Community Parliaments make voices heard and needs felt |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Empowering end-users in agro-enterprise and value-chain development through Community Parliaments and techno-service information hubs for East Africa | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Parliaments (CPs) offer well-structured, innovative mechanisms for making local voices heard. They also improve coordination and dialogue among community groups, creating an empowering platform to steer local development. In Kenya, farmers had little access to market-chain information, and lacked basic farm inputs, labour and credit. Intermediaries, who deprived farmers of their profits, ran markets. Finally, poor infrastructure made it difficult to get farm produce to markets. Community Parliaments have helped to change this picture in four parts of Kenya, addressing these and other problems. Micro-credit is one of the important services they offer. The government, private companies, and development agencies are using CPs to reach almost 10,000 people in the four locations and the model is quickly spreading to other parts of the country. Project Ref: CPH11:
Research Programmes: RNRRS: NRIL: Crop Post-Harvest Programme (CPHP). Other sources of funding:
Relevant Research Projects: The project number was R8113 Institutional Partners
1. Community parliaments Communities lacked well-structured innovative platforms to articulate and coordinate community's needs and development programmes. Thus they neither had a strong voice to advocate and lobby for their rights nor did they have the capacity to undertake development projects. The Community Parliaments as a model (see Appendix VI) for local dialogues brought together community groups with varying activities and interests in order to develop a community empowerment platform that would steer development at local level. 2. Innovative partnerships The communities were dealing with issues as individuals or very small groups without any external partners and/or collaborators. Consequently, they had no avenues for accessing market chain information that would support the growth of their agro-businesses. After identifying needs; Community Parliaments used Innovative Partnerships Approach (need-driven partnerships) to engage key stakeholders in implementing interventions on the priority needs. 3. Innovative credit schemes Most farmers lacked the basic farm inputs during planting time and labour to harvest the produce when ready. This was mainly due to lack of pro poor credit facilities to boost horticultural production. Community Parliaments were trained on initiation and management of credit schemes. This was meant to facilitate acquisition of farm inputs by farmers through low interest credits. The systems and approaches used in the credit scheme by various Community Parliaments varied depending on their innovations. 4. Linking farmers to markets and market chain development Farmers were mainly faced with produce marketing problems. Markets were mainly run by middlemen who deprived farmers of their profits. The farmers had limited knowledge and skills to negotiate with buyers of their farm produce. KENDAT worked as an intermediary in linking farmers to markets. Horticultural produce exporting companies Like EAGA and input suppliers like Regina Seeds Ltd were linked to the Community Parliaments, which then linked them to farmer groups. Through the linkages farmers entered into written contracts to acquire inputs and sell their produce to guaranteed buyers. 5. Labour-based infrastructure development and intermediate means of transport In areas where KENDAT had community development projects, there existed poor infrastructure and limited options for intermediate means of transport for getting farm produce to the markets. To mitigate the problem, Community Parliaments were trained on how to use labour-based technologies, including the use of locally available resources, to improve transport infrastructure with a view to enhance transportation of horticultural produce to rural collection centres and markets.
The outputs mainly focused on horticultural produce and intermediate means of transport. All outputs of the project could be applied to other commodities. Livelihood support in Kenya, just like other countries in the region, is mainly through agricultural production both for subsistence and wealth creation. Farmers therefore need to produce, transport and sell commodities in order to achieve their subsistence and wealth creation objectives. Farmer empowerment platform like community parliaments, partnerships with various stakeholders, innovative credit schemes, suitable markets and appropriate means of transport are all required in order to develop a suitable market value chain. These are required not for horticultural produce but for the wide range of commodities that farmers deal with. For example the outputs can be applied in marketing of livestock products.
