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

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

1. Identification of the success
2. Attributing factors
3. The sustainability of the best practice

A format for what did not work well was also developed which captured the following;

1. Identification of the failure
2. The attributing factors
3. 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