Drought Emergency Response in Arid Areas in Kenya 2011 (ECHO La Nina) VSF GERMANY BASELINE REPORT Table of content Page Executive Summary 5 1.0 Background 5 1.1 Program overview 6 1.2 Purpose of Baseline 6 2.0 Methodology 6 2.1 The Questionnaire 6 2.2 Determination of Sample Size 6 2.3 Data collection and analysis 6 3.0 FINDINGS 6 3.1 Demographic characteristics of study population 3.1.1 Households with members living elsewhere 8 3.1.2 Existing humanitarian interventions 8 9 4.0 Household Assets 4.1 Ownership of the housing 9 1
4.2 Livestock and coping strategy index 10 11 4.3 Household economy 4.3.1 Cash income received by the household during the month 11 4.4 Household main food sources 4.4.1 Average number of meals per day 12 4.5 Main cash uses in the households 13 4.6 Coping strategies with food scarcity in the last one month 13 15 5.0 Beneficiaries expectation in regards to cash transfers 5.1Household labor 16 5.1.1Expected working time (hours per week) by the beneficiaries 17 18 6.0 Additional incomes and usage 19 7.0 Conclusion Annexes 20 2
Executive summary VSF Germany is member of a consortium of five International Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) implementing an ECHO Funded Drought Emergency Response Project in Marsabit County and Turkana West. The project is aimed at mitigating the effects of drought on more vulnerable people and their livestock to enhance their immediate food security and protect livelihoods assets (mainly livestock) from the effect of the drought. A number of key activities have been identified as means of achieving the project objectives. They include Cash injection (Cash for Work and De-stocking); Animal Health; rehabilitation of strategic water points (and water trucking, and peace and security activities Baseline survey was identified as means of gaining better understanding of the current drought situation and its impact as well as validating problems identified during the design of the project. The current baseline was conduct giving detailed understanding of current food security and livelihood situations of drought affected population and the response mechanisms adopted to cope with current drought. A total of 120 households (n) randomly selected from ten communities benefiting from the project interventions in North Horr, Marsabit North. Lolyangalani, and Turkana West Districts A total of 60 males (50%) and 60 females (50%) were targeted for interview during the baseline assessment. Seventy four percent (74%) of the respondents were adults between age of eighteen (18) and (50) years; while twenty six percent (26%) were elderly people above fifty (50) years old. Of all household heads interviewed, eight percent (8%) were female not married to the head of household, meaning they were head of their households, while the remainder ninety two percent (92%) was married to the head of the household. The Average household size was six (6) persons per household. All households interviewed own at least ten (10) goats or twenty (20) sheep. About sixty five percent (65%) of the respondent households own cattle while fifty-eight percent (58%) owns camel for transportation. Average household income is reported at 4,167 KES with some households earning as low as 2,000 KES per Month while others earn as high as 6,000 KES with majority earning 3000 KES. Households main include livestock and livestock products (60%), small business (18.5%), remittance (10%), gift/begging (60%), sale of wood (5%) and casual labor (0.5%). The heavy reliance on livestock and livestock products is an indication of the level of vulnerability households are exposed as a result of lingering droughts. The main sources of household s food were report to be (market) 42%; relief food (25%); credit/borrowing (16%); livestock and livestock products (10%); gift (4%); and bush products/wild food (3%). The heavy reliance on market is an expression household inability to produce agricultural products and how they depend largely on the sale of livestock to access food through purchase. Sale of livestock and livestock products is an indirect source of food purchased from market. Households continued to face recurrent debt payment because they re-pay debts but take additional food on credit. Households are 15% reliant on debt as a source of food, which undermines their ability to save or exposure to the sale/exchange of livelihoods assets 3
