FY 13 Food for Progress Kenya Semi –Arid Livestock Enhancement Support (K-SALES) Project Mid-Term Evaluation Report Conducted By merdakenya@gmail.com NOVEMBER 2015 &zϭϯ&ŽŽĚĨŽƌWƌŽŐƌĞƐƐ<ĞŶLJĂ^ĞŵŝʹƌŝĚ>ŝǀĞƐƚŽĐŬ ŶŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚ;<Ͳ^>^ͿWƌŽũĞĐƚDŝĚͲdĞƌŵ ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚ Program: Food for Progress Agreement Number: FCC-615-2013/030-00 Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2013 Project Duration: 2013-2017 Implemented by: Land O’Lakes Evaluation Authored by: DŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͕ǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶΘZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĨŽƌĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ŝŶĨƌŝĐĂ DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Government. Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov 2 | Page Acknowledgements and Disclaimer This is an independent Mid Term Evaluation (MTE) report for Kenya Semi–Arid Livestock Enhancement Support (K-SALES) project conducted during the months of September and October 2015. Special gratitude goes to the Land O’Lakes and K-SALES project team for providing technical support during the design, sampling and development of survey instruments. In addition, we acknowledge the support the team provided in coordinating the process through mobilizing project participants and allocating time for interviews with the assessment team. We also want to acknowledge the support provided by the USDA team from Washington during the evaluation process. Sincere gratitude goes to the Local Implementing Partners (LIPs) in all the 6 counties where K￾SALES project is being implemented (Meru, Tharaka Nithi, Machakos, Kitui, Makueni and Taita Taveta), the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries and the County Government, financial institutions, cooperatives, Business Service Providers (BSPs), Water User Associations (WUAs), livestock producers among other community members, who provided valuable contribution during the data collection period. Special thanks goes to the research team who were very instrumental during data collection and analysis. This report has been prepared by the lead consultant Mark Mwiti and co-evaluators Mary Kuira, Samuel Mutuma and Beth Mwangi. Although every effort was made to reflect as accurately as possible, information and data provided by the various respondents, views expressed in this report are those of the authors. Mark Mwiti Lead Consultant MERDA Kenya Table of Contents Acknowledgements and Disclaimer.......................................................................................................................... 2 Table of Contents......................................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Acronyms and abbreviations......................................................................................................................... 5 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.............................................................................................10 2.0 METHODOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTATION.......................................................................................12 2.1 Approach to the evaluation...............................................................................................................................12 2.2 Literature review .................................................................................................................................................12 2.3 Data collection tools...........................................................................................................................................12 2.4 Sampling and sample size....................................................................................................................................13 2.5 Training of Research Team................................................................................................................................14 2.6 Quality Control....................................................................................................................................................14 2.7 Data Processing and analysis.............................................................................................................................15 2.8 Study limitations and constraints......................................................................................................................15 3.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS..........................................................................................................................16 3.1 Socio-Demographic Information ......................................................................................................................16 3.2 Household food adequacy, frequency and quality ........................................................................................26 3.3 Relevance / Appropriateness of K-SALES Project........................................................................................31 3.4 Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................................45 3.5 Effectiveness of K-SALES Interventions...........................................................................................................46 3.6 Impact of K-SALES Project...........................................................................................................................52 3.7 Sustainability of K-SALES Interventions.....................................................................................................55 3.8 Gender Equality and Equity in K-SALES Interventions...........................................................................56 3.9 Key Program Performance Indicators for Result Area per Activity ...................................................57 3.10 Key Strengths and Weaknesses of Specific Project Interventions.......................................................64 3.11 Key Learning’s aand Emergent Practices.....................................................................................................68 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................................................69 4.1 Recommendations to USDA .......................................................................................................................70 4.2 Recommendations to Land O’ Lakes.........................................................................................................70 4.3 Recommendations to Local Implementing Partners (LIPs)...................................................................73 4.4 Recommendations to stakeholders............................................................................................................74 Annex: Case Studies...................................................................................................................................................75 5 | Page List of Acronyms and abbreviations ASAL Arid and Semi-Arid Lands BDS Business Development Service BSPs Business Service Providers CFA Cash for Asset DDS Diversity Dietary Score FAS Foreign Agricultural Service FFA Food for Asset FFS Farmer Field schools FGD Focus Group Discussion FTF Feed the Future GOK Government of Kenya GPS Global Positioning System GIS Geographical Information System NGO Non-Governmental Organization HDD Household Dietary Diversity HH Household KII Key Informant Interview K-SALES Kenya Semi–Arid Livestock Enhancement Support LIPs Local Implementing Partners MDG Millennium Development Goal M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MERDA Monitoring, Evaluation and Research for Development in Africa MSC Most Significant Change MTE Mid-Term Evaluation PHH-P Post-Harvest Handling and Processing PMP Performance Monitoring Plan RAs Research Assistants SACCO Savings and Credit Co-operative SDG Sustainable Development Goals SO Strategic Objective TNA Training Needs Assessment USDA United States Department of Agriculture WUAs Water Users Associations Executive Summary Kenya Semi–Arid Livestock Enhancement Support (K-SALES) project is a three-year (September 2013 to September 2016) Food for Progress project funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The project is currently being implemented in six Semi- Arid Zone 2 (SA2) counties of Kenya (Meru, Tharaka, Machakos, Kitui, Makueni and Taita Taveta). The project is mandated to increase productivity and boost marketing and trade to meet consumer demand. The project supports two US Department of Agriculture (USDA) strategic objectives namely: SO1 – Increase agricultural productivity and SO2 – Expand trade of agricultural products. To achieve SO1, K-SALES is facilitating Farmer Field Schools (FFS); developing Business Service Providers (BSPs); increasing access to clean water systems; improving infrastructure on-farm; and facilitating agricultural lending. To achieve SO2, K-SALES is improving infrastructure off- farm; providing trainings on Post-Harvest Handling and Processing (PHH-P) techniques; and developing cooperative business capacity. The overall objective of K-SALES project is to help create a more inclusive, competitive and efficient livestock sector by improving the quality of locally produced animals (goat, sheep and cattle), building the capacity of actors along the value chain and facilitating access to critical support services such as livestock inputs, targetedtrainings and finance. In September 2015, MERDA Kenya Limited was awarded a contract to conduct the midterm evaluation (MTE) for the K-SALES Project through a competitive bidding process. The objectives of the midterm evaluation were to assess the progress made in implementingprogram activities and proposed targets, assess the relevance of interventions andappropriateness of approaches used, provide an early signal of the effectiveness of the interventions, identify and assess key strengths and weaknesses of specific project interventions,including partnership arrangements with grantees and overall program strategy, document key learnings and emergent practices to date and to discuss and recommend midterm course corrections, addressing any areas of concern that will strengthen the remainder of the program. The MTE was conducted in September – October 2015 using both qualitative and quantitative research techniques. Structured questionnaires were used to gather information from 911 households participating in farmer field schools, 109 Business Service Providers (BSP’s), 89 Cooperatives / marketing associations, 11 meat and livestock processors and 58 livestock processors, while interview guides were used to conduct 39 focus group discussions and 49 key informant interviews. Additionally, 13 facility visits were made, 20 most significant change stories and 13 case studies compiled. K-SALES overall objective is relevant and fits strategically with Kenya’s national economic policy aspirations and the economic development agenda of key international development initiatives. Such policies include the Kenya Vision 2030, Agricultural Sector Development Strategy and the National Policy (Sessional Paper No. 8 of 2012) for the Sustainable Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands. K-SALES project is also consistent with the African Union Policy Framework for Arid and Semi-Arid Lands in Africa, which was approved in January 2011. The design of the project was also consistent with the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) Number 1 on poverty reduction that aimed at halving the proportion of people that suffer from hunger and MDG 7 on environmental sustainability that aimed at halving the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe domestic water by 2015. The project fits well within the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that aims at transforming the World (2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). The project is therefore relevant and appropriate given that it is implemented in arid and semi-arid areas that are affected by regular and cyclic drought, limited and unreliable access to water and rainfall resulting in disappearing grasslands and low food production. The region is also characterized by high prevalence of livestock diseases, high livestock mortality, and limited access to livestock inputs, services and markets. K-SALES project is being implemented using local implementing partners (LIPs), a facilitative approach referred to as, “light touch”. The objective was to have the local implementing agencies take a more central role in project implementation in order to increase local ownership, enhance the likelihood of sustainable behavior change, and expand the potential or increase impact and scale of activities over time. The “light touch” approach used by K￾SALES has been embraced whole heartedly by both the County governments and the Local Implementing Partners. The findings of the MTE confirm the need for training of BSPs at different levels of the livestock value chain. The targeted number of BSPs by the project of 700 has been surpassed by 29% to reach the current number of 961 BSPs which demonstrates the high demand for the training by BSP’s. However, only 44.5% of FFS are within a 5 km radius of the BSPs leading to a mismatch between demand and supply of BSP services. FFS’s were identified as one of the components that is working well in the program by all the actors in the value chain. Through FFSs, the project has reached 21,296 livestock farmers. Over three quarters (77.5%) of the FFS participants indicated the training received was beneficial with 67% pointing out that the trainingwas sufficient. The use of the FFS model has been very effective in getting women (65%) actively involved in the livestock production. Further, 40% of farmers have applied new techniques / technologies as a result of training received. The FFSs’ have embraced the table banking model whereby members make monthly savings deposits against which they may borrow small loans to meet their household cash flow needs. Unfortunately, K-SALES is not tracking the monthly savings or loans disbursed as this is not included in their performance indicators. However, focus groups held with FFS members revealed that table banking activity is having a positive impact in all the counties, with women using the loans to buy utensils, water tanks and in some instances paying school fees. At MTE, 75 water points against a target of 200 (37.5%) had been rehabilitated, employing 41 water kiosk attendants and directly benefiting 64,565 farmers. Water user associations (75) for each of the 75 water points rehabilitated were also trained. Further, 16 on-farm structures against a target of 310 (5.16%) had been achieved. This was attributed to the long delays in commencement of project implementation. The rehabilitation of the on-farm infrastructure only started in August 2015 and therefore not much had been done by September – October when the MTE was conducted. Facilitating access to financial services to improve livestock enterprises is a key challenge due tosector specific challenges hindering financial inclusion in the livestock value chain. These includethe following: long physical distances to the financial institution; inaccessibility due to poor infrastructure; inadequate resources to meet the high demand for loans; low literacy levels among actors in the value chain; lack of identification documents particularly among women andyouth; lack of political goodwill; male domination of economic activities, causing women to depend on men to make transactions (e.g. women request to use their husbands’ national identity cards for financial transactions); and the informal nature of the livestock value chain dueto the lack of structured market for livestock, whereas banks and MFIs finance structured transactions. Further, velocity of cash flow in ASAL is low due to livestock management practices of the community. Livestock producers can keep livestock for many years before selling since wealth is held in livestock, not in monetary terms. K-SALES has therefore found it easier to work with the smaller, more flexible locally based financial institutions that are willing to venture into the unknown and offer more innovative products to meet client needs. Financialoperations have commenced with two SACCOs, one in Machakos and another in Meru. A total of 256 livestock enterprises have been linked to financial institutions to access financial services to improve their business while 5,557 farmers and others actors are receiving financial services through linkages made. The financial services include credit, savings and money transfers. Market infrastructure in the project area is not developed and limits trade. Effective marketing of livestock will require formal structures to enhance the quality of products. A total of 106 structures were done within 15 markets and 6 slaughter slabs in Kitui County. The structures include: perimeter fence, water troughs, holding bay, toilets and loading ramps, slaughter slab expansion, waste management structures, water tanks with gutters, inspection tables and rails for holding carcasses. In Post-Harvest Handling and Processing component (PHH-P), the project sought to facilitate the training of 2,500 processors of livestock and livestock products employed at slaughter facilities and butcheries. The target for this component has been achieved with 2,503 post- harvest handling and processing facility employees trained in improved processing techniques and 3,267 post-harvest handling and processing facility employees trained in sanitary standards against a target of 2,500. In addition, the PHH-P component has build capacity of four groups in partial processing of horns and bones and linked them to a market in Nairobi. Two of the groups have already supplied a small consignment to the market on a pilot basis. In the development of cooperative business capacity, 1,034 group members have been sensitized on the need for formation of a cooperative against a target of 600. A total of 3,200 agribusinesses are participating in the program. These include input suppliers, butchers, slaughterhouse owners, transporters and food handlers (buyers). Implementation of project activities was planned to commence in October 2013 but was delayed for almost one year. The delay was caused by the time taken to complete and have the baseline survey approved. The result is a reduction in actual project implementation period to 2 years. Activities have been fast-tracked with findings from the MTE indicating implementation tobe at 35% and financial spending at 33.9% (spending of $4,759,290 against a contract budget of $14,039,685 - adjusted with loss on monetization). This indicates that implementation is on par with spending, however, in relation to the remaining project period, the project implementationis behind schedule. It is therefore recommended that the project duration is extended to make up for lost time to implement project activities and consolidate the achievements realized to date. The mid-term evaluation for K-SALES project indicates that the project is already having positive impact. Out of the training received, the Business Service Providers indicated that they have improved their monthly incomes by $15.3. There has also been an annual incremental sale by farming households from $347 during baseline to $350. This could be attributed to improved health and production of animals as a result of training received with the average livestock bodycondition score improving from 2.7 (cattle) and 2.8 (shoats) during baseline to 3.0 (both cattle and shoats). Under increasing access to clean water infrastructure component, 41 employees ofwater points receive a regular salary while 64,565 households have easier access to water for livestock and domestic use. The benefits that have accrued from the market and processing facilities (abattoirs) rehabilitation / renovation include: improved security due to installation of the perimeter fence; ease of loading livestock into lorries resulting in reduced cattle injuries and increased number ofmarket users; availability of water for animals leading to improved health of animals for slaughter and subsequent improvement in quality of meat products; and the availability of toilets for use by farmers and traders, leading to improved hygiene. In addition, there is control of livestock movement as opposed to earlier when animals used to access the market from all directions making it difficult for the County government to levy charges. This has led to improvement in revenue collection for the county government. These facilities are benefiting both the FFS’s and the general population. The benefits from slaughter slab renovation include average monthly increment of sales by $10.3. In addition, two out of the four groups that were trained on partial processing of bones and horns piloted selling bones to Nairobi market. The anticipated impact is increased incomes from livestock products that have traditionally gone to waste. Through FFSs and marketing associations, livestock products (meat and skin) worth $21,126,175 have been locally traded over the past year. As a means of ensuring sustainability of project activities, K-SALES is using local implementing partners as a strategy for local capacity development, working with a County stakeholder’s forum that brings together various stakeholders at County level to discuss ongoing interventions and areas of collaboration, and empowering local farmer organizations - for instance, Water User Associations are trained and empowered to collect and manage water user fees. The project is also market led and therefore it is expected that the market forces of demand and supply will ensure sustainability of the interventions. The gender rule applied by Kenyan constitution which required that 30% of leadership positions are occupied by women has helped in achieving gender equity. K-SALES is also offering financial literacy training through the FFS thus equipping women with more skills to manage their finances and their enterprises thus leading to economic empowerment of women in ASAL regions. Suggested recommendations based on the findings of the MTE include the following:- • USDA should consider extending K-SALES project for one year to make up for the delay in commencement of project activities and to consolidate the project achievements. K-SALES project should:- • Synchronize county-level work plans by different LIPs (different components) to demonstrate complementarity. • Enhance capacity of LIP’s through periodic training. • Develop a training program (refresher courses) for FFS facilitators on emerging livestock production techniques, improve the FFS manual to include a section on their vision, mission, objectives and a growth plan. • Develop and implement monitoring methodologies that measure actual project impact rather than activities and outputs (numbers trained; number reached withspecific interventions). • Sensitize the youth on income generating activities available in the livestock valuechain; and address accessibility of capital through packaging of youth friendly financial products, and linkage to organizations providing financial products and services targeting the youth • Provide technical support to the table banking activity e.g. improve recordkeeping by printing of pass books that can be used to track individual monthly savings and loans disbursed, total revolving funds at group level and to develop appropriate financial products for the groups. • FFSs’ should be linked with government institutions promoting financial inclusion for women and youth to enhance funding for table banking activities. • Build capacity of the FFS facilitators to supervise table banking activities and compile monthly reports on monthly savings and loans disbursed as well as total group revolving funds; and include performance indicators in the financial component • Continue providing technical support to locally based financial institutions to enhance their capacity to deliver efficient and effective financial services to the livestock value chain. • Link the locally based financial institutions to development agencies promoting financial inclusion for continued capacity building support once K-SALES comes to an end. • Consider facilitating a comprehensive market research for product development of financial products and services along the livestock value chain that can be shared with community based financial institutions partnering with the project. • Continue facilitating sensitization workshops for the formal banks and financial institutions on opportunities available for business in the livestock sector in ASAL regions. LIPs’ need to:- • Establish a close linkage between FFSs and BSPs right from the selection process of BSPs to ensure demand for inputs and services from FFS are closely matched with supply. • Link BSPs to financial service providers to access asset financing in order to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in their operations. • Incorporate a mentoring / coaching component in addition to training offered to BSPs. • To enhance sustainability of water points by WUAs, it is important to allow adequate time for follow-up by LIP’s after infrastructure has been rehabilitated. • There is an opportunity for several FFS’s to venture into hides and skins business, first through partial processing and selling to manufacturing companies and then by growing to develop local tanning to enable manufacturing of such products as bags, belts and wallets. • The current working relationship with the County government by the LIPs need to be upheld in order to boost support for enactment of policies related to livestock and meat handling. All stakeholders in the livestock value chain should work together to lobby both the Countyand National governments to strengthen security in the ASAL areas especially in areas prone tocattle rustling in order to provide an enabling environment to improve livestock management and eventually production; and to improve infrastructure such as roads and water in the region. 