Joint workshop on lessons learnt
Joint workshop on best practices and lessons learnt from project implementation of KRDP 1 project areas, 4-5 December 2014, 67 Hotel, Mlolongo
Contents
File:Lessons Learnt Concept Programme and Participants.docx Workshop agenda
Workshop Objectives
The purpose of the best practices and lessons learnt workshop was:
- To share lessons learnt best practices, challenges and achievements of the project from the 6 counties.
- To share updates/appraise on the progress and implementation status of activities as per project result areas.
- To come up with a formal and structured coordination framework that will address the gaps identified.
Participants’ Expectations
- To have efficient and Effective coordination framework for 2015
- Get the progress of the project from other partners perspective
- To know the way forward for collaboration
- To share experience with other partners
- To reflect on results and impact of the project
- To know the role of NDMA in the implementation of KRDP
- To learn best practice , success stories and challenges during implementation
- To know the status of project implementation in all the counties
- To learn from other partners
- To learn about call for proposal and the role of NDMA
- To explore area of partnership and collaboration with KLMC and SNV
- Identify Gaps and areas of support
Progress report presentations
File:Overview KRDP Programme.pptx/spanFile:Activities Achieved in KRDP1-Tana River County1-1.pptFile:Activities Achieved in KRDP1-Wajir County1.pptFile:Isiolo County - LESSONS LEARNT WORKSHOP.ppt File:Progress Report November 2014 Baringo County.pptx/spanFile:Samburu and Marsabit Counties.pptxFile:Coordination and operational issues.pptFile:Result Area 4.pptx
Best practices, lessons learnt and challenges
Following the progress reports, participants were divided into six groups (according to their county of operation) to discuss the lessons, best practice and challenges faced. This was done in line with the four thematic areas namely fodder production, camel milk production and promotion, livestock market and co-ordination. A criteria for developing best practice and was agreed upon which included
- Identification of the success
- Attributing factors
- The sustainability of the best practice
A format for what did not work well was also developed which captured the following;
- Identification of the failure
- The attributing factors
- What could have been done to mitigate the challenges
Samburu County
Result area | Key issues | key success/best practices | Attributing factors | Challenges | Attributing factors | Mitigation options | Sustainability |
Fodder | Production | * Awareness creation * Land availability * Willingness of community to corporate * Communal land ownership |
Adoption rate low Commercialization aspect yet to be fully embraced Land use (communal ownership.) Technical knowhow |
Attitude Prolonged drought |
Training Awareness Increased funding |
Constitution and Cohesiveness of the groups | |
^ | Bulking and storage | * Availability of 2 stores (1000 – 1500 bales) * Harvesting of seeds and hay |
* Resource availability * Community contribution and participation |
Harvesting is labour intensive. Lack of technical knowhow (at community level). |
Premature grazing. Unfriendly harvesting technologies. |
Training on faster harvesting technologies. | Linkage to markets. |
^ | marketing a) Hay b) Seeds c) Fattening |
* Sale of seeds and hay * Demand is high * Availability of adequate rainfall in some areas * Existence of steer fattening groups |
Transportation Dependency on relief hay. Seasonal |
Poor infrastructure. Attitude |
Linkage to markets Awareness creation |
Bulking at household level. | |
^ | Institution/target groups | * Strengthening of groups * Availability of groups and resources * Technical backstopping from TWG |
Institutions are not formalized Not cohesive |
Low awareness On commercial fattening of steers |
Proper constitution of groups. Training Exposure |
Linkage to market | |
Livestock Market | Infrastructure | Ownership by community Rehabilitation and construction of sale yards and loading ramps by partners |
* Availability of resources * Community involvement and participation * Technical back stopping |
Frequent breakdowns | Quality of materials Poor workmanship |
Sourcing of competent contractors. | Use of quality material like metal pipes |
^ | Production | * Fattening of livestock * Availability of hay * Availability of market * Technical back stopping |
Limited technical know-how Dependence on local breeds |
Lack of exposure Inadequate extension services Inadequate resources |
Capacity building Breed improvement Regular and frequent extension services |
