PARTICIPATORY ECOLOGICAL LAND USE MANAGEMENT … · KEBS – Kenya Bureau of Standards ......

PARTICIPATORY ECOLOGICAL LAND USE MANAGEMENT

(PELUM) KENYA

END TERM EVALUATION

OF

ECOLOGICAL ORGANIC AGRICULTURE INITIATIVE (SSNC FUNDED)

FINAL REPORT

BY

DUNCAN O. OCHORO P.O. Box 14822-00800

NAIROBI Tel: 6006761/0722529537

Fax: 6006798 E-MAIL: [email protected]

WEBSITE: www.ptc.co.ke

February, 2016

http://www.ptc.co.ke/

ii EOA-I End Term Evaluation

Final Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. iv CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. EOA - Initiative ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3. EOA Initiative in Kenya .................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Goal and Purpose of EOA-I End Term Evaluation ............................................................................ 2 1.5 Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.6 Specific Objectives of the Evaluation .............................................................................................. 3 CHAPTER TWO: APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 4 2.1 Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Methodology and techniques ......................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER THREE: FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS ................................................................................. 6 3.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 6 3.2 Achievements Against Planned Activities and Outputs .................................................................. 7 3.3 Challenges Encountered in the Project ......................................................................................... 13 3.4 Ways of addressing the challenges include; .................................................................................. 15 3.5 Rating of Challenges in the Project as Perceived by Beneficiaries ................................................ 15 3.6 Adequacy of Various Factors for Implementing Thematic Areas of EOA ...................................... 15 3.7 Value for Money ............................................................................................................................ 16 3.8 Youth Participation and Gender Issues ......................................................................................... 16 3.9 Emerging Issues ............................................................................................................................. 17 3.10 Program outcomes (Higher level Results) ..................................................................................... 17 3.11 Summary of Findings on Project Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness and Sustainably ............... 19 3.12 Lesson Learnt and Best Practices .................................................................................................. 23 3.13 Most Significant Changes (MSC) through EOA Initiative ............................................................... 23 3.14 Sustainability Prospects ................................................................................................................. 24 3.15 Limitations of the End Term Evaluation ........................................................................................ 24 CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 26 4.1 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 26 Reviewed Documents ................................................................................................................................ 28 APPENDIX I: List of Respondents ............................................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX II: Data Collection Instruments/Tools ....................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX II: Field Work Itinerary .............................................................................................................. 44

iii EOA-I End Term Evaluation

Final Report

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AUC – African Union Commission BvAT – Biovision Africa Trust CAADP – Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme CBO – Community Based Organization COL – County Lead organization CSO – Civil Society Organization DREA – Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture EOA – Ecological Organic Agriculture EOA-I – Ecological Organic Agriculture Initiative FCP – Farmer Communication Programme ICIPE – International Center for Insect Physiology and Ecology ICRAF – International Center for Research in Agroforestry ICS – Internal Control System ICT – Information Communication Technology IGA – Income Generating Activities JKUAT – Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology KALRO – Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization KEBS – Kenya Bureau of Standards KROAN – Kenya Research on Organic Agriculture Network M&E – Monitoring and Evaluation MDG – Medium Development Goals MOALF – Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries MSCs – Most Significant Changes NASEP – National Agriculture Sector Policy NGOs – Non Governmental Organization OCA – Organic Consumer Association PELUM – Participatory Ecological Land Use Management PGS – Participatory Guarantee System PIPs – Pillar Implementing Partners PPP – Public Private Partnership SSAEA – School of Sustainable Agriculture for East Africa SSNC - Swedish Society for Nature Conservation TOF – Training of Facilitators TOR – Terms of Reference ToT – Training of Tutors UN – United Nation US – United State USA – United States of America

iv EOA-I End Term Evaluation

Final Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is a report on End Term Evaluation of Ecological Organic Agriculture Initiative (EOA-I) component funded by Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) since 2012 when the initiative was piloted in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Zambia and Nigeria; with the main project covering three (3) years from 2013 – 2015. EOA Project in Kenya is part of the Ecological Organic Agriculture Initiative (EOA-I) currently being rolled out in Eastern Africa Region (Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia) and West African region. The Initiative’s overall goal is to mainstream ecological organic agriculture (EOA) in Africa by 2020 through six inter-related thematic areas implemented by various partners, namely;

i) Research, Training and Extension - SACDEP ii) Information and Communication – BvAT iii) Value Chain and Market Development - KOAN iv) Networking and Partnerships – KOAN v) Policy and Programme Development - BvAT vi) Institutional Capacity Development - PELUM Kenya

PELUM Kenya was coordinating the EOA – I activities supported by SSNC in Kenya. The evaluation only dealt with the component supported by SSNC. The EOA – Initiative addressed food insecurity and firmly complimented the continental efforts spearheaded by the Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture (DREA) and the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) of the African Union Commission (AUC). The purpose of the evaluation was to determine achievements of the project towards the overall goal of mainstreaming ecological organic agriculture in Africa by 2020 through the above specified six inter-related thematic areas. The results of this evaluation would be useful in designing the extension of the project, repositioning the project; scaling up the best practices and lessons learned; but more critically to discern the extent to which the initiative has been mainstreamed into the on-going agricultural production in the selected communities and subsequent impact on increased food security.

The key areas of focus in the end term evaluation included:

The extent to which the project was conceptualized and designed- purpose, objectives, targeted beneficiaries, relevance, plans and programmes

Efficiency and effectiveness in implementing the project – resources utilization, timeliness, intermediary results and outputs, participation by partners, government, communities and stakeholders.

The extent to which the project has realized stated goals and objectives especially in the context of results and outputs with focus on institutional capacity development and or strengthening of partners, stakeholders and communities.

The longer term outcome or impact of the project; especially in the context of continuity and sustainability

The impact of increased food security within the communities. In addition to the issues listed above, the evaluation also addressed the following important aspects of any project evaluation exercise which included:

v EOA-I End Term Evaluation

Final Report

Achievements and successes

Lessons Learned

Best practices that can be expanded, replicated or scaled up as appropriate

Challenges encountered and how they can be addressed

Emerging issues that could be incorporated in the project extension

Suggestions/recommendations for re-positioning the project in the event of extension and improvement.

Specifically the objectives of the evaluation exercise were to: a) Assess the EOA Initiative’s plans, achievements, experiences, and lessons, and make

recommendations for improvement and the way forward. b) Highlight issues and challenges affecting effective and efficient implementation of

outputs and their contribution to project outcomes and impact and recommend whether results obtained thus far warrant an extension of the project.

c) Establish lessons learnt in order to increase understanding on what has and what has not worked as a guide for future planning.

d) Provide information on the nature, extent and where possible, the effect of the project on the extent of increased food security through mainstreaming of EOA in the National Agricultural systems in Kenya.

The approach of the evaluation exercise was highly participatory and ensured involvement and contributions to the exercise by all interest parties and groups. The parties and groups included EOA-I Pillar Implementing Partners in Kenya, PELUM Kenya project personnel, various EOA-I stakeholders in Kenya, government officials (national and county levels) community based organizations and community project beneficiaries- individuals, groups etc. The findings are presented within the framework of the six (6) thematic areas of EOA – Initiative implemented by Pillar Implementation Partners (PIPs) and details out:

Activities carried out

Key achievements

Challenges encountered in EOA Initiative

Project results/outputs and outcome as appropriate

Lessons learned and best practices

Most significant Changes (MSC) through the EOA Initiative Other key findings include relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of the project as well as issues of youth and women participation, value for money and new or emerging issues The key suggestion/recommendations include:

Need to strengthen institutional structures for coordinating EOA Initiative amongst all partners and stakeholders

Enhance lobbying and advocacy on EOA policy guidelines as well as mainstreaming the practice in research, training especially of extension services staff and farmers,

vi EOA-I End Term Evaluation

Final Report

production, marketing and value chain development especially by national and devolved county governments

Strengthen the PPP concept and process to promote and facilitate implementation of EOA-Initiative countrywide

Expand access to credit especially by government institutions as well enhanced funding by the county governments to support the EOA – Initiative

Support and promote women and youth participation in EOA initiative

Promote formation of cooperatives to streamline production, produce handling and transportation, marketing and value addition.

In terms of extension of EOA-Initiative the following key action are highly recommended: i) Conduct rapid baseline survey to provide evidence- based data for planning and

repositioning the project ii) Based on the baseline survey results, conduct detailed gap analysis within each

thematic/pillar area to inform the design of phase two of the initiative. iii) Prepare comprehensive and costed project plan based on the baseline survey and

gap analysis results iv) Develop comprehensive Project Results Framework/Matrix based on the project

plan that will guide both allocation and utilization of resources as well as expected results/outputs and ultimate outcome

v) Develop and operationalize robust Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system at both Pillar/Thematic as well as overall EOA Initiative levels for purposes of continuous monitoring, periodic evaluation, feedback documentation and reporting, results/output dissemination and ultimate outcomes/impact assessment

vi) Develop and implement Resources Mobilization Strategy targeting both current and potential development partners (donors), national and county governments, private sector and community based institutions.

vii) Accelerate training and capacity building of EOA extension Services Staff and Farmers/Farmers Groups in collaboration with national and county governments as well as participating CSOs and other stakeholders.

viii) Strengthen collaboration, partnerships and networks of all institutions engaged in EOA Initiative in Kenya through outreach programmes, forum, round-table meetings.

In conclusion, EOA – Initiative in Kenya is the way to go given especially in the context of immediately, medium – term and longer-term sustainable agriculture production with definite efforts towards: i) Environment – friendly agricultural production and conservation of the

environment ii) Mitigating on food insecurity iii) Enhancing the livelihoods of individuals families and communities through nutrition,

health, income generation and overall poverty reduction iv) Creating more socio-economic opportunities especially for women, youth,

marginalized and /or excluded as well as vulnerable individuals, groups and the general population.

