Over the past ten years, the project set out to introduce fish culture as a rural economic activity. In its drive for improved availability of fish and increased incomes for the rural population, the project focused on the introduction and dissemination of fish farming technologies for freshwater finfish (tilapia and Clarias) with considerable support services being provided by LBDA. These new technologies attempted to reverse the trend of decreasing fish supply to the local population due to decreasing production for the local market by Lake Victoria fisheries. They would also make fish available to markets distant from traditional fish production areas.
In 1995, the Technical Review Mission concluded that, after ten years of assistance, fish farming was being established in Western Kenya and that significant progress was made towards developing a self-sustaining, profitable industry. The Mission observed that thousands of farmers constructed ponds which were supplied with fingerlings from seven fry production centres and from several private fingerling producers and that fish farmers were not only growing fish as a protein source, but were also more interested in the profits and increases in income. However, the mission also concluded that sustainability of the action was not ensured. It observed that there has never been a socio-economic study on the impact of the activities nor has there been a marketing study.
Generally, fish farming project implementation involves the choice between two policies: (i) try to reach the resource poor, or (ii) focus on technology development. The approach of the project has been technology driven and it has been demonstrated that those projects which are based on delivery of technical inputs have poor sustainability (Harrison 1994). In his socio-economic analysis of aquaculture in East Africa, Kumar (1996) observed that the present state of aquaculture is facing the problem of lack of sustainability due to primarily social, cultural, psychological and economic aspects. These factors have emerged as constraints mainly because they were ignored in the planning and introduction of the programme. Inadequate understanding of the ground realities and conditions at the farmer level may impede further aquaculture development efforts. It has been recognized that socio-economic factors play an important role in the pace of development and that understanding these factors and incorporating them in the development of extension methodologies is vitally important (Sen 1995).
It becomes evident that, if attaining sustainability of fish farming activities in the project area is the main objective, the intervention strategy of the project needs to be reviewed. Adequate fish farming promotion and consolidation policies should be viewed in the context of the socio-economic and cultural setting of small scale fish farming. Knowledge on specific variables that condition this setting has to be obtained through action oriented investigations. The objectives of the studies, to be conducted in the first year of the third phase of the project, is to generate adequate knowledge to formulate action programmes for the consolidation phase.
Understanding the socio-economic characteristics of farmers is essential in order to answer the question as to whether they are likely to adopt and sustain fish farming in their efforts to ensure food security and income generation. These characteristics may include age, education, household size, household decision making, income, access to land and credit, etc.
The importance of fish in people's diets and of fish farming for the household's income generation are determining factors in the assessment of sustainability of the activity. This needs to be assessed through analysing the nutritional characteristics at the household level, as well as characteristics of the farming system. Protein sources and intake are important factors for assessing the nutritional value of fish. Fish farming itself needs to be viewed in the context of the integrated and multi-crop systems that are being practiced. It has been observed that small scale farmers tend to diversify farming practices by cultivating several cash and subsistence crops in order to spread risks. For many fish farmers, fish as a cash crop is often secondary to other traditional or more profitable crops. However, in combination with livestock, poultry, wet rice culture, etc., fish farming offers economic opportunities between harvests and for integrated farming practices. It is important to assess primary and secondary occupations of the farmers as well as different crops cultivated, their interrelationships and their relative shares in the household's income.
Equally important are community levelling mechanisms and intra-household allocation of resources (Sen 1995). Levelling mechanisms are social pressures and obligations that may limit individuals in advancing economically beyond their defined social roles in a community. Gender is an important factor determining allocation of resources within a household. Where fish farming is more cash oriented, the decision to take up fish farming is often made by the household head, more often than not male, whereas women are more often responsible for the nutritional well-being of the household. The division of labour within a household has serious implications for extension services in addressing the needs of the target group.