10 | Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Kenya Semi–Arid Livestock Enhancement Support (K-SALES) project is a three-year (September 2013 to September 2016) Food for Progress project funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The project is currently being implemented in six Semi-Arid Zone 2 (SA2) counties of Kenya (Meru, Tharaka, Machakos, Kitui, Makueni and Taita Taveta). The project is mandated to increase productivity and boost marketing and trade to meet consumer demand. FIGURE 1K-SALES PROJECT AREA OF COVERAGE 11 | Page Land O’Lakes, in partnership with local service providers, is using a “light touch” approach to facilitate sustainable and innovative business models, new technologies and investments, and a responsive financial services sector that will allow Kenya to seize upon its competitive advantage and upgrade food quality to meet market demands. By targeting key value chainpoints and providing $6 million in competitive sub-awards to pertinent firms, K-SALES is applying a demand driven, private sector facilitative approach to help businesses grow and build linkages with livestock smallholders. The project aims to directly benefit 63,200 individuals including 3,200 agribusinesses that include women￾owned Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises(MSMEs), inputs wholesalers, retailers and exporters. The project supports two US Department of Agriculture (USDA) strategic objectives namely: SO1 – Increase agricultural productivity and SO2 – Expand trade of agricultural products. To achieve SO1, K-SALES is facilitating Farmer Field (FFS) Schools; developing Business Service Providers (BSPs); increasing access to clean water systems; improving infrastructure on-farm; and facilitating agricultural lending. To achieve SO2, K-SALES is improving infrastructure off- farm; providing trainings on Post￾Harvest Handling and Processing (PHH-P) techniques; and developing cooperative business capacity. In September 2015, MERDA Kenya Limited was awarded a contract to conduct the midterm evaluation for the K-SALES Project through a competitive bidding process. The purpose of the assignment was to assess performance and implementation of planned activities and outputs as laid out in the K-SALES project proposal and monitoring documents over the first half of the project life compared with baseline, document lessons learned and identify successes, constraints, and develop actionable recommendations on the work plan for the remaining duration of the project. The MTE was also meant to critically and objectively review the implementing experience and environment, and assess whether targeted partners, including women and other marginalized groups, are/have receiving/received services as expected. It was also meant to review and identify gaps on the existing project implementation strategy as wellas give concrete recommendations that need to be addressed in order to achieve the desired project outcomes. The objectives of the midterm evaluation included the following: i. To assess the progress made in implementing program activities and proposed targets; ii. To assess the relevance of interventions and appropriateness of approaches used; iii. To provide an early signal of the effectiveness of the interventions; iv. To identify and assess key strengths and weaknesses of specific project interventions, including partnership arrangements with grantees and overall program strategy; v. To document key learnings and emergent practices to date; and vi. To discuss and recommend midterm course corrections, addressing any areas of concern that will strengthen the remainder of the program This report presents the key findings of the mid-term evaluation on progress made in implementing program activities and proposed targets, relevance of interventions and appropriateness of approaches used, effectiveness of the interventions, key strengths andweaknesses of specific interventions, key learnings and emergent practices to date and recommendations on midterm course corrections in order to strengthen program implementation for the remaining project duration. 12 | Page 2.0 METHODOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTATION 2.1 Approach to the evaluation A participatory approach was adopted in carrying out the entire assignment. The MERDA team worked in close collaboration with K-SALES team, LIPs, BSPs and livestock farmers involved in project implementation. Both qualitative and quantitative research techniques were used for data collection and analysis. Literature review on the project was used to extract relevant secondary data. Qualitative data was largely generated through focus group discussions and key informant interviews with different stakeholders along the livestock value chain, profiling and direct observations. Quantitative data was gathered using structured questionnaires from household survey, BSP interviews, cooperatives and processors. 2.2 Literature review Preliminary literature review was carried out to enhance team understanding of the project and identify key variables relevant to the evaluation. Documents reviewed comprised of: contract document; baseline survey report; Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP); indicator data collection guideline; K-SALES evaluation plan; request for revision of performance indicators; revised PMP; strategic analysis of K-SALES; USDA Foreign Agricultural Services (FAS) Monitoring and Evaluation Policy; USDA Foreign Agricultural Services Indicator Handbook; semiannual and annual activity progress reports and training modules. An inception report wasgenerated to guide the design of the study, tools development and field data collection. 2.3 Data collection tools The following instruments were used for data collection: four sets of questionnaires which were developed, reviewed and validated by MERDA in liaison with Land O’ Lakes team; key informant interview guides and focus groups discussions guides. Questionnaires: These were designed for individual interviews to collect background information and project related interventions and impacts. Households participating in Farmer Field Schools, BSP’s, cooperatives and livestock processors were targeted for interviews. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs): These were designed to gather information from key actors in the livestock value chain participating in the K-SALEs Project. The interviews targeted the local implementing partners, Land O’ Lakes staff under K-SALES, County governments, transporters, financial service providers and Water User Associations. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted with FFS’s and WUA’s to capture knowledge, perceptions and attitudes of project participants about the project. This was also used to triangulate household survey data. Most Significant Change (MSC) and Case studies: Profiling was used to capture the MSC and Case studies. Further, the MSC involved generation of significant change stories attributed to K-SALES interventions and selected by the project stakeholders for in-depth discussions. 13 | Page 2.4 Sampling and sample size A multi-stage cluster sampling procedure was used during the evaluation. First, the selection of participating farmers was done based on Cochran sampling method as follows: Z 2 .p.(1− 0.05) n = c 2 where, ……………………………………………………………..…………….Eq. 1 n = required minimum sample size Z = Z-value (i.e. 1.96 for 96% confidence level) p = percentage picking a choice (=0.5); c = confidence interval (=0.05) Therefore, for target population of 63,200, 1.962 x0.5x(1 − 0.5) n = (0.05)2 = 384 To cater for the non-response and improve the representativeness of the sample by reducing sampling error and produce a weighted mean with less variability a total of 911 households were interviewed. The following table shows the summary of the sampled categories: TABLE 1: SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION County FFS BSP Cooperative Livestock Processors FGDs KIIs MSC Case Studies Facility Visits Meat and Livestock Transporters Meru 174 22 14 14 9 11 3 1 5 1 Tharaka Nithi 155 16 11 10 6 4 4 3 8 2 Kitui 184 16 12 10 6 8 2 1 6 2 Makueni 134 19 20 11 6 7 2 4 6 2 Taita￾Taveta 122 20 18 10 6 4 5 1 6 2 Machakos 142 16 14 3 6 9 4 3 2 2 Total 911 109 89 58 39 43 29 13 33 11 Source: Field data From the above table, structured questionnaires were used to gather information from 911 households participating in farmer field schools, 109 Business Service Providers (BSP’s), 89 Cooperatives/ marketing associations, 11 meat and livestock processors and 58 livestock processors; while interview guides were used to conduct 39 focus group discussions and 49 key informant interviews. Additionally, 13 facility visits were made, 20 most significant change stories and 13 case studies compiled. The distribution of sampled respondents as outlined above was based on the number of respondents available for the different indicators. Timing of the evaluation presented a challenge on both access to respondents and their availability. Areas such as Kitui had fewer respondents due to distances between respondents and movement of respondents. 14 | Page 2.5 Training of Research Team A residential training to induct the enumerators, supervisors and data clerks was conducted in Masii – Machakos on 1st – 3rd October, 2015. The Research team comprised of 24 enumerators, 6 data clerks and 6 supervisors. The training was conducted by the MERDA consultants and the Land O’Lakes K-SALES project staff. The training was conducted using various training methodologies that included: plenary discussions, role plays, group discussions, practical and field practice. The training focused on the following: • Background of the K-SALES project • Purpose and objectives of the MTE • Survey tools to familiarize and understand each question • Sample design and methodology to be used to get the participating farmers • Interviewing techniques; • Research ethics—time management, maintaining the interest and feeling of respondents during each interview, confidentiality with regards to respondents, and sensitivity to respondents’ emotions, feelings and decisions • Roles of each the MTE team member and managing the logistics • The training also consisted of data entry and checks. Pre-testing of the survey instruments was done on the third day followed by debriefing. The data collection tools were reviewed and any clarifications addressed before commencement of the data collection exercise. Feedback on the training was be given to Land O’ Lakes before proceeding to the field. 2.6 Quality Control Quality control during field work was closely monitored to enhance integrity of the data. The process of data management started in the field where the interviewers ensured that they collected quality data by following all the quality procedures taught during the training. Secondly, the supervisors edited the questionnaires and called upon the respective RA if anissue was identified before submitting to the field coordinator for further check-up before submitting to the data entry team. After achievement of the first 10% of fieldwork, thequestionnaires were analyzed to ensure all pertinent needs of the research were being answered before the fieldwork proceeded. The consultants ensured they were physicallypresent in at least 5% of the interviews. During this time they checked for accuracy in administration of the interviews. This accompaniment was done on a purely random basis. The consultants also made surprise field visits, to ascertain that the interviewers adhered to the itinerary and that work was being done in accordance with the field schedule. Back-checking was done by the consultants re￾administering the questionnaire to an already interviewed respondent. This was done to ascertain whether the interview actually took place, and determine whether the right respondent was interviewed. It was also done to ensure that the data collected was legitimate. This was done either face-to-face or via the phone calls. 15 | Page 2.7 Data Processing and analysis The data entry team was trained on use of data entry templates already prepared by data entry assistants using Epi Data. Testing of the template was done and consistency checks and skip patterns were inputted to make the template fit for data entry in the field. Data was entered partly in the field and concluded after the data collection. The whole process was monitored by the MERDA team leader. The data was analysed using the SPSS program version 20.0 and MS Excel. Geographical referencing software Map Maker and GPS essential were installed in the field team’s smart phones and tablets. The GPS locations for respondents were collected and sent on line to the GIS expert. The information was used to develop overlay Maps showing the data collection areas and respondent’s location. The results from quantitative data was summarized and presented using frequency tables, percentages and bar graphs. Qualitative information obtained from individual respondents, FGD’s and key informants was transcribed and analysed along the study themes to supplement and back up the survey data. 2.8 Study limitations and constraints Although the data collection was successful done, the following challenges were experienced: • Field data collection took place in early October when most farmers were busy in the farms planting for the short rains and they were not readily available for the interviews. • The literacy level was low in some of the areas and some respondents did not understand the English language used in the questionnaires. The research assistants had to translate the questions in local dialects for clarity of the respondents and this process took time. • Perception of the FFS facilitators and some of the LIPs who were expected to direct the enumerators to respective households that this was not their responsibility and they needed financial compensation if they were to do it. This slowed down the evaluation process in the initial stages before discussions were held and consensus reached since the MERDA team could not track targeted respondents without support. 16 | Page 3.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS The following section presents the findings of K-SALES project mid-term survey covering the meat value chain in Meru, Tharaka Nithi, Kitui, Machakos, Makueni and Taita Taveta counties. 3.1 Socio-Demographic Information I) Sex: Household survey respondents comprised of 74% females and 26% males (Table 2). The total proportion of youth (<35 years) was 26%. Out of these, 21% were males and 79% females. The survey had a majority of respondents being females (74%). This could be attributed to the current membership of FFS which has more females (65%) than males (35%). TABLE 2: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY SEX, OVERLAID WITH COUNTY AND AGE DATA Meru Tharaka Nithi Kitui Makueni Taita Taveta Machakos Total Total # 174 155 184 134 122 142 911 Total % 19 17 20 15 13 16 100 Male % 16 50 22 31 20 18 26 Female % 84 50 75 69 80 82 74 Under 18 19-35 36-64 Over 64 Total Total # 0 238 562 111 911 Total % 0 26 62 12 100 Male % 0 21 25 43 26 Female % 0 79 75 57 74 II) Age of respondents: A majority of respondents (62%) were aged between 36-64 years, 26% between 19-35 years and 12% above 64 years (Table 3). The low percentage of youth respondents could beexplained by limited ownership of land and livestock by the youth (Tables 12 and 13 respectively). Tharaka Nithi County had more 19-35 year old’s followed by Taita Taveta and Meru Counties. This was also observed in the same counties where Tharaka Nithi had less livestock producers above 64 years followed by Meru and Taita Taveta Counties. This is well presented in the table below: 17 | Page TABLE 3: AGE DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTY Meru Tharaka Nithi Kitui Makueni Taita Taveta Machakos Total Under 18 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 19-35 30% 37% 19% 19% 31% 21% 26% 36-64 60% 56% 66% 66% 58% 63% 62% Over 64 10% 7% 15% 15% 11% 15% 12% III)Main occupation: One of the requirements of FFS membership is ownership of livestock. The evaluation assessed the main source of income for the respondents to know the households that mainly relied on livestock production. According to the survey, the main source of income for 48% of the households was crop farming (Table 4) as much as they are livestock keepers and are members of FFSs. In addition, 18% relied mainly on informal employment while 15% relied mainly on livestock farming. TABLE 4: MAIN OCCUPATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD PER COUNTY Meru Tharaka Nithi Kitui Makueni Taita Taveta Machakos Total Livestock farming 6% 22% 26% 9% 12% 10% 15% Formal employment 1% 6% 10% 12% 11% 7% 7% Informal employment / wages 7% 7% 24% 22% 40% 11% 18% Small/micro enterprise 6% 14% 11% 10% 9% 2% 9% Petty trade 3% 8% 4% 4% 1% 1% 4% Total 174 155 184 134 122 142 911 IV)Education level of respondents: Respondents with at least some primary education were 32% with 24% completing primary education (Table 5). On the same note, 11% had completed secondary education. Respondents with no formal education were 13%. More females (15%) than males (7%) reported to have no formal education with Kitui and Meru Counties topping the list. Makueni County had more respondents (25%) who had completed secondary school while Tharaka Nithi County had more respondents (41%) who had at least attended primary school. 18 | Page TABLE 5: EDUCATION LEVEL OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD PER COUNTY Educational level of HH Meru Tharaka Nithi Kitui Makueni Taita Taveta Machakos Total No formal education 20% 7% 20% 6% 9% 10% 13% Attended primary school 37% 41% 29% 24% 25% 35% 32% Completed primary school 28% 21% 23% 20% 25% 27% 24% Attended secondary school 4% 8% 14% 19% 27% 17% 14% Completed secondary school 7% 14% 7% 25% 5% 8% 11% Post-secondary school 3% 7% 4% 6% 9% 2% 5% Adult education 0% 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1% Total 174 155 184 134 122 142 911 3.2 Income, Home ownership and Household Assets V) Average monthly income and proportion of income from Livestock enterprise The overall monthly income for the households was Ksh 12,700. Average monthly income for 33% of the respondents was less Ksh 5000, Ksh 5001 – Ksh 10,000 (31%) and Kshs 10,001- 20,000 (21%). The average monthly income from livestock enterprise was Ksh 3,088. This indicates that livestock enterprise contributes 24.3% to the total household income. According to the baseline survey livestock enterprise contributed Ksh 2,235.58 per month to the household income. This indicates an increase in the level of livestock contribution to the total household income. TABLE 6: AVERAGE MONTHLY INCOME Average monthly income Tharaka Nithi Kitui Makueni Taita Taveta Machakos Total Ksh.30001 13% 7% 7% 3% 3% 8% Total 155 184 134 122 142 911 VI)Average monthly expenditure and proportion of expenditure going to Livestock enterprise The average household’s monthly expenditures were Ksh13, 046 (Table 7) which is more than the average monthly income of Ksh 12,700. Most households (84%) indicated that their income was not sufficient to meet their monthly needs. However, the coping mechanisms they mentioned included: reduction of expenses (52%), borrowing from well wishers (12%), supportfrom relatives (22%), and support from NGOs (1%) and loans from financial institutions (8%) (Table 8). This gap can be addressed through increased livestock production. 19 | Page TABLE 7: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD MONTHLY EXPENDITURE IN KSH County Valid N Maximum Minimum Mean Standard Deviation Meru 174 226,000 2,000 15,968 19,439 Tharaka Nithi 155 138,800 2,160 15,582 14,593 Kitui 184 117,400 2,000 13,778 14,134 Makueni 134 70,000 1,000 13,562 12,403 Taita Taveta 122 98,200 3,000 14,261 12,387 Machakos 142 135,000 750 10,893 13,816 All 911 226,000 750 13,046 14,667 Coping mechanisms in the counties indicated that in Tharaka Nithi County, a majority (60%) reported to get support from NGOs with 33% in Meru County reporting to borrow from well￾wishers. However, the support from the NGOs, seem to be minimal especially in Meru, Kitui and Taita Taveta Counties with a reduction of the expenses being in the same range in all the Counties. TABLE 8: HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE COPING MECHANISM County Reduce expenses Borrow from well wishers Get support from relatives Support from NGOs Loan from financial institutions Meru 23% 33% 15% 0% 12% Tharaka Nithi 17% 7% 15% 60% 3% Kitui 17% 9% 21% 0% 29% Makueni 14% 22% 17% 20% 21% Taita Taveta 14% 12% 10% 0% 21% Machakos 17% 17% 23% 20% 14% All 52% 12% 22% 1% 8% Food takes the bulk of monthly household expenditure (33-40%) followed by education (26- 33%). Livestock related expenditures take either a third or fourth priority depending on the County (7-10%). Taita Taveta and Kitui Counties have more spending on livestock related expenses (10%). The high spending on non-income generating items limits investments in productive areas like livestock production. TABLE 9: SPECIFIC HOUSEHOLD MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE IN KSH County Food Education Health Clothing Travel Livestock Machakos 3188 (34%) 3170 (33%) 837 (9%) 722 (8%) 751(8%) 848 (9%) Meru 5520 (42%) 3601 (27%) 990 (8%) 958 (7%) 1171 (9%) 896(7%) Tharaka Nithi 4772 (34%) 4533 (32%) 1052 (7%) 970 (7%) 1572(11%) 1216(9%) Makueni 4619 (36%) 4290(33%) 781 (6%) 989 (8%) 1196(9%) 1074(8%) Taita Taveta 4479 (33%) 3462(26%) 977(7%) 1866(14%) 1233(9%) 1358(10%) Kitui 4923 (40%) 3419 (28%) 966 (8%) 629(5%) 1081(9%) 1183(10%) 20 | Page VII) Ownership of shelter A majority of respondents (98%) were living in their own houses with a few either having rented (1.2%) the premises or borrowed (0.3%) (Table 10). Having a majority of respondents owning homes is an indication of stability of the livestock farmers, in-terms of investing in their own land. These farmers will have more confidence to invest in livestock production technologies and on￾farm infrastructures. TABLE 10: SHELTER OWNERSHIP Shelter ownership Meru Tharaka Nithi Kitui Makueni Taita Taveta Machakos Overall Owned 98.9% 98.1% 98.4% 99.3% 95.9% 100.0% 98.5% Rented 1.1% 1.3% 1.1% 0.7% 3.3% 0.0% 1.2% Borrowed 0.0% 0.6% 0.5% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.3% The main floor material of the main house of over half of the respondents (58%) was earthen with 38% having cemented floors. Over a third of the main houses (35%) had the walls made of earth/mud/cow dung with 32% of the houses having been built with mud bricks. More houses inTharaka Nithi (70%), Meru (63%) and Kitui (63%) Counties had earthen floors compared to therest with Makueni (54%), Taita Taveta (49%) and Machakos (42%) having cemented floors. Most of the roofing of the main houses was done using iron sheets/asbestos. This is well presented inthe table below: TABLE 11: COMPOSITION OF HOUSEHOLD DWELLING Floor material of main house Meru Tharaka Nithi Kitui Makueni Taita Taveta Machakos Total Earth 63% 70% 63% 46% 49% 55% 35% Cement 26% 29% 36% 54% 49% 42% 15% Tiles 1% 1% 0% 0% 2% 2% 1% Timber 10% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 32% Wall material of main house Meru Tharaka Nithi Kitui Makueni Taita Taveta Machakos Total Earth/Mud/ Cow Dung 18% 74% 45% 14% 22% 31% 35% Wood 73% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 15% Iron Sheet 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 4% 1% Mud Bricks 2% 10% 35% 70% 46% 39% 32% Cement/ Stone Blocks 6% 17% 18% 12% 32% 24% 18% 21 | Page Roofing material of main house Meru Tharaka Nithi Kitui Makueni Taita Taveta Machakos Total Grass 2% 1% 11% 4% 0% 3% 4% Mud 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% Iron Sheets/ Asbestos 98% 98% 89% 94% 100% 96% 95% Tiles 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% I) Land ownership Land ownership is a factor of production and therefore determines agricultural practices and technologies that can be applied. The findings from MTE indicate that the average land ownership in Tharaka Nithi County was 6.5 acres followed closely by Taita Taveta County (4.9 acres), Kitui County and Makueni County (4.6 acres each), Machakos County (2.8 acres) and Meru County (2.4 acres). This indicates the need for appropriate livestock production technologies to enhance efficient utilization of existing land. FIGURE 2: LAND SIZE IN ACRES I) Land ownership by Gender Land is mostly owned by men (59.9%) with women who own land being 25.9%. Youth who own land are 4.5% males and 3.2% females. Land ownership has an implication on key decisions on land meaning that men, being the majority owners of land have an upper-hand on decision making. This limits key decisions regarding land by women and youth. 