ABEO Workshop: Part V Alignment of ABEO Projects with the Kenya FtF Multi-Year Strategy

1. ABEO Workshop: Part VAlignment of ABEO Projects with the Kenya FtF Multi-Year Strategy Performance, Analysis, Communication and Evaluation (PACE) Project 8 December 2011 Nairobi, Kenya

2. Problem areas, complexities, methods. A diversion before we address the specific indicators. What was learned in the field

3. What was learned from visits to partners HQ • KDSCP, KMDP, KHCP, KDLDP, PBS, FIRM, ADRA, Tegemeo visited. • Visit was to go over current PMP/M&E Plan focusing on PIRS, • Awareness of FtF? • Recognition of ZoI? • Were Contract/Agreement modifications made in response to Kenya FtF MYS? • Was there possible alignment of current indicators to the FtF Indicators? • Determine response to last DQA.

4. What was learned from field visit? • KHCP, KDSCP, KMDP were visited to review record keeping from the farm level up. • Issues raised: • Standards of record keeping vary; • Production records often referred just to amount sold or delivered to bulking and not total production; • Inputs used on particular crops not easily determined where there is multi-cropping; livestock is easier; • Direct and indirect beneficiaries (review partner experience); • Undercount of labor due to definition of when to count FTE (missing the impact that increased production has on paid farm labor:- off-farm labor is an important part of household income); FtF indicator 4.5.2 misses this; • Same beneficiary under two projects (Grace Tanui).

5. What was learned from field visit? (part 2) • Production records for milk tend to show amounts delivered to the coop, but not the amount sold at the local market, or consumed at home. Value of own produce consumed and local sales needs to be recorded as part of Gross Margin; • Count of beneficiaries is of households/not individuals for KDSCP; • Count of trainees is of individuals, including those who may not be from members households; • Drop outs: nearly all the groups or cooperatives initially had higher numbers of members, but then settled into a smaller number of active members. This is understandable as initial exuberance may taper off. [recount members annually?] • The DQA spoke of identifying secondary beneficiaries. Fintrac says they do not have resources to identify secondary beneficiaries. (others?)

6. What was learned from field visit? (part 3) • Group or Coop membership is a conduit for membership in NHIF, and having a bank account. This is apparently currently only noted anecdotally. • Gender of members is generally recorded, but youth less so (fairly simple matter to record this). • A significant increase in new members might see the Gross Margin decline, e.g. novices vs the experienced. Consider disaggregation by cohort. • Gross Margin is affected by price changes as occurs in dairy. Recently prices dropped from 34/= to 25/=. Farmer response is to reduce the use of high cost feed when prices are low. Production will drop.

7. What was learned from field visit? (part 4) • KDSCP has encouraged the use of aluminum tins for collection of milk. The aluminum containers are cleaner and some areas have now dis-allowed the use of plastic milk containers (counted as Policy change?). Is this recorded under “Number of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of USG assistance”? In general, list the new technologies that are counted. • Coops have aspirations of becoming processors, starting with the purchase of cold storage tanks – how recorded? • Similarly, coops and federations are looking for new markets (hawkers selling to West Kitale) with the assistance of IP how is this recorded if a new large scale buyer is established?

8. What was learned from field visit? (part 5) • Production and milk delivery records are kept by the co-op. Deliveries to the co-op by member in kgs, and delivery to the co-op by non-members are kept separately (non-members get a lower price). Non-members are treated as indirect beneficiaries. How is this recorded under an indicator? • Partners generally have an MIS that is generally focused on groups or coops. Some MIS include member data and individual training records. It is generally possible to get to an individual farmer through the MIS (for evaluation purposes a random sample of beneficiaries is possible). • Some of the cooperatives are now also agents for banks: typically Equity, but also Coop Bank. There are also SACCOs related to coops and farmers are urged to invest. How is this recorded by non-FIRM partners?

9. What was learned from field visit? (part 6) • The coop signs an MoU with KDSCP. In the MoU they state what they hope to achieve by setting targets. These targets can then be used by KDSCP in setting their own targets. The MoU targets are revised quarterly. Others? • The member farmers have diverse farming interests: cereal, dairy, tree nurseries, fish farming, poultry. Is this diverse farming to be captured by the partners who are focused on dairy, horticulture and maize? • Equity Bank is proactive in recruiting coops and members as new accounts. How much of this is due to partner initiative (attribution)? If counted (under 4.5.2-25 Number of people with a savings account or insurance policy as a result of USG assistance, or 4.5.2-29) how can this be verified?

10. What was learned from field visit? (part 7) • KHCP noted the complexity of harvest cycles for passion and tomatoes. A combination of Maize, Passion, Tomatoes and Chilies means that each month there is something to sell. This also means that calculating Gross Margin is complicated (especially when done by survey annually). • The farmer maintained records of the fertilizer, insecticide that were purchased. For the tomatoes and passion the record included when the crop was planted, when fertilizer was applied, when spraying was done. Less detail for other crops. • KHCP has issues with some of the indicators such as the number of hectares under new technology. In their case this doesn’t make sense for green houses and where there is multiple crops. The green house may be moved from place to place on the shamba not increasing the overall acreage. The targets may be misleading under these conditions.

11. What was learned from field visit? (part 8) • KHCP uses the CIRIS system. Using the system (in Eldoret) it was possible to identify those trained with the type of training they received. With some merging and matching individual farm production could be associated with types of training received. Ultimately, an analysis to determine what types of training are associated with improvements in production should be possible. This could be used internally to make training more efficient. • KMDP sees itself as focused on enhancing food security by increasing staple crop production, i.e., less as a business. • KMDP does a survey in January to determine Gross Margin. The surveyor asks the farmer to see his records. They ask for evidence of costs and sales. Individual records can be used to triangulate the survey findings and that this procedure be noted in the PIRS to support data quality.

12. What was learned from field visit? (part 9) • Demonstration plots were a common feature. Typically these compare maize varieties, but also are used to introduce new crop varieties. The comparison of maize varieties is done as an experimental design. I did not see how the results of the experiment were reported. In one instance KARI had a demo plot alongside the KMDP plot. What can we learn from this and how should it (or is it) be reported? • KMDP does OCA. Who else does this? The FtF indicator 4.5.1 “Average percent change in score on key areas of organization capacity amongst USAID direct and indirect local implementing partners” describes the tool used. Your OCA should seek to align with the FtF on this.

13. What was learned from field visit? (part 10) • For the dairy cooperatives there is focus on AI and keeping Stud Books; are these events recorded as indicators? When the herd advances from “foundation” to “intermediate” to “appendix” stage is this recorded with an indicator. Keeping the stud book can increase the value of the cow by up to 200 percent, is this increase in asset base noted? • Fish farming was seen in the area West of Kitale and near Turbo, but records apparently not kept (confirm if this is under and project)

14. What was learned from field visit? (part 11) • General observation: • Nearly all members of groups and cooperatives have a mobile phone • Nearly all have a bank account (usually Equity Bank) • Bank manager said the default rate on loans to coop members is less than 1% • Bank is very willing to loan to coop or group members because there is a record of their production and they can be easily traced. • Equity bank encouraging coops to become agencies.

15. End