KENYA DROUGHT OPERATIONS PLAN 2013-14 · semi-arid lands (ASALs) to the north, east and south of...

KENYA DROUGHT OPERATIONS PLAN

2013-14

SUBMISSION TO THE AFRICAN RISK CAPACITY

OCTOBER 2013

1

Table of Contents

Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3

I. Description ....................................................................................................................... 4

I.A. General Situation .................................................................................................................... 4

I.A.1. Overview ......................................................................................................................... 4

I.A.2 Livelihood zones in Kenya ............................................................................................... 6

I.A.3 Frequency and impact of drought in Kenya .................................................................... 7

I.A.4. Institutional arrangements for drought management in Kenya ..................................... 9

I.B. General Risk Transfer Parameters Selected .......................................................................... 11

I.B.1 Total coverage ............................................................................................................... 11

I.B.2 Expected payout frequency .......................................................................................... 11

I.B.3 Geographical areas of implementation ........................................................................ 11

I.C Activities ................................................................................................................................ 11

I.C.1 Activity 1: Scale-up of cash transfers through the Hunger Safety Net Programme ............ 12

I.C.2 Activity 2: Access to Water................................................................................................... 21

I.C.3 National Coordination of Activities ...................................................................................... 28

C.4 Risks and Assumptions ........................................................................................................... 33

II. Budget ............................................................................................................................ 34

III. Annexes ................................................................................................................................ 35

A. Annex 1: Most Drought-Prone Livelihood Zones ......................................................................... 35

1. Northwest pastoral cluster ............................................................................................... 35

2 Northeast pastoral cluster .................................................................................................... 36

3 Agro-pastoral cluster............................................................................................................. 37

4 Southeast marginal agricultural cluster ................................................................................ 38

5. Coastal marginal agricultural cluster ................................................................................ 39

B. Annex 2: Briefing on the National Drought Contingency Fund, NDMA, 2013 ............................. 40

C. Annex 3: Business Process for Disbursement of Drought Contingency Funds: Summary Report,

NDMA ............................................................................................................................................... 40

D. Annex 4: Drought Response Manual: Sectoral Activities Eligible for Funding from the National

Drought Contingency Fund, NDMA, 2010 ........................................................................................ 40

E. Annex 5: Ending Drought Emergencies Medium Term Plan, 2013-17 ......................................... 40

2

Acronyms

AEZ Agro-Ecological Zone

ARC African Risk Capacity

ASALs Arid and Semi-Arid Lands

CSGs County Steering Groups

EDE Ending Drought Emergencies

EWS Early Warning System

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HSNP Hunger Safety Net Programme

KFSM Kenya Food Security Meeting

KFSSG Kenya Food Security Steering Group

KLMC Kenya Livestock Marketing Council

IPC Integrated Phase Classification

MTP Medium Term Plan

NDCF National Drought Contingency Fund

NDMA National Drought Management Authority

NSC National Steering Committee on Peace Building and Conflict Management

NSNP National Safety Net Programme

PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment

WFP World Food Programme

WUA Water User Associations

3

Introduction

The African Risk Capacity (ARC) provides parametric weather insurance coverage to African

governments for agricultural seasons in case of drought. In return for premium payments into the

mutual,1 governments are eligible to receive a payout of up to 30 million USD. With Kenya’s

significant exposure to catastrophic drought events, the ARC could help to improve the management

of this risk and, if disaster strikes, enable a more timely humanitarian response.

Droughts significantly threaten record GDP growth in sub-Saharan Africa. A 1-in-10 year drought

event would have an estimated adverse impact of 4% on the annual GDP of Malawi, with even larger

impacts for 1-in-15 and 1-in-25 year events. At the household level, the consequences of droughts

can be devastating. An ARC cost-benefit analysis (CBA) examined existing evidence regarding the

timing of household coping actions when faced with a drought and the likely long-term cost impacts

of these actions. From this baseline, the study then estimates the economic benefits in acting early

and thus protecting households’ economic growth potential – that is intervening in time to prevent

households’ negative coping actions such as reduced food consumption, livestock death, and

distressed productive asset sales, which, in the absence of external assistance, have increasingly

pronounced negative consequences. The CBA calculates that getting aid to households in the critical

three months after harvest could result in nearly USD 1,300 per household assisted in terms of

protected economic gains.2

In order to improve resilience to natural disasters, two key elements are required: risk management

and investment. Investments that support long-term resilience against food insecurity can address

chronic risks and provide a base of predictable on-going assistance that can support poor and

vulnerable households to build assets and livelihoods, which will in turn develop resilience to cope

with normal and somewhat frequent, mild shocks without external assistance. From this base level

of investment, sound risk management becomes critical. This is where a tool such as ARC can offer

the most value, providing dedicated contingency funds that can scale up safety net systems in a

reliable, timely manner, allowing them to remain solvent and sustainable, protecting hard-won gains

for households, and reducing countries’ reliance on emergency appeals.

This Operations Plan outlines how ARC funds would be used in case of a payout to Kenya. It first

outlines the general national drought conditions (section I.A) and the ARC risk transfer parameters

for Kenya (I.B). It then describes in detail the activities that would be pursued with ARC funds (I.C)

and finally provides additional practical and background information on the implementation and

monitoring of this Operations Plan (II-V).

1 A mutual insurance company is owned and overseen by its members.

2 Clarke, Daniel J. and Ruth Vargas Hill, “Cost-Benefit Analysis of the African Risk Capacity Facility,”

International Food Policy Research Institute, IFPRI Discussion Paper 01292, September 2013.

4

I. Description

I.A. General Situation

I.A.1. Overview

Drought is the single most important natural hazard in Kenya. In the last 20 years there have been

ten drought events that have affected more than one million people.3 As well as the suffering and

loss it inflicts on communities, drought places a heavy strain on the national economy. Between

2008 and 2011 it caused damages and losses of an estimated USD 12.1 billion.4

Climate variability is a normal characteristic of the dryland ecosystems which characterise more than

80% of Kenya. However, this variability is becoming more pronounced and unpredictable; climate

change may exacerbate drought impacts still further. Moreover, a range of factors are deepening

vulnerability to drought, including population growth, land pressure, insecurity and persistent

inequalities. Women and young people may be particularly at risk due to their subordinate position

in society and their limited control over productive resources.

Figure 1 below shows the areas of Kenya at greatest risk of drought impacts, based on a five-year

average of the Integrated Phase Classification (IPC). The areas of highest risk are in the arid and

semi-arid lands (ASALs) to the north, east and south of the country. These areas account for 36% of

the total population (around 14 million people).5

The ASALs also have the highest levels of poverty and the lowest access to public goods and services

in Kenya. The Government recognises the link between inequality and vulnerability, and through its

Ending Drought Emergencies (EDE) initiative has prioritised investments in infrastructure, security,

education, health and nutrition, which will strengthen drought and climate resilience. These have

been integrated within the Kenya Vision 2030 second Medium Term Plan for 2013-17.

3 Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED): http://www.emdat.be/result-country-profile

4 Republic of Kenya (2012) ‘Post Disaster Needs Assessment, 2008-2011 Drought’

5 Republic of Kenya (2010) ‘Kenya Population and Housing Census, 2009’

5

Figure 1: Food Security Phase Classification, 2007-11

6

I.A.2 Livelihood zones in Kenya6

Figure 2: Livelihood Zones in Kenya

6 The maps in this section have not yet been updated to take account of the new counties. Moyale/Marsabit,

Ijara/Garissa, Transmara/Narok, Mwingi/Kitui and Malindi/Kilifi are now combined.