Since the onset of the drought, some households have begun employing coping strategies in response. About 66% of households have reduced adult s meal to two meals per day, while 34% continue to provide three meals for adults per day. However, a more half of all households interviewed (55%) continued to provide three meals per day for children but the other 45% have also reduced meal for children to 2 meals per day. Almost half (46%) of l liquid cash earned by households were spent on food followed equally by debt repayment (15%) and clothing/beads (15%). The remainder of the cash was spent on education (9%); health (8%); drugs and water for animals (4%) and gift (2%). The Average household s expenditure was recorded at 4701 KES per month. Main household s expenditure on food basket included cereal 117 KES; milk, 563 KES; meat, 469 KES; pulses 382KES; oil and sugar, 234 KES each, Decision to spend household incomes was mainly made by household heads as reported by 73%, while 33% reported that spending decisions were by both the husband and wife. Households employed various coping mechanisms during to combat the impact of drought on their lives. The category of coping strategy was determined by the number of households involved in particular coping mechanism weighted against the total sample size (n). The below table depicts on the number of households involved in various coping mechanisms. All respondent expressed willingness to participate in project activities, mainly cash for work and destocking. Households work hours expectation ranged from 16 hours to 30 hours per week, with majority of households ( 39%) wishing to work 25 hours per week. Majority of the respondents (52%) didn t expect challenges at community level, while 48% expected the main challenge to pressure from Neighbors /relatives to share extra income At the household level, 37% of households expected that they will spent less time for other tasks such as child care. A little over a quarter (27%) of the households expected intra-household conflict over sharing or use if the extra income while 16% of them expected overwhelming work load. Additionally, 11% of households expected intra-household conflict over work load and 3% expected that some children will be out of school as a result of participating in Cash for Work activities and 6% of the households feared lower revenue. All the respondents concurred with each other that the project was to bring sustainable improvement of the household livelihood through reducing food insecurity. Majority of households (58) expected to purchase food, household items, and water for human consumption, school expenses, and payment of debt from the extra-income. While the remainder expected to use extra income on the mixture of two or more of the indicated activities. Relative to expected amount received at the end of the project, expectations ranged from 3000 KES 10, 000 KES but majority (42%) anticipated receiving 10,000 KES on average. Relative to decision making on the use of extra income, 43% of households indicated that it is the head of the household is responsible to the decision but 30% responded that both husband and wife will make such decision. Yet, another 27% of household said all adults in their households will make decision on how the extra income will be used. 4
Finally, overall expected positive consequences were sustainable improvement of the household livelihood which stood at 50% sustainable improvement of the community living conditions at (32.%), purchasing animals for restocking and 18% expected it to bring back members of the households who had gone elsewhere due to lack of enough food in the place. 1.0 Background Marsabit and Turkana districts are generally found semi-arid areas of Kenya. The two districts have been hardly hit by the current drought affecting food security of pastoralist by reducing their access to food and income. Additionally, market value of livestock assets has reduced due to weakness. Communities in the two drought affected areas have been facing a trade off as on one side limited access to water and grazing areas force them to move further on the other side access to markets for the sales of their livestock is more difficult in remote areas. Furthermore livestock market prices have been unfavorable and terms of trade of livestock and cereals are deteriorated. Other means of access to food and income have been reduced by the persisting drought and milk production has been greatly reduced. 