Fish farmers' motivations and priorities are not the least important factors determining the sustainability of fish farming practices in the project area. They will also influence the probability of fish farmers likelihood of adopting such practices to maximize on profitability or as a means to supplement incomes and to spread risks. The decision to invest capital, time and labour in fish farming is based on what farmers consider to be the comparative advantages of fish culture. Factors that influence this decision may be diverse economic opportunities, effective marketing channels, and perceived scarcities. In the project region, where population density is high and land scarce, land used for fish farming may have alternative uses. Potentials for increased incomes are therefore carefully weighed against other possibilities. Fish farming is therefore more likely to be successful and sustainable in high potential areas. It may also occur that idle land, not suitable for cultivating other crops, is found suitable for fish farming. The comparative advantage of fish farming will then become clear. In maximizing economies of scale, the farmers' attitudes towards shared ownership and associations and cooperatives are important issues. It has been observed that farming practices in the project area are highly individual and shared ownership of assets very uncommon. An assessment of farmers' motivations to associate with others, and to what extent, is important to determine a proper intervention strategy.
Sustainability of the intervention is not likely to be attained without the participation of fish farmers in the planning and development of adequate action programmes. Farmers' motivation and priorities, their problems and requirements are yet to be properly assessed. The farmers' perception of successful aquaculture may differ substantially from the donor's or government's perception of a successful aquaculture project. Increased production and incomes, better nutrition, employment opportunities may be the guiding objectives for the project, whereas farmers may decide to enter into fish farming for other reasons. In order for the intervention to be sustainable, it is indispensable that the farmers' motivations and priorities are reflected in the project's approach and activities. A dynamic interaction, with two way communication between target group and project is needed.
It has been demonstrated that the impact of fish production on household food security and income is generally higher for the least productive farmers, and that women play an active part in pond management although they would not be pond owners (Harrison 1994). Yet, interaction between project and farmers generally takes place through more visible and vocal farmers that tend to have better access to resources and have a respected reputation within the community and hence training and extension are directed towards such male pond owners. To ensure that resource-poor members of the community do participate in the planning of action programmes, it is important to gain access to a broad cross-section of the community (Noble 1994).
However, it has also been observed that key-farmers (those with access to resources and respected among fellow-farmers) play an important role as role models and leaders in disseminating information on fish farm techniques to other farmers. Thus, spin-off effects in encouraging other farmers to take up fish farming may be substantial, although this has never been investigated. The organization of field days, where fish farmers in the area gather at the farm of one of the key-farmers, is highly appreciated. The extent of the information exchange that takes place and the mechanisms involved, needs to be studied.
The socio-economic factors influencing fish farming and therefore determining relevant intervention strategies, need to be assessed using appropriate methodologies for effective generation of adequate information and to stimulate farmers' participation in the planning process. The study programme, set out below, contains three elements: a formal questionnaire survey; participatory rural appraisal; and specific topic investigations.
The need to assess the impact of more than ten years of project intervention has been stressed on various occasions by evaluation and formulation missions. The Technical Review Mission recommended the conduct of a socio-economic baseline study that would characterize the farming systems where fish farming is practised, emphasizing the importance of fish farming at the farm level and at the regional level. Such a study would identify the expansion potential, mainly in the field of incomes generation.
Thus this study programme element combines the proposed impact and baseline studies, since it is anticipated that an impact study would generate sufficient quantitative baseline information. Three possible strategies for assessing the effects of specific project interventions have been discussed (Leendertse el al 1994).
The first strategy entails conducting a baseline household survey of pre-project conditions and then conducting further surveys to measure longitudinal changes in the incomes and living conditions of the target population during and after the project. Although baseline surveys provide useful initial information on the socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the target group as well as information of the project area and environment to make it possible to design specific project interventions, there are serious disadvantages in using baseline survey data for project impact assessment. The objectives and activities as well as the target group of development projects are not static but undergo changes as the project is being implemented and at the same time its interactions with its environment also change. This strategy does not consider changes in living conditions and incomes that can not be attributed to project interventions. Furthermore, a baseline survey of specific households conducted prior to or at the beginning of a project might become obsolete in the light of changes and project revisions which take place later on.
A second strategy for impact assessment is to conduct a single, cross-sectional household survey at the end of a project or a few years after its completion which asks objective and subjective questions about changes in respondents' incomes and living standards. The objective questions can gather data for a comparison of the incomes and expenditures of project beneficiaries with other population groups. In addition, respondents can be asked to evaluate change.
A third strategy is to seek the views of local experts, government officials and leaders through in-depth or informal surveys. The data gathered may be biased and evaluators will have to interpret the information after interviewing a cross-section of the key informants.
It is proposed that, for the purpose of this programme element, the second strategy should be followed, keeping in mind that the view of key-informants need to be considered in the interpretation of the data. No baseline study was carried out at the beginning of the project and therefore no reference data exist. However, it is expected that this impact study will generate useful information that can assist in planning project activities in the consolidation phase and serve as reference data later on.
The survey will compare the living standards, income generation and expenditures of project beneficiaries with those of a control group of non-fish farming households that live under similar socio-economic and environmental conditions but have not benefitted from the project. Both groups of households will be studied on their demographic and nutritional status, for which household size and composition, eating habits and children's weight, height and vaccination records are important indicators. In assessing the nutritional status, the importance of fish in people's diets and its contribution to protein intake will be investigated. In the context of multi-crop or integrated farming, the importance of fish farming in the household's income will be assessed by estimating the production and revenues from different crops and livestock, as well as other income generating activities within the household. It will also be important to appraise primary and secondary occupations, not only in terms of income but also in terms of time dedicated to these occupations. In comparing the two groups of households, it should be possible to tentatively assess the impact of fish farming on the relative household living conditions, for which housing conditions, and productive and non-productive assets ownership may be indicators. It is also important to compare information on consumption and expenditure patterns.
In order to obtain quantitative information on the target group, a general profile of the fish farmer based on social characteristics may be extracted from information on sex, age structure, education level, marital status, ethnicity, religion, etc. It is also considered important to assess the role and position of the fish farmer within the household, for which decision making patterns and assignment of household tasks could serve as indicators.
The beneficiaries' appreciation of project performance in terms of assistance and benefits received and efficiency of the project assistance may be assessed by rating the project performance on the modes of intervention the project has employed over the last ten years. These interventions may include technical advice, credit supply in cash and kind, field days organization, etc.
To assess the sustainability of the project's impact and to make use of the information that will become available, consideration should be given to repeat the study at the end of the consolidation phase, possibly after a three year interval after completion of the project. Necessary provisions for this will have to be made in the project proposal for the next phase.
Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) is often perceived as an efficient and effective response to costly and time-consuming formal surveys (Upton and Dixon 1994). In this context, it is viewed as a method to acquire information through a variety of tools in a systematic and semi-structured manner by a multi-disciplinary team. Generally, it is recognized that PRA requires the active participation of local people. However, there is more to it than just participation. PRA, characterized by close communication and in-depth discussions with the farmers, can be complementary to other methodologies, in the sense that it generates information that cannot be obtained otherwise and it is therefore widely used for the identification of appropriate technologies and development interventions. Other than an information acquisition method, PRA also involves dynamic interaction with farmers and it can therefore be instrumental in initiating processes that are inherently flexible and adaptable.
The interventions of the project, if they are to be sustainable, must be based on a thorough understanding of the fish farmer's household objectives and needs, and the opportunities and constraints. In addition to a review of published statistics and other secondary material, the analysis of the farming system includes informal field surveys based on discussions with the target group. To ensure the participation of the fish farmers in planning of project interventions in the consolidation phase, a two-way flow of information is essential. Supplemented by the formal questionnaire survey, this process will lead directly to the formulation of project activities.