7

The Kenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSSG), an inter-agency coordination mechanism for food

security and drought management co-chaired by the Government and the World Food Programme

(WFP), analyses drought risk and vulnerability according to different livelihood zones.

Four types of livelihood in Kenya – namely pastoralism, agro-pastoralism, mixed farming, and

marginal agriculture – are highly dependent on the natural resource base and therefore highly

exposed to variations in precipitation.

The five geographical clusters across the ASALs that are particularly drought-prone are the

Northwest pastoral cluster (Turkana, Marsabit, Samburu), the Northeast pastoral cluster (Mandera,

Wajir, Garissa, Tana River, Isiolo), the agro-pastoral cluster (Kajiado, Narok, West Pokot, Baringo,

Laikipia, part of Nyeri (Kieni)), the Southeast marginal agricultural cluster (Kitui, Machakos, Makueni,

Tharaka Nithi, partof Embu (Mbeere), part of Meru (Meru North)), and the Coastal marginal

agricultural cluster (Kwale, Kilifi, Taita Taveta, Lamu). They are described in more detail in Annex 1.

I.A.3 Frequency and impact of drought in Kenya

Kenya has a bimodal rainfall pattern with a short rains season and a long rains season. These

determine the performance of different livelihoods. Figure 3 shows the seasonal calendar and key

events for both livestock and crop production.

Figure 3: Seasonal Calendar and Critical Events Timeline

Source: FEWSNET

The frequency of drought appears to be increasing, with major drought episodes in 1996-97, 1999-

01, 2004-06, 2008-09 and 2010-11. Given that there are now few good seasons between droughts,

households have had progressively less time within which to recover. Further, food security is most

gravely threatened when the failure of a rainy season combines with other factors, such as price

variability (Kenya is a net importer of maize), conflict (which limits access to pasture, water and

services) or disease (of both livestock and crops).

Figure 4 shows the number of people assessed as food insecure between 2006 and 2013. The

number has reduced since the peak of the last drought in 2011, but approximately one million

Kenyans are chronically food insecure.

8

Figure 4: Food Insecure Population in Need of Assistance

Source: KFSSG Short Rains Assessment 2012-13

The scale of drought-related humanitarian need is further illustrated in Figure 5, which shows the

funds requested (in years when an appeal was launched) and funds received since 2000. The figures

show drought-related response only; they exclude donor assistance to refugees in Kenya and to non-

ASAL areas after the post-election violence in 2007-08.

Figure 5: Humanitarian Appeals and Funding, 2007-12

Source: UNOCHA, cited in Fitzgibbon, C. (2012) ‘Economics of Resilience: Kenya Country Report’,

London: DFID

The humanitarian consequences of drought have been most recently and thoroughly evaluated by

the Post Disaster Needs Assessment for the 2008-11 drought period, produced by the Government

with assistance from a number of development partners. The many impacts of that drought included

the following:

� Nutrition: rates of Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) in three arid counties (Turkana, Wajir,

Mandera) remained above 20% during the whole period (2008-11), rising above 25% in 2011.

9

These spikes are overlaid on a situation of chronic under-nutrition: an estimated 35% of Kenyan

children are stunted.7

� Livestock: animals to the value of approximately KES 56.1 billion died (approximately USD 645

million); milk yields reduced and livestock productivity fell. Additional expenditure was required

for veterinary services, water and feed. As a result, the livestock sector sustained 72% of total

damages and losses.

� Education: the pressure on children to contribute to domestic chores led in some areas to

irregular attendance and an increase in temporary drop-outs; in other areas, school enrolment

increased, putting added pressure on school feeding rations. High food prices affected families’

ability to pay school fees.

� Gender: women and girls reported a significant increase in the burden placed on them due to

factors such as male migration and changing livelihood patterns. Women can be vulnerable to an

increased risk of gender violence in situations of economic and social stress.

� Economy: the drought slowed GDP by an average of 2.8% per annum. Had the drought not

occurred, GDP would have grown at an annual average of 6.3%.

In conclusion, the growing frequency and severity of drought episodes, overlaid on a situation of

chronic vulnerability and inequality, is putting the livelihoods of Kenya’s pastoralists and small

farmers under ever-increasing stress.

I.A.4. Institutional arrangements for drought management in Kenya

The Government of Kenya has been making steady improvements to its drought management

system in recent years. This work is now led by the National Drought Management Authority

(NDMA), a state corporation established in November 2011 to provide leadership and coordination

of drought management and climate change adaptation. Through the NDMA, the Government has

effectively institutionalised the drought management system in a permanent and specialised body.

Kenya’s drought management system has the following elements:

a) National policy and legislation. The guiding documents for the NDMA are the Constitution of

Kenya 2010 (which places a duty on the state to protect the vulnerable), Sessional Paper No. 8 of

2012 on the National Policy for the Sustainable Development of Northern Kenya and other Arid

Lands (the ‘ASAL policy’), and the Ending Drought Emergencies Medium Term Plan (mentioned

above). The NDMA is responsible for the EDE MTP and works closely with the relevant sectors to

ensure that the commitments they have made to strengthen drought resilience are prioritised,

financed and implemented. These commitments are primarily in public goods (security,

infrastructure, health and education) to create the necessary enabling environment for

development and growth.

7 Republic of Kenya (2013) ‘National Nutrition Action Plan, 2012-17’

10

b) A drought early warning system (EWS) based on information aggregated from different sources,

ranging from field interviews (collected at sentinel sites) to satellite imagery. The EWS is

currently being updated in order to review and refine the thresholds and triggers for early

warning phase classification, to integrate new technologies, and to strengthen sampling, data

collection, quality control and communication.

c) A set of pre-determined warning stages triggered by the early warning information. Kenya uses

five stages: normal, alert, alarm, emergency and recovery. Specific activities have been identified

as being appropriate at each warning stage, and are detailed in a drought response manual.8 The

warning stages also trigger rapid assessments on the ground.

d) A set of county-level contingency (‘shelf’) plans for rapid reaction to early warning information

and changes in the warning stages. The NDMA facilitates the development of these plans and

coordinates their implementation in close collaboration with county stakeholders. The

contingency planning process has recently been made more rigorous, systematic and

computerised.

e) A drought contingency (response) fund to enable rapid implementation of the contingency

plans. Financing is the biggest challenge still facing the drought management system, which

underlines the significance and potential impact of the ARC initiative. The Government intends

to create a National Drought Contingency Fund (NDCF), managed independently of the NDMA.

This will be a multi-donor basket fund through which finance will be allocated against the

activities in drought contingency plans, triggered by information generated through the EWS.

The NDCF will ensure that action in the early stages of a drought, when its effects can best be

mitigated, is more timely, flexible and appropriate.9

f) Coordination structures at both the national and county levels – principally the Kenya Food

Security Meeting (KFSM), the Kenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSSG), and the County

Steering Groups (CSGs). The CSGs are responsible for coordination at the county level and links

with communities. Kenya is fortunate in having an active and diverse group of agencies working

on drought management. These coordination structures are about to be reviewed in light of

Kenya’s recent move towards devolved governance and other changes in the policy and

institutional context, such as the increased emphasis on resilience.

g) Measures to reduce risk and strengthen resilience over the long term, regardless of prevailing

drought conditions. These include guiding the new county governments in mainstreaming

drought risk reduction within their development plans and budgets (in line with the EDE),

introducing county climate adaptation funds, and implementing a range of risk reduction and

social protection programmes. Chief among the latter is the Hunger Safety Net Programme

(HSNP), which is discussed in more detail in section C.