Community parliaments need to be more empoweredthrough training and exposure visits to various community-based projects. This ensures that they have well developed internal systems and structures for sustainability. Through such empowerment the community parliaments would be able to initiate more diverse agro-enterprises thus creating a more sustainable resource base at household levels. The model of community parliaments published and widely disseminated as a tool for community empowerment. Print and electronic media should be used to publicize the model. Access to research output and other information is crucial for poverty reduction process. Adoption of Community Parliaments Model for the purpose of enhancing access to research outputs and other market chain information by farmers is important. Thus developing innovation platforms comprising Community Parliaments, research institutions, input suppliers and produce buyers is needed. Such platforms would facilitate the flow of information that would benefit the farmers' production, transportation and marketing. KENDAT outputs on this project could be clustered with projects with the following projects: 8182, 8418, 8275, 7151, 8274, 8498, 6344, 7013, 7668, 7496, 8432, 8250, 8114, 7494, 8422, 8402, 5539, 8438, 8297 How the outputs were validated: The programme was implemented in 4 localities in Kenya, namely, Mwea, Lari, Busia and Kalama. A partnership approach was applied in all the action research activities that involved the Community Parliaments as the end users of empowerment concepts and processes. The validation of the viability and sustainability of Community Parliaments and the various innovative partnerships and community-led development initiatives had been done at various levels. The Government of Kenya (GOK) through the Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services, vets community-based groups before registering to become legal entities. Through interviewing their officials, the Community Parliaments (CPs) were vetted and approved by Community Development Assistants (CDAs) (GOK Officials) and subsequently registered. The CPs are therefore recognized by the government and legally allowed to transact business in their localities. The International Forum for Rural Transport and Development (IFRTD) in partnership with KENDAT conducted an assessment of the Community Parliaments to determine their suitability as platforms for implementation of Poverty Watch Programme that aimed at building the capacity of civil society to generate greater knowledge on issues pertinent to transport and poverty and further facilitate the initiation of projects that would influence transport sector policy. This assessment approved the CPs as appropriate Civil Society Organization's platforms for implementation of Poverty Watch Programme due to the cross cutting representation of the Common Interest Groups (CIGs). Horticultural produce Market-driven partnerships between private companies and the CPs evolved in Mwea and Busia. Prior to engagement into contracted horticultural production the CPs in these areas were taken through a 1 year pilot production phase by each of the companies that include East African Growers Association, (EAGA), Frigoken Ltd. Kenya Horticultural Exporters (KHE) and Mace Foods Ltd. During this period the companies closely monitored the farmer groups' production process to particularly assess the viability of the contracted farming system. They have now approved the CPs in these areas as suitable for engagement in contracted horticultural farming. Value chain analysis meetings were held between KENDAT and the CPs in the 4 localities to establish the benefits acquired from contracted farming system as compared to non-contracted system. The farmers in the CPs being the end users have accepted and adopted contract system as a preferred approach for market development because it is more beneficial than the non-contracted broker dominated system. An increase in the number of farmer groups entering into contractual farming was observed in Mwea and Busia. Innovative credit schemes were initiative in the four areas with a view to assist the small holder farmers enter into profitable business-oriented agro-enterprises. The schemes have been evaluated annually by KENDAT and a growth trend of the schemes has been observed over a period of 4 years. This initiative has also been tested by other NGOs including Poverty Eradication Network (PEN), Farm Africa and Kenya Horticultural Development Programme (KHDP) who are currently giving the CPs more funds to boost the credit schemes portfolio. Where the Outputs were Validated: The outputs of the project were validated in 4 localities in Kenya namely Mwea, Lari, Busia and Kalama. a) Mwea in the Central Province of Kenya is on the foothills of Mt. Kenya and presents high potential and semi arid production systems. farmers here practice irrigated and small holder rainfed highland farming systems. b) Lari in the Central province of Kenya is on the foothills of Abandares Mountains