In PRA, a small multi-disciplinary team applies a variety of informal methods, amongst which some of the best-known are semi-structured interviews, group discussions, mapping and modelling, and scoring. In semi-structured interviews, the PRA team and a group of key informants describe local situations and jointly analyze key issues. Apart from generating information, group interviews enhance general discussions with and amongst farmers. Farmers are in a position to sketch useful maps of resource type, land use and access, market availability, etc. Farmers can also prepare models of bio-resources and other flows in their farming systems. Through scoring, farmers assist in assessing the impact of the project by multi-criteria ranking of project interventions and assistance. Information acquisition and analysis take place concurrently during field work in an inter-disciplinary manner. One important feature of PRA is the accelerated learning process, with the accent on flexibly orienting the discussion as understanding grows of the issues involved.
To initiate this process, an assessment of farmers' motivation to take up fish farming and the priorities involved is essential. In the discussions, problems confronted by the farmers and specific requirements for fish farming need to be addressed. This is important for a thorough understanding of the mechanisms in integrated and multi-crop farming. In this context, farmers may be asked to elaborate on different land uses and availability and uses of bio-resources. For a proper perception of the farming system, alternative productive activities, their interrelationships, and their estimated contribution in food and income to the household, needs to be assessed.
Topics of specific interest for the next phase of the project are the farmers' attitudes towards individual and shared ownership, and their appreciation of associations with other farmers and cooperatives. Lessons may be learned from the experiences with other cooperatives that are already in existance, such as those for cotton, tea, or coffee.
It has been observed that the effects of small scale fish farming will be experienced differently by different household members. Generally, women are considered responsible for the household's nutritional well-being, whereas men tend to be more interested in the commercial aspects of fish farming. It is therefore important to gain an insight in intra-household issues, such as gender roles and household decision making processes. In this context, it is essential to assess the access to resources and (informal) credit for the household as a whole and for individual household members. The PRA team may wish to consider the importance of timing and location of meetings, as well as the composition of the team, in order to reach the target group.
Of specific interest to the project concerning extension services and information dissemination, are the dynamics within the fish farming community regarding information exchange between fish farmers and possible spin-off effects to other farmers. It has been observed that information from fellow farmers may be an important motivation for farmers to take up fish farming. Equally important for sustainability of the project interventions are the mechanisms for fingerlings supply and feeds production and distribution.
In this context and to assess the impact of the project, the rate of dependency of fish farmers on inputs and technical advice from the LBDA fish culture and fry production centres may be addressed. The fishfarmers may also be requested to rank the project's activities and its performance on a scoring table.
Privatization or commercialization of fry production centres and of feed production, and its consequences for extension services
In the current set-up, the fry production centres are not likely to be able to sustain their activities and extension services. In fact, it was noticed at visits to the centres during this interim period that activities were suspended because of the lack of operational funds. Although the centres had been handed over to LBDA, no provisions had been made to allow for continued fingerling production activities or for extensionists to travel. This experience is not unique for aquaculture development programmes that have been supported through external funding. Government involvement in fingerling production and extension activities is often hampered by the lack of sufficient human and financial resources. In Madagascar, privatization of fingerling production has been successfully introduced and efforts are made to privatize extension services, based on the assumption that private fingerling producers have an interest in an efficient extension system (van den Berg 1994). In the project area, farmer to farmer fingerling supply has been encouraged, so that the role of the centres could become limited to quality maintenance. An increased fingerling production by farmers and information exchange has been observed.
Two alternative scenarios need to be assessed for their feasibility and the consequences they would have for the extension services: privatization of the farms, which would possibly be to the detriment of extension services that would then have to be taken over; or commercialization of the activities and ensuring the support of extension and technical officers through profits made by the farms, and profit sharing with the farm manager.
Cost-benefit analysis
The Technical Review Mission recommended that support be provided to interested farmers in the building up of fish farm enterprises. It stated that, in order to obtain a regular monthly income, fish farmers should have several ponds of 300–500 m2. However, the mission also observed that there has never been a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). CBA can be applied to measure the impact of an investment on three levels: financial, economic and social CBA (Kuyvenhove and Mennes 1988). For the purpose of this study, the micro-level financial analysis is applied and can be viewed as an indicator of farm performance. The analysis uses discounting to reduce a series of annual cash flows to a single measure of present value (Upton and Dixon 1994).