22 | Page TABLE 12: OWNERSHIP OF HOUSEHOLD LAND >35 men >35 women <35 men <35 women All Meru 61.2% 29.0% 2.2% 2.2% 5.4% Tharaka Nithi 59.4% 30.2% 4.0% 2.5% 4.0% Kitui 59.4% 22.4% 5.5% 3.2% 9.6% Makueni 59.0% 27.3% 5.6% 3.7% 4.3% Taita Taveta 46.4% 25.7% 7.9% 6.4% 13.6% Machakos 73.3% 19.2% 2.7% 2.1% 2.7% Overall 59.9% 25.9% 4.5% 3.2% 6.5% II) Livestock owned The current ownership of livestock in comparison with the baseline is lower but comparable (Table 13). For instance, current data at mid-term indicates that livestock owned at the time of survey was 2.54 cattle per household compared with 3.2 at baseline; 8.11 goats at midterm compared to 9.28 at baseline and 1.09 sheep at midterm compared with 1.72 at baseline. This is likely due to increased off-take at the time of MTE in preparation for the main planting season. However, there has been an improvement in the current average price/unit in Kshs per cattle (additional of Kshs 4,800) and sheep (Kshs 600) except goats which had reduced with Kshs 300. The average body condition of livestock had improved from a score of 2.7 to 3.0 for cattle and 2.8 to 3.0 for shoats. 23 | Page TABLE 13: LIVESTOCK OWNED IN COMPARISON WITH THE BASELINE Type Average Number owned Current average price/unit (Ksh) Average Body Condition Score Who mostly owns livestock % Who has the most access % Cattle 2.54 35,900 3.0 HH- 60.4 HH and Spouse￾18.9 Spouse- 11.5 All family- 7.1 Son- 1.4 Daughter- 0.6 Son & Daughter￾0.2 All- 63.1 HH- 18.0 Spouse- 8.8 HH and Spouse￾8.6 Son- 0.9 Daughter- 0.5 Son & Daughter￾0.2 Baseline 3.2 31,100 2.7 - - Goats 8.11 4,900 3.0 HH- 60.0 HH and Spouse￾17.9 Spouse- 14.3 Son- 1.3 Daughter- 0.5 All- 6.2 All- 59.9 HH- 18.6 Spouse- 11.0 HH and Spouse￾8.8 Son- 0.9 Daughter- 0.6 Son & Daughter￾0.2 Baseline 9.28 5,200 2.8 - - Sheep 1.09 3,900 3.0 HH- 57.3 HH and Spouse￾27.4 Spouse- 9.0 All- 5.1 Son- 1.3 All- 57.5 HH- 19.7 HH and Spouse￾10.7 Spouse- 9.8 Son- 1.3 Daughter- 0.9 Baseline 1.72 3,300 2.8 - - Cattle and shoats are mostly owned by the household head. Other members of the family have access to the livestock with limited ownership. This indicates that major decisions on the livestock are made by the household head that comprise of 82% males and 18% females. This means that as much as the membership of FFS is mostly women, there is need for enhanced male engagement. The results also show that the youth have little ownership and access to livestock. Any intervention targeting the youth needs to address accessibility of livestock suchas capital mobilization through making finances available to the youth. III)Livestock husbandry & herd management practices Overall, half of the livestock producers practice open grazing (50.9%). This includes group ranches mainly practiced in Taita Taveta. Tethering was practiced by 27.7% of the respondents and mostly in Machakos County 44.2% and Taita Taveta 44.5%, zero grazing by 12.3%, semi- paddocking by 5.9% and paddocking by 3.3%. This shows that the common herding practice is open grazing which was also highlighted at baseline (81.2%). This implies that there is need to intensify promotion of improved husbandry practices for better management of livestockproduction. 24 | Page TABLE 14: HERDING PRACTICES MAINLY PRACTICED BY COUNTY Herding Practice Baseline Midterm Meru Tharaka Nithi Kitui Makueni Taita Taveta Machakos Paddocking 3.3% 2.3% 7.5% 3.3% 2.8% 4.0% 0.0% 0.8% Semi- 5.9% 6.5% 1.7% 3.3% 12.2% 5.6% 10.1% 2.3% Open grazing 50.9% 81.2% 42.0% 86.3% 65.7% 29.6% 38.7% 31.8% Tethering 27.7% 59.2% 31.6% 6.5% 17.1% 30.4% 44.5% 44.2% Zero grazing 12.3% 17.9% 17.2% 0.7% 2.2% 30.4% 6.7% 20.9% MTE recorded an increase in knowledge and awareness of improved livestock husbandry technologies by livestock producers. Such awareness in technologies included: de-worming from 87.9% at baseline to 92.5% at mid-term, AI service from 69.7% to 83.3%, use of crop residue from 81% to 82.5% and destocking/restocking from 69.5% to 81.9%. However, the knowledge on tick control remained the same (93.7%) (Table 15). The enhancement in knowledge corresponds to the training the farmers reported to have received in a similar technology and also practiced. Hay making was reported more in Machakos County (50%) followed by Kitui County (47.8%) and Makueni County (40.3%). Only 9.7% of fodder production was reported in Tharaka Nithi County with 9.8% of those in Meru County doing so.Less silage making was reported in Meru County (9.8%), Tharaka County (4.5%) and Taita Taveta Counties (9.8%). Record keeping is high in Taita Taveta County (45.9%) followed by Makueni County (42.5%) and Kitui County (41.8%). Meru County came last in record keeping (13.8%). TABLE 15: LIVESTOCK TECHNOLOGIES PRACTICED PER COUNTY Livestock Technology / Technique Meru Tharaka Nithi Kitui Makueni Taita Taveta Machakos Hay making 20.7 24.5 47.8 40.3 28.7 50.0 Silage making 9.8 4.5 34.8 22.4 9.8 43.0 Pasture production 19.0 29.0 41.8 32.8 26.2 54.9 Fodder production 21.8 9.7 38.6 29.1 23.8 50.0 Pasture re-seeding 11.5 26.5 39.1 32.8 23.8 45.1 Use of crop residue 59.8 67.7 57.6 52.2 32.8 65.5 Mineral supplement 42.0 39.4 50.0 57.5 43.4 58.5 Concentrate feeding 23.0 9.0 39.1 44.0 20.5 45.1 AI services 24.1 25.2 45.7 39.6 46.7 41.5 Vaccination 57.5 79.4 79.3 61.2 79.5 66.9 Tick control 74.1 84.5 80.4 64.9 80.3 71.1 De-worming 75.3 84.5 81.0 60.4 84.4 69.0 De-stocking/re-stocking 47.7 60.6 52.2 47.8 50.0 62.0 Record Keeping 13.8 25.2 41.8 42.5 45.9 40.1 Farm planning 31.6 45.2 39.1 46.3 35.2 46.5 Business planning 20.7 41.9 36.4 35.1 32.0 41.5 Shelter and Housing for 36.8 47.1 51.6 47.0 47.5 54.2 26 | Page 3.2 Household food adequacy, frequency and quality Out of all the respondents, 16% indicated that the income is sufficient to support the household needs. Among those, a majority came from Kitui County (38%) followed by Tharaka Nithi County (21%) and Taita Taveta County (17%). This indicates the number of households that areable to sustain themselves from income generated by the households. With K-SALES project being implemented, more farmers are likely to have more incomes to support their households. FIGURE 3: INCOME SUFFICIENCY Different households reported different expenditure coping mechanisms (Table 16) including: - reduction of the expenses, borrowing from well-wishers, support from relatives, NGOs as well as requesting for loans from financial institutions. TABLE 16: HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE COPING MECHANISM County Reduce expenses Borrow from well wishers Get support from relatives Support from NGOs Loan from financial institutions Meru 57.5% 11.7% 19.0% 2.8% 8.9% Tharaka Nithi 30.2% 9.4% 19.4% 2.9% 38.1% Kitui 23.2% 23.7% 51.2% 0.0% 1.9% Makueni 81.8% 8.5% 8.5% 0.0% 1.2% Taita Taveta 80.8% 6.0% 13.2% 0.0% 0.0% Machakos 96.3% 3.7% 0% 0.0% 0.0% Overall 54.7% 12.4% 23.3% 1.0% 8.6% 27 | Page 3.2.1 Household Dietary Diversity Score Household food access is defined as the ability to acquire sufficient quality and quantity of food to meet all household members’ nutritional requirements for productive lives. Household Dietary Diversity, defined as the number of unique foods consumed by household members over a given period, has been validated to be a useful approach for measuring household food access, particularly when resources for undertaking such measurement are scarce. The DietaryDiversity survey had a total of 12 food groups which included Cereals; potatoes or yams (whiteroots and tubers); Vegetables; Fruit; Meat; Eggs; Fish; legumes or beans; milk & milk products; oils and fats; condiments, tea & coffee; and sugars or sweets. More respondents reported to have had a diet composed of cereals, condiments, tea or coffee, sugar or sweets, oils and fats and milk and milk products in their last 24 hours. Only 12.5% reported to have consumed meat as indicated in the figure below. FIGURE 4: PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHO REPORTED CONSUMING DIFFERENT FOOD GROUPS WITHIN THE LAST 24 HOURS Consumption of a combination of different foods in the last 24 hours prior to the interview was recorded from the assessment. Those having a combination of 1-3 food groups accounted for 12.0% with 63.8% reporting to have had a combination of 1- 6 food groups. Only 3.0% indicated they had a combination of 10 and above food groups. This is presented in the table below. 28 | Page TABLE 17: FOOD GROUPS CONSUMED BY HOUSEHOLDS LAST 24 HOURS Number of food groups consumed by householdsin the last 24 hours Frequency Percent 1 3 0.3 2 28 3.1 3 78 8.6 4 119 13.1 5 158 17.3 6 195 21.4 7 141 15.5 8 107 11.7 9 55 6.0 10 20 2.2 11 7 0.8 Total 911 100.0 The household data collected during this evaluation indicated that the Household Dietary Diversity (HDD) Score ranged from 1 to 11 groups with an average of 5.87 groups (±1.933 Standard Deviation). The Dietary Diversity Score in relation to the household income indicates that the higher the household income, the higher the ability to diversify their diets as indicated in the Figure 5 below. This shows that households in the higher income level consumed a more diversified diet than households in the lowest income level. FIGURE 5: DDS SCORE VS INCOME The MTE data indicated that there was significant difference (p = 0.074) in HDD score at 10% significant level for households headed by males (mean=5.92, standard deviation=1.96) and females (mean =5.62, standard deviation =1.80). This indicates those households headed by males have better access to different foods than households headed by females. This impliesthat female headed households are more food insecure than male-headed households. In comparison with the baseline survey, there is a general improvement in dietary diversity score indicating better access to various foods at MTE in comparison to during the baseline. 29 | Page FIGURE 6: SEX AND AGE OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD VS THE DDS MEAN SCORE Makueni and Meru counties had a DDS mean value less that the sample average. Kitui County had the highest DDS score followed closely by Taita Taveta and Tharaka Nithi Counties as shown in the figure below. FIGURE 7: COUNTY VS DDS MEAN VALUE 3.2.2 Months when household did not have enough food to meet family’s needs Most of the household (79.3%) had experienced months when they could not meet food needs for the family in the past 12 months. Only 20.7% were able to meet food requirements. A majority of those (76.9%) indicated they had been unable to meet the requirements for between 1-6 months. Only 4.2 indicated they experience the situation throughout the year i.e. for a period of 12 months as shown in Table below. 30 | Page TABLE 18: NUMBER OF MONTHS HHS ARE NOT ABLE TO MEET FOOD NEEDS Months HHs are not able to meet food needs Number Percent 1 38 5.3 2 79 10.9 3 96 13.3 4 97 13.4 5 140 19.4 6 105 14.5 7 59 8.2 8 34 4.7 9 29 4.0 10 10 1.4 11 5 0.7 12 30 4.2 Total 722 (79.3%) As shown in Figure 8, the months of August – December are the months when there is inadequate food for most of the farmers. Over half of the respondents indicated that they did not have enough food to meet family’s needs during the months of August, September,October and November in the last twelve months. September was the month when majority (60%) didn’t have enough food followed by October (57%) and August (54%). These are the months that fall in the second half of the year. During the first half of the year, farmers benefit from the Oct-December short rains which are more reliable in the target region. FIGURE 8: MONTHS WHEN RESPONDENTS FACE FOOD SCARCITY 31 | Page 3.3 Relevance / Appropriateness of K-SALES Project 3.3.1 Relevance and Strategic Fit with other Development Initiatives The overall objective of K-SALES project is to help create a more inclusive, competitive and efficient livestock sector by improving the quality of locally produced animals (goat, sheep and cattle), building the capacity of actors along the value chain and facilitating access to critical support services such as livestock inputs, targeted trainings and finance. This objective is relevant and it also fits strategically with Kenya’s national economic policy aspirations and the economic development agenda of key international development programmes and objectives. Kenya’s 2030 vision for the agricultural sector is to have an innovative, commercially –oriented and modern farm and livestock sector and one of the strategies identified to achieve this is increasing production and market access. Specific strategies will involve (i) transforming key institutions in agriculture and livestock to promote household and private sector agricultural growth; (ii) increased productivity of crops and livestock. In addition, Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (2010-2020) recognizes livestock production potential in the ASAL areas which is challenged by unfavorable climatic conditions (recurrent drought), lack of proper marketing structures and limited processing facilities. Further, the Government of Kenya Sessional Paper No. 8 of 2012 on National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands recognizes that Kenya will not achieve sustained growth in her economy and progress as a nation if the ASALs are not factored into national planning and development framework. K-SALES project is also consistent with the African Union Policy Framework for Arid and Semi￾Arid Lands in Africa, which was approved in January 2011. The policy recognizes that ASALs supply very substantial numbers of livestock to domestic, regional and international markets and therefore, make crucial – but often undervalued – contributions to national and regional economies in Africa. The design of the project was also consistent with the former Millennium Development Goal (MDG) Number 1 on poverty reduction that aimed at halving the proportion of people that suffer from hunger and MDG 7 on environmental sustainability that aimed at halving the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe domestic water by 2015. On the same note, the project is in line with the newly transitioned Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) one (end poverty in all forms everywhere which aims at eradicatingextreme poverty for all people everywhere, currently measured as people living on less than $1.25 a day by 2030) and six (clean water and sanitation aiming at increasing substantially water￾use efficiency across all sectors and ensuring sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity by 2030). 3.3.2 Validity of project in relation to Target participants’ Needs The target zone has high poverty levels according to Kenya County Fact Sheet (2011), high population diversity with large livestock potential, set against high, unmet demand for livestock and livestock products although the zone is strategically positioned within livestock trading corridors serving both Nairobi and Mombasa markets. 32 | Page This project is relevant and appropriate given that it is implemented in arid and semi-arid areas that are affected by regular and cyclic drought, limited and unreliable access to water and rainfall resulting in disappearing grasslands and low food production. The region is also characterized by high prevalence of livestock diseases, high livestock mortality, and limited access to livestock inputs, services and markets. The project focuses on addressing the above problems through improved livestock production and increasing trade. This is both strategic and relevant given that the participating farmers keep livestock as a source of their livelihood. The project implementation was initiated after completion of a baseline survey giving the project team an understanding of the prevailing livestock production, marketing and socio- economic situation of the livestock farmers. The general priority needs identified by thebaseline were:- low livestock productivity, erratic and unpredictable weather conditions, inadequate market and marketing infrastructure, poor farm management and livestock husbandry practices, inadequate water, post￾harvesting handling challenges, low capital base among others. As such the project is designed to address the felt needs of the local communities. 3.3.3 Appropriateness of program design and activities (i) Partnering with Local Implementing Partners (LIPs) K-SALES project is implementing different interventions using LIPs. LIPs were identified through a competitive bidding process. The objective was to have the local implementing agencies take a more central role in project implementation in order to increase local ownership, enhance the likelihood of sustainable behavior change, and expand the potential or increase impact and scale of activities over time. This focus on the “local” encompasses anyonewho is involved in influencing a particular development outcome at the national, county, or community level. Behavior change is challenging and requires patience, time and reinforcement.The LIPs are registered under different legislation that includes: Non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) Private Companies, Faith Based Organizations and Community Based Organization or Associations. K-SALES project is currently working with 21 LIPs as shown in the following Table. FACT SHEET - Poverty Levels in Kenya (2011): Makueni 64.1 Kitui 63.5 Machakos 59.6 Taita Taveta 54.8 Theraka Nithi 48.7 Meru 28.3 (Project is implemented in lower areas of Meru where poverty levels are higher than the county average) 33 | Page TABLE 19: LIPS AND AREAS OF PARTNERSHIPS Areas of partnership Local Implementing Partner Counties of Operation Developing BSPS [LIP] [LIP] [LIP] [LIP] [LIP] Meru Taita Taveta Kitui Tharaka Makueni and Machakos Facilitating FFS [LIP] [LIP] [LIP] [LIP] Taita Taveta Meru and Tharaka Machakos and Kitui Makueni Increasing Access to Clean Water Systems [LIP] [LIP] [LIP] [LIP] Kitui Meru and Tharaka Makueni Machakos On-farm [LIP] [LIP] [LIP] [LIP] Taita Taveta Meru and Tharaka Machakos and Kitui Makueni Financial Services [LIP] [LIP] [LIP] All 6 Machakos Meru and Tharaka Off-Farm infrastructure [LIP] Kitui Post-Harvest Handling [LIP] All 6 Developing Cooperatives Business Capacity [LIP] [LIP] [LIP] Meru and Tharaka Machakos and Makueni Kitui and Taita Taveta The “light touch” approach used by K-SALES has been embraced whole heartedly by both the County governments and the Local Implementing Partners. Key informant interviews held with senior management staff drawn from these institutions confirmed healthy relationships have been forged between LIP’s and County Governments. K-SALES approach of working through LIP is perceived to be good since most of these partners have been working with the local communities for long; therefore, they understand the local environment and they are trusted bythe local communities since they have a proven track record. This saved time that would have been spent by LIPs familiarizing themselves with the local communities if they had been recruited from elsewhere. The County governments see an opportunity to streamline the Livestock value chain by partnering with the development agencies and the private sector to develop what is a significant economic sector in their respective regions. 34 | Page Discussions with all the LIPs revealed that they have a good working relationship with K-SALES Project. At the beginning of the project an induction training was conducted which was appreciated. The LIPs were asked to bring all the team members that were be involved in K￾SALES Project which was really good since all the team members were able to implement what they learnt when project activities commenced. Since then, two other forums have been organized for implementing partners which provided a forum to share experiences and identify areas they can work together. The LIPs have also been inducted in the use of online M & E system which has eased reporting. The online system is easy and simple to use. It has simple reporting templates; therefore, LIPs do not have to write long narrative reports. Registration forms for participants in training sessions were provided at the beginning of the project, therefore LIPs do not have to create their own templates. Issuance of registration forms was good for standardization. The K- SALES Project staffs are perceived to be very responsive every time they are contacted. They always pick their calls and also return calls promptly. The LIPs that have achieved their targets, said facilitating factors that has enabled them to achieve the set milestones include the following: support from their project staff on the ground;support of K-SALES Project in providing guidance and precise information on what needs to be done and support received from County government officers. For the LIPs in business sector (Business Development Service (BDS) providers), relationship with K-SALES Project has also been beneficial to their own enterprises. For instance, it has equipped them to work in a different economic sub-sector, therefore they have diversified their revenue base; it has helped them to create a good relationship with the County Governments, thus opening other avenues for business; working on the project has also given them useful experience in working with donor funded projects thus giving them credibility with other donors and potential clients. Further, promotional efforts made by the project have given them visibility thus enhancing their image in the marketplace. The following table summarizes the key Partners working on the project and their role and responsibility in project implementation. 35 | Page TABLE 20: PARTNERS WORKING UNDER K-SALES PROJECT Partner Roles USDA The project donor provided funding for the K-SALES Project. Responsible for ensuring that K-SALES is successfully implemented and remains compliant with USDA-Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) applicable regulations, terms, and conditions. Land O’Lakes Plan, recruit Local Implementing Partners, offer technical support, and Monitor implementation of K-SALES Project Local Implementing Partners Implementation of K-SALES project involving mapping and identification of targeted value chain actors, training and capacity building, rehabilitation of on-farm and off-farm structures and market linkages County Government Partner with project team and Local Implementation Partners on implementation of the project. Livestock farmers Producers of livestock The recipients of capacity building interventions and provide cost share inthe K￾SALES interventions. Input suppliers Provide inputs to the livestock sector The recipients of capacity building interventions and provide cost share inthe K￾SALES interventions Transporters Provide transport in the livestock sector (live animals and meat) The recipients of capacity building interventions and provide cost share inthe K￾SALES interventions Processors Provide market for livestock by processing cattle and shoats (slaughter, butchers’ services) The recipients of capacity building interventions and provide cost share inthe K￾SALES interventions Cooperatives Marketing of livestock for its members Water User Associations Management and maintenance of water infrastructure End users of meat These include: Hotels and schools They provide end market for meat and other livestock products (ii) Developing Business Service Providers (BSPs) Developing BSPs is aimed at increasing availability of improved inputs and increasing farmers’ knowledge of improved agricultural techniques and technology. This is a very relevant intervention because capacity building of farmers on improved production techniques and technologies through the FFS is expected to create a demand pull for improved inputs and modern technologies. It is important to ensure expected rise in demand for BSP services is matched by a steady supply for required products and services to enhance adoption of the improved agricultural techniques & technologies. The demand for training by existing BSPs has been high and targets set for capacity building of BSPs have been achieved as illustrated in the table below. 36 | Page TABLE 21: INDICATORS FOR DEVELOPING BSPS Indicator Project Target Baseline Midterm achievements Comments Number of business service providers trained to deliver inputs and services that enhance agricultural productivity 700 0 Male: 625 Female: 336 Total: 961 The target has been Surpassed Number of Business Service Providers trained in business management skills 700 0 Male: 632 Female: 341 Total: 973 The target has been surpassed Number of county-level livestock trade shows supported 18 0 7 Achievement is at 39%. The target is behind schedule primarily because ofdelays in commencement of project implementation. It is therefore important to consider a no cost extension of the project to make up for lost time. Value of cash or in-kind grants disbursed to BDSproviders $ 1,787,03 5 0 $ 230,860 Achievement is at 12.92%. The target is behind schedule primarily because ofdelays in commencement of project implementation. It is therefore important to consider a no cost extension of the project to make up for lost time. 37 | Page Willingness of BSPs to work with the program and attend the training sessions when they should be attending to their enterprises demonstrates there is an incentive for the BSPs to work with the project due to anticipated business opportunities. The findings of the MTE confirm the need for training of BSPs at different levels of the livestock value chain. BSPs require skills in marketing of their businesses, record keeping and business management. Thus, providing training for BSPs is relevant intervention that is helping farmers improve the quantity and quality of livestock products in order to access high value markets. A majority of the BSPs (90.7%) indicated that the intervention is appropriate to their needs and therefore strategic. FIGURE 9: APPROPRIATENESS OF INTERVENTIONS VERSUS NEEDS (iii) Facilitating Farmer Field Schools (FFS) LIP’s were contracted to mobilize livestock farmers, facilitate formation / development offarmer field schools (FFS) and conduct training of farmers on livestock production through the FFS. Most LIP’s commenced implementation of project activities in December 2014 – February 2015 and therefore the activity had been operational for 6 -10 months by the time the MTE was conducted. During the MTE, FFS’s were identified as one of the components that is working well in the program by all the actors in the value chain. Livestock producers identified training on livestock production as one of the key benefits derived from the K-SALES Project. Over three quarters (77.5%) indicated the training was beneficial with 67% pointing out that the training was sufficient (Figure 10). This is further confirmed by case studies of successful livestock producersdrawn from the different Counties who trace their success to training they received at the FFS. Discussions held with different focus groups discussions drawn from the FFS’s and other key informant 38 | Page interviews with different actors in the value chain confirmed training of livestock producers through the FFS is a good model that is building farmers capacity in raising their productivity. The willingness of livestock producers to join the FFS’s and attend periodic training sessions facilitated by LIP’s and the positive feedback from other stakeholders along thevalue chain is a clear indicator of the relevance and appropriateness of the FFS. A majority of the respondents (82.2%) reported that the intervention was appropriate to their needs (Figure 11). FIGURE 10: PERCEPTION ON TRAINING RECEIVED ON TECHNOLOGIES Unfortunately, this is one of the components that was adversely affected by the delay in project implementation. Farmer mobilization and formation of producer groups’ that are cohesive enough to implement project activities is a lengthy process. The 10 months period available for implementation of project activities before the MTE was not adequate for the set targets to be achieved and have impact realized. Ideally, it is expected that at mid-term, 50% of the LOP targets are met. However, this component achieved less than 50 % in most of the targets as illustrated in the table below. 39 | Page TABLE 22: FACILITATING FARMER FIELD (FFS) SCHOOLS Indicator Project Target Baseline Midterm achievements Comments Number of farmers trained in improved agricultural techniques and technologies 60,000 0 Male: 5,687 Female: 16,187 Total: 21,874 Achievement is at 36.5%. Thetarget is behind schedule Number of farmers trained in improved farm management practices 60,000 0 Male: 4,801 Female: 13,665 Total: 18,466 Achievement is at 30.78%. Thetarget is behind schedule in relation to the remaining time Number of producers group/cooperative members benefiting from peer-to-peer learning tours 6,000 0 Male: 1,159 Female: 3,300 Total: 4,459 Achievement is at 74.32%. Thetarget is on schedule Value of cash or in￾kind grants dispersedto facilitate farmerfield schools $ 771,700 0 $ 188,212 Achievement is at 24.4%. Thetarget is behind schedule During the second half of the project, efforts should be intensified to mobilize more livestock farmers to join FFS. It is worth noting that the problem of insecurity due to cattle rustling and conflicts over territorial boundaries poses a potential threat to the success of the K-SALES in some areas. For instance, running battles between farmers in Meru County and cattle rustlers from Isioloare rampant due to cattle raids and thefts. Meru is one of the counties K-SALES is working andthere is a risk that livestock farmers may fear investing in improved breeds and better nutrition for their animals due to fear of theft which poses a threat to successful project implementation of KSALES. The project therefore needs to consider providing support to LIPs to promote peaceful co-existence among communities in the ASAL areas; and partnering with the County governments in an endeavor to enhance security which is required in order to provide an enabling environment for business development. (iv) Increasing access to clean water systems The target area of K-SALES Project is spread over 6 Counties in the Arid and Semi-Arid area of Kenya. These areas are faced with acute shortage of water that highly limits livestock production. This component is therefore very critical in this project since it directly addresses access to water for both livestock and for domestic use. Local communities trek for long distances to fetch water for both their domestic use as well as for their livestock. K-SALES Project is providing support through LIPs for investment in WUAs within the KSALES project area. WUAs are made up of community persons or groups coming together for the common goal of increasing access to water within a given geographical location. Some of the WUAs are registered as self-help groups and run water user associations as part of their mandate. The WUAs identified during the project and those set up during the project period had a primary 40 | Page objective to address water shortages through provision of accessible water in theselected regions, in a bid to ensure all households in the said areas had access to clean water. They also sought to provide economic support to WUA members in order to ensure sustainability of the associations, since most of them charge a minimal fee to access the water, that is ploughed back into the water project for routine maintenance. The mandate of the associations across all the six regions indicates that the project design is both appropriate and strategic, and implementation involves key stakeholders and partners. Apart from the WUAs, other actors involved in facilitating access to clean water identified during interviews include the following: • The Implementing partners • The host (local) community made up of farmers and protectors of water resources e.g. from the sources if it is a stream or river. • The government through the Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, and the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) • The donor (identified as Land O’Lakes). • Other development partners who had the same objectives or are implementing similar projects in the community. Mapping of community water points that require rehabilitation is conducted with the help of the Water Department in the Ministry of Environment, Water and Natural Resource, Local Administration and the Department of Social Services. While the structure is rehabilitated, the water committee is trained on management and operation of the structure. Rehabilitation done include: fencing of earth-dams/ water pans, catchment area protection, water kiosk renovation / construction, distribution system repair, borehole / shallow well rehabilitation, replacement of hand pumps and construction / repair of cattle troughs; Reviving of powered generators, well￾partial lining, cover and pump installation. The high number of key stakeholders involved in facilitating access to clean water is a clear demonstration of the relevance of the intervention and the pressing need to access water for the community for both their domestic needs as well as for their livestock. (v) Improving infrastructure on-farm This activity begun in August 2015; the delay was as a result of change in design of the component. Initially, farmers were supposed to write proposals and then implement the activities by themselves. This was deemed to be inappropriate since farmers have limited capacity. A request to change the design was made to enable the LIP’s implement on behalf of the communities. K￾SALES has engaged the same partners facilitating mobilization and capacity building of FFS’s to undertake the On-farm infrastructure. Through the FFS groups participating in the project, the contracted LIP’s identify existing on- farm structures and help rehabilitate them. They include: cattle dips, crushes, feed storage bans and feed lots. The aim is to improve infrastructure to support on-farm production and increaseuse of improved agricultural techniques and technologies. The intervention is relevant since adoption of improved techniques and technologies is a core objective, for improved productionand productivity of livestock products to be achieved. 41 | Page At MTE, 16 on-farm structures against a target of 310 (5.16%) had been achieved. This was attributed to the long delays in commencement of project implementation. The rehabilitation of the on-farm infrastructure only started in August 2015 and therefore not much had been done by September – October when the MTE was conducted. (vi) Facilitating agricultural lending to increase access to financial services Access to financial services to improve livestock enterprises is a key challenge in the project area and therefore the intervention is very relevant since all enterprises need access to capital to finance growth. Also, the livestock value chain needs different financial products and services in order to take livestock products from the producer up to the final consumer. The initial design of the intervention was intended to work with conventional banks and [named bank] was identified as the initial partner. However, no progress was realized according to K-SALES staff since “banks want to do business their own way and they are not willing to take risks”. The formal financial structure does not therefore have readily available products and services for the livestock value chain. K-SALES has therefore found it easier to work with the smaller, more flexible locally based financial institutions that are willing to venture into the unknown and offer more innovative products to meet the client needs. Following approval to change design of the intervention, K-SALES Project is targeting smaller community based financial service providers. K-SALES Project has signed MOU’s with 7 financial service providers and two SACCO’s have started working with different actors along the livestock value chain. These lower-level institutions are more flexible in their approach to financial inclusion and they are therefore able to accommodate the needs of small and micro enterprises along the livestock value chain. However, they also need capacity building of their staff and technical support in development of appropriate financial products and services as well management information systems (MIS) which K-SALES is already supporting. To enhance financial literacy, training curricular was developed and 10 facilitators were trained as TOT’s on financial literacy to facilitate training of FFS on financial literacy. In Machakos, the project is assisting a SACCO in Mwala to develop a strategic plan and also plans to assist the financial institutions build up their MIS and develop new products and services for the livestock sector. A SACCO based in Meru confirmed it has been receiving technical support from a LIP contracted to build capacity of BSP’s in Meru to develop appropriate products and services for the livestock value chain and is also providing wholesale lending to SACCO for on lending to the sub-sector. All these developments confirm the relevance of the planned intervention by KSALES to promote financial inclusion. (vii) Improving Infrastructure off farm Market infrastructure in the project area is not developed and limits trade. A farmer organization formed in the year 2000 was sub-contracted as the Local Implementing Partner to develop off￾farm infrastructure, particularly markets and slaughterhouses/slabs rehabilitation in Kitui. The target was to rehabilitate 100 market structures and 6 slaughter slab structures. The organization identified 15 markets carried out a survey with the County teams to assess their physical conditions and realized that there was noexisting infrastructure in the markets; only open grounds for selling animals. Effective marketing of livestock will require formal structures to enhance the quality of products. Livestock suffer from stress after trekking / travelling over long distances which affects quality of 42 | Page products if they are processed in that state. It is therefore important to have good holding sheds for animals where they can access drinking water and relax awaiting sale. Other facilities like loading ramps are also required to ease stress associated with travel. For sustainability, the markets need to raise finances to meet operational costs. K-SALES project has demonstrated fencing of the markets makes it easier to collect revenue for services revenue thus enhancing sustainability of the markets. The planned intervention of improving off-farm infrastructure is therefore very relevant for this project. (viii) Providing trainings on Post-Harvest Handling and Processing (PHH-P) techniques K-SALES looks at post-harvest activities and processing techniques of livestock to improve trade in the livestock value chain. This component addresses the activities that are undertaken after the animal leaves the market. K-SALES provide sub-awards to existing BDS providers to train processing facility employees on improved processing techniques (slaughtering hygiene, process and use of improved processing techniques); transporters, butchers and end users. With the help of the County Government, the actors (livestock transporters, processors, meat handlers) are mobilized and trained. The content of training include: animal transportation, handling of animals after it leaves the market, keeping before slaughter, slaughtering process￾hygiene and equipments needed during slaughter, transportation of hot carcass, and food hygiene for food handlers. The project sought to facilitate the training of 2500 processors of livestock and livestock products employed at slaughter facilities and butcheries. At least 50% of the firms participating in the project will be introduced to use of modern techniques to process livestock products. Target for this component has been exceeded with 2503 post-harvest handling and processing facility employees trained in improved processing techniques against the target of 2500. 3267 post￾harvest handling and processing facility employees have been trained in sanitary standards against the target of 2500. This was achieved through cash or in-kind grants disbursed worth $146,312, (against an initial project target of $709,200). This can be attributed to good mobilization of the processors by the LIPs through the County government. This component is helpful in enhancing the quality of the processed products in order to make the enterprises of the post- harvest actors more competitive and attract higher value markets leading to increase in demand for livestock. Thus it is a relevant intervention. (ix) Developing Cooperative business capacity A cooperative is a member-owned and controlled business that operates for the mutual economic and social benefit of its members. Cooperative formation in the project area will help farmers benefit from economies of scale and improve their marketing as well as production through access to finances, inputs and technology. The intervention by K-SALES is relevant and timely. LIPs were contracted by Land O’ Lakes and K-SALES to support development of cooperative business capacity under Strategic Objective 2 on Expanding Trade of agricultural products (Domestic & Regional). The component has two main objectives namely: (i) To build the capacity of livestock-based marketing cooperatives/groups/associations for improved business performance and access to markets targeted Counties; (ii) Improved organizational capacity of 43 | Page livestock-based producer-marketing groups and cooperatives in targeted Counties. The component has achieved the following results: TABLE 23: DEVELOPING COOPERATIVE BUSINESS CAPACITY Indicators Project Target Baseline Midterm achievements Comments Number of livestock enterprisestaff and cooperative members trained to market agriculturalproducts 600 0 1,034 Activity completed and targets exceededby 72.33% in relation to LOP targets Number of livestock enterprisestaff and cooperative members trained in improved business management 600 0 1,034 Activity completed and targets exceededby 72.33% in relation to LOP targets Number of study tours facilitated 100 0 10 Achievement is at 10% of LOP targets. The target is achievable Value of cash or in-kind grants disbursed tolivestock enterprises $340,567 0 $267,047 Activity on schedule at 78.41% in relation to LOP targets The initial step was to identify livestock Cooperatives in the project area with the help of the livestock department in the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, partners on the ground and local administration. In most of areas, there was no livestock Cooperative in existence. The FFSs and existing livestock groups were identified, mobilized, trained and sensitized on formation of cooperatives. The next step is formation of cooperatives by the trained FFS’s. The project needs to target formation of two to three cooperatives per county and put more emphasis on strengthening them. 44 | Page 3.3.4 Participation of target groups in the program It was noted that the project has made considerable effort to reach the targeted groups along the livestock value chain as designed. The project has reached 21,296 farmers through FFS, 3,267 through Post Harvest Handling and 973 through Business Service Providers; while another 64,565 farmers have been reached through the water component. A total of 3,200 agribusinesses are participating in the program. These include input suppliers, butchers, slaughterhouse owners, transporters and food handlers (buyers). Farmers are involved in K- SALES capacity building programs and in implementation of on-farm / off-farm structures by providing community contribution and in management of these infrastructures. The targeted entrepreneurs also benefit from capacity building programs. Farmers who are the bulk of participants have often viewed themselves as beneficiaries in the project rather than active partners. Participation can be enhanced by allowing the target groups to be involved in decision making on areas of partnership with K-SALES. For instance, during the FFS’s trainings, the groups can propose specific technologies that they feel are needed for their specific areas to be addressed through the partnership. Secondly, the FFS’s can be allowed to develop proposals on off-farm and on-farm structures that they feel are to be rehabilitated. These proposals can be submitted to the LIP’s who review and advice accordingly as opposed to the LIP’s doing mapping using the other stakeholders. This will raise the level of ownership. 3.3.5 Appropriateness of training materials Training materials have been developed for FFS’s, BSP’s, cooperatives, processors, WUAs, transporters, financial literacy and ‘value addition of horns and bones value. The following comments are made in respect to the FFS training manual: The model of FFS manual is a hybrid of traditional Farmer Field School (FFS) and the Rotating Savings and Credit Schemes (ROSCAs). The model is enriched by borrowing from best practices in community development. The FFS implementation flow is clear and follows principles of model FFS with a comprehensive curriculum. Proposed improvement in the manual is to have a section that guides the FFS to develop their vision, mission, objectives and a growth plan. In addition, as much as the qualities of leadership are handled in the manual, it is important to address the area of developing visionary leadership. Given the unreliability of rainfall in the project area, improved technologies of grass/folder establishment using dryland technologies needs to be addressed. This is aimed at improving pasture availability which is a key constraint to production. These technologies include: use of semicircular bunds, negarims, zai pits, stone bunds, soil bunds and micro basins. Pasture preservation is addressed in the technical manual through the technologies of hay and silage making but there is need to emphasize practical application for both. 3.3.6 Project Objectives, Outputs and Appropriateness of Indicators Project design and its associated monitoring and evaluation framework require that project objectives, outputs, activities, anticipated outcomes and impact; as well as objectively verifiable indicators are clearly defined as a good practice. The K-SALES project documents have well defined objectives, outputs, activities and indicators. Most indicators were realistic, targeted and 45 | Page gender-sensitive. However, a few indicators were similar but being captured differently. For example: number of farmers and others who have applied new techniques or technologies as a result of USDA assistance and percent of farmers participating in project interventions who have applied new techniques or technologies as a result of USDA assistance could be captured by either but not both indicators. The indicators broadly complied with the SMART principles in the context of instruments for project monitoring and evaluation (where SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Attributable, Realistic and Targeted). The means for verification of project indicators, namely monthly reports; quarterly and support supervision reports, Routine Data Quality Assessment (RDQA) and Data Quality Assurance (DQA) reports and progress reports were appropriate in terms of informing project participants, though inadequate follow-up reduced anticipated effectiveness. Some of the project components and activities; expected outputs, outcomes and impacts (as contained in the project document and Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP)) are well defined. The component indicators also complied very well with the SMART principles of the standard monitoring and evaluation framework. In particular, they are specific, measurable (with quantifiable targets), realistic and targeted. 3.4 Efficiency Implementation of the project activities were to commence in October 2013 but were delayed for almost one year. The delay was caused by longer time taken to have the baseline survey approved. The result is a reduction in actual project implementation period to 2 years.Activities have been fast-tracked with findings from the MTE indicating implementation to be at 35% and financial spending at 33.9% (spending of $4,759,290.47 against a contract budget of $14,039,685 - adjusted with loss on monetization). This indicates that both implementation and spending are at par. However, in relation to the remaining project period, the project implementation is below schedule. The facilitative approach adopted of using a ‘’light touch’’ has enabled the project to reach a big geographical area covering 6 counties in the ASAL region with only a few project staff.However, time given to LIP’s for implementation of activities is too short, therefore more focusis on achieving their milestones especially the targeted numbers. This is likely to result in achieving the numbers targeted with lower rate of adoption than anticipated. MTE noted that most of the LIP’s work independently without building on other components activities. K-SALES has already taken note of this and have started holding networking forums to provide a forum for LIP’s to exchange ideas and explore the possibility of enhancing synergies in order to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. To enhance efficiency and effectiveness of project implementation, there must be concerted efforts by LIPs undertaking the different components to interact at the local level and draw a 46 | Page road map on how they can draw synergies from one another. This can start with quarterly forums to share challenges faced and how they can be addressed; as well as review achievements realized and discuss how they can be enhanced. 3.5 Effectiveness of K-SALES Interventions 3.5.1 Facilitating FFS The use of the FFS model has been very effective in getting women (65%) actively involved in the livestock production. Further, 40% of farmers have applied new techniques / technologies asa result of training received. In addition, 20.5% of the farmers can demonstrate a threshold level of proficiency in at least 5 appropriate husbandry and herd management techniques. From discussions held with the farmers, training was conducted within a short period ranging from one week to two months with little or no practical sessions held. Only a few of the farmers had the opportunity to either visit a demonstration farm or attend the livestock trade exhibition. Additionally, no training / reference materials were issued to the farmers to take home for their use apart from the notes they took during training. Facilitators indicated they were allowed to work with a group for a maximum of 3 months. This implies that farmers mayhave been given too much information within a very short duration making it difficult to internalize and apply all that they learnt. Further, practical training which is a major componentof the FFS model has not been effectively imparted. It is therefore recommended that: • Interaction with the groups should be spread over a longer period of time noting that groups usually go through forming, storming and norming before they become cohesive entities. • Training is spread over a minimum period of one year to allow farmers to absorb lessons learnt and apply; noting that the literacy levels of the targeted communities are fairly low and more time for learning may be required before the lessons are internalized. Due to lack of practical training sessions, there is a risk that the farmers lack the technical knowhow of applying lessons learnt appropriately and effectively. It is recommended that: • More emphasis should be on practical skill transfer to compliment the theory training. • A demonstration farm for each group of FFS should be set up where the bulk of the training should be conducted, and also allow them practical hands-on skills as they learn. This will also increase ownership of the project. • Simple training materials e.g. brochures on different production technologies and techniques should be prepared and issued to farmers after training for their reference when they go home. 47 | Page 3.5.2 Developing BSPs The targeted number of BSPs by the project of 700 has been surpassed by 29% to reach the current number of 961 BSPs which is commendable. Although BSPs have been developed, it was noted that there is disconnect between where most BSPs operate from and where several FFS’s are located implying that identification and recruitment of BSPs may not have been effectively done resulting in a mismatch between demand and supply. Only 44.5% of FFS are within a 5 km radius of the BSPs. This can be attributed to limited communication between the LIPs mobilizing and facilitating formation of FFS and those recruiting and training BSPs. Each of them worked independently to achieve theirtargets which were demanding. The result is that some of the trained BSPS are not actively involved in delivery of services to FFS members under K-SALES project as anticipated. At the other end of the value chain, there are livestock producers who cannot easily access BSP’s due to logistical challenges. This implies that although the intervention is relevant, it was not appropriately delivered. The following maps show the distribution of BSP’s and FFS’s in different counties: FIGURE 11: HOUSEHOLDS, BUSINESS SERVICE PROVIDERS AND WATER POINTS IN THARAKA NITHI 48 | Page FIGURE 12: HOUSEHOLDS, BUSINESS SERVICE PROVIDERS AND WATER POINTS IN MACHAKOS 49 | Page FIGURE 13: HOUSEHOLDS, BUSINESS SERVICE PROVIDERS AND WATER POINTS IN KITUI COUNTY 50 | Page It is therefore recommended that: • Matching demand and supply of the BSPs should therefore be prioritized in the second half of the project implementation. • Concerted efforts should be made during the second half of the project to link BSPs to financial service providers that can provide asset financing to enable them to buy appropriate tools and equipment as well as motor bikes to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery in the vast ASAL region 3.5.3 Increasing Access to clean water systems From the MTE, 75 water points against a target of 200 (37.5%) has been achieved, directly benefiting 64,565 farmers. Water User Associations and the community has been involved in cost-share of the water component, through provision of labor and some of the materials required to put up the water points. It was observed that WUAs, FFS and individual members have taken the initiative of conserving and managing the natural resources such as tree planting for soil conservation, water harvesting, fencing of water points to protect trespassing that has promoted sustainable livelihoods. This is a clear demonstration that interventions being undertaken under K-SALES are effective. However, in some areas, there are issues of concern that need to be addressed toenhance effectiveness. For instance, in Tharaka Nithi the water points are directly managed by the LIPs who also collect all the revenue generated from sale of water. This may be due to the LIP also being a water undertaker. The WUA associations interviewed in this area however presented a picture that the water points were not sustainable as they did not ‘own’ the water point. In some WUAs in MERU, the associations are unable to take up routine maintenance of the water point and minor repairs that were required by the water point, citing their current lack of access to water waiting for LIP to handle this. 3.5.4 Improving/Rehabilitating on-farm infrastructure The on-farm structures such as hay bans, vaccination crushes, water troughs and cattle dips that are being rehabilitated by K-SALES in the project implementing areas are aimed at enhancing animal productivity, reducing exposure to diseases and posing as a cost-effective factor in the management of livestock. Rehabilitation of on-farm infrastructure commenced in August 2015 and was under implementation during the MTE in Sep-Oct 2015. Consequently, it was not possible to evaluate the on-farm infrastructure effectively they had not been completed. 3.5.5 Facilitating agricultural lending to increase access to financial services K-SALES project has signed MOUs with 7 community based financial institutions but actual operations have only commenced with two SACCOs, one in Machakos and another in Meru. The two SACCO’s confirmed there are sector specific challenges hindering financial inclusion inthe Livestock value chain. These include the following: long physical distances to the financial institution; inaccessibility due to poor infrastructure; inadequate resources to meet the high demand for loans; low literacy levels among actors in the value chain; lack of identification documents particularly among women and youth due to remoteness of the area and low 51 | Page exposure; lack of political goodwill; male domination of economic activities, therefore women depend on men to do transaction e.g. women request to use national identity cards of their husbands for financial transactions; livestock value chain operates informally since there is no structured market for livestock while banks and MFIs finance structured transactions. Further, velocity of cash flow in ASAL is low due to livestock management practices of the community. Livestock producers can keep livestock for many years before selling since wealth is held in livestock, not in monetary terms. Therefore, getting a monthly savings of KES 300 for banking services is a challenge for most of the people in the target regions but they can pay in lump sum from sale of livestock. The two SACCO’s working with K-SALES have identified the following strategies to address the challenges identified:- roll out agency banking and mobile banking to take services closer to the clients; increase staff in agriculture based lending; looking to the County government and development partners like K-SALES to streamline markets; working with development partners to facilitate capacity building of staff, product development and access to wholesale lending; upgrade the management information system (MIS) to accommodate diverse value chains; delinquency management needs to be enhanced to maintain a good loan portfolio; empower the youth and women through access to information that is readily available and capacity building in agribusiness; through micro programs targeting youth and women to allow them to accumulate savings; need to diversify economic activities through value addition and other income generating activities e.g. venturing into poultry farming, and production of drought resistant crops; taking and mobilize farmers to form cooperatives to address production and marketing. A cooperative will address the issue of markets and it will structurethe market thus opening a window of opportunity for the formal financial sector to provide structured financial products and services to the livestock value chain. Although the two SACCO’s signed an MOU with K-SALES in April, 2015, they are happy with some of the benefits they are already deriving from the relationship namely: awareness creation among target clients due to promotional activities held; increased business opportunities through growth in membership; and networking with other strategic partners that can be of benefit. However, the Sacco’s are faced with capacity constraints that may hinder their efficiency and effectiveness in delivery of financial products. For instance, one SACCO expressed a need for support in capacity building of staff and upgrading of MIS to address agricultural financing. Fortunately, K-SALES has already picked up the issue of capacity constraints facing the micro finance institutions and it working with the MFI’s to address them. For instance, K-SALES has provided support to one MFI to develop its strategic plan. It has already committed to support a Sacco to develop its MIS. KSALES started working with financial institutions in the last quarter before MTE, and 256 livestock enterprises had been linked to financial institutions, 5, 557 farmers and other actors are receiving financial services through linkages made. This implies that providing the required support to these smaller financial institutions and linking them to other development partners that support financial inclusion will enhance their effectiveness and promote financial inclusion. 52 | Page 3.5.6 Improving/Rehabilitating off-farm infrastructure The benefits that have accrued from the market and processing facilities (abattoirs) renovation include: improved security due to the installation of the perimeter fence, control of livestock in markets, ease of loading livestock into lorries, increased number of market users due to additional services offered while availability of water for animals is contributing to improved health of animals for slaughter. There is also availability of toilets for use by farmers and traders.Thus, the markets are providing better facilities for FFS’s and the general population. The benefits from slaughter slab renovation include: improvement of hygiene as a result of water from tanks provided that enable rain water harvesting; and improved hygiene andworking conditions as a result of improved waste management. This clearly demonstrates the effectiveness of the designed intervention. 3.5.7 Post- Harvest handling and processing A total of 2,503 processing facility employees have been trained on improved processing techniques and hygiene. In addition, 3,267 post-harvest handling and processing facility employees have been trained in sanitary standards. This has resulted to improved business for the slaughterhouses, butchers and transporters in the program. In addition, the component has built capacity of four groups in partial processing of horns and bones and linked them to a market in Nairobi. Two of the groups have already supplied a small consignment to the market on a pilot basis. 3.5.8 Developing Cooperatives Business Capacity A total of 1,034 livestock enterprise staff and FFS group members have been trained to market agricultural products and in improved business management. The FFFs have also been sensitized to form cooperative societies which will be suitable vehicles in engaging in markets for livestock. This process is ongoing. 3.6Impact of K-SALES Project 3.6.1 Intended benefits to Business Service Providers (BSPs) Out of the training received, the Business Service Providers indicated that they have improved their monthly incomes by $15.3 while processors reported an increase of $ 10.3 53 | Page FIGURE 14: INCREASE OF MONTHLY INCOME BY PROCESSORS AND BSPS 3.6.2 Facilitating FFS In relation to interventions done for the livestock farmers, the perceived benefits include: increased level of animal farming knowledge (mentioned by 50.7% of total respondents) and increased level of livestock productivity (mentioned by 34.3% of the total respondents). Other benefits mentioned were enhanced household income (mentioned by 24.9%) and improved social benefits (mentioned by 11.1%) while increased access to input and output markets was mentioned by 3.7% out of the total respondents. FIGURE 15: PERCEIVED BENEFITS There has been an annual incremental sales by households from $347 during baseline to $350. This could be attributed to improved health and production of animals as a result of training received with the average livestock body condition score improving from 2.7 for cattle to 3.0; 54 | Page and 2.8 for shoats to 3.0. These figures can partially be attributed to the short duration of project implementation and they are expected to increase more significantly over time whenthe full impact of the improved level of knowledge is expected to be realized. 3.6.3 Increasing Access to clean water systems Under increasing access to clean water infrastructure, 41 jobs have been directly created after rehabilitation of water points. These are people who are employed to man the water kiosks. In addition, a total of 64,565 farming community have access to water for both livestock and domestic consumption. 3.6.4 Improving infrastructure on-farm This activity was implemented from August 2015. By the time of conducting the MTE, the initial infrastructure was under construction. The FFSs had therefore not benefited from this intervention and therefore no impact has been realized. 3.6.5 Facilitating agricultural lending to increase access to financial services A total of 256 livestock enterprises have been linked to financial institutions to access financial services to improve their business while 5,557 farmers and others actors are receiving financial services through linkages made. The financial services include access to credit, savings and current accounts, and money transfer services. 3.6.6 Improving Infrastructure off farm A total of 15 markets and 6 Slaughter slabs (106 structures) have been renovated in Kitui County. The renovation works includes: perimeter fence, water troughs, holding bay, toiletsand loading ramps, slaughter slab expansion, waste management structures, water tanks with gutters, inspection tables and rails for holding carcasses. The benefits that have accrued from the market and processing facilities (abattoirs) renovation include:- improved security due to the installation of the perimeter fence, ease of loading livestock into lorries resulting to reduced cattle injuries and increased number of market users; availability of water for animals leading to improved health of animals for slaughter and subsequent improvement in quality of meat products; and availability of toilets for use by farmers and traders leading to improved hygiene. In addition, there is control of livestock movement as opposed to earlier on when animals used to access the market from all directionsmaking it difficult for the County government to levy charges. This has led to improvement in revenue collection for the county government. These facilities are benefiting both the FFS’s and the general population. The benefits from slaughter slab renovation include improvement of hygiene as a result of water from tanks provided enabling rain water harvesting; there is also improved hygiene and working conditions as a result of improved waste management. 55 | Page 3.6.7 Providing trainings on Post-Harvest Handling and Processing (PHH-P) techniques There is improved hygiene during meat processing as a result of training 2,503 processing facility employees on improved processing techniques and hygiene. The processors indicated that they have improved their monthly incomes by $10.3. Two out of the four groups that weretrained on partial processing of bones and horns have started selling bones to Nairobi market. Impact anticipated is increased incomes from value addition from new product development from part of livestock that have traditionally gone to waste. 3.6.8 Developing Cooperative business capacity Cooperatives formation is at formative stages. The FFSs and marketing associations have been sensitized on formation of cooperatives and this is expected to improve marketing of livestock. However, individual farmers, through FFSs and marketing associations have locally traded livestock products (meat and skin) worth $21,126,175 over the last one year, and there is likelihood of increased incomes as a result of improved production. 3.7 Sustainability of K-SALES Interventions K-SALES project has put the following sustainability measures in place: (i) Use of local implementing partners is a strategy that ensures local capacity development. (ii) At the beginning of components activities, relevant stakeholders drawn from both the county government and private sector are brought together through a stakeholder’s forum. (iii) The project is working well with existing development partners through i.e. County stakeholder’s forum that brings together various stakeholders at County level to discuss ongoing interventions and areas of collaboration. (iv) Different components work with various county departments during implementation of project activities. (v) The project endeavors to empower local institutions. For instance, WUAs are trained and empowered to collect and manage water user fees. The committees are solely responsible for day to day running of the water infrastructure and maintenance. FFS’s and marketing associations are also trained on group dynamics and leadership. (vi) The market infrastructure development component has empowered Livestock Market Associations to manage the operations of local markets in close collaboration with the County government. (vii) The project is also market led and therefore it is expected that the market forces of demand and supply will ensure sustainability of the interventions. (viii) The community members contribute to various K-SALES project interventions through provision of labour and locally available materials. This promotes ownership of interventions. In this regard, K-SALES approach and strategy encourages sustainability of interventions and institutions once the project comes to an end. However, there is need for more capacity building (institutional strengthening) to develop committed and visionary leadership among the partner groups in order for them to realize the groups’ vision. 56 | Page 3.8 Gender Equality and Equity in K-SALES Interventions Out of all the respondents interviewed 26% were men and 74% women. This can partially be attributed to the use of group methodology adopted in formation of FFS. Very few men have been attending training offered under K-SALES project interventions due to cultural perceptions where men see groups as a “waste of time” while men want to “focus on big projects”. The dominance of women in the K-SALES project contrasts sharply to the dominant role played by men in the entire livestock value chain. The men have more control over the cattle, goats and sheep value chains since traditionally these animals belong to men. Women are tasked with taking care of the animals but the bigger decisions like selling of the livestock is taken by the men. Women are responsible for feeding and watering the animals which gives them an extra burden of walking long distances in search of water for domestic use as well as for the livestock. Traditionally, women do not own land or big animals but can own goats and sheep. Sheep and goats are the first to be sold whenever a financial need arises at the home which makes women vulnerable economically since they have no control over the resources. Men have an advantage in livestock production in that they own land and have bigger animals which earn them more money that they can use for investment. Livestock trading and processing are dominated by men since the nature of the work involves a lot of travel away from home. Hides and skins processing is handled by men. Men buy skins and hides at the slaughterhouse from butchers. In transportation, majority of the actors are men since the nature of work is perceived to be a man’s domain. It also involves a lot of travel away from home while women prefer activities around their home to enable them play their multiple roles as mothers, wives and care givers. The youth also play a limited role in the value chain since they do not own land. Even when they buy livestock, it is sometimes sold without consulting them since they are not involved in making financial decisions at the household level. This has discouraged the youth from investingin livestock production. Few youth are involved in transportation, trading and processing due to lack of access to capital. It is recommended that in future programming in these areas, poultry value chain should be incorporated in order to bring more women and young peopleon board. Although they are the majority in the FFS’s, most women shy away from leadership roles due to cultural inhibitions that discourage women from talking in the presence of men. It wasreported during the focus groups discussions that some women prefer to walk away from the group if they are assigned leadership roles. The gender rule applied by K-SALES which 57 | Page required that 30% of leadership positions are occupied by women has helped in achieving gender equity. K-SALES project is offering financial literacy training through the FFS thus equipping women with more skills to manage their finances and their enterprises thus leading to economic empowerment of women in ASAL regions. The FFSs’ have embraced the table banking model whereby members make monthly savings against which borrow small loans to meet their household cash flow needs. Unfortunately, K-SALES is not tracking the monthly savings or loans disbursed as this is not included in their performance indicators. However, focus groups held with FFS members revealed that table banking activity is having a positive impact in all the counties, with women using the loans to buy utensils, water tanks and in some instances paying school fees. It is therefore recommended that KSALES provides technical support to the table banking activity e.g. improve record keeping by printing of pass books that can be used to track individual monthly savings and loans disbursed, total revolving funds at group level and to develop appropriate financial products for the groups. Further, FFSs’ should be linked with government institutions promoting financial inclusion for women and youth to enhance funding for table banking activities. All LIPs were sensitized on K-SALES baseline gender analysis findings & how to integrate gender in meat value chains. Specific training on gender integration was also done for the FFS’s, Local Implementing Partners; FFS Facilitators and Cooperative Development LIPs. According to K￾SALES team, more is expected to be done in 2016 to support livestock farmers, BSPs’ and processors to overcome gender-based constraints at farm level, in horizontal linkages (membership in groups, cooperatives) and vertical linkages (markets) and entrepreneurs. More needs to be done in sensitizing the men on the need to be involved in training together with their wives since they have control over the livestock and women and youth do not have resources to make big investment decisions. Further, livestock production should be promotedas a family or household enterprise to encourage both the women and the youth to contribute equally in taking care for the livestock, while sensitizing men on the importance of sharing resources with women and youth due to the important role they play in taking care of the livestock. 3.9 Key Program Performance Indicators for Result Area per Activity This section presents the program performance indicators for each result area as indicated in the K-SALES Performance Monitoring Plan. The midterm achievements have been compared to the Life of Project (LOP) indicators to gauge the current status and have a snapshot of what is remaining up to the end of project period. 58 | Page Contribution to Feed the Future Indicator Project Target Baseline Midterm achievements Comments No. 1 (FTF 3) Number of individuals receiving short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training as a result of USDA assistance 63,200 0 Male: 8,946 Female: 16,590 Total: 25,536 Achievement is at 40% against the LOP targets. Pressure to achieve the numbers is limiting follow-up of existing FFS’s affecting adoption. This can bepartially attributed to delay in commencement of project implementation. No. 2 (FTF 12) Number of farmers and others who have received training on improved farm management practices (i.e. governance, administration, or financial management) as a result of USDA assistance 60,000 0 Male: 4,801 Female: 13,665 Total: 18,466 Achievement is at 30.78% against the LOP targets. It is imperative review the strategy being pursued to identify & recruit participants and conductthe training to ensure set targets are met. No. 3 (FTF 2) Number of farmers and others who have applied new techniques or technologies as a result of USDA assistance 48,000 0 Male: 2,215 Female: 6,304 Total: 8,519 Achievement to date is at 18% against the LOP targets. This iscan be attributed to inadequatepractical training & ineffective training methodology at FFS level. Should consider setting up demonstration farms for practical training of the FFS to make it easy for participants tointernalize and apply lessons learnt. Due to low literacy levels among FFS participants, practical training will be easier to understand No. 4 (FTF 11) Number of farmers and others who have applied improved farm management practices (i.e. governance, administration, or financial management) as a result of USDA assistance 48,000 0 Male: 946 Female: 2,692 Total: 3,638 Achievement to date is at 8% comparing to LOP target. This implies that either the designof the training program or delivery methods are not effective or there is need to review them to increase application of lessons learnt. No. 5 (FTF 7) Number of jobs attributed to USDA assistance 1,200 0 Male: 29 Female: 35 Total: 64 Achievement to date is at 5.33% comparing to LOP target. Although there was a delay in commencement of project activities, the achievement is too low which implies anticipated benefits from the project are not being realized. Closer working relationships need to be forged with all the actors in livestock value chain involved in the project to understand challenges 59 | Page Indicator Project Target Baseline Midterm achievements Comments they are facing and identify appropriate growth strategies for their individual enterprises in order to achieve set targets No. 6 (FTF 4.5.2-23) Value of incremental salesattributed to USDA assistance $399.0 0 $347 $350 (Incremental $3)($63,888 for all farmers reached) The target for this indicator needs to be streamlined and be aligned with the FTF. SO1: Increased Agricultural Productivity Developing Business Service Providers (BSPs) Activity Indicator Project Target Baseline Midterm achievements Comments Number of business service providers trained to deliver inputs and servicesthat enhance agricultural productivity 700 0 Male: 625 Female: 336 Total: 961 The target has been surpassed Number of Business Service Providers trained in business management skills 700 0 Male: 632 Female: 341 Total: 973 The target has been surpassed Number of county￾level livestock tradeshows supported 18 0 7 Achievement is at 39%. The target isbehind schedule Value of cash or in￾kind grants disbursedto BDS providers $1,787,035 0 $230,860 Achievement is at 12.92% comparingto LOP indicators.The target is achievable within the remaining time 60 | Page Developing cooperativebusiness capacity Indicator Project Target Baseline Midterm achievements Comments Number of livestock enterprise staff and cooperative memberstrained to market agricultural products 600 0 1,034 Activity completed and targets exceeded by 72.33% in relationto LOP targets Number of livestock enterprise staff and cooperative memberstrained in improved business management 600 0 1,034 Activity completed and targets exceeded by 72.33% in relationto LOP targets Number of study tours facilitated 100 0 10 Achievement is at 10% of LOP targets. The targetis achievable Value of cash or in￾kind grants disbursedto livestock enterprises $340,567 0 $267,047 Activity on schedule at 78.41%in relation to LOP targets Facilitating Farmer Field (FFS) schools Indicator Project Target Baseline Midterm achievements Comments Number of farmers trained in improved agricultural techniquesand technologies 60,000 0 Male: 5,687 Female: 16,187 Total: 21,874 Achievement is at 36.5% comparing toLOP indicators. The target is achievable within the remaining time Number of farmers trained in improvedfarm management practices 60,000 0 Male: 4,801 Female: 13,665 Total: 18,466 Achievement is at 30.78% comparingto LOP indicators.The target is achievable within the remaining time Number of producer group/cooperative members benefitingfrom peer-to-peer learning tours 6,000 0 Male: 1,159 Female: 3,300 Total: 4,459 Achievement is at 74.32% comparing to LOP. The targetis on schedule 61 | Page Indicator Project Target Baseline Midterm achievements Comments Value of cash or in￾kind grants dispersedto facilitate farmer field schools $771,700 0 $188,212 Achievement is at 24.4% comparing toLOP. The target is achievable SO2: Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products Facilitating agricultural lending to increase access to financial services Indicator Target Baseline Midterm achievements Comments Number of financial institution partners identified 10 0 7 The achievement is at 70% comparing to LOPand on course Number of livestock enterprises linked to financial institutions 2,550 0 256 Midterm achievement is at 10%. The target isbehind schedule in relation to LOP Number of loans disbursed to livestock enterprises as a resultof USDA assistance 800 0 34 Achievement is at 4.25% comparing toLOP. The target is behind schedule Number of farmers and others receiving financial services as a result of USDA Assistance 50,000 0 Male: 2,077 Female: 3,480 Total: 5,557 Achievement is at 11.11% comparing toLOP. The target is behind schedule Number of livestock cooperative/producer group members benefiting from financial services as a result of USDA assistance 20,000 0 256 Achievement is at 1.28% comparing to LOP targets. Savingsneed to be included measuring this indicator. Not only credit and insurance. 62 | Page Increasing access to clean water systems Indicator Project Target Baseline Midterm achievements Comments Number of community￾based water points constructed or rehabilitated 200 0 75 Achievement is at 37.5% comparing to LOP. The targetis achievable Number of Water User Associations trained to administer and maintain community based water points 200 0 Total: 75 Achievement is at 37.5% comparing to LOP. The targetis achievable Value of cash or in-kind grants dispersed to Water User Associations $1,275,0 00 0 $222,104 Achievement is at 17.42% comparing to LOP. The targetis achievable Number of farmers and community members benefiting from new or rehabilitated community￾based waterpoints 189,000 0 Male - 27,117, Female -37,448 Total - 64,565 Achievement is at 34.16% comparing toLOP targets. The target isachievable Improving infrastructure off-farm Indicator Project Target Baseline Midterm achievements Comments Number of livestock enterprises investing in new or rehabilitated livestock marketing and trade infrastructure 300 0 60 Achievement is at 20% comparing toLOP targets Value of cash or in-kind grants provided to livestock enterprises investing in off-farm infrastructure $934,20 0 0 $126,296 Achievement is at 13.52% comparingto LOP targets. The target isachievable Number of infrastructure projects carried out 550 0 106 Achievement is at 19.27% comparingto LOP targets. The target is behind schedule 63 | Page Improving infrastructure on-farm Indicator Project Target Baseline Midterm achievements Comments Number of on-farm infrastructure projects carried out 310 0 16 Achievement is at 5.16% comparingto LOP targets. The target is achievable Number of cooperatives trained to manage and maintain on￾farm infrastructure projects 250 0 61 Achievement is at 24.40% comparingto LOP targets. The target isachievable Value of cash or in-kind grants dispersed to cooperatives investingin on-farm infrastructure $493,63 3 0 $30,091 Achievement is at 6.10% comparing to LOP. The target is achievable Number of farmers benefiting from new or rehabilitated on-farm infrastructure 60,000 0 Male 981 Female 1,777 Total 2,758 Achievement is at 4.6% comparing toLOP. Implementation only started in Aug 2015 thus explaining the low level of achievement at theMTE. More time should be allocated for this 64 | Page Improving post-harvest handling and processing (PHH&P) technique Indicators Project Target Baseline Midterm achievements Comments Number of post-harvest handling and processing facility employees trained in improved processing techniques 2,500 0 Male: 2,128 Female: 375 Total: 2,503 Activity completed and targets exceeded. Fresh targets need to beset for the remaining durationof the project Number of post-harvest handling and processing facility employees trained in sanitary standards 2,500 0 Male: 2,777 Female: 490 Total: 3,267 Activity completed and targets exceeded. Fresh targets should beset Value of cash or in-kind grants disbursed to facilitate post-harvest handling and processing trainings $709,2 00 0 $146,312 Achievement is at 20.63% comparingto LOP targets. The target isachievable 3.10 Key Strengths and Weaknesses of Specific Project Interventions 3.10.2 Facilitating Farmer Field Schools (FFS) Strengths 3.10.2.1 FFS have brought peers together, and provided a forum where they can learn from each other. 3.10.2.2 FFS’s acts like a support system for the FFS members due to the regular meetings where they are able to consult each other on issues pertaining to their livestock enterprises 3.10.2.3 FFSs have attracted a lot of women, and it has provided a forum for them to pool their own resources e.g. savings through table banking thus providing resources needed to address common household problems in all the regions e.g. paying school fees, buying household utensils. 3.10.2.4 Use of local facilitators i.e. people who are well known that they can be called upon when needed; they are well known in the community for other roles thus creating traction with farmers; most of them understand the local language and therefore they are able to communicate effectively. 3.10.2.5 The FFS model is a good model that has been widely tried and tested. It allows for substantial contact point with the facilitators thus enhancing the learning process. 3.10.2.6 The FFS model has created employment within the local communities for facilitators. 3.10.2.7 FFS offers farmers an opportunity to acquire new knowledge and skills that they can use within their local environment. 65 | Page Weaknesses 3.10.2.8 Facilitators have very high targets and the project does not take into account that some of the areas have very porous boundaries due to insecurity posed by cattle rustling leading to conflict among facilitators due to competition for members in the more secure areas. 3.10.2.9 Focus is more on reaching the numbers while follow up to see how the new technologies are being adopted is limited. 3.10.2.10 The design of the training program needs to be guided by activities that follow production calendar such as fodder establishment. The training period was short with little practical training; in addition, no training materials were provided to the participants for reference. There is need for simplified modules / pamphlets on different production techniques and technologies for easy reference after the training. Further, the training venues need to have demonstration sites. 3.10.2.11 Due to large number of facilitators against a few LIPs project officers, training conducted by facilitators is not closely monitored which is likely to compromise delivery of training. 3.10.3 Developing BSPS Strengths 3.10.3.1 Use of existing BSPs that have experience in service delivery and are looking for an opportunity to grow, thus have an incentive to work with the FFS. 3.10.3.2 Training provided was very practical so BSPs were able to apply immediately in their business e.g. customer care, marketing and record keeping including profit and loss analysis. Weaknesses 3.10.3.3 Selection and recruitment of BSPs was not well linked with FFS in some areas. 3.10.3.4 When mapping for BSPs, some LIPs consulted the Country governments to identify existing BSPs without consulting FFS leading to mismatch in demand and supply of BSP services. 3.10.3.5 Lack of a clear link to financial services component where BSPs can access finances to expand their enterprises. 3.10.4 Increasing Access to clean water systems Strengths 3.10.4.1 In areas where water points have been rehabilitated, access to water has increased. 3.10.4.2 Reduction in distances travelled to access water for domestic use and for livestock, thus leaving more time for other economic activities, particularly for women who are charged with this responsibility. 66 | Page 3.10.4.3 Watering troughs in most of the water points is helping WUAs to maintain the water points because the cattle no longer drink water directly from source. There is also improved hygiene since the water for domestic use and livestock is separated. 3.10.4.4 There is employment creation for the people manning water kiosks 3.10.4.5 There is promotion of conservation of environment e.g. fencing off the water point, reduction of erosion and control of run-off Weaknesses 3.10.4.6 Little time is allocated for community mobilization and sensitization of project objectives in order to enhance ownership of project activities. 3.10.4.7 Time taken for follow-up the WUAs after implementation is short. This is likely to have an effect on sustainability 3.10.4.8 Community contribution is affected by high dependency especially in lower Eastern. 3.10.4.9 Farmers needs for water is more than what K-SALES project is providing: i.e. in Tharaka Nithi County, water is supplied by Diocese of Meru Water and Sanitation Services (DOMWASS) but farmers have limited access to the water since they can’t do everything they want e.g. cant water animals or do small irrigation. 3.10.5 Improving infrastructure on-farm Strengths 3.10.5.1 LIPs that were contracted to mobilize and form FFS’s have been contracted to implement interventions for rehabilitation of on-farm infrastructure. This will ensure there is a good link of on-farm structures to the FFS’s. 3.10.5.2 FFS’s also have an opportunity to identify suitable locations for the infrastructure which will enhance access by the FFS members. Weakness 3.10.5.3 The component lost about 2 years of implementation, since implementation started in August 2015 thus there was no demonstrated impact at the time of MTE. 3.10.6 Facilitating financial services and agricultural lending Strengths 3.10.6.1 Availability of community based financial institutions like SACCO’s that are willing to partner with K-SALES and offer flexible financial terms and conditions for the livestock value chain. 3.10.6.2 Quick adoption of table banking model by FFS that is helping farmers to save cash and to manage their household cash flows while equipping them with basic skills for borrowing and paying loans. 3.10.6.3 Introduction of financial literacy training in the FFS thus enhancing the financial decision making capacity of livestock producing communities. Weaknesses 3.10.6.4 Limited capacity of local based financial institutions and SACCOS to effectively serve the livestock value chain due to inadequate capacity e.g. management information 67 | Page systems (MIS), lack of experience in agricultural financing, lack of skilled staff, limited branch network and lack of appropriate financial products and services, among others. 3.10.6.5 Lack of structured markets in the livestock value chain thus making it difficult to develop structured financial products and services to effectively meet the financial needs of the value chain. 3.10.6.6 Poor infrastructure in the ASAL areas thus making it unattractive to the private sector due to high entry costs e.g. lack of reliable power supply and road network. 3.10.7 Improving/Rehabilitating infrastructure off-farm Strengths 3.10.7.1 Availability of a LIP with a tried and tested model for managing local livestock markets that can be replicated in the K-SALES project. 3.10.7.2 Partnering with County governments provided an opportunity to mobilize locally available resources for maintaining the livestock markets thus enhancing sustainability of the off farm infrastructure. 3.10.7.3 Rehabilitated infrastructure has enhanced revenue collection due to increased clientele as well as ability to charge high prices for services rendered since customers appreciate the value added leading to improved revenue collection for County governments. 3.10.7.4 Improved quality of livestock products due to reduction in injuries suffered by livestock during loading and reduction in stress, working environment and use of appropriate tools and equipment. 3.10.7.5 Creation of opportunities for vibrant micro enterprises around the markets thus creating employment for local communities. 3.10.7.6 Improved business for slab owners due to improved structures. Weaknesses 3.10.7.7 In the project design, there was an assumption that only renovations were required in existing markets. In reality, basic infrastructure like fences were not there and they had to be constructed leading to cash flow constraints as the budget available had to be stretched to take care of items that had not been planned for initially. 3.10.7.8 No new markets are being created under the intervention since it is aimed at rehabilitating only old markets while for M & E there is a performance indicator for monitoring new markets. There is need to align project indicator so that it does not read new market. 3.10.7.9 Requirement to have the community contribute 20% of the project cost. Although this is good from project design perspective, it can slow down projectimplementation due to cash flow constraints facing most of the community members. More time is needed for mobilization of community resource contribution. 68 | Page Post- Harvest handling and processing Strengths 3.10.7.10 Innovation: Some of the groups trained on how to do partial processing of bones and horns have been linked to markets in Nairobi. There is potential for additional earning since these have been treated like waste traditionally. 3.10.7.11 Use of LIPs with solid experience in business, thus providing an opportunity for continuation of trade after project is over. [PHOTO REDACTED] FIGURE 16: VALUE ADDITION OF BONES IN KIBERA, NAIROBI Weaknesses 3.10.7.12 Some of the appropriate technology required for animal slaughter and butcheries is capital intensive. 3.10.7.13 Some equipment is not readily available in the local market; when cooperatives are formed, they will facilitate resource mobilization for purchase of equipment. 3.10.8 Developing Cooperatives Business Capacity Strengths 3.10.8.1 Good model for handling marketing and input acquisition. 3.10.8.2 There are successful cooperative models in Kenya that the meat value chain can learn from mostly in the dairy sector. Weaknesses 3.10.8.3 Time allocated for mobilization of farmers and form cooperatives was too short, the LIPs only succeeded in sensitizing the target groups while Cooperatives are yet to be formed and registered. 3.10.8.4 Development of cooperatives could have been organized in phases for effectiveness. Transforming the FFS into cooperatives will take time since marketing cooperatives need a critical mass of products to sell and market while the project is still building up. FFS need to be trained on improved production and technologies in order to stimulate demand for the same. FFS need to be strong and cohesive with ready access to business development services before formation of cooperatives to support purchase of inputs, bulking and marketing. 3.11 Key Learning’s and Emergent Practices The following is a list of key lessons learnt during the K-SALES project by mid-implementation as captured during this evaluation: i. Developing BSPS Identification and training of BSPs should be guided by distribution of FFS to ensure that demand for BSPs is matched by supply of the same. 69 | Page ii. Facilitating FFS • The designed 11-13 weeks training program for FFS is not sufficient for practical training on livestock production since it does not cover the entire production cycle. • Practical training sessions are a critical component of the training program and demonstration farms should be set up where they do not exist to facilitate practical training. iii. Improving infrastructure off-farm • Involvement of community members through local livestock marketing associations enhances sustainability of livestock marketing infrastructure as it creates ownership among community members. • Commercialization of services at local livestock markets has the potential to earn sufficient revenue to support operations in these markets and earn additional revenue for the County governments. • Involvement of County governments in managing of livestock markets is important for mobilization of local resources for managing and maintaining the markets. iv. Facilitating financial services and agricultural lending Innovative approaches are required to enhance financial inclusion in ASAL areas due to a combination of factors namely: • The perception of the formal financial institutions and banks that the sector is too risky and that they need guarantees to partner with stakeholders along the livestock value chain; • Limited skills and experience in agri- lending; • The unstructured nature of markets along the livestock value chain; • The difficult terrain and lack of adequate infrastructure in the targeted regions; • The cultural practices of holding wealth in form of livestock instead of cash; • Lack of identification documents particularly for women who tend to use documents for men to identify themselves. v. Post- Harvest handling and processing • Value addition to bones, horns, hides and skins has a potential for income generation for FFS’s; • Training of key stakeholders involved in post-harvest handling and processing, and their employees has sparked innovation as they strive to meet the stringent quality standards without expensive tools and equipment prescribed by training e.g. in Meru it was noted processors are sterilizing knives using charcoal burners. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The mid-term evaluation for K-SALES project indicates that the project is already having positive impact, with a number of milestones on course. Based on the findings, the evaluation team outlines suggested recommendations that will support the achievement of the project objectives and can be used to improve the project for the remaining implementation period andpossible replication by other partners. 70 | Page 4.1 Recommendations to USDA USDA needs to consider extension of K-SALES project for one year in order to consolidate the project achievements. • The project implementation begun one year later than planned and given that in ASALs, there is only one major growing season per year, missing a growing season directly impacts farmer’s ability to apply improved techniques and to better market their animals. • ASALs are subject to harsh environmental conditions and therefore any shock is likely to erode any project gains at a higher magnitude than high rainfall areas. In this regard, there is need to build farmers resilience which takes time given the nature of the ASALs production seasons. Extension will also allow for more time to build up and consolidate the gains that will have been realized after the current project period. 4.2 Recommendations to Land O’ Lakes A) General recommendations 1. There is need to synchronize county-level work plans by different LIPs (different components) to demonstrate complementarities. 2. Develop and implement monitoring methodologies that measure actual project impact rather than activities and outputs (numbers trained; number reached with specific interventions). Such methodologies can include evaluations at the end of each LIP implementation period using simple evaluation survey tools. In addition, the facilitators can use designed forms that record / capture information on adoption during the FFS meetings. LIPs can also monitor adoption by BSPs, cooperatives, processors and transporters through frequent data capturing e.g. on monthly basis. 3. K-SALES project need to facilitate project exchange learning and good practices that will enhance project effectiveness and future project scale-up. In this regard, the evaluation team recommends continued documentation and dissemination of learning to enable all implementing areas are on the same scale and learn from each other. Documentation of best practices can be consolidated inform of a report / book that can be shared during stakeholder dissemination workshop. 4. As part of capacity enhancement by K-SALES project, there is need for a capacity building program for LIPs in their areas of specialization. This can be done through Organizational Capacity Assessment (OCA) which can assist in identifying areas that need institutional strengthening. This will ensure continued learning of emerging trends, technologies and techniques that are relevant in ASALS where K-SALES is being implemented. B) Facilitating Farmer Field Schools (FFS) 1. It is recommended that in collaboration with LIPs, K-SALES project needs to develop a training program (refresher courses) for FFS facilitators on emerging livestock production techniques. 2. Duration of training proposed in the FFS manual is 12 weeks for shoats, 11 weeks for cattle and 23 weeks for both shoats and cattle. FFS require a longer training (at least one year) given that in FFS model learning is more practical and follows production cycle. 3. Proposed improvement in the manual is to have a section that guides the FFS to develop their vision, mission, objectives and a growth plan. 4. Given the unreliability of rainfall in the project area and limited feed for livestock, 71 | Page improved technologies of grass/folder establishment using dry-land technologies needs to be addressed as key ingredient in the FFSs. This is aimed at improving pasture availability which is a key constraint to production. These technologies include: use of micro￾catchment basins, semicircular bunds, negarims, zai pits, stone bunds and soil bunds. 5. Package technologies into simple to use fliers or brochures need to be given to farmers for reference after trainings. 6. The training forms that are signed by the FFS members should provide for at least two FFS officials to verify that the training took place. This will enhance monitoring of trainings conducted by the FFS facilitators. 7. Subject to availability of financial resources, K-SALES may develop real time tracking tool for trainings conducted by the facilitators. These include mobile data collection tools like the EpiCollect+ (plus) that collects and provides real time details of trainings. Details such as attendance, location (GPS), real time photo or video clip and time of activity are collected and sent to a common server. This will enhance monitoring of trainings conducted by the FFS facilitators. 8. To enhance participation of youth, there is need to sensitize the youth on income generating activities available in the livestock value chain; and address accessibility of capital through packaging of youth friendly financial products, and linkage to organizations providing financial products and services targeting the youth 9. As a way of enhancing sustainability and ownership of projects around FFS’s; the FFSs need to be allowed to develop proposals on on-farm and off-farm structures that need to be rehabilitated. These proposals can be submitted to the LIPs who review, adviceand implement accordingly. This will also enhance support to FFSs from other components and enhance participation of FFS’s in decision making on areas of partnership with K￾SALES project. 10. There is need to have more peer to peer sessions and exchange visits. This will enhance learning by FFS members, enhance adoption of technologies and help to create livestock producers linkages. C) Developing Business Service Providers (BSPs) 1. There is need to establish a close linkage between FFSs and BSPs right from the selection process to ensure demand for inputs and services from FFS are closelymatched with supply from the BSPs. This means that when the BSPs are being recruited they should be linked to specific FFS(s) that they can regularly serve. 2. Concerted efforts need to be made to link BSPs to financial service providers that can finance them to buy appropriate tools and equipment such as motor bikes to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery. 3. Implementation of marketing plans / individual business plans is a process that requires some level of coaching which is not provided for in the design. In addition to the training period of BSPs to cover the business module, there is need to allow some duration for mentoring and coaching which needs to be agreed upon between K-SALES project and the LIPs. D) Increasing access to clean water systems 1. To enhance sustainability of water points by WUAs, it is important to allow adequate time for follow-up by LIPs after infrastructure has been rehabilitated. 2. Community mobilization should involve educating farmers on K-SALES model that encourages community contribution. This will avoid confusion brought by use of different models in the same community by different development agencies e.g. Implementing 72 | Page Partners use Food for Asset (FFA) and Cash for Asset (CFA) models where farmers are compensated for work done on the community water points and other infrastructure. E) Improving infrastructure on-farm 1. This intervention commenced one month before the MTE. More time is needed for this activity 2. To improve sustainability of the on-farm infrastructure, the FFSs need to come up with an affordable fee agreeable by all the members to be charged to members for usage. This will be used for maintaining the infrastructure. 3. Infrastructure supporting folder / grass establishment / production could also be included under this component to support FFS’s. This include: micro-catchment basins, semicircular bunds, stone bunds and soil bunds. F) Facilitating financial services and agricultural lending K-SALES should consider investing in the following:- a) Provide technical support to the table banking activity e.g. improve record keeping by printing of pass books that can be used to track individual monthly savings and loans disbursed, total revolving funds at group level and to develop appropriate financial products for the groups. b) FFSs’ should be linked with government institutions promoting financial inclusion for women and youth to enhance funding for table banking activities. c) Build capacity of the FFS facilitators to supervise table banking activities and compile monthly reports on monthly savings and loans disbursed as well as total group revolving funds; and include performance indicators in the financial component d) Continue providing technical support to locally based financial institutions to enhance their capacity to deliver efficient and effective financial services to the livestock value chain. e) Link the locally based financial institutions to development agencies promoting financial inclusion for continued capacity building supportonce K-SALES comes to an end. f) Should consider facilitating a comprehensive market research for product development of financial products and services along the livestock value chain that can be shared with community based financial institutions partnering with the project. g) Should continue facilitating sensitization workshops for the formal banks and financial institutions on opportunities available for business in the livestock sector in ASAL regions. G) Improving infrastructure off-farm 1. Due to the existing condition of some livestock markets before intervention (most lack basic structures like fences, holding bay, loading ramps), there is need review budgets that had been allocated for this activity initially. This may mean rehabilitating fewer markets than planned to allow adequate works. The rehabilitated markets can be usedas model markets. 2. More time should be provided for community sensitization to mobilize their contribution and enhance ownership of the infrastructure. 73 | Page H) Post-Harvest handling and processing 1. The current working relationship with the County government by the LIPs needs to be upheld in order to boost support for enactment of policies related to livestock and meat handling. 2. The component came up with a good innovation of utilizing livestock waste / by- products through value addition of bones and horns. More effort is needed to support the groups that have started partial processing and supplying of bones to Nairobi market. Due to the short duration of the project, these groups should not be rushed into making final products from bones and horns but rather enhance their capacity in bulking, partial processing and supply of the semi-processed materials to the processors in Nairobi. These groups should be linked with BSPs component for capacity building onbusiness skills. 3. There is a huge opportunity for hides and skin business which is currently done by individuals operating as sole proprietors. There is an opportunity for several FFS’s to venture into hides and skins business, first partial processing and selling to manufacturing companies and then grow to do local tanning for making products such as bags, belts and wallets. I) Developing Cooperatives Business Capacity 1. There is need to rethink the cooperative model while still retaining the group approach. Implementing partners should build staff capacity to develop and grow cooperatives through encouraging ownership and partnership (buying of shares) against common welfare support that is prevalent in self-help groups. There is need for strengthening of this component across the regions, with sharing of good practices among partners. 2. Working with marketing associations needs to continue, growth plans should be developed to give an indication on when and how they will graduate into formal cooperatives. 3. More time is required to allow the marketing associations to develop internally and establish functional linkages with the input and output markets and set up appropriate internal systems and capacity to conduct business. 4.3 Recommendations to Local Implementing Partners (LIPs) 1. Currently, a lot of the registered FFS groups are new, registered in 2014/15, thus providing opportunity for growth and expansion (scale up) with well-designed interventions. The evaluation team recommends increased follow-up, mentorship and coaching to be included as an integral aspect of this project. 2. Devolved governments have budgets and resources for development projects within the community. This is an opportunity for the LIPs to partner with both local and national government in implementation of activities through public/private partnerships. 3. There is need for implementing partners to strengthen internal staff capacity through a training program. This can be done through refresher courses that are relevant to individual LIP’s. 4. Capacity building of individual community facilitators to deliver training is critical to ensuring uptake of the project by FFSs. The evaluation team recommends regular performance appraisals, regular feedback and uniformity of facilitation methods as part of ensuring both training consistency and quality. 74 | Page 4.4 Recommendations to stakeholders 1. The County and National governments need to strengthen security in the ASAL areas especially in areas prone to cattle rustling to provide an enabling environment to increase livestock management and eventually production. 2. The County and National governments need to improve infrastructure such as roads, water and electricity and other social amenities, to strengthen project interventions. 3. The county government needs to enhance public / private partnerships to strategically tap into resources within the counties to improve investment in the livestock production, marketing and management. 4. The county government and partners need to promote and enhance livestock best practices such as community disease control. 75 | Page Annex: Case Studies 1. Facilitating Farmer Field Schools i. Female Farmer 1 - Meru County Female Farmer 1’s first interaction with CARITAS Meru was when they reached out to her and requested her to join the K-SALES project. Upon better understanding the project, she gladly heeded the call and her details were taken after which she was taken for training on how to set up Farmer Field Schools and her role as a facilitator. During the training she was taught how to train farmers on improved livestock production techniques and technologies in order toimprove the quality and quantity of production. Armed with training materials and group registration forms, Female Farmer 1 was ready to go. Nothing however, prepared her for what she was to meet in the field. Her first challenge was rejection by the community right from her own backyard, as she began engaging them about the project. Some even dismissed her as they thought she wanted to introduce them to a cult and when she inquired about their personal details. Not one to be cowed by challenges, Female Farmer 1 changed tact, and began implementing what shewas training on namely improved livestock management and business management. Female Farmer 1 employed the business skills to set up her own shoes and clothes business. The result was phenomenal: watching her personal growth encouraged her neighbours and peers who spread word about the project impact and its personal transformation on her life. The community began to accept her, allowing her to train them on improved livestock farming and management and personal development through business management. To date, Female Farmer 1’s success cannot be hidden. She smiles shyly when asked how much she is making from her business, and only divulges that “it is between three and six thousand each week when business is good”. When interviewing her, she was able to make sales of ten pairs of shoes at Kshs 150 each and said that this was a ‘normal’ day in business. As a result of the training which led her to scale up her business, and her current role as a facilitator, Female Farmer 1is able to pay school fees for her two children. This was previously done withdifficulty. She adds that her soft skills have greatly improved as she speaks with different farmer groups and trains them. Apart from her business and school fee payment, Female Farmer 1has bought two goats using the income she gets from the project and attributes these successes from her interaction with the K-SALES project. She notes that had it not been for the project, her income and household condition would not have improved. She has been practicing the record keeping and business management techniques that she learnt. On the other hand, the K￾SALES project has helped the community in terms of promoting saving, impacting knowledge on livestock farming and beginning small businesses like selling vegetables (sukuma wiki and grocery), food such as samosas while others have even begun breeding goats. There are many that have built livestock shelters as taught through the K-SALES project training. 76 | Page ii. Male Farmer 1, Tharaka Nithi County Male Farmer 1, a 49 year old man popularly known to many as “[REDACTED]” lives in Tharaka Nithi County where he has been a livestock farmer for the past twenty years. He is a father of six and has been supporting his family solely from the income gained from his livestock. In 1995, he reared sixteen goats, twelve sheep and thirteen head of cattle in his small farm with the dream of owning a ranch in future. Upon receiving training on livestock management, production, and housing for livestock from the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries in 2005, he constructed a shed for security purposes and to protect his livestock from being attacked by various illnesses. Previously, he had lost his sheep and goat due to pneumonia during the cold season. Male Farmer 1 then later received training on various topics which included value addition on livestock and breeding through the Farmer Field School trainings conducted by Kenya Semi Arid￾Livestock Enhancement Support K-SALES) Project. These trainings assisted him to improve his livestock breed and he soon realized an increase in yield and income collected from the sale of his livestock. Male Farmer 1’s determination has not gone unrewarded as his livestock has increased to seventy six head of cattle, two hundred goats and seventy sheep where he also employed ten laborers on his farm. Due to the increased number of livestock, Male Farmer 1 purchased additional land for pasture for his livestock. He partitioned the over ten hectares of land and practices padlocking, one of the lessons he learnt from the K-SALES project. He also uses the manure from his livestock to fertilize his land which has in turn reduced the cost of crop production. Additionally, as a result of the training received from K-SALES, Male Farmer 1 currently fetches Kshs. 5,000 from the sale of a goat and Kshs. 30,000 on cattle as opposed to the Kshs. 3,000 and Kshs. 20,000 he previously earned respectively. He currently supplies livestock to slaughter houses and nearby Institutions such as Chuka University, and has recently registered to officially become a breeder and a service provider through the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries, which he hopes will assist his neighbors to improve their livestock breeds. 77 | Page iii. Male Farmer 2 - Taita Taveta County Meet 64 year-old Male Farmer 2 from Taita Taveta County, Voi Sub-county, Tausa Village. Male Farmer 2inherited 7 acres of land from his parents who used to rear livestock, but had never thought of livestock rearing as a business venture. He began with two goats. This however changed when he was introduced to K-SALES Project through a local implementing partner. The LIP mobilized Male Farmer 2 together with his fellow neighbors to form a group. The FFS group met once per week and were trained by a facilitator on various topics on farm management and livestock management. One of the trainings Male Farmer 2 received was on pasture conservation where he learnt how to store hay, and on livestock disease management. He in turn shared the same knowledge with his wife and family and they adopted what they had learnt. Male Farmer 2 and his wife then started preparing their own hay by using the readily available grass from the forestand then packaging them into bails, which he would re-sell to his fellow farmers. Bernard was very excited as he earned additional income of Kshs 8000 through selling of the hay and decided to use the proceeds received to build better shelter for his goats. He started using the manure from the goats for his crops in the farm which in turn led to increased soil fertility thus increased farm produce. He began treating his livestock for worms and spraying them and has seen a reduction in livestock related illnesses which he attributes to the training he received from K-SALES. He cites key challenges as lack of a proper market and frequent price fluctuations when selling livestock. “I have learnt about indigenous plants like “Mzaule” that are more nutritious for the goats. The advantage of this plant is it grows all year round and is locally and readily available. I am so grateful to K-SALES project since I have been a better farmer ever since I received the trainings” says Male Farmer 2. This has seen his livestock increase to 18 goats and 3 sheep, from which he sold six of the goats to address a personal emergency. He notes that had it not been for the training, he would have had nothing to sell to handle his illness and would have been forced to go begging. Male Farmer 2 also started a small business kiosk using funds he borrowed from the self-help group and savings from the hay selling. His business has been giving him an income of close to 1000 shillings daily and his life and that of his family has since improved. 