8 NDMA (2010) ‘Drought Response Manual: Sectoral Activities Eligible for Funding from the National Drought

Contingency Fund’ 9 The government has long experience of managing drought contingency funds from donors such as the World

Bank and European Union under a project mechanism (the Arid Lands Resource Management Project, ALRMP).

The design of the proposed NDCF is based on ALRMP experience.

11

The various mechanisms and processes outlined above are being constantly refined and improved,

particularly in light of the slow response to the 2011 drought. In this regard, the ARC initiative

represents an invaluable opportunity to scale up and reinforce these efforts. The Government is also

taking steps to strengthen its broader disaster management capacity. The Disaster Management

Policy has been approved and a Disaster Management Bill has been drafted. A National Drought

Management Authority Bill is also before Parliament which aims to strengthen the legal foundation

for the NDMA and NDCF. These two pieces of legislation are now being reconciled to ensure that

Kenya has specialist capacity to manage distinct disaster risks, appropriately coordinated at a senior

level in government.

I.B. General Risk Transfer Parameters Selected

Note: Work to determine the risk transfer parameters is ongoing. The final parameters will be

provided once this work is complete.

I.B.1 Total coverage

Attachment point: 1-in-5

Exhaustion point: TBD

Coverage limit: USD 30 million

Ceding percentage: TBD

I.B.2 Expected payout frequency

The risk parameters should consider drought occurrence as the successive failure of more than one

rainy season. Since the magnitude of drought is more cumulative in the subsequent second failed

season, the risk cover should be higher in the second failed season compared to the first. Kenya will

likely plan to insure both seasons.

I.B.3 Geographical areas of implementation

Implementation will take place in any of the 23 most drought-prone ASAL counties where the NDMA

is currently operational, as determined by the EWS and drought status. These counties are Turkana,

West Pokot, Baringo, Marsabit, Samburu, Isiolo, Mandera, Wajir, Garissa, Tana River, Lamu, Kilifi,

Kwale, Taita Taveta, Kitui, Makueni, Embu, Tharaka Nithi, Meru, Laikipia, Nyeri, Kajiado and Narok.

I.C Activities

The overall objective of the action is to protect the lives and livelihoods of drought-affected

households and to prevent the descent into loss and destitution. ARC payouts will fund two specific

activities: unconditional cash transfers and water interventions. Finance from the ARC will reduce

the response time by making resources quickly available. It will complement existing drought

contingency finance and thus reduce still further levels of food insecurity and vulnerability.

12

The decision to use ARC payouts for these two activities was reached after lengthy consultation

within the technical working group of the KFSSG. It was decided that other sectors, such as

education, livestock, agriculture and human health would continue to access support from

Government and other partners. Food-for-fees, for example, is already a common intervention

during drought periods in northern Kenya, complementing the WFP-supported school feeding

programme and the Government-supported free education programmes.

It is important to note that the operational detail of each activity in this plan, including the number

of beneficiaries, their location, the precise indicators and the budget, can only be determined based

on the drought conditions prevailing at the time and the assessments which will be conducted in

response to those conditions. These precise indicators and the budget will be included in the Final

Implementation Plan (FIP).

I.C.1 Activity 1: Scale-up of cash transfers through the Hunger Safety Net Programme

I.C.1.1 General response strategy

General Description

The Hunger Safety Net Programme (HSNP) provides unconditional cash transfers through biometric

smart cards to chronically food insecure households in the four counties which are the poorest in

Kenya and among the most vulnerable to shocks (Turkana, Marsabit, Mandera and Wajir). Allocating

USD 22.5 million out of a total ARC payout of USD 30 million to this activity, via three mutually

exclusive options either 100,000 households (option 1), 182,100 households (option 2), or 141,000

households (option 3) would be targeted.

The regular programme: Phase 1 of HSNP was implemented between 2009 and 2013 and reached

69,000 households or 496,800 beneficiaries with a cash transfer to beneficiaries every two months.

The size of the bi-monthly transfer was set at KES 2,150 to each beneficiary household, representing

75% of WFP food aid ration at the time of determination (2006). This was adjusted over time and

remained at KES 3,500 after March/April 2012. Beneficiary households were selected using three

different targeting mechanisms:10

• Up to 50% of households were selected using community-based targeting (CBT), where the

community selected households they considered most in need of cash transfers;

• Via the dependency ratio (DR), households were selected if the proportion of members

under 18 or over 55, disabled or chronically ill, exceeded a certain threshold;

• Via social pension (SP), any individual older than 54 years was eligible for cash transfers.

10

Oxford Policy Management (2013) ‘Kenya Hunger Safety Net Programme Monitoring and Evaluation

Component: Impact Evaluation Final Report 2009 to 2012’

13

In total, 75% of the beneficiaries of Phase 1 were female.11

The effectiveness of cash transfer programmes such as the HSNP depends on a functioning market.

Therefore, market conditions, including inflation, are regularly reviewed by a number of agencies

working in the arid lands, including WFP’s Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (VAM) Unit.12

The final

impact evaluation report for the HSNP during the period 2009 to 2012 has shown that the HSNP has

not been causing inflation in any of the program areas, nor has it stabilized prices over time.13

Payment to beneficiaries is facilitated by Equity Bank that was selected by the Financial Sector

Deepening Trust (FSD). For this, Equity Bank uses a network of traders and shopkeepers as payment

agents (158 in December 2012) that pay the beneficiaries in specific locations. Agents make

payments using biometric cards and point of sale devices, using either the Safaricom or the Zain

mobile network.

The HSNP is funded by DFID, AusAID and the Government of Kenya and implemented by the HSNP

Secretariat within the NDMA in partnership with five international partners (Oxfam, CARE, Save the

Children, World Vision, and HelpAge International). It is also part of the Government of Kenya’s

National Safety Net Programme (NSNP), supported by the World Bank through its new lending

instrument called Programme for Results.

Phase 2 of the HSNP will start before the end of 2013 and will provide a similar safety net as the one

provided during Phase 1 for 100,000 households. An additional component of the HSNP’s Phase 2 is

the possibility for a rapid scale-up of transfers to a possible 470,000 households during acute

drought crises. This mechanism is planned to be fully established (i.e. reaching 470,000 additional

households) by 2017. As of August 2013, 378,576 households have already been registered during

the preparation for Phase 2 and will be issued with biometric smart cards. The scale-up will not only

assist a larger number of households during periods of stress by cushioning them against drought, it

will in effect climate-proof the regular transfers by ensuring that their impact is not dissipated by

wider pressures within the same communities.

Use of ARC funds: USD 22.5 million out of a total ARC payout of USD 30 million would be allocated

to the HSNP. The money would be used in one of three different ways that are presented below

(“Option 1-3”). The option selected during an emergency would depend on the specific nature of the

drought, in particular on its severity. The option to be employed would be specified in the FIP.