In the framework of integrated farming or multi-crop farming, the CBA of fish farming can only be seen as a partial analysis. The analysis of total farm cost-benefit ratio needs to take into account the other crops and their interrelationships. It has also been observed that indicators of economic efficiency may be problematic as individuals within farming families often give varying estimates of cash output for the farm (Noble 1994). The analysis therefore requires that all household members are consulted. Problems may also occur in estimating cash values for farm products and activities which do not normally involve cash (family labour, recycled bio-resources, home consumption, etc.). Simple methods of valuation, which are meaningful to farmers need to be identified.
Marketing conditions and structure
There is a general impression that there is sufficient demand in interior markets, and even close to the lake, especially in times of scarcity of captured fish, for a substantial increase in production of cultured fish. However, in Nandi, where population density is relatively low and fish farmers tend to be settlers from other districts, signs have been observed that local markets tend to be satisfied, especially during times when harvesting of cultured fish is carried out by too many farmers at the same time or when there is high production from the lake. In this connection, it was noted by the Technical Review Mission that markets for cultured fish have never been properly assessed.
The marketing conditions and structure study will focus on understanding the market for cultured fish in the project area. The structure of outlets and distribution channels will be assessed and supply and demand mechanisms studied. It will also analyze price fluctuations over time and differences between markets. The marketing infrastructure will also be assessed.
Existing information on markets and outlets may be contained in project documents and other published material. The study will therefore commence with a literature review. This information may guide the socio-economist in the setting-up of the marketing study. It is then recommended that market mechanisms be analyzed in different local markets at different distances from the lake to assess the market absorption capacity and supply structures. Other distribution channels (on-farm, retailers, market traders, etc.) also need to be studied. A detailed study work plan and approach will be formulated by the socio-economist, who may require consultancy services for the implementation of the study, in consultation with the NPC.
In the initial phase of the project, project management did set up a database to monitor the impact of project activities on quantifiable indicators, such as numbers of fish farmers, operational ponds, surface area, production, feeds, etc. However, after some time the project failed to maintain the database. Furthermore, the quality of data entered and thus the information the database provided, has been open to question. At a later stage, the database was reactivated but to no durable effect. It has been stressed that these types of statistics indicate very little because of questionable data reliability, as well as unclear relationship to objectives such as food security (Harrison 1994). To monitor the project's progress, it is therefore imperative to identify other indicators that would allow project management to evaluate the activities in relation to its objectives.
More meaningful qualitative indicators have been recommended. It has been observed that several ponds tend to be neglected when project assistance is suspended. Therefore the indicator that fish farming practices have become established, should be visible maintenance of ponds as well as availability of cultured fish in local markets.
To assess the effectiveness of farmer to farmer extension services and self supporting production practices, the interaction between farmers in terms of information exchange and fingerling supply, needs to be closely monitored. The quality of fingerlings will be guaranteed through regular control checks and corrective action by the LBDA centres.
Market dynamics will be monitored through regular reporting on price developments of feeds and cultured fish in local markets. Quantitative turn over in markets can be assessed by random visits to local markets at regular (monthly) intervals.
It has been observed that key fish farmers tend to keep accurate records of inputs and sales, as well as the quantity of fish used for home consumption. These records may become valuable sources of information to monitor the development of farm performance.
The socio-economic study programme, as drawn up in this report, will be implemented under the overall supervision of the CTA, in close collaboration with the NPC. For each of the programme elements, an implementation framework will be established, for which the modalities need to be specified.
This programme element will be implemented under the overall responsibility of the project's socio-economist, who will also take responsibility for reporting on the results of the study and recommendations, based on his/her interpretations.
The conduct of this programme element involves several logical steps (an implementation strategy has been outlined in the project document). A tentative time frame of activities is presented in table 1. It is recommended that as a first step, all available information on socio-economic aspects in the project area will be reviewed. This information may be contained in project documents as well as in reports and documentation of other projects and organizations (2 weeks). The information extracted will set the stage for the study of the topics mentioned above. It will also provide guidance in the design of a questionnaire, which will contain the questions to be addressed to respondents, grouped in relevant sections to allow for easy recording of the answers, as well as in data coding. A manual will guide the enumerators through the various sections of the questionnaire. It is advisable that five enumerators with experience in similar studies will be approached, who will be trained by the socio-economist for the purpose of this study (total 3 weeks).
