kenya national school milk program final report

8/10/2019 Kenya National School Milk Program Final Report

1/58

MOLD/Smallholder Commercialization ProgramFeasibility Study Report on the Proposed School Milk Program in Kenya

MINISTRY OF LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENTSMALLHOLDER DAIRY COMMERCIALIZATION PROJECT

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT ON THE PROPOSED

SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM IN KENYA&

PROPOSED PROGRAM TECHNICAL DESIGN DOCUMENT


2/58

PROPOSED PROGRAM TECHNICAL DESIGN DOCUMENT


DISCLAIMER

This document is prepared solely for the use and benefit of the Smallholder Dairy Commercialization

Program under the Ministry of Livestock Development of the Government of Kenya. Neither the authors

nor Benson & Associates accept or assume any responsibility or duty of care to any third party.


3/58


LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS

AFC - Agriculture Finance Corporation

C.B.O - Community Based Organization

DCA - Dairy Commercialization Area

DDCA - District Dairy Commercialization Areas

D.E.O - District Education officer

DFID - Department for International Development-U.K

E.R.S - Economic Recovery Strategy

F.P.E. - Free Primary Education

G.O.K - Government of Kenya

ILRI - International Livestock Research Institute

IMF - International Monetary Fund

KARI - Kenya agriculture Research Institute

K.C.C - Kenya Co-operative Creameries

K.D.B - Kenya Dairy Board

MDG - Millennium Development Goals

M.O.E - Ministry Of Education

MOLD - Ministry of Livestock development

MOPS - Ministry of Public Health Services

M.P.R - Mathematical Policy Research

M&E - Monitoring and Evaluation

MT - Metric Tons


4/58


ACKNOWLEDGEM ENTS

The Consultants would like to acknowledge the contributions of various persons and stakeholders in the Dairy

industry. First and foremost we thank the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) for their

support to the development of the dairy sector in Kenya and also for funding this Study through the

Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Project (SDCP). We also thank SDCP awarding us the Contract to carry

out the feasibility study.

Secondly, we would like to thank Mr. Machira Gichohi-Managing Director of the Kenya Dairy Board for his

zeal and commitment towards the introduction of school milk and for finding time to chair consultative

meetings with stakeholders who currently support a Pilot School MILK Program that goes by the trade name

PACOH. The PACOH is spearheaded by the Kenya Dairy Board with technical assistance from Tetra Pak

and with other players that include the New KCC, the Ministry of Education (MOE), Ministry of Livestock

Development (MOLD) and Ministry of Health (MOH). In this group we would therefore wish to thank

individuals whose contributions have helped shape this report. They include: Dr. P.K Cherono-Technical

Services Manager and Paul Ndungu-Technical Officer both of KDB; Mr. Samwel Matoke-Deputy Director,

Livestock production and Mr. Luke Kessi-SDCP Desk Officer both of the MOLD; Ms Grace Gichohi-Program

Officer, Ministry of Public Health Services (MOPS).

Secondly we would also like to thank the senior officers of the Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Project

(SDCP) led by the Programme Coordinator Mr. Moses Kembe, Michael kibiego (Marketing Officer), Bernard

Kimoro (Dairy Production Specialist), Pauline Mbondo (Monitoring and Evaluation Officer) and Susan Kamole(Procurement Officer) for their commitment and guidance throughout the Study period.


5/58


INTRODUCTION

This report contains the results of a Feasibility Study assignment that was commissioned to Benson and

Associates by SDCP to draw on best practices in using public-private partnerships to develop a

commercially based school milk Program in Kenya largely independent of government subsidy or donor

aid. The report examines the problems and lessons on the previous School Milk Program in Kenya and

also those from similar Programs in the region and internationally. Whereas the proposed school milk is

largely supposed to be independent of Government and donor financial support, special attention has

been given in drawing up targeting approaches for assistance to problem children from poor households

and those orphaned by HIV/AIDS. The primary objective of this Program is the expansion of dairy

markets by promoting milk drinking culture through school children. The report also contains a

cost/benefit analysis of the Program and outlines implementation and promotion strategies that put

emphasis on a phased implementation approaches and promotion through direct awareness creation

and engagement on school-by-school basis.

The report is divided into two parts. Part A summarizes the Study Terms of reference which include

study objectives, study scope, study methodology and an analysis of study findings. Part B on the other

hand summarizes the proposed School Milk Program design components that include: its Vision,

Mission, Strategic Activities, institutional and management structure, implementation modalities, cost

implications, proposed funding sources, lobbying and promotion strategy, monitoring and evaluation

mechanism, sustainability issues, environmental impact assessment, socio-economic benefits of the

Program and way forward Each of these areas are summarized below:


6/58


PART A: SUMMARY OF STUDY DESIGN AND FINDINGS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Study Objectives

2.0 The Study Scope

3.0 Study Methodology

4.0 The Study Findings: Determining Whether the SMP Can Successfully Take Off

5.0 Challenges to Successful Implementation of a School Milk Program6.0 Conclusions and Way Forward On Lessons Learned


7/58


PART A: SUMMARY OF STUDY DESIGN AND FINDINGS

A summary of work done on each TOR and key findings that include lessons learned on similar

Programs and on public-private partnerships are contained in figure 1 to this report.

