Dairy goats
Sheds
Poultry
Bee hives
Bee handling
kits
Rabbits
Gardens
18
WLG
WLG 4
Comm
unity
1,746
49
Total
Achieved
1,746
49
PLAN
NED
1,440
48
SACDEP
WLG 5
1524
Commu
nity
0
TOTAL
1,524
48
PLAN
NED
1,800
480
26
26
0
516
26
26
0
180
0
0
0
696
26
26
0
150
25
25
6
232
46
46
121
0
0
353
46
46
0
151
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
336
288
0
0
0
411
289
0
0
0
753
394
0
0
0
1164
683
20
20
6
184
128
44
19
6
217
193
2880
480
160
2994
0
0
4410
0
0
7404
0
0
125
25
960
0
993
1746
751
0
1744
1746
SACDEP
77
GRAND TOTAL
Commu
nity
2,023
Total
Planned
2,023
77
4,680
Achie
ved
5,293
174
Comm
unity
TOTAL
5,293
174
6
6
122
46
25
6
122
0
0
0
244
46
25
6
781
51
57
12
870
118
97
6
423
0
0
0
1293
118
97
6
0
8
8
0
8
16
8
0
8
752
0
0
695
0
796
19
6
912
193
20
20
6
184
128
21
0
5
194
130
451
0
0
1457
0
472
0
5
1651
130
40
40
12
704
544
65
19
11
822
612
1203
0
0
2905
394
1268
19
11
3727
1006
649
286
50
1749
0
0
2398
286
50
600
125
25
645
125
50
6553
131
0
7198
256
50
3480
730
210
42.88
411
100
127.12
131
0
170
542
100
0
0
526
0
991
0
1517
0
600
614
0
1681
0
2295
0
1560
0
2133
174.6
3423
0
5556
174.6
0
191.86
0
885
Propagation
Materials
Seeds
0
0
0
0
180
10627
0
10627
180
8559
0
8559
360
1440
0
0
0
0
802.5
0
802.5
0
82.5
0
82.5
1440
191.8
6
885
Seed Stores
48
37
0
37
36
43
0
43
36
43
0
43
120
123
0
123
Agro-processing
Units
Small Income
Generating
Enterprise
Biogas
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
12
13
0
13
24
13
0
13
0
45
43
0
43
90
43
0
43
0
0
0
0
24
25
0
25
20
25
0
25
44
50
0
50
Energy Stoves
0
0
0
0
0
176
0
176
0
176
0
176
0
352
0
352
Trained Artisans
0
0
0
0
18
10
0
10
18
25
0
25
36
35
0
35
Tree Nursery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
27
0
27
0
27
Trained HH's
1440
1746
1746
242
32727
32727
9000
22231
22231
10682
56704
0
56704
45

Water harvesting: The establishment 1422 water harvesting structures and installation of 71
hand pump has led to the supply 134,371.6 M3was provided to 5,992 households.
The water sources included a total of 1390 protected –therefore safe and clean water for
domestic use and 35 unprotected water sources.

Livestock production: The introduction of 11,727 high quality livestock, 100 tools for
facilitating of honey and construction of 1025 livestock shed and 5 cattle dips for pest and
disease control has led to the increased food and nutrition, increased household incomes and
employment opportunities, and availability of low-cost and high quality locally produced
manure for improving soil fertility.

Agriculture production: The WLG project introduced low cost integrated farming
approaches including training materials and tools and high quality planting materials (seeds
and vegetative materials) which has as a result led to increased food and nutrition and
manure for improving soil fertility.

Renewable Energy: The WLG introduced biogas and energy saving stoves technologies
towards sustaining and expanding farm forestry vegetation cover. A total of 50 biogas and
352 energy saving stoves were introduced among 405 households. In turn, a total of 35
biogas
artisan
were
trained
to
ensure
sustenance and expansion
of the biogas technology.
Further, a total of 27 tree
nurseries were established
to provide tree seedlings
to
the
targeted
household. Consequently
a total of 765,205 trees
were planted in 1391
farmers.
Consequently
this has led to saving of a
total of 115,458.5 kg of
wood fuel

Training of Farmer
Groups:
The
WLG
project
F
IGURE
6:
C
OMPARISON
OF
P
LANNED
AND
A
CHIEVED
utilized several forms of
training
including: Farmers Field INTERVENTIONS
Days;
Farmers Open Days
(FOD);
Institutional Workshops; Annual Farmers Congress; and Exchange/Exposure visits.
19
In addition, the WLG project trained on sustainability issues that include: Leaders Training3,
Marketers Training4, Transition Meetings5, and Campaign Advocacy and Lobbying (CAL)6.
The WLG a total of 56,704 farmers were on various aspects of sustainable agriculture over
the WLG 3, 4 and 5.
iii.
Changes in Project Context &Validity of Objectives
Results from content analysis indicate several key contextual changes within the project operational area and
the country as a whole with respect to climate,
Relevance:
demography, and governance.
 Are there differences between the time when the
a) Climate Change
program/project was designed and today?
 To what extent are the objectives of the project/program still
valid?
The climatic conditions, mainly rainfall and
temperature interdependencies, which were a critical WLG project design consideration factors have
moderately changed (UNDP, 20147) according to changed, which prevailed at the time when the project was
designed.
Temperatures: This has continued to rise and is projected to do so over the next decades leading to
increased droughts, pests and disease insurgencies, and weather variability in the tropics due to sporadic and
unpredictable rainfall. This in turn would negatively affect agriculture and livestock productivity leading
increases poverty vulnerability for marginalized households in such climatically challenged areas like the ones
targeted by WLG project (Figure 4).
FIGURE 7: REAL AND PREDICTED MEAN TEMPERATURE FOR KENYA
Rainfall. This has continued to generally decrease in amount with rainy duration constricting and rains onset
drastically shifting in a rather sporadic manner (Figure 4).
WLG 3 report page 26. Training provided for Agriculture development units leaders on leadership and resources
mobilization skills to diversify avenue for getting resources.
4
WLG 3 report page 27. Training was provided for anyone in the Agriculture Development Unit on how to create
marketing channels for agriculture produce.
5
WLG 3 report page 27. Training provided to farmer group leader and SACDEP staff to map the phasing out after
the funding phase was over.
6
WLG 3 report page 26. Training provided to farmers in order to effectively participate in formulation of enabling
agriculture policies.
7
McSweeney C. New M. Lizcano G (). UNDP, Kenya County Climate Change Profile
3
20
FIGURE 8: REAL AND PREDICTED MONTHLY PRECIPITATION FOR KENYA
Kenya arid and semi-arid areas have 45%, 35% and 20% probability of normal, above normal and below
normal rainfall respectively (Care International, 20118).
The resulting severe droughts means the communities are faced with a 45% chance of experiencing a good
season, but with the risk of increased incidences of some crop pests and diseases, a 35% risk of crop
destruction by disease and floods and a 20% risk of crop failure due to water stress. In turn, livestock
production is faced with risks of increased pests (helminthes) and mites (e.g. ticks) and such diseases such as
foot rot for goats
This increased climatic uncertainties requires that communities make decisions on (i) prompting
consideration of the different types and varieties of crops that would respond to the different levels of risk;
and (ii) swop cattle with the hardier dairy goats and dual purpose cattle such as Sahiwah.
b) Demography
The most relevant national census in Kenya to the WLG project was that of 1999 and 2009. The population
was reported as 38.6 million in 2009, compared to in 28.7 million in 1999. The population growth rate is
estimated at 2.7% (as of 2010), resulting in an estimate of a total population 41 million in 2011 and
45,010,056 in 2014 (Figure 6 and Table 3.3). Thus the population at the time the WLG project was designed
has tremendously increased meaning that community livelihood should be increased by more than 2.7% to
cater for sustenance and growth requirements.
Table 3.3. Kenya population based on age structure
Year
Total
Population
Populati
on aged
1-14 (%)
Populatio
n aged 1564 (%)
Population
aged 65+
(%)
2000
31 254
44.3
52.9
2.8
2005
35 615
42.7
54.5
2.8
2010
40 513
42.5
54.9
2.7
2015
45,010
42.1
55.2
2.7
FIGURE 9: KENYA DEMOGRAPHY (1980 - 2020)9.
8
9
Care International, 2011. Adaptation Learning Programme for Africa. www.careclimatechange.org/adaptation-initiatives/alp
Source Kenya Bureau of Statistics. Accessed 7th February, 2015 from https://www.census.gov/population/international/files/ppt/Kenya92.pdf
21
c) Dependency ratio
According to the population figures (Table 3.7), the total dependency ratio (Table 3.4.)
Table 3.4. Total dependency ratio for Kenya over 2000 and 2014
Youth
Elderly
Potential support ratio
2000
81%
76.1%
18.9
2015
78 %
66.3%
20.4
Kenya has a high dependency ratio which has continued to spiral over the period 2000 -2015. As a
result there in need to design and implement development intervention that targets the youth and
the elderly citizens.
d) Governance: During the period when the WLG project was design, Kenya centralized form
of government while currently, the country adopted a devolved form of governance with
distinct national and county government in implementation of its constitution, 2010. This
lead to the devolution of certain services such as agriculture and livestock, water and
sanitation (Table 3.5)
Future planning should take into consideration the National and County governments’ role and
responsibilities in order to ensure that the planned interventions are complimentary and the relevant
government institutions continue to provide not only the already ongoing supplementary technical
support but also financing of the interventions.
Table 3.5. National and devolved functions
Economic policy
and planning
Transport
infrastructure
Land,
Environmental
and
natural
resources
Agriculture
Livestock
Capacity building
and
technical
assistance
Community
participation
22
Nation Government
National economic policy and planning.
Transport and communications including
Standards for the construction and maintenance
of other roads by counties;
Protection of the environment and natural
resources including, in particular—(c) water
protection, securing sufficient residual water,
hydraulic engineering and the safety of dams; and
(d) energy policy.
General principles of land planning and the coordination of planning by the counties,
Agricultural policy.
County Government
Trade development and regulation, including—
(a) Markets; (b) trade licenses (excluding regulation of
professions);(c) fair trading practices;(d) local tourism;
and(e) cooperative societies.
County transport, including—
(a) county roads;
Implementation of specific national government
policies on natural resources and environmental
conservation, including—
(a) Soil and water conservation; and (b) forestry.
County public works and services, including—
(a) Storm water management systems in built-up areas;
and (b) water and sanitation services.
Agriculture, including—
(a) crop and animal husbandry;(b) livestock sale
yards;(c) county abattoirs;(d) plant and animal disease
control; and(e) fisheries.
Veterinary policy.
Capacity building and technical assistance to the
counties.
Ensuring and coordinate participation of communities
and locations in governance at the local level and
assisting communities.
iv.
Achievement of WLG project Goal
The combined WLG 3, 4, and 5 project goal
has been “to improve food, nutritional, agroincome security of smallholder farmers and
pastoralist at family and community levels
within the project operational areas
8,00
(Kiambu, Murang’a, Embu, Kitui,
Machakos, Kajiado, Nyandarua and 6,00
Laikipia) through training on low 4,00
external inputs and practical strategies of 2,00
sustainable agriculture that integrates 0,00
various farming enterprise, agribusiness
and agro-marketing related to water
harvesting, small livestock production
and market gardening over a period of
19 years”.
a) Water harvesting technologies:
Access determined by (i) time to
a water source, (ii) actual
fetching and waiting time in
cases of queue; (iii) and walking
back to the household. WLG
interventions
on
water
harvesting structures increased
access to water by 92.2% being
Domestic Water
Livestock
Crop
Before WLG Amount (20 Liters Jerican)
After WLG Amount (20 Liters Jerican)
50,00
40,00
30,00
20,00
10,00
0,00
Time in Minutes
The goal has been achieved as
exemplified by the various project
activities carried out, outputs produced,
outcome and impacts realized (Table
3.6).
Various
indicators
were
qualitatively
and
quantitatively
considered and evaluated to determine
whether the WLG goal was achieved or
not achieved. These include:
Relevance:
 Has the goal of the project been achieved or not achieved?
 Which are the qualitative and quantitative indicators to support
either decision?
Time to WP
Time waiting
at WP
Time from
WP
Before WLG
47,29
25,15
34,45
After WLG
3,74
2,39
2,79
18,00
16,00
14,00
12,00
10,00
8,00
6,00
4,00
2,00
0,00
Domestic Water
Before WLG Cost (KES)
Livestock
Crop
Before WLG Cost (KES)
IGURE 10: WATER ACCESS, AMOUNT, COST AND TIME CHANGES WITH AND WITHOUT WLG
contributed by 92.7% reduction FPROJECT
in time to the water source,
91%reduction in time spent actually fetching and waiting to fetch the water in case of
queuing as individual wait for each other, and 92.5% reduction in time spent walking back to
the household.
23
In addition, WLG project led to an overall increase in amount of water available for
household estimated at 33.8% and
reduction in cost for water by 74.1% FIGURE 11: CHANGES IN GARDENS PRODUCTIVTY
(being the amount
used to purchase water at local rates).
This was contributed by amount of
domestic water increased by 37.7%
and cost reduced by 77.6%; livestock
water amount increased by 24.5%
and cost of watering livestock
reduced by 44.6% (being cost either
for purchasing water or labor for
taking livestock to distant water
sources), and crop water increased by
39.3% available for irrigation which
was not available without the WLG
project (Figure 7).
Sorghum
b) Gardens: Size of land under food
Fruits
production including types of crops and the
Green
Grams
nutrition the provided (starch, proteins,
Maize
vitamins); drought resistance; food and seed
Vegetables
storage facilities. Results indicate an overall
Peas
increase in crops production estimated at
Potatoes
72% contributed by potatoes 83.3%, beans
0,0%
50,0%
100,0%
55.6%, peas 73.0%, bananas 95.5%,
vegetables 98.9%, pigeon peas 61.7%, maize 65.6%, cow peas 60.4%, green grams 55.2%, Cow Pea
(Thoroko) 78.9%, Fruits 70.0%, millet
Rabbit
76.8%, and sorghum 61.8% (Figure 8 and
8000,00
Before (KES)
Table 3.6).
c) Agro-processing: Number of Agroprocessing units including the value addition,
marketing channels and incomes from the
products
Others
4000,00
Dairy
Goats
2000,00
0,00
Bee
keepin
g
Renewable Energy: Number of clean,
healthy and renewable energy technologies
including amount of tree planted; and
avoided volume of wood fuel
Pigs
Dairy
Cows
Poultry
0,0% 20,0% 40,0% 60,0% 80,0% 100,0%
Rabbit
24
6000,00
Dairy Goats
Dairy Cows
Poultry
Pigs
Bee keeping
Others
e) Livestock production: Number of livestock as well as production levels of such as
offspring, milk and meat and animal by-products such as manure. There was an overall
increase in livestock production of 74.4% being contributed by (Rabbit 95.7%, Dairy Goats
58.3%, Dairy cows 53.6%, poultry 72.5%, pigs 100%, beekeeping 53.4% and other livestock
by 87.2% (Figure 9 and Table 3.6).
Discussions with individual farmers from the sampled households indicated a steady
growth/increase with respect to numbers of poultry, dairy goats, dairy cows and rabbits.
However, the increase in income from rabbits and pigs seems steeping as the market in
localized at farmer-to-farmer level while their consumption is yet to be mainstreamed in the
normal household diets.
f) Training of Farmers: Types of trainings approaches, number of farmers trained; number
of farming enterprises and issues covered.
Table 3.6 WLG project outcomes and impacts
per theme across the WLG 3, 4, and 5
Theme
Water
Harvesting
FIGURE 12: CHANGES IN LIVESTOCK PRODUCTIVITY
Phase 3
Phase 4
1. Women are saving time  Increased access to clean and safe
and energy than before drinking water for (232 directly
in fetching water
supported HH and 121 HH who
2. Clean water leading to replicated the tank technology; 850 HH
reduced water borne from dams; 230 HH from Shallow
diseases
wells)
3. Improved
food,
nutrition and income
for household
Livestock
1. Milk
production 1. Improved
farmers
skills
on
improvement increased by 2 liters per improvement of livestock production
day per HH
(cattle, goats, poultry, rabbits, and
2. Increased income KSH honey)
30 (0.33 USD) per day 2. Increased livestock assets
per HH
 Cattle (44 high quality Sahiwal bulls
3. Available high quality
and 19 bull sheds, 78 improved
manure from goats
Sahiwal cattle offspring)
4. Availability of low cost
 Dairy Goats (83 high quality dairy
white
meat
from
goat bucks and 134 does, 278
poultry, rabbit, fish
improved dairy goats offspring)
5. Availability of honey as
 Poultry: (591 breeding cocks and
a food, medicinal and
58 hence, 136 poultry houses
income for HH
 Honey: (286 KTBH, 50 bee
handling kits, 1191 kg of semirefine honey harvested)
 Rabbit: (148 bucks and 378 does
of improved breeds)
3. Increase income from sale or
income saved from livestock and
livestock product products and byproducts (milk, meat /stock, eggs,
manure)
Food
and 1. Improved soil fertility 1. Improved high value seed supply (43
nutrition
2. Improved soil water seed store)
supply and recycling of 2. Improved market gardens
nutrients
3. Improved of planning materials
3. Improved high value including seed (assorted fruits, sweet
seed supply
potato, legumes, cereals, fodder shrubs,
4. Timely availability of pasture seeds)
25
Phase 5
4.0
Increased water supply for 1365 HH’s
5.0
Improved water harvesting skills for 4,468 HH
(1,335HH from 267 tanks, 125HH from 25 shallow wells,
1,581HH from 6 dams and 1,427 HH from 8 Wenyewes
irrigation schemes)
6.0
Improved community capacity to replicate the
WH technologies through the trained 15 artisan
1. Improved livestock production (improved maturity period,
increased farm animal life weight; product yield – eggs, meat
and honey)
2. Improved animal husbandry skills and practices (housing,
breed selection and breeding, livestock husbandry practices
and diseases control)
3. Increase livestock production assets (high quality
 Cattle (21 Sahiwah bulls and 293 offspring)
 Dairy Goats (134 high quality dairy goat does and 60
bucks; 130 goat sheds; 737 improved dairy goats offspring)
 Dairy Goats (134 high quality dairy goat does and 60
bucks; 737 improved dairy goats offspring)
 Poultry: (645 breeding cocks and 58 hence, 136 poultry
houses
 Honey: (125 KTBH, 25 bee handling kits)
 Rabbit: (614 bucks, 4,261 offspring)
 Cattle dips: (5 dips serving 925 cattle)
4. Improved milks production from improved pasture and
fodder crops
1. Improved skills and practices among HH on water
conservation, natural soil fertility management, Integrated
pest management, diversification of crop enterprises
2. Increased market garden asset (4,034 lots, 3,500 splits of
vetiver grass, 1,085 assorted fruits seedlings, 43.5 kg of seed
3. Improved nutrition from fruits consumption produced in
from beneficiary farms leading to improved health and saving
seeds for HH’s
Agroprocessing
Energy
26
income and time that would have otherwise been used for
health services
4. Improved availability of pastures and fodder crops
5. Increased availability of farm tools/equipment to boost farm
tree cover and improvement of soil fertility management
6. Improved skills and practice on food security (36 seed stores)
7. Improved timely access to seeds during planting seasons for
882 HH
1. Improved agro-processing skills
1. Improved agro-processing assets (13 plants)
2. Improved post-harvest food storage
2. Improved value addition for food sources (milk, fruits, Irish
3. Increased income from value addition potatoes, cereals)
on farm produce (Milk, baking, soap 3. Improved income from sale of value added farm products
making and potatoes crisps)
4. Increased employment from processors and marketers (22
4. Increased food security assets (12 established)
processing units)
1. Renewable energy availed at HH level 1. Improved tree cover (585750 trees were planted) for the HH
(10 biogas and 176 energy saving 2. Renewable energy provided for 25 HH (25 biogas units)
stoves)
3. Reduced pressure on tree cover (115,458.5 kg of wood fuel
2. Employment creation for 10 artisans
saved)
4. Improved health for HH from clean energy
3.2. Effectiveness
Results from stakeholder consultations indicate that
the project has an overall effectiveness of 83.3%.
This was attributed to high score achievement of
objectives (80.0%) and reaching out to targeted
groups (86.7%) (Figure 14)
Effectiveness
a)To what extent were the objectives achieved?
b)What are the short or intermediate-term, medium term
(intended or unintended) outcome of the project?
c)To what extent was the selected target group reached?
d) What were the major factors influencing the achievement or
non-achievement of the objectives?
88,0%
86,0%
84,0%
82,0%
80,0%
78,0%
76,0%
Datenreihen1
1. To what extent were the
objectives achieved?
3. To what extent was the
selected target group reached?
80,0%
86,7%
FIGURE 13: STAKEHOLDER SCORING OF WLG PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS
The respective achievement of WLG projects were achieved in a increases across the phases: WLG
3 (60.0%), WLG 4 (80.0%) and WLG 5 (100.0%) (Figure 15). This was attributed to increase
refinement of project delivery approaches and the synergy built progressively across the WLG 3, 4
and 5.
120,0%
100,0%
80,0%
60,0%
40,0%
20,0%
0,0%
WLG 3
WLG 4
WLG 5
1. To what extent were the objectives
achieved?
60,0%
80,0%
100,0%
3. To what extent was the selected
target group reached?
80,0%
90,0%
90,0%
FIGURE 14: STAKEHOLDERS SCORING OF WLG PROJECT EFFECTIVENESS ACROSS PHASE WLG 3, 4, AND 5.
27
i.
Achievement of Objectives
Results indicated that the WLG project objectives were satisfactorily achieved as WLG 3 at
126%, WLG 4 at 106%, and WLG 5 at 106% (total planned interventions/total
interventions accomplished) (Table 3.7 and Annex Table 8.4). The observed high
achievement in WLG 3 was the often excitement that new development initiatives evokes
due to change of development players and sometimes related fictitious expectations. This
often stabilizes as the communities embrace the project realities which helps to filter out the
real needy beneficiaries.
Table 3.7. Achievement of WLG project planned objectives
Phase WLG 5
Phase WLG 4
Phase WLG 3
Phase
28
Project Objectives
Achieve
ment
i) To increase food production and nutrition levels among 1,440 HH of the target communities through use
of low cost integrated farming approaches linking soil, water, crops and livestock in the 6 divisions within
a period of 4 years.
ii) To build a sustainable household agricultural production capacity through creation of seed security and
rural agro-marketing programme among 1,440 HH in the target divisions within a period of 4 years
iii) To expand rural food production potential and levels through involving and training the youth on
integrated water, small livestock and market gardens approaches within the project period
iv) To provide external training to 4,320 farmers not reached directly by the project training tools, through
farmer to farmer training, documenting and providing aids produced from project experiences within
project period. These include field notes, booklets, slides, video documentaries e.t.c.
i) Mobilize and organize 1,440 crop and livestock producers into 48 registered groups to be referred to as
Agriculture and Development Units (ADUs)
ii) Design a 4 year training programme together with the ADU members for each of the project area
iii) Conduct an on-farm practical training through installation of targeted units on water harvesting, livestock
improvement and use of renewable energy
iv) Conduct 12 one week institutional training workshops for 360 ADU members to strengthen agricultural
and leadership skills
v) Provide special processing and marketing skills to 192 community based food/animal product processors
and farm based marketing units for each ADU.
vi) Document and develop 2 sets of training aid i.e. 1 set of training aid for agro-community and another set
for pastoral communities.
vii) Organize for 12 Farmer-train-Farmer (FTF) Open Days targeting to disseminate learnt skills to the
neighboring 2,400 non-ADU members.
viii) Undertake a project monitoring, evaluation and reporting on annual basis
i) Increase water availability for crops, human, livestock and reforestation through training on low cost water
harvesting techniques and establishment of “Wenyewes” Irrigation Systems benefiting 1,800 HHs.
ii) Increase food crop and livestock production level by 75% among the 1,800 direct beneficiaries and 50%
among 7200 indirect beneficiaries through skills provision in integrated farming approaches linking soil,
crops/ pastures and livestock, disease, pests and parasite control.
iii) To contribute to the sustaining and expansion of Farm Forest vegetation cover by 30% throughout scaling Biogas technology training and agro-forestry in 6 Districts in Kenya.
iv) Increase income from crops and livestock by 75% for 1,800 direct beneficiaries and 50% among the
indirect beneficiaries through training value addition, preservation and establishment of community based
marketing systems of farm products.
v) To contribute in rehabilitation of 100 Families in Transition through increasing their food and income
levels by 50% by way of training them in intensive agriculture production systems and establishment of
small income generating enterprises.
vi) Reach out with the above objectives to an additional 7,200 HHs through documenting and sharing from
the project experiences.
Achieved
126%
Achieved
106%
Achieved
106%
ii.
Achievement of Outcomes
Findings indicate that the WLG project has achieved several outcomes that are accruing to
the various target groups (Table 3.8).

Water harvesting structures: The WLG project aimed at improving access to clean and
safe water for households, access to safe water for livestock, and increasing irrigable
farm land. A total of 134,371.6 M3was provided to 5,992 households.

Livestock Production: The WLG project aimed at improving household food and
nutritional security, providing manure for soil improvement; providing raw materials for
renewable energy for household. The project improved the sample household income by
USD 0.33

Gardens: The project aimed at improving food and nutritional security and increasing
incomes for households. A total of 1524 households benefited from the project

Agro-processing: The project aimed at providing income for household by optimizing
agriculture and livestock productivity through value addition and market promoting, and
creating employment for farmer group household members. A total of 11 agro-processing
units were established and are generating a total of USD 611.6 for a total of 110 households

Renewable energy: The project aimed at providing renewable, clean and healthy energy
sources for the farmer group. A total of 211 household are using renewable energy thus saving
fuel wood by 50% (115,458.5 kg of wood fuel 10) and thus saving forest cover and biodiversity
and improving health of 211 household

Equalization of opportunities for women and men: The project aimed at creating
opportunities for both women and men in terms of sources of income, employment
opportunities and leadership development. The WLG project was able to provide
equalize opportunities for 5,992 households.