and has high potential, forest-agriculture and peri-urban production systems with small holder rainfed humid and small holder rainfed highland farming systems. c) Busia in the Western Province of Kenya has high potential, peri-urban production system with small holder rainfed humid farming systems. d) Kalama in the Eastern Province of Kenya presents semi-arid, hillsides production systems with small holder rainfed highland farming systems. The processes of validation targeted the main beneficiaries of the outputs who include the members of the various CP constituent groups. They are mainly small holder peasant farmers who are in one way or another involved in cash and subsistence crop production, transportation and marketing. They also represent a crosscutting nature of social groupings including farm casual labourers, farm owners, transport services providers, local business people, single mothers and physically challenged persons. The validation involved various stakeholders including the government, NGOs and Private companies (see above) and has been done at varying dates between the years 2003 and 2006. Who are the Users? The outputs are being used by; a) Community The community is using the CPs as agro-enterprise development platforms that also serve to address other community problems. Through the CPs innovative partnerships with private institutions including input suppliers like Regina Seeds Ltd, Zuzuka Ltd and produce exporting companies like EAGA, KHE, Mace Foods Ltd and Frigoken Ltd are developed. b) Private Companies Private companies use the CPs as a channel for marketing their products including farm inputs and low cost transport options like motorcycles trailers from Zuzuka Ltd. In the CPs horticultural produce exporting companies like EAGA, KHE, Mace Foods Ltd and Frigoken Ltd have found organized farmers who they have contracted to produce commodities such as French beans and Chillies for export markets. c) The Government The government is using the CPs to reach out to more farmers with extension services including information and technical training. For example the Agricultural Extension Officers in the Ministry of Agriculture use the CPs to implement National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme (NALEP) that seeks to empower small holder farmers by giving them information and technical support in agricultural production. Members of the CPs have also been incorporated into committees dealing with Government funds such as Constituency Development Fund (CDF) and Local Authorities Transfer Fund (LATF). d) Development Agencies Development agencies including NGOs use the CPs as a platform to set up community development projects. NGOs like Farm Africa, KENDAT, DGAK, ICIPE, GBM and KHDP use the CPs to disseminate various farming technologies. Where the outputs have been used: The CP concept started in 4 localities in Kenya namely Mwea, Lari, Busia and Kalama and has now spread to other areas of Kenya and East African region. In Kenya, the concept has spread 42 districts due to its use by NALEP although referred to as "forums" instead of "parliaments" and Forest Conservation initiatives where they are referred to as Community Forest Associations (CFAs). Farmers in Arusha, Tanzania have adopted the CP model in Conservation Agriculture Projects implemented by KENDAT and Farm Africa. A delegation from Malawi Ministry of Agriculture and the University of Malawi in a UNIDO sponsored project that works to improve the livelihoods of widows and orphans by engaging in enhanced agricultural production and business practices visited the CPs in Kenya and have adopted the model. Under the CP platform Innovative partnerships helped develop various outputs that are being used in Kenya. Linking farmers to markets with contracted-farmer system is being used in Mwea and Busia. However, Farm Concern and KHDP are linking farmers to markets in at least 15 out 42 districts in Kenya. Low cost 2 and 3 wheeler motorcycles are now widely used for transport in Busia, Kisumu, Naivasha, Nakuru, Mwea, Eldoret, Mombasa in Kenya as a result of products promotion done by Zuzuka through the CPs. Innovative savings and credit schemes that are owned by the farmers are being implemented in Mwea, Lari, Busia and Kalama, where CP members save regularly and borrow to buy farm inputs. Scale of Current Use: The CP in Mwea has 21 CIGs with 658 individuals, Lari has 15 CIGs with 450 members, Busia has 14 CIGs with 480 members, and Kalama has 2 CIGs with 57 members, thus the 4 CPs have a total membership of 1645. An average household in Kenya has 6 members. By using CPs as platforms for various initiatives, the government, private companies, and development agencies are able to directly reach about 9870 members in the 4 localities. This is the CPs establishment over a period 4 years. Adoption of the CP model is quickly spreading to other parts of the country as illustrated above. Innovative partnerships have continued to grow over the last 4 years. For instance, in Lari the CP started with 5 