It is important that a representative sample will be drawn randomly, on the basis of local farmers lists, from project beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries. In view of the costs and duration of the study, as well as the anticipated output, it is estimated that a total sample of 500 potential respondents be approached. Following a detailed sampling strategy, based on localisations, stratifications and fish farming practices, an appeal will be made through the extensive network of LBDA extensionists, who will also be instrumental in contacting the sampled respondents (1 week). After the enumerators' training and instruction, and establishing the sampled population, the questionnaire will be tested in the field in non-selected locations, and subsequently adapted (1 week).
Five experienced enumerators, under the supervision and guidance of the socio-economist will collect the data in the field. The duration per interview should not exceed 30 minutes, which is realistic in view of the amount and type of information to be gathered. Including travel time (dispersed farmers and random sampling will inflate the travel time needed) and introductions to village authorities and respondents, it is anticipated that 5 interviews per day per enumerator is the maximum to be attained. Consequently, 20 working days, or 4 weeks, will be needed to reach the sampled population. During data collection, the socio-economist is expected to design a codebook and codeforms for easy processing of the data, as well as input screens that will have the same format as the codeforms (total 2 weeks).
The actual data coding on the forms will be done by the enumerators. It follows from experience that per day, a maximum of 20 interviews per enumerator can be coded. Coding will therefore take 1 week. On the assumption that two computers will be available for data inputting, and 40 interviews can be processed per day, inputting will take 7 working days. Together with coding and input instructions, and a standard check and rectifications, the total estimated duration will be 4 weeks.
The socio-economist may need four weeks to process and analyze the data according to the requirements of the information to be furnished. The analysis will include descriptive analyses (distribution of frequencies, basic statistics) and interpreting analyses (cross-tabulations, classifications, multi-variance analyses). The report (3 weeks) will contain an introduction to the study, with a description of the methodology and approach, presentation of the results of the analysis and interpretations, and recommendations for the project proposal for the consolidation phase.
Considerations
It has been noted that extensive experience in the conduct of socio-economic baseline studies exists in the socio-economics department of Kenya Marine Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI) - Kisumu branch. Technical officers in that department have been found available to participate in the implementation of the impact and baseline study. However, modalities for collaboration will have to be defined.
The demographic and nutritional information to be gathered and analyzed will necessitate the assistance of a nutritionist/demographer. It is foreseen that a national consultant will be recruited for this purpose.
By nature, PRA is a multi-disciplinary exercise. However, the project's socio-economist will be overall responsible for its implementation and for reporting on the results and recommendations. It is anticipated that the socio-economist will be assisted by a PRA expert.
Although the process is necessarily flexible and adaptable, the structured approach in conducting PRA makes it possible to programme subsequent steps. Table 1 presents a tentative time frame of activities. Secondary data can provide useful background information and it is recommended that initially, all available information be reviewed. This may coincide with the documentation review for the impact and baseline study (2 weeks). The checklist and manual, to be designed for the purpose of this programme element, will provide guidance to the team members (2 weeks). For the preparation of the manual and checklist, the team leaders may consider undertaking introductory visits to potential sites. During these visits, key stakeholders and informants may be identified.
The composition of the multi-disciplinary PRA team and a proper training in PRA techniques, as well as clear instructions and conformation of the inputs of the individual team members, are of utmost importance. Formation of the team and training sessions will take 2 weeks. Subsequently, location and timing of the meetings with fish farmers will be determined (1 week). The actual meetings with the fish farmers is estimated to take 3 weeks. During these sessions, the tools as described above will be applied. Analysing of the discussions and outputs will be done in the field by the team, and findings will be reported to the team leaders. The socio-economist and the PRA expert will then analyze the results and formulate action programmes and recommendations (2 weeks). Some recall visits will be undertaken randomly to the various locations, after which new meetings will be organized with the participants and key informants, to discuss and adapt the action programmes (3 weeks).