Poverty reduction: The project aimed at reducing poverty by address the drivers of
poverty among the farmer group household in the economically marginalized target
areas. The WLG reduced poverty by an average of 38.40%. (Table 3.13)
Table 3.8. Achievement of WLG project planned objectives
Intervention
Water harvesting technologies
Livestock production
Gardens
Agro-processing
Renewable energy
10
WLG project report WLG 5
29
Outcome
The infrastructure are providing a total of 134,371.6 m3 and serving a total of 5,992 households.
Increased household food and nutrition security; The project increased household incomes by USD
0.33;
Food and nutritional security increase for 1524 households
A total of 11 agro-processing units were established and are generating a total of USD 611.6 for a
total of 110 households11
A total of 211 household are using renewable energy thus saving fuel wood by 50%(115,458.5 kg of
Poverty Reduction
iii.
wood fuel ) and thus saving forest cover and biodiversity and improving health of 211 household
Results indicate that WLG reduced poverty by an average of 38.40%
Short / intermediate /medium term outcome of the project
Noting that realization of outcomes and impacts take time which is a result of numerous
factors, the WLG project interventions have short, intermediate and medium term
outcomes. This depends on (i) life cycle of the intervention, (ii) farmers learning behavior,
and (iii) dependent external factors. These outcome could be either intended at the designed
and aimed at positively contributing the goal of the project or unintended and negatively
limiting the achievement of the intended project goal (Table 3.9).
Table 3.9. WLG project intended and unintended Outcomes
Interventio
ns
Water
Harvesting
Structure
Livestock
Gardens
Agroprocessing
Intended Outcome
Unintended Outcome
Short-term outcome
 Improved access to clean and adequate water for
households
 Improved water supply for livestock and farming
 Increased water borne diseases incidences
from unprotected water sources such as
shallow well, dams and small irrigation
project
Medium-term Outcome
 Increased income from savings on medical
expenditure on water-borne diseases
 Improved health from labor and time spent by
women and men to fetch water for household and
watering livestock
 Sustained household food, nutrition and income
security even during drought incidence
Short-term outcome
 Improved household food, nutrition and income
from livestock, livestock product and by-products
 Market saturation for certain livestock such
as rabbit without a well-structured market
outlet and household consumption behavior
Medium-term Outcome
Improvement of livestock genetic material in the
community
Short-term outcome
 Improved household food, nutrition and income
from garden crops
 Post-harvest losses due to lack of storage
and processing technologies especially where
there are bumper harvest
Medium-term Outcome
 Reduced vulnerability to droughts
Short-term outcome
 Improved household income from value addition of
garden and livestock produces
Medium-term Outcome
 Increased employment opportunities from agroprocessing value chain tasks
Renewable
Energy
Short-term outcome
 Reduced reliance on scarce wood fuel and charcoal
 Access to low cost renewable energy by HH
Medium-term Outcome
 Reduced carbon emissions form reduced wood fuel
30
 Income losses resulting from (i) low quality
products due to lack of update on processing
competences, (ii) stiff competition from large
scale processors who produce at lower cost;
(ii) expired products due to delay in
marketing
 Lack of transparent recruitment in
community projects
 Reduced health incidence related to use of fuel wood
iv.
Performance in Reaching Targeted Groups
The WLG project reached out to the targeted community who included agro-communities; pastoral
communities and agro-pastoral communities (Figure 15).
a) Agro-communities: These are mainly in Githunguri Kiambu Country. Although they keep
some livestock under zero grazing systems, they rely more on crop production as their principal
source of food and income. Under this category the project target to reach 240HHs.
b) Pastoral communities: The communities in this category are found in the Rift valley province
mainly in Kajiado
District.
Their
main cultural and
economic activity
is
livestock
production. They
occupy regions of
low rainfall (less
than 600mm per
year) that are often
sparsely populated.
They keep an
average of 30
animals
per
household and rely
on natural pastures
to
feed
their
livestock.
Traditionally, they
keep on moving
from one place to
another in search
of pasture for their
livestock.
The
project
targeted
and
reached
directly
reach
480HHs.
c) Agro-pastoral
communities:
This
category
comprises mainly
31
FIGURE 15: LOCATION OF THE DIFFERENCE CATEGORIES OF TARGETED COMMUNITIES
of the target communities in the Eastern, Rift Valley and some parts of central provinces. In this
case, the communities under this category are in Migwani, Gachoka, Ol-kalou and Rumuruti
project areas. They depend on crop farming and livestock keeping.
d) Families in Transition: These are communities that are newly settled in small land units in Olkalou and Ol-jororok in Nyandarua County after the political clashes that flashed them out of
Rift valley province. The WLG project targeted to work with 100 HH in this special category.
v.
Major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the
objectives
Among the various factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of WLG
project objectives. These include:
a) Training: WLG used training as an approach to build knowledge, skills, and practices
among farmers on how they can practice and benefit from sustainable agriculture.
b) Funding: WLG requires continued funding to strengthen the sustainability of the
various interventions;
c) Financial Probity: WLG requires continued sound financial management of funds
received to continue supporting the already existing intervention towards their
sustainability
d) Emergence of new policy and legislative framework: The new dispensation of
implementing devolved governance requires active engagement in related policy
formulation and legislation enactment at both National and county government to
ensure the target communities views, needs and priorities are entrenched in the relevant
policies and legislation.
e) Politically related violence: Kenya experience unprecedented politically related
violence over disputed election results in 2007. The results was internal displacement of
communities members from mainly Rift Valley region who have now settled in
geographic localities around the WLG project area, political polarization of warring
communities based on voting ideologies, and disruption of development investment or
slowing down their performance. The WLG need to not only focus on mainstream
development agenda but also peace building initiatives to ensure such politically
instigated violence does not disrupt the long-term development gains realized over the
18 years of WLG operation.
32
3.3. Efficiency
Results indicate that the WLG project had an overall efficiency performance score of 73.3%
contributed by WLG 3 = 66.7%; WLG 4 = 73.3% and WLG 5 = 80.0%. This was attributed to cost, time
and approach efficiency (Figure 16).
Project Efficiency
100,0%
80,0%
60,0%
40,0%
20,0%
0,0%
Efficiency
WLG 3
66,7%
WLG 4
73,3%
WLG 5
80,0%
FIGURE 16: STAKEHOLDERS SCORING OF WLG AVERAGE PROJECT EFFICIENCY ACROSS WLG 3, 4 AND 5
Project Efficiency
Findings indicate that there was a progressive increase in cost-effectiveness of WLG activities (WLG 3 =
80.0%; WLG 4 = 80.0% and WLG 5 = 90.0%); timely delivery of WLG objectives (WLG 3 = 40.0%; WLG 4 =
70.0% and WLG 5 = 80.0%); and efficient approaches (WLG 3 = 80.0%; WLG 4 = 80.0% and WLG 5 =
90.0%) across the WLG project phases (Figure 17). This was again attribute to improved project
conceptualization and contextualization by both the project and operational synergy created across the
WLG phases.
90,0%
80,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
0,0%
1. Were activities cost-efficient?
WLG 3
80,0%
WLG 4
80,0%
WLG 5
90,0%
2. Were objectives achieved on time?
40,0%
70,0%
80,0%
3. Was the program or project
implemented in the most efficient way
compared to alternatives?
80,0%
70,0%
70,0%
FIGURE 17: STAKEHOLDER SCORING OF WLG PROJECT EFFICIENCY ACROSS WLG 3, 4 AND 5
33
i.
Cost-Effectiveness
The WLG project utilized several approaches to implement the various planned activities. The main
approaches considered as cost-effective included:
Efficiency
a) Were activities cost-efficient?
a)
objectives achieved on time?
Famer Groups: WLG project used b)Were
c)Was the programme or project implemented in the most
Community Action Units referred to as efficient way compared to alternatives?
Farmer Groups as entry point into the
target community and as a way of organizing families and communities;
b)
Mass Trainings: WLG project assembled farmers for training around locally and
nationally organized events without additional cost of mobilizing the community. These
events included:
a. Locally organized events including Farmers Field Days, Farmer-led open days,
Institutional workshops, and Farmers Congress,
b. Nationally organized international events including World Food Day, World
Environmental Day, and World Water among others
c)
Training Sites and Demonstration Units: WLG project established Farmers Learning
and Information Points (FLIP) and Agriculture Development Unit (ADU) as training
sites, demonstration units, and information dissemination and exchange on agriculture
issues with farmers between multiple development partners and farmers, thus reducing
the cost of renting multiple venues and financing duplicated meetings. The WLD has
established 10 main FLIPs and 182 on-farm FLIP’s in the 6 Regional Project Areas.
d)
Pooling of Training Materials: WLG project adopted an approach where training
materials were purchases in build and provided to a FLIP’s and ADU within the 6
regional project areas where farmers are centrally trained from. The bulk purchase is
considered economical as it’s logical to bargain for discounted prices of the materials
being bought. In addition, providing training materials to farmer assemblage is
considered economical than supplying each farmer with separate training materials.
e)
Community Contribution: WLG project design requires that famers provide a
matching contribution to the support SACDEP provided. The communities provided
support to the project activities in the form of “in-kind” e.g. small finances contribution
like paying of skilled labor when constructing water tanks, biogas and livestock sheds;
devoting their own time to undertake project activities or attend training sessions;
providing space for establishing project interventions, and provision of local materials
for construction work and providing their own tools to undertake project activities.
Results indicate that community contribution has increased over the WLG 3, 4 and 5
while support from SACDEP has decreased (Figure 6). The trends is crucial as an exit
strategy towards creating self-sustaining farmer groups.
Results shows that while SACDEP supported or contributed assets, materials and staff
payment equivalence, farmers contributed their stock, space, locally available materials
and time to the interventions. The overall farmers’ contribution across the WLG 3, 4 and
34
5 was 62.56%. These was an observed incremental contribution from farmers in terms of
real assets, project materials and labor while there was a decline in SACDEP with respect
to the same across WLG 3, 4 and 5 (Figure 18 and Annex Table 8.1).

WLG 3:SACDEP 49.59% and Farmers 50.41%

WLG 4:SACDEP 36.73% and Farmers 63.27%

WLG 5; SACDEP 26.01% and Farmers 73.99%
FIGURE 18: SACDEP SUPPORT AND COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION OVER WLG 3, 4 AND 5
ii.
Timeliness in Achievement of Objectives
The project objectives were achieved in a timely manner as evidence by field inspection of the
various projects and review of the project report. This was attribute to the ample time provided for
the accomplishment of the various activities noting that most of them are seasonally planned and
aligned to famers’ seasonal activity calendar.
Observations and testimonies from farmer group official and household respondent indicated that
all planned activities were implemented as per the agreed upon plan. In addition, there was no
evidence of stalled project intervention.
iii.
Project Implementation Efficiency
The evaluation considers that the WLG project was implemented in the most efficient way
considering the zonation of the project areas by clustering contiguous farmer groups and households
into single Agriculture development unit that was targeted using pooled training sites and resources
including breeding stock, planting materials, and demonstration units. Thus cost related to
movement of famers across the region to access training services; duplication of training materials,
and staff field logistics have been drastically reduced.
35
3.4. Impacts
Results indicate that the WLG project had both numerous intended and unintended impacts on
target community with respect to livelihood, Impacts
has happened as a result of the project? (intended and
social infrastructure, social equalization for a)What
unintended impacts, equal opportunities for women and men,
improvement of social and economic infrastructure, poverty reduction,
both men and women, and their environment.
i.
Equalization of
opportunities for both men
and women
cross sectoral impact or other relevant cross-cutting issues including soil,
biodiversity, seed security, water access, food, nutritional and income
security, replication of training tools such as water tanks, biogas units,
livestock enterprises and savings and credit)
b) What real difference has the activity brought about for the
beneficiaries? (what would have happened without the activity?) (c) How
many people have been affected?
The WLG project had a high rate of
equalization of opportunities for both women and men (Table 3.10). When compared with the
Kenya’s Constitution 2010 all the project areas addressed the needs of women, being 61% of the
project beneficiaries– they are the most vulnerable members of the community in Kenya.
Table 3.10: Equalization of opportunities for both women and men within WLG community based project
Cattle Dip
Nyandarua
Laikipia
Kitui
Kajiado
Men
20
29
19
5
Women
61
23
16
25
Nyandarua
Embu
Kajiado
Kiambu
17
8
6
4
5
70
17
Income Generating projects
Laikipia
Small Irrigation Schemes - Wenyewe
Laikipia
Kajiado
Average
ii.
Improvement of social infrastructure
% men
25%
56%
54%
17%
% women
75%
44%
46%
83%
20
31
9
7
4
46%
21%
40%
36%
56%
54%
79%
60%
64%
44%
71
35
50%
33%
39%
50%
67%
61%
Within the context of WLG project social infrastructure included cattle dip, livestock sheds, small
irrigation schemes, water harvesting structures, seed banks /stores (Table 3.11). Results indicate that
WLG although mainly training as an approach, it have established several social infrastructure for
demonstration and experiential learning.
36
Table 3.11. Social Infrastructure established by WLG 4 and 5
Theme
Water
Harvesting
Livestock
improvement
Food
and
nutrition
Agro-processing
Energy
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
516water  850 HH from dams; 230 HH 7.0
Improved water harvesting technology (267
tanks, 25 shallow wells, 6 dams, and 8 Wenyewes
irrigation schemes)
Livestock enterprises 4. Increased livestock assets
 Cattle 19 bull sheds
 Dairy Goats 130 goat sheds;

289
goat
 Dairy Goats
 Poultry: 136 poultry houses
sheds,
 Poultry: 136 poultry houses
 Honey: (125 KTBH, 25 bee handling kits)

334
Dairy
 Honey: (286 KTBH, 50 bee
 Cattle dips: (5 dips serving 925 cattle)
Breeding
handling kits, 1191 kg of
Does,
semi-refine
honey

77Dairy
harvested)
Breeding
 Rabbit: (148 bucks and 378
Bucks,
does of improved breeds)

993 Rabbits

2,852
Installed
tanks
from Shallow wells)
breeding
hens
and
cockerels,

480
bee
hives, 160
bee kits.
1,746 seed, 37 seed 4. Improved high value seed supply 8. Improved skills and practice on food security (36 seed
(43 seed store
stores)
store
Not planned
5. Increased food security assets 5. Improved agro-processing assets (13 plants)
(12 processing units)
6. Increased employment from processors and marketers
(22 established)
Not planned
3. Renewable energy availed at HH 5. Renewable energy provided for 25 HH (25 biogas units)
level (10 biogas and 176 energy
saving stoves)
a) Cattle Dips: These were established as communally shared infrastructure to cut down on
individual for pest and disease control by using the economic principle of economies of
scale. The construction of the cattle dips was combined with training on the livestock disease
control. Over the period 2010 to 2013, WLG Constructed 5 cattle dip – 1 in 2010, 2 in 2011,
2 in 2012, and 1 in 2013. The cattle dips were hosted as follows, Mwenje and Majani dips in
Rumuruti/Ng’arua, 1 Kwamwangi dip in Mwingi, and Quarry & Mugaa in Ol-kalou/Oljororok RPAs and Ol-kiloriti dip in Kajiado. (Plate 1).
37
PLATE 1: DIPPING OF CATTLE IN PROGRESS AT MWENJE CATTLE DIP IN RUMURUTI/NG’ARUA – ADOPTED FROM
SACDEP PHASE 5 REPORT
b) Water harvesting: Over the period 2006 to 2014, WLG project phase 4 and 5 established a total of
812 water harvesting structures consisting of 626 water tanks; 19 dams /water pans; 378 shallow
wells; 8 small irrigation schemes; and 97 hand pumps (Plate 2 and Figure 19).
The infrastructure are providing a total of 134,371.6 m3and serving a total of 5992 household.
In turn these structure facilitate acess to clean water for households, water for livestock, and water
for irrigation.
PLATE 2: SEED STORAGE INFRASTRUCTURE ESTABLISHED OVER THE WLG 4 AND 5
FIGURE 19: WATER HARVESTING INFRASTRUCTURE OVER WLG 4 AND 5
c) Seed Stores: The WLG 4 and 5 embarked on establishing community seed systems to ensure
preservation and timely availability of crop seeds to farmer group members. During WLG 4 a total of
43 seed stores were established while during WLG 5 a total 36 seed stores were established.
The stores were established by various ADUs in Gachoka, Migwani, Ol-kalou/Ol-jororok, Kajiado
Githunguri/Ndeiya and Rumuruti/Ng’arua project areas.
38
The strategy was aimed at cushioning the farmer groups from crop failures due to the frequent
drought experience within the WLG project areas. Thus the community member are able to plant
early at the begging of the rain season to take advantage of the nitrogen flux, optimize on the rains,
evade pests and diseases and timely harvesting and marketing of the produce.
PLATE 3: SEED STORES ESTABLISHED OVER WLG 4 AND 5
iii.
Poverty reduction
Indicators of measuring poverty are diverse and vary with schools of thoughts. The most commonly
used indicators are income, unemployment and joblessness, extent of poor health, education
disadvantage, inadequacy of housing and poor environmental conditions. Poverty is measured using
various approaches that include
a. Income on a relative country poverty line,
b. Deprivation indicators being lack of goods and services that are considered as basic
necessities in a given country;
c. Budget
standard
approach
calculated on the basis of cost of
specific basket of goods and
services;
d. Food ration method where
poverty is calculated based on how
much of their income they spend
on basic necessities;
e. UN
poverty
index
which
combines measures such as life
expectancy, literacy, long-term
unemployment
and
relative
incomes;
39
f.
UNICEF report card on child well-being which combines indicators of material well-being ,
health and safety, education well-being, family and peer relationship, behaviors and risks and
subjective well-being
FIGURE 20: PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN POVERTY REDUCTION INDICATORS
The evaluation adopted an approach that bundled household income, expenditure saved due
to access to safe and clean water, food security and income from employment opportunities
for families within the WLG project operational areas (Table 3.13).
Table 3.13. Poverty Reduction Index based on household incomes and saved expenditure
Project
Area
Embu
Kajiado
Kiambu
Kitui
Laikipia
Machakos
Muranga
Nyandarua
Average
Income Without WLG
Income With WLG
% tage increase in
project
project
Income
1464.29
5432.14
57.53%
1040.74
1977.78
31.04%
201.67
3261.33
88.35%
668.00
2984.32
63.42%
3728.75
5343.29
17.80%
3458.33
4963.77
17.87%
753.85
2701.88
56.37%
2826.67
5108.20
28.75%
1767.79
3971.59
38.40%
Results indicate that WLG reduced poverty by an average of 38.40%12 when comparing two
scenarios (i) with WLG project scenario and (ii) without WLG project scenario (Figure 21
and Plate 4).
The reduction in poverty was as a result of increased household income from the sale of
agriculture products – mainly livestock and food crops and compensated cost of accessing
clean and safe water and renewable energy at household level.
The reduction is poverty varied across the project areas with the highest being Kiambu
followed by Kitui, then Murang’a and Embu, then Kajiado, Nyandarua and last lowest being
Laikipia and Machakos.
The evaluation adopted an approach that bundled household income, expenditure saved due
to access to safe and clean water, food security and income from employment opportunities
for families within the WLG project operational areas. (Table 3.13)
12
40
90,00%
% Poverty Reduction Index
80,00%
70,00%
60,00%
50,00%
88,35%
40,00%
30,00%
20,00%
63,42%
57,53%
56,37%
31,04%
28,75%
17,80%
10,00%
17,87%
0,00%
WLG project area
FIGURE 21: POVERTY REDUCTION INDEX (INCREASED INCOME AND REDUCTION IN COMPENSATED COST) [N= 437]
41
PLATE 4: POVERTY REDUCTION INTERVENTIONS WITH WLG PROJECT
42
iv.
Cross-Sectoral Impact
Results from observations indicated that the WLG project had multiple socio-economic
impacts that resulted in one sector and spanned across other sectors (Table 3.4.3). These
included:
a) Multiple cross-sector benefits: Mixed farming that integrated livestock production,
crop production and tree planting on the same farm led multiple socio-economic
benefits across the sectors.
b) Soil fertility: Application of animal manure and compost manure from crop residue and
integration of agro-forestry has led to improved soil fertility from increased and
improved soil nutrient circulation and fixing of nitrogen in the soil. Consequently, this
has led to increased crop production, food, nutritional and income security and
biodiversity conservation with respect to plant species and soil micro-organisms.
c) Water harvesting interventions: Establishment of water harvesting structures at the
farm level lead to improved access to safe and adequate drinking water, reduced time and
labor for women spent on fetching water, improved livestock production from increases
water intake, improve health through adequate water for sanitation and person hygiene,
and increased crop production from irrigated gardens using the small irrigation schemes
“Wenyewes” and improved biodiversity due to improved farm micro-climate.
d) Renewable Energy: The installation of biogas and energy saving stokes has led to
optimal use of animal manure, improved biodiversity conservation and reduced
greenhouse gas emissions from avoided and reduced cutting of trees for wood fuel,
reduced time and labour spent by women in fetching fuel wood, and improved health
due to avoided use of smoky energy technologies.
e) Mixed Farming and Inter-cropping: The mixing of livestock -such as poultry, rabbits,
pigs and crops – such as intercropped cereals, legumes, vegetables, fruits has led to
improved farm production both –quantitatively and qualitatively which in turn has led to
improved nutrition, increased household income, and increase biodiversity.
v.
Affected Beneficiaries:
The WLG project had impact on varied beneficiaries including farming, agro-pastoral and pastoral
communities (Table 3.14). In addition, the project benefited women, men, youth and children.
Table 3.14. WLG project impacts on cross-sector and Cross-cutting Issues
Theme
Cross-cutting Impacts
Water
1. Women are saving time and energy than before in fetching water
Harvesting 2. Clean water leading to reduced water borne diseases
3. Improved food, nutrition and income
4. Improved community capacity to replicate the WH technologies through the trained 15 artisan
5. Increased clean drinking water for (232 directly supported HH and 121 HH who replicated the tank technology;
850 HH from dams; 230 HH from Shallow wells)
6. Increased water supply for 1365 HH’s
7. Improved water harvesting skills for 4,468 HH (1,335HH from 267 tanks, 125HH from 25 shallow wells, 1,581HH
from 6 dams and 1,427 HH from 8 Wenyewes irrigation schemes
Livestock
1. Milk production increased by 2 liters per day per HH
43
improveme 2. Increased income KSH 30 (0.33 USD) per day per HH
nt
3. Availability of low cost white meat from poultry, rabbit, fish
4. Availability of honey as a food, medicinal and income for HH
5. Improved livestock production (improved maturity period, increased farm animal life weight; product yield – eggs,
meat and honey)
6. Improved animal husbandry skills and practices (housing, breed selection and breeding, livestock husbandry
practices and diseases control)
8. Improved milks production from improved pasture and fodder crops
9. Available high quality manure from goats
10. Improved farmers skills on improvement of livestock production (cattle, goats, poultry, rabbits, and honey)
11. Increased high quality livestock assets
12. Increase income from sale or income saved from livestock and livestock product products and by-products (milk,
meat /stock, eggs, manure)
Table 3.14. WLG project impacts on cross-sector and Cross-cutting Issues(continued)
Food and 1.
nutrition
2.
3.
4.
5.
Improved soil fertility
Improved soil water supply and recycling of nutrients
Improved high value seed supply
Timely availability of seeds for HH’s
Improved nutrition from fruits consumption produced in from beneficiary farms leading to improved health and
saving income and time that would have otherwise been used for health services
6. Improved availability of pastures and fodder crops
7. Increased availability of farm tools/equipment to boost farm tree cover and improvement of soil fertility
management
8. Improved of planning materials including seed (assorted fruits, sweet potato, legumes, cereals, fodder shrubs,
pasture seeds)
9. Improved skills and practices among HH on water conservation, natural soil fertility management, Integrated pest
management, diversification of crop enterprises
10. Increased market garden asset (4,034 lots, 3,500 splits of vetiver grass, 1,085 assorted fruits seedlings, 43.5 kg of
seed
11. Improved skills and practice on food security (36 seed stores)
12. Improved timely access to seeds during planting seasons for 882 HH
Agro1. Improved value addition for food sources (milk, fruits, Irish potatoes, cereals)
processing 2. Improved agro-processing skills
3. Improved post-harvest food storage
4. Increased income from value addition on farm produce (Milk, baking, soap making and potatoes crisps)
5.
Increased food security assets (12 processing units)
6. Improved agro-processing assets (13 plants)
7. Improved income from sale of value added farm products
8. Increased employment from processors and marketers (22 established)
Energy
1. Improved health for HH from clean energy
2. Renewable energy availed at HH level (10 biogas and 176 energy saving stoves)
3. Employment creation for 10 artisans
4. Improved tree cover (585750 trees were planted) for the HH
5. Renewable energy provided for 25 HH (25 biogas units)
6. Reduced pressure on tree cover (115,458.5 kg of wood fuel saved)
Families in 1. Improved skills and practices in intensive agriculture production methods (6000 persons)
Transition 2. Access to support on small investments (38 SIGE’s)
3. Increased HH incomes from the SIGE’s
44
3.5. Sustainability
Ensuring “project sustainability” mean making sure that the project’s goals and desired
outcomes and impacts continue to be met,
Sustainability:
through the initiated activities that are To what extent will the positive impacts or changes of the
continue? Which measures are implemented in order to
supported by the established outputs project
support sustainability?
including -assets, resources, capacities, To what extent can the benefits of the project persist after
funding ceases?
infrastructure, in ways that are consistent What were the major factors which influenced the achievement
with sound development principles, current or non-achievement of sustainability of the project?
conditions and beneficiary needs. Results
demonstrates that WLG project has: (a) persistent positive impacts /changes, (b) instituted
measures that support sustainability, and (c) benefits that will persist beyond the funding
phase. In turn several factors were found to influence the achievement or non-achievement
of sustainability.
Results from the field assessment indicate that the project positive impacts and changes will
continue as long as the community’s current livelihood styles and patterns including local
economies, income demands, consumption patterns, culture and political stability.
Results from stakeholder consultations indicate that WLG had an overall sustainability score
of 71.7% which was contributed by (WLG 3 =60.0%; WLG 4= 75.0%; and WLG 5 =
80.0%) (Figure 22). The stakeholders attributed the high and progressive sustainability
performance of WLG project across the phases to the participatory project design and
implementation approaches, establishment of social infrastructure, training as an approach to
farmers’ empowerment and financing modalities that included farmers’ contribution.
45
80,0%
Project Sustainability Score
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
0,0%
Sustainability
WLG 3
60,0%
WLG 4
75,0%
WLG 5
80,0%
FIGURE 22: STAKEHOLDER SCORING OF WLG PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY
Findings on WLG project sustainability indicated that resultant impacts /changes will continue
beyond the funding phase with a success rate of 70.0%. This is contributed by WLG 4 and 5
having the highest success rate of 80.0% and WLG 3 having 50.0%. In addtion, they indicated
that the benefits from the WLG project would persist beyong the project funding with a
averagepersistence score of 73.3% contributed by a score of 70% for WLG 3 and 4 and 80.0% for
WLG 5 (Figure 23).
46
80,0%
70,0%
Porject Sustainability
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
0,0%
WLG 3
WLG 4
WLG 5
4. To what extent will the
positive impacts or changes of
the project continue?
50,0%
80,0%
80,0%
6. To what extent can the
benefits of the project persist
after funding ceases?
70,0%
70,0%
80,0%
FIGURE 23: STAKEHOLDER SCORING OF WLG PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY ELEMENTS
i.
Sustainability Measures
The WLG project has employed various project design and implementation approaches that
have the potential of ensuring that the impact continues and benefits persist beyond the
project funding. Farmer Group Approach encourages individual farmers to come together
on a horizontally power level platform to talk about their problems and reach consensus,
conclusions and solutions. This is in construct to the traditional methods that uses a topdown approach. The approaches included (i) Project design (ii) Farmer Group Approach;
(iii) Social Infrastructures; (iv) locally improved Germplasm and Seed Bank; and (v) local
mechanism for Technology development, transfer cycle.
a) Logical Project Design: Results demonstrate that the logical design and
implementation of the project is an assurance that the positive impacts and changes
realized by the WLG project will persist beyond he funding phase. The local
connection among the project components: water harvesting, livestock production,
gardens, agro-processing, and renewable energy acts like an internal booster where
one intervention creates an enabling environment for the other or others.
b) Farmer Groups Approach: The pooling of community members in common
interest groups, and institutionalization process, provides an opportunity for pooling
of scares development resources to produce synergized impacts that would not
otherwise be possible to be produced by individual households. These development
resources include (i) financial; (ii) in-kind contribution such a locally available
47
materials and human labour; (iii) diverse knowledge, skills and ideas; (iv) collective
responsibility where each member in a part of the solutions; (v) moral and
motivation strengths where member support each other especially during the
norming and performing stages of group dynamics; and (vi) horizontally spread
learning opportunities where members learning from each other through
participatory learning and sharing principles.
c) Social Infrastructure: “Social infrastructure is the interdependent mix of hard and
soft facilities, places, spaces, programs, projects, services and networks that maintain
and improve the standard of living and quality of life in a community.13” These long
term social assets operates in a market with a higher barriers of entry and enables the
provision of goods and services. Thus, the support for establishing social
infrastructure is mobilized through community own /self-resource mobilization
initiatives and strategy such as members’ contribution; request to government for
funds from ex-chequer, donor-community funding arrangement or from private
sector financing through corporate social responsibilities among other mechanisms.
The management of these social infrastructure is through community governance
structure such as board, committee, and trustees among other. These are in turn
answerable to the broad community members.
Social infrastructure have the advantage over individual infrastructure in that they
support and improve:
a) Encourage social inclusion allowing community members freely interact;
participate; engage and greater cohesion when undertaking development
projects;
b) Support diverse communities with varied vulnerabilities by proving social
infrastructure to cater to a mix of cultures, ages, skills; and creating
opportunities for a range of recreational activities and cultural expression
thus strengthening individual and community identity
c) Create self-determining communities where the community a whole decide
on development choices and strategies for meeting them;
d) Improve health and wellbeing: Increased benefits from social infrastructure
such increased household income, reduced vulnerability from food and
nutritional insecurity, reduced labour and creation of creational time for
families among other would result in improved health and well-being.
e) Access to facilities, services and programs leads to (i) Improved employment
opportunities, increased workforce participation and an increase in human
capital; (ii) increased learning opportunities – help people to innovate and
express themselves, improve personal satisfaction and wellbeing; and (iii)
13
Source: Department of Planning Western Australia (2012) http://www.sgsep.com.au/assets/20130332-Linda-Perrine-presentation-130719.pdf
48
increased social interaction, cultural appreciation and community cohesion/
identity.
f) Support a growing population. Social infrastructure attracts community
members to continually engage in development initiatives as an equivalent
employment that they either or not get outside their rural settings. In
addition, it provide critical supportive infrastructure for improving
demographic indicators. Further infrastructure support the integration of
new and existing communities.
g) Assist economic development providing opportunities for local ownership,
entrepreneurship, employment, partnerships and increase capacity to attract
further investment.
WLG project, in support of this approach has established social infrastructure such
as communal cattle dips, apiaries, agro-processing units, germplasm (fodder, pasture,
sweet potato and cassava lots) and seed bank and stores (legumes and cereals), water
harvesting structures (small dams, small irrigation system “Wenyewes”); and openday spaces (training and marketing). These social infrastructure have the potential of
enabling the community to continue with the established development initiatives that
results into their improved health and wellbeing.
d) Improved Germplasm, Animal Genetic Material and Seed Bank and Stores:
Improved germplasm and animal breeds are critical in promoting is critical in
ensuring continued high agriculture production. Efforts by WLG to introduce high
production germplasm such as Amaranth plants, improved fruits, legumes and
cereals as well as animal breeds such as exotic rabbits, dairy goats, domestic poultry,
and dual purpose cattle breed are crucial in ensuring continued high production and
related impacts of household income, food and nutritional security among others.
e) Technology Development and Transfer Cycle: Sustainable Agriculture cannot
optimize its potential without technological interventions. The purpose of
technology is to optimize production and service delivery with efficiency and
effectives. In order to make optimal use of technology, it’s important to design a
technology development and transfer strategy which include 5 stages: research and
development, demonstration, deployment, diffusion and transfer.
WLG projects has introduced several water harvesting, energy, and agro-processing
technologies. Based on field-based research, the technological needs for each project
operational area have been determined based on the local circumstances and
priorities of each geographic area and community.
ii.
Persistence of benefit beyond the funding phase
The various project design considerations, implementation approach, and financing
modalities have high likelihood of ensuring that the benefits continue beyond the WLG
project funding phase.
49
a. Project design consideration: The WLG project was design to improve the already
existing community farming knowledge (traditional farming knowledge), skills
(gardening, livestock keeping, energy), practices (management, consumption,
business) and resources (land, genetic materials) using low cost technologies and
locally available materials to address livelihood challenges such as income, access to
water, food and nutrition. This approach ties the modern sustainable agriculture
principles and practices to the already existing systems that the communities have
