Table of Contents Opening Remarks 3 Overview of the Voices of Poor Livestock Keepers in the Lake Victoria Basin Study 3 Sharing of Preliminary results from Vihiga district 5

Map 1: Study Sites in Vihiga District 6 Table 1: Sub locations that were sampled for the study in Vihiga district... 6 Table 2: Main occupations in Vihiga district 7 Table 3: Sources of information on livestock 7 Table 4: Type of livestock information sought 8 Table 5: Information farmers have been seeking on farmyard manure 9 Table 6: Percentage of sources of information who failed to provide information that was needed 9

Table 7: Sources of livestock information in the study sites 9 Table 8: Type of livestock information sought in the study sites 10 Table 9: Gender and livestock information sources 11

OUTPUTS FROM WORKING GROUPS 11 GROUP ONE: How can the functions of community-based organizations be strengthened to better meet the needs of poor livestock keepers? 11

Task 1. Define a community-based organization (CBO) 11 Task 2. Describe main types of CBOs in Vihiga District 11 Task 3: What are the roles of youth groups, self help groups, women groups in meeting the needs of the poor 11 Task 4: Describe how those roles can be strengthened 12

GROUP TWO: Describe what is means to be a poor livestock keeper in Vihiga District 12

Task 1: Definition of a livestock keeper 12 Task 2: What distinguishes people as poor livestock keepers (indicators).. 12 Task 3: How do livestock keepers become poor/non-poor? 12

GROUP THREE: How can the needs of poor livestock keepers be better met? 13

Task 1: What information do livestock keepers need? 13 Task 2: Are they getting this information now? 13 Task 3: How can the gaps be filled? 14 Task 4: Identify who will f i l l the gaps? 14

GROUP FOUR: Are there ways or methods for reaching poor people that would be more effective (e.g. schools, church groups, markets)? 14

Task 1: List the alternative methods that have good potential 14 Task 2: How could those methods be strengthened? 14 Task 3: Are there any successful experiences in Vihiga district? 15 Task 4: Priority actions 16

Conclusions and reflections on the workshop 16 District Livestock Production Officer's final comments 17 Some agencies providing services to farmers in Vihiga district 18

Programme 21 Participant List 22

2

Opening Remarks By Arlington Omushieni - District Agriculture and Livestock Extension Officer, Vihiga District

The Government of Kenya has established a new National Agricultural Extension Policy that formally ends the government monopoly on the provision of agricultural information. The new policy instead encourages pluralistic extension involving government agencies, non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations and the private sector to meet the needs of our farming communities. The Extension Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is expected to lead extension efforts and to coordinate the activities of all extension providers.

This study - Voices of Poor Livestock Keepers - will help to guide the implementation of this policy in Vihiga District. The study will help the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development to better understand the needs of poor people and provide guidance on how those needs can be better served. We in Vihiga are thankful to ICRAF fro conducting the study in the district for the benefit of all stakeholders especially farmers.

We look forward to workable recommendations derived from this workshop, which will help to improve agricultural extension service delivery to farmers in Vihiga district.

Overview of the Voices of Poor Livestock Keepers in the Lake Victoria Basin Study By Brent Swallow, ICRAF - World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi DFID has invested a great deal of funds into livestock health and production research but is concerned about the level of impact. In this respect it is leading a consortium of donors interested in livestock research to find out how the poor can benefit from the "livestock revolution." DFID is focusing its research and development interventions on the needs of the poor. To do this it engaged consultants in 2001 to assess suppliers of livestock information in East Africa. DFID also supported ILRI to do a study of livestock production and poverty in developing countries which identified the Lake Victoria Basin as a concentration of poor people and livestock within the African continent.

In 2002, ICRAF is leading a component of the study that focuses on the information and technology needs and sources for poor livestock keepers in the Lake Victoria Basin. Project activities have been implemented in 10 selected districts of the basin regions of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda in collaboration with a number of partners. Support for the study and this workshop is provided by DFID and ICRAF core funds.