1.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES

The study objectives included among others the following:

Establishing if there were any useful lessons from previous SMP

Identifying and drawing on lessons from successful Regional/International Public-Private

Partnerships for SMP to guide design the proposed SMP

Determining after careful evaluation of all factors, whether the re-introduction of SMP in

Kenya is feasible.

Recommending the best operational & Management Structure & role of various

stakeholders for the SMP

Determining the cost implications of SMP & identifying the possible financing Sources

Recommending the best (marketing) promotion & lobbying strategy for the SMP if it were to

be re-introduced

Recommending the optimal implementation Plan for the SMP if found feasible

Establishing a Performance Measurement Model to monitor the effectiveness of SMP

Determining the environmental impact of SMP.

2 0 S SCO


8/58


3.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY

3.1 Literature Review

Data collection came from three main sources that are: extensive review of literature on the school milk

programs that included the previous school milk scheme in the Country that was commonly known as

the Nyayo Milk School Milk Scheme; localized school milk schemes such as those sponsored by Tetra

Pak and WFP; the on-going Pilot School Milk Program sponsored by Tetra Pak, KDB, KCC, MOE and

MOLD among others; also reviewed include similar schemes in Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, El Salvador,

Brazil and Iran among others.

Other key literature reviewed include, Issues in development of school milk schemes by FAO, Canada,

2004; the Six gold standards for successful school feeding programs by WFP, 2004; Success stories

and international best practices were identified and incorporated in this study report and program design

document.

3.2 Field survey

A structured questionnaire was developed and administered on selected teachers, parents, pupils,

processors and other key stakeholders within the 9 Districts under the SDCP Program. The entry points

for the Study were the Dairy Commercialization Areas (DCA) already identified and put under the Small

Holder Dairy Commercialization Program (SDCP) in the nine Districts. The nine Districts are namely:

Kisii Central Nyamira Bomet Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu and Nakuru


9/58


4.0 THE STUDY FINDINGS: DETERMINING WHETHER THE SMP CAN SUCCESSFULLY BE RE-

INTRODUCED.

4.1 School Fraternity Willingness to participate in the SMP

The Study established that generally the school fraternity that comprising of parents, teachers and pupils

is very supportive of the Program at about 85% and 96% of the parents and teachers respectively of

those interviewed look forward to it. However only 20% of the parents interviewed indicated willingness

to pay for the milk mainly because of the precedence set by the previous Program in which the milk was

given free. In addition, most of the respondents were concerned on how the proposed SMP would be

managed to avoid the pitfalls of the previous Program.

4.2 The Dairy farmers & Processors Willingness to participate in the SMP

The Study found out that generally the dairy farmers and processors are also supportive of the Program.

Though dairy farming was mentioned as being the most the most preferred farming activity in the target

districts, it was however found that that only 40% the milk is preserved and mainly by boiling. And like

the school fraternity, the respondents raised issue with how the proposed SMP can be implemented and

managed without running into trouble like the previous School Milk Scheme.

4.3 Milk Supply and Demand Situation


10/58


Production Local Consumption

Variance-before

SMP

SMP

Consumption

Variance-after

SMP

2004 3,323,000,000 2,969,000,000 354,000,0002005 3,455,000,000 3,058,000,000 397,000,000

2006 3,593,000,000 3,149,000,000 444,000,000

2007 3,736,000,000 3,244,000,000 492,000,000

2008 3,885,000,000 3,341,000,000 544,000,000

2009 4,040,000,000 3,441,000,000 599,000,000

2010 4,201,000,000 3,545,000,000 656,000,000

2011 4,369,000,000 3,686,000,000 683,000,000 56,060,967 626,939,033

2012 4,565,000,000 3,834,000,000 731,000,000 136,426,533 594,573,467

2013 4,771,000,000 3,987,000,000 784,000,000 220,894,508 563,105,492

2014 4,984,000,000 4,147,000,000 837,000,000 254,098,695 582,901,305

2015 5,283,040,000 4,312,880,000 970,160,000 264,793,565 705,366,435

2016 5,600,022,400 4,485,395,200 1,114,627,200 275,385,308 839,241,892

Source: Ministry of Livestock Development: Dairy Development Master Plan, July 2010

4.4 Key Stakeholder Support

The following Key Stakeholders were consulted to gauge their willingness to support the SMP: Ministry

of Education (MoE), Ministry of Livestock Development (MoLD), Ministry of Co-operatives Development,

Kenya Dairy Board (KDB), New Kenya Co-operative Creameries (KCC), Tetra Pack (K) Limited, Land

OLakes Inc United Nations World Food Program (UNWFP) and United Nations Childrens Ed cation


11/58


been used to complement experiences gathered from other similar Programs and other relevant sources

to draw up the design for the proposed National School Milk Program.