partners namely KENDAT, IFRTD, ILO and ITDG (Now Practical Action) and Seracoating Ltd. It has now grown to 12 partners including Heifer International, GBM, FD, ICIPE, DGAK, GBM and Regina seeds. Establishment of micro-credit schemes took 1 year in each of the 4 localities and has to-date benefited 91 members (60 women and 31 men) with credits estimated at US$ 70 (Kshs. 5000) per member. Usage of micro-credits is spreading fast with members demanding a 50% subsequent increment of credits. Linking farmers to markets in Mwea started with 6 groups each with an average of 15 members (90 farmers). In Busia 3 groups with an average membership of 15 (45 farmers) were linked to direct market. The number of groups involved has for the last 4 years increased by 70%. The number of exporters involved in Mwea has also increased from 1 to 3 while in Busia it remained 1. Policy and Institutional Structures, and Key Components for Success: The communities across the country tend to be exist as organised CIGs including farmer groups, business people, transport service providers, single mothers etc. The current government has put in place policy guidelines that help the ongoing efforts: In her Strategy for Revitalising Agriculture (SRA - 2004-2014), an off-shoot of the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation (ERS - 2003-2007) of the current administration of the Kenya Government states under: · Output 2.4 (pp89): Legal Empowerment of Stakeholders: Activity Item 2.4.1 is: Review legislation and restructure the Commodity Boards to function as self regulatory bodies managed by stakeholders. · Output 3.1 (pp90): Responsive Research Services Developed: Activity Item 3.1.1 is: Devise modalities to institutionalise client-oriented and collaborative agricultural research and Activity Item 3.1.5 is: Strengthen modalities to facilitate farmer participation in priority setting for research stations in their areas. · Output 3.2 (pp91): Demand-Driven Participatory and Private Sector Led Agricultural Extension Established: Activity 3.2.1 is: Developing modalities for demand driven agricultural extension for dissemination of research findings and collation of research topics. · Output 3.4 (pp93): Comprehensive Agricultural Information System Established: Activity Item 3.4.1 is: Establish data base units at all Min of Ag, Min of Livstck & Fish. Dev, Min of Trspt and Min of Coop Dev, to collect, process and disseminate agricultural data for crops and livestock production and marketing. Activity Item 3.4.3 is: Promote establishment of databases at Local Authorities (LAs) to facilitate preparation and monitoring local action plans. · Output 3.7 (pp96): Quality Control Services Improved: Activity Item 3.7.2 is: Support stakeholder associations to take-up self-regulatory roles. The above policy guidelines show the government's good intentions. The extent of success however remains wanting. This is mostly because communities remain un-empowered to know of, let alone, participate in making the guidelines translate into reality interventions. A good example of what has succeeded is the establishment of CDF, LATF, HIV and other Community funds. These funds are however meant for basic infrastructure including rural roads, schools, health facilities etc. Loose policy provides for community participation in vetting and implementing projects that the funds support, within communities. An imperfect but improving operational situation of the funds is currently in place. Awareness and call for community participation in this process was done under this Output, at CPs level. This has seen some CP members elected to sit in the management Committees of these funds. International market policies have also played a role in promoting the establishment and strengthening of CPs. The EUREPGARP regulations required certain standards be met at horticultural farm level. These included construction of produce grading sheds with high levels of sanitation. These expensive ventures called for farmer cooperation, and security in numbers enhanced group formation. The key to success in this project lies in the proven approach of empowering farmers with voices and information, against which they can shield themselves from persistent poverty. Information platforms will help them make demands that challenge supply-side actors to take the development actions that the set policy guidelines were intended to address. Lessons Learned and Uptake Pathways Promotion of Outputs: The CPs in the Mwea, Lari, Busia and Kalama are undertaking various projects including horticulture farming, dairy farming, fish farming, transport services, agro-forestry, soil and water conservation and micro-credit schemes, which are serving to demonstrate the CPs potential at the grassroots. These projects have become promotion centres for the CP model and the associated outputs. The government through Ministry of Agriculture is implementing NALEP, which uses the CP model and promotes farmer credit schemes and market oriented group production. The programme holds