Objectives of the study are:

3

a) Identify where significant numbers of poor livestock keepers are located in the Lake Victoria basin

b) Describe how those poor livestock keepers access new knowledge and technologies, with emphasis on knowledge and technologies pertaining to livestock

c) Identify what the levels of demand for new livestock related knowledge and technologies are and to what extent these information needs are being met

d) Document which civil society organizations operate in the Lake Victoria basin and to what extent they actually, and potentially, cater for the interests of poor livestock keepers

e) Suggest what ways civil society organizations can be empowered to enable poor people to better access new information and technologies

Methodology The main focus of the study was on the demand-side of information and innovation flow. Our approach to the study was to represent the range of conditions that prevail across the poorer parts of the Lake Victoria Basin. To best capture this, the study adopted a multi-layered approach starting from the regional level to the household level. At the regional and national levels, the study is still compiling and reviewing literature and on going studies on farming system characterization, farmer advisory services, and information sources. The next level of aggregation is the district level. Districts were chosen to represent high levels of poverty and contrasting social-cultural and agro-ecological conditions. In Kenya, Vihiga, Bondo and Migori districts were chosen on the basis of those criteria. Qualitative methods and secondary information were used to collect information at the district level. Within each district, sub-locations were then selected to represent the major socio-cultural and agro-ecological circumstances and contrasting access to information and services. Participatory methods (e.g. search conferences) were used to collect information for the locations. Households in each sub-location were randomly selected for a household survey.

The research tools used were key informant interviews, participatory tools such as the use, access, control/ownership matrix to show information and innovation around the resources, and the search conference. At the household level, a questionnaire was administered. The team implementing the study includes ICRAF researchers and consultants, a lecturer from Egerton University, staff from local government and the Tanzanian Forestry Research Institute, and staff from non-governmental organizations in Uganda. Mr. David Amudavi, a lecturer at Egerton University, led the implementation of the field work in Vihiga District, working closely with Nelson Mango, Wilson Nindo and Rosalynn Gichimo.

Fieldwork in Vihiga District was conducted in August and September 2002 and preliminary results have been compiled. This workshop is now being convened

to advance three objectives: 1) Share the preliminary results of the study with stakeholders who could benefit from the results in the design of their own future activities; 2) Obtain reactions to our interpretations of the results - Are the results an accurate depiction of the situation in the district? and 3) Brainstorm with stakeholders on what the results mean for agricultural technology development and information dissemination in Vihiga district. The workshop will proceed as follows: (1) Nelson Mango will make a presentation of the main results obtained to date on behalf of the study team; (2) we will have a plenary discussion of those results; (3) the participants will break into 4 working groups to discuss specific topics raised by the study; and (4) the working groups will report back to the plenary sessions.

Sharing of Preliminary results from Vihiga district By Nelson Mango, Consultant, ICRAF - World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi Vihiga district is one of the eight districts in Western province. It lies between longitude 34° 30' East and 35° 0' East and between 0°and 0° 15' North. The total population of Vihiga district as the per the 1999 Population and Housing Census was 498,882 with an annual growth rate of 3%. The annual rainfall is between 1800-2000mm per annum. The size of the District is 563 square kilometres and the population density is 886 persons per square kilometre. The number of people continues to increase, as farm sizes remain static. Due to small farms and large families there is high pressure on the land. The infant mortality rate is 98 for every 1,000 live births. A large labour force is engaged in agricultural and livestock production activities.

The average farm size is 0.5ha. Most farms are under subsistence farming. The major farm related problem is declining soil fertility. According to the finding of this study the average household size is 6.

In Vihiga district, data was collected in six sub-locations: namely • Hamuyundi in West Maragoli location, • Madzuu in Mungoma location, • Kaptech in Shaviringa location, • Gamalenga in Tambua location, • Esabalu in South Bunyore location and • Emmukunzi in East Bunyore location.

The region is largely occupied by three main ethnic groups of the Luhya community in the district namely: Maragoli, Banyore and Tiriki. In each region, two representative sub locations were chosen, one representing a high potential sub location and the other representing a medium potential sub location. Twenty households were selected in each sub-location using random sampling. The survey covered farm characteristics, production technologies in livestock production, horticulture, fruit, timber and collective action in community based natural resource management. Six enumerators were used, one for each sub-location.

5

Map 1: Study Sites in Vihiga District

Table 1: Sub locations that were sampled for the study in Vihiga district

Division

Luanda

Tiriki West Vihiga Emuhaya

Tiriki East

Emuhaya

Sabatia

Location

South Bunyore Tambua

Mungoma East Bunyore Shaviringa

East Bunyore West Maragoli

Sub location Esabalu

Gamalenga

Madzuu Emukunzi

Kaptech

Ebusamia

Hamuyundi

Ethnic grouping Banyore

Tiriki

Maragoli Banyore

Tiriki

Banyore

Maragoli

No. of HH interviewed 19

20

21 20

19

1

20

Classification

High potential

High potential

High potential Medium potential Medium potential Medium potential Medium potential

(Source: Analysis of household data collected by study)

()

Some of the results of the data analysis of the questionnaire produced the following results that were shared with the participants.

