Questions/Answers

Agriculture sector in Kenya faces many challenges despite its economic importance. These challenges are linked to poor coordination mechanisms, non-inclusivity of all in agricultural development agenda and low budgetary allocation to the agricultural sectors and effects of climate change. These have led to low production and productivity with average maize yield per hectare in Kenya being 1.3 tonnes and milk production at less than 5 litres per cow per day. Challenges in institutional arrangements with sector programmes working in silos leading to duplication of resources has also contributed significantly to problems in agriculture. This warranted for the establishment of a partnership-based/collaborative initiative in the Agricultural Sector towards reaching the poorest and most vulnerable. It identifies gaps collectively along the prioritized value chains with all stakeholders and possible solutions prioritized. The initiative is a 5 step model: • Stakeholder analysis and mapping dedicated collaborators/partners • Setting up of a vision and a strategic plan • Resource mobilization model • Joint planning including Monitoring and Evaluation • Reviewing the vision and giving feedback mechanism The initiative is anchored under Agriculture Sector Development Support Programme (ASDSP) which provides a framework for stimulating, guiding and directing inclusive agricultural growth and development. Implementation commenced in 2013 nationwide, co-financed by the Governments of Kenya and Sweden.

To create an enabling environment for partnerships/ collaboration to thrive and address challenges affecting the poorest and vulnerable. This entails working together, so that Kenya can realize its potential to lift millions of families out of poverty and become a truly modern economy in which growing prosperity is shared across all communities. The initiative looks at growth as being inclusive so that individually and collectively the country achieves the sustainable development results and prosperity shared by all in order to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030. This warranted for the establishment of a government programme -Agricultural Sector Development Support Programme (ASDSP) in 2012. ASDSP provides a framework for stimulating, guiding and directing inclusive agricultural growth and development. The strategies put in place included: • Setting institutions for collaboration/partnerships like Agriculture sector partners' association (ASPA), county steering committees (CSC), Value chain platforms (VCPs), value chain Forum (VCF), value chain core groups (VCCGs) and Social Audit Team (SATs) • Providing innovative tools to enhance peer learning and joint actions through an abridged proposal ( extended concepts) • Joint Resource mobilization • Capacity enhancement • Efficient system for monitoring resources i.e. procurement plan, financial management and reporting.

The initiative fits within the criteria of the selected category through the Vision 2030 which is the country’s blue print for development towards achieving the SDGs. The implementation framework for the initiative recognizes the importance of partnerships allows for flexibility in the design by providing “hooks” for other institutions to hang coats on“. The initiative brings about a new approach to solve the problems of public concern in Kenya through an approach of partnership/collaboration in a 5 step model. It sets up structures at the National level- Development partners’ initiative, Program Steering Committee, National Program Secretariat (NPS) and at county level-County steering Committee Value Chain Platform, Value chain Forum and Value Chain Core Groups (ANNEX 1). Implementation guidelines and procedures are available and can be used in any sector, region or country for implementing the same initiative making it easily adaptable. County governments are using it to upscale development of value chains not prioritized in the ASDSP program. The fact that there are instituitions/structures created in the partnership/collaboration model, available guidelines/procedures/documents, pooling of partners’ own resources and an in-built participatory monitoring and evaluation process makes the initiative sustainable with a positive impact on the coming generations. ANNEX 2

The initiative enhances contribution of public services delivery through the implementation of agenda 2030 for sustainable development and the realization of SDGs through the Vision 2030. By working through partnerships/collaboration the initiative endeavors to achieve SDG 17 (Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development) and improve public service delivery through: • partnership/collaboration model used, the private sector is brought on board as a service provider. This brings a solution to inadequate extension workers in the agriculture sector. • Enhancing joint discussions on identification of challenges and opportunities. This improves planning to bottom up instead of top-down and encourages ownership of solutions by all stakeholders • Creation of an innovative process for resource mobilization through partners in a simplified abridged proposal (‘extended concept) augments the little budgetary government allocation which is less than 10% of Malabo declaration. ANNEX 3. • Co-financing allows partners deliver services according to their mandates in the identified gaps hence partners reach out to the beneficiaries jointly in a win-win scenario with partners/collaborators mirroring successes together. • Harmonizing funds from development partners in a platform thereby avoiding resource duplication and reaching more

