Final Evaluation of the - UNEP

which might have provide a baseline. A livestock marketing survey was done in Kenya
(Njanja. & Obunga, 2005) but it was very general. Livestock marketing is also important, but
not as important as increases in animal production. If quality livestock is for sale, there will
always be a market even if the traders take advantage of the owners, and even if poor
infrastructure, lack of motorized transport and the long distance to markets all mean that
weight losses occur whilst walking to markets. Again, the project’s performance as regards
improving livestock marketing appeared weak except in Marsabit.
45. The promotion of alternative livelihoods was seen essential for communities to buy in to
the IVP. The difficulty was to limit the number of alternative livelihoods or at least ensure
that the livelihoods were directly related to the project objectives. The successful hides and
skins operation for women in Marsabit was an example of a useful IGA but it was difficult to
relate it to IV or land rehabilitation. Pastoralists maintain large herds as a strategy for better
surviving catastrophes like droughts or epidemics. With increased incomes, pastoralists
commonly invest in more livestock. Therefore, the development of alternative livelihoods, in
the absence of effective range management systems, could lead to increased land degradation
and loss of biodiversity. The project includes alternative livelihoods without any criteria for
strategically linking this with the Project Objective. This is quite simplistic.
O-5 Technology transfer, training and regional comparative learning
46. Regional training (study tours) are always popular. They broaden the mind but they are
expensive. But did they increase the likelihood of achieving the project objective? The answer
is probably not, especially when the FE did not see the justification of a regional component.
Moreover, training is an output not an outcome. The outcome should have been land
rehabilitation or increased wealth as a result of training e.g. better tree protection because of
solar cooker introduction or higher incomes as a result of training on hides and skins.
Numerous other training courses were organized for beneficiaries. These are much more
relevant to local problems but the results of the trainings should have been quantified in the
form of outcomes.
O-6 Targeted research
47. It was not clear to the FE what targeted research meant. Country teams implementing the
project started working on the six outcomes without any clear overall vision of how all the
pieces were supposed to fit together or how these outcomes would be achieved better if
supported by research, targeted or otherwise. This fragmented vision and approach still
existed at the time of the MTE and even the FE.
48. The justification, objective and the linkages of the improved livestock production and
marketing and provision for alternative livelihoods of O-4 is not clear and remains so. More
21