1.1 Program overview Arid Land Drought Bulletins, the UNOCHA January 2011 Drought Situation Report No 1 and Kenya Humanitarian Update vol 66, indicate that the situation in northern Kenya is deteriorating rapidly because of a La Niña related drought, with meteorological data indicating a high likelihood for failure or under-performing of the 2011 long rains. UN OCHA states: "La Nina effect is currently interfering with agricultural and livestock production in North Eastern, parts of Eastern, Coast and North Rift of Kenya. The most affected areas are Turkana, Baringo, Moyale, Isiolo, Mandera, Wajir, Marsabit, Garissa, and Kwale. The report indicates that depressed and poorly distributed October-December 2010 short rains are threatening lives and livelihoods, in a region where over three million people depend on livestock as the main economic activity. A comparable situation to that of 2006 is evolving, where severe drought led to rising food prices and widespread food insecurity. In order to cope with the increasing stress, pastoralists have started migrating in search of scarce water and pasture, sometimes crossing international boundaries. Trekking for long distances has led to a significant deterioration in the condition of livestock, reducing their market value and income potential. Humanitarian interventions must be undertaken quickly to mitigate the impact of drought on people and livestock, allied to the design of micro-projects to strengthen household and group coping strategies and investment/ production opportunities. VSF Germany is member of a consortium of five International Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) implementing an ECHO Funded Drought Emergency Response Project in Marsabit County and Turkana West. The project is aimed at mitigating the effects of drought on more vulnerable people and their livestock to enhance their immediate food security and protect livelihoods assets (mainly livestock) from the effect of the drought. A number of key activities have been identified as means of achieving the project 5
objectives. They include Cash injection (Cash for Work and De-stocking); Animal Health; rehabilitation of strategic water points (and water trucking, and peace and security activities The program is specifically geared towards Enhancing immediate food security for vulnerable households and protect livelihoods from the effect of the drought. This will be achieved through matching food and cash transfers among communities with a potential to stabilize rising food prices where the livestock market value is rapidly falling and offers far greater potential for stabilizing acute food security at household level, provision of greater choice in the use of cash and greater possibilities for livelihood investment. Protecting Livestock assets of drought affected vulnerable households from impacts of drought. This will be achieved through de-stocking of small livestock to support the availability of cash for vulnerable households, thus reducing pressure on rapidly shrinking pastures and livestock concentration to reduce the risk of epizootics, which always accompany droughts. Methodologies for off-take are to be adopted in response to local needs. In addition since weak animals easily succumb to preventable diseases, treatment and de-worming of weak animals will be undertaken to increase their survival rate substantially 1.2 Purpose of Baseline Baseline survey was identified as means of gaining better understanding of the current drought situation and its impact as well as validating problems identified during the design of the project. The current baseline was conduct giving detailed understanding of current food security and livelihood situations of drought affected population and the response mechanisms adopted to cope with current drought. 2.0 Methodology 2.1 The Questionnaire The questionnaire was designed by the lead Agency Oxfam to be administered in various project locations. The questionnaire was designed to capture information on current food security and livelihoods situations of drought affected households and their current coping mechanisms. The questionnaire also captured information on displacement, the expected impact of the project on the lives of drought affected households and expected constraints and challenges the project will pose on them and their communities. The questionnaire was administered in various locations of Marsabit Central, North Horr, Sololo, and Turkana districts 2.2 Determination of Sample Size A total of 120 households (n) randomly selected from ten communities benefiting from the project interventions in North Horr, Marsabit Central. Loiyangalani, and Turkana West Districts. 2.3 Data collection and analysis The survey was conducted over a period of two weeks in various vulnerable villages of the project locations in Marsabit Central. Lolyangalani, and Turkana West Districts. The supervisors of each team were responsible for the selection of the starting household and overall survey team management. However, due to households inability to recall frequency of various indicative coping mechanisms 6