With reduced operational budgets in the Agriculture, extension services have considerably reduced. Through the initiative service providers/partners mobilized resources for solving identified gaps in a prioritized value chain. The tool used was an extended concept which mobilized funds through partners allowing them co-finance the process. it was vividly observed that for every shilling contributed by the donor agency, partners' contribution was three times what the initiative gave in the first year and increased to five times in the final year ANNEX 4. Cost effectiveness was realized in reaching the poor through inclusive services and partnerships. The extension workers were actively engaged in work with the available resources from the mobilized pool of networking partners. This significantly addressed the following areas: • the issue of low operational funding for government extension workers • Capacity enhancement through the trainings by partners • Funding for priority activities improved through extended concepts with deliberate targets of the poorest and vulnerable • Joint action plan with a bottom-up approach where the poorest and vulnerable included in seeking solutions through a value chain platform • Integrated solutions adopted due to joint monitoring and evaluation by partners • Advocacy issues are more practical seeking solutions at policy levels.

Positive impact of the initiative can be felt at individual, household, community and gender level. Mean incomes for men increased by 78%, for women by 25% and for the youths 14% as in line with Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere ANNEX 5. Food security improved as in line with Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. The number of households eating three meals per day increased from 86.1% to 87.4%. The yields of priority Value chains increased as below: • Banana- 29.5% (2509 – 3248) Kilograms/acre • Maize- 29% (1562-2015 ) Kilograms /acre • Cow Milk- 23% (4.9-8.8 litres/cow/day • Irish Potato- 7% (3008-3218) Kilograms /acre • Groundnut - 14% (350-400) Kilograms /acre On farm employment increased from 1 employee to 2 employees per Household (increase of 1 employees per Household); and off-farm employment increased from a baseline of 0.1 employees to 0.5 employees per Household. The technology and best practice led approach to VCD emanating from a gap analysis by stakeholders was not only appropriate but cheap which led to more beneficiaries adopting or adapting the relevant technologies.

The focus of the initiative facilitated: • The idea of partners’ joint resource-mobilization through an abridged proposal (extended concept) brought about an augmented funds front in a ratio of 1:5 to the funds provided by the ASDSP. • Implementation process entailed partners’ joint action planning and brought on board all actors through a bottom –up approach which was participatory in nature in the sector • Joint monitoring and evaluation and giving feedback leads to continual improvement and led to ownership of findings • Stakeholder analysis was done and institutions for collaboration and partnerships set: Agriculture sector partners' association, county steering committees, and Value chain platforms, value chain Forum, value chain core groups and Social Audit Team. • Platforms owned and led by the poor and vulnerable led to increased participation and action • Networks between platforms dealing in similar value chains across the country led to peer learning • Some of the institutions became the source of information to planners at both national and county levels. • Documentation of successes and challenges led to knowledge management in a way that can promote transferability of innovations

The innovation was original in in the agriculture sector in several ways: - Institutionalization of service delivery through partners /collaborators is unique and designed by the ASDSP program - The proposal referred to here is an abridged version between a concept note and a full proposal. It is not too brief as to miss on vision, purpose and strategic actions but again not too long to provide unnecessary details. It is unique since it provides for actions and expected results at impact, outcome and output levels. It also provides for commitment by partners/ collaborators on actions and co-financing - Resource mobilization in this context is aligned to mandates of different partners/ actors. It is aimed at joint actions rather than diversion of partners’ budgets; it leads to harmony and reduces duplication as opposed to independent actions. It leads to synergy. This innovation is a creation of the programme. - Joint M&E is based on agreed indicators. It involves all actors hence improves trust and other virtues of partnerships. It enhances peer learning and continual improvement