Routine follow ups Exposure to successful groups. | |
^ | Co -management | * Increased revenue collection * Sharing of revenue at 50-50 * Ownership * Economic improvement of the area * Improved infrastructure e.g. roads, water. * Improved security Increased resilience to drought as a result of regular income Increased access to education Partnership strengthened between actors eg NDMA, County Gvt, communities, SIDEP, SNV etc. |
* Involvement of community * Increased awareness of the market outside the county * Availability of external traders * Availability of resource * Participation by outside traders * Organized trading attracts buyers and sellers * Conducive trading environment as a result of market infrastructure * Continuous backstopping * Improved pricing. |
Slow and long process Slow response from security machinery. Accountability issues within LMAs |
Too many bureaucracies. Illiteracy |
Development of one MOU for the entire County. Having CMM embedded in County livestock policies |
Ensuring community ownership |
^ | Networking | * Exposure tours * Adoption by other counties * Availability of resources * Sharing of experiences and notes * Observation of market operation * Presentation of best practices in co-management |
No common planning | No trust among actors. | Sharing of Plans through CSG | Planned regular stakeholder meetings. | |
Coordination | TWG | Involvement of TWG members in implementation Willingness of TWG members to participate in implementation |
* Technical know-how * Availability of technical expertise |
No regular TWG meetings No facilitation for the TWG meetings No mechanism for the operation of TWGs |
No common planning | Development and sharing of TWG TOR Facilitation of TWG Development of TWG calendar |
Ensuring implementation of the plans |
^ | CSG | * Sensitization of CSG members * Representation by TWG members l |
No sharing of plans and progress | No mechanisms for sharing Poor CSG meetings attendance |
Ensuring regular & timely sharing through proper channels | Follow up on all actors to ensure participation in CSG meetings | |
^ | Partnership | * MOU signed with county Government and community | Willingness of County Government to partner with the community * Mediation by TWG |
Process long and slow | Bureaucracy | One common County MOUs Joint resource mobilization |
Frequent sharing of information |
M&E | * Continuous and MTR done * Availability of resources and staffs * Inputs into the remaining phase of the project * Was mandatory in project proposal |
Not scheduled Not coordinated |
No shared plans | Development and sharing of Joint plans for activities | Development of a calendar | ||
Knowledge management | Documentation | * Case studies done * Reports produced * * Availability of resources * Willingness of stakeholders to provide information on their cases * Routine documentation of activities |
Not done regularly | Not shared | Routine documentation and dissemination | Routine dissemination | |
^ | Trainings | * Fodder training * Training on co-management * Training on steer fattening * Availability of resources and man experts * Demand for more knowledge |
Continues changes of the target group | Need for proper representation of communities | Ensuring there is in house knowledge | Follow up | |
^ | Exposure visits | Several visits done Knowledge utilized | Availability of resources | Selection of beneficiaries | Participants selected by the groups themselves | Increase county based exposure | Ensuring proper identification of beneficiaries is done |
Isiolo County
Result area | Key issues | Best practices/success | Attributing factors | Challenges | Attributing factors | Mitigation options | Sustainability |
Fodder | Scale(target institutions) | ||||||
Production/establishment | Change in mind set | Sensitization and training | Inadequate rainfall (water) Weak management |
Drought No/weak bylaws |
Irrigation Increase use of climate information Capacity development |
Strengthen indigenous rangeland management alongside fodder production | |
Handling and Storage | Improved storage | Fodder store and bailing boxes | Limited knowledge and capacity | Poor timing in harvesting | Timely harvesting | Continuous production and Community management of fodder production and storage Commercialization of fodder | |
Marketing (hay, fattening, seeds) | Available hay used to fatten livestock during drought Exposition through trade fair |
Trainings Past experiences Drought |
Limited production scale Poor attitude toward fodder commercialization |
Socio-cultural factors | Exposure visits and training |
Linkage of fodder production groups to dairy farmers Promote IGAs around fodder production Instill local ownership | |
Capacity development | Change in mind set Exposition through trade fair |
Limited market Lack of exposure | Insecurity | Cattle rustling | Peace building forums | Develop community ToTs | |
Camel milk | Hygiene and handling | Introduction of cooling plant and equipment | Market requirement | Smoked milk | Socio-cultural practices | Increase capacity on milk handling Milk stratification |
Value addition |
Bulking/Cooperative | Reduced operation costs | Bulking | Poor management | Individual interests Different pricing |
Market segmentation | Strengthening the running of the cooperative Expansion of market | |
Marketing | Linkage with camel milk processors | Limited market options (Eastleigh) | High transportation costs Poor hygiene |
Distance to market Poor roads Socio-cultural factors |
Bulking Improve road network Value addition Capacity development |
Value addition | |
Policy and legislation | Framework for livestock production and management | Lack of livestock policy framework | Tedious consultation process and bureaucracy | Diverse actors with varied interests | Strengthening CSGs Develop livestock policy |
Synchronizing the framework within CIDP | |
Livestock markets | Infrastructure | Operational local markets | Organized market days Availability of livestock |
Lack of control | Weak management | Capacity development Encourage local ownership |
Strong LMAs |
Co-management | Adoption of the model Increased revenue |
Lobbying | Bureaucracy- delays, attitudes | Diverse institutions (community, governments) | Continuous lobbying | Adoption of the model by county government |
Tana River County
Result area | Key issues | key success/best practices | Attributing factors | Challenges | Attributing factors | Mitigation options | Sustainability |
Fodder | Production | Use of irrigation for fodder production | Availability of water, existence of irrigation infrastructure | High cost of fuel and generators maintenance. Lack of protection of fodder site |
Less return on investment (300 bail for a cow producing less than a litre) Fodder plots not fenced High temperature |
Use of solar power to pump water Rain Water harvesting for fodder production |
Use low cost production methods -Switching to Solar energy -Rain water harvesting Incorporate high return enterprise like dairy cows, Goats Targeting should be driven by needs Utilize knowledge/experience from similar projects/ activities |
Marketing | Pastoralist buying hay bails | Availability, Sensitization and marketing strategies of the groups | Transport Attitude Infrastructure |
Bails are bulky Culture of free range pastoral system |
Increase local marketing strategies Develop infrastructure Involve more stake holders |
^ | |
Harvesting/ storage |
Use of stores for individual use | Frequency of drought spell, availability of the stores | Low mechanization of harvesting process | Production scale Attitude by extension/technical officers |
Capacity building on post-harvest management | ^ | |
Adoption | Not significant | - | Not economical in pastoral production system Land tenure system |
Policy and practice Community ownership of land |
Sensitization of pastoralists | ^ | |
Target group | Working with individuals within groups | Low group cohesion | Group dynamics | Group formation | Capacity building of groups and improve targeting process. | ^ | |
Livestock Market | Infrastructure | Community participation | The market addressed community’s needs and sited in places of their choice Partnership |
Insecurity Vandalism Cost of material transportation |
Road networks Vastness of the county |
Improve road network | Enhance Co-management Increase local community participation Involve line ministry more |
Management | Co-management and revenue sharing (Garsen market case) | Ownership | Financial institution absences Revenue sharing not yet started Capacity to maintain financial records |
Under development of the county High poverty level |
Support development activities Lobby financial institution to increase their presence |
^ | |
Policy | Partners involvement in policy formulation | Partnership Constitution of Kenya Political good will |
Slow process Capacity of policy formulation |
Devolution is yet to mature | A lawyer has been contracted to support formulation. | ^ | |
Security | LMA/peace committee involvement in security issues | Sensitization | Money handling and transporting | Poor road network No banks General lack of security |
Improve road networks Increase banking service coverage |
^ | |
Coordination | TWG | Involvement of TWG in procurement process | Program design | TOR of TWG not known to other stakeholders Projects information not shared |
Limited feedback from TWGs to institutions/orgs | Involvement of all in the TWG | TOR should be clear and shared There should some platform for sharing CSG role in recommending implementing partners/institutions. CSG to be involved in M&E |