employed over a period of 30 days, the survey team rather used a 1 week recall of various coping mechanism employed. Coping strategy Index was determined on the basis of number of households involved in particularly coping mechanisms. Data collected were entered into an excel database by VSF Germany data entry Clerk and analysis was done using excel package. 3.0 FINDINGS 3.1 Demographic characteristics of study population A total of 60 males (50%) and 60 females (50%) were targeted for interview during the baseline assessment. Seventy four percent (74%) of the respondents were adults between 18-50 years; while twenty six percent (26%) were elderly people above50 years old. Of all household heads interviewed, eight percent (8%) were female not married to the head of household, meaning they were head of their households, while the remainder ninety two percent (92%) was married to the head of the household. Figure 1, Composition of respondents The Average household size was six (6) persons per household. All households interviewed own at least ten (10) goats or twenty (20) sheep. About sixty five percent (65%) of the respondent households own cattle while fifty-eight percent (58%) owns camel for transportation 3.1.1 Households with members living elsewhere As part of the coping mechanism some members of households leave the homestead in search of job or contract to support their households. On average 16% of household members (1 person) were reported to have left home in search of job to remit some cash to their households while about 32% of household members (2 persons) had taken to grazing zones with animals. 7
Figure 2, locations of household member 3.1.2 Existing humanitarian interventions As part of the response to the prevailing drought, the World Food Programme has targeted some more vulnerable households or vulnerable household members to benefit from Food aid. Seventy of the one hundred and twenty households interviewed indicated that either the entire household or some members of the households benefited from WFP food aid distribution. However, 42% of the households interviewed were non-wfp food aid beneficiaries. Figure 2: HH benefiting from WFP program Some respondents also revealed that selected members of households benefit from occasional food distribution carried out by the Government of Kenya and other food aid programme. 25% of the respondents indicated that selected members of their households benefit from food distributed by GoK and other agencies 8
Figure 4: Members of households benefiting from other food aid (30 households) At the same time 36% of the beneficiaries have benefited from previous cash for work implemented by VSF Germany, PISP, and other agencies Figure 5: Previous Cash for Work Beneficiaries 4.0 Household Assets 4.1 Ownership of the housing All beneficiaries interviewed reported to have owned either a house or hut. A majority of the beneficiaries (61%) lived in huts while 49% lived in houses. Respondents have either lived in their hut for more than 5 years or from the time it was constructed. 9
Figure 6: Beneficiaries Housing status 4.2 Livestock and coping strategy index The most common livestock species seen all the districts covered by the survey included cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkey. The most common diseases reported amongst livestock include Foot and Mouth Diseases (FMD), Peste des Petits Ruminants ( PPR), Contagious Caprine Pleuro Pneumonia ( CCPP), and trypanasomiasis. However, there has not been any major epidemic outbreak reported in any of the districts. At the same time the most common/predominant livestock production system in all areas of survey was normadic pastoralism. All respondent households owned some livestock. Some households owned the combination of cattle, camel, sheep, and goat, but all respondent households owned sheep and goats. Cattle ownership ranged from 1-4 cattle per household, with 64% of all respondents owning cattle. 45% of the respondent households owned milking camel while 28% owned camel for transportation, particularly for fetching water. 10
Figure 7: Livestock Ownership Figure 8: Goat Ownership 4.3 Household economy 4.3.1 Cash income received by the household during the month Average household income is reported at 4,167 KES with some households earning as low as 2,000 KES per Month while others earn as high as 6,000 KES with majority earning 3000 KES. Households main include livestock and livestock products (60%), small business (18.5%), remittance (10%), gift/begging (60%), sale of wood (5%) and casual labor (0.5%). The heavy reliance on livestock and livestock products is an indication of the level of vulnerability households are exposed as a result of lingering droughts. 11
