Project Final Report. National Drought Management Authority(NDMA) Service Provider. Reporting Period Feb 2014 Oct 2014

Transcription

1 Project Final Report From: To: Service Provider National Drought Management Authority(NDMA) Reporting Period Feb 2014 Oct 2014 Region/s Counties Area of intervention Baringo, Samburu, Isiolo, Laikipia and Meru SUBMITTED TO FAO REPRESENTATIVE IN KENYA SUBMITTED BY Page 1 of 12

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary Background Introduction Project implementation Activities implemented RISPA reports desk review Review and update of community development and contingency plans Sub-county validation workshops County validation workshops Reporting METHODOLOGY Objectives Output Monitoring ESTIMATED project beneficiaries Project Impact and sustainability conclusions AND RECOMMENDATIONS Challenges Recommendations Page 2 of 12

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The final report on FAOR/LoA No. 002/14 under RISPA (OSRO/RAF/011/EC) provides key highlights achieved during the project implementation span (February-October 2014) in the five counties the project targeted. The report outlines the scope of work that was undertaken by the both national and county teams in order to achieve the results. Though the initial proposal intended to cover eight counties, three of the proposed counties were left out owing to the initial coverage under RISPA a joint venture between FAO and IIRR and FAO partners. The report also provides a good learning point for proper linkages in planning by the development actors within and outside the counties covered by the project. The recommendations developed through the project are expected to form the basis for improved planning and sound policies to be shared in different forums. The lessons learnt will continuously inform in further engagement with different actors at different levels. The report is segmented into four parts: Part One: General information about the project This section attempts to provide background information on the project, the rationale behind it and justification for having such project in the five counties, and methodology engaged in delivering the key milestones. Part Two: Project progress This part of the report highlights the achievement of the planned project activities both nationally and in the five counties. This section stipulates the series of activities accomplished under the project period in Baringo, Samburu, Isiolo, Laikipia and Meru counties. Part Three: output monitoring The framework basically outlines the key achievements on the planned activities in each result area. The monitoring matrix summarizes the project inputs, output and indicators. Part Four: challenges and solutions This section highlights the challenges faced during the project implementation period under specific project deliverables both at national and the counties levels. Part Five: Conclusion and recommendations This part provides conclusion and some of the recommendations to address some of the challenges faced during the project implementation. Page 3 of 12

4 1. BACKGROUND Droughts are now more frequent and the land mass available to support rural livelihoods is fast shrinking below the economic utilization level. This has led to an escalation of conflicts among erstwhile harmonious communities as they struggle for limited water and pasture. Among the pastoralists, inter-tribal and inter clan raids have become endemic, worse with the proliferation of small arms in the region. As the drought events occur with more frequency, people have no time to recover before another drought hits. This has resulted into increasing poverty and chronic food insecurity with households year after year finding it hard or impossible to get the food they need. It is difficult during drought crisis to distinguish between people suffering from chronic and transitory (acute) food insecurity. Droughts are a national concern, but their direct impacts are most severe in the ASALs. Drought emergencies are a product of deeper vulnerabilities affecting people s livelihoods and well-being, the nature of which differs across the ASALs. In semi-arid counties, the viability of marginal agriculture is being progressively weakened by population growth, land pressure, and an over-dependence on rainfed production and on crop and pasture varieties which are poorly adapted to drought conditions. Crop production is largely at subsistence levels. Little of the value of agricultural production is captured locally. In arid counties, on the other hand, and some semi-arid counties, drought resilience is undermined by lack of adequate investment in the basic enablers or foundations of development which weakens adaptive capacity. Vulnerability to drought in Kenya is a product of historical inequalities in access to public goods and services the foundations for development. It is also influenced by social systems and cultural values and practices, since these determine access to, ownership and control over resources and the benefits accruing from those resources. With few economic options, lack of political power, and limited experience and confidence in the public sphere, women and young people are greatly disadvantaged. Drought is one of the biggest threats to Kenya Vision Without urgent action, its impacts will worsen as climate change deepens. Better management of drought is therefore critical to national development. Since droughts evolve slowly, their impacts can be monitored and reduced. Kenya will eliminate the worst of these impacts by pursuing two simultaneous strategies. First, it will take measures to strengthen people s resilience to drought. Second, it will improve the monitoring of, and response to, emerging drought conditions. Page 4 of 12

5 1.1 Introduction Creating linkages in governance on a bottom up approach remains urgent, as local and national policies need to best be fed by primary tangible and credible information generated by marginalized and excluded people whom we work with, highly enshrined. Collation of people driven and centered development capacity gaps are articulated in generated communities risk reduction plans and Contingency plans that are aimed at enhancing communities capacities in prevention, preparedness, mitigation and management of these hazards particularly drought in ASALs of Kenya. Enabling the communities hinge their own developed plans into the mainstream county generated plans will strengthen their coping capacities. The purpose of this result is to strengthen existing institutions and plans at community level as the basis for empowering communities to prepare consolidated development and contingency plans. Preparing communities to align their plans to the established county government planning structures will go a mile in enhancing communities demand their development pie. The communities shall be informed of the opportunities provided by devolution and decentralization to support the implementation of the action and contingency plans. Lessons derived from such processes shall be shared across other counties for purposes of learning and replication where necessary. This in the long run will go a long way to inform policy dialogues and decisions (policy and investment) therefore fortifying the communities preparedness and resilience efforts. The project aims at seeking ways to mainstream the outcome of the consolidated plans through RISPA into the county government planning process. Though RISPA reports concentrated on the cross border plans, it s important that pertinent issues flagged out in consolidated plans are shared with respective county governments within the country for purposes of mainstreaming inter-counties and inter-communities issues into county integrated development plans. The project also appreciated the currently created devolved structures and recognizing the lower levels of planning. Livelihoods interface and interactions among various resource user groups were recognized as instrumental elements of common planning in across the neighboring communities and counties. 2.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Planned project activities implementation commenced with the signing of the LoA and crediting of the first installment into the NDMA s account. A workshop to orient the national and county project implementation team was conducted in Nakuru bringing on board the county teams from Isiolo Samburu, Baringo, Laikipia and Meru. The workshop aimed at appraising the staff on the key deliverables of the project and setting levelled ground for implementation process. The workshop also provided joint planning for both national and county teams. During the workshop the teams were able to review the project implementation matrix and each county team was able to formulate their project implementation plan based on their own county context. After the workshop each county was equipped with the necessary skills to commence the projects implementation. Funds were disbursed to facilitate the county teams work plans. There after the counties rolled out their respective work plans based activities with initial staff orientation of the project at the county Page 5 of 12

6 coordination unit (CCU) and thereafter the same was replicated at the County Steering Group (CSG) level. Formulations of project implementation technical groups were formed across the five counties. There after the county teams were able to map and develop a clear county specific road map to implement the project key deliverables. The achievement in terms of every result area is as outlined below. 2.1 Activities implemented The project activities were implemented between February and October. The County Drought Coordinators were able to lead the county coordination Units (CCUs) and County Steering Groups in implementation of the project activities in their respective counties. Orientation of staff was conducted and thereafter field teams were composed to commence the project work on scoping of community CMDRR initiatives planned and implemented by various communities in their counties in collaboration with the development supporters. The status of project implementation activities is as outlined below: RISPA reports desk review Desk review to consolidate PDRA reports per county and share with the respective county planning units has already been done by IIRR. However NDMA worked to flag out those common issues that are deemed important for planning purposes at community, sub-county, county and inter-counties. The review was able to flag out the key inter-counties issues that need to be considered by both the national and county governments. NDMA initiated a process of stakeholders mapping as well as all PDRAs supported by these stakeholders right at the ward and sub-county levels. Though these PDRAs formed the basis for county drought contingency plans, county teams have not been keen on identifying inter-communities or commonly shared planning issues among the neighboring communities as well as across the county. NDMA county teams in the five counties, were able to review and update the community plans at the same time identified the common planning areas for further sharing with other communities as well as neighboring counties. Consolidated plans were shared at the County steering groups (CSGs) during the county validation workshops conducted in the five counties. Common planning issues across the counties were identified and formed the basis for engagements with the relevant stakeholders to be able to mainstream. Cross county dynamics flagged out during the counties validation workshops and further disseminated to other stakeholders within the counties in implementation of commonly shared plans. It s important to popularize these approaches across the communities, counties and across the borders. NDMA is already participating in Inter-governmental forums where common issues affecting both levels of government are articulated across the sectors. Common issues for planning are continuously being deliberated in such like forums to disseminate and seek away forward on strengthening planning ties across the counties and common borders. Page 6 of 12

7 2.1.2 Review and update of community development and contingency plans The NDMA county teams were able to map the communities where PDRAs were conducted in collaboration with their development partners. The mapping gave the county teams latitude to understand the scope of the PDRAs conducted and focus more on quick refinement of risk reduction measures through the Participatory Disaster Risk Assessment (PDRA) process, implementation, monitoring and evaluation and establishing the linkage of community planning system and that of the ward, sub-county and county levels of planning. There were no fresh PDRAs conducted at the community level but NDMA county teams and their development partners were able to facilitate the review, updates and refinement of the PDRAs supported by various development partners including NDMA as well as being able to review and updated the community action and contingency plans. All five counties targeted by the project were at least able to review and update an average of five community PDRAs. Review and update of Development and contingency plans validation process were conducted to ensure process ownership by the larger community at the sub-county level. The NDMA county teams are well trained on CMDRR process and were able to facilitate the review and validation process, in collaboration with other stakeholders, to ensure that communities and their development supporters are able to appraise their plans and conduct resource mobilization for implementation of planned drought risk reduction measures. The NDMA team played a lead role in bringing on board all stakeholders in their respective counties to share the DRR plans generated by various communities they are in partnership. Common cross border planning issues were highlighted and shared during the validation workshops in the five counties. Necessary further engagement with the neighboring communities and counties were triggered to ensure that the relevant stakeholders are appraised and necessary recommendations to further strengthen future common planning mechanisms are achieved. The climax of this was realized with the signing of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) among the Governors of Samburu, Baringo and Laikipia counties on common livestock sector development. This was successfully achieved during the launch of the Drought Contingency Fund (DCF) supported by the EU. The MoU is attached as annex Sub-county validation workshops. Consolidation of community drought/disaster risk reduction plans in terms of development and contingency plans were further carried out at the sub-county level taking into account of community and livelihoods diversities. County teams conducted community PDRAs and risk reduction plans review and update then facilitated a consolidation and validation workshop at the sub-county level. These consolidation and validations were aimed at ensuring that community priorities focusing on disaster risk reduction are considered and factored in into the sub-county plans. Sub-county stakeholders appraised on the need to align their planning to the immediate risk reduction measures identified by communities in the sub-county. The sub-counties validation workshops were able to able to develop resolutions to be factoring in the community drought risk reduction and Drought contingency plans into the Sub-counties development and contingency plans. Each sector plan was thus earmarked to benefit and be able to generate key themes for planning from the community Page 7 of 12

8 plans. Then consolidated and validated sub-county plans were further shared with the county steering group through the sub-county representatives during the counties CSGs validation workshops. The five counties were able to conduct at least an average of two sub-counties validation workshops County validation workshops After the sub-county validation workshops, the county validations workshops were organized targeting the county steering group and community representatives from the sub-county validation process in the five counties. The validation process was aimed at bringing the sub-counties representatives to share the common planning issues that need to be considered at county level and beyond for common planning purposes. Sector working groups of the CSG got an opportunity to interrogate generated issues and evaluate how the neighboring counties can be brought on board to share common planning process. The sector working group were able delineate policy and normal programmatic issues that call for further ties beyond the county level. The CSG was able to consolidate these thematic areas for planning purposes and able to align them in accordance with livelihoods and county diversity appreciating the need for inter-community and inter-counties planning process. The county steering group workshops were able to come out with concrete recommendations for planning and engagement framework with neighboring county governments and other stakeholders. Policy issues based on the thematic areas identified and further necessary engagements for formulation of these legislations are earmarked for discussion in the upcoming forums Reporting The county teams were able to generate their respective counties reports and recommendations developed during the reviews and all the validation workshops and being able to bring emerging issues for planning upfront. All policy issues per sector were consolidated and shared with relevant legislation institutions (county/national assembly s) for further discussions and necessary steps. The recommendations consolidated in all counties reports form the basis for discussions in the planned cluster workshops. The recommendations identified for common planning across the counties will be packaged in form of policy statements for further dissemination. 3.0 METHODOLOGY The project implementation benefited from documents developed under RISPA by FAO, IIRR and other partners in six clusters. The initiative was aimed at seeking way to mainstream the outcome of the consolidated plans through RISPA into the county/cross boarder governments planning process. Though RISPA reports concentrated on the cross border plans, it was important that pertinent issues flagged out in consolidated plans were shared with five respective county governments for purposes of mainstreaming inter-communities and inter-counties issues into county integrated development plans (CIDPs) and developed county drought contingency plans. Page 8 of 12

9 Though RISPA did not cover the current project counties, the review and updates of community risk reduction plans and contingency plans was instrumental in enabling the county teams to come out with pertinent issues that demand common planning across one community and even beyond one county. The review teams were able to identify the key planning issues consolidated and shared during the sub-county validation workshops. This formed the basis for the county steering group (CSGs) validation workshop. The county governments are expected to mainstream key intercommunities and inter-counties thematic issues flagged out by the consolidated plans and work with neighboring countries on future common planning approaches. FAO and NDMA have already shared part of the cross border plans in particular cross border areas. It s important to popularize these approaches across the counties especially focusing on pastoral livelihood where commonly shared natural resources attract user groups in and out migrations in these counties and across the borders. The review process focused more on refinement of risk reduction measures through the PDRA process, implementation, monitoring and evaluation and establishing the linkage of community planning system and that of the ward, sub-county and county levels of planning. There were no fresh PDRAs conducted at the community level but NDMA county teams and their development partners facilitated the review, updates and refinement of the PDRAs and being able to review and update the community action and contingency plan. Development and contingency plans validation processes were facilitated to ensure process ownership by the larger community at both sub-county and county levels. The NDMA county teams are well trained on CMDRR process and were able to facilitate the review and validation process, in collaboration with other stakeholders, to ensure that communities and their development supporters are able to appraise their plans and conduct resource mobilization for implementation of planned drought risk reduction measures. The NDMA team played a leading role in bringing on board all stakeholders in their respective counties to share the DRR plans generated by various communities they are in partnership. The consultation workshops were able trigger discussions on the need for the joint planning process right at the community, sub-county, county and beyond the county levels. 3.1 Objectives. To strengthen communities participation in drought risk reduction and contingency planning process in Baringo, Isiolo, Laikipia, Meru and Samburu counties. Page 9 of 12

10 3.2 Output Monitoring The output monitoring matrix below reflects the activities that have been undertaken during the project span. No Output Performance Indicator Target Achievement Comment 1 NDMA staff from 5 counties Project induction completed The induction is planned for the inducted on project for 5 counties by: 17/04/ nd week of April implementation 2 25 number of community development and contingency plans reviewed and updated 3 25 generated community plans (development and contingency plans) validated and adopted at sub-counties. No. of CDCs from 5 counties inducted on project implementation No of project implementation action plans developed by CDCs No. of community development and contingency plans reviewed and updated No. of community plans validated and adopted at sub-counties. 25 community development and contingency plans reviewed and updated by: 31/04/ community plans validated and adopted at sub-counties by: 05/05/2014 5counties have already deliberated and identified Validation will be realized after review and updates of community action and contingency plans The activity facilitated the development of action plans on implementation by each of the five counties staff representatives Reviewed community action and contingency plans shared with other stakeholders in the five counties. At least 10 No sub-counties validation workshops conducted to validate 25 community plans 5 5County steering groups workshops conducted and consolidated plans validated 6 Inter-counties workshop on contingency planning and consolidation workshop conducted 7 At least 5 inter counties plans shared and commonalities validated 8. Project completion reports developed and disseminated 5No. of Validated plans approved No of policy statements developed No. of workshops conducted No of reports No. of inter counties plans shared and validated No. of reports developed and disseminated Workshops completed by: 15/07/2014 Inter-counties common plans developed and shared: County plans shared and commonalities validated by: 2015 Project reports developed and shared County steering groups validations workshops were conducted in respective counties Inter-counties workshops were decided to be covered under the scheduled cluster training workshops to share the intercounties recommendations. 5 No inter-counties plans will be shared during the cluster trainings Project completion report should be submitted the 1 st week of December 2014 Policy statements and county steering groups validation workshops are yet to be shared in cluster workshops. Contingency plans will form part of deliberations during the cluster workshops. 5No county reports and 1No consolidated national report will be submitted and shared. Page 10 of 12

11 4. ESTIMATED PROJECT BENEFICIARIES The project targeted five counties that are commonly characterized by cross cutting border planning issues. The five counties enjoy diversity in livelihoods thus experiencing competition for natural resources especially during the lean periods where the natural resources demand expands without necessarily the corresponding elasticity but rather high depletion rates. The project is expected to reach at least 15,000 people men and women per county. Meaning in the five counties at least 75,000 people of mixed strata will have been reached by the project directly. However the project is expected to reach another over 100,000 people indirect through dissemination forums. The project leant good practices provides opportunity for replication in other neighboring counties. 5. PROJECT IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY Joint inter-communities and inter-counties planning provided an opportunity to the local communities to appreciate their diversity in the planning, implementation and monitoring aspects. Commonly shared resources and socio-amenities were jointly mapped and common management plans reviewed, updated and management institutions strengthened. This in turn improved the management, sustainability and accrued benefits commonly shared with minimal or no friction among the user groups. The value of common planning across communities and inter-counties is expected to be entrenched as a good practice in these project counties and be able to act as a reference point to the rest counties with such experiences. Both Counties and national governments are expected to continue being the facilitators of this process by empowering communities and their development supporters to embrace on cross border planning. Sustainability of planned drought risk reduction measures will be realized at the end. Conflicts as result of competition among the resources user groups will be reduced and instead access and control will be improved. 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The project was implemented as scheduled. NDMA enjoys experienced team in these five counties who played a key role in project implementation process and the national office was able oversee the implementation process in the five counties. Wide participatory process was engaged to ensure that inclusiveness in the common planning process. Common planning issues per sector were identified and shared across the neighboring counties. In livestock sector for example, a common agreement was signed between the county Governments of Samburu, Baringo and Laikipia to ensure that livestock management common approaches are adopted. This includes a proper value chain analysis and recognizing the role each and every actor plays along the value chain across the three counties. Page 11 of 12

12 The NDMA and FAO teams from the headquarters made monitoring missions to the five counties to ascertain the extent of project implementation. The team had contacts with the technical working groups of the CSG and the communities that were involved in the PDRA reviews and the validation workshops. The stakeholders including the local communities do appreciate the need to have a common planning and implementation of strategies among the neighboring communities and most importantly the counties. Consultations with stakeholders amplified the need for sustained engagements at all levels to ensure that the commonly identified issues requiring common planning approaches across the neighboring counties. 6.1 Challenges During the monitoring missions to the field, the county teams were able to share some of the constrains that embedded the project implementation. These included; The county government s structures formulations are at different levels in different counties thus affecting the phase of interactions and engagements. Frequent insecurity incidences in the neighbouring counties especially where cattle rustling incidences are pronounced affected the results achieved during the inter-counties discussions. Counties have different management frameworks particularly in natural resource management which need to be harmonized. Institutional arrangement especially on traditional natural resource management in a county like Isiolo is well established as compared to other neighbouring counties. This situation has been attributed to perpetuated incidences of natural resource based conflict. 6.2 Recommendations In order to address the identified challenges the following recommendations are proposed; There is need to sustain interactions between the neighboring county governments and other stakeholders in these counties, to ensure functional structures for better interactions. All stakeholders need to join efforts in addressing the incidences of conflict in insecurity prone areas. Good practices like the natural resource management currently being practiced in counties like Isiolo, need to be promoted in other neighboring counties. Establish and strengthen the traditional natural resource management institutions to champion for integrated land uses aimed at sustainable natural resource management. Page 12 of 12