1 EOA-I End Term Evaluation

Final Report

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 Introduction

Agriculture in Africa faces increasing challenges to agricultural productivity, occasioned by over-reliance on non-renewable resources. Such challenges include poor linkage to markets and other incoming generating opportunities, inadequate institutional capacity, poor coordination and networking, poor linkage between the industry and research institutions, inadequate financial resources, and climate change effects which have made agricultural systems vulnerable. This has therefore made it necessary for the adoption of alternative sustainable forms of farming systems in Africa. Ecological Organic Agriculture (EOA) presents such an alternative with proven sustainable soil fertility, farm productivity and access to markets while ensuring climate change resilience and networking with stakeholders. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of synthetic inputs with adverse effects. Organic agriculture combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the shared environment and promote fair relationships and a good quality of life for all involved. This way EOA fits the new pathway that considers the agro-ecosystem in all its diversity.

1.2 Background to EOA - Initiative In response to the widely acknowledged ‘crisis in African Agriculture’, the African Heads of States and Governments made a declaration to support Organic (including Ecological) Farming in Africa under decision EX.CL/ Dec. 621 (XVII) in 2011. The African Union Commission (AUC) then prioritized the agriculture sector in its Strategic Plan 2014-2017. As a result, various initiatives are now being pursued to address the food insecurity challenge among other challenges. One such initiative is the ‘Ecological Organic Agriculture Initiative’ (EOA-I); ‘A holistic system that sustains the health of ecosystems and relies on functional cycles adapted to local conditions, rather than the use of synthetic inputs which have adverse effects on total health (human, animal, plant and environmental)’. EOA – Initiative addresses food insecurity and firmly compliments the continental efforts spearheaded by the Department of Rural Economy and Agriculture (DREA) and the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) of the African Union Commission (AUC). The EOA – Initiative has been receiving support from the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC) (Naturskyddsföreningen) since 2012 when the initiative was piloted for 1 year in ; Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Zambia, and Nigeria. The current phase of the project covered 2013 – 2015.

1.3 EOA Initiative in Kenya EOA Project in Kenya is part of the Ecological Organic Agriculture Initiative (EOA-I) currently being rolled out in Eastern Africa Region (Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia) and West African region. The Initiative’s overall goal is to mainstream ecological organic agriculture (EOA) in Africa by 2020 through six inter-related thematic areas implemented by various partners, namely; vii) Research, Training and Extension - SACDEP viii) Information and Communication – BvAT


Final Report

ix) Value Chain and Market Development - KOAN x) Networking and Partnerships – KOAN xi) Policy and Programme Development - BvAT xii) Institutional Capacity Development PELUM Kenya

PELUM Kenya is coordinating the EOA-I activities that are supported by SSNC in Kenya. The project covered the period 2013 – 2015. This evaluation only dealt with this component supported by SSNC and coordinated by PELUM Kenya over the project period.

1.4 Goal and Purpose of EOA-I End Term Evaluation

The TOR limited this Evaluation to the Ecological Organic Agriculture Initiative (SSNC funded) in Kenya, coordinated by PELUM Kenya. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine achievements of the project towards the overall goal of mainstreaming ecological organic agriculture in Africa by 2020 through the above specified six inter-related thematic areas coordinated by the PELUM Kenya. The results of this evaluation would be useful in designing the extension of the project, repositioning the project; scaling up the best practices and lessons learned; but more critically to discern the extent to which the initiative has been mainstreamed into the on-going agricultural production in the selected communities and subsequent impact on increased food security.

1.5 Terms of Reference The End Term Evaluation of Ecological Organic Agriculture (EOA) of the Swedish Society of Nature Conservation (SSNC) funded component was conducted within the framework of the Terms of Reference (TOR) provided. As stated in TOR, The EOA project covered the period 2013-2015 (3years) and based on interpretation of the TOR the areas of focus in the end term evaluation included but not limited to:

The extent to which the project was conceptualized and designed- purpose, objectives, targeted beneficiaries, relevance, plans and programmes

Efficiency and effectiveness in implementing the project – resources utilization, timeliness, intermediary results and outputs, participation by partners, government, communities and stakeholders.

The extent to which the project has realized stated goals and objectives especially in the context of results and outputs with focus on institutional capacity development and or strengthening of partners, stakeholders and communities.

The longer term outcome or impact of the project; especially in the context of continuity and sustainability

The impact of increased food security within the communities. In addition to the issues listed above, the evaluation also addressed the following important aspects of any project evaluation exercise which included:

Achievements and successes

Lessons Learned

Best practices that can be expanded, replicated or scaled up as appropriate


Final Report

Challenges encountered and how they can be addressed

Emerging issues that could be incorporated in the project extension

Suggestions/recommendations for re-positioning the project in the event of extension and improvement.

The expected deliverables of the exercise were:

Inception Report as the road map for the whole exercise

A draft comprehensive report to be shared with PELUM Kenya as well as all key partners and stakeholders

A feedback workshop for the key partners and stakeholders to validate the draft report

Final report incorporating the comments and suggestions from the validation workshop

Submission of the final report to PELUM Kenya team 1.6 Specific Objectives of the Evaluation

The objective of EOA-I End of the project Evaluation was purposely to assess the progress in project implementation against outcomes and outputs by the end of December 2015. Specifically, the evaluation was to: a) Assess the EOA Initiative’s plans, achievements, experiences, and lessons, and make

recommendations for improvement and the way forward. b) Highlight issues and challenges affecting effective and efficient implementation of

outputs and their contribution to project outcomes and impact and recommend whether results obtained thus far warrant an extension of the project.

c) Establish lessons learnt in order to increase understanding on what has and what has not worked as a guide for future planning.

d) Provide information on the nature, extent and where possible, the effect of the project on the extent of increased food security through mainstreaming of EOA in the National Agricultural systems in Kenya.


Final Report

CHAPTER TWO APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Approach The approach of the evaluation exercise was highly participatory and ensured involvement and contributions to the exercise by all interest parties and groups. The parties and groups included EOA-I Pillar Implementing Partners in Kenya, PELUM Kenya project personnel, various EOA-I stakeholders in Kenya, government officials (national and county levels) community based organizations and community project beneficiaries- individuals, groups etc.

In terms of methodology; the key tasks included:

Comprehensive preliminary meetings, consultations and briefings between PELUM Kenya and the Consultants,

Rapid review of all documents and reports,

Preparation of Inception Report which formed the road map for the exercise,

Design of the assignment including data collection instruments, identification of respondents and the preparation of fieldwork itinerary

Roll-out of the field work data collection,

Data processing, analysis and interpretation of the findings,

Preparation of Draft Report,

Conducting feedback and validation workshop of project team and stakeholders,

Preparation of Final Report and Submission of the Report to PELUM Kenya Management.

2.2 Methodology and techniques The objectives and evaluation questions formed the basis and framework for developing and utilizing various data collection instruments and methodologies targeting variety of individuals, groups and institutional respondents. Data collection techniques included administered questionnaires; interviews of key informants (KIIs) – both individuals and institutional representatives of PELUM Kenya, implementing partners, selected key stakeholders and government officials; focus group discussions (FGDs), especially at community level project beneficiaries and direct observation checklist especially during visits to the project sites.

The groups included adults and youths (males and females), and vulnerable, marginalized or excluded people.

The targeted populations for data collection were sampled in close consultation with the client using purposive sampling method to ensure that there are representative samples of all the targeted populations.


Final Report

The table below shows Targeted Respondents and Data Collection Methods

Targeted Respondents Data Collection Techniques/Methods

i) PELUM Project Staff Key Informant Interviews

Administered Questionnaires

ii) Pillar Implementing Partners Key Informant Interviews

Administered Questionnaires

iii) Selected Stakeholders Key Informant Interviews

iv) National and County Governments Officials

Key Informant Interviews

v) Community-based institutions e.g. CBOs, NGOs, Youth Groups, Women Groups

Focus Group Discussions

vi) Community beneficiaries – Males, Females, Youth, Vulnerable Groups etc.

Focus Group Discussions

The data collection instruments are in Appendix I; and fieldwork itinerary as well as list of respondents are in Appendix II. Descriptive and qualitative methods were used in data analysis and in interpretation and presentation of findings as well as subsequent suggestions/recommendations


Final Report

CHAPTER THREE FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS

3.1 Background EOA-I was designed as a continuation of the earlier piloted Project in Kenya. Implementation of the project was through the development of thematic Pillars and the identification of experienced partners to implement each Pillar. This provided the impetus and the capability to move the agenda of each Pillar. Thus the Initiative’s overall goal which was to mainstream Ecological Organic Agriculture (EOA) in Africa by 2020 was to be realised through six inter-related thematic areas (Pillars) implemented by various partners, namely; i) Research, Training and Extension - SACDEP ii) Information and Communication – BvAT iii) Value Chain and Market Development - KOAN iv) Networking and Partnerships – KOAN v) Policy and Programme Development - BvAT vi) Institutional Capacity Development PELUM Kenya which also coordinated

activities of the project as the Country Lead Organisation (CLO). This approach enabled each Pillar to be examined more closely and effectively for the overall benefit of the project and as a best practice. Planning and budgeting for each Pillar was carried out separately by each Pillar Implementing Partner (PIP). These plans were then validated in a joint forum that approved a joint plan and budget for the EOA-I that the Country Lead Organisation (PELUM) used to request for funding from the Donor. BvAT however had a special arrangement to apply for and receive its funding directly from SSNC. Each major activity by each PIP was shared with the CLO before implementation. This arrangement worked well for the project to ensure synergy, which was further enhanced during implementation through PIP forums, stakeholder forums and carrying out joint activities such as staff training sessions. The disbursement process, often occasioned by lateness, however presented challenges to the achievement of planned activities in each budget year. This was aggravated by donor guidelines that did not approve funds for one year to be applied in the next plan year without special arrangements. In this regard, the Donor and the CLO needed to address the issues of late disbursement and funding modalities in order to streamline implementation. PELUM Kenya had the responsibility of coordinating the plans and activities of the Pillar Implementing Partners (PIPs). However, there was no evidence of an institutional structure that supports coordination of all the partners as well as stated functions of each partner in the context of the common goal and objectives of EOA – Initiative Coordination structures should be streamlined to make them time-bound and predictable. These include joint activities such as meetings, stakeholder forums, PIP forums, joint supervision, joint M&E systems etc. Lack of important project development tools such as baseline studies, common monitoring and evaluation framework and project log-frame has limited the application of result based project management. .