Figure 9: Approximate monthly income of respondents 4.4 Household main food sources The main sources of household s food were reported to be (market) 42%; relief food (25%); credit/borrowing (16%); livestock and livestock products (10%); gift (4%); and bush products/wild food (3%). The heavy reliance on market is an expression household inability to produce agricultural products and how they depend largely on the sale of livestock to access food through purchase. Sale of livestock and livestock products is an indirect source of food purchased from market. Households continued to face recurrent debt payment because they re-pay debts but take additional food on credit. Households are 15% reliant on debt as a source of food, which undermines their ability to save or exposure to the sale/exchange of livelihoods assets. Figure 10: Households sources of food 4.4.1 Average number of meals per day Since the onset of the drought, some households have begun employing coping strategies in response. About 66% of households have reduced adult s meal to two meals per day, while 34% continue to provide three meals for adults per day. However, a more half of all households interviewed (55%) continued to provide three meals per day for children but the other 45% have also reduced meal for children to 2 meals per day. 12
4.5 Main cash uses in the households Nearly half (46%) of l liquid cash earned by households were spent on food followed equally by debt repayment (15%) and clothing/beads (15%). The remainder of the cash was spent on education (9%); health (8%); drugs and water for animals (4%) and gift (2%). Figure 11: Average household expenditure The Average household s expenditure was recorded at 4701 KES per month. Main household s expenditure on food basket included cereal 117 KES; milk, 563 KES; meat, 469 KES; pulses 382KES; oil and sugar, 234 KES each, Decision to spend household incomes was mainly made by household heads as reported by 73%, while 33% reported that spending decisions were by both husband and 4.6 Coping strategies with food scarcity in the last one month Households employed various coping mechanisms during to combat the impact of drought on their lives. The category of coping strategy was determined by the number of households involved in particular coping mechanism weighted against the total sample size (n). The below table depicts on the number of households involved in various coping mechanisms. Coping Mechanism Total HH Score Severity Weight Send children to eat 162 1.35 with neighbors 1 Send some children 101 0.84 away to stay with relatives 1 Weighted Score Severity Category 162 Least severe 101 Least severe 13
Give Food to children 125 1.04 by restricting what adults eat Skip entire day without 275 2.29 eating Send Household 118 0.98 members to beg Limit size or portion of 388 3.51 food Reduce number of meal 95 0.79 eaten in a day Ration Money ad buy 117 0.98 less Taking credits 183 1.53 Send children to nearby boarding school 125 Least severe 1 550 Moderately 2 severe 118 Least severe 1 1552 Most severe 4 95 Least severe 1 117 Least severe 1 366 Moderately 2 sever 0 0 0 0 The above table indicates that all households were employing the ten coping mechanisms indicated in the survey questionnaire but at different degrees. But most severe coping mechanisms employed by households is the limiting the sie of households food. This is followed by taking credits and skipping entire day without eating. On the average, households were employing moderately severe coping mechanisms at the onset of the drought. 14
Figure 12: Various coping strategies employed by households 5.0 Beneficiaries expectation in regards to cash transfers 5.1Household labor All respondent expressed willingness to participate in project activities, mainly cash for work and destocking. Majority of the respondents 52% didn t expect challenges at community level, while 48% expected the main challenge to pressure from Neighbors /relatives to share extra income. In relations to members of households that would be actively involved in cash for work activities, 35% of households indicated that both all adult in their households will be directly involved in cash for work activities; but 16% of the respondents said only adult men will be directly involved in cash for work. Another 15% of the respondents said only youth will be involved in cash for work activities directly and another 15% said both adults and youths will be directly involved in cash for work. Conversely, 11% of the households said only adult women will be involved in work, while another 8% indicated that both adults and elderly will be directly involved in cash for work activities. FIGURE 13: Household members to be directly involved in CFW Regarding household members indirectly involved in the Cash for Work activities, 55% of households said only adults above 50 years will be indirectly involved while 28% of households said both adults over 50 years and youth will be indirectly involved and 17% said only youths will be indirectly involved in cash for work activities 15