• Option 1: Increasing transfer value for regular beneficiaries while maintaining the same

number of beneficiaries. Phase 2 of the HSNP will provide regular cash transfers to 100,000

beneficiary households. Under Option 1, for all 100,000 regular households, the regular monthly

transfer value of KES 3,500 per household would be increased to KES 9,875 for a period of three

months with ARC funds. This is calculated using the following formula and assuming an exchange

rate of USD 1 = KES 85:

11


Component: Impact Evaluation Final Report 2009 to 2012’ 12

WFP (2013) ‘Market Dynamics and Financial Services in Kenya’s Arid Lands’ 13


Component: Impact Evaluation Final Report 2009 to 2012’

14

22,500,000�� ∗ 85�� = 100,000�� ∗ 3��ℎ� ∗ 6,375��14.

This option would be employed in times of a particularly severe drought, where the regular

beneficiary households of the HNSP would not be able to sustain themselves with the regular

transfer value of KES 3,500 per month but need almost triple the amount.

Such a scale-up has been carried out in September 2011, when the size of the transfer value was

doubled without difficulty and without any delay in the process. Similarly, an increase in transfer

value is expected to be feasible under the ARC without delay, i.e. within 120 days of the ARC

payout.

• Option 2: Increasing number of beneficiaries while maintaining the same transfer value. Under

Option 2, regular HSNP beneficiary households would continue to receive KES 3,500 per month.

Yet using the rapid scale-up mechanism of the HSNP Phase 2, the number of beneficiary

households under the HSNP would be increased by 182,100 for a period of three months with

ARC funds. This is calculated using the following formula and assuming an exchange rate of

USD 1 = KES 85:

22,500,000�� ∗ 85�� = 182,100�� ∗ 3��ℎ� ∗ 3,500��.

With the 100,000 beneficiary households in the regular HSNP, a total of 282,100 households

would benefit from the programme. This option would be employed during a less severe

drought, when supplementing households’ income with KES 3,500 would already enable them to

sustain themselves.

A consultancy is currently underway to develop the methodology for implementing the rapid

scale-up, which will include the criteria for targeting beneficiaries and the appropriate level of

transfer. It is already clear, however, that information generated by the drought EWS and

through vulnerability analysis and mapping will guide the targeting process. For the time being,

the scale-up of cash transfers can only be operationalised in the four counties where registration

has been carried out and where the payments infrastructure is already in place. However, the

NDMA will be working with its development partners to try to expand the registration to all nine

arid counties (those most vulnerable to drought and climate shocks) within the next two years,

since cash transfers provide a quick, accountable and direct means of reaching vulnerable

households.

Given that the scale-up mechanism is only being introduced with Phase 2 of the HNSP, it has not

been implemented before. However, as 378,576 (potential) beneficiary households have

already been registered as of August 2013 for Phase 2 with further registration on-going, the

largest part of the work has been done. Using the existing network of payment agents,

increasing the number of beneficiaries within 120 days of the ARC payout is expected to be

feasible.

14

This formula is indicative and the value could be updated on the basis of market analysis.

15

• Option 3: Increasing both transfer value and number of beneficiaries. Under Option 3, the

100,000 beneficiary households of the regular HSNP would receive an increase in monthly

transfer value of KES 3,500 per household, resulting in a total monthly transfer value per

household of KES 7,000. The remaining money from the ARC payout would be used to increase

the number of beneficiaries with an equal monthly transfer value of KES 7,000. Thereby, under

Option 3, a total of 141,000 households would benefit from the ARC funds. This is calculated

using the following formula and assuming an exchange rate of USD 1 = KES 85:

22,500,000�� ∗ 85��

= �100,000�� ∗ 3��ℎ� ∗ 3,500��

+ �41,000�� ∗ 3��ℎ� ∗ 7,000��15.

This option would be employed during a drought, when beneficiary households would be able to

sustain themselves with a transfer value of KES 7,000.

As the implementation of Option 3 presents a combination of increasing the transfer value (Option

1) and increasing the number of beneficiaries (Option 2), which are both deemed to be feasible

within 120 days of the ARC payout, also the implementation Option 3 is expected to be feasible

within the same time frame.

Coordination

The implementation of the HSNP scale-up would follow existing systems and procedures, and be

undertaken in collaboration with established partners and networks. These include:

• HSNP Secretariat within the NDMA;

• NDMA county offices;

• Kenya Food Security Steering Group (KFSSG);

• County Steering Groups;

• NGO consortium (Oxfam GB; CARE International; Save the Children International; World Vision

International; ALDEF; WASDA);

• Financial Sector Deepening Trust (FSD);

• Equity Bank;

• Oxford Policy Management; and,

• HelpAge International.

The national drought response and therefore also the response under the ARC would be coordinated

at the national level by the NDMA and at the county level by the NDMA county offices. The scale-up

process would follow the regular HSNP process:

15

The formula could be updated pending on market analysis.

16

• An NGO consortium under the leadership of Oxfam GB has carried out the pre-identification

and registration of (potential) beneficiaries for Phases 1 and 2 (see below);

• The County Steering Groups would conduct a rapid emergency-related needs assessment

with help of the KFSSG and the NDMA in order to determine the most-affected LZs – this

assessment would serve as the basis for the final selection of additional beneficiaries under

the scale-up;

• From the pre-identification of potential beneficiaries, the NDMA county office would select

the additional beneficiaries that are to be targeted under the scale-up mechanism of the

HSNP;

• Equity Bank (selected by FSD) would facilitate payments to beneficiaries (see above);

• Monitoring and Evaluation is would be done by Oxford Policy Management (see below);

• HelpAge International would lead the implementation of the Social Protection Rights (SPR)

component, whereby it acts as an independent evaluator of other components, implements

mechanisms of downward accountability and transparency maximization, and acts as a

beneficiary advocate within the HSNP system.

Needs Assessment

The NDMA uses two main mechanisms to determine needs and lay the basis for targeting decisions:

1. Bi-annual food security assessments are always carried out by the KFSSG after the short rains

and the long rains. The information is used by the government to design necessary

interventions.

2. Rapid food security assessments are carried out by the sectoral working groups of the County

Steering Groups (CSGs) with support from the NDMA and the KFSSG in counties, when the early

warning status has reached alert/alarm. They can be completed in three or four days and would

be implemented in case of an ARC payout in affected areas. The assessments determine the

geographical location, the number and type of people affected, the interventions required, and

their costs and timeframe. The results of the assessments update the county contingency plans

and are used as the basis for submitting requests for the disbursement of drought contingency

funds.

Under the ARC, such rapid food security assessments would also be conducted in the areas

identified to be affected most by combining information from ARV and the bi-annual food

security assessments. These rapid assessments serve as the basis to determine the areas for the

HSNP scale-up.

The NDMA has its own resources to carry out both these types of assessment, provided either by the

government or by development partners.