ASDSP was financed by the Governments of Kenya (GoK) and Sweden together with other development partners. The Government of Sweden’s contribution was KES 3.854 billion while GoK gave KES 1.0 billion totaling to KES 4.854 Billion spread over a five years. The Programme also benefited from a credit guarantee of KES 1.2billion million that was a joint support between Sida and USAID. There were committed budgets provided by partners and collaborators in each county aligned to the proposals Programme staffs were Public servants drawn from national government at national and county stations as facilitators of the process the National Program Secretariat (NPS) and the 47 County Coordinating Units (CCUs). Total staff force was 444 (35% females) against 485. Partners/collaborators were drawn from FBO, CBO, Civil society, and Financial institutions as service providers Multisector national and county oversight committee for the entire initiative PSC and CSC GoK also provided facilities such as office space, vehicles (93), computers (47 desk tops and 94lap tops), photocopiers and printers. 65% of the budgetary support was spent in the counties. The program had offices at county and national level to coordinate the initiatives

Yes

Partnership/collaboration is transferable and very adaptable to county governments, other sectors, other developing countries and other programmes in rural development. This is due to the fact that there are regions due to the following Implementation guidelines and procedures are available and can be used in any sector, region or country for implementing the same initiative making it easily adaptable. County governments are using it to upscale development of value chains not prioritized in the ASDSP program. The fact that there are instituitions/structures created in the partnership/collaboration model, available guidelines/procedures/documents, pooling of partners’ own resources and an in-built participatory monitoring and evaluation process makes the initiative sustainable with a positive impact on the coming generations. Institutional framework is documented and can be adapted to other sectors or programmes within and outside the country. Joint activity planning and implementation process through partnerships, the detailed guidelines and documented procedures also render the initiative transferable. Already some county governments are replicating the processes to up-scale other non-prioritized Value chains. The elaborate joint M&E system is useful in the agriculture sector and can be adapted in other sectors and programs both locally and outside the country.

Social aspects of sustainability entail setting up of partnership/collaboration management structures. The initiative set at National level: Development Partners’ initiative, National program secretariat and Program steering committee while at County levels: County steering committees, Value chain platforms, value chain Forum, Value Chain Core Groups AND Social Audit Team. Institutional capacities were enhanced to build sustainability. Joint participatory M&E together with the beneficiaries also builds sustainability. Economically through the joint resource mobilization, local resources are engaged when the poor and vulnerable offer resources mostly land and labor as their contribution hence project ownership contributing to sustainability. Implementation process is joint and partner-based, with a lot of capacity enhancement for the built institutions. The gains through these trainings are likely to be sustained due to the partnerships established with diverse community organizations and service providers including financial institutions.ANNEX 6 Environmental sustainability aspects are taken into account through the initiative when the partners/collaborators ensure that the identified solutions are environmental resilience thorough a thorough screening and vetting process of the extended concepts with an environmental lens. Partners ensure interventions are geared towards environmental resilience with adaptive measures. ANNEX 7

The partnerships initiative is hoped to be sustainable within a given period of time given the government support at the beginning and also depending on the stability of the institutions built. Capacity enhancement will also allow for sustainability over some period in time. The real test in sustainability in terms of durability will come when government support is reduced. A case in point is a weather based initiative Known as Participatory Scenario Planning (PSP) formed through partnerships/ collaboration with the department of meteorology on dissemination of weather and climate information. This tool has been giving weather advisories twice in the year to counties depending on the rainfall seasons. The value chain actors have benefited from the advisories since they have seen the practicability of the process in value chain development right from timely input acquisition, land preparation, planting, harvesting and even transportation to the market. Farmers’ yields have improved and the traditional weather forecasts were also involved hence ownership of the whole process. The project PSP is expected to continue being undertaken by the Kenya Meteorological Services in collaboration with most County governments. Already in Trans-Nzoia County Government, Kenya Meteorological Services, care international, are working with a new project WISER which will implement future PSP programmes. ANNEX 8.

Yes

The evaluation was conducted towards the end of the initiative by a team of experts not involved in actual implementation of the initiative. Data collection tools were prepared, enumerators trained and tools pre-tested. The whole exercise took 45 days planning, field work, data analysis and reporting. Methodology entailed field survey, focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KII). Questionnaires and checklists were used. The exercise focused on the changes that the programme had impacted on the beneficiaries. Both secondary and primary data was collected. 20 out of 47 counties were purposively selected as sample representative using a given criteria. Secondary data was collected through desk reviews of reports and programme documents. Primary data was collected from 2,406 randomly selected ASDSP Value Chain Actors and at least 240 other Value Chain Actors who were not targeted by the Programme. Structured questionnaire was used for the survey. Value Chain Organizations special interest groups had FGDs and KII. Quantitative data was analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 and presented as descriptive using tables and charts. Qualitative data was analyzed and presented in themes. Report was validated by stakeholders ANNEX 9.

It harnessed partners’ resources promoting synergy, reducing duplication, addressing staff shortages and increasing access to services. Established institutions improved linkages thereby strengthening coordination, facilitating collaboration between partners and integrating operations like joint studies, and M&E in line with Goal 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. 570 operational partnerships led to improvement in agricultural production and food security in line with goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. Public private partnerships developed with 43% infrastructural projects undertaken creating employment opportunities and improving living standards in line with Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere. Investments increased by 63% through partnership funds facilitating milk coolers and slaughter houses. Savings made when stakeholders met their own costs during implementation in line with Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all. Identified solutions are environmental resilience since screening was done with an environmental lens for projects to promote environmental awareness in line with Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

The framework of the initiative had indicators targets were aligned to those provided in national planning tools. The M&E system ensured accountability, transparency, also monitored progress and achievements against outcomes and related outputs Indicators included. ANNEX 10. The indicators were grouped into two categories: 1) INDICATORS FOR PARTNERSHIP AND COLLABORATIONS. At outcome level • % annual increase in proportion of farmers accessing public and or private agricultural services and infrastructure (by type) • % increase in funding to ASDS coordination mechanism; At output level i. How linkages between sector stakeholders improved No. and types of functional partnerships ii. Establishment of collaboration between key sector agencies and programmes No. and types of partnerships No. of sector programmes integrating operations 2) INDICATORS OF SERVICES TO POOR AND VULNERABLE Outcome level 1 increase in number and types of investments under PPP and by VC actors Output level i. Increase in number and types of investments under PPP and by VC actors No., type and coverage of infrastructure projects established under PPP No., type and coverage of projects by VC actors

Beneficiaries; Are the source of original ideas that develops challenges and opportunities. They participate in implementation and follow up; provide resources; agents of peer learning; undertake joint evaluation and beneficiaries of continual improvement. Public (Policy makers at the National and county levels ): Participate in visioning; concertizing the objectives and communicating joint vision; participate in resource mobilization; publicity and visibility; participate in mobilizing partners (Public and private) for the joint actions; documenting successes and challenges and triggering policy discussions to influence change; and capacity building. Private (Non-State Actors, Faith Based Organizations, Community based Organizations): Leverage on expertise for planning and action; facilitate change; carry out the initiative and participate in joint monitoring; resource mobilization; peer learning; capacity building; networking Civil society: Advocacy for rights of marginalized; engage in policy dialogue; capacity building; networking

Dedicated Membership: Secure commitment of members for sustainability and benefits of institutional memory; identify members whose mandates are aligned to issues at hand; leverage on experiences and competences of all members (local or international, public or private). It should not be lost that for partnerships to work, all the steps towards group formation should be adhered to through patience and tolerance. Setting up a clear vision: A good situational analysis important to identify challenges and opportunities and to develop a clear path of action. Resource mobilization model: Harness all manner of available resources i.e. material, human, financial etc. Develop bankable models that address the issues aligned to strategic goals of funding agencies; always leverage on locally available resources in line with the desire for green growth. Joint planning and monitoring: Always agree on common framework for monitoring change along with common indicators i.e. analytical framework which specifies the vision, data framework on what data to collect, evaluation framework and communication framework. Share this with partners and agree on frequency of monitoring as well as feedback mechanism. Review mission for continuous learning and implementation. The evaluation should be professional to identify constraints in all result areas and available opportunities.