Figure 14: Household Members indirectly involved in Cash for Work activities 5.1.1Expected working time (hours per week) by the beneficiaries Households work hours expectation ranged from 16 hours to 30 hours per week, with majority of households ( 39%) wishing to work 25 hours per week. Majority of the respondents (52%) didn t expect challenges at community level, while 48% expected the main challenge to pressure from Neighbors /relatives to share extra income 5.2 Expected challenges At the household level, 37% of households expected that they will spent less time for other tasks such as child care. A little over a quarter (27%) of the households expected intra-household conflict over sharing or use if the extra income while 16% of them expected overwhelming work load. Additionally, 11% of households expected intra-household conflict over work load and 3% expected that some children will be out of school as a result of participating in Cash for Work activities and 6% of the households feared their revenues might drop. 16
Figure 15: Expected Challenges of project on households Finally, overall expected positive consequences were sustainable improvement of the household livelihood which stood at 50% sustainable improvement of the community living conditions at (32.%), purchasing animals for restocking and 18% expected it to bring back members of the households who had gone elsewhere due to lack of enough food in the place. Figure 16: Expected Challenges of project on communities 17
6.0 Additional incomes and usage Relative to expected amount received at the end of the project, expectations ranged from 3000 KES 10, 000 KES but majority (42%) anticipated receiving 10,000 KES on average. Relative to decision making on the use of extra income, 43% of households indicated that it is the head of the household is responsible to the decision but 30% responded that both husband and wife will make such decision. Yet, another 27% of household said all adults in their households will make decision on how the extra income will be used.. Figure 17 :Cash expected from project (CFW) 18
Figure 18: Decision making on cash expected from CFW) 6.1 Expected positive consequences of the project to the community All the respondents concurred with each other that the project was to bring sustainable improvement of the household livelihood through reducing food insecurity. Majority of households expected to purchase food, household items, and water for human consumption, school expenses, and payment of debt from the extra-income. While the remainder expected to use extra income on the mixture of two or more of the indicated activities. 7.0 Conclusion The outcome of the baseline survey clearly indicates that households in the surveyed districts are highly hit by drought and are employing diverse coping mechanisms. The confirmation of 100% of all households interviewed to participate in the program is an expressing of the level of acceptance the project holds. The fact that CSI for individual households interviewed showed some level of severity, there is likelihood that households are reaching a stage of employing exploitative/negative coping mechanisms. The baseline survey statistics indicates that 16% of households food comes from credit or borrowing while reimbursement also makes up 16% of total expenditures. This further indicates households level of vulnerability to food and exposure to disposal of livelihood asset to obtain cash and food. In addition, as it was established that most households rely on the sale of livestock for most of their cash income and there is a huge need to protect livestock assets. Households also rely very highly on market for their food followed by relief food and market. 19
Annex 1: Baseline tool used for survey. Cash transfer project Baseline Survey Household Questionnaire Household Description Household code Interviewer name District Village / Centre location Date of interview Project type &code Division Sub-village location or village Beneficiary profile. (Tick for appropriate statement, single answer per row except last row) [ ] Male [ ] Female [ ] Adult (18-50) [ ] Old (above 50) [ ] Orphan / Minor (17 or less) [ ] Head of HH [ ] Married to head [ ] Child of head [ ] Other relation to head of HH... of HH of HH [ ] Disabled Household members If the beneficiary is not the head of HH, Head of household profile. (Tick for appropriate statement, single answer per row except last row) [ ] Male [ ] Female [ ] Adult (18-50) [ ] Adult (above 50) [ ] Orphan / Minor (17 or less) [ ] Disabled [ ] Not living in this location [ ]Age of the disabled Members of the HH living in this location at present. (Numbers) [ ] TOTAL [ ] Adult men (18-50) [ ] Adult women (18-50) [ ] Youth (6-17) [ ] Children (under 5) [ ] Adult (above 50) or disabled How many HH members are not living with the rest of the HH at the moment? (Numbers) [ ] TOTAL [ ] People living with animals [ ] People providing remittances [ ] People temporarily living with relatives [ ] Other... How many people who do not belong to your HH share your HH resources on a daily basis? (Numbers) [ ] 20
