Purpose and scope
The Kenya Animal Health Services Rehabilitation Programme aimed to improve
the delivery of animal health services to the large number of small livestock
owners nationwide. This was to be done through a strengthening of the
management structure of the Department of Veterinary Services (DVS) where
the institutional arrangements had remained virtually unchanged for many
decades. Considerable support for the major activities of DVS was also
to be provided by the project. The recent weakening of Kenya's economy
had put severe strains on the Government of Kenya (GOK) budget. This restricted
the monies available to DVS whose main activity, the control of major
livestock diseases, was jeopardised. The project provided considerable
support which was directed at controlling the main endemic cattle diseases,
Four international agencies contributed funds to the project. IFAD, IDA,
OPEC and UNDP. The initial IFAD appraisal projected a total project cost
of US$ 19.3 million. The final IDA/World Bank appraisal finished with
a project cost of US$ 70.5 million of which GOK agreed to contribute US$
41.52 million. Project costs were divided into 5 components (i) Disease
Control Campaigns US$ 23.9 million - 42% of investment, (ii) Tick Control
Programme US$ 21.8 million - 39% of investment, (iii) Laboratory Services
and Surveillance US$ 2.7 million - 5% of investment, (iv) Clinical Services
US$ 6.0 million - 10% of investment, (v) Pilot Trials US$ 0.3 million
- 0.5% of investment and (vi) Management and Studies US$ 1.6 million -
3% of investment.
The
Completion Evaluation mission carried out its work in Kenya from November
16th to December 9th 1994. The terms of reference for the mission emphasised
the need to make an assessment of the projects overall concepts and performance.
The mission also had to draw lessons from the projects activities and
performance and make recommendations for IFAD's future lending in Kenya.
The mission reviewed in detail Supervision Mission reports, the Mid Term
Review Report and the Completion Report done by the World Bank. Extensive
field trips and discussions with both livestock owners and DVS field staff
provided the mission with the information used to write this report.
Summary of mission findings
Review of project performance
After a detailed review of all the project components the mission concluded
that the project had performed poorly.
Delays in project start up, shortages of GOK counterpart funds, time
delays in goods and services procurement, and failure to staff adequately
and to equip the Project Management Support Unit (PMSU) all added to a
low level of project implementation. Project disbursement was very slow.
A two year extension was granted for disbursement, but even then only
51% of total projects funds were utilized.
All but one component fell far short of reaching their appraisal target.
Details are provided below.
Disease control campaign
Figures indicate that the project managed to vaccinate, on average, only
35-40% of the country's national cattle herd against the three main diseases;
Rinderpest, Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP) and Foot and Mouth
Disease (FMD). The appraisal target was 75%. This is the figure quoted
as necessary to prevent sporadic outbreaks becoming epidemics. Vaccine
shortages and a lack of field operating expenses contributed to this poor
performance.
Tick control programme
The appraisal forecast a significant increase in annual cattle dippings
from 70 million head to 95 million head over the project period. In contrast
actual animal cattle dippings fell significantly from an estimated 64
million head at project start to 14 million head at project end. As a
result tick borne disease outbreaks, particularly East Coast Fever (ECF),
increased significantly in the latter stages of the project. Livestock
owners suffered heavy losses. The dramatic rise in dipping fee charges
implemented by GOK to reflect full cost recovery, followed by a further
large increase when GOK decided to privatise dipping, brought about a
negative reaction from livestock owners. They refused to dip their cattle.
Clinical services
The ever increasing demand for individual animal treatment from Kenya's
growing number of high producing dairy cows was creating an unacceptable
burden for DVS. The project aimed to provide appropriate interventions
so that this demand could be met. At the same time a policy of reclaiming
from livestock owners the cost of individual animal treatment was included
on the project agreement. The project aim was not fulfilled. Only some
10% of the projected individual animal treatments were recorded as having
been performed. Farmer reluctance to pay vastly higher charges, non recorded
treatments carried out by Government veterinarians for some personal remuneration,
a shortage of vaccines drugs and medicines, and a complete lack of transport
for DVS staff all contributed to the low level of clinical services performed
during the project period.
Veterinary laboratories
and surveillance
Rapid and accurate disease diagnosis is vital for effective control of
major diseases. Kenya's veterinary laboratories had fallen into disrepair
and operating expenses were totally inadequate. Disease outbreaks were
not being diagnosed quickly or accurately. The project aimed to refurbish
and provide operating resources for Kenya's central and regional veterinary
laboratories. Bureaucratic delays, particularly in procurement, prevented
a rapid implementation of project proposals. There was negligible improvement
in the contribution the veterinary investigation laboratories made to
disease control during the project period.
