Site selection for the MilkIT project: Example from the EADD project

AN EXAMPLE OF A PRESENTATION TO DISCUSS SITE SELECTION Isabelle Baltenweck MilkIT Pre-inception Workshop, Nairobi 24 th – 25 th January 2012

SITE SELECTION AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS REPORT FOR EADD KENYA SITES 2009 Presentation to Country Team 5 th June 2009

Steps followed
Establish work group
Geographical targeting to identify potential sites using existing GIS data
Data gathering for site selection to assess potential sites with a minimum checklist
Site selection
Data gathering for feasibility study, for a more in-depth assessment of fewer promising sites with a more comprehensive checklist
Feasibility study analysis
Conclusion and decision on sites selected and communication of final project sites to the Steering Committee
Mobilization and development activities in selected sites starts

Composition of the working group
William Odhiambo – Technoserve (TNS)
Gloria Mwakio – Technoserve (TNS)
Dominic Menjo - Heifer Project International (HPI)
John Kibor – African Breeders Service (ABS)
Patrick Mudavadi - World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Immaculate Omondi – International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)

10 sites were assessed with an objective of selecting 5 feasible sites for project implementation in 2009
Soy division in Uasin Gishu West district
Kosirai division in Nandi North district
Kapcherop division in Marakwet district
Tongaren in Bungoma North district
Kipkabus in Ainabkoi division, Uasin Gishu East district
Kesses division in Uasin Gishu South district
Meteitei division in Tinderet district (a new district carved from Nandi East)
Wanjohi in Kipipiri division, Nyandarua south district
Turbo in Uasin Gishu West district
Kaptumo in Nandi South district

Process followed
The site selection exercise was a quick analysis meant to give a preview of the sites and rank them based on few agreed criteria using a structured score-card.
Sites that scored highly where then subjected to feasibility analysis which is a more thorough analysis aimed at assessing the financial and business viability of the sites. This was carried out by the TNS team and the results discussed by the site selection workgroup.
The report gives a overview of the sites, the results of the feasibility analysis and recommendation of the work group regarding which sites are worth working in.

Results of the site selection

Food for thought- overlap in CP catchment areas

LESSONS LEARNED
The process
The structured process of site selection/ validation proved to be very useful and time saving and an avenue for consensus building. Such a process should be adopted for other EADD activities, for instance, mobilisation

Quality of data and timing of project activities
For the purpose of authenticating the quality data collected, the process, in future would require more time. – Suggestion: the process to start towards the end of the year (or before the beginning of project activities) when selecting sites to be implemented in the preceding year
The involvement of team leaders in the process (Kenya)
This was beneficial in that the team leaders have an overall outlook of the project besides steering their partner level milestones. However, as team leaders, they are involved in the daily running of project activities. This made it difficult for the workgroup to complete the site selection tasks promptly since they had to break to give way to some of the team leaders to attend to other project activities
Geographical targeting
This was found to be a very useful tool in the site selection process. However, it has to be combined by local knowledge of the sites since there are other criterion that can not be captured spatially.
Site location
After the site selection process, it was discovered that some sites overlap in terms of milk shed. This is an important factor to consider to avoid competition between EADD supported sites

Site selection for the MilkIT project: Example from the EADD project

by ILRI

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics