Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
County/District background
TABLE OF CONTENT
WORLD VISION KENYA
Date: 22ND MAY 2012
PRRO 10666 (Protecting and Rebuilding Livelihoods in the Arid and
Semi-Arid Areas) KILIFI County FFA Programme
Final Report
MAY 2009 – APRIL 2012
12
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background information
1.2 Project beneficiaries
1.3 Beneficiary category
1.4 Beneficiaries on FFA
1.5 Beneficiaries on CFA
1.6 Beneficiaries on GFD
2.0 Project Outputs and impacts/Outcomes
2.1 Improvement of pasture and browse production.
2.2 Improved diversification of food sources (increased crop production)
2.3 Improvement of access to water for both human and livestock consumption
2.4 Reduction of environmental degradation
2.5 Capacity Building
2.6 Gender and social aspect
3.0 Project Inputs
3.1Tools
3.2 Materials purchased
3.3Cash Distributions Summary
3.4 Food aid commodities distributed
4.0 implementation process
5.0 partnership
5.1 implementation structure
5.2 partners and their contribution
6.0 Challenges faced and Lessons Learned
6.1 Strengths
6.2 Weaknesses/challenges
6.3 SuFP challenges
7.0 Recommendation
8.0 Other relevant information
9.0 Project photos
10.0 Annexes.
11
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
ACRONYMS
1. CRM Complaints Response Mechanism
2. DPSC District Project Steering Committee
3. DSG District Steering Group
4. FDP Final Distribution Point
5. FFA Food for Assets
6. GFD General Food Distributions
7. CFA Cash for Assets
8. GOK Government of Kenya
9. KEFRI Kenya Forest Research Institute
10. KFS Kenya Forest Service
11. NFI Non Food Item
12. MLP Ministry of Livestock and Production
13. MOA Ministry of Agriculture
14. MOWI Ministry of Water and Irrigation
15. PDM Post Distribution Monitoring
16. PRRO Protracted Relief and Rehabilitation Operation
17. WFP World Food Program
18. WVK World Vision Kenya
19. SuFP Supplementary feeding programme.
12
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
1.0 Introduction 1.1 County/District background
MAP OF LARGER KILIFI DISTRICT.
The larger Kilifi district is located north and northwest of Mombasa. Kilifi district, Coast Province, lies on 3° 37' 60S latitude 39° 51' 0E Longitude (DMS) and altitude 0.9 – 5 M above mean sea level (AMSL). The larger Kilifi district of coast province covers an area of 7,750 Km2 and has a population of 831,108 persons (Population Census-2009). The district borders Malindi to the north, Taita Taveta to the west, Kwale and Mombasa to the south, and the Indian Ocean to the east. It was recently divided into four districts- Kilifi, Ganze Kaloleni and Rabai districts. It is further divided ten divisions namely Bahari, Kikambala, Chonyi, Ganze, Bamba, Jaribuni, Vitengeni, Kaloleni, Mariakani and Rabai. Further into numerous locations and sub-locations. The district is classified as one of the poorest in Kenya. Ganze constituency which comprises Bamba, Ganze and Vitengeni Divisions is considered the poorest constituency in the country where 66.8 percent of the district population lives below the poverty line.
The area of coverage has three major livelihood zones ranching/pastoral, mixed farming and cropping zone. For the last three years the county has been receiving erratic rains that are poorly distributed both in space and time and far below average something that resulted to continued drought in the most parts of the county.
11
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
1.2 Project beneficiaries Change over time. (2009,2010, 2011, 2012)
1.3 Beneficiary categoryThe project had four categories of beneficiaries’: GFD, FFA CFA and SFP. General food distribution beneficiaries received food aid without necessarily having to work for it. This was done in areas that were identified to be severely affected and h D moved to recovery phase. Food for asset beneficiaries were involved in the actual work of the projects that they had identified to rebuild and save their livelihood. They were given food as incentives; they were spread in 24 final distribution points.Cash for assets beneficiaries like the food for assets beneficiaries were involved in the work but received cash as incentives. This was calculated using work norms accomplished in the month out of the expected twelve workdays.Supplementary feeding project targeted the modality malnourished children and supported them with supplementary food. The project also targeted pregnant and lactating mothers.
1.4 8,200 beneficiaries with a total of (1,367 HHs) benefited through food for asset receiving food aid as incentives.
1.5 65,106 beneficiaries with a total of (10,851 HHs) benefited through disbursement of cash as incentives for the work done.
1.6 Beneficiaries on general food distribution - 24,500 beneficiaries targeted benefited with relief food up to February where the number reduced to 7790 in the month of April 2012
1.7 Projects implemented during this phase included on farm activities i.e. Zai pits, Negarim, sunken beds, Trapezoidal bunds, Gunia garden and semi circular bunds. Water pans were constructed and rehabilitation of silted up water pan done.
12
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
2.0 Project Outputs and impacts/Outcomes
The following is a summary of activities undertaken under each Outcome
2.1 Improvement of pasture and browse production.
This output was geared towards improving livestock production of the target population through improved pasture and browse production. Improved pastures and browse production is especially important in this pastoral and agro pastoral livelihood area. This was achieved through farmers training on pasture and fodder production, livestock feeding, pasture and fodder preservation, establishment of rain water harvesting structures such as semicircular bunds to trap water for production of appropriate fodder tree species. To increase pasture and browse, 35,693 semi circular bunds were constructed within the project period this translated to 373.8 HA of land put under pasture and browse production.
2.2 Improved diversification of food sources (increased crop production)
Food crop diversification in the farming locations was one of the key to improving food security and resilience. The project targeted improvement in the capacity of farmers to harvest water and conserve soil to support crop production. This was achieved through construction of rain water harvesting structures for on- farm water conservation, capacity building of farmers on the same as well as provision of certified seeds.Replication of this technology was realized in farming areas while crop production areas were increases as new areas were opened up for farming. Under this outcome, structures like Zai pits, sunken beds, Negarim, trapezoidal bunds and Gunia gardens were implemented. Throughout the project period the following outputs were achieved.
Zai pits – 1,961,452 were constructed translating to 355.2 Ha of land put under these structures. According to the PDM conducted in the month of March 2012 Zai pits was ranked as the most preferred rain water harvesting structure at 68.78%.
Trapezoidal bunds – 126 bunds were constructed hence putting 69 Ha of land under these structures.
Sunken beds – 37,694 were constructed translating to 844.2 Ha of land. Gunia gardens – 7,940 Gunia gardens for planting vegetables were
constructed.
11
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
Negarim – 460,025 Negarim that translates to 414 Ha of land were constructed.
2.3 Improvement of access to water for both human and livestock consumption
The project aimed at excavating new water pans that are big enough to store substantial volumes of water for both livestock and human consumption and also de-silt existing ones to ensure that they hold water for longer periods. Under this outcome 47 water pans with a total of 320,663m3 were excavated and are in use.
2.4 Reduction of environmental degradation21,500 trees were planted where 60% of the total planted trees survived.36.6 Kms of terraces were constructed on farms for both water retention and soil conservation
2.5 Capacity BuildingTo ensure projects implementation went on well trainings were conducted to CP field staffs and community members. This involved technical GOK staffs from line ministries who trained staff and community on various techniques that were to be implemented. Accountability training was done to the CP staffs, community members and provincial administrators to ensure that they were best placed to handle any complaints that emerged during project implementation. PDM findings (April 2012) show that 71.2% (frequency of 246) of the target beneficiaries acknowledged they had received training on different improved farming practices. This includes land preparation 33.7% and weeding 29.7%.
2.6 Gender and social aspectsIn 10666 PRRO both men and women participated at all stages of project implementation from project identification to implementation and sustainability. To enhance women leadership women constituted 60.2% of relief committees members. Men were encouraged to participate in the FFA/CFA project activities at the site and during distributions. The PDM finding (April 2012) indicates that the proportion of female registered workers is 58.1% (frequency of 200), and that of men at 41.9%(frequency of 144).The finding is an implication that a credible targeting and registration criteria of beneficiaries was done in tandem with WVK’s commitment to women empowerment as a means of promoting access/equality to resources and alleviating poverty.
