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

2. Study Area

3. 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?

4. Study Area

5. 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

6. 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.

7. Percent having personal experience with project of type:

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

9. 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.

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

11. 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).

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

13. There is a lot of variation: by site

14. And within sites: North Horr respondents

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

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

17. Conclusions: is the message getting through currently?

18. 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).

19. 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%