Animal Health Services Rehabilitation Programme - IOE
Animal Health Services Rehabilitation Programme
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.