3.0 Project Inputs 3.1 Tools
The program received various tools from WFP to support implementation of the projects. See annex 5 for more details.3.2 Materials purchased
12
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
Serial No.
Material Quantity
1 Money maker pumps 332. Kentank plastic tanks 183. Citrus seedlings 1004. Paw paw seedlings 3005. Guava seedlings 100
3.3 Cash Distributions Summary(payment schedule)
Serial No.
Period of Payment Households Amount paid (KSH)
1 June – August, 2011 5,437 44,676,716.92
2 June – August, 2011 4,429 27,360,424.00
3 June – August, 2011 128 614,656.004 June – November,
201125 304,584.00
5 September- November,2011
10,008 81,347,709.33
6 September- November, 2011
61 98,098.00
7 January, 2012 8,224 22,517,492.57
Total Paid 176,919,680.82
3.4 Food aid commoditiesFood aid was distributed to FFA, GFD and SuFP beneficiaries. See annex 6 for more details
4 Implementation Process
To identify projects that lead to the outcomes, communities and local leaders were consulted on their felt needs and then using pair wise ranking these needs were ranked. The identified projects were expected to meet the District development plan criteria that seek for implementation of viable projects and also be geared towards improving diversification of food sources, building capacity of farmers on improved agronomic practices, improve pasture and browse production, improve access to potable water for human and livestock consumption, reduce environmental
11
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
degradation and project support systems being in place to ensure efficient support to staff and beneficiaries.
After project identification the community came up with the targeting criteria of the beneficiaries based on vulnerability, from which the beneficiaries were selected and registered. Out of the selected beneficiaries a certain percentage of beneficiaries not exceeding 20 % were registered as non-workers because they could not work nor have a dependant who could work for them. The community selected a relief committee which comprised of over 60% women representation. They were in charge of the community groups and acted as link between WVK and the community. They were also responsible of overseeing daily monitoring of project activities, and also submited monthly relief committee report on project progress.Targeted workers were expected to work for twelve days per month in order to achieve the standard set work norms. WVK Field staff conducted regular project monitoring at least three times a week to confirm whether workers were adhering to set work norms and produce a site monitoring report.DSG team periodically conducted a joint project monitoring to ascertain quality of work being done.The CP produced a monthly narrative report showing progress of the projects which was shared with the district food for asset coordinator who in turn would circulate the report to all other relevant partners and the finally to National project steering committee.
5 Partnerships
The project recognized the importance and power of organizational networking and collaboration with other development agencies. Concerted efforts were made to strengthen this effort to enhance harmony and coexistence with governmental, religious organizations, NGOs, civil society and private actors. Intentional learning and reflections were ensured through stakeholders’ experience, information sharing and documentation.
In implementation of this project world vision partnered with ; Word food programme as the donor, Arid lands currently national drought management authority (NDMA) that coordinated all activities in the district, Government line ministries such as Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Livestock, Ministry of water and irrigation that offered technical guidance on the structures to be constructed and also did monitoring, Ministry forestry, Ministry of Education, Ken tank LTD in purchasing water tanks for schools, Kick start in supplying community with money maker pumps and also training community on small scale irrigation, equity bank who provided the financial services and training the community on finance literacy and community who did the actual implementation of the project.
At the end of the project implementation phase, other stakeholders and partners will continue implementing the initiated interventions. The GoK line ministry staff and the community will be key stakeholders in ensuring sustainability of the project
12
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
undertaken. Other relevant stakeholders included DSGs, DDC,DEC and locotional development committeeswho were instrumental in ensuring adherence to set guidelines for project implementation and accountability.
5.1. Implementation structure.
The program manager was responsible for the project and provided leadership and gave direction on program development and implementation strategy. He was also responsible for the management and administration of the program, financial management and provided controls as well as supported other staff to undertake their responsibilities. The Commodity Officer was responsible for facilitating the implementation of planned activities, monitoring and evaluation and reported directly to the IPA Manager. The program accountant was responsible for financial management and controls in line with financial and audit standards. The FFATO provided technical support to the Field staff who supervised and monitored the implementation of the projects, distribution of food aid and non food incentives to the beneficiaries. The program drivers were responsible for facilitating staff to the project areas.
The IPA Manager was directly reporting to the Sub-branch Manager who provided administrative and management support and ensured that the project was in line with the strategic direction of the organization. Besides the Sub-branch manager, the sub-branch team comprised of a Program Enhancement coordinator, and the Sub-branch Accountant who provided technical support on design monitoring and evaluation functions, community capacity building and financial support services respectively to the program.
At the National Office Level, the project received technical back stopping from the Integrated Ministry Quality division. The Finance and Administration director provided overall leadership, strategic direction and administrative functions to the program.
PRRO Organizational Structure
11
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
5.2. Partners and their contribution
Partner Role in ProjectMinistry of Agriculture
Technical support ,Community trainings and provision of certified seeds
National Drought Management Authority
Coordination all PRRO activities in the district.
Ministry of Water and Irrigation
-Technical support- Train communities on water pan excavation.- Designs and drawings of water pans.
World food programme
Funding of the project.Monitor project progress
Ministry of livestock production
-Offer technical support.-Train community pasture production and storage.
National Environmental Management Authority
-Conduct Environmental impact Assessments.
Provincial Administration
-Mobilize community.-provide security
Kilifi District Development Programme
Register groupTrain community on group dynamics
Kenya Red Cross Society
Coordination of HIV and AIDS activities.
Funding of HIV and AIDS activities.
Ministry of Public Coordination of health activities in the District.
Branch Director
Sub Branch Manager
IPA MANAGER
Senior Programme Officer
Commodity Officer
DM&E Officer
Assistant Accountant
Technical Officer
P/C Admin Assistant
NutritionistField Coordinator (2)
CCTS
Livelihood & Resiliency Officer
Warehouse Keeper
Tally Clerk (2)
Food Monitors (16)
Branch L&R Officer
Food aid manager
Senior Commodity Officer
Drivers (3)
Office Asst
Logstic Asst
12
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
Health and Sanitation and medical services
Curative and preventive health services.
Equity Bank Providing financial support and financial literacy training
Community -Implement projects-Monitor projects through RCs.
6.0 Challenges faced and Lessons Learned.
6.1 STRENGTHS.
Partnerships and collaborations
For the success of the PRRO activities it’s important to note that all partners must work together the nation office must engage the support office at all times. At the field level we have been holding consultative meeting with partners who includes WFP, NDMA, GOK line ministry, Equity Bank , KICK START and the community.
Accountability
Through information sharing issues relating to projects were communicated well in advance, participation of beneficiaries have been enhanced, consultation in decision making and feedback shared this specifically was realized through the CRM, relief committees and the staff.
Viable projects implemented by competent staff
Projects that are being implemented have impacted positively on the lives of the people. This has been achieved through involvement of the community members in charting their development path.
6.2 Weaknesses/Challenges emerging from this project.
Delays in disbursement of cash
There was delay in remittance of money to beneficiaries for work out puts for June, July, August, September, October and January as the process of opening accounts was being sorted out. There are few cases of beneficiaries not paid to date.
Few agents around the district making community come to Kilifi for withdrawals
PDM (April 2012) findings show that out of the respondents who had gone to collect their money from the CDP, 40.1% (frequency of 138) had taken more than 2 hours to reach a CDP. 48.3 %( frequency of 166) of target beneficiaries walk to the CDP while 32.3% (frequency of 111) use public transportation whereby they incur Kshs.200 for transportation This is due to very few agents in Kilifi.
Climatical changes
11
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
Poor rainfall distribution in most parts of the project area something that resulted to crops failure and even those planted using new water harvesting techniques show signs of water stress.
Lack of proper planting seeds for on farm projects
Community members due to lack of certified seeds planted the local seeds which did not do well even on the structures constructed.