Final Report

The evaluation also noted that it was a general perception of the PIPs that the funding level is too low and more could be achieved through bigger funding. The project has spread its activities too thin on the ground. Consequently, the Project should work with like-minded organisations, donors, partners and even public organisations, to fundraise for EOA.

Of special consequence for the performance of the project is the insufficient enabling policy environment for the EOA. Inadequate policy on EOA has limited the unleashing of the vast potential for the promotion of EOA particularly among the public institutions. It is however heartening to note that with inputs from the project, two policies; the Agriculture Policy and the Organic Agriculture Policy are underway. The single biggest threat to EOA is the promotion of chemicals for farming and support for genetically modified inputs by powerful multinationals more driven by big gains from sale of fertilizers and other chemical inputs. This calls for more concerted lobbying and advocacy by the CSOs to control the situation. In addition to the CSO efforts, it is recommended that deliberate initiatives should be put in place to lobby and advocate for immediate implementation of policies that support the EOA – Initiative at the national and county governments levels

3.2 Achievements Against Planned Activities and Outputs Against the background described above, the project recorded achievements in the implementation of various activities. The time period of the project (3 years) was however too short to record impacts. It is also important to note that due to the challenges described above particularly in regard to disbursement, some PIPs had only a couple of months in a year to implement activities planned for that year. An example is the year 2013 when BvAT had less than four months to implement its activities for that year due to late disbursements. Below are recorded achievements with the framework of each pillar implementing partners.

3.2.1 Research, Training and Extension The Pillar aimed at helping set up a system for regular updates and dissemination of status of EOA research; training institutions to have well established EOA curricula; and to have an extension services system responsive to the end-users demand for information and services on EOA. The Training of Tutors (TOT) programme produced 9 validated tutors who will backstop trainings in EOA but more importantly train other tutors at the School of Sustainable Agriculture for East Africa-SSAEA. Reason for their training in the USA rather than get trainers from the US to train a bigger number of potential tutors locally was not clear. At the same time, it was not clear whether a 4-month training in the US is all that was required for validating the tutors. It is however a good step forward that will in due course ensure production of knowleadgable trainers in EOA. Achievements in this pillar include; • Variety of trainings for different target groups and with varying content were

organised and delivered • Audiovisuals developed and used


Final Report

• Two studies undertaken • 7 research institutions have formal and informal working arrangements with the

project • 7 institutions of learning implementing harmonised curriculum in EOA • 9 TOT validated in EOA and capacity built In addition, a study had been conducted and completed by Mid-November, 2015 on Technology Uptake and Utilization: Case Study Based on Fodder Innovations Dissemination in Kipkaren, Nandi County. The findings of the study should be disseminated, validated and finalized as well as results utilized to reposition the EOA- Initiative activities.

3.2.2 Collaborative Research Activities EOA is weak regarding availability of evidence-based information compared to the inorganic conventional agriculture. The public sector owns and controls most of the research institutions in Kenya with a strong leaning on chemical-based inorganic agriculture. It is however inspiring that the EOA-I has recorded some success in collaborating with public research institutions with seven of such institutions now having formal working arrangements with EOA-I including housing the Farmer Information Centres. It is strongly recommended that more effort should focus on involving public research institutions, particularly KALRO in ecological organic agriculture research in order to use their vast potential to increase availability of research-based information. Among the CSOs, Biovision Africa Trust, ICRAF and PELUM Kenya are taking lead in the implementation of the mutually agreed on activities under Research Activities Component. In this regard, two joint meetings were held, the first one to plan and allocate activities for the 3 months of September to November 2016 given that funds had been released very late in July 2015 by SSNC. The 3 organizations, based on the work plan and budget, adopted and shared with SSNC the following activities to be undertaken in 2016; A scoping study to document the agro-forestry technologies/practices/systems and

their characterization released for adoption and use by farmers. Assessment of farmers’ preferences and technology characteristics and how

programmes/projects have embraced this in their designs. Appraisal of status of uptake/adoption and utilization of the recommended agro-

forestry technologies and practices.

After series of consultative planning meetings, the Terms of Reference for the three studies were developed; consultants identified and contracted by Mid-November, 2015. However the respective studies have not been rolled out. Consequently, it is recommended that the studies be conducted in the next phase. The results of the study with provide evidence- based data for repositioning the EOA Initiative. It is noteworthy, that such effort, albeit in small scale should be stepped up to increase research-based information in EOA and in this regard, budgeting and fundraising should be enhanced to obtain the requisite funds for such research activities.


Final Report

3.2.3 Information and Communication

The Pillar aimed to enhance information and communication strategies among farmers and stakeholders. The activities of this Pillar were undertaken under the oversight of the Biovision Africa Trust through the Biovision Farmer Communication Programme. The main focus was to disseminate information on EOA. A variety of approaches were employed with marked success in reaching the clientele. These approaches were geared towards promoting an innovative farmer communication system using Information and Communication Technologies (ICT); strengthening capacities of civil society organizations (CSOs) including farmer-based organizations, and extension service agencies to use multiple methods to disseminate information on ecological organic agriculture practices; and engaging a full range of partners including government officials, public institutions, private sector enterprises and beneficiaries in building, implementing and evaluating how the project disseminates information to farmers and farmer groups on EOA practices. In pursuit of meeting these broad goals, the project developed and used information and communication repositories that included a website and farmer resource/information hubs; production of information materials in different formats on ecological organic agriculture for different user groups; creation of networks and partnerships to increase awareness, knowledge and interest about EOA; and strengthening capacity of CSOs, extension service providers, and farmer organisations on how to access and disseminate information on EOA. The approaches used were fully aligned to the National Agriculture Sector Policy (NASEP) and its implementation framework (NASEP-IF) which advocate for pluralistic extension provision and the use of all approaches that lend credence to access to information. At the same time both public and private sector players were adequately involved in the activities of this pillar while enlisting the participation of a number of CSO partners. Funding complications and particularly late disbursement of funds confounded implementation of activities with breaks in smooth implementation causing some important activities to be postponed. Some key activities in the project period included but not limited to: i) EOA website was developed and maintained, Hosting fees for EOA website paid and

website updated regularly ii) Two Resource Centres in Western Kenya were regularly opened and maintained for

farmers, running costs for the resource centres to enable EOA information reach farmers through farmer trainings, demonstrations, exchange visits was adequately catered for and;

Photocopying and printing costs and rent were catered for.

3 laptops (OLPC) availed to field staff to enhance their outreach.

Approximately 6,200 (3700 Female, 2,500 Male) farmers were reached through various channels such as farmer training, demonstrations, exchange visits, field days and exhibitions. Farmers were trained on various topics such soil fertility, compost making, environmental conservation,


Final Report

establishment of kitchen gardens, poultry farming, water harvesting, use of energy saving devices.

iii) Resource Centres continued to use materials produced from the Infonet database iv) Monitoring visits to EOA resource centers in Kakamega and Busia were carried out

for purposes of establishing their operations, farmer outreach, trainings and operational costs.

v) Information materials produced included posters designed and developed with the following topics: Making liquid manure, Mulching, Push-Pull technology, Post harvest management of grains/legumes, housing structures for poultry, pigs and goats.

vi) Field days held to showcase EOA work in the region and providing farmers an opportunity to showcase their produce, market and exchange experiences and ideas

vii) Training for CBOs and Extension Agents (30 participants) on various EOA technologies.

viii) Support to the review of The Organic Farmer Modules is on-going and payments made to consultants reviewing 5 of the modules already made.

ix) Gender issues were adequately mainstreamed in the EOA initiatives.