17

Targeting

The identification and registration of both regular beneficiaries under HSNP Phase 2 and potential

beneficiaries in the event of the rapid scale-up is on-going. It is being implemented by an NGO

consortium comprised of Save the Children International, CARE International, World Vision

International, ALDEF, and WASDA, under the leadership of Oxfam GB. So far, 378,576 households

have been identified:

• Save the Children International is currently registering households in Mandera (estimated

170,959 households or population of 1,025,756) and Wajir (estimated 110,320 households

or population of 661,920). In Mandera, registering in six Districts: Mandera East, Mandera

West, Mandera South, Mandera North, Laflafey and Banisa;

• CARE is registering households in four Districts (Moyale, Laisamis, North Horr and

Saku/Central) Marsabit, a total of 90,000 households;

• Oxfam GB is registering households in four Districts of Turkana Central, West, North and

Loima. This is an estimated 99,616 households equivalent population of 687,349;

• World Vision International is registering a total of 28,437 households in South and East of

Turkana.16

The details of the targeting process for a scale-up under the HSNP Phase 2 and therefore under the

ARC are currently being developed by a consultancy. However, it is clear that the NDMA county

office would conduct the targeting at the county level and that the comprehensive registration of

households described above would guide the targeting process. The registration database contains

relevant information to identify beneficiaries according to the nature of risk and vulnerability (such

as by gender, age, dependency, location and main livelihood activity). Targeting would be an open

and interactive process at both the county and community levels. Livelihood vulnerability analysis

and mapping would also inform the targeting.

16

Ndoka, Carrie, Hunger Safety Net Programme: Past, Present and Future (2008-2017), May 2013

18

I.C.1.2 Eligibility Criteria

ARC eligibility

criteria

Activity 1: Scale-up of cash transfers through the Hunger Safety Net

Time-sensitive

/ catalytic

The payments infrastructure for the cash transfers is already in place (described

above).

An increase of transfer value (double) has already been carried out with no

difficulties and no delay in procedures in September 2011. Thus, it is expected

that an increase of transfer value would also be possible under the ARC within

120 days of the ARC payout (Option 1 and 3).

Given that the scale-up mechanism is only being introduced with Phase 2 of the

HNSP, it has not been implemented before. However, as 378,576 (potential)

beneficiary households (as of August 2013) have already been registered during

the preparation for Phase 2 with further registration on-going, the largest

component of the work has been completed. Using the existing network of

payment agents, increasing the number of beneficiaries within 120 days of the

ARC payout is expected to be feasible.

Without ARC funds, there is no on-going resource to scale up this fund to

additional beneficiaries. Because of ARC funds, the HSNP can be expanded

before drought stress creates negative coping strategies.

Livelihood

savings

The assets of households in arid lands (such as livestock) are fluid, and a key

concern in drought mitigation is to prevent distressed sales. Between September

2009 and November 2011 (a drought period) HSNP evaluation reports showed

that the percentage of HSNP households owning livestock actually increased by

5.4%, while the figure for non-HSNP households in the same locations decreased

by 6.6%. Households were using the cash transfers to prevent the sale of assets.17

Timely availability of funds will facilitate these livelihood-saving activities before

the drought moves to a critical stage.

Duration The activity can be completed within six months. Transfers are made every two

months and can be adjusted with minimal lead time.

17

Oxford Policy Management, 2012 ‘Qualitative Impact Evaluation Report: 2009/10 to 2010/11’ and

‘Quantative Impact Evaluation Report: 2009/10 to 2010/11’

19

I.C.1.3 Log frame

Intervention: Scale-up of cash transfers through the Hunger Safety Net Programme

Overall objective: To protect household assets during drought stress

Objective Verifiable Indicators Means of

Verification

Risks,

Assumptions

OUTCOMES /

RESULTS

Outcome 1: Reduced

response time for

assistance to

targeted households.

• Targeted beneficiary households are able

to receive payouts within 4 months’ on a

timely basis.

Monthly and final

monitoring reports

from NDMA to ARC

• Incidence of

inter-

community

conflict is

reduced.

Outcome 2:

Improved

implementation time

for ARC activities

• Activity’s implementation duration not

exceeding 180 days.

Monthly and final

monitoring reports

from NDMA to ARC

Outcome 3:

Increased proportion

of households able

to retain /

accumulate assets

with higher HSNP

payouts per

household

• More than 60% of households report herd

size increase and retain their assets

throughout the drought period.

• 40% of targeted households adopt other

livelihoods diversification options.

MIS, monthly and

final monitoring

reports from NDMA

to ARC

• Food price

inflation will

affect the

real value of

the transfer

if not

managed.

OUTPUTS

Output 1.1: Cash

transfers disbursed

to drought-affected

households

Option 1: 100,000 regular HSNP households

receive their monthly transfer value increased

by KES 6,375 for 3 months.

Option 2: 181,100 additional households

receive a monthly transfer value of KES 3,500

for 3 months.

Option 3: 100,000 regular HSNP households

receive their monthly transfer value increased

by KES 3,500 and 41,000 additional households

receive a monthly transfer value of KES 7,000

for 3 months.

For all three Options:

• Households’ assets are protected from

depletion;

• They have enhanced purchasing power

during time of drought;

• They are able to maintain herd sizes.

MIS, monthly and

final monitoring

reports from NDMA

to ARC

• Functioning

local

markets

Output 2.1:

Assistance to

affected households

timely provided

• Actual time taken to roll out response

programme from ARC pay-out date against

planned

• Actual time taken to provide food to

targeted households against planned time

Monthly and final

monitoring reports

from NDMA to ARC

•

Output 3.1: Activity

timely completed

• Actual time taken to complete activity

against planned

Monthly and final

monitoring reports

from NDMA to ARC

•

20

I.C.1.4 Action Plan

ARC payouts could occur after either of the insured seasons (short rains and long rains). The sequence of events as illustrated in the following would remain

the same.

Month Implementing body

Activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Signing of agreements

Review and update of

contingency plans

Development of response plans

ARC and NDMA

Bi-annual food security

assessment

KFSSG

Rapid assessments (day 0-15)

CSG

Targeting (day 16-25) NDMA county offices, supported by implementing partners (Oxfam,

CARE Kenya, Save the Children, World Vision, HelpAge International)

HSNP Scale-up (day 26-111) NDMA county offices, supported by implementing partners (Oxfam,

CARE Kenya, Save the Children, World Vision, HelpAge International),

service providers (FSD, Equity Bank) and development partners (DFID,

AusAID, World Bank)

County implementation and

financial report are submitted to

NDMA headquarter at the end of

implementation (day 112-133)

NDMA county offices, NDMA headquarter

Consolidate county reports and

submit to Treasury (day 134-164)

NDMA headquarter

Get review from Treasury and

submit final report to ARC (day

165-180)

Treasury, NDMA headquarter

21

I.C.2 Activity 2: Access to Water

I.C.2.1 General response strategy

General Description

This Activity proposes two components to be implemented under the ARC: (i) Water trucking and (ii)

actions to ensure the functionality of strategic boreholes.

The provision of water during drought emergencies is a key response activity and has a major impact

on several adverse drought effects including rates of malnutrition and morbidity, livestock condition,

crop production, and the labour demands on women and girls. It is particularly important during the

alarm and emergency stages of a drought. The funds available from Government and development

partners are often insufficient to address rapidly increasing water resource demands. ARC funding

will thus enable the target population to access water for both domestic and livestock use during the

critical stages of drought.

However, the provision of water must also be undertaken with great care, since poor design can

contribute to conflict and environmental degradation.

First, water trucking is often necessary at different stages of a drought but can be constrained by the

lack of storage facilities, particularly in areas where the water infrastructure is poorly developed.

Under the ARC, County Steering Groups would take an inventory of existing community storage

facilities and the gaps, and provide temporary plastic tanks where necessary to widen the benefits

from water trucking. The tanks are also appropriate for use in rangelands in circumstances where

livestock have moved into areas with pasture but no water. The temporary tanks can serve as

strategic water points and be replenished. Subsequently, water would be supplied to targeted

communities. In these circumstances, water trucking would sustain both the core livestock herd left

behind by satellite herds and the household members who have accompanied them. Water trucking

will only be implemented during the emergency stage of a drought, on a limited scale, and only in

those pockets of counties which are identified by the rapid needs assessments to face chronic water

shortages.