M&E of activities | No M&E plans | Low sharing of report Frame of M&E |
TWG coordination not effective | Strengthen TWG Facilitate TWG Prepare/share M&E frame work |
^ |
Baringo County
Result area | Key issues | Best practices/success | Attributing factors | Challenges | Attributing factors | Mitigation options | Sustainability |
Fodder | Pasture/fodder establishment | Seed bulking Water harvesting technologies Steer fattening |
Demand for range seeds Availability of players (RAE Trust, KVDA) Availability of range seeds Existing expertise on water harvesting. Demand for high quality livestock Availability of pastures during the dry spell |
Quality control Drought Prosopis invasion Flooding Land tenure system Inadequate capital Scale of production |
Inadequate knowledge base. Climate change Weak market linkages Low resource base |
Capacity building on CCA/fodder groups Certification by relevant bodies KEPHIS Irrigation pastures Value chain finance |
Stimulate the market for private sector business models uptake Strengthening market linkages |
Marketing | Established Platforms for market linkages Investment in storage facilities Pasture conservation-hay baling Market segmentation and targeting |
Commercialization of fodder enterprises Surplus harvest Entrepreneurship Technological knowhow –storage handling and sale Distribution of baling boxes. |
Demand-supply gap Weak horizontal linkages Inadequate baling service providers. standardization |
Trust Uncoordinated activities High cost of equipment for baling |
Contracts and Mous. Service level agreements Identification and training Local artisans. |
Information sharing Establish proper coordination structures. Stakeholder mapping Value chain finance. Encourage more lead firms as BDS providers | |
Community organization. | Existing functioning groups | Profitability of the enterprise | Group dynamics Leadership and governance |
Lack of transparency and accountability External interference |
Capacity building | Continuous mentoring and coaching | |
Livestock markets | Infrastructural development | Construction of sale yards. Available expertise in design(BQs) |
Increasing demand for livestock To facilitate off take for pastoralists Enhance revenue collection Rehabilitation of dilapidated facilities |
Insecurity Livestock diseases-quarantine Poor feeder roads. Loopholes in revenue collection |
Retrogressive cultural practices. Absence of periodic vaccination campaigns Inadequate investment in road infrastructure Lack of transparency and accountability by revenue collectors Inadequate coordination-BCG-LMAs |
Education Peace building initiative Ring /timely vaccinations PPPs Livestock systems development-livestock sale control form. Review meetings |
Programmed vaccination-vaccination fund Cross border projects Conducive investment climate. Automating systems. |
Co-management model | LMAs committee establishment MOUs signing- Coordinated revenue collection |
Need to participate in revenue collection and revenue sharing. Need to plough back some revenue-local authorities were not doing it. |
Delayed disbursement of the LMAs revenue share by CG Inadequate capacity for financial management by LMAs |
Bureaucracy Weak management structures-low level of education, Inadequate ICT use |
Capacity building Standing imprest Automation |
Continuous mentoring and coaching Transform LMAs to BDS providers | |
Capacity development | Engaging local capacity builders in capacity development. Establishment of technical working groups |
Need for home grown solutions Availability of multi -sectoral expertise |
Delayed release of activity funds Imbalanced Constitution of TWGs Inconsistencies in meetings/M&E |
Bureaucracy Initial project catchment area Lack of clarity on activity financier. |
Forward planning Develop a harmonized coordination framework. |
Contracting LCB. Regular meetings-monthly and quarterly. Align project activities to existing TWGs | |
Policy | Enforcement of policy and legislation | Goodwill from national and CGs Already existing laws and policy |
Operationalization of existing Laws and policies Aligning policy and legislation to the new constitution |
New constitutional dispensation Outdated policies and laws |
Continuous consultation on with stakeholders | Review of existing policies and laws | |
Knowledge management | Information sharing | Existing Stakeholder platforms Case studies documentation |
Need for experience sharing Need for resource pooling-synergy Need for documenting best practices and lost opportunities |
Uncoordinated activities Evolving technology-ICT |
Trust issues Lack of transparency and accountability Inadequate capacity |