3.2.4 Value Chain Development The Value Chain Development Pillar implemented by KOAN recorded major achievements in its implementation. Most gains were in linking producers to markets; awareness creation among producers and consumers; infrastructural development for bulking of planting material and in home-based processing of organic products. The project was able to provide seed money for groups to start income generating projects such as organic shops (Yetana Women Group, Kimilili), processing of groundnuts in Homabay, packaging honey in Mt. Elgon and portable gardens in Ngong’ etc. At the same time, KOAN has enabled the project reach people through shows, field days, talks, and the media and through institutions. The other achievements of the project in value chain development include raising local capacity in organic quality assurance, organic value chain management and Internal Control System (ICS) and Participatory Guarantee System (CGS). Certification is however carried out by independent bodies that check compliance with the systems. KOAN together with the Kenya Bureau of Standards, (KEBS) developed the East African Organic Product Standards which are applicable in the country for EOA and is presently working with the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries in the development of relevant policies. KOAN is chair of the Organic Food Standards and is working with Egerton University on standards and certification and with KEBS on organic food standards and bio-fertilizer standards. Towards this end, the following results have been achieved; a) In an effort to equip small-scale farmers and TOTs with skills and knowledge on

Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) and internal control systems (ICS) and marketing processes for EOA, farmers both men and women were trained. in Yetana, Ngong’, Gilgil; on ICS – Jungle nuts and 3000 TSA.

b) Increased access to national markets was enhanced by producers /traders now able to be linked to different organic markets on a regular basis including 40 producers


Final Report

now able to access Organic Farmers Market in Karen; 33 US Embassy Organic Market; and 15 producers linked to Bridges Organic Market through the support of the project. Number of stakeholders seeking information on organic market is raing. However this needs to be documented.

c) Market platform was established through creation of bulking centres through which producers and traders are able to interact and be linked appropriately.

d) Access and availability of market information and linkages for EOA products was enhanced

e) Development of value chains was enhanced by training master trainers with 8 of them supported to develop value chains; 28 TOTs to train farmers on ATM

3.2.5 Networking and Partnerships

Networking and Partnership Pillar is critical for a concerted and complementary involvement and participation of key stakeholders in the advancement of EOA. A long standing challenge is the adage that while many CSOs are advocating EOA, the national and county governments have not adequately mainstreamed EOA initiative at both policies formulation/development and implementation levels. It is true that the MOALF has in the past, provided advisory services on aspects of EOA such as organic farming, conservation farming, integrated pest management and integrated crop management just as another alternative to conventional chemical-based production without clear and deliberate commitment to EOA. The EOA-I Project has however contributed immensely in strengthening the vast CSO networks in EOA thus providing renewed momentum for their activities in EOA. A case in point is that of the Kenya Research on Organic Agriculture Network (KROAN) with renewed momentum in spearheading the development of evidence-based information in support of organic agriculture. The networking between partners in the private sector is also taking root. BvAT, PELUM and ICRAF carried out a joint implementation of a scoping study to identify the diversity of the technologies and practices developed by ICRAF and other research institutions since 1980 with a view to identifying where and what research information exist. This will form a good baseline information that informs EOA initiative. At the same time, the EOA-I has improved interaction between CSOs in EOA and the public institutions such as universities, colleges and research organisations where a number of activities are now being co-implemented. KOAN is collaborating with key public institutions in policy development, internal control systems, quality assurance, organic standards and certification and is Chair in the Food Standards Committee. SACDEP has worked with a number of universities and colleges in the adoption of EOA curriculum. BvAT has worked with public information institutions such as AIRC in the development of ICT in EOA. There is room for improvement of this key Pillar. As exemplified in the proceedings of the launch of the Kenya National Ecological Organic Agriculture Platform on 3rd April 2014 at ICIPE Complex, Nairobi, the numerical representation of public institutions at the launch is too low suggesting the determination of maintaining EOA as a preserve of the private sector. Of the 51 participants attending the launch, only one person from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, attended together with two persons from the public


Final Report

universities. All other participants were from the civil society organizations. In a similar vein, the second meeting of the Eastern Africa Regional Steering Committee of the EOA Initiative on August 6-7, 2015 at the Sports View Hotel in Nairobi had no representation from the public institutions. For the EOA to have credence, recognition and vigor to expand, there must be deliberate efforts to reign in the public institutions in meaningful ways. Similarly, strong public-private partnerships (PPP) should be developed to support pluralistic funding and implementation of EOA activities such as in extension and advisory services, research, market development etc. Some important activities implemented under this Pillar included; i) Establishment of contact points (CSOs that help to disseminate EOA agenda)in 4

regions has eased the information dissemination and increased outreach in the regions in Kimilili, Kilifi, Nakuru, Machakos

ii) Joint planning meetings for EOA activities iii) Contact persons were identified for each Pillar

Research, Training and Extension – Anne Murangiri, SACDEP

Information and Communication – Pauline Mundia, BvAT

Value Chain and Market Development – Samuel Ndung’u, KOAN

Networking and Partnerships – Mary Otieno, KOAN

Policy and Programme Development – Pauline Mundia, BvAT

Institutional Capacity Development – Marylene Muchemi, PELUM K iv) KENP constitution comprising of 15 members drawn from:

Consumer organizations – Organic Consumer Association (OCA)

US Embassy Organic Market

Functional Partnerships with PIPs, and EOA stakeholders,

Functional EOA Kenya Platform-Steering Committee in place with a clear TOR and Kenya reprresented at the EOA Regional Platform

3.2.6 Policy and Programmes

The Policy and Programme Development Pillar is implemented by BvAT and aims to strengthen policy and programme development in support of EOA. As observed earlier, policy relating to EOA is inadequate and is limiting the development of EOA in Kenya. Existing Government policies, guidelines and strategies scarcely mention organic agriculture and have nothing on Ecological Organic Agriculture. However, with contributions from the project, and spearheaded by KOAN, a process of developing Ecological Organic Agriculture Policy by a Technical Team was initiated and is ongoing. Consultations with the MOALF officials revealed that the process, which has just completed the technical stage is very participatory and has involved CSOs, the 3 State Departments of Agriculture, KEBS, KALRO, University of Nairobi, Egerton University and JKUAT. The next stage will entail the wider stakeholder consultative forums at county level with county governments, NGOs, farmer representatives, agribusiness people and generally all stakeholders in EOA (both private and public). It is important to note the need to strengthen the Technical Team to ensure that the process continues to its completion. Public dialogue stage is also expensive and requires special allocation of funds.


Final Report

The next stages will be the development of a Cabinet Memo and the preparation of EOA Strategy to guide the implementation of the Policy. The Consultant got an indication that the MALF intends to fast track the development of the Strategy among others to enhance implementation of existing policies and those underway. It is therefore recommended that, the Government and the CSOs continue driving the EOA Policy agenda together and arrange to share costs during the stakeholder dialogues. Some activities carried out in furtherance of this Pillar included: a) Awareness creation sessions organized for policymakers in Machakos, Makueni,

Kakamega, Vihiga and Busia Counties. b) Hiring of a consultant to develop a policy draft on EOA and share in various

stakeholder forums is ongoing with TOR for consultant developed and consultant recruited. Development of 2 policy briefs is ongoing

c) Conducting a desktop study on the gaps existing in current policies and regulatory frameworks in support of EOA is ongoing

d) Preparation and documentation and sharing of at least 3 EOA success stories from 3 counties in Kenya and circulation to partners is ongoing with 2 success stories documented in Kakamega (indigenous poultry keeping) and Busia (engaging school children in vegetable gardening).

e) Preparation and holding a 2 days’ workshop for practitioners for training on specific needs on Ecological Organic Agriculture in Africa held for 30 participants in Kakamega in December 2016

f) Conducting a survey on awareness and value of EOA among farmers, extension agents and researchers carried out. The survey involved 300 farmers, 10 extension agents and 3 researchers in Kakamega and Busia counties in September, 2015.

g) Supporting travel to EOA Western Kenya region to hold training workshops, monitoring visits and surveys done with transport costs for field trips catered for.

3.3 Challenges Encountered in the Project

Findings of the survey of perceptions of various respondents and from the review of literature on challenges in EOA is summarized in the below table:

Challenges in EOA Initiative

3.3.1 Challenges at individual level

Inadequate knowledge and skills on EOA

Inadequate technical and market information on EOA

Inadequate skills and knowledge in production, Value addition and pest and disease control in crops and livestock

Problems of farm Inputs Shortage of materials for composting at the farm level

Bulky farm inputs inappropriate for larger farms

Lack of certified seeds and improved animal breeding resources

Shortage of water for irrigation

Labour intensive activities EOA is labour intensive. Many local consumers lack awareness of the nutritive and health qualities of EOA


Final Report

products, and are therefore unwilling to pay more for EOA products especially in the rural areas.

Inaccessible credit Credit not readily available as compared to credit for conventional inorganic farming which is readily available

3.3.2 Challenges at the Organizational Level

Time allotted for project implementation too short

The 3 years of the project was too short to achieve measurable impacts

Inadequate financial resources for implementing project activities

Resources allocated to the project were inadequate to upscale the outputs of the project. Extremely small amounts are from public sources if any. Most investment in EOA is from the CSOs.

Weak collaborative and coordination structures and arrangements

There were no contractual obligations no supervisory arrangements and no common monitoring and evaluation system between Pillar Implementing Partners for the EOA-I,

Lack of bulk organic input manufacturing and packaging skills

Lack of bulk production and packaging of organic inputs makes it difficult to standardize and control quality and quantity of inputs.

3.3.3 Challenges at the Contextual/Environmental Level

Advent of GMOs GMOs are a threat to EOA in regard to possible gross interference of genetic makeup of useful indigenous varieties

Lack of technologies of processing and preservation of organic inputs in bulk.

More needs to be done to develop technologies for processing and preservation of organic inputs. Consequently, there is need to scale up research on EOA in both research institutes and universities to support transfer of technology to the farmer/producer level.

Inadequate market & Low pricing of EOA products in certain areas

Consumer awareness in regard to quality of EOA products is growing in urban areas but still very low in rural areas resulting in low prices in rural areas for EOA products

Inadequate knowledge and information on EOA

Although KOAN has done well in promoting access to EOA information, EOA should be mainstreamed in to AKIS and other information systems. More awareness of these systems be created to increase access.

Major gaps in Research and Extension in OA

Research in EOA is rudimentary and need enhancement. Extension in EOA is skeleton and largely by NGOs with very limited numbers of Extension staff especially at the devolved county governments level by the departments responsible for agricultural & livestock production.