Second, there is high demand at strategic boreholes during drought periods, particularly those

located in dry season grazing areas. As a result the boreholes are prone to breakdown. Borehole

downtime is a major cause of livestock mortality. Moreover, as pastoralists’ purchasing power

declines, so does their ability to procure the necessary fuel and lubricants. ARC funds would be used

by County Steering Groups to provide fuel subsidies to strategic boreholes, stockpile fast-moving

spares, and constitute rapid response teams (including trained community technicians) who can

keep the boreholes running. The water user associations (WUAs) responsible for managing these

boreholes will pass on the subsidy to community members by temporarily reducing the cost of

water. Further, with resources from the NDCF and other development partners, the rehabilitation of

strategic water points during the recovery stage of drought will contribute to building resilience.

Coordination

The involved actors in the implementation of Activity 2 are:

22

• NDMA and NDMA county offices;

• KFSSG Water and Sanitation Working Group;

• Ministry of Water county offices;

• County Steering Groups (CSGs) and their sectoral working groups;

• Community Borehole Committees;

• Water service providers such as the Northern Water Service Board and the Athi Water Service

Board; and,

• Water User Associations (WUA).

Both for water trucking and borehole activities, the NDMA, with technical support from the KFSSG

Water and Sanitation Working Group, would coordinate the intervention at the national level and

act through its county offices at the county level.

For water trucking, the NDMA county office would coordinate the intervention with the Ministry of

Water county office and the County Steering Group (CSG). The County Steering Group would take an

inventory of existing storage facilities as described above and distribute temporary plastic tanks

where needed. The Ministry of Water would then be in charge of purchasing water from local water

service providers and would use its own trucks to transport and distribute the water to the targeted

communities.

For borehole activities, Community Borehole Committees would request support “bottom-up” from

the respective CSG. The CSG would then coordinate the response with the Ministry of Water county

office, with the NDMA county office, and with Water User Associations (WUAs) that are responsible

for managing the affected boreholes. The CSG in collaboration with the Ministry of Water county

office would provide fuel subsidies to strategic boreholes, stockpile fast-moving spares, and

constitute rapid response teams (including trained community technicians) who can keep the

boreholes running. The WUAs would pass on the subsidy to community members by temporarily

reducing the cost of water.

Procurement

Any procurement required for water activities would be done in line with the Public Procurement

and Disposal Act 2005 and as stipulated in government regulations.

The NDMA has pre-qualified suppliers for all items at both the county and national levels. For water

trucking, the Ministry of Water county office would procure the water from water service providers.

For borehole activities, CSGs would procure fuel and lubricants for the boreholes using Local

Purchase Orders (LPOs). They would keep issue registers and ensure that delivery notes are signed

by the WUAs.

The NDMA has established tendering committees at both the national and the county levels to

oversee the tendering process, as envisaged in the Act. Local communities will also be assisted to

23

oversee the planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of their preparedness and

mitigation measures.

Needs Assessment

The needs assessment process is the same as the one described for Activity 1.

Targeting

For both water trucking and borehole activities, targeting at the national level is informed by the

drought EWS which indicates the drought status per county. Geographical targeting within each

county is determined by the rapid assessments.

Water trucking would be implemented purely based on such geographical targeting. If water stress

levels are high enough for water trucking to be implemented, everybody in the affected region

would receive water supplies from this activity.

For borehole activities, intervention is based on “bottom-up” requests from Community Borehole

Committees to the respective County Steering Groups, as described above. County Steering Groups

assist in cooperation with the described partners accordingly.

24

I.C.2.2 Eligibility Criteria

ARC eligibility

criteria

Activity 2: Access to water

Time-sensitive

/ catalytic

Implementation can take place well within the 120 days, since:

• These activities are included in county drought contingency plans which must

be pre-approved;

• They are also activities which CSGs have carried out in the past; and,

• The NDCF business process is in place (described in section 3 below).

Fast delivery of water can prevent asset depletion and increase the ability of

households to carry on income-generating activities rather than selling assets and

trying to keeps herds alive.

Livelihood

savings

Early intervention to prevent borehole breakdown is key to preventing livestock

mortality and the loss of assets, hence funds for response are required within the

early stages of a drought.

Early actions to ensure continued access to water also have an impact on

livelihoods. For example, during the 2008-11 droughts there was a substantial

loss of wages as household members replaced normal economic activities with

fetching of water.18

Duration The provision of water tanks will be carried out within one month.

Fuel subsidies and borehole repairs will be provided over a three-month period.

These timeframes are within the critical stages of a drought.

18

The PDNA estimated total losses in the water sector at approximately KES 73 million. Some of this was the

reduction in revenue to water service providers, but most was due to lost wages.

25

I.C.2.3 Log frame

Intervention: Access to water

Overall objective: To enhance access to water for household and livestock use

during drought

Objective Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Risks, Assumptions

OUTCOMES / RESULTS

Outcome 1: Increased

access to water via

water trucking and fuel

subsidies

Over 60 percent of households

have access to clean and safe

water

Incidences of water borne

diseases reduced by 80

percent

MIS, monthly

monitoring from CSGs

to NDMA, monthly and

final monitoring

reports from NDMA to

ARC

• Incidents of conflict

are effectively

managed to ensure

access to water

Outcome 2: Strategic

boreholes remain

operational with the

use of rapid response

teams.

80 percent of strategic

boreholes being able to

sustain water demand during

drought period.

MIS, monthly



final monitoring


ARC

• Rapid response

teams and WUAs

are able to carry

out basic

maintenance

throughout the

implementation

period

Outcome 3: Reduced

response time for

assistance to targeted

households.

Drought response period

reduced to less than 120 days.

Monthly and final

monitoring reports

from NDMA to ARC

Outcome 4: Improved

implementation time

for ARC activities.

Drought interventions

implemented in less than 6

months

Monthly and final

monitoring reports

from NDMA to ARC

OUTPUTS

Output 1.1: Plastic

tanks per county

distributed to strategic

community points in 23

counties to enable

subsequent water

trucking.

• 25 water tanks per county

delivered and utilised as

water reservoirs by

communities and

institutions.

MIS, monthly



final monitoring


ARC

• Water trucking

proceeds as

planned

Output 1.2: Water

trucking carried out to

vulnerable households

in 10 counties

• 50,000 beneficiaries

access water throughout

the drought period.

• 50,000 beneficiaries direct

their time to other

production household

roles rather than seeking

water.

MIS, monthly



final monitoring


ARC

• Careful assessment

of the ecological

implications and

impact on

customary rights

will be required.

• Water trucking

activities do not

lead to human

settlements along

watering points.

Output 1.3: Fuel

subsidies provided to

water user associations

responsible for

managing strategic

boreholes.

• 60% of motorised

boreholes running

throughout the drought

period.

• 80% of WUAs are able to

manage strategic

boreholes.

MIS, monthly



final monitoring


ARC

• Clear agreements in

place with the

WUAs governing

the terms on which

subsidies are given.

26

Output 2.1: Rapid

response teams

equipped with fast-

moving spares and

equipment to repair

strategic boreholes.