Pilot trials
Project intervention contributed successfully to disseminating proven
methods of controlling tsetse flies from limited scientific trials to
a full scale operation. An attempt by the project to develop alternative
tick control methodology based upon threshold levels of tick infestation
and appropriate dipping intervals was not implemented.
Management support and training
The Department of Veterinary Services (DVS) was given direct responsibility
for project management. The appraisal put much emphasis on strengthening
and partly restructing the management of DVS. The aim was to make DVS
more cost effective, provide a better standard of animal health to livestock
owners and to introduce modernised management practices, this involved
including field staff in management decisions. It further aimed to introduce
monitoring and evaluation and develop appropriate training needs. Specific
staff appointments were to be made within DVS to assist this exercise
and a specific unit, the Project Management Support Unit (PMSU) was to
have additional staff and equipment to oversee these management innovations.
Most of these innovations were to be based upon consultancy studies carried
out at the beginning of the project. Almost all the studies were inordinately
delayed, and when eventually completed often not accepted by DVS. Recommended
staff appointments were not made, the PMSU was not staffed, or equipped
as was planned and only a minor part of the training programme was implemented.
No meaningful project monitoring took place. As a result there was virtually
no change in the management of DVS during the period. The project suffered
throughout its entire life from a poor standard of management.
Project impact
It must be clear from previous paragraphs that the impact the project
had on delivering improved animal health services to livestock owners
was far below expectations.
During the project period there was a reducing number of outbreaks of
the three major endemic diseases, rinderpest, CBPP and FMD. On the other
hand the number of ECF cases (the major tick borne disease) rose greatly
towards the end of the project. The recorded number of treated clinical
cases fell and there was no increase in the number of samples diagnosed
by the Veterinary Investigation Laboratories.
The appraisal projected incremental production benefits for livestock
owners, particularly the smaller livestock farmers, in both meat and milk.
Largely due to external factors, droughts and market forces, actual production
of meat and milk fell during the project period . Because no baseline
survey occurred prior to project interventions and also because no meaningful
monitoring occurred no impact of project intervention on individual livestock
owners can be measured. It is fair to say that the impact on the IFAD
target group may well have been negative. Because animal health services
were in restricted supply those who received the limited services available
were inevitably the more influential members of society.
Summary
of conclusions and recommendations
Conclusions
In virtually all aspects the project failed to achieve the targets set
in the appraisal report. Vaccinations against endemic diseases were only
50% of target. Cattle dipped were 15% of appraisal projections, clinical
cases recorded as treated were a mere 10% of project estimates. There
was no increase in the diagnostic and surveillance work of the veterinary
laboratories. Only the tsetse control trials showed a marked positive
response to project interventions. The principal project objective of
markedly improving the management of DVS did not happen. Most of these
failures can be attributed to (i) the failure of GOK to provide its financial
contribution to project funds, and (ii) the refusal of DVS to implement
the management changes recognised as essential in the appraisal report
and recommended by follow-up supervision missions.
Genuine efforts were made by many District Veterinary Officers (DVOs)
and their field staff to implement project activities. These efforts were
largely nullified by DVS central management refusing to allocate adequate
vehicles and operating expenses.
There were also external factors which had some indirect effect on project
performance, these included the appalling state of Kenya's rural roads
which contributed largely to vehicle breakdown and transport repair costs,
and the failure of Kenya Cooperative Creameries to make timely or reasonable
payment for milk supplies to farmers. Farmers were deprived of resources
to meet their cost recovery charges.
Recommendations
Where possible multidonor projects should be avoided in countries like
Kenya where project implementation capacity has been shown to be limited.
Where multidonor projects have to be implemented they should be simple
with clear cut agreements on the role of each donor.
At appraisal close attention must be paid to the true availability of
government counterpart funding. Where some of this funding relies upon
cost recovery from beneficiaries, then beneficiary reaction to policy
changes involving increased charges must be clearly gauged.
There is no guarantee that the IFAD target group will be the main beneficiaries
from projects designed to benefit all members of a specific sector even
if the IFAD target group is in the majority of that sector.
Kenya has limited project implementation capacity. This has to be recognised
and accepted by GOK. Future Kenya projects must have an emphasis on management
strengthening, even if requiring outside consultancies. GOK must also
be made to understand that loan agreements have to be adhered to even
if it means cessation of disbursement to ensure loan agreements are implemented.