relied on from time immemorial. Thus, these interventions and the accruing benefits
will continue to accrue beyond the project funding phase.
b. Implementation Approach: The WLG project utilizes a “Wenyewe14 Approach”
which promotes the principles of selfWenyewe principle is “An answer of “No, we
determination that include:
can’t” is replaced by “How can we make this
happen?” There is a commitment to help
people determine their dreams, respect their
dreams, and help their dreams come true.
i)
Dignity and respect - All
people have the right to be
treated with dignity and to be
respected as a whole person;
ii)
Choice and Control -People have the right to choose what they will do
with their lives;
iii)
Relationships -It is essential that relationships are maintained and
expanded as it provide everyone with strength, support and security;
iv)
Giving and Community -Everyone has the ability to give to his or her
community in a meaningful way;
v)
Dreaming and Planning -All people have hopes and dreams for the
future as well as goals they want to achieve. A supportive team helps
people identify these dreams, then creates a plan to prioritize and realize
these dreams;
vi)
Fiscal Responsibility -When there is control over how funds get spent,
there is also responsibility to live within a budget and making things
happen does not always require money;
vii)
The Role of Professionals - Professionals become partners with the
people who hire them. They assist people in understanding what their
choices are and realizing their dreams;
viii)
Choice Has Limits: When making choices people must choose
interventions that are beneficial to them and that are available to all.
c. Financing Modalities: The WLG project adopted an approach the financing and
support for the development interventions is jointly done by both SACDEP and
14
Kiswahili word for “belonging to the community, done by the community, and intended for the community”
50
local communities. As indicated in figure 6, the community contribution has
progressively increasing as financial support from SCDEP is on the decline across
the WLG 3, 4 and 5. Results, further indicate that support WLG 5 is currently
devoted to development the capacity Farmers Groups and other supportive
mechanism such as networks towards optimizing the investment already in place
through WLG 3, and 4.
d. Training for Sustainability: In preparing farmer group for continuation beyond
project funding, the WLG project trained them on three major sustainability areas
that included: (i) Leader Training – mainly covering leadership, resources
mobilization skills to enable them diversity avenues for received development
resources, campaign advocacy and lobbying order to have skills for influencing
better agriculture policies; (ii)Marketers Training – aimed at equipping farmers, who
have potential capacity to market their produce, with marketing skills such as how to
create marketing channels; (iii) Transition Meeting – consultative meeting the
brought together all relevant stakeholders such as farmer leaders, SACDEP staff,
potential buyers for famers produce to explore collaborative opportunities beyond
the project funding.
51
52
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4.1
53
Relevance: The WLG project has overall relevance score of 71.7% based on stakeholders
perceptions. The high relevance is attributed to the designed considerations that
informed the WLG project phases which is aligned to Kenya’s policy and development
agenda on semi-arid lands with respect to agriculture, livestock, water surface levels,
and agro-processing. The phasing of the project (WLG III (2002 to 2005); WLG IV (2006
to 2009); and WLG V (2010 to 2014), is tandem with Kenya’s political regimes that
influences policies and development agenda. In every political regime the ruling party
prepares a manisfeto guides policy, legislation and development agenda which
considerations for community needs, geographic vulnerabilities, demography,
governance, and climate change considerations. Synchronizing WLG with Kenya’s policy
and development agenda creates synergy in addressing the local community’s needs,
complementing government development support and efforts, and creating
sustainability for continuity of project interventions, and amplifies project outputs,
outcomes and impact.
Overall, the WLG attained a geographic coverage of 110% which was more than the
planned areas. This was attributed to the replication of project interventions by farmers
beyond the initially planned geographic areas. The project achieved 228.81% of the
planned interventions (Water Harvesting Structure; Livestock production; Gardens; Energy
and Training). The WLG project achieve the set goal access to safe and clean water
improved 92.2%; water for households increased by 33.8%; water for gardens increase by
39.3%, water for livestock increased by 24.5%. This in turn led to an increase in crop
production by 72% while livestock production increased by 74.4%. The results was
increase in water for domestic and agriculture and increased food production for
household.
The WLG project context has changed over the phases. The key changes include:
a. Governance –Notably Kenya governance system change from 2010 with the
promulgation of a new constitution (Constitution of Kenya, 2010). This has led to
creation of National and County Government. The county government has been vested
with the mandate of formulating sub-national policies; carrying out such functions trade
development and regulation, implementation of national policies on crop and animal
husbandly, and natural resources and environmental conservation including soil and
water conservation and forestry, and water and sanitation services.
b. Demography: Kenya’s population has grown by 44.01% (31 million to 45 million). The
dependency ratio although decreasing, has remained high (78% youth and 66.3%
elderly). Thus, there is increased demand for livelihood support to match the population
growth and support the youth and the elderly.
c. Climate change: The biosphere climate has continued to increase in unabated scale with
a marked increase in temperatures that lead to increased weather variability occasioned
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
54
by increased droughts, pests, diseases insurgencies. The results is increased vulnerability
for marginalised communities, groups and households.
Effectiveness: The WLG project had an effectiveness performance of 83.3% with respect
to satisfactorily achieved the planned objective with an estimated rate of 112%. This was
mainly attributed to adoption and replication beyond planned levels. The project
outcomes were equally satisfactorily achieved. Water harvesting increased water for
household which was used for domestic, livestock and gardens. Livestock and crop
production were improved and resulted in additional incomes for the households (USD
0.33 from livestock and USD 5.56 from agro-processing) and improved nutrition from milk,
meat, fruits, vegetable, cereals and grains. The WLG project improved equalization of
opportunities for both women and men who constituted 61% and 39% of project
beneficiaries respectively. The project addressed the endemic social marginalization by
reaching out to all the categories of communities with the project operational area who
included agro-communities, pastoral, agro-pastoral and families in transition.
Efficiency: The WLG project has an overall efficiency performance index of 73.3% with
respect of cost, time and approach efficiency. The WLG project was implemented utilising
cost-effective approaches including farmers group, mass training, community-wide
training sites and demonstration units, community contribution (estimated at 62.56% of
the total project cost) and synchronizing project activities with the seasonal calendar.
These approaches were effective with respect of optimizing value for funds, saving
training time, and optimizing training resources by using the planned resources to train
many communities than it would have otherwise been possible.
Impact: The WLG project resulted in numerous impacts. (i) improvement of community
irrigation schemes, and water harvesting structures; (ii) equalization of opportunities for
women by targeting 61% of total project beneficiaries; (iii) water improved 92.2%; water
for households increased by 33.8%; water for gardens increase by 39.3%, and water for
livestock increased by 24.5%; (iv) crop production increased by 72%; (v) livestock
production increased by 74.4%; (vi) reduction in poverty by 38.40%; (vi) provided safe and
renewable energy for 211 households thus saving wood fuel by 50% (115,458.5 kg of
wood fuel).
Sustainability: The WLG project has a sustainability index of 70.0% with respect to the
continuity of the project impacts/change and benefits beyond the funding phase. This is
attributed to adopted sustainable approaches to project implementation that included:
logical project design approach, implementation approach that recognizes farmers selfdetermination principles, establishment of social infrastructures, improvement of
germplasm and animal breeds, low cost technology development and transfer cycle with
an adoption rate 54.42%, financing modalities that include both external sources of
funding and farmers contribution (62.56%).
55
5.RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Project relevance: WLG project should in future planning and project implementation
make consideration to the changing project context: Population and demographic trends,
Devolved Government, and Climate change. Specifically the project should consider
increasing funding levels, establishing and strengthening linkage to the County
Government, mainstreaming climate change adaptation and mitigation intervention.
5.1 Project Effectiveness: Notably WLG project has focused more on (i) establishing production
assets (water structures; livestock breeds, sheds and dips; and crop germplasm and stores),
(ii) building capacity for production; and (iii) venturing into value addition during WLG 5. In
order to enhance WLG project effectiveness, future planning should consider strengthening
the already established social infrastructure, value-addition interventions (agro-processing
units), and market linkages while allowing for replication of the already established
interventions.
5.2 Project Efficiency: WLG has already developed cost-efficient approaches that is working
within the existing socio-cultural and climatic circumstances of the project operational
area. Future planning should consider strengthening these approaches:
5.3 Farmer Group as an approach to entry and organising communities members should be
strengthened especially with respect to motivating youths to join the group, incentivizing
elderly people as source of traditional knowledge in such issues as climate change, assisting
groups to go through the storming, norming and performing as the case may be for each
farmer group, creating of more sustainable banking system both in cash and agriculture
products e.g. seeds.
5.4 Farmer Training as an approach to building the capacity of farmers with knowledge, skills,
and approaches. The training should be structured into both formal and informal training
approaches. (a) WLG should develop formal training programmes for the youth by
establishing training centres where the youth undergo through graduated training course
that could last from 2 weeks to 2 years. The trainees should be well selected to meet the
objective of the WLG project. Informal training should continue at the Farmer Group level
for the communities members who are not able to join the formal training. (b) Training
should also be strengthened through documentation of manuals that can be used various
training programmes; (c) training through media should also be explore by utilising lowcost vernacular radio programmes
5.5 Project Impacts: WLG project had numerous impacts that need to be systematically
tracked, documented, and shared. This would be impossible without a robust and
transparent monitoring system for the monitoring and reporting of WLG activities, outputs,
outcomes and impacts. The monitoring should consider the best monitoring approach, e.g.
DAC criteria and standard, the monitoring questions and indicators, the monitoring
56
methods including tools and technology, the role of project beneficiaries and WLG staff and
donor in the monitoring process.
5.6 Project Sustainability: The WLG project has established sustainability approaches which
need to be continuously develop, refined, tested and implemented. These approaches
should consider the current governance system in Kenya, especially devolved government
as well as Farmer groups resource mobilisation, networking, and linkages strategies.
57
6.0 SELECTED CASE STUDIES
5.7
Mrs Jane Wanjiku: Amaranth Garden and Agro-processing Unit
Mrs. Jane Wanjiku, Chairlady of the 3 KM Self Help Group Farmers Group, started in 2004 with the growing of
Amaranth under a Government programme called FUDAK.
Lessons learned:
In 2005 she received support from SACDEP in the form of
 Training unlocks hidden potential among farmers
seeds brought by a researcher from Nairobi University.
 Funding invigorate underperforming projects
 Exposure open undiscovered doors of marketing
Seminars were held for farmer groups where seeds could be
 High genetic materials combined with sound agronomic
purchased. The 3 KM Self Help Group Farmer Group had a
practices and agro-processing for value addition results in
common plot of ½ an acre where they tested the growing of
high quality yields and increased incomes
Amaranth. The harvest and production was excellent and
 Farmers group is an ideal model for entry into
the Amaranth was sold for KES 25,000. Encouraged by this
communities, discovering early innovative farmers, costeffective implementing projects and marketing of products
result, members of the group decided to plant Amaranth on
their farms.
During the project period, SACDEP provided training in compost making, seed banks, water harvesting, record keeping
and marketing, which proved to be invaluable. By 2014 the production in this Farmers Group had increased into
quantities that could be sold out to other members outside the group. The market price of Amaranth raw seeds and
flour are currently KES300/kg. Jane developed an innovative way to produced popped amaranth of exceptional quality,
thus adding value to this grain. The market value of popped Amaranth is 400-450/kg.
Training on marketing was particularly useful, as Jane developed custom packaging and labeling for different Amaranth
products. As the Chairlady of the group, Jane is promoting and selling Amaranth products in different market sectors,
including hospitals and organic shops in Nairobi.
SACDEP assisted Jane to gain publicity with printing firms who assisted her print brochures, exposure at Agricultural
Society of Kenya and other exhibitions. At a SACDEP’s annual exhibition, Jane represented the Farmer’s Group in
presenting the value of Amaranth. She was
also invited to represent Murang’a County in
Dar-es-Salaam International Trade Fair by
presenting Amaranth. During this visit she
had a chance to receive president of Tanzania
his Excellency President Jakaya Kikwete in
her exhibition unit.
The challenges for Amaranth production are
in crop rotation requirements, marketing,
high costs of good and attractive packaging
materials, and registration of products. The
lack of financing options is the greatest
obstacle and limiting the growth of this FIGURE 24: AMARANTH PRODUCTS PRESENTED TO CURRENT PRESIDENT OF TANZANIA HIS EXCELLENCY
initiative. With investment support the JAKAYA KIKWETE. SHE IS CURRENTLY PACKAGING SEEDS AND POPPED GRAINS
project could reach its full potential.
The yield of grain amaranth is comparable to rice or maize. The protein contained in Amaranth is of an unusually high
quality. Jane: “Amaranth contains protein, sink, calcium and vitamins.
58
5.8
Munanda Self Help Group
Munanda SHG water is located in Raya village in Rumuruti sub-county, Laikipia County. The County particularly the
west is mainly semi-arid and therefore cannot sustain rain-fed crop Lessons learned:
production. Noting that water supply is scarce, there is need for
water harvesting for household, watering livestock and irrigating
 Community contribution is key to project
gardens. SACDEP revived the project by training the members on
sustainability
10thAugust, 2011 and supplying them with materials for
 Access to water for farming unlocks agriculture
constructing a water scheme estimated to be complete over a three
potential of any given land regardless of the
years period. In addition, the community was charged with the
prevailing climatic conditions
responsibility of conserving the catchment to ensure continuous  Improved farming results in increased yield and
income and consequently improve livelihood
river flow.
The project, in 2007, received assistance from government to build intake and 134 plastic pipes and 3 G.I pipes.
SACDEP, in 2010, supported the project by providing 2 G.I pipes and fittings to complete the system. The members
contributed materials e.g. timber to build a timber bridge to channel water, community members contribution totaling to
sh.11,000 was made to purchase 6 pieces of plastic pipes 10” in size to distribute the water.
The project is managed by a 7 member committee charge with the responsibility of opening water at the intake, regulate
the flow and use, repair and maintenance. The members contribute Ksh100 per month for pipes maintenance. In
addition, the member are charged with the responsibility of surveillance and reporting any anomalies long the pipeline.
The irrigation project is aimed at uplifting the living standard group of 500 households through growing, consumption
and sale of such crops as maize, tomatoes, onions, snow peas, cabbages and carrots. The project also provides water
domestic use, for livestock and fodder production including nappier grass, lucern and Maguno (grass). The community
member have utilized the accruing income to construct better houses and send their children to school unlike before.
About
twenty
five
members have advanced
at individual/household
level. The evidence of
the impact of the project
in the members has
caused many people
from the community to
join the group and now
96 new members have
joined.
The success of the
project is attributed to
the following: Good
leadership; community
passion for the project;
linkage
of
project
benefits
to
future
FIGURE 25: MUNANDA PROJECT - IRRIGATION, FARMING AND LIVELIHOOD INTERVENTIONS
generation, i.e. educating
children
59
5.9
Nyairoko Matangi Women Group
The group made up of 27 member – 10 youth and 3 elderly members is located in Ol-kalou in Nyandarua County and
has been in existence for the last 30 years. The group was
Lessons learned:
started by the elderly women who have since now passed it on  Training unlocks hidden potential among farmers
to their daughters. The groups has several sub-projects  When community are trained they can solely finance
their development interventions which increases project
including: (i) Water project which received two tanks from
sustainability
SACDEP; (ii) Livestock project which is keeping dairy Goats
 Agro-processing units can combine several value added
and has received one buck and three does whose offspring
product to optimize use of infrastructure and income
have been passed on to all members, beekeeping, and dairy  Intergeneration is a critical strategy in ensuring farmer
cows keeping; (iii) gardening through which the members
group and project sustainability
have been trained on a) multi-story vegetable growing, b)  Multiple interventions cater for the diverse farmers needs
fruits growing including; tree tomatoes, avacado, pears, plums;
c) preparation of manure using farm waste from animals and crops; (iv) renewable energy where member have been
trained on biogas technology; v) value addition – the group was trained by SACDEP on how to make yoghurt, juice
from tree tomato, potato crisps as well as jam from red plums and pears – these are processed by members.
Water: The WLG project supported them to construct water tanks for storing water for domestic use, livestock
watering and irrigating their garden over the dry season.
Livestock: WLG supported the group with 3does and 1buck with offspring having been passed on to all members. The
members consume goat milk since they have no market for it yet. SACDEP trained the group on zero grazing have since
adopted the practice. The group has a milk bar with a freezer for preserving milk. They bulk a total of 70liters per day
from the group members. A litre of fresh milk is bought from farmers at Ksh.25 and sold at the milk bar at KSH. 40
while yoghurt cost Ksh.75 per liter. The group has employed a transporter who collects milk every morning from
farmers and transport it’s to the milk bar. In addition, the group has employed a shopkeeper who sells fresh milk,
yoghurt, juice and crisps. The members are charged with the responsibility of supervising the milk bar activities on
rotation basis. This has enabled them to acquire business management skills.
Gardening: The group, who
traditionally farmers, produce
maize, peas, carrots, potatoes. In
addition, the have been trained by
SACDEP on fruit farming and are
growing plums, pears and tree
tomatoes. The fruits are consumed
at the household and excess are
sold to the group for further
processing and selling at milk bar.
Biogas: SACDEP trained the
group on biogas technology and
without any external financial
support have been able to 2 biogas
for 2 separate households The
slurry from biogas is used in the
gardens which has made the crops
to look healthy.
FIGURE 26: INTEGRATING DIFFERENT ENTERPRISES
60
5.10
Ann Ndunge Makau: Wendano wa Kathukini SHG
Ann Ndunge Makau, who is 60 years old, is a member of the Wendano wa Kathukini SHG based at Mataka Village in
Muthesya Location of Machakos County. The group was formed and registered in 2002 when WLG III stated. The
group has income generating activities such as tents and chairs for hire and table banking. Ann home rests on a 5 acres
parcel of land on which she also farms and keeps animals.
Lessons learned:
Crops farming: Prior to the SACDEP projects, Ann only
used to grow maize, green grams and cow peas mainly for
subsistence as the yield were very low cater for both
 Intergeneration is a critical strategy in ensuring farmer
household consumption need and sale for income. Through
group and project sustainability