High cost of transportation

Poor roads and long distances to established organic product markets is a hindrance to EOA in rural areas

Lack of a clear policy framework for EOA

There is inadequate policy in EOA. More lobbying and advocacy should be directed towards development of supportive policies in EOA


Final Report

3.4 Ways of addressing the challenges include;

Some ways of addressing the challenges as perceived by the stakeholders surveyed were:

Scale up ICT platforms, e.g. Virtual meetings

Scale up TOT/TOF for multiplier effects to train more farmers and farmer groups

Strong advocacy programmes to influence policy and public participation in EOA

Deliberate PPP arrangements in promotion of EOA funding and subsidy of EOA programmes, e.g. pluralistic extension e.t.c.

3.5 Rating of Challenges in the Project as Perceived by Beneficiaries

A scale of 1-5 was utilized to assess the relative levels of challenges as perceived by beneficiaries as shown below: i) 0=No challenge ii) 1=Very little challenge iii) 2=Little Challenge iv) 3=Some Challenge v) 4=Big Challenge vi) 5=Very Big Challenge (Serious Challenge) Below is a summary of the mean scores for selected challenges Mean Scores of selected Challenges

Challenges Mean (Do a Bar Chart)

Poor linkage to markets and other income generating opportunities

3.0 - Some challenge

Inadequate institutional capacity 2.25 -little Challenge

Poor Linkage between Industry and research Institutions

3.5 – Some Challenge

Inadequate resources 3.75 – Some Challenge

Climate change effects 4.0 – Big challenge

It is recommended that in the next phase of the EOA Initiative, similar exercise can be expanded and detailed out; and the results analysis as well as utilized to re-position the project. Similar exercised can also be used to scale up lessons learned and best practices in the project as well as new or emerging issues.

3.6 Adequacy of Various Factors for Implementing Thematic Areas of EOA The evaluation determined that Policy & Legal framework, Personnel, Financial Resources and Technology were inadequate for the enhancement of EOA as shown and explained in table below.

Factors Adequacy Level Comments

Policy & Legal framework

Inadequate No specific policies in place to guide EOA

EOA not reflected in existing government policy, legislation & strategies

Personnel Inadequate Few personnel who are directly involved in the


Final Report

EOA Initiative especially at county governments level within the departments of agriculture and livestock production, value chain development, environmental conservation etc.

Financial Resources

Inadequate The budgets are too slim to cascade the information to end users

Goodwill is building up but little action from many stakeholders including GOK & County Governments

Research and Transfer of Technology

Inadequate Technologies as pertains to EOA are available and are of great importance but not research tested (not evidence-based)

Limited Research is going on in regard to EOA especially at ALRO

There is consequently inadequate transfer of technology from the research institutes as well as participating universities to the farmers and farmer groups on EOA.

3.7 Value for Money

Many Pillar activities were planned but implemented haphazardly due to funding issues and late disbursement making it difficult to assess overall value for money. In addition, there was inadequate and operational monitoring and evaluation system that could track the resources inputs, utilization and results/outputs against the planned budgets and budgetary control. It is consequently recommended that the next phase of the project must be supported by a robust and operational monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system for both resources utilization as well as programmatic initiatives, activities and results/outputs.

3.8 Youth Participation and Gender Issues EOA-I effectively contributed towards strengthening smallholder community participation in governance, management and utilization of natural environmental resources in sustainable ways. The main resources in EOA are land and labour. The project enhanced productivity of both land and labour for all gender categories. Gender issues were further mainstreamed and addressed in the project and men, women and youth were effectively involved in the planning and execution of the project activities. Special activities were planned for women groups and youth separately. An example is the Youth Innovators’ Exchange and Learning Visit organised by the project to expose youth to EOA and to provide opportunity for learning and knowledge on useful technologies applied by youth elsewhere for livelihood improvement. A knowledge gaps assessment with special focus on women was also carried out by the project in November-December 2014 under the topic “Analysis of farmers’ knowledge, skills and application of Ecological Organic Agriculture in Kenya”. Further, Many women groups were supported to develop EOA through their groups. However, due to inadequate operational M&E system, the project lacks comprehensive documentation on the interventions activities, results/outputs realized so far, numbers of targeted beneficiaries any outcomes (if any) as well as plans for continuation and scaling up/expansion. It is however noteworthy to mention that women participating in EOA-Initiative is appreciable based on the site visits in Bungoma and Kakamega. Youth participation is very minimal / invisible given that


Final Report

the end term evaluation site visits were conducted in December 2015 when the schools and colleges were closed.

3.9 Emerging Issues

a) There is a stereotypic mindset in Kenya that the conventional agriculture is for public organizations while EOA is a preserve of CSOs. This mindset will kill the spirit and practice of EOA and must be addressed. Joint PPP programmes that include consultations, planning, implementation, supervision, monitoring and evaluation should be carried out together to eliminate this scenario.

b) There is need to address the issues of certification and standards. 3.10 Program outcomes (Higher level Results) 3.10.1 Areas of Highest Achievements

From data collected during the evaluation, the following stand out as areas of highest achievements; i) Completion of the School of Sustainable Agriculture for East Africa-SSEA by SACDEP

is an icon for the project though not all directly funded by the SSNC. ii) Similarly, completion of the Manual for Sustainable Agriculture and training of

TOTs. iii) Development of Organic Markets in Nairobi at the UN offices and at the US

Embassy. iv) Certification of Procedures for Organic Farmers is spurring confidence in organic

products. v) Highly improved and profitable production is evident amongst practitioners of EOA

Improved chicken and milk production when fed organic products

Improved vegetable production vi) Improved environment (flora and fauna)

Increased bees and pollination

More birds seen

Rare plants regenerate vii) Enhanced skills in preparation of organic inputs such as compost manure to

enhance soil fertility and organic pest control products. One group in Western Kenya is now preparing value added compost manure where farmers are packaging and selling out products as an income generating activity (IGA).

viii) Better productivity– fertility of farm sustainably enhanced. ix) Value addition of some products that helps to improve shelf life and value. x) Increased participation of beneficiaries in EOA. In some groups everybody has a

EOA plot e.g. Yetana– the group is widely known for the practice of OA and its influence on neighboring farmers.

xi) Push and pull technology – has suppressed striga weed, improved fertility, improved feeds, increased food production.

xii) Improved capacity of private and public extension staff on EOA xiii) There is improved family food security among the OA practitioners as regards;

Improved quantity and quality of nutrition arising from variation of nutritionally rich traditional and other vegetables such night shade, pumpkins, sisaga, butternut, etc.

xiv) Nutrition is enhanced in regard to both knowledge and practice


Final Report

3.10.2 Areas of Low Achievements

The evaluation determined some areas of low achievements in the project and reasons for these low achievements. These findings are summarized in table below. The bottom line is the need for more investment, both public and private, to improve performance in EOA.

Areas of Low Achievements and Reasons

Areas of Low Achievement

Reasons for low achievements Comments

Value addition achieved at a slow rate

Inadequate knowledge and skills among trainers and beneficiaries

Low number of specialised extension staff

Value addition increases profitability of the value chain and improves shelf life. More effort should be directed to increased value addition.

Rate of farmers adopting OA is low

Low number of extension staff in EOA

Inadequate promotional activities

Low funding of EOA-I

There is still more support to conventional farming including subsidies and none to EOA

Because of the vast capacity at its disposal, the Public Sector should own and support EOA to improve performance, conserve the environment, mitigate on food insecurity and largely improve health and livelihoods of communities

Health and nutrition value of OA products not appreciated by many consumers in the rural areas

Inadequate awareness creation and education

Low numbers of extension staff

Low funding of EOA activities

More awareness and evidence –based information availed to producers and consumers Scale-up farmers and communities education and empowerment on EOA Initiative

Policy in OA not in place

Limited Advocacy for EOA

Policy development gradual and slow

For ultimate success, the Governments, (both County and National) must be lobbied to develop supportive policies for EOA expansion Enhance PPP in policy development and implementation


Final Report

Areas of Low Achievement

Reasons for low achievements Comments

Inadequate market access

Not enough produce

Little demand due to low understanding of value of OA products among consumers

Lack of market intelligence & information

Market structures and channels not yet in place

Central and (Southern) Eastern Region is better endowed with organic markets in Nairobi. Efforts should be directed at developing similar markets in other parts of the country; especially in the rural areas.

3.11 Summary of Findings on Project Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness and Sustainably The table below summarizes findings on the Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness, and the

Sustainability aspects of the project. The findings are derived from the process of the evaluation from secondary sources as well as primary data collected from various stakeholders.

20 EOA-I End Term Evaluation Final Report

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Questions

Findings Comments

Relevance

Was the design and focus of the project relevant?

EOA-I was designed in the context of the African Heads of States and Government Decision EX.CL/Dec.621 (XVII) and is relevant to the Kenya Government policies and strategies of enhancing sustainable development, with economic, social and environmental undertones and with due recognition of indigenous knowledge.

EOA-I presents opportunities for addressing problems of youth unemployment, environmental degradation, food insecurity, poor seed quality and climate change, all contained in national policies and strategies.

Implementing the project through very specific thematic areas was relevant and effective in the achievement of EOA-I project objectives. These included Research, Training and Extension; Information and Communication; Value Chain and Market Development; Networking and Partnerships; Policy and Programme Development; and Institutional Capacity Development

EOA-I contributes to attainment of MDG 7 and 8.

EOA-I advocates ecological approach to development

A large diversity of authoritative studies has been published to show that Sub Sahara Africa has always continued to experience food shortages and a need for sustainable agricultural production

There should be deliberate efforts to invest more in curriculum development in LEICA in public agricultural training institutions.

Training farmers to train other farmers would increase adoption at the farm level

Tutor training as prompted by SACDEP is an effective and relevant approach to addressing the low availability of personnel in LEICA


Evaluation Criteria


Findings Comments

Effectiveness

Were the management processes appropriate in supporting delivery

Implementation through designated thematic pillars by organisations with proven experience in the thematic areas was effective in promoting the Pillar themes.

The elaborate networking and collaboration in implementation provided a wider reach of project outputs

Effectiveness was however hampered by low numbers of staff to instill practice and adoption in training and face to face encounters

The School of Sustainable Agriculture for East Africa-SSAEA is an effective approach to addressing shortage of tutors and trainers.

The development of the Sustainable Agriculture Manual for East Africa is now available for use in training a multi-disciplinary well rounded critical mass of Sustainable Agriculture trainers.

Biovision Farmer Communication Programme (FCP); the Organic Farmer Magazine; Infonet-Biovision Platform and the Organic Farmer Radio – all worked effectively to enable small scale farmers, trainers and extension staff in Kenya to access appropriate, relevant and timely information on ecologically sustainable

Through consumer awareness activities facilitated by the Kenya Organic Agriculture Network (KOAN), more organic businesses have been opened while more traders have registered interest to invest in organic business.


Evaluation Criteria


Findings Comments

Efficiency Was the process of achieving results efficient?

The disbursement processes were inefficiently carried out causing delays in implementation

The absence of robust M&E system made it difficult to track implementation of plans, resources utilization against project activities ad results/outputs as well as any impact

Bringing in Tutor Trainers from Alabama Agriculture & Mechanical University-USA (AAMU) would have presented better value for money as more personnel would have been trained in-country.

Planned activities were haphazardly carried out whenever funds were available

A robust and operational M&E system is key to project implementation, monitoring, evaluation and impact assessment as well as feedback reporting and dissemination

Sustainability

To what extent are the benefits of the projects likely to be sustained after the completion of this project?

The project period of 3 years was too short to provide impacts and ensure sustainability.

The origin of the EOA-I from African Heads of State declaration will eventually provide the impetus for support and sustainability from the Government

Enhanced research, extension and training holds the key enhanced adoption,

Promotion of strong EOA value chains and expanded markets including contract farming arrangements would go a long way in ensuring sustainability

Development of PPP in EOA Research, Training and Extension is mandatory for sustainability to eliminate the adage that EOA is for NGOs and Conventional agriculture is for the Public service.


Final Report

3.12 Lessons Learnt and Best Practices Below is a comprehensive summary of lessons learned and best practices that can be scaled up,

expanded or replicated in the phase of the project or elsewhere.

i) Focusing on thematic pillars to implement the project is a unique and best practice that brings partners together in utilizing their comparative advantages,

ii) The EOA-I concept and design is an effective approach for advancement of farming for food, health and enhanced livelihood and is good for the health of people, animals, plants, soil health and health of the environmental,

iii) The information dissemination approaches that combined ICT and other mass approaches ensured easy approach to information and wide coverage.

iv) The Resource Center model of the Biovision’s FCP programme to reach out to farmers with trainings and information on ecologically sustainable farming practices is a best practice that enables effective information sharing with stakeholders.

v) Emerging technologies in EOA such as push-pull have proved to be effective in achieving results not achieved before in sustainable soil fertility and pest control

vi) Strong value chains and creation of organic product markets has improved lives of organic farmers & stakeholders. Value Chain Development that includes value addition and linking producers to markets ensures good returns for all chain actors.

vii) The success achieved thro’ formation of strong marketing groups such as COFCO is good for stabilising value chains and marketing

viii) Group Approach used in EOA is effective in increasing adoption and participation of many beneficiaries concurrently as evidenced among the Yetana Group in Kimilili where it seemed all neighbours were practicing EOA. Group approach has boosted the overall performance of marketing networks in COFCO.

ix) EOA is a very effective way of ensuring sustainable soil fertility and productivity through use of low-cost external capital such as in composting, mulching and use of organic inputs and application of simple but effective practices such as double digging, key hole, Mandala e.t.c.

x) EOA increases the productivity of family labour.

xi) Group Approach used in EOA is effective in increasing adoption and participation of many beneficiaries concurrently as evidenced among the Yetana Group in Kimilili where it seemed all neighbours were practicing EOA. Group approach has boosted the overall performance of marketing networks in COFCO.

xii) The Resource Center model of the Biovision’s FCP programme to reach out to farmers with trainings and information on ecologically sustainable farming practices is a best practice that enables effective information sharing with stakeholders.

xiii) The effective application of ICT tools that help farmers to access information remotely such as the Infonet platform TOF Radio, TOF Magazine and mobile phones are effective tools for disseminating information to farmers remotely.

xiv) Value Chain Development that includes value addition and linking producers to markets ensures good returns for all chain actors.

xv) Organic chemical-free farming in EOA and inclusion of good and healthy practices such as tip-tap, dish racks and pit latrines e.t.c. provides for perfect family health and sanitation.

xvi) Push-Pull technology is an effective method of ensuring fertility and productivity of soils, pest control in cereals, and quality feeds for livestock

3.13 Most Significant Changes (MSC) through EOA Initiative

The site visits to two (2) project sites in Bungoma (Kimili) and Kakamega (Mumias) counties in Western Kenya presented opportunity to have in-depth focus group discussions with


Final Report

groups of target beneficiaries (farmers) as well as inspection of actual project activities. Below is a summary of some of the Most Significant Changes (MSCs) that have been achieved by the EOA Initiative in the sites visited: i) Kienyeji chicken purely feed on organic mixture of feeds ii) Bananas purely grown using organic manure iii) Preparation of manure through compost/ pit method iv) Growing Mexican marigold to control banana diseases v) Dairy cows fed purely on organic feed vi) Liquid top dressing prepared from leaves vii) Ground nuts grown using guano (chicken) droppings or manure viii) Sunflower grown for both dairy cows and chicken feeding ix) Silage prepared to feed dairy cows x) Preparation of yoghurt from the dairy milk These are practical examples of lessons learnt and best practices which could be replicated and scaled-up with minimum efforts and resources investments for the purposes EOA Initiative continuity, sustainability and longer term impact especially in the context of: i) Integrated EOA farming practices ii) Responding to enhancement of food security and improved nutrition at farmer level

with surplus products for marketing iii) Reducing environment degradation and enhancing environment conservation

3.14 Sustainability Prospects

i) At the project level EOA-I had a push from the AU promising sustainability with commitments from African Heads of State and The Executive Council of the African Union which provided the first high profile political endorsement of organic farming in Africa. It is hoped that this goodwill shall be adopted by individual governments to enhance sustainability.

ii) Formation of strong groups such as COFCO covering Central and Eastern Regions is an assurance for sustainability.

iii) At the farm level, lack of access to credit and other basic resources present challenges that must be addressed to enhance both production and sustainability through EOA Initiative.

iv) Some farmers with ready market can sustain without external support. Contract farming would increase prospects for sustainability

v) Simpler ways of preparing inputs would go a long way to ensure sustainability e.g. mass production of organic inputs

vi) Inadequate extension services personnel presents a threat to sustainability which must be addressed at the extension officers training level as well as mainstreaming EOA in county governments agriculture and livestock production departments.

vii) Inadequate research will affect sustainability

3.15 Limitations of the End Term Evaluation i) 14 days for the assignment albeit carried out during December Xmas and New Year

holidays limited the level of effort required for the assignment especially from the


Final Report

participating partners, stakeholders, county and national governments and community beneficiaries.

ii) The project was implemented without some basic information and project management tools such as Baseline Study reports, Project Log-frame, and Monitoring and Evaluation Framework.

iii) Due to inadequate M&E system, the project lacked comprehensive reports for detailed analysis and interpretation of findings.

iv) As already stated, the three (3) years period of the project (2013-2015) is obviously too short for authentic and rational assessment of the impact given the nature of the EOA-Initiative as a project. However, the next and subsequent phases of the project should provide opportunity for assessing and documenting the outcomes/impact of the initiative


Final Report

CHAPTER 4 RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

This chapter consolidates the key recommendations already discussed and/or suggested in the previous chapter 3 on findings

4.1 Recommendations i) Strengthen the institutional structures that links together all the Pillar

Implementation Partners; other sectoral partners and stakeholders, the national and devolved county governments and the targeted beneficiaries

ii) Enhance lobbying and advocacy at both national and county governments levels for completion and implementation of policy and programmes that would support and facilitate implementation of EOA-Initiative to enhance the formation of strong organizations for advocacy and marketing of EOA in order to influence government policy and strategies in regard to EOA. Application of all methods and approaches such as social media, radio, internet should be boosted to increase access to information on EOA.

iii) Engage especially with the county governments to mainstream EOA- Initiative within their on-going agriculture and livestock production programmes as well as related sectors such as water and environment conservation and use etc.

iv) More effort should focus on creating a scientifically sound evidence base supported by research in ecologically sound practices in agriculture and environmental protection. In this regard, both public and private research institutions need to get involved with a view to increasing productivity and resilience of crop and livestock farming with sustainable value systems. Further, the project needs to strengthen collaboration and partnerships with the Network of Organic Research in Africa (NOARA) which has work already ongoing in regard to the afore said.

v) There is need for concerted Public and Private sectors’ support to EOA. Public, Private Partnership (PPP) ventures should support more investments in EOA. Collaborating organisations should mobilize resources and fundraise as well as establish useful links and partnerships geared towards the financial support of the initiative.

vi) EOA-I by design is geared towards small scale farmers including women often with very low capital base. There is need for providing improved and easy access to credit for the acquisition of equipment (e.g. for processing), tools, and inputs such as good breeds, seeds and planting materials, etc

vii) More demand-driven research should be directed towards EOA technologies, particularly on production and application of quality inputs and focus on indigenous technologies; preservation of organic inputs such as for pest control; and on health and safety of handling organic products. Apply all methods and approaches that would improve adoption of EOA such as organic demonstration farms, recruitment of more groups to upscale OA outreach, exchange programmes, field days, trainings etc

viii) Enhance market intelligence, market linkages, information, and promotion ix) Focus should be directed to increasing Training of Tutors (Facilitators, Tutors) in

public institutions by expanding their curricula to include EOA in order to increase


Final Report

reach in EOA. Public institutions, particularly the local Universities and colleges should get involved in the training because of the vast facilities and the knowledge base resident in these institutions.

x) Promote formation of cooperatives to streamline production, produce handling and transportation, marketing and value addition.

In terms of extension of the EOA-Initiative, in addition to strengthening institutional framework for coordinating the EOA-I in Kenya, the following actions are highly recommended. ix) Conduct rapid baseline survey to provide evidence- based data for planning and

repositioning the project x) Based on the baseline survey results, conduct detailed gap analysis within each

thematic/pillar area to inform the design of phase two of the initiative. xi) Prepare comprehensive and costed project plan based on the baseline survey and

gap analysis results xii) Develop comprehensive Project Results Framework/Matrix based on the project

plan that will guide both allocation and utilization of resources as well as expected results/outputs and ultimate outcome

xiii) Develop and operationalize robust Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system at both Pillar/Thematic as well as overall EOA Initiative levels for purposes of continuous monitoring, periodic evaluation, feedback documentation and reporting, results/output dissemination and ultimate outcomes/impact assessment

xiv) Develop and implement Resources Mobilization Strategy targeting both current and potential development partners (donors), national and county governments, private sector and community based institutions.

xv) Accelerate training and capacity building of EOA extension Services Staff and Farmers/Farmers Groups in collaboration with national and county governments as well as participating CSOs and other stakeholders.

xvi) Strengthen collaboration, partnerships and networks of all institutions engaged in EOA Initiative in Kenya through outreach programmes, forum, round-table meetings.

In conclusion, EOA – Initiative in Kenya is the way to go given especially in the context of immediately, medium – term and longer-term sustainable agriculture production with definite efforts towards: v) Environment – friendly agricultural production and conservation of the

environment vi) Mitigating on food insecurity vii) Enhancing the livelihoods of individuals families and communities through nutrition,

health, income generation and overall poverty reduction viii) Creating more socio-economic opportunities especially for women, youth,

marginalized and /or excluded as well as vulnerable individuals, groups and the general population.

In summary, it is highly recommended that the EOA – Initiative in Kenya be extended given the lessons learned and best practices achieved so far albeit without challenges which will be converted to opportunities; and subject to the suggestion/recommendations made herein.


Final Report

REVIEWED DOCUMENTS

Ecological Organic Agriculture (EOA) –Monitoring & Evaluation Training Draft Report 13-

15th Nov. 2015

Ecological Organic Agriculture Sub-Grantee Annual Report for Biovision Africa Trust 2014.

Result Based Matrix for Ecological Organic Agriculture: Research, Training & Extension Pillar

EOA Consolidated Work plan For 2015 by SSNC Support

Report on the Ecological Organic Agriculture Project Review Meeting

Summary of Achievements under Information and Communication Pillar, Policy and

Programme Pillar and Collaborative Research Project From 1 April to October 2015

Brief Report of David Amudavi’s Participation in Biofach Nuremberg, Germany, February

13, 2015

The Progress of the EOA Initiative by Mr. Zachary Makanya, Country Coordinator, PELUM-Kenya: Presented at the East African Organic Agriculture Conference (July 2-4, 2013) in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania

Promoting Networking and Partnership Pillar; Pillar Leader (TOAM);

Biovision SSNC Work plan and Budget 2015; Information and Communication Pillar

Biovision Africa Trust; EOA SSNC Work plan and Budget for 2014

The Livelihoods Foundation Group: Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) Development

Training Workshop 25th to 27th February 2014 at Nyatoto Homabay

Internal Control System (ICS) Development Training Report; Tensesences Ltd. 13th to 16th

August 2014, Nairobi

The Youth Innovators Exchange and Learning Visit Report 20th to 21st November 2014.

Kenya EOA Result Based Matrix

KOAN: Proceedings of Kenya National Ecological Organic Agriculture Platform Launch at

Duduville Kasarani on 3rd April 2014.

Project Application to Swedish Society for Nature Conservation (SSNC): Proposal

The Second Meeting of the Eastern Africa Regional Steering Committee of the Ecological

Organic agriculture Initiative 6th to 7th August 2015 at Sportsview, Nairobi, Kenya

Report of the Organic Certification Training on 6th to 7th May 2014; Jungle Macs (EPZ) Field

Staff Thika

Annual Report 2014 by Kenya Organic Agriculture Network (KOAN) to PELUM

EOA Regional Learning Forum on Value Chains and Marketing Development Systems

Workshop: Luke Hotel, Nairobi on 6th to 6th November 2014

Biovision Africa Trust, Annual Report on EOA-!, 2014


Final Report

APPENDIX I

List of Respondents


Final Report

a) Key Informants

No. Name Organisation Contact

1. Sylvester Nzovu SACDEP – KENYA Assistant Manager Agro- Marketing, Savings Credit & Advocacy (AMSCA) & Tutor Trainer EOA

0723669703

2. Ann Murangiri SACDEP – KENYA Technical Training and Research/ Communications & Tutor Trainer EOA

0721147053

3. James Njeru SACDEP – KENYA Agribusiness Initiative (A.B.I)

0743923776

4. Kinyua Kamaru State Department of Agriculture Policy, Kilimo House

9724446929

5. Monicah Mweni State Department of Agriculture Agribusiness, Kilimo House

6. Moses Gakunyi Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries – Kiambu County, Agric. Engineering Division Ams Ruiru & Technical Training Tutor Trainer EOA

0723407727

7. Maryleen Micheni

PELUM – Kenya Programmes Manager

0723540417

8. Anne Manjani PELUM – Kenya Programmes Officer – Advocacy campaigns

0724527777

9. Michael Wangalwa

Biovision African Trust Information and Communication Resource Centre Manager & Field Assistant

10. Mershark Shikuku

SACDEP (Consultant), Mumias Food Security and Livelihoods Expert

11. Stanley Opondo Okanga

Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries; Assistant Livestock Production Officer, Extension Services, Mumias

12. Andrew Kirui SACDEP Validated Trainer of Tutors Formerly working with Catholic Diocese but collaborating with SACDEP in EOA, Londiani

0722617270

13. Silvester Safari SACDEP TOF, Assistant Manager, Agro Marketing Savings, Credit & Advocacy

0723669703

14. Moses Gakunyi SACDEP TOF, Ministry of Agriculture, Ruiru AMS, Collaborator & Partner


Final Report

ii) Focus Group Discussion SACDEP Training Centre Thika No. Name Organisation Contact

1. Ann Murangiri SACDEP – KENYA 0721147053 2. Paul Ngwili Farmer – Matungulu 0721113703 3. Simon Mwaki Farmer – Matungulu 0716682816 4. Michael Ruchu Gatundu 0713823292 5. James Njeru SACDEP - KENYA 0734923776 6. Mary Irungu PELUM – Kenya 0723345405 7. Duncan Ochoro PTC 0722529537 8. Elly Miron PTC 0723388794 9. Joyce Oyangi PTC 0712236676 10. Joshua Maina Ndirangu Gatanga Farmer 0714105828 11. John Mwangi Gatanga Farmer 0721970431 12. Jane Mutonga Magumu farmer 0711286346 13. Simon N. Nahason Gatundu Farmer 0711551604 Focus Group Discussion Isongo Location Poultry Farming No. Name Position 1) Florence Makokha Secretary 2) Florence Mmasi Chairlady 3) Getrude Okanga Member 4) Dorothy Munayo Member 5) Kelesencia Osundwa Member 6) Lilian Asman Member 7) Judith Ofisi Member 8) Kevine Sakwa Member 9) Protus Manyasa Member 10) Eunice Wangatia Member 11) Gerald Were Member 12) Margaret Mumia Member 13) Asisa Aisah Member 14) Protus Maloba Assistant Secretary 15) Amida Osundwa Member 16) Protus Okanga Member 17) Bernard Okanga Member 18) Beatrice Angatia Vice Chairlady 19) Gladys Opwora Member 20) Adija Manyasa Member


Final Report

Key Informant

No. Name Organisation Contact

15. Sylvester Nzovu

SACDEP – KENYA Assistant Manager Agro- Marketing, Savings Credit & Advocacy (AMSCA) & Tutor Trainer EOA

0723669703

16. Ann Murangiri SACDEP – KENYA Technical Training and Research/ Communications & Tutor Trainer EOA

0721147053

17. James Njeru SACDEP – KENYA Agribusiness Initiative (A.B.I)

0743923776

18. Moses Gakunyi

Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries – Kiambu County, Agric. Engineering Division Ams Ruiru & Technical Training Tutor Trainer EOA