Delays in provision of tools.
This led to communities using their local tools which were worn out hence leading to use of excess force and taking long time to accomplish work norms.
6.3 SuFP CHALLENGES
Ration sizes given to the clients vis a vis the distance covered to the health facilities leads to high defaulter rate.
Poor health seeking behavior in the community. Most of the people who come to health facilities usually seek for curative measures for known illness however, malnutrition is usually discovered as a result of routine checkup practice that is required for each client seen. They do not go to the health facilities for any preventive treatment as evidenced by them defaulting for routine clinic checkup after the 9 month measles immunization.
Socio-cultural practices in the community in regard to their perception of malnutrition have led to low coverage e.g people perceive colostrums (first milk produced by a mother post partum as being dirty and is not fed to babies, children who suffer from malnutrition are considered bewitched (suffer from the evil eye) and are taken to a witch doctor and not to the hospital.
6.4 MISSED OPPORTUNITIES.
Use of M pesa services that could eliminate the challenge of beneficiaries travelling long distances to EQUITY agents.
Utilization of some resources that the communities could provide e.g. on site of tools some
Communities can improvise local jembes that are ideal for digging compared to purchase mattocks.
Mobile banking.
Implementation of high impact projects.
Giving incentives to the health workers who offer SuFP services as a form of motivation.
12
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
7.0 Recommendations Early release of tools to be used in project implementation and also purchase local jembes from the communities if they can supply.
Incorporation of energy saving initiatives in the project e.g. improved jikos.
Reconsider use of other services that could eliminate the challenge posed by use of Equity services only.i.e introduce the use of M-PESA.
Motivation of the CHWs on the implementation of the SuFP.
We should embrace cash disbursements distribution: - we have a date where community would collect their cash per FDP and we have WVK staff present so that if there are issues concerning the payment it will be easy to follow up.
Effective and consistent project monitoring by WVK staff and other stakeholders to ensure set standards are being followed and be able to address any gaps as they come by.
Enhance staff/community exchange visits to other programs for learning and sharing of experiences.
Quarterly meetings between WVK staff and stakeholders to review progress and share ideas for improved project implementation.
8.0 Other relevant information
Throughout the project period, partnerships were strengthened but at some point there seemed to be a gap during the actual project implementation. This contributed to low frequency of project monitoring by government line ministries for they felt they had no role in the actual implementation of the project. To enhance partnership come the next PRRO, All stakeholders’ need to be taken through the project proposal so as to make them understand what is being undertaken in the project and what needs to be monitored. This can be achieved through organising a workshop for stakeholders in the districts to share the proposal that is to be implemented.
Tools required to implement project should be purchased in the first quarter of the project. This means approval of non food item budget should be done in the first or second month after start of project. This will ensure tools are purchased and distributed early to avoid challenges in achieving project out puts. While purchasing the tools communities need to be consulted on what tools they think are ideal for their types of soils and if they can be bought locally.
To attain food security in our districts we need to focus more on high impact projects rather than the micro projects that are being under taken. This means in areas were irrigation can be practiced, irrigation based projects should be given first priority for this is the surest way of improving food security in those areas.
11
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
9.0 Photographs Of various implemented projects.
Community working on Jila water pan School children fetches water at Jila water pan. Mwambani FDP
12
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
Casuarinas trees in Nursery bed at Dzikunze FDP Casuarinas trees planted in a farm at Dzikunze FDP.
Maize planted in Zai pits at Tsangatsini community farm Ndugumnani FDP community constructing negarims.
10.0 Annexes
Annex 1: NFI Budget and released amounts by WFP
Annex 2: Summary table of Inputs
Annex 3: Project output summary
11
P
RR
O 1
06
66
(Pro
tect
ing a
nd R
eb
uild
ing
Liv
elih
oods
in t
he A
rid a
nd S
em
i-A
rid A
reas)
Fi
nal
Report
Annex 4: School Based Project table
Annex 5: NFIs summary of tools.
Annex 6: food distributed
Annex 7: End of project evaluation report.
Annex 8: success story.