Multiple interventions cater for the diverse farmers needs
the training under SACDEP projects Ann learnt about
preparation of compost manure, intercropping, land
preparation and seeds selection which helped her to improve her methods of crop farming and boost production. She
was also provided with seeds for beans, mangoes and oranges which she started growing in addition to maize, green
grams and cow peas. With the learned skills Ann increased her green grams from 1 kg bag to 5bags, cowpeas from 2 kg
bags to 5bags. She is able to feed her family and sell the surplus giving her additional income of about KES 20,000 per
season from green grams and cowpeas while the mangoes and oranges bring her about KES 15,000 per season.
Although she still grows maize and beans mainly for subsistence use, in a good season she has surplus that she sells
giving her around KES 10,000.
Livestock production: Prior to the SACDEP projects Ann only used to keep 1 cow (local breeds) and free range
chicken. The cow only produced 5litres of milk per day. Through the training under SACDEP projects Ann learnt
about animal breeding, design and construction of dairy goat shelter, animal feeding and pests and disease
control/treatment. She was also supported with 1 dairy goat doe that has kidded 3 times; the first kid was passed on to
another member while she kept the other two kids bringing her dairy goats’ population to 3. With the training skills
gained from WLG projects, Ann started keeping 3 dairy cows which have a higher milk production estimated at 10liters
per cow per day bringing the total milk production to 30litres per day that she sells at KES 30 per liter. The dairy goat
doe produces an average of 12 liters of milk per day which Ann sells at KES 30 per liter. At the beginning of the projects
Ann was selected to host the groups’ poultry farming project, however, all the 8 improved grade chicken died due a
disease outbreak and the group has not been able to replace them.
Water harvesting: As part of the SACDEP project Ann received support to build a sisal mold rain water harvesting
tank with a capacity of 14000litres at her homestead in
2003. Prior to the project Ann used to fetch water
from the river which 15km from her home taking her
about 2 hours every day. Because of the distance, she
used to fetch 3 (20litre) jerricans after every two days
but since the tank installation she fetches 2 jerricans
per day because the water is just outside her house.
This has helped her improve hygiene at her home and
also given her a safe source of drinking water.
Challenges: Despite the general success of her farm
activities Ann still faces a few challenges that include:
(i) frequent and severe droughts that lead to
destruction of crops and lack of fodder for the dairy
goats; (ii) diseases affecting the dairy goats; (iii) expensive pesticides and herbicides to spray on mango and orange trees;
(iv) expensive fertilizers since the compost manure prepared is not enough for the whole farm; and (v) the RWH tank’s
capacity is not enough to last through the dry season
61
5.11
Grassroots Innovation in Horticulture
Mr. John Mbuni had an old coffee plantation on his farm, but when
grow other crops like tomatoes and sweet peppers. Confronted
with pests and crop damage by birds, he decided to build
greenhouses for his plants after receiving training from WLG
project. John’s father provided the required land and financial
support. The first two greenhouses were built entirely with locally
available materials – with impressive results.
the coffee-bean prices went down he decided to
Lessons learned:
 Intergeneration is a critical strategy in ensuring
farmer group and project sustainability
 Low cost agriculture technologies are easy to
replicate with respect to skills and cost of materials
The production of tomatoes and sweet peppers increased
significantly and they decided to set up two additional green houses with the help of a specialized company that built
organic farmer kits including a metal frame greenhouse with polyethylene film covering and a drip irrigation system. This
kit is designed to meet the needs of farmers by adapting the components of the Kit to suit the climate, terrain, and
agricultural experience of the farmer.
Currently John, his brother and father are working on the farm, generating income for their families. They constantly
and enthusiastically experiment and innovate with materials, tools and self-made trellis to increase the production and
keep their crops healthy. One important innovation is a method they developed to prune rather than replace their plants
at the end of one growing cycle. This helps to accelerate crop regrowth, flowering and production.
SACDEP supported this successful project with training and technical advice, and the farm is used as a model farm to
organize training workshops for other farmers.
FIGURE 27: GREEN HOUSE FOR GROWING TOMATOES.
62
Priority (high/low:
1-3)
3
1
4
1
3
1
Effectiveness
Relevance
TOR (Chapter)
Evaluation Report
(Chapter)
7. PROPOSED FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
63
Conclusion
Recommendation
Responsible
Organization
WLG project should strengthen its
relevance with respect to policy,
legislation, development agenda,
governance and climate change
considerations
Recommendation 1:
 WLG project should be aligned to the relevant policies, legislation
and development agenda as per the Jubilee Coalition (Current
Ruling Party in Kenya – 2013 to 2017) Development Manifesto to
as much as it conform to the Constitution of Kenya.
 Key consideration should be given to community needs,
geographic vulnerabilities, demography, governance, and climate
change
 More funding should be provided for policy advocacy, climate
change adaptation and linkages with relevant County
Government structures
Recommendation 2:
 Future planning should consider strengthening the already
established social infrastructure, value-addition interventions
(agro-processing units), and market linkages while allowing for
replication of the already established interventions.
SACDEP

GLS/SACDEP/Other
Development
Partners
WLG project has been effective in
promoting primary production
elements: social infrastructure,
water structures, germplasm,
animal breeds, skills and some
agro-processing
A follow-up phase be designed to focus more on value addition
and marketing interventions
GLS/SACDEP/Other
Development
Partners
SACDEP
1
Efficiency
3
1
Impact
3
The WLG project utilized costeffective approaches including
farmers group, mass training,
community-wide training sites and
demonstration units, community
contribution (estimated at 62.56%
of the total project cost) and
synchronizing project activities
with the seasonal calendar
WLG project has numerous
impacts that need to be
systematically
tracked,
documented, and shared
Recommendation 3:
 Future planning should consider:
i. Strengthening farmer groups to go through the full process of
group dynamics by providing them with additional training
and coaching sessions
ii. Establishing formal training programmes for the youth by
establishing a training centre that attracts the youth to
undergo through graduated training course that could last
from 2 weeks to 2 years.
iii. Training should also be strengthened through documentation
of manuals on various thematic areas that can be used
during field training programmes;
iv. Training through media should also be explored by utilising
low-cost vernacular radio programmes
 More funding should be provided for strengthening farmers
groups, training youths, development of manuals, and media
outreach
Recommendation 4:
 WLG project should develop a robust and transparent monitoring
system for the monitoring and reporting of WLG activities,
outputs, outcomes and impacts.
Sustainabil
ity

