Annual Report SR-CRSP SOCIOLOGY

Kenya Dual Purpose Goat Component (KDPG)

II Research

Activity II: The KDPG Impact Assessment Monitoring Survey

The objectives of the impact assessment monitoring survey were to capture farm level information and to use it to assess the various aspects of the socio-economic impact of the KDPG technology on low income farm households in Kenya. This is approached through monthly farm visits to complement the weekly visits of the Production Systems component. As with the baseline, the instruments, described in last year's annual report were applied to participating and non participating farmers to assess changes that take place, and how these are related to the introduction of the KDPG.

All the monitoring instruments were prepared and first applied in August 1994, in the Machakos area. These were a monthly questionnaire (consumption, sales and prices), an output questionnaire (uses after harvest, two times a year), an input questionnaire (twice a year), and an agricultural questionnaire (six times, at planting, harvesting, and in-between seasons). The information being collected in five clusters of farmers will be used to assess the economic impact of KDPG technology generation on farm income, division of labor and relative welfare of people per gender and age, impact on the farming system, flexibility of the KDPG package, and externality effects.

Progress

Data collection started in the Katumani site in October/November, 1994. In the ninth month of data collection at the Katumani site, 37 out of 40 farms (92.5%) had been interviewed concerning input questionnaires and 33 out of the same 40 farms (82.5%) had been interviewed using output questionnaires. Similarly, during the same period, 154 out of the 180 forms (85.6%) had been applied with respect to the bi-monthly questionnaire on agricultural operations. This was quite a successful operation; however, the more regular monthly interviews were not equally successful. Indeed, of the 360 interviews to be carried out during the same period, only 148 (41%) were done. This short-coming would be attributed, to a large extent, to the irregular flow of operational funds during the study period. Once the SR-CRSP funds were finished at the end of 1994, we had to rely on the NARP/MIAC funds. The new financing procedures took time to be effective.

There was almost total crop failure during the long rains 1994 season, as in the preceding two seasons. This contributed to the slippage we incurred by way of unavailability of responsible persons present on the farms during our visits (most would be away seeking means of sustenance).

All surviving KDPG kids on the first ten farms in the two Machakos clusters had grown and attained the stage at which they could be passed on to the next group of farmers on the waiting list. In the Kimutwa cluster, a meeting attended by all the twenty farmers in the cluster was held in August 1994. It was resolved at this meeting that each of the five farmers on the waiting list would receive one of the five female kids from the first batch of farmers, instead of waiting for the full compliment of two. Thus, the number of farmers with the KDPG in Kimutwa rose to ten. This was considered to be good for the morale of the farmers in the waiting list. The same process was repeated in the Kitanga (Mua Hills settled area) cluster. Here, there were only four female kids to be passed on to farmers on the waiting list. Hence, four farmers received one female kid each. The 20 farmers in each cluster formed themselves into a "club".

The farmers who had male KDPG kids were advised to decide what they wanted to do with the male kids. They could either sell them among the twenty farmers or to any other farmers within the area, as long as they were used for breeding and not for slaughter. The farmers were also left to decide on the prices.

In the Kimutwa cluster, the number of farmers with the KDPGs was reduced to nine. Three of the female kids which had been passed on to the farmers on the waiting list were lost through death, as a result of disease. The price of goat milk is still considerably higher than cow milk. The price of goat milk is KShs. 26.65/kg while that of cow milk is about KShs. 20.00/kg. None of the surviving male kids have been sold. Farmers prefer to keep the KDPG male kids for breeding purposes, to upgrade their local animals.

The number of farmers who have the KDPGs in Kitanga subsequently fell to eight. In this cluster, little selling of goat milk takes place. Most of the goat milk that is produced is fed to kids and whatever is surplus to the requirements of the kids is consumed within the household.

In Mtwapa interviews started in August 1994 and through out the period, the monitoring experienced serious disruptions. Whereas 61.4% of the interviews were carried out in August, only 35% were successfully applied in September 1994. The following month interviews covered 96.5% of the 59 participating farmers but this dropped to 52.6% in November. In December, no interviews were done. In January 1995 modest activity resumed (35.1%). The following three months (February, March and April) no instruments were applied. In May about a third were carried out (36.8%).

Over all, the Katumani site did relatively better than the Mtwapa site in data collection. Considering that both of the sites were receiving their financial support from the same source, it is evident that institutional constraints were greater in Mtwapa than in Katumani. There was a higher turnover of people. Following consultations with the management in Mtwapa, arrangements have been made to ensure more regular data collection in the future. One important measure taken is to place research assistants in both Kilifi and Kwale sites on "permanent" basis, now that funds are available. A complete set of data should be obtained by the end of January. An additional decision was to reduce the number of monthly questionnaires to a bimonthly frequency, based on the finding that these have been very consistent.

The baseline and monitoring information will be integrated to measure the impact at the household level. The areas of research being addressed using data from the impact assessment monitoring survey as well as data from production systems component are:

(a) Income generation, in cash and in kind of the KDPG enterprise and diversity of enterprises, including off-farm income.

(b) Intrahousehold allocation of resources focusing on labor and income to determine socio-economic domains of the enterprises.

(c) Flexibility of the KDPG package and the production systems as it integrates this within the farm and household economy.

The monitoring has also contributed to identify new research areas of impact of the KDPG at the community level, in terms of development of social networks and other positive externalities. A series of participatory rural appraisals (PRAs) for the purpose of improving current understanding of the social and economic mechanisms which might propel smallholder adoption decisions pertaining to KDPG technologies have been planned and are being implemented.

Among them is the Social and Economic Dimensions of the KDPG Technology at the Household, Community and Market Levels. The KDPG innovation and its supporting animal health and other management technologies are at the stage of promotion for widespread adoption country wide. These processes offer a unique opportunity for assessing social and economic implications of these processes for the various strata of the target group (smallholder low income households). This requires not only the household assessment outlined above, but also an assessment of markets, multiplication and privatization, in particular the economic and financial assessments of the moderate/commercial and small scale micro enterprise, and the impact of the upgrading multiplication strategy.