0723407727

19. Maryleen Micheni

PELUM – Kenya Programmes Manager

0723540417

20. Anne Manjani PELUM – Kenya Programmes Officer – Advocacy campaigns

0724527777


Final Report

Focus Group Discussion - 18/12/2015 Yetana Women Group

No. Name Position 1. Aggrey Barasa Sub-Committee (Production) 2. Everlyne Kwoba Assistant Secretary 3. Rose N. Wafula Member 4. Beatrice Wanjala Member 5. Mary Wanyonyi Member 6. Brenda Mukhwana Member 7. Mercy Muganda Member 8. Hellen Wekesa Member 9. Annah Waningo Member 10. Phillipine N. Nyongesa Treasurer 11. Priscillah N. Kasili Member 12. Grace Wanyama Member 13. Pouline Wafula Member 14. Jessica Sanja Member 15. Lenah Wasike Member 16. Grace Lufumbi Member 17. Mary Mukhwana Secretary 18. Carolyne Wameme Sena W.G. (0700911826) 19. Irine Machuma Member 20. Mercy Khisa Member 21. Rosah Wanyonyi Member 22. Margaret Simuyu Member 23. Elizabeth Wabwile Member 24. Anna Nyongesa Member 25. Doreen Vidola Member

KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ICIPE 25/1/2016

Name Organisation Office

Jack Juma KOAN Standards and Certification Manager (Quality Assurance)

Teresa Ndirangu KOAN Production & Training Advisor (and Access to Markets)

Mary Otieno Networking & Partnerships

Pauline Mundia BvAT Outreach Manager EOA

Dr. David Amudavi BvAT


Final Report

APPENDIX II

Data Collection Instruments/Tools

35

END TERM EVALUATION OF ECOLOGICAL ORGANIC AGRICULTURE (EOA) PROJECT (SSNC FUNDED COMPONENT), KENYA DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS NO. 1 KII GUIDE FOR PARTNERS Name of Organization…………………………………………….......................................................... Address/Location…………………………………………………......................................................... Name of Respondent………………………………………………....................................................... Tel. No…………………...................... Thematic Area………………………. i) Did you play a part in the formulation of the project? If yes, what part?

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................

ii) List the objectives/outputs of the EOA thematic area of the project your organization implemented. ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

iii) Highlight major achievements under each objective/output area.

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................... iv) What achievements were beyond expectations?

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................... What were the reasons for these unexpectedly high achievements? ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

v) Which achievements were below expectations?

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................... What were the reasons for these unexpectedly low achievements? ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

36

.................................................................................................................................... Summarize the major challenges affecting achievements of outputs .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rate the effects of the following challenges on the project on a scale of 0 to 5 (where 0= No challenge and 5 = Serious challenge) a. Poor linkage to markets and other incoming generating opportunities, ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Inadequate institutional capacity, ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Poor coordination and networking, ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ b. Poor linkage between the industry and research institutions, ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

c. Inadequate financial resources, and ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Climate change effects which have made agricultural systems vulnerable. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Were the challenges adequately addressed by the project? If yes, How? If no, why not? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... How did each challenge affect efficient and effective implementation of the outputs? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... What were the effects of the project on improved food security? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... What were the lessons learnt and best practices? ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

37

What do you recommend for improved project performance? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... What are the sustainability prospects for the thematic area you implemented? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... What do you recommend for improved sustainability? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Indicate the adequacy of the following factors for successful implementation of the thematic area you implemented? d. Policy/Legal framework. Adequate/inadequate. (Please explain) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Personnel. Adequate/inadequate. (Please explain) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Financial Resources. Adequate/inadequate. (Please explain) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Technology. Adequate/inadequate. (Please explain) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Institutional set up ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

38

END TERM EVALUATION OF ECOLOGICAL ORGANIC AGRICULTURE (EOA) PROJECT (SSNC FUNDED COMPONENT), KENYA DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS NO. 2 FGD GUIDE FOR BENEFICIARY REPRESENTATIVES Name of Beneficiary group……………………………………………................................................... Address/Location………………………………………………............................................................ Contact Person…………………………………………........................................................................ Tel. No………………….............................. vi) What were your expectations from the project?

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................... Were these expectations met? If the answer is yes, Explain how, or if the answer is no explain why not. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... What achievements were beyond expectations? ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

vii) What were the reasons for these unexpectedly high achievements? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Which achievements were below expectations? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... What were the reasons for these unexpectedly low achievements? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Summarize the major challenges affecting achievements of expected outputs .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Rate the effects of the following challenges on the project on a scale of 0 to 5 (where 0= No challenge and 5 = Serious challenge) a. Poor linkage to markets and other incoming generating opportunities,

39

...................................................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................... Inadequate institutional capacity, ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Poor coordination and networking, ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Poor linkage between the industry and research institutions, ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Inadequate financial resources, and ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Climate change effects which have made agricultural systems vulnerable. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ How did each challenge affect efficient and effective implementation of the outputs? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... What were the effects of the project on improved food security? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... What were the lessons learnt and best practices? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... What do you recommend for improved project performance? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... What are the sustainability prospects for the project activities and outputs? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... What do you recommend for improved sustainability? .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Indicate the adequacy of the following factors for successful implementation of the thematic area you implemented? b. Policy/Legal framework. Adequate/inadequate. (Please explain)

40

...................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................... Personnel. Adequate/inadequate. (Please explain) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Financial Resources. Adequate/inadequate. (Please explain) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Technology. Adequate/inadequate. (Please explain) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Institutional set up ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

41

END TERM EVALUATION OF ECOLOGICAL ORGANIC AGRICULTURE (EOA) PROJECT (SSNC FUNDED COMPONENT), KENYA DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS NO. 3 FGD GUIDE FOR EOA OFFICIALS Name of Organization……………………………………………............................................................ Address/Location…………………………………………………........................................................... Name of Respondent……………………………………………….......................................................... Tel. No………………….......................... 1. Relevance

Was the design and focus of the project relevant to the objectives?

To what extent did the Project achieve its overall objectives?

What and how much progress has been made towards achieving the overall outputs and outcomes of the project on Various EOA Pillars

To what extent were the results (impacts, outcomes and outputs) achieved?

How effective, realistic and appropriate were the project strategies?

Was the project relevant to the identified needs?

Was the project aligned to the National Development Plans, policies and strategies

2. Effectiveness Describe the management processes and their appropriateness in supporting delivery

Was the project effective in delivering desired/planned results?

To what extent did the Project’s M&E mechanism contribute in meeting project results?

How effective were the strategies and tools used in the implementation of the project?

How effective has the project been in responding to the needs of the beneficiaries, and what results were achieved?

What are the proposed future intervention strategies and issues?

3. Efficiency Was the process of achieving results efficient?

Specifically did the actual or expected results (outputs and outcomes) justify the costs incurred?

Were the resources effectively utilized?

Did project activities overlap and duplicate or create synergy with other similar interventions (funded nationally and /or by other donors such as the SDC?).

Are there more efficient ways and means of delivering more and better results (outputs and outcomes) with the available inputs?

Could the use of a different approach produce better results?

How was the project’s collaboration with the community groups and the governments?

What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the project’s implementation process?

42

4. Sustainability

To what extent are the benefits of the projects likely to be sustained after the completion of this project?

What is the likelihood of continuation and sustainability of project outcomes and benefits after completion of the project?

How effective were the exit strategies, and approaches to phase out assistance provided by the project including contributing factors and constraints

Describe key factors that will require attention in order to improve prospects of sustainability of Project outcomes and the potential for up scaling & replication of the approach?

How were capacities strengthened at the individual and organizational level (including contributing factors and constraints)?

Describe the main lessons that have emerged?

5. Were there challenges in the implementation of the project? a) Which ones, b) How were they addressed

6. What recommendations do you have?

a) For extension of the project, b) For sustainability

43

END TERM EVALUATION OF ECOLOGICAL ORGANIC AGRICULTURE (EOA) PROJECT (SSNC FUNDED COMPONENT), KENYA DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS NO. 4 KII GUIDE FOR MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT AND FISHERIES OFFICIALS Contact Details

1. How is Ecological Organic Agriculture addressed in a) Government policy and legislation? b) Government strategy papers? e.g. ASDS

2. Does the Ministry have specific programmes or activities in organic agriculture in a) Research, b) Extension

3. Does the Ministry provide specific support (subsidies/programmes) for the conventional

inorganic agriculture?

4. Does the Ministry provide support for organic agriculture? 5. What is the commercial potential of organic agriculture? 6. What is the potential of organic agriculture in improving food security? 7. Does the Ministry relate to the Private sector on organic agriculture? What is the way forward for organic agriculture in Kenya?

44

APPENDIX III

Fieldwork Itinerary and Lists of Respondents

45

Field Work Itinerary EOA End Term Evaluation Schedule

Activity Time Person(s) Responsible

Circulation of TOR 3/12/15 Kojo

Deadline for receiving Expression of Interest

7th /December/15 Committee

Short listing 8/12/15 Committee (Kojo, Mary Irungu, Anne Murangiri, Robert Nyikuli, Ndiki, Mary Otieno, Munyao)

Interviews 10th /12/15 Committee (Kojo, Mary Irungu, Anne Murangiri, Robert Nyikuli, Ndiki, Mary Otieno, Munyao)

Inception Report 14th /12/15 Committee (Kojo, Mary Irungu, Anne Murangiri, Robert Nyikuli, Ndiki, Mary Otieno, Munyao)

Field Work

Travel to Western Kenya 17th /12/15 Evaluation Team

FGD– KOAN sites 18th /12/15 Evaluation Team

FGD BvAT 19th /12/15 Evaluation Team

Travel back to Nairobi 20th /12/15

SACDEP FGD, KII 21ST /12/14 Anne Murangiri, Kojo, Irungu, Consultant, 8 ToTs, 8 Farmers, 2 stakeholders (for KIIs)

Feedback

Early Jan 2016

PARTICIPATORY ECOLOGICAL LAND USE MANAGEMENT … · KEBS – Kenya Bureau of Standards ......

Documents

Transcript of PARTICIPATORY ECOLOGICAL LAND USE MANAGEMENT … · KEBS – Kenya Bureau of Standards ......