Table 2: Main occupations in Vihiga district

Occupation Farming Agricultural casual labour Non agricultural casual labour Self employment Formal employment Other

Percentage 77 4 5 5 5 5

(Source: Analysis of household data collected by study)

Major causes of poverty in Western Kenya • High rate of population growth, especially in Vihiga, leading to strains on

factors of production such as land • Very small farm sizes • High levels of unemployment • HIV/AIDS: 20% of the population of Vihiga is HIV positive • Cost of production (crop and livestock) is high • Low use/application adoption of agricultural innovation (use of hybrid

seeds, fertilizers and boma manure) • Low status of cash crop farming • Low status of farm /business credit • Lack of enterprise sustainability (projects and investment initiative) • Inadequate Lack of information on marketing systems • Inadequate and poorly distributed infrastructure, that is, roads network,

electricity, water supply and marketing infrastructure

Table 3: Sources of information on livestock

Information source None Agricultural extension officer Family member Veterinary officer Experience Neighbours/other farmers Village elders Livestock traders

Vihiga Bondo Migori Overall % of households indicating each information source

14 21

8 15

17 18

5 1

21 3

6 67

3

6 53

14 12

14 1

1

12 31

10 20

14 9

2 1

7

(Source: Analysis of household data collected by study)

• About one-third of households are reached by Agricultural extension or Veterinary officers

• About one-third from neighbours or elders • About one-third rely on own experience

Table 4: Type of livestock information sought

Information type Feeding Grazing Treatment and disease control Increase production Housing Marketing Livestock breeds and breeding General animal husbandry Poultry keeping

Vihiga Bondo | Migori Overall % of households indicating each information need

22 5

19

8

2 4 6

31

4

4

82

4

11

7

56

5

1 8

23

13 2

42

6

1 2 6

25

2

(Source: Analysis of household data collected by study)

Across the three districts people are generally looking for information on: • General animal husbandry, • Feeding and • Disease control. Interest in disease control varies tremendously

across the three districts, with 82 percent of households concerned with disease control in Bondo and only 19 percent concerned with disease control in Vihiga.

8

Table 5: Information farmers have been seeking on farmyard manure

Information type

Which is better between FYM and fertilizer How to maintain nutrients in FYM Making best FYM If it gives higher yields Use/application of FYM Best animal for FYM (Source: Analysis of house

Table 6: Percentage of

Vihiga Bondo Migori Overall % of households indicating each information need

16

25

49 3 7

11

56 11 11 11

9

56 16 19

9

18

52 9 12 1

lold data col ected by study)

sources of information who failed to provide information that was needed

Information source Agricultural extension officer Family member Veterinary officer Neighbours/other farmers Village elders

Percentage % 44 28 17 6 6

(Source: Analysis of household data col ected by study)

• 44% of households have failed to get information they wanted from Agricultural extension officers, while only 6% failed to get information they wanted from family members or village elders.

Table 7: Sources of livestock information in the study sites

Study sites

Esabalu, Luanda (Bunyore - high potential) Emukunzi, Emuhaya (Bunyore - medium potential) Gamalenga, Tiriki West (Tiriki - high potential) Kaptech, Tiriki East (Tiriki - medium potential) Madzuu, Vihiga

None / own experience

Family

% of households 31

15

20

24

50

6

10

4

19

Neighbours / elders

Agric extension / Vet. Officer

Traders

ndicating each information source 63

35

45

32

0

50

25

32

31

4

9

(Maragoli - high potential) Hamuyundi, Sabatia (Maragoli - medium potential)

25 20 20 35

(Source: Analysis of household data collected by study)

Table 8: Type of livestock information sought in the study sites

Study sites

Esabalu, Luanda (Bunyore -high potential) Emukunzi, Emuhaya (Bunyore -medium potential) Gamalenga, Tiriki West (Tiriki - high potential) Kaptech, Tiriki East (Tiriki -medium potential) Madzuu, Vihiga (Maragoli -high potential) Hamuyundi, Sabatia (Maragoli -medium potential)

Mainte­nance

Feed­ing

Graz­ing

Disease treatment $ control

Hus­bandry

Breeds Poultry Mrktg

% of households indicating each information need 10

35

12

12

5

25

55

5

8

12

15

5

18

5

30

5

20

12

i

25

10

35

5

28

42

20

20

8

10

10

5

4

(Source: Analysis of household data collected by study)

10

Table 9: Gender and livestock information sources

Type of household

Male-headed household Female-headed household

None/own experience

Family Neighbours Elders Agric. extension

officer

Vet. Officer

Traders

% of households indicating each information source 16

7

8

14

19

14

4

14

21

21

17

0

7

(Source: Analysis of household data collected by study)

• Female-headed households are more reliant on others, especially elders, neighbours, family members and agricultural extension officers than male-headed households. However, they do not obtain any information from Veterinary officers.

• Agricultural extension is a well-known source of information.

OUTPUTS FROM WORKING GROUPS

GROUP ONE: How can the functions of community-based organizations be strengthened to better meet the needs of poor livestock keepers?

Task 1. Define a community-based organization (CBO) In Kenya, a Community Based Organization is a group that is registered under Ministry of Culture and Social Services. A broader definition of a CBO is an organization that is owned and formed by a community with an aim to improve their livelihoods.

On the other hand, a Civil Society Organization (CSO) is a lobby group that mainly deals with specific issues or objectives.

Task 2. Describe main types of CBOs in Vihiga District > Women groups > Youth groups > Self help groups > Clan groups > Merry-go-round groups

Task 3: What are the roles of youth groups, self help groups, women groups in meeting the needs of the poor > Information sourcing > Dissemination > Awareness creation

11

> Service delivery > Experimentation with new technology > Attract different development agency

Task 4: Describe how those roles can be strengthened > Obtain and disseminate more information from extension providers and

other collaborators > Increase the number of contacts with extension providers > Operationalize extension - research linkage, e.g. stakeholders forum can

be used to link CBOs, extension and research > Quality training to CBOs as information disseminators > Improve infrastructure like the road network > Marketing > Make affordable credit more widely available through village credit

associations. Build on women's groups and merry-go-round groups that can do this. This will require real engagement with the group so that they have by-laws, which they develop, and they can move toward being registered as cooperatives at some point.

> Establish "community resource centers"

GROUP TWO: Describe what is means to be a poor livestock keeper in Vihiga District.

Task 1: Definition of a livestock keeper Someone who rears domesticated animals, for example cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, quails, poultry, bees, donkeys, rabbits. (An alternative, broader, definition would include people who produce napier grass for the purpose of selling to neighbours.)

The livestock keeper would keep livestock for the following purposes: subsistence, social-cultural (dowry, funerals), income, ornamental, security (geese), transport (donkeys), ploughing (oxen) and manure.

Task 2: What distinguishes people as poor livestock keepers (indicators) > Number of animals > Type/quality of animals > Feeding methods > Health status > Housing > Production/earning levels > Level of investment (expenditure on livestock) > Information network > Livestock equipment

Task 3: How do livestock keepers become poor/non-poor? They become poor due to the following:

12

> Lack of capital/credit facilities > High dependency ratios > Marketing failures / poor marketing systems > Social-cultural factors, e.g. slaughtering of animals for funerals and

festivals and transferring animals for dowry > Overstocking > Theft > Landlessness (land succession) > Disease/pests > Lack of support services, e.g. veterinary, information > Low literacy

Livestock keepers can get out of poverty due to the following: > Access to credit facilities > Improved marketing systems > Attitude change > Diversification of the livestock enterprise > Recycling of livestock organic wastes > Upgrading > Introduction of small stock, e.g. dairy goats > Revision and implementation of land laws > Information

GROUP THREE: How can the needs of poor livestock keepers be better met? Task 1: What information do livestock keepers need? > Feeding > Breeding > Disease control > Calf rearing > Marketing > Fodder establishment/management > Record keeping > Improvement of local birds > General information on bee keeping > General management of livestock species > Enterprise analysis

Task 2: Are they getting this information now? They were two responses to this question. Some group members felt that livestock keepers were getting this information. They identified the sources of this information as extension services from the government, CBOs, NGOs, research organizations, fellow farmers, radios, newspapers, etc.

Those who felt that livestock keepers were not getting this information gave the following reasons:

> The ratio of extension workers to farmers is low, 1:1200

> Poor coverage of newspapers/not priority/not affordable > Poor mobility > Little control of resources > Few CBOs and NGOs focus on livestock enterprise > Farmers' attitudes

Task 3: How can the gaps be filled? > Improve the low ratio of extension workers to farmers > Improve farmers' incomes > Adopt more of a group approach to extension > Staff capacity building > Increase level of collaboration of stakeholders > Improve mobility > Use radio, newspapers etc > Establish community resource centers > Local newsletters

Task 4: Identify who will fill the gaps? > NGOs, CBOs, Researchers, government extension agents > Partnerships

GROUP FOUR: Are there ways or methods for reaching poor people that would be more effective (e.g. schools, church groups, markets)?

Task 1: List the alternative methods that have good potential. > Schools; this happens through drama, songs and introduction of Young

Farmers Clubs > Radios: this could be an effective mechanism for raising awareness on

imparting some information. But, it does not seem to be effective. This is because there is: lack of knowledge of what comes when and the programmes are not well targeted to their audiences. To improve this channel, they could target school children who are keen listeners of the emerging FM stations. The radio could also be used to inform people of where they get information from the government.

> Chiefs' barazas > Annual cultural festivals > Location-level agricultural shows/field days (chief as patron) > Field days

Task 2: How could those methods be strengthened? > Schools Schools are widely distributed and many families have children in school. However, children from poor families are limited from attending school. CBOs / NGOs could focus on the needs of children who are out of school. Children from poor families should be allowed to attend Young Farmers club activities.

14

1. There is need to raise interests and awareness of the Teachers in agriculture and environment clubs (as well as Principals, Head teachers, Education officers)

2. Provide them with the training resources, that is books and teaching aids 3. Livestock/agriculture should be taken as part of their activities in life 4. There is need to change the attitude that digging is a punishment

> Church /church groups 1. Many church headquarters are based in Vihiga district, so there could be

good prospects here. People are not denied entry. The diocese may be doing some agricultural extension activities directly with a few farmers, but they may be more effective if they worked with local parishes more directly so that they could be more effective in appealing to small church groups that meet in people's homes. However, the group members had the feeling that the church seems to be neutral

2. There are groups in churches that have been empowered to work on development issues, but they could be reached more effectively.

3. Pastors should be sensitized to inform the farmer at the local level 4. The church should try to preach on developmental issues to change

people's attitudes on social cultural issues around funerals, for example, slaughtering cattle. Some churches are beginning to address this.

> Markets / Market days 1. Use farmers video shows - this is an option though its not very effective 2. Posters presenting information through pictures, drawings and in local

languages 3. At planting season, research and extension agencies could attend market

days to offer low cost technologies or packages to farmers 4. Processions - for example during the annual cultural festival of bull

fighting 5. Mini shows on the farm

> Football matches 1. Use football clubs to address the poor- perhaps agricultural displays

could be on hand during these events

> Agricultural information centers should be strengthened. The national Agricultural Information Center (AIC) is doing some useful things. However, it is mainly from Nairobi and needs to be funded better.

> Chiefs' barazas should be organized to train people on agricultural issues

Task 3: Are there any successful experiences in Vihiga district? > Through Schools > Resource Projects Kenya has been successful in training students in

Young Farmers Clubs and hockey clubs

15

> YMCA provides effective support to women groups > The NALEP Focal area approach ensures that all farmers in the village

are reached. > ADP - cow-to-cow programme, women group with an A.I scheme

Task 4: Priority actions • Support church parishes to change customary funeral practices that are

devastating livestock practices that are frustrating livestock populations and businesses

• Strengthen AIC and bring it closer to the needs of the poor • Interact with chiefs and use some chiefs' Barazas as extension

opportunities • Use market days around planting time as avenues to market agricultural

inputs and low-cost approaches • Raise interest and awareness of Principals and Teachers in agriculture

and improved livelihoods

Conclusions and reflections on the workshop Brent Swallow

• It appears that the highest priority for the livestock sector in Vihiga District is to safeguard livestock assets from the effects of cultural traditions (i.e. slaughtering cattle at funerals), especially the livestock assets held by the poor.

• There is a need to change attitudes and cultural practices that are aggravating effects of disease outbreaks and undermining agriculture. For example, teachers and headmasters need to stop using digging as a punishment in the area's schools.

• The participants had many innovative ideas on wider dissemination of information and technologies through plural extension approaches -through churches, schools, community newsletters, extension providers at markets and community resource centers. All of these ideas merit further exploration.

• Community resource centers and stakeholder forums could provide new ways to reach farmers.