3
64
1
The WLG project has established
sustainability approaches which
need to be continuously develop,
refined, tested and implemented.
More funding should be provided for developing a robust and
transparent monitoring system
Recommendation 5:
 WLG should create structured and documented linkages with the
current governance system in Kenya, especially devolved
government as well as resource mobilisation, networking, and
linkages strategies for farmer groups
 More funding should be provided for linkages with the County
government structures
SACDEP
GLS/SACDEP/Other
Development
Partners
SACDEP
GLS/SACDEP/Other
Development
Partners
SACDEP
GLS/SACDEP/Other
Development
Partners
65
8.0 ANNEXES
Table 8.1: SACDEP Support and Farmers Contribution over WLG 3
Phase
Planned
interventions
SACDEP support
Farmers Replication
Water
Harvesting
Construction of 516 tanks
Trained artisans on construction of
water harvesting technologies
Supplied 77 bucks and 334 does
Supported 180 tanks
Supported 289 dairy goat sheds
Constructed 394 sheds
64.69%
Supported with 2852 high grade
chicken; 128 turkeys, 5 geese, 9 ducks
Supported with 993 high quality
rabbits breeds
Provided materials to improve 1746
gardens and establish 37 seeds stores
Not documented
Provided 4410 indigenous breeds to be
upgraded
Provided 751 local breeds for upgrading
57.69%
Provided support in-kind e.g. time, space, local
materials and tools
materials and tools
43.06%
Construction of 8 dams
Construction of 46 shallow wells
Construction of 5 dams
Provision of in-kind e.g. time, space, local
materials and tools
Provided 752 indigenous cows to be upgraded
materials and tools
Provided 695 indigenous goats to be upgraded
WLG 3
Livestock
Gardens
Energy
Provided 753 indigenous does for upgrading
Average
Water
Harvesting
WLG 4
Livestock
Provided 44 Sahiwah Cattle bulls
Provided 19 sheds for the Sahiwah
Cattle bulls
Provided dairy goats 83 bucks and
134 does
Supported 193 dairy goats sheds
constructed15
Provided poultry (591 improved
breeds of cock and 58 hens)
Provided bee keeping support (286
KTB and 50 bee handling)
Provided rabbit (148 bucks and 378
does)
Provided 58.5 kg of fodder shrubs
Provided 29 kg pasture seeds
Gardens
15
Supported construction of 43 seed
stores
Provided 2127 assorted fruits
seedlings
Provided 6000 sweet potato vines,
2,500 cassava vines
Provided 715 kg of cereals and
legumes
More information is needed on this
66
Farmers
Contribution
% tage
25.86%
Support in-kind e.g. time, space, local materials
and tools
Provided 1749 indigenous hens to be upgraded
materials and tools
Provided 991 local does for upgrading
materials and tools
materials and tools
materials and tools
materials and tools
materials and tools
materials and tools
60.73%
25.86%
50.41%
34.28%
38.46%
94.47%
76.21%
72.94%
Energy
Average
Water
Harvesting
Supported the establishment of 12
processing units
Supported the construction of 25
biogas units
Supplied 176 energy saving stoves
Supported 122 tanks
Supported the excavation of 6 small
village dams /pans
Supported with 25 hand pumps18
Provided support in-kind e.g. time, space,
local materials and tools
Provided
451 indigenous cows for
upgrading
Provided 1,45720 indigenous goats to be
upgraded
Provided
6553 indigenous hens to be
upgraded
Provided 13121 bee hives
Provided 21 Sahiwah Cattle bulls
WLG 5
WLG 5
Provided dairy goats 134 breeding does
and 60 bucks
Supported the construction of 130 dairy
goat sheds
Provided 645 breeding cocks
Provided bee keeping support (125
KTB and 50 bee handling)
Provided rabbit (614 bucks)
Supported the construction of 5 cattle
dips
Provided 3,500 splits of vetiver grass,
2.5kg of leguminous fodder shrub seeds,
80 kg of (leguminous fodder shrubs22
and pasture seeds
Provided 3,974 lots23
Gardens
Energy
63.27%
44.69%
Supported construction of 15116 tanks17
Supported the establishment of 8 small
irrigation schemes (Wenyewes)
Supported the training of 15 artisans19
Livestock
materials and tools
materials and tools
materials and tools
Supported the construction of 36 seed
stores
Provided 1,085 assorted fruits seedlings
Supported the establishment of 13 agroprocessing units
Supported the construction of 25 biogas
units
Supplied 27 group-based tree nurseries
Provided 1,681 local does for upgrading
Provided support in-kind
67
91.04%
51.17%
73.25%
e.g. time, space,
e.g. time, space,
e.g. time, space,
e.g. time, space,
e.g. time, space,
e.g. time, space,
The report record 151 tanks for 45 months and then indicate a total of 273 tanks (WLG 5 report page 7)
The report also talks about 267 Tanks (WLG 5 page 8)
18
When were the Shallow wells served by the water pump constructed
19
The report talks of a total of 43 artisans (is this for WLG 5 or cumulative over the phases)
20
Is this cumulative over the phases or a combination of what Supported with plus what the community contributed?
21
Were these improved bee hives?
22
Not sure fodder shrubs can be quantified in kg
23
Please specify what is planted in these lots
17
88.25%
Average
16
95.55%
73.99%
Table 8.2. WLG project planned outputs and achieved outputs per theme across the WLG 3, 4, and 5
Water harvesting artisan
Themes
Phase 3
Planned:
480 Water Tanks
Hand pumps
Phase 4
Planned:
24 Water tanks
8 Hand pumps
Achieved:
 516 tanks constructed (107.5%)
 180
tanks
contributed
by
communities (not initially specified)
 26 hand pumps installed (not initially
specified)
Achieved:
 353 tanks (232 by SACDEP and 121 by
farmers) (achieved by 1470%)
 13 dams (8 by SACDEP and 5 by
farmers)
 46 shallow wells
 46 Hand pumps (achieved by 575%)
Planned:
 1,440 HH to be trained through 48
ADU25
 360 ADU trained ALS26
 12 (FTF27) Open Days
 192 CBF/APP28 trained
 2 Sets of training AC&PC29
 360 ADU trained on ALS30
 12 (FTF31) Open Days
 192 community based food processors
and farm-based marking units
Achieved:
 12 processing units established (not
initially specified)
 43 seed store constructed (not initially
specified)
Agriculture
Planned:
 48 ADU24 (1,440 HH)
 6 Youth Groups
 1440 seeds
 48 seeds stores
 480 ADU members to be trained
Livestock
Achieved:
 56 ADU (1746 HH) mobilized (120
% achievement)
 6 youth groups mobilized (100%
achievement)
 1746 gardens improved
 37 seed stores established (77%
achievement)
 549 ADU members trained (114%
achievement)
Planned:
 288 Goats sheds
 288 Dairy goat breeding does
 48 Dairy breeding bulks
 960 Rabbits
 2880 Breeding hens and cockerels
 480 bee hives
 160 bee kits
Livestock
Themes
24Agriculture
Phase 3
Achieved:
• 683 goats shed constructed (237%
achievement)
• 411 goats bulks supplied (856%
achievement)
• 993 high quality rabbit supplied
Planned:
 192 community based animal product
 8 cattle dips
 192 bee hives
 48 bee kits
 136 goat sheds
 136 Dual purpose goats does
 72 Dual purpose goats bucks
 120 poultry (breeder cock)
 120 Rabbits does and bucks
Phase 4
Achieved:
• Cattle: 44 high quality Sahiwal bulls and
19 bull sheds, 78 improved Sahiwal
cattle offspring –not initially specified
• Dairy Goats: 83 high quality dairy goat
bucks and 134 does, 278 improved dairy
and Development Unit
and Development Unit
26Agriculture and Leadership Skills
27 Farmer-train-Farmer
28Community based food and animals products processors
29 Agro-community and pastoral community
30Agriculture and Leadership Skills
31 Farmer-train-Farmer
25Agriculture
68
Phase 5
Planned:
 60 water harvesting artisans
 water harvesting artisans’ net work
 150 water tanks,
 6 Village based water dams
 25 hand pumps installed
 8 ‘‘Wenyewes’’ Irrigation Systems
Achieved:
 15 artisans trained (25% achievement)
 267 tanks ((178% achievement))
 25 shallow wells (not initially planned)
 6 dams (100% achievement)
 8 Wenyewes irrigation schemes(100%
achievement)
Planned:
 18 Food Processing units
 45 Small Income Generating Enterprises
Achieved:
 8 Wenyewes irrigation schemes 100%
achievement)
Planned:
 6 cattle dips, 125 bee hives, 25 bee
handling kits, 128 dairy goat does, 56 dairy
goat bucks, 128 goat sheds, 20 bulls and 20
bull camps
 18 Food Processing units
 16 Farmer-Train-Farmer (FTF) Open Days
Phase 5
Achieved:
• Cattle: 21 Sahiwah bulls and 293
offspring –not initially specified
• Dairy Goats 134 high quality dairy goat
does and 60 bucks; 130 goat sheds; 737
improved dairy goats offspring –not
Biogas artisan
Water harvesting artisan
(103% achievement)
• 529 Beehives (110% achievement)
• Bee kits (95% achievement)
• 2994 poultry supplied (104%
achievement)
Fish farming ( not planned)
goats offspring –not initially specified
• Poultry: 591 breeding cocks and 58
hence, 136 poultry houses –not initially
specified
• Honey: 286 KTBH, 50 bee handling
kits, 1191 kg of semi-refine honey
harvested –not initially specified
 Rabbit: 148 bucks and 378 does of
improved breeds –not initially specified
Planned:
 480 Water Tanks
 Hand pumps
Planned:
 24 Water tanks
 8 Hand pumps
Achieved:
 516 tanks constructed (107.5%)
 180
tanks
contributed
by
communities (not initially specified)
 26 hand pumps installed (not initially
specified)
Achieved
 353 water tanks
 13 dams
 46 shall wells
Not planned
Planned
 8 biogas
 61 energy saving stoves
 10 biogas artisan
Achieved:
 25 biogas
69
initially specified
• Dairy Goats: 134 high quality dairy goat
does and 60 bucks; 737 improved dairy
goats offspring –not initially specified
• Poultry: 645 breeding cocks and 58
hens (not initially planned), 136 poultry
houses (not initially planned –not
initially specified
• Honey: 125 KTBH 100% achievement),
25
bee
handling
kits
(100%
achievement)
• Rabbit: 614 bucks, 4,261 offspring
 Cattle dips: 5 dips serving 925 cattle
(83% achievement
Planned:
 60 water harvesting artisans
 water harvesting artisans’ net work
 150 water tanks,
 6 Village based water dams
 25 hand pumps installed
 8 ‘‘Wenyewe’’ Irrigation Systems
Achieved:
 15 artisans trained (25% achievement)
 267 tanks ((178% achievement))
 25 shallow wells (not initially planned)
 6 dams (100% achievement)
 8 Wenyewes irrigation schemes(100%
achievement)
Planned:
 18 Biogas artisans to be trained
 Biogas artisans’ net work
 18 Biogas artisans
Achieved:
25 biogas units
achievement)
constructed
(100%
Table 8.3: Summary of WLG project phases, goals, objectives and activities
Phase WLG 3
Phase
Project Goal
Project Objectives
Project Activities
To improve the food, nutrition
and agro-income security of
1,440 small-holder farmers
(directly) and 4,320 (indirectly) in
the 6 (six) Divisions through
training in Low External Inputs
& Sustainable Agriculture
(LEISA) covering water
harvesting, small livestock
production and market gardening
within a period of 4 years.
i) To increase food production and nutrition levels among 1,440
HH of the target communities through use of low cost
integrated farming approaches linking soil, water, crops and
livestock in the 6 divisions within a period of 4 years.
ii) To build a sustainable household agricultural production capacity
through creation of seed security and rural agro-marketing
programme among 1,440 HH in the target divisions within a
period of 4 years
iii) To expand rural food production potential and levels through
involving and training the youth on integrated water, small
livestock and market gardens approaches within the project
period
iv) To provide external training to 4,320 farmers not reached
directly by the project training tools, through farmer to farmer
training, documenting and providing aids produced from project
experiences within project period. These include field notes,
booklets, slides, video documentaries e.t.c.
i) Mobilise and organise 1,440 crop and livestock producers into 48
registered groups to be referred to as Agriculture and
Development Units (ADUs)
ii) Design a 4 year training programme together with the ADU
members for each of the project area
iii) Conduct an on-farm practical training through installation of
targeted units on water harvesting, livestock improvement and
use of renewable energy
iv) Conduct 12 one week institutional training workshops for 360
ADU members to strengthen agricultural and leadership skills
v) Provide special processing and marketing skills to 192
community based food/animal product processors and farm
based marketing units for each ADU.
vi) Document and develop 2 sets of training aid i.e. 1 set of training
aid for agro-community and another set for pastoral
communities.
vii)
Organize for 12 Farmer-train-Farmer (FTF) Open Days
targeting to disseminate learnt skills to the neighboring 2,400
non-ADU members.
viii)
Undertake a project monitoring, evaluation and
reporting on annual basis
i) Mobilize 1,440HHs into 48 farmer groups for training
purpose in the principles and practices of Sustainable
Agriculture
ii) Mobilize 6 youth groups one in each project area and equip
them with skills in Sustainable Agriculture Principles and
Practices
iii) Carry out practical training and demonstration using the
following training tools, 480 water tanks, 288 goat sheds, 288
Dairy Breeding Does, 48 Dairy Breeding Bucks, 960 Rabbits,
2,880 breeding hens and cockerels, 480 bee hives, 160 bee
kits, 1,440 seed, 48 seed store.
iv) Conduct 16 one week institutional training workshops for
480 ADU members to strengthen agricultural and leadership
skills
Phase WLG 4
To improve the food, nutrition
and agro-income security of
1,440 HHs Smallholder farmers/
pastoralists in Githunguri,
Migwani, Gachoka, Ol-kalou,
Rumuruti and Kajiado Central
through practical and sustainable
integration of various farming
enterprises and agro-marketing.
The project goal of the phase 4
was to improve the food,
nutrition and agro-income
security of 1,440 HHs
Smallholder farmers /
pastoralists through practical and
sustainable integration of various
farming enterprises and agromarketing
70
i)
Mobilise and organise 1,440 crop and livestock producers
into 48 registered groups to be referred to as Agriculture
and Development Units (ADUs)
ii) Design a 4 year training program together with the ADU
members for each of the project area
iii) Conduct an on-farm practical training through installation
of targeted units on water harvesting, livestock
improvement and use of renewable energy
iv) Conduct 12 one week institutional training workshops for
360 ADU members to strengthen agricultural and
leadership skills
v) Provide special processing and marketing skills to 192
community based food/animal product processors and
farm based marketing units for each ADU.
vi) Document and develop 2 sets of training aid i.e. 1 set of
training aid for agro-community and another set for
pastoral communities.
vii) Organize for 12 Farmer-train-Farmer (FTF) Open Days
targeting to disseminate learnt skills to the neighboring
2,400 non-ADU members.
viii) Undertake a project monitoring, evaluation and reporting
on annual basis
Table 8.3: Summary of WLG project phases, goals, objectives and activities (continued)
Phase
Project Goal
71
Project Objectives
Project Activities
The phase 5 targeted to reach
1,800 HHs (families) in the
following 6 Regional Project
Areas (RPAs).
Phase WLG 5
To contribute to poverty
reduction
and
Self
Determination for 1800 HHs
directly and 7200 HHs
indirectly through improved
food, nutrition and agroincome
security
of
Smallholder
farmers/
pastoralists
in
Kiambu,
Nyandarua, Laikipia, Kajiado,
Mbeere and Mwingi RPAs by
training in practical strategies
of Sustainable Agriculture and
agribusiness at family and
community levels within 4
years.
72
i) Increase water availability for crops,
human, livestock and reforestation
through training on low cost water
harvesting techniques and establishment
of “Wenyewe” Irrigation Systems
benefiting 1,800 HHs.
ii) Increase food crop and livestock
production level by 75% among the
1,800 direct beneficiaries and 50%
among 7200 indirect beneficiaries
through skills provision in integrated
farming approaches linking soil, crops/
pastures and livestock, disease, pests and
parasite control.
iii) To contribute to the sustaining and
expansion of Farm Forest vegetation
cover by 30% throughout - scaling
Biogas technology training and agroforestry in 6 Districts in Kenya.
iv) Increase income from crops and
livestock by 75% for 1,800 direct
beneficiaries and 50% among the
indirect beneficiaries through training
value addition, preservation and
establishment of community based
marketing systems of farm products.
v) To contribute in rehabilitation of 100
Families
in
Transition
through
increasing their food and income levels
by 50% by way of training them in
intensive agriculture production systems
and establishment of small income
generating enterprises.
vi) Reach out with the above objectives to
an additional 7,200 HHs through
documenting and sharing from the
project experiences.
i)
Conduct 2 institutional training workshops each lasting 1 week for 60 water harvesting
artisans to sharpen their skills.
ii) Facilitate the establishment and registration of a water harvesting artisans’ network to
spearhead the technology in the post project period.
iii) Construct for training purposes, 150 water tanks, 6 Village based water dams and
install 25 hand pumps.
iv) Establish 8 ‘‘Wenyewe’’ Irrigation Systems through training scheme committees in
water undertaking, management and purchase of the requisite construction materials.
v) Mobilise and organize 180 PSFs among crop and livestock producers and facilitate
them to reach out to 1800 HHs in 180 learning groups.
vi) Facilitate the design of a 4 years training program in liaison with the PSFs and group
members for each of the project area. This will take into consideration the training
tools to be supported and priority of each area.
vii) Facilitate and conduct on-farm practical training through PSFs by purchase and
installation of the following training tools, 6 cattle dips, 125 bee hives, 25 bee handling
kits, 128 dairy goat does, 56 dairy goat bucks, 128 goat sheds, 20 bulls and 20 bull
camps.
viii) Conduct 4 institutional training workshops each lasting 1 week for 180 PSFs and 60
group leaders to strengthen agricultural and leadership skills.
ix) Conduct 2 institutional training workshops each lasting 1 week for 18 Biogas artisans
to sharpen their biogas construction skills.
x) Conduct practical training of the 18 biogas artisans through installation of 20 biogas
plants at family level and 4 at community level.
xi) iii. Establish and facilitate registration of a biogas artisans’ net work to spearhead the
technology in the post project period.
xii) Provide special processing and marketing skills to 180 community based food/animal
product processors and farm based marketers. The trained members will form a base
in establishing organized marketing units for each group.
xiii) Establish 18 Food Processing units and equip them with relevant processing
equipment.
xiv) Mobilise 100 members of Families in Transition into 10 groups for training in
intensive gardening methods and small income generating enterprises.
xv) Set up 45 Small Income Generating Enterprises for 45 FIT.
xvi) Document and develop 2 sets of training booklets and documentaries i.e. 1 set of
training aid for agro community and another set for pastoral communities targeting to
reach out to 7200 indirect beneficiaries.
xvii) Organize and hold 16 Farmer-Train-Farmer (FTF) Open Days by PSFs targeting to
disseminate learnt skills to the neighboring 7200 indirect beneficiaries.
xviii)
Establish 10 Farmers Learning and Information Points (FLIPs) through training
and learning and stocking with equipment and reading materials.
Table 8.3. County Integrated Development Plans for WLG project areas
County
Water harvesting