In the final report, the socio-economist is expected to summarize the results of the analysis and, supplemented by information from the impact and baseline study, formulate detailed action programmes to be incorporated in the project document for the consolidation phase.
Considerations
Project staff are not experienced in PRA techniques. On the other hand, it has been noticed that several organizations have implemented PRA exercises in the project area, particularly NGOs that are experienced in community development and target group participation in development planning. CARE Kenya and OSIENALA have been approached and it was found that they are willing to participate in the implementation of the PRA for the purpose of this project. However, modalities of collaboration will have to be determined.
District technical officers and extensionists of LBDA are considered well-trained and have close contacts with activities at the fish farm level. Use should be made of their extensive network for the implementation of the PRA. It is foreseen that LBDA technical staff will be trained in PRA techniques, for which CARE Kenya has expressed willingness to cooperate, which is of utmost importance not only for the purpose of the study, but also to provide a professional basis to the approaches used by them in their day-to-day contact with the fish farmers.
The project's socio-economist will have overall supervision for the implementation of this programme element as well. However, for the technical conduct of the investigations, he/she may have to rely on inputs from national consultants. Liaison with the socio-economics department of KMFRI, where experience in marketing studies exists, is recommended.
It is anticipated that the specific topic studies will be implemented in parallel to the other programme elements. Detailed work plans for the implementation needs to be established by the socio-economist in consultation with the NPC and other parties.
It has been common practice in the second phase of the project that technical officers debrief to project management monthly on the activities in their districts. These debriefing sessions may become instrumental in monitoring the project's progress based on the indicators mentioned above. The technical officers, being trained in techniques of participatory appraisal for the implementation of the PRA, may collect relevant information through random visits to farms and markets and report on the progress made in their districts to project management. Project management may then compile monthly progress reports, to be consolidated in the six-monthly progress reports to FAO, based on these inputs from technical officers. Standard report outlines may need to be designed.
Impact and baseline study
| week | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| activity | |||||||||||||||||||||
| exisiting data review | |||||||||||||||||||||
| design questionaire and manual | |||||||||||||||||||||
| sampling | |||||||||||||||||||||
| formation of survey team | |||||||||||||||||||||
| instruction and training | |||||||||||||||||||||
| testing and adapting questionaire | |||||||||||||||||||||
| design codebook and forms | |||||||||||||||||||||
| design input screens | |||||||||||||||||||||
| data collection | |||||||||||||||||||||
| data coding and input | |||||||||||||||||||||
| standard check | |||||||||||||||||||||
| data processing and analysis | |||||||||||||||||||||
| report writing |
PRA
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | |
| activity | |||||||||||||||||||
| exisiting data review | |||||||||||||||||||
| design checklist and manual | |||||||||||||||||||
| sites visits | |||||||||||||||||||
| formation of PRA team | |||||||||||||||||||
| instruction and training | |||||||||||||||||||
| identify key stakeholders | |||||||||||||||||||
| select locations | |||||||||||||||||||
| organize group discussions | |||||||||||||||||||
| analyze information | |||||||||||||||||||
| recall visits | |||||||||||||||||||
| discussion action progammes | |||||||||||||||||||
| report writing |
The total duration of the impact study and PRA programmes would thus be forty weeks. Some overlap in activities may be expected, whereas the specific topic investigations may be conducted in parallel. It is therefore estimated that action programmes be formulated and included in a revised proposal for the consolidation phase within one year from the start of the third phase.
The project document for the consolidation phase is subject to review by a tripartite (Government of Kenya, FAO and BSF) mission. It is recommended that, simultaneously, the results of the study programme be discussed and the proposed strategies be examined in a workshop, gathering representatives from all parties involved (participants in the programme, stakeholders), as well as other relevant and interested institutions (projects, donors, universities, NGOs). A provision has been made in the budget for the study programme.