• Church groups can be strengthened through the diocese and also directly.

• There are opportunities to empower community-based organizations that are doing well to improve the services they provide to members, exchange of information with suppliers, credit etc. Eventually, some community-based organizations that are now registered as self-help groups could be registered as cooperative societies.

• Pluralist agricultural extension could begin by reaching out to specific groups who have not before been targeted by agricultural extension agents, specifically chiefs, school teachers, and church pastors

16

• Participants did not see private extension and service providers as replacing government extension providers. This is significant because most of the current development dialogue emphasizes much greater roles for the private sector.

• Participants did not focus on revival of cooperatives or consider the collapse of cooperatives as a significant problem affecting extension services.

• Participants did not mention decentralization as a solution. • Participants did not clarify needs and approaches for specific vulnerable

and poor groups, but instead discussed general needs of the rural population of Vihiga District.

• Participants emphasized the need for trained livestock extension providers in NGOs.

DALEO's closing comments Mr. Omushieni felt that it was a good forum for the exchange of ideas. He emphasized the need for triangulation of some results (e.g. lack of contact in Sabatia). He termed the workshop a good eye opener since the farmers seem to be reached by different providers than the ones traditionally thought to do it. He announced that the MOARD in Vihiga District will be convening a farmers' field day in early 2003 and asked for support by the workshop participants and other stakeholders operating in the district.

District Livestock Production Officer's final comments Mr. Muhindi observed that there is a noticeable difference between this study and other surveys in that it returned to the district to report on the results in a way that could be used to provide better extension services and improve farmers' livelihoods. He noted that Vihiga has the highest numbers of CBOs and NGOs in all of Kenya, and this has promoted a dependency syndrome among the farmers. He commended the survey but added that it would have been better if it addressed quantity and quality of information, for example, what was the quality of the animals belonging to farmers who claimed to get information from their own experience? Mr. Muhindi asserted that old people in Vihiga are not in a hurry to hand over the management of their farms to young people who will adapt technologies. This may explain the low adoption rates of technologies. He advocates for the opening up of extension and emphasizes the need for transparency in government and NGO activities. He also feels that there is a need to support technical expertise of CBOs and NGOs. On the issue of partnerships, Mr Muhindi says that poverty and seniority of government and youth and wealth of NGOs have affected government and NGO partnerships.

17

Some agencies providing services to farmers in Vihiga district • Kazi Mashambani Development Program (Kamadep). This is an NGO that

operates in Kakamega and Vihiga. It is usually contracted to work with some groups in poverty reduction program.

• Tumaini Program - Extends credit to individual members and through groups in Sabatia, Tiriki West and some parts of Tiriki East divisions.

• African Now - Based in Kisumu previously operated in Emuhaya and Luanda divisions. It has now developed a program in water and sanitations and resource management. Recently it collaborated with Kenya Rural Enterprise Program (K-REP) to mobilize groups in Tiriki East and West to establish a village bank. K-REP has been operating in Luanda but now it has moved to Kisumu. Africa now also has projects in beekeeping and dairy goats.

• Integrated Micro-Enterprise Development Program (IMEDP) works with farmer groups by training them how to manage a revolving fund. It does so through starting and maintaining merry-go-round.

• Sabatia constituency Development Fund (SACODEF) gives out bursary to needy students. They also have a revolving fund they give to groups on rotational.

• Maendeleo ya Wanawake (Women's Organization in Kenya) concentrate on awareness creation. They encourage women to go for male-dominated jobs, participate in civic education programs and encourage women to undertake income-generating activities. All these strategies are geared towards empowering women in general, and poor farmers who are largely women in particular.

• Kima Community Based Health Care (formerly CBHC) - This is a CBO sponsored by Oxfarm - Program 2001. It began after a baseline survey that found communities in Emuhaya and Luanda suffering from insufficient food production. It has therefore initiated programs that integrate sustainable agriculture with, reproductive health - HIV/AIDS. This promotes information and technologies that address soil fertility improvement through compost manure, protection of springs, livestock production in particular bee keeping, and credit support.

• Kenya Women Finance Trust is still new and picking up quite quickly through its intensive training programme. It is training women on how to acquire and use loans.

• Kaimosi Rural Resource Program • American Breeders Service (ABS) - it provides Artificial insemination

services as well as extension to farmers by organizing meetings in which farmers are taught improved livestock production. It imports semen from the US to improve local breeds.