• Rapid response teams in

23 counties activated and

able to respond to

borehole breakdowns

• At least five WUAs per

county trained and

equipped to repair

motorised boreholes.

MIS, monthly



final monitoring


ARC

• Availability of

spares and

equipment in the

counties.

Output 3.1: Assistance

to affected households

timely provided

• Actual time taken to roll

out response programme

from ARC pay-out date

against planned

• Actual time taken to

provide food to targeted

households against

planned time

Monthly and final

monitoring reports

from NDMA to ARC

•

Output 4.1: Activity

timely completed

• Actual time taken to

complete activity against

planned

Monthly and final

monitoring reports

from NDMA to ARC

•

.

27

I.C.2.4 Action Plan

ARC payouts could occur after either of the insured seasons (short rains and long rains). The sequence of events as illustrated in the following would remain

the same. Where exact implementation times particularly depend on individual circumstances, an estimate of the timing was applied (indicated).

Month Implementing body

Activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Signing of agreements

Review and update of contingency

plans

Development of response plans

ARC and NDMA

Bi-annual food security assessment KFSSG

Rapid assessments (day 0-15) CSGs

Targeting (estimate) NDMA county offices

Water trucking: Assessment of water

storage facilities and distribution of

temporary containers (estimate)

CSGs

Water trucking: Procurement of

water (estimate)

Ministry of Water county offices

Water trucking: Provision of water to

targeted communities (estimate)

Ministry of Water county offices

Borehole activities: Provide fuel

subsidies to strategic boreholes,

stockpile fast-moving spares, and

constitute rapid response teams

CSGs, Ministry of Water county offices, WUAs, NDMA county offices

Implementation reports are

compiled and submitted to NDMA

headquarters (day 112-133)

NDMA county offices

Consolidate county reports and

submit to Treasury (day 134-164)

NDMA headquarter

Get review from Treasury and submit

final report to ARC (day 165-180)

Treasury, NDMA headquarter

28

I.C.3 National Coordination of Activities

I.C.3.1 Flow of funds

The funds from the ARC will flow through the National Treasury to temporary arrangements until the

National Drought and Disaster Contingency Fund (NDCF) is established. Although the NDCF is not yet

in place, the National Treasury has confirmed that it can provide the framework for the

disbursement of ARC payouts by establishing fund flow channels. This will be an interim measure

while the NDCF is being formally established. Once the NDCF is operational, ARC payout procedures

will be integrated within its systems.19

In the unlikely event that the NDCF should not be established,

the National Treasury will continue to provide an interim fund flow channel until another

institutional arrangement – subject to approval by the ARC Governing Board – has been achieved.

For Activity 1, all funds are transferred from the NDCF (or Treasury) to the Financial Sector

Deepening Trust (FSD). FSD manages the payments component and transfers funds to the payment

service provider (Equity Bank), which loads the smart cards used by registered beneficiaries to access

cash from point-of-sale devices held by a network of traders across the four counties. Payments are

automated and can quickly be scaled up and down as required. The two-factor authentication and

use of biometric data protects against fraud. This is the established process for the HSNP.

For Activity 2, CSGs would submit requests for NDCF funds to the NDMA headquarters, which will

then consolidate the total amount requested and submit this to the NDCF. Upon approval by the

NDCF, funds will be disbursed directly to the NDMA’s county accounts. From there, funds are

disbursed to the Ministry of Water county accounts and the respective CSGs (water trucking and

borehole activities). The period between the request of funds and the start of implementation will

be no longer than 14 days. With this process, the requisition of ARC funds from the NDCF will follow

the approved business process developed by the NDMA (Figure 6).

As a State Corporation, the NDMA has established a financial management system guided by the

Government’s systems. The flow of ARC funds will thus follow the procedures laid down for financial

management by State Corporations. Funds requisition and disbursement procedures for contingency

finance are automated through the business process software. The NDMA has its own fiduciary risk

management framework which will enhance transparency and accountability. Government financial

and procurement procedures will be adhered to throughout the implementation period.

19

Kenya has civil contingency funds (e.g. via the Contingencies Fund and the County Emergency Funds) but

these are for unforeseen needs. They also have financial limits, are discretionary and reactionary, and benefit

only from Government appropriations. The NDCF is designed to be the opposite of such an approach. Drought

can be foreseen through the early warning system and requires the systematic allocation of finance based on

objective triggers, rather than an individual’s judgment.

29

Figure 6: Contingency Planning and Funds Requisition Model

Source: NDMA Business Process for Disbursement of Drought Contingency Funds

Figure 7: Flow of ARC Finance for Cash Transfers

Day 0-10

Day 11-25

Day 0-15

Day 16-25

Day 26-111

Day 112-133

Day 134-164

Day 164-180

30

Figure 8: Flow Diagram for Water Activities

I.C.3.2 Monitoring, evaluation and reporting

In the case of a payout, monitoring of the implementation of all three ARC activities would be

coordinated by the NDMA. The NDMA would submit monthly operational and financial reports to

the ARC Agency according to the Operational Planning guidelines. At the end of the operation,

NDMA would submit a final comprehensive operational and financial report to the ARC Agency for

both activities. This final financial report would consist in a thorough comparison of the planned

budget as per the FIP against the actual expenditure during the intervention. A financial audit would

be done by the Auditor General’s office.

For both activities, the web-based Management Information System (MIS) that has been developed

to support the NDCF business process will track the progress of each intervention. The MIS allows

financial transactions to be accessed on a monthly basis. Reports will be generated and disseminated

to the relevant sectors and stakeholders. County Steering Groups are responsible for monitoring and

evaluation of all drought mitigation interventions. Their efforts will be supplemented by ad hoc

monitoring and evaluation missions constituted from the national level.

CSG monitoring committees have already developed monitoring and evaluation frameworks. The

county governments also have their own monitoring systems with proper guidelines. One of the key

parameters to be monitored and evaluated will be the mainstreaming of thematic issues such as

gender, HIV/AIDS, and environmental impacts. The interventions supported by ARC payouts will be

subject to these same M&E frameworks in order to ensure consistency and conformity at the county

level. A strong gender focus is critical throughout the project cycle, particularly to ensure equitable

Day 0-10

Day 11-25

Day 0-15

Day 16-37

Day 38-111

Day 112-133

Day 134-164

Day 164-180

31

impact of interventions on beneficiaries. The cash transfers and water interventions will both seek to

enhance community participation in decision-making. The HSNP grievance and complaints

committees and the water resource user associations, which are already established, also have equal

participation of both men and women across all age brackets.

On a monthly basis, or at the end of the intervention if earlier, at the county level all ministries and

other organisations which have received drought contingency finance submit comprehensive

implementation and expenditure reports to the County Drought Coordinator (CDC). The CDC

validates the reports by making a physical inspection of the interventions and submits the report on

to the NDMA. The monthly reports form the basis for a monthly report that the NDMA submits to

the ARC in accordance with the reporting guidelines of the ARC Secretariat.

At the end of implementation, at the county level the CDC compiles a financial report while the

NDMA’s county finance officer carries out a reconciliation exercise and ensures that all funds

disbursed have been accounted for. The reports are passed on to NDMA headquarters, where the

NDMA carries out a sample audit and produces a consolidated national financial report which is

submitted to the National Treasury. In addition, the NDMA consolidates a final operational and

financial report that is submitted to the ARC.

Periodic internal audits will be conducted by the NDMA’s Internal Audit section. An external private

audit verifying the flow of ARC funds will be commissioned at the end of implementation, following

terms of reference prepared by the ARC Secretariat. In addition, the National Treasury will carry out

a further audit at the end of implementation. These audit reports will generate lessons and highlight

areas for improvement in future drought response. External audit reports will be disseminated to all

stakeholders, and audit reports for ARC funds will be submitted to the ARC.

For Activity 1, the HSNP had a strong monitoring and evaluation component provided by Oxford

Policy Management during Phase 1. In Phase 2, DFID will contract a Project Implementation and

Learning Unit, whose terms of reference will include the management of an independently

contracted evaluation provider. ARC will also require an independent audit of the programme after

implementation.

For Activity 2, the Management Information System (MIS) that has been developed to support the

National Drought Contingency Fund business process will track the progress of each intervention.

Reports will be generated and disseminated to the relevant sectors and stakeholders. County

Steering Groups are responsible for monitoring and evaluation of all drought mitigation

interventions. CSGs are comprised of agencies from the government and other development

partners in the county. The sector working groups will be instrumental in spearheading the

implementation of ARC planned interventions in the county. Their efforts will be supplemented by

ad hoc monitoring and evaluation missions constituted from the national level.

Figure 9 illustrates the monitoring and reporting system for ARC payouts.

32

Figure 9: Monitoring and Reporting of ARC Payouts

Min ist ry o f De vo lut io n an d Pla nn ing

ARC SA Ex ecut ive Bo ard AR C F

Mi nistr y of Fin ance an d Nat io na l Treasu r y

Qu ar te rl y fin an cia l

re po rts to ARC F

Na tio na l Dr ou ght Man age me nt

Auth orit y

N at ion al Drou gh t &

Disast er C on t inge ncy Fun d

Mo nito rin g & Rep or ting

NDMA Co un ty Dro ug ht Man ageme nt

Un it s, in par t ne rsh ip w it h C ou nt y

S te ering Gro up s (C SGs)

Im p lem e nt ing agen cies, com mun ity grou ps & be ne ficia ri es

Mo nit or in g

R ep or tin g

Qu arte rl y re po rt s sub mi tt ed

to NDMA HQ & on wa rd s to

NDDCF / Mini st r y of Fin an ce

Mo nit or in g of im pl em ent a tio n , su pp lem en t ed b y p eri od ic mo ni to ri ng

m issio ns fr o m NDMA HQ

Mon t hly r ep ort s su bm it t ed

to NDMA Co un t y DM Uni t

Mon it or in g / a ud it o f C ou nt y

DM Uni ts

N DMA Da ta base s ( EWS, Co nt ing en cy

P la nn ing , MIS)

33

C.4 Risks and Assumptions

Table 1 discusses the risks and assumptions related to the ARC activities and the mitigating

strategies proposed.

Table 1: Risks, Mitigating Strategies and Assumptions

Risks Mitigating strategies

Inflation reduces the

value of cash transfers

• The actual value of the transfer can be adjusted with a minimum of lead time

(since the process is automated). HSNP also has provisions in place to protect

the value of the regular transfer (such as an annual review under the NSNP).

Outbreaks of conflict in

dry season grazing

areas

• The NDMA works closely with the National Steering Committee on Peace

Building and Conflict Management (NSC) which supports rapid response to

local-level conflicts.

• Likely hotspots where groups converge are generally known and will be

mapped in order to facilitate response planning.

The National Drought

Contingency Fund is

not operational before

the next drought

period

• The NDMA is working hard to ensure that the NDCF is established and

operationalised before the next drought period.

• In the event that it is not, the National Treasury has given assurances that it

can facilitate the flow of ARC funds.

Assumptions

1. County governments have sufficient capacity to carry out their responsibilities.

2. Drought coordination structures continue to work effectively at both national and county levels.

3. Collaborative working relationships continue to be maintained between the national and county

governments.20

4. Outbreaks of conflict can be managed and controlled.

20

The NDMA has been taking concrete steps to ensure that there is close collaboration between the national

and the county governments on matters of drought management. These include detailed briefings and

meetings with the new Governors and their teams – one held on 7-8 June 2013 and a second on 22-23 August

2013.

34

II. Budget

A detailed budget can only be prepared once the precise drought conditions and impacts are known.

However, as the outline budget in Table 2 shows, the NDMA proposes to allocate three-quarters of

ARC payouts to the cash transfers (in areas with the highest levels of food insecurity), and the

remaining one-quarter to water interventions (which are appropriate in any arid or semi-arid

county).

Table 2: Budget

Activity Allocation (%) Amount (USD m)

Cash transfers 75 22.5

Water 25 7.5

TOTAL 100 30

35

III. Annexes

A. Annex 1: Most Drought-Prone Livelihood Zones

1. Northwest pastoral cluster

Counties: Turkana, Marsabit, Samburu

Approximate size: 173,876 km2

Estimated population: 1.3 million people.

AEZ: arid (annual rainfall 150mm-550mm)

Food and income security are tied to livestock. Pastoralism is practised by around 60% of people,

and agro-pastoralism and fishing by a further 20% and 10% respectively.

Figure 10: Northwest Pastoral Cluster

36

2 Northeast pastoral cluster

Counties: Mandera, Wajir, Garissa, Tana River, Isiolo



AEZ: arid (annual rainfall 150mm-550mm)

Livestock and crop production account for 60% and 30% of total income respectively. The dominant

livelihood is pastoralism, followed by agro-pastoralism and mixed farming.

Figure 11: Northeast Pastoral Cluster

37

3 Agro-pastoral cluster

Counties: Kajiado, Narok, West Pokot, Baringo, Laikipia, part of Nyeri (Kieni)



AEZ: semi-arid (annual rainfall 550mm-850mm)

The main livelihoods are mixed farming, pastoralism, marginal mixed farming and agro-pastoralism.

Households in this cluster access 30% of food from their own production and 60% from the market.

Figure 12: Agro-pastoral Cluster

38

4 Southeast marginal agricultural cluster

Counties: Kitui, Machakos, Makueni, Tharaka Nithi, partof Embu (Mbeere), part of Meru (Meru

North)




Mixed farming and marginal mixed farming predominate, practiced by 65% and 26% of the

population respectively. Crop production contributes 40% to household income; livestock

production 35% and employment 25%. Remittances are also important.

Figure 13: Southeast Marginal Agricultural Cluster

39

5. Coastal marginal agricultural cluster

Counties: Kwale, Kilifi, Taita Taveta, Lamu




The main livelihoods are mixed farming, formal and informal employment, and marginal mixed

farming.

Figure 14: Coastal Marginal Agricultural Cluster

40

B. Annex 2: Briefing on the National Drought Contingency Fund, NDMA, 2013

C. Annex 3: Business Process for Disbursement of Drought Contingency Funds: Summary Report,

NDMA

D. Annex 4: Drought Response Manual: Sectoral Activities Eligible for Funding from the National

Drought Contingency Fund, NDMA, 2010

E. Annex 5: Ending Drought Emergencies Medium Term Plan, 2013-17

KENYA DROUGHT OPERATIONS PLAN 2013-14 · semi-arid lands (ASALs) to the north, east and south of...

Documents

Transcript of KENYA DROUGHT OPERATIONS PLAN 2013-14 · semi-arid lands (ASALs) to the north, east and south of...