Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Oxford Policy Management (2013) ‘Kenya Hunger Safety Net Programme Monitoring and Evaluation
Component: Impact Evaluation Final Report 2009 to 2012’ 12
WFP (2013) ‘Market Dynamics and Financial Services in Kenya’s Arid Lands’ 13
Oxford Policy Management (2013) ‘Kenya Hunger Safety Net Programme Monitoring and Evaluation
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
monitoring from CSGs
to NDMA, monthly and
final monitoring
reports from NDMA to
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
monitoring from CSGs
to NDMA, monthly and
final monitoring
reports from NDMA to
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
monitoring from CSGs
to NDMA, monthly and
final monitoring
reports from NDMA to
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
monitoring from CSGs
to NDMA, monthly and
final monitoring
reports from NDMA to
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
monitoring from CSGs
to NDMA, monthly and
final monitoring
reports from NDMA to
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
Approximate size: 190,753 km2
Estimated population: 1.8 million people.
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)
Approximate size: 68,820 km2
Estimated population: 2.9 million people.
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)
Approximate size: 52,000 km2
Estimated population: 4.1 million people.
AEZ: semi-arid (annual rainfall 550mm-850mm)
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
Approximate size: 48,000 km2
Estimated population: 2.3 million people.
AEZ: semi-arid (annual rainfall 550mm-850mm)
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