• Christian Partners Development Agency dealing with food security and agriculture, water and sanitation, civic education, child rights and welfare, alternative leadership programme and health.

• Care Kenya - Credit scheme for micro-finance.

18

• Association for Better Land Husbandry (ABLH).

• Sustainable Community Development Program (SCODP) - promoting the use of variety of feed sources that do not compete for land. For example, desmodiums, calliandra and nappier grass to provide crude protein besides contributing to soil conservation.

• Resource Projects Kenya dealing with horticulture, livestock (mainly poultry), advocacy and improved household food security. RPK has been working in liaison with ICRAF to promote management of indigenous poultry through vaccination. They have addressed the areas of:

- Proper housing. - Homegrown formulation. There has been 25% - 90% survival rate

improvement - Routine vaccination. - Basic simple structures. - Rearing chickens differently. - Inducing hatching cycle - brooding/thatching through use of

traditional /indigenous knowledge. • International Institute of Rural Reconstruction (IIRR) - Dairy goats • Lagro Tech - this is an NGO dealing with dairy goats • Dairy Goats Association of Kenya and the Ministry of Agriculture. The

Dairy Goats Association of Kenya leases a buck to farmers at 4,000/= per year.

• Smallholder Dairy Project - has come up with a trial in collaboration with CIMMYT - bringing in maize varieties established at high-density plant population to be used as fodder. Though varieties have been known to do well under high population density, maize as a staple food cannot be adequately used as fodder.

• Honey Care Africa and Africa Now have launched a new initiative aimed at promoting commercial beekeeping amongst rural communities. The program aims to introduce smallholder farmers to the Honey Care model for commercial beekeeping using the Langstroth hive and ensures that these farmers have a guaranteed market for their honey and a sustained source of income. So far there are 300 Langstroth hives that have been brought in from Germany earmarked for farmers in Madzuu in Tiriki East division.

• Joy Christian Community Self-help group. This is community-based organization. It provides animal health services to the farmers, provides Artificial Insemination and trains farmers on proper livestock husbandry aspects.

• Heifer Project International (HPI) - This project gives heifer to women groups (in Sabatia - division there are two women groups that have benefited from this program). Those that succeeded met the requirements of having an established Napier grass and zero-grazing units. This program operated as a rotational scheme. Every first heifer

19

was being given to other group members but if it was a bull, the farmer retained it.

• Individual farmers. They provide animal service through trained animal assistants.

• Luanda Dairy - Provides Artificial Insemination services, animal health services, small-scale processor of milk to improve milk shelf and produces products such as sour milk.

• The District Veterinary office is closely linked with farmers the district. Workshops and seminars are organized to educate the farmers and their representatives. The veterinary office collaborates with research in the areas of disease control and potency testing of drugs. Some of the vaccines are tested; semen is also tested for potency. It is therefore linked with research through feeding, breeding and disease control.

• District Development Committee. The DDC has been in involved in contracting some groups to participate in the poverty eradication program.

• In respect to poultry, the NALEP program is dealing with: New castle vaccination. Farmers are being encouraged to own vaccination programs; management. Developing birds (layers) for farmers to take over; Promotion of exotic birds as equally nutritious as the local ones. The market tends to have a preference for local chicken and eggs.

20

Workshop on voices of the poor livestock keepers in Vihiga district, 17th December 2002

Programme

TIME 8:30am

9:30am

9:30- 10:00am

10:00-10:30am 10:30-11:15am

11:15-12:15pm

12:15-12:45pm

1:00pm

ACTIVITY Welcome Address Introduction of participants Background on the Voices of poor livestock keepers in the lake Victoria basin study Sharing of preliminary results from the study Tea Break Sharing of preliminary results from the study part II Working groups on thematic issues Summary of issues on opportunities and constraints to new information and technologies Workshop closing Lunch

MODERATOR Arlington Omushieni DALEO, Vihiga district

Brent Swallow ICRAF

Nelson Mango ICRAF

Nelson Mango ICRAF

21

Workshop on voices of the poor livestock keepers in Vihiga district, 17th December 2002

Participant List Awareness Youth Development Foundation John Amisi Chairman Gamalenga Sublocation P OBox44 Nyanguri, Kenya Email: ayodef@mbale.africaonline.com

Africa 2000 Network Frederick M Kabuye Programme Coordinator P O Box 21990 Kampala, Uganda Tel: 077 707071 Fax:041 344801 Email: anetwork@africaonline.co.ug