Other humanitarian interventions Does your household benefit from the current WFP food distribution? If yes, for how many people (Number) [ ] (Yes / No) [ ] Do some members of your HH benefit from other interventions? [ ] (Yes / No) If yes, describe briefly......... Was your HH beneficiary from any previous cash-based project? [ ] (Yes / No) Settlement Where is your household from? If answer From here, go to question A.20. (country, district, division, village) When has your HH arrived in this village / settlement? [ ] (Month and Year) What are the main reasons for your HH to be present in the location? (Tick for appropriate statement, multiple answers allowed) [ ] Loss of animals (no animals or not enough) [ ] Loss of burden animals (no animals or not enough) [ ] Herd not producing enough [ ] Pasture [ ] Water [ ] Economic activity... [ ] This CFW program [ ] Other relief [ ] Other... Household assets Housing (Tick for appropriate statement, 2 answers) [ ] House [ ] Other How long have you stayed in the house/hut?. Whose house/hut is it? [ ] Hut (good condition) [ ] HH property [ ] Relatives property 21
Animals (Number adult heads) of [ ] Cattle [ ] Camel (milk) [ ] Camel (transport) [ ] Donkey [ ] Goats [ ] Sheep [ ] Other... Household economy Income What is the approximate total monthly cash income for your HH? (All cash incomes added, for all sources and all HH members) [ ] KES What are the main cash income sources for your household members? (Use proportional pilling to assess the % of each source in the total cash income of the household) [ ] % Sale of livestock [ ] % Sale of milk / milk products [ ] % Sale of fish / fish products [ ] % Farming / Farm products [ ] % Collection and sale of firewood/sale [ ] % Collection and sale of other bush of charcoal products [ ] % Handicraft... [ ] % Small business... [ ] % Casual labour / cheap labour [ ] % Salaried (regular revenue) [ ] % Remittances [ ] % Help from relatives (begging or gift) [ ] %Weaving Food sources What are the main sources of food for your household? (Use proportional pilling to assess the % of each source in the total food supply of the household) [ ] % Livestock (own production) [ ] % Fishing (own catch) [ ] % Farm harvest [ ] % Bush products (wild food) [ ] % Market (buy with cash) [ ] % Market (buy on credit) [ ] % Barter (exchange in kind) [ ] % From relatives (begging or gift, in kind) [ ] % Food distribution [ ] % Other... Do you share your food with other families? If yes, what percentage of the food collected by the HH is given away? (If needed, use proportional pilling to assess the %) [ ] (Yes / No) [ ] % What is the average number of meals per day in your household during this week? [ ] meals for adult [ ] meals for children 22
What are the main cash uses in your household? (Use proportional pilling to assess the % of each expenditure in the total cash expenditure of the household) [ ] % Food [ ] % Water for human consumption [ ] % Tobacco, tchat and alcohol [ ] % Clothing and beads [ ] % Household items and other basic needs [ ] % Health expenses [ ] % School expenses [ ] % Animal purchase [ ] % Water, drugs and other livestock input [ ] % Farming input [ ] % Business / work expenses [ ] % Helping other households [ ] % Reimbursing debts [ ] % Savings [ ] % Other... Who in the household usually decide how the household income is used? (Tick for appropriate statement, multiple answers allowed) [ ] Head of household [ ] Member of the HH earning income [ ] Husband [ ] Husband and wife B.8.5 [ ] Wife B.8.6 Other 23
Expenses: What is the approximate total monthly expense in your household? [ ] Kes Out of the total household expenses, how much does the household incur by using a) [ ] Cash b) [ ] Credits c) [ ] In Kind How much money did you spent to buy the following food items for the family in the last one month? (Use proportional pilling to assess the amount spent in each food item bought by the household) 9.1 [ ] Cereals 9.2 [ ] Pulses 9.3 [ ] Oil 9.4 [ ] Sugar 9.5 [ ] Milk 9.6 [ ] Meat 9.7 [ ] Salt B.10 How were you able to cope with food scarcity in the last 30 days? For each copping strategy, indicate the frequency / number of occurrences during the last 30 days) B.10.1 [ ] Sent children to eat with neighbors 24
B.10.2 B.10.3 B.10.4 B.10.5 B.10.6 B.10.7 B.10.8 [ ] Send some children away to stay with relatives/friends [ ] Give food to children by restricting what adults eat [ ] Skip entire days without eating [ ] Send household members to beg [ ] Limit size of portion at mealtimes [ ] Reduce the number of meals eaten in a day [ ] Ration the money you have and buy less B.10.9 household relaying or taking credits from the shops and other places as a coping mechanism. B.10.1 Send children to the nearby school especially boarding Beneficiary s expectations regarding the Cash Transfer Project Household labour Will one / some / all household members participate directly in the labour for [ ] (Yes / No) this project If answer C.1.1. Yes, go to question C.2. / If answer C.1.1. No, go to question C.8. Which members of the household will be directly involved in this labour? (Numbers) [ ] Adult men (18-50) [ ] Adult (18-50) women [ ] Adult (above 50) or Disabled Which members of the household will be indirectly involved in this labour? (Numbers) [ ] Adult men (18-50) [ ] Adult (18-50) women [ ] Adult (above 50) or Disabled [ ] Youth (17 or less) [ ] Youth (17 or less) How much time do you forecast to provide for this cash transfer activity? (time of all directly involved HH members added) [ ] Hours per week What are the expected challenges of this project on the life of your household members? (Tick for appropriate statement, multiple answers allowed) [ ] None [ ] Less time spent in domestic tasks, including childcare [ ] Overwhelming workload for some household members [ ] Intra-household conflicts due to unbalanced workload [ ] Intra-household conflict over the sharing / use [ ] Children schooling out 25
of the extra-income [ ] Lower revenue from other income activities [ ] Other... (absenteeism, dropping out) [ ] Having more credit What are the expected challenges of this project on the community? (Tick for appropriate statement, multiple answers allowed) [ ] None [ ] Accept people from other household to share meals [ ] Community / clan / sub-clan pressure to share the extra-income [ ] Insecurity (external / out of the community) [ ] Other... [ ] Pressure from neighbors or relatives to share the extra-income [ ] Community / clan / sub-clan conflict over beneficiaries selection [ ] Community / clan / sub-clan conflict over use of assets [ ] Increase in prices / Inflation If one / some challenges are expected (C.5. and C.6.), how do you think you and/or the implementing organisation could mitigate those effects?...... Use of the additional income What total amount of cash do you expect to receive by the end of / for the completion of activities? [ ] KES [ ] Doesn t know Who in the household will decide how the extra income from the project will be used? (Tick for appropriate statement, multiple answer allowed) [ ] Head of household [ ] Member of the HH working on the project [ ] Husband and wife [ ] All adults [ ] Other... What is the anticipated use of the extra-income you will get from this project? (If several uses, rank according to importance) [ ] Food [ ] Water for human consumption [ ] Tobacco, tchat and alcohol [ ] Clothing and beads [ ] Household items and other basic needs [ ] Health expenses [ ] School expenses [ ] Animal purchase [ ] Water, drugs and other livestock input [ ] Farming input [ ] Business / work expenses [ ] Helping other households [ ] Reimbursing debts [ ] Savings [ ] Other... 26
What are the expected other positive consequences of the project on the life of your HH members and/or your community? (Tick for appropriate statement, multiple answers allowed) [ ] Setting up a new business / Expand your business [ ] Bringing back members of the HH [ ] Sustainable improvement of your HH livelihood [ ] Sustainable improvement of your community living conditions Do you have any other comment on the project? [ ] Purchase of animals / Restocking [ ] Temporary improvement of your HH livelihood [ ] Improvement of the market network [ ] Other......... Questions for the interviewer Are you confident of the information given? [ ] (Yes / No) If no, state why...... According to the interviewer, was the HH appropriately targeted? [ ] (Yes / No) If no, state why......... Other comment or relevant information for a better understanding of the HH situation....... VILLAGES Baseline Interview Coverage DISTRICT VILLAGES TOTAL N0 RESPONDENT NORTH HORR DUKANA 10 SARU 10 EL HADI 10 MARSABIT NORTH EL BORU 10 HULA-HULA 10 LOLYANGALANI ARAPAL 10 SOLOLO SOLOLO 10 AMBAL0 10 27
BORI 10 TURKANA LORAU 10 NAMA 10 LOTETELEIT 10 TOTAL 120 28