monthly forums and the CPs are invited to promote their work. Annual stakeholder meetings conducted by CPs in each of the 4 localities bring together NGOs, Government Departments, Civil Society Organizations and private companies to demonstrate and promote the outputs. Through replication of the outputs in other areas, private companies including EAGA, KHE, Frigoken Ltd. Zuzuka Ltd. and Mace Foods Ltd and NGOs including KHDP, PA, Heifer International, GBM, FD, ICIPE, DGAK and GBM play a crucial role in promotion of the outputs. Promotion of outputs has bee done at various national and international workshops including IFRTD sponsored International meetings held in Tanzania, South Africa, India, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Peru, Uganda, and Kenya. The outputs have also been posted to websites www.kendat.org and www.ifrtd.gn.apc.org. Annual project reports including an end of project toolkit are being shared with individuals and organization at local, national and international levels. Potential Barriers Preventing Adoption of Outputs: Barriers/challenges/problems Communities faced a myriad of problems in health, water, education, transport, ad agricultural sectors. The long-time approach by the government to deal with each sector problems in seclusion has created a mindset of sector-based interventions. Thus, the holistic approach by CP model is yet to be fully understood and change people's mindsets at the grassroots. In addition, government policies have overtime influenced community perception on infrastructure development. It's perceived as government responsibility. Marketing of agricultural produce in Kenya involves middlemen (brokers) at different levels. Linking farmers directly to markets is met with a lot of opposition from these brokers. In addition, government institutions mandated to protect farmers' interests are overwhelmed by private companies' interests that involve exploiting farmers to make exorbitant profits. There are generally few innovative value-adding technologies for most agricultural produce at community level. This leaves the community with few options for innovative partnerships they can develop with various institutions. Most rural communities are de-linked from centres of information thus disempowered as far as development is concerned. Without linkages to information centres the communities are not able to adopt new development approaches and technologies. How to Overcome Barriers to Adoption of Outputs: Pro-poor community-based information systems should be set up and developed to ensure that the community has access to a wide range of information that holistically covers the various sectors of the rural economy including health, water, education, transport, and agricultural. This would help the community understand the holistic concept in dealing with community poverty issues, a crucial aspect in promoting the understanding and adoption of the CP model and the associated outputs. Community empowerment through information access is also crucial in developing innovative partnerships including those that link farmers to markets and micro-credit schemes that support initiation of agro-enterprises. The community-based information system would develop into information centres through which empowered communities learn new agro-technologies and acquire information requires to steer development at the grassroots. Poverty alleviation in Kenya is heavily dependent on smallholder viable and profitable agro-enterprises. For viability and profitability to be achieved by smallholder farmers, there is need for a concerted effort by all stakeholders to advocate and lobby for fair trade legislation and policies. Such legislation and policies should be localised, understood by the local people and used to develop local, national and international trade practices. Lessons Learned: Lessons learnt include;
Poverty Impact Studies: KENDAT has conducted a community level assessments that show farmer income based on the project outputs; 1. Impacts of Farmer Credit Schemes in Kalama, Machakos How the Poor have Benefited (including gender and other poverty groups): Farmer credit schemes were started in Kalama, Machakos in the year 2004 and their impacts assessed in the year 2006. One group, Kalama Donkey Users Club, with a membership of 39 (13 men and 26 women) was selected for the assessment. Six members (all women) took the 1st loan to purchase 6 donkeys while others bought farm inputs. Interviews conducted with the group members indicate that women using donkeys are spending 2 hours a day to fetch water for domestic use, unlike the previous situation where the whole day was spent in fetching same amount of water. Using the donkeys, the women are now making up to Kshs. 500 (US$ 7) a day by fetching and supplying water to their neighbours. On average, one donkey fetches 160 litres of water in a day from a distance of 5 kilometres. Use of donkeys in Kalama has reduced household expenditure on water and casual labour by between Kshs. 1,000 (US$ 14) to