Perspectives on Development: Results of a Ranking Exercise in Eastern Africa John McPeak, Syracuse University PARIMA project of the GL-CRSP

Study Area

Introduction Questions motivating the study What has been the development experience to date? What kinds of interventions are most highly desired by people living in these communities for the future? To what extent are these desires shared by individuals within these communities?

Study Area

Site Market Access Ethnic Majority Relative Ag. Potential Annual Rainfall Kenya Dirib Gumbo Medium Boran High 650 Kargi Low Rendille 200 Logologo Ariaal Med.-Low 250 N’gambo Il Chamus North Horr Gabra 150 Sugata Marmar Samburu 500 Ethiopia Dida Hara Dillo 400 Finchawa Qorati Guji 450 Wachille

Development survey Survey of 249 people in six communities in Kenya, 147 people in five communities in Ethiopia; 396 people. Open ended work to develop survey form. Run in late 2001 in Kenya, 2002 in Ethiopia. Kenya interviewed multiple individuals per household, Ethiopia only household head. Had been working with them since 2000. Text to make clear motivation.

Percent having personal experience with project of type:

Who did the projects? Recall N’gambo, Finchawa, Sugata Marmar high market access; Kargi, North Horr, Dillo low market access.

How are these past interventions ranked by most helpful to least? Significant difference between community and personal for: Livestock Health, Education (C>P); Alternative Income Generation, Food Aid (P>C); Others NS difference.

Is low rank because no experience or low evaluation of experienced project? Rank by those with experience

Any that caused harm? Ethiopia Kenya 12% noted something that harmed the community and 8% identified personal harm (fertilizer burned plants, wrong medicine in health centers, restocked animals brought diseases, a few others) Kenya 23% identified something that harmed the community and 8% identified personal harm (borehole water poisoned and killed animals, the spread of mesquite plants, loss of grazing land to natural resource management projects or wildlife, a few others).

What about ranking future interventions - overall Education in only one with statistically significant difference, C>P

There is a lot of variation: by site

And within sites: North Horr respondents

Overall variation As a general rule, things ranked more highly have less variance about them as measured by the CV.

Summary of regression findings (p-values) Site dummies HH characteristics Individual characteristics Human health .000 *** .051 * .119 Water .674 Education .234 .463 Livestock health .680 .510 Livestock marketing .161 .337 Conflict resolution .093 * .187 Restocking .760 .466 Food aid .388 .523 Cultivation .184 .274 Alternative income .091 * .277 Savings /credit .241 Transport imp. .166 .598 NRM .002 *** .122 .831 Institutional dev .005 *** .573 Other services .074 * .304 Wildlife management .169 .094 *

Conclusions: is the message getting through currently?

Conclusions World Bank ALRMP in Kenya: phase 2 38.9 million USD will be spent on natural resources and disaster management 24.2 million USD will be spent on community driven development 14.8 million USD will be spent on support to local development (working with other development agencies already active).

Priority Development Rankings Government of : funding allocation ALRMP : funding allocation 1 Human Health Public Infrastructure (roads, electricity, solar, telephone): 57% Education: 53% 2 Water Water: 8% Restocking: 16% 3 Livestock Health Human Health: 8% Alternative Income Generation: 11% 4 Education Livestock and Fisheries development: 8% Health and Sanitation: 9.6% 5 Livestock Marketing Education: 6% Water: 4% 6 Conflict Resolution Tourism, Trade and Industry: 4% Cultivation: 4% 7 Restocking Human Resource Development: 2% Housing for the poor: 1% 8 Cultivation Mixed farming: 3% Natural Resource Management: <1% 9 Food Aid Conflict and Disaster Management: 3% Food Aid: <1% 10 Alternative income Generation Veterinary: <1%