Kiambu
 Improve health status
of its citizens including
safe water for drinking
 Increase
livestock
productivity and market
access
Murang’a
 Provision of adequate
clean water
 Livestock:
Increase
livestock productivity
Nyandarua
 Enhance
water
harvesting and storage
Embu
 Provision of
 adequate and reliable
water

Provision of
sanitation services
 Value addition of livestock
products
 Create linkages with govern
goats breeding, animal
health institution
 Develop milk cooling
plants

To increase production
of milk, meat, eggs,
honey, hides and skins,
and other animal
products.

Promote value addition
through processing of
animal
products;
Kitui
 Promote
sustainable
use of land and water
resources
 Development of water
resources and Supply
 Expansion of land
under irrigation
 Enhance
water
harvesting and storage
during rainy season
Laikipia
73
Livestock:
 Improve livestock breeds
 Provide water for livestock
production
 Improve Livestock markets
and value addition
 Improve quality/quantity
of pasture
 Livestock value addition
and market access
 Livestock support services
 Fish farming and utilization
Agriculture
and
Agro-processing
 Extension service,
 Value addition
 Marketing
of
products
 Raising yields of
key crops
 Food insecurity;
 Expand and equip
agriculture research
 Develop
agricultural
showground site in
Ol-kalou
 Introduce
and
expand irrigation;
 Diversify crops
 Avail
subsidized
farm inputs;
 Promote modern
farming
technologies
 Proper
market
linkages;
 To Increase farm
/agribusiness
productivity
and
profitability
 Increase
crop
production
and
productivity
 Food production
 Agriculture
raw
materials for food
security
and
incomes,
Economic
Empowerment
 Cooperatives
 Facilitate
business
financing
Green Energy
sources
 Capacity building and us
of technology;
 Strengthen
local
production capacity
 Increase domestically
manufactured goods
 Promote savings and
investment culture
 Promote equalization
of marginalized groups
 Investment
in
alternative sources of
energy
 Capacity building on use
of technology;
 Economic empowerment
 investment
in
alternative energy like
biogas
 Government channels
grants to the grassroots
 Encourage registration
of cooperatives in
productive sector;
 Increase and enhance
shares subscription
 Encourage
local
initiatives; Business
incubation;
 Promote market access
and
product
development
 Provision of Grants
and access to cheap
loans for IGAs

 Human resource capacity
development
 Address
youth
unemployment;
 Training on integration
of science, technology
and innovation

Capacity building for
horticultural
production , marketing
& economic
empowerment
 Promote energy and
climate
change
adaptation actions
 Regulate
charcoal
production
 Capacity
building
communities
on
governance issues
 To
provide
quality
training facilities and
services for enhanced
agricultural development
 Enhancement
of
linkages to accessible
and affordable credit
and inputs.
 Enhance employment


 Alternative
of energy

Training
Higher investment
in alternative and
green sources of
energy.
Promotion
of
wood
lots
development
Solar and wind
energy
Training on natural
resources management
and sustainability
Machakos
 Improve access to
adequate water and
sanitation.
 65% of the population
having access safe
sanitation and also
increased
water
storage.
 Construction of earth
and sand dams, roof
harvesting for many
households and total
catchment terracing.
 Enhance the access to
appropriate
production
technologies and inputs for
the farmers and improve
marketing
infrastructure
facilities through PPPs.
 Beef cattle, dairy cattle,
dairy goats and beef goats
are also to be introduced in
the county to enhance on
the free range breed and
also to increase the meat
and milk production.
Kajiado
 Increase access to clean
and safe water for
domestic and industrial
use in order to improve
livelihoods
 improve livestock farming
through
the
implementation of best
practices for maximum
returns
74
 Advance
agrobased industries
 Promotion
of
market access
 Increase agriculture
productivity;
through
raising
yields of key crops
and
livestock
towards
level
recommended
 Strengthen
local
production
capacity to increase
domestically
manufactured
goods by focusing
on productivity
 Expand
horticulture
and
floriculture
for
local, regional and
international
markets
 Enhance
crop
production, storage
and value addition
of farm products.
creation and income
generation as well as
alleviate poverty.
 Accelerating on-going
infrastructure
development, focusing
on
quality
and
functionality
of
infrastructure services;
 Strengthen the capacity
of the informal retail
sector to move towards
a formal sector that is
efficient muliti-tiered,
diversified in range of
products
and
innovative
 Poor
savings
and
investment culture;
 insufficient
human
resource capacity;
exploitation
 Promote renewable
energy
 Promote eco-jikos,
biogas, solar energy
and wind energy
 Strengthen
technical
capabilities
 Strengthening
linkages
with productive sector;
 Strengthening
linkages
between
industry,
technical
trainings
institutions, and research
to promote demand
driven training
 promote alternative
energy
sources
besides biomass fuels
and improve access
to electricity
 Education levels in the
county and high rates of
school drop out
Table 8.4: WGL project overall outputs from WLG 3, 4, and 5
Intervention Outputs
1.
Quantities
Water Harvesting
Water Structures
Hand pump
2.
Livestock Sheds
Livestock Dips
Bee harvesting kits)
Propagation Materials
1025
11
100
174.6
191.86
Seeds
885
Seed stores
123
Agro-processing units
13
Biogas
50
Renewable Energy
Energy Saving Stoves
5.
11,727
Gardens and Agro-processing
Gardens
4.
71
Livestock Production
Livestock Counts
3.
1425
352
Trained Biogas Artisans
35
Tree Nursery
27
Environmental and Biodiversity Conservation
75
Table 8.5: Stakeholder Scoring of WLG Project performance across the WLG phases with respect to the DAC criteria and standard
DAC Criteria
DAC Criteria and Standards Questions
WLG 3
Relevance
Effectiveness
Efficiency
AVERAGE SCORE
Did we plan the right thing?
80.0%
90.0%
90.0%
86.7%
2.
Did we do the right thing?
80.0%
70.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
50.0%
70.0%
63.3%
3. To what extent are the objectives, planned activities and planned outputs consistent with the intended
outcome and impact?
4.
Are there differences between the time when the program/project was designed and today?
50.0%
80.0%
90.0%
73.3%
5.
To what extent are the objectives of the project/program still valid?
30.0%
90.0%
100.0%
73.3%
6.
Has the goal of the project been achieved or not achieved?
30.0%
50.0%
70.0%
50.0%
7.
Relevance
56.7%
71.7%
85.0%
71.1%
1.
To what extent were the objectives achieved?
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
80.0%
2.
What are the short or intermediate-term medium term (intended or unintended) outcome of the project?
3.
To what extent was the selected target group reached?
80.0%
90.0%
90.0%
86.7%
4.
What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
Effectiveness
70.0%
85.0%
95.0%
83.3%
1.
Were activities cost-efficient?
80.0%
80.0%
90.0%
83.3%
2.
Were objectives achieved on time?
40.0%
70.0%
80.0%
63.3%
3.
Was the program or project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
80.0%
70.0%
70.0%
73.3%
66.7%
73.3%
80.0%
73.3%
1. What has happened as a result of the project? (intended and unintended impacts, equal opportunities for
women and men, improvement of social and economic infrastructure, poverty reduction, cross sectoral impact or
other relevant cross-cutting issues including soil, biodiversity, seed security, water access, food, nutritional and
income security, replication of training tools such as water tanks, biogas units, livestock enterprises and savings and
credit)
2. What real difference has the activity brought about for the beneficiaries? (what would have happened
without the activity?)
3.
76
WLG 5
1.
Efficiency
Impact
WLG 4
How many people have been affected?
Impact
Sustainability
4.
To what extent will the positive impacts or changes of the project continue?
5.
Which measures are implemented in order to support sustainability?
6.
To what extent can the benefits of the project persist after funding ceases?
50.0%
80.0%
80.0%
70.0%
70.0%
70.0%
80.0%
73.3%
60.0%
75.0%
80.0%
71.7%
7. What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the
project?
Sustainability
FIGURE 28: STAKEHOLDERS SCORING OF DAC CRITERIA
77
FIGURE 29: STAKEHOLDERS SCORING OF DAC CRITERIA AND STANDARD LEVELS
78

WATER, LIVESTOCK AND GARDENS (WLG) EVALUATION

Transcription

Similar documents

Poligon Wood Shelters

WLG 12: Reflex light grids with eight light beams

Heifer International Cornerstones

stockmens insurance agency llc

NIACC Livestock Judging Camp

CenTRAl livesTOCk

Central Livestock Association

LIVESTOCK TRAILERS BUILT FOR YOU

Russell

razorback rhodesian

Market Plan