Strengthen horizontal linkages Capacity building |
Strengthen platforms for information sharing-TWGs, CSGs |
Information management | Periodic reporting | Need to track progress | Inadequate data systems management | In adequate capacity. | Engage consultants | Harmonized reporting system. Continuous capacity building | |
Coordination | TWG | Review meetings | Need to address emerging issues | Irregular meetings | Incentive driven Lack of clarity on financier |
Integrating TWGs meetings in the normal operations-recurrent Identification of financier. |
Proper coordination framework |
M&E | Missions-EU/NDMA/KRDP | Need to track progress on projects implementation Need to create synergies Need to re-design project. |
Lack of a clear M&E framework Project review at inception and termination |
Project design Uncoordinated M&E Lack of an M& E culture in some organizations |
Inculcate M&E culture in organizations | Continuous M&E Engage partners and stakeholders in project design and implementation |
Wajir County
Result area | Key issues | key success/best practices | Attributing factors | Challenges | Attributing factors | Mitigation options | Sustainability |
Fodder | Production/ Establishment |
-high production - increased availability and accessibility of fodder to producers - project target for county achieved -change of mind set due to capacity building |
-High quality seeds -Availability of land -Enhanced skills on production - fairly reliable rainfall -Availability of pasture land |
-intrusion by wildlife and livestock | - lack of fencing (only bush fencing) | -fencing of fodder farms (Barbed wire/Solar) | -Being a community owned and resource controlled internally there are high chances of sustainability |
^ | Targeting | -Project target achieved | -Effective community mobilization | -management issues of the preserved land interms of access (it belongs to all of us) | -Land is communally owned | - Involve EMC /Deedha in managing the range lands | -ensure set bylaws are observed thro EMC |
^ | Storage | -Construction of two fodder stores -utilization of stored hay -proper handling of hay -increased access |
-availability of funds -community participation/involvement -enhanced skills after training |
-Low capacity of store | - limited funding | -increase funding | -linkage to potential buyers including institutions |
^ | Marketing for hay | -availability of local market -Good publicity of group/product -competitive price/good income for the group - Wider market involving institution(schools/CG/NDMA |
-Market differentiation -Capacity building and exposure tours -Ready market -Quality of the hay produced |
-Long distance to potential markets -High transportation cost to the market |
-Vastness of the county -Poor infrastructure |
-Centralized store -More linkages and trending up sessions with potential buyers - |
- commercialization of pasture production |
Capacity Building | -Change of mindset -Improved husbandry practices |
-Training and exposure tour -Sensitization meetings |
-Low uptake of the concept - |
-Pastoral background - |
-Continuous mentoring of the groups -More exposure tours |
-Use of home grown solutions e.g use of fast learners | |
Livestock Market | -Existing Vibrant livestock marketing | - Establishment of functional LMAs | -Increased livestock volume in markets -Improved infrastructure -Reduced incidences of insecurity |
-underutilization of some markets | - MoU for revenue sharing not being honoured for some markets | -Honouring of MoU by CG | -Sharing of cost/expenses be 50:50 -strengthen early warning and community peace committees |
Increased income for pastoralist and revenue collection | -Adoption of co-management model | -Working LMAs -community empowerment through trainings and exposure tours |
- Lack of dissemination of Livestock market information | - Limited funding -Low adoption of the model |
- Increase sensitization to all the Stakeholders -Strengthen capacity of LMAs on Livestock marketing information |
-Continued capacity building and support to LMAs | |
policy | Aligning current policies with existing ones | ||||||
Knowledge management | -Change of mind set -information sharing |
-Commercialization of pasture production -Pastoralist willing to dispose off their livestock at opportune time |
-Capacity building -Improved market infrastructure -Structured market days -Functional LMAs -Willingness by partners |
-Low uptake of recommendations. -uncoordinated activities |
- group dynamics –lack of transparency and accountability by officials | Capacity built groups on group dynamics ,record keeping -strengthen linkages and information sharing groups |
Involve all community members considering the role played by both gender and youth |