78 | Page iv. Female Farmer 2 - Kitui County Female Farmer 2 hails from Mwingi Central in Kitui County. Her first interaction with the K￾SALES project through group formation began less than seven months back; having been a livestock farmer for many years. She thought there was nothing new to learn, until she joined a CBO which changed her mind-set. This CBO is among the FFS under the K-SALES project in Kitui County. FIGURE 20: Female Farmer 2’S GOATS GRAZING IN THE FIELD. After receiving training through the CBO, her knowledge and self-confidence improvedand she now had high hopes of achieving something and transforming her household. She is currently a respected small-scale livestock farmer, a pale shadow of the woman she was seven months back and owns 87 goats up from the initial 30 that she had when she joined the project,ten sheep and 4 cows. Her livestock do not die regularly due to illnesses as they used to, as shenow has a better understanding of livestock disease management and treats them for ticks regularly. Whenever the situation with the livestock is beyond her knowledge, Female Farmer 2 reaches out to the veterinary doctor; and is able to save proceeds from the sale of livestock and relatedproducts for other uses. She adds that her livestock are now healthier as she is able to prepare animal feed from maize stalks and also uses the same to fertilize her “shamba”. She attributes this to the knowledge that the K-SALES trainer took time to teach them. “Our trainer, has taken us through several modules including how to feed our animals, make fodder, use maize stalks to prepare animal feed and fertilize our shamba. We were also trained to how to control ticks and when to call veterinary doctors. An important lesson we took home was how to maximize on and save the proceeds from the sale of livestock and its related products. From the training we received, I have learnt many things including where to sell my livestock at the best prices. Prior to the training, I used tolose a lot of money to the brokers who would convince me to sell at a throw away price. Even though my husband is also a middle 79 | Page man, this was not any better.” This had taken a toll on their marriageas there were limited finances to cater for domestic use and yet they had extremely high expenditure and expectations. “Look at me now. I am not the Female Farmer 2 I was seven months ago. I am envied by many owing to my success as a livestock farmer. The animals we have are now healthier and their numbers are increasing at a faster rate than before. With the support from my husband to do farming as a business, I am now able to comfortably educate our children. We are all happy. Most of my children are in primary school, secondary and the university. I have two sons who are pursuing degree courses at the university, one doing a parallel degree in the university where we pay his fees without any challenges. Thank you for bringing this project to us.” She adds that although limited access to water in the area hinders increased livestock ownership, she is still much better off than where she was and instead uses the available water resources wisely as they have to walk about five kilometers to the closest water point. This hasnot dampened Female Farmer 2’s spirits and she hopes to be able to increase her livestock beyond the current 87 goats she now owns. 80 | Page 2. Developing Business Service Providers (BSPs) i. Male BDS 1 The soft spoken Male BDS 1, a 38-year old livestock trader, began livestock trading in 1988 upon completion of primary school. Prior to that, he worked first in a slaughter slab then as a butcher and eventually became a livestock trader. He was among the business service providers who were introduced to K-SALES project and received training in February 2015 and is currently a member of a Group, which was registered beforecommencement of the trainings. Initially, Male BDS 1 owned three business premises which included two “kitchens” (a restaurant that provides meals particularly meat that is set up adjacentto a pub) in Maua which he set up in 2014, together with the livestock trading business which he begun in 1988. He made Kshs. 50,000 per month from all these businesses as profit but he could not keep track of it. Male BDS 1 notes that the K-SALES training enabled him to expand his businesses and set up an additional kitchen in Ngondone and two new butcheries – one in Muthara and one in Ngondone. This makes a total of six businesses, with three of these set up in 2015 after the training he received. He now earns a profit of Kshs. 150,000 per month from all the five businesses after paying all the expenses. He employs nine people who collectively earn Kshs 54,000 monthly. He attributes the expansion to the training he receivedfrom K-SALES. “After the training I received in February, I opened two butcheries and later opened the most recent kitchen in October. I now have five businessesapart from livestock trading which bore all the rest. I would not have been here if it wasn’t for the trainings, particularly on how to manage businesses and keep records. I am now able to understand mybusiness profit and loss statements and can therefore better track of the profits. This has seen memake a profit of Kshs 150,000 per month from my businesses since I now keep records which I initiallydid not keep. Record keeping has allowed me expand my businesses by opening up three additional businesses that are running well. K-SALES also taught us how to do table banking where we are able to access funds as a group and also save-something that we previously didn’t have. The project has helpedme make more money and take care of my obligations better. I now have an alternative saving stream apart from my bank account and it has allowed me to make new friends and learn from them through the training and field visits,” Male BDS 1 states. When asked what challenges he faces as a Business Service Provider and how he handles them, he says that some of his colleagues (peers) did not think the K-SALES project was adding much value to them and even discouraged him. He was more discouraged when he would leave for training and get reimbursement of Kshs 500, which was much less than he made while running his businesses in a day. He however remained focused and pushed on. Right now his peers, who are not part of the group, come to him for advice and even borrow soft loans. Male BDS 1 adds that the field exchange trip to Laikipia taught him on how to slaughter livestock so as not to lose live weight after it has been trekking. This has allowed the livestock to get proper rest before slaughter, thereby making better profits. 81 | Page He is now skilled to run his businesses and when asked whether he would do the trainings again, he smiles and says, “I would do it again and again. It was worthwhile and has good things in store. 82 | Page 3. Increasing Access to Clean Water Systems i. Dam 1 Water User Association Dam 1 is one of the water points to be rehabilitated by the K-SALES project. It serves farmers from Kwa Mulei village, Wamunyu Location of Mwala County. The water point is managed by a Water User Association (WUA). The WUA is also a self-help group that assists its members to elevate their livelihood through group activities. The group has 134 members with the main objective of providing access to clean water for the livestock and domestic use. The Dam 1 WUA comprises of a committee that manages the water resource, with the dam being effective in the control of soil erosion as part of its management practice. Previously, the earth dam did not have a fence and the livestock would drink water directlyfrom the dam thereby contaminating it for human consumption. With the support from the USDA- funded Project, K-SALES, the water point is now properly fenced. This ensures that the water is clean for human consumption. The project also constructed a water kiosk and watering troughs for the livestock. The WUA committee has received training on management from K-SALES and has been able to employ one full time staff to manage the water point and one volunteer to support the full-time staff member. To date the group has never received any financial support from elsewhere and have been able to effectively manage the water point from member contributions. They even keep records that include monthly member payments. The primary challenges faced by the association include low monthly repayment by members of the group to manage the resource and silt infiltration in the water collected. Among key plans that the association has is plan for de-siltation of the water which will support sustainability of the earth dam and the WUA. 83 | Page 4. Improving/Rehabilitating Off Farm Infrastructure i. Slaughter Slab 1, Kitui County ( S010 05.568’ E037040.037) The Slaughter Slab 1 in Kitui County was constructed in June 2013 and serves an estimated 23 butcheries from the area; with each butchery reaching an estimated 50 people andselling 16 kilograms of meat on average daily. Slaughter Slab 1is one of seven Slaughter slabs built or rehabilitated by the USDA funded Kenya Semi-Arid Livestock Enhancement Support (K-SALES) project. The Slaughter Slab was constructed as a result of overwhelming pressure to have livestock in the area slaughtered under hygienic conditions. Previously livestock was slaughtered in the bushbut the construction of the slaughter slab has ensured maintenance of hygienic standards. Hygiene conditions include: ensuring that the slaughtered animal is raised as soon as possible to minimize contact with the ground, having the slaughter slab constructed with a concrete floor and metal roof to protect the processors from the weather elements such as sunshine and rain;and ensuring that slaughter is carried out at any time. It also includes fencing in order to protect the slaughter area from stray animals and unauthorized persons. Previously, the slaughter slab fetched approximately Kshs. 2,100 a day. During this period, the business faced various challenges which included scarcity of water for cleaning the slaughter slab and offal, and the lack of proper drainage systems for the waste products that in turn affected the turnover. In 2015, K-SALES rehabilitated the slaughter slab by constructing two waste lagoons, a slab extension, providing a water tank, putting up rain-gutters, an inspection table, a trippery, and rails for holding carcass. Following the rehabilitation, the Slaughter Slab 1 now has better working conditions, recording a 50% increase in sales to Kshs 4,200 per day, and employing four full-time employees to cater for the increased demand. It now serves butchery owners from several areas. The slaughter slab chairperson attributes the business increaseat the slaughter slab to K-SALES. He adds that he applies the business managementknowledge he acquired in College toefficiently keep daily records of expenditure, stock and income. Plans are currently underway to expand the business premises, do value addition to the livestockproducts and source for more market for the livestock products. 84 | Page ii. Slaughter Slab 2, Kitui County (S010 05.878’ E0380 01.120’) Located in Kitui County, Slaughter Slab 2 is a 40-year old family owned enterprise. The slaughter slab was previously run by the deceased husband to Female Owner 3. She initially had an uphill task of moving the slab from deterioration to productivity in a male-dominated business after her husband’s demise. Culture did not support her either, resulting in negative attitudes from the locals who disapproved Female Owner’s running of the slab. This was definitely no job for a woman, and a widow for that matter. The result was a worn out slaughter slab with an almost collapsing roof, worn out floors, no lagoons for effluent management, no water supply , resulting to no business. Eventually, the slaughter slab caved in and was condemned by the Public Health Officer who closed it down in June 2014, and with it close to forty years of family investment. In October 2015, more than one year later, the slaughter slab has been rehabilitated with financial and technical support from K-SALES and re-opened. An elated Female Owner 1 couldn’t be more grateful. The rehabilitation included the following: the repair of the roof, floor, construction of lagoons and the provision of water tanks for water storage. The slab serves butcher owners from the nearby Migwani Market and has now employed two full time employees to handle the current slaughter stock of fifteen goats and two cows weekly, up from the previous six goatsthe slaughter slab handled. She also runs a hides and skin business in Migwani the Market. Female Owner 1, the sole breadwinner of nine dependants adds with a smile, “This project is God￾sent. I had almost given up hope of ever reviving my slab, but I am now very grateful that it is up and running, Iam now able to pay school fees for my grandchildren and plan to expand my hides and skin business”. With the support she has received, she has changed her perceptions of the community expectations on gender roles and hopes that other women follow her footsteps in the near future. The elderly Female Owner 1 is also a member of a self-help group where she saves her income. She concludes by saying: “Thank you K-SALES team for this, and for giving me a voice. Generally women fail to take leadership roles in group activities and community roles due to lack of confidence, low self-esteem, lack of leadership skills, the notion that leadership belongs to men and cultural limitations requiring women to remain at home most of the times.” iii. Kabati Livestock Market, Kitui County (GPS: S01013.592’ E037054.949’) Located along the busy Nairobi Garissa highway, the Kabati Livestock Market bustles with hundreds cattle, goats, and donkeys – all for trade. It is one of the largest livestock markets in Kitui County, constructed in 2012 by the County Council of Kitui. The market operates twice a week, on Monday and Thursday and attracts traders as far as 300km away. During these days, approximately 200 heads of cattle and 400 shoats are sold per day. Not long ago, this market lacked proper fencing, community ownership and the necessary infrastructure to facilitate trade. County officials had a difficult time playing the “cat and mouse” game with traders who could easily exit the market withoutpaying tax for their sales. There wasn’t enough revenue to maintain the basic infrastructure required by the market The County Government and the local livestock marketing association (LMA) agreed that infrastructure was needed to make management of the market more formal and efficient. The entry of K-SALES project could not have come at a more apt time, with Kabati market chosen as 85 | Page one of fifteen livestock markets to be rehabilitated in 2015. The intervention included: construction of a fence, livestock holding pens, shading structures, water troughs and a small revenue office. County Government officials are now better able to collect tax revenue at the gate and traders can keep better track of their animals. Because of the newly constructed infrastructure, there has been an increase in the number of traders who prefer trading at Kabati Livestock Market as opposed to other markets in the area. This has in turn led to a noticeable increase on taxed revenue from Kshs.10,000 to Kshs. 14,000 per day. What’s more - in a bid to expand trade of livestock products, K-SALES has formed and trained Livestock Marketing Associations (LMAs) such as the one in Kabati, to co-manage the markets with the County Governments. The County Government plans to work hand-in-hand with the livestock enterprise owners to maintain these infrastructures for sustainability and to reinvest back to the community by building schools and other amenities. Currently negotiations are underway to have a portion of the revenue collected shared with the Livestock Marketing Association (LMAs) for the maintenance of the infrastructure and operational costs. This is in line with the Core Management Model. 86 | Page iv. Nguni Livestock Market (GPS: S00048.196’ E038018.799’) Nguni livestock market is located in Mwingi Central Sub-county. It is operational twice a week, with livestock brought to the market from several regions including Garissa, Nuu, Tseikuru, Ngomeni, Ukasi, Ndau and Mwingi each Monday and Saturday. Previously, there were numerous challenges faced by traders in the market, some of which included:- the uncontrolled movement of livestock in and out of the market, livestock theft as there was no proper fence, and lack of market organizational structure and management. The local market association was not able to raise sufficient revenue from the market. Through the Kenya Semi-Arid Livestock Enhancement (K-SALES) Project- a U.S. Department of Agriculture project implemented by Land O’Lakes International Development, the market was renovated in February 2015. The rehabilitation included the construction of a loading bay and assembly bay. After the renovation, the livestock marketing association was formed to streamline the management of the market, resolve the conflict between the buyers’ brokers and sellers and regulate the movement of livestock. The figure below shows some of the renovations done to the market. FIGURE 34: THE NEWLY REHABILITATED NGUNI LIVESTOCK MARKET LOADING RAMP AND ASSEMBLY BAY With proper fencing, there is security of livestock in the market through organized management by the Livestock Market Association (LMA) who issue livestock entry and exit permits to the livestock owners. The county government can now collect the revenue effectively as there is restricted entry and exit of livestock. The rehabilitation of the loading ramps has also reduced the chances of livestock injuries during on-loading and off-loading. 87 | Page 5. Developing Cooperatives Business Capacity i. Self Help Group 1 – Makueni County Speaking to Group Member 1 is an enjoyable experience as she exudes warmth and confidence with each sentence. She punctuates her sentences with warm smiles, asking whether she is clear or whether you have understood what she is talking about. As you listen to her, you try to picture her standing in a market negotiating with other livestock traders on which cow to purchase at how much. And then inevitably one of her favorite topics – the Self Help Group 1 comes up. The 28-member group brings together like minded individuals to trade in livestock and livestock products and also practice table banking inorder to increase their financial capital base. These members are made up of livestock traders, butchery owners and hides and skin traders. Group members bring their livestock each week to the trading market and are able to also purchase livestock for sale. The group members buy cows from three markets (Makindu, Makino and Kambo markets) thrice a week and sell the same at a profit. Makindu and Kambo are larger markets and they are able to sell an average of 50 cows each from these markets monthly, with Macino market selling an average of 20 cows. Proceeds are then saved with 500 Kshs per cow sold set aside for saving and Kshs 100 per goatset aside for saving. Individual members also save Kshs 50 per person each week which is banked in order to increase their capital base for future investment. The members of Self Help Group 1 used to trade as individuals, but upon receiving trainingfrom K-SALES using the cooperative model, they were able to leverage on the strength of their membership in order to have a collective bargaining voice when trading in order to have better prices. The group also protects individual members from harassment in the market while negotiating better prices. They have recently purchased shares worth Kshs 1000 per member at the SACCO which they hope with increase their positioning in the livestock trading eco-system. 88 | Page ii. Slaughterers Self Help Group 2 Members of the group had been working at the slaughterhouse for some years but started working together as a group in 12th June 2015. This was when they registered themselves as Slaughterers Self Help Group 2. Membership to the group requires registration payment of Kshs 200 and buying of shares in order to get to the same savings level as all the other members totaling Kshs 2,000 per person. The group currently has 16 members, with 12 ofthem being active. Prior to the K-SALES project, the slaughterers were not working as a team though they all usedthe same slaughter slab. The privately-owned slaughter slab, constructed in 1978 has seen better days. The next slaughterhouse is four kilometers away. Through the K-SALES project, they received training as a cooperative and asa result, the group members can confidently say that they enjoy variousbenefits as meat processors. One of the benefits is the peer interaction with other slaughterers, livestock owners, hides and skins processors during the exchange visit that the group officials attended in August 2015. They teach other group members what they learnt during the weekly group meetings. Another benefit according to the group has been the lessons on how to avoid exploitation by brokers through purchasing livestock directly from the farm. They also have direct contacts to the livestock keepers thereby reducing contact with brokers and hence makemore money. Through this direct interaction with farmers, livestock owners from nearby area have been able to let the slaughterers and butchers know when their livestock is ready for market. This enables them to be purchased in bulk at the local nearby market at competitiveprices. The livestock owners (farmers) and the slaughterers / butchers are both happy with this arrangement. The slaughterers’ cooperative is optimistic of the future. They were able to visit not one but two modern slaughterhouses during an exchange visit organized by K-SALES through the local implementing partner. They came back psyched up to construct their own modern slaughterhouse, and have so far identified the land for this. With a current savings of Kshs 102,000, the group is working on resource mobilization to increase their capital base so that they can make the vision of setting up their own slaughterhouse a reality. FIGURE 36: AN INSIDE VIEW OF THE SLAUGHTER SLAB “In our group, as a result of the K-SALES project training we thought of how to build our own slaughter so that we can continue with business. We started the cooperative group just the other day and came up with the idea to build our own slaughter to enable us continue working after seeing what modern slaughterhouses looks like. The government wants to do away with slaughter slabs and that is what we have currently. If there is no slaughter slab we will not be ableto continue with our business. The exposure to other 89 | Page slaughterhouses through this project made us come up with this idea as a group so that we stay in business. We have already started looking for land for the same in order to enable us continue with our business.” “I started the slaughter business one and a half years ago. Personally, as a result of the K-SALES project, I have been able to expand my business through better record keeping and I have bought more than two acres of land in the last one year and also cater for my family of a wife and two children from the same business. I have two workers who work for this business and I can say if it’s well managed, it is a good business,” states the Chairman. Initially the slaughterhouse and butchers owners had major challenges in loss of livelihoods; when their livestock was rejected by the Public Health Officer, one would be out of business for even three to four months as they sought funds. However, the group now has active table banking where a member is able to take a loan and return it with 5% interest with flexible repayment modes as agreed within the group. So far, none of the group members has been out of business or defaulted loan repayment. They face a number of challenges such as a high number of slaughterers but insufficient space where they have to wait for each other to slaughter thus wasting time. Sometimes the current sewer system gets filled up and must be regularly emptied so as not to block the drainage. The Slaughterers Self Help Group 2 are not just sitting back, sad and wondering what to do with the problems they face. Yes, the slaughter slab is outdated and small, but they have come up with their own initiative to tackle the challenges both short term and long term. In theshort term, they have a rooster for slaughtering, with members who have urgent customers having the option of purchasing livestock from each other. They have also gone out of their wayto clear the sewer in order to reduce blockage, even as they save towards purchasing land to put up a modern slaughterhouse that will bring in an additional income to the group and also ensure they have work. It is hard to believe that these butchers and slaughterers are less than six months in the project, and one can only imagine how much more impact they will have should the project extend.