Kshs. 1,500 (US$ 21) per month. The number of donkeys purchased through the credit schemes has since increased from 6 to 17. Through the credit scheme, farmers in Kalama have been able to purchase fertilizer and hybrid maize seed resulting to a rise in yield from 2 to 6 bags/Acre. This has improved the household food security. Previously, stock lasted a few months and the farmers had to look for alternatives incomes to purchase food but are now able to sell surplus to earn some income which are used to pay school fees and medial expenses for family members. (See Appendix VIII). Direct and Indirect Environmental Benefits: Horticulture farming involves use of chemical herbicides and pesticides, which are potentially harmful to the environment. This has necessitated setting standards that farmers producing for European markets have to adhere to in order to protect the environment and the produce consumers. Farmers had to comply with these EUREPGARP regulations if they have to remain in business. Through strategic partnerships with the exporting companies like EAGA, KHE and Frigoken and NGOs like KENDAT and KHDP, farmers organized in CPs were easily trained on these requirements, collectively instituted the required actions and are now certified for European markets export. This plays a crucial role in protecting the environment through appropriate farming practices including use of right chemicals and environmental friendly farming practices like organic farming, growing of disease and pest resistance crops. Groups constituent to the CPs are directly involved in environmental conservation activities. Through innovative partnerships with GBM and Forest Department of the Ministry on Environment they raise tree seedling and plant them on their farmlands and forest reserves to safeguard the environment and rehabilitate degraded sites. In addition, the CPs have continued to serve as an appropriate platform to advocate for better environmental conservation practices, prompting some CP constituent groups to venture into diverse environmental conservation projects including wildlife conservation, fishing farming, water conservation through runoff harnessing and storage in sub-surface sand dams and surface water pans. Profitable agro-enterprises that the CP farmer groups are involved in ensure overall improvement in their economic status at household level. This has indirectly benefits to the environment in that farmers can afford alternative sources of energy like solar and hydro-electricity that are more environmentally friendly compared to use of firewood. Energy saving technologies like use of energy saving stoves and fireless cookers also become affordable to the farmers. Adverse Environmental Impacts: The CP farmers have established a profitable produce marketing system that other farmers are striving to join. This has motivated indiscriminate clearing of vegetation to open more farmlands even in areas at high risk of soil erosion. This coupled with the use of 'unaccepted chemicals' to produce for local markets (not bound by strict environmental standards) has adverse effects on the environment. In addition, the flourishing horticultural business facilitates growth of human settlement hubs that have high demand for resources like fuel wood, water, food, and housing. To meet the high demand such areas suffered environmental degradation through tree cutting and inappropriate agricultural practices. Coping with the Effects of Climate Change, or Risk from Natural Disasters: The effects of climate change in this region include prolonged dry spells, heavy downpours like El-Nino of 1997, and change in ecosystems. These effects are associated with disasters like floods and drought. The outputs out the project buffer the community from such effects in the following ways; · The CPs have adopted diverse income generating projects (IGPs) including horticulture, dairy farming, silk farming, commercial transport services, farm forestry and fish farming. The IGPs are handy during disasters in providing alternative sources of income for households. · After disasters farmers have little capacity to rehabilitate their farm-based projects. Micro-credit schemes help farmers to get back to production. · Heavy downpours and floods destroy transport and other infrastructure. Through use of labour-based technologies communities organized in CPs are able to rehabilitate such infrastructure and regain community-based operations. · Through innovative partnerships with the government, NGOs and private sector the CPs are suitable platforms for response to disasters. · The CPs have been practicing appropriate farming and land care practices including tree planting, conservation agriculture, soil and water conservation that ensure high and sustainable land productivity. This increases food production and is a suitable buffer to food shortage during drought or floods. Appendix I: List of Abbreviations
Relevant Research Projects,
with links to the
|
For relevant research projects, with links to further information
|