Christian Partners Development Agency Elias Katoya Field Officer PO Box 186 Chavakali, Kenya Tel: 0331 51461 / 51541

Farmers Simeon A Mucheneke P 0 Box 70 Vihiga, Kenya

Richard E Sianje P 0 Box 94 Bunyore, Kenya

Jamipher K Buluku Africa Now P 0 Box12 Jebrok, Kenya

Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI)

Collins 0 Obonyo Centre Director P O Box 25199 Kisumu, Kenya Tel: 035 51164 Fax: 035 51592

KIMA/CBP Franklin D Sikunyi Water Resource Person P O Box410, Luanda, Kenya Tel: 0722 248264 Email: kimacbhc@mastat.africaonline.com

Maseno University Jacob Kibwage Lecturer, School of Environmental Studies P 0 Box 333, Maseno, Kenya Tel: 0733 793604 Fax: 035 51221 Email: ikkibwage@hotmail.com

Ministry Of Agriculture and Rural Development Mbale District Headquarters P 0 Box 237 Maragoli, Kenya Tel: 0331 - 51416

Arlington Shikuku Omushieni District Agricultural and Livestock Extension Officer (DALEO) - Vihiga District Tel: 0722 983733 Email: saomushieni@vahoo.com

Stanley K Muhindi District Livestock Production Officer (DLPO)

Mobile: 0722 381276

Moses M 0 Okong'o Dairy officer/LDP-LIV Coordinator Mobile: 0722 875192 Email: bernamos@vahoo.com

Aggrey M Lanogwa District Animal Production Officer

George N Bosire District Farm Management Officer

Edwin Mwango District Soil Conservation Officer

Hector Kusiru Deputy District Veterinary Officer Mbale District Headquarters P O Box 1132 Maragoli, Kenya Tel: 0331 - 51037 Email: Kusiruh@yahoo.com

Martin 0 Omenya Division Extension Coordinator -Sabatia

Tom E Volenzo Division Extension Coordinatro -Vihiga

Vincent 0 Masime Divisional Animal Production Officer Emuhaya Emuhaya Divisional Office PO Box 194 Luanda, Kenya Tel: 0331 - 51500/51416

Philip A Omoro Division Extension Coordinator -Luanda MOARD Luanda District Office P 0 Box 350

Luanda, Kenya

Stephen W Maina Division Extension Coordinator -Tiriki West DEC's office, Hamisi P 0 Box 237 Maragoli, Kenya Tel: 0722 379440 / 0733 436285 Email: stepmaina2002@yahoo.com

Ezekiel I Ngaira Frontline Extension Worker Vihiga Division P 0 Box 691 Kakamega, Kenya Tel: 0331 - 51416

Mark 0 Otieno Field Extension Worker - Bunyore Emuhaya Divisional Office P 0 Box 74 Emuhaya, Kenya

Jonathan P K Manyasa Frontline Extension Worker Luanda Division P 0 Box 350 Luanda, Kenya

Office of the President Hudson L Mugunda Assistant Chief - Hamuyundi P 0 Box 61 Kilingili, Kenya

Resource Projects Kenya PO Box 1148 Maragoli, Kenya Tel: 0331 51367

John A Endusa Field Officer

Celestine Wekesa

Rural Services Programme Wycliffe L Maneno Extension Worker P 0 Box 14 Tiriki, Kenya

WEMWEDO Elikho Amuniafu Field Technician P 0 Box 79 Bunyore, Kenya

World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) - Nairobi P 0 Box 30677 - 0100 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 02 524000 Fax: 02 524001

Brent Swallow Programme Leader Email: B.Swallow@cgiar.org

Nelson R Mango Researcher Email: N.Mango@cgiar.org

Njeri Muhia Visting Lecturer, Economics Department Egerton University Email: N.Muhia@cgiar.org

Rosalynn G Murithi Project Assistant Email: R.Gichimo@cgiar.org

World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) - Kisumu P 0 Box 2389 Kisumu, Kenya Tel: 035 21456/21918 Fax: 035 21234 Email: icraf-kisumu@cgiar.org

24

David Nyantika Research and Extension Liasion Officer Nicholas Shitsukane Accountant

Wilson Nindo Research Assistant Email: wilsonnoi@vahoo.com

YMCA - Chavakali Charles M Okwemba Branch Manager P O Box 1237 Maragoli, Kenya Tel: 0331 51167 Email: ymca@africaonline.com