This activity focused on Impact of the KDPG at the community level, both at the Coast and Machakos in terms of the development of social networks and positive externalities. Successful economic development is currently being correlated to the strengths that communities may have. Social networks facilitate access to resources in situations where markets do not function efficiently. The introduction of the KDPG in the Kwale, Kilifi and Machakos is based on a community effort.
Social capital may be defined as the diversity of networks (social) that a person, family or household (or community) belongs to, allowing access to resources, information or assistance (insurance in case of income shocks). The networks may serve different purposes. Structural adjustment programs in some developing countries motivated the formation of networks so families could deal with the problem of hunger. People's kitchens became popular in poor urban areas. In Andean societies rural communities that have strong traditions and governing rules access their "social network" to use and exchange resources and services. A strong social network allows households to access resources under market failure conditions. SR-CRSP in a Bolivian peasant community showed that the presence of networks allowed families with different levels of wealth access to similar amounts of land. Existence of a strong social network also resulted in the construction of facilities, irrigation systems, tap water in the community reducing risk and improving the quality of life. Access to information was also instrumental in seeking funding for development projects for this rural community.
The approach that we use is development of case studies documenting past community efforts, and requirements introduced by the small scale multiplication effort not in place before. Some have been more successful than others in promoting cooperative actions and this will be analyzed, taking into account their history, social relations, economic base and demographic characteristics. Information is currently being collected on non-market mechanisms to access resources. Pass-on of the KDPGs, funding mechanisms for various related activities, and degree of participation will be documented.
Criteria for evaluation was the development of case studies based on the five cluster to characterize the positive externalities of the pass on, and the importance of networks and social capital in the success of the multiplication efforts.
Progress
Impact of the KDPG at the community level in terms of the development of social networks and positive externalities: PRAs and Actor Oriented Research. It is important to note that this research captures the perceptions of the farmers.
Participatory Rural Appraisals
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 were implemented. In response to concerns expressed about the poor performance of the KDPG technology on the farms in the Machakos site, two PRAs were implemented in the site in the third week of December 1995. The purpose, to facilitate a common understanding among farmers, KARI/SR-CRSP researchers, and extensionists about causes of poor performance. Standard PRA procedures were used with minor adaptations. PRAs were also conducted at the Coast, especially at the Kilifi cluster. During the second week of July 1996, KARI/SR-CRSP researchers and members of the local extension service conducted a PRA among farmers within the Kilifi cluster, at different levels of the organization.
Social Networks and Community Perceptions
Field work conducted during June July and August at all clusters, with actor oriented approach has been completed. See technical report TR-MU-1 "Of Goats Groups and Gender". Main findings on the pass on and community networks are the following:
Social networks are an integral part of the KDPG. In the case studies it became very clear that each group interpreted differently the purpose of the group, and goals. Vuga is closest to the initial objective for creating the groups, and has the past experience of members belonging to HPI. Kitanga has been the most creative with the group, using it as a means for uniting them for other projects as well as creating an ethic that secures that in the end all members will have a goat. Kilifi and Kimutwa are still trying to find a position for the group in their communities.
Each group however, seems to require a certain impetus to ensure its survival. However too much intervention is also not good, as is seen in Kilifi, to the degree that some members did not believe the goats really belonged to the group. It is interesting and important to note that each group has fostered new networks in their communities. It is crucial for any new research to be able to gauge exactly how important the existing networks are for future pass-on systems. Further research will be done in 1996-1997 with the information gathered and the resource management labor and gender questionnaire which captured information on networks. The groups have provided some members with an opportunity to learn about goats and how to organize themselves.
Cohesion is important and it is something all the groups lack. There was very little (or no) collective history in the groups. Most of the information that members provide on the functioning of the groups was sparse. Both cohesion and social networks require some time. All the clusters are very young in this sense, and have not established themselves to cultivate networks that may assist with the pass on system. The PRAs described above were in this sense very important. Although they were meant to get information from the farmers, they also served as a venue for them to meet. In other words, time and opportunities to interact are important elements in making the pass-on system a success.
Active participation and contact with leaders, may this be through extension or from within the group, may have a positive effect as was experienced by the Vuga cluster. On the other hand, in the Kilifi cluster the same active participation resulted in a sense of the goats not belonging to the farmers. The contact that brings with it information about the goats and the groups was a positive effect on the Vuga cluster.
The case studies show that each group has a distinct dynamic. The biggest difference seems to be the level of interaction group members have with each other. The group that has performed better in terms of pass-on is also the one with most contact among members. An objective of the pass on set up by the project was to use the group as a mean of social control to ensure care of the goats. Though the concept is good, groups limited contact, could not build social networks to enforce this form of control. The groups were much too young, and although the farmers are in the same area and know each other, more opportunities are required to build social networks. These are very important in a system like the pass on, but little attention has been given so far to mechanisms for building them.
It is clear that the direct interaction between the farmers in the group and the people from the project is very important. The group with the most face to face contact with the project has the highest pass on rates (Vuga). The groups with little interaction have lower rates of success (Kitanga and Kimutwa). In the Kilifi cluster, too much intervention has created a sense of not belonging, ambivalent results.
Delay in passing on does is one of the major constraints identified by some clusters. This may be attributed to lack of social control, little pressure exists to avoid goat deaths. It may also be attributed to high mortality in previous years, and higher male kidding rates and abortions.
Two general questions drive this research activity that we will continue to pursue in 1997:
a. How does the KDPG pass-on contribute to the development of social capital? b. How does the existence of social capital (presence of networks, other group organizations, active leaders in the community) contribute to the success of the KDPG multiplication effort through the pass-on system?
Our hypothesis is that differences in existence and strength of social networks and leadership in the community will be correlated to the level of success of the clusters; the higher the social capital the most successful the cluster will be in the pass-on and seeking assistance when problems arise. Extended families, ethnic groups, presence of community organizations to improve infrastructure are forces that can contribute to social capital formation. It is also important to discern if the success of the pass on is related to more or continuous presence of extension and research personnel at the household, training opportunities, education level, or other income generating opportunities. Therefore non governmental organization's work with livestock, especially small ruminants and pass on systems will be studies further.
References
W. Thomas Conelly and Miriam S. Chaiken, 1993. "Inequality and Gender in the Control of Resources in Agropastoral Systems: The Luo and Luhya of Western Kenya, presented at the International Association of Women in Development, October. Washington D.C. Organized Panel on Gender and Livestock.
Boserup, Esther. 1990. "Economic Change and the Roles of Women ". Economic & Demographic Relationships in Development. Johns Hopkins University Press.
[Back to Annual Report 96 Contents]
[Continue to KDPG Training etc.]