4.5 The Future of PACOH: A desk Assessment & recommendations

According to reports prepared for the Program by Tetra Pak, PACOH was conceived in 2007 and

launched during the 3rd term of 2008 targeting mainly private schools in and around Nairobi. By end of

2nd term of 2009, a total of 56 schools had been recruited into the Program with over 160,000 litres of

milk supplied. And as by 12thMay 2011, 155 schools had been recruited and were actively participating

in the Program with milk consumption going up to some 193,000 litres.

With the above statistics, there can be no doubt that PACOH initiative has received good response but

now the challenge is how to sustain the momentum and achieve even better results. It is understood that

the stakeholders are keen to expand the program to include more schools including public ones and to

cover more areas of the Country. To achieve this, the Pilot need to be expanded and better organized

to be more focused, effective and ensure sustainability in the longer term. There is no evidence that a

feasibility study preceded the launch of PACOH. Without a well conceived and proper Program Design

to guide effective implementation, PACOH is likely to go the way the Nyayo Milk Scheme went!

For PACOH to grow into a National Milk Program, the following challenges must be addressed:

(i) Lack Clearly defined Strategic Blue print


12/58


this feasibility report assumes a collective effort and a pooling of resources by all stakeholders towards a

national school milk program with one vision and mission and clear goals to be achieved in best interest

of the Country as a whole.

The stakeholders in the school milk program will be mobilized at all levels of Government, civil society

and school communities in general to reach consensus on the modalities to govern the Program and on

the role each of the stakeholders will be required/requested to play to make the Program effective.

PACOH was conceived in 2005 and with the key learning's from the Former School Milk Program,

targeted to benefit Primary school children and Parents at first instance and secondary, the Government,

Private/Public entities as well as the community

On the downside of it, Tetra PAKs assessment of the pilot identifies KCCs Approach to Supporting

Program Implementation as inadequate and needs to be reviewed. Further, Tetra Pak identifies lack of

strong oversight by the Stakeholders Forum and post-consumer waste created by the Program as

critical threats to the future of the program.

(ii). Design of Guidelines: The School Milk Program Operational Manual

Tetra Pak recommends this Manual be prepared and distributed to the participating schools and

stakeholders for use. While there is no doubt about the usefulness of such Manual in a delicate

operation such the school milk, care should be taken to ensure that Manuals are not treated just like any


13/58


as to the choice between a centralized and decentralized system, these should be based on a careful

analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the different parts of the system. Centralized systems have

been found to be capital intensive, complex in terms of procurement, quality control and logistics issues,

lack of local support and in most cases, doomed to fail!

By contrast, a more decentralized school feeding Program such as the Brazilian model, where resources

are channeled to the regions or districts for the purchase of food locally, will need a lighter structure at

the top with more capacity at the local level for managing procurement and delivery processes.

The choice between the two modalities should take into account the following International good

practices that require:

(i) Having in place an institution that is accountable with adequate resources, managerial skills

and staff, knowledge and communication facilities that is in charge of managing and

implementing the Program.

(ii) Designing procurement and logistics arrangements based on what can be procured locally,taking into account costs, in-country production capacity and food quality/safety.

(iii) Procuring locally to sustain developing regional economies: local procurement provides

several benefits to the local economy. Transportation costs are lower and funds are injected

in the local economy;

(iv) Minimizing negative impact on the environment.

(v) Take into account involvement of all stakeholders-both government agencies and privatesector partnerships.


14/58


5.0 CHALLENGES TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF A SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM

Literature review reveals that school a number of well meant school feeding programs and indeed

including those of school milk programs failed to succeed because they faced a number challenges. Key

of these challenges include the following:

5.1 Difficulties in Piloting School Feeding Programs

Selection of schools to run a pilot of a school feeding Program may turn to be the greatest challenge for

the Programs take-off. This will be expected to be case especially because of subsidies that will be

offered to the problem children or to schools in problem areas for that matter, as this may provide

avenues for politicians to point the wrong finger at favouritism and corruption! In Tanzania, the pilot

project coincided with abolition of all parental contributions to schools and school fees leading in some

areas to initial resistance by some parents as majority felt the Government was reneging on its

commitment to free education to all! In addition, if only a few schools are selected in particular area,

there will be what WFP calls pull-factor in which children from schoolsoutside the Pilot Program to

those within thereby causing disruption to learning.

In an almost related scenario, in their realist review of school feeding Programs in disadvantaged

children trials from five continents that spanned eight decades to understand the efficacy of school

feeding Programs published in the internet (2007) Trisha Greenhalgh professor of primary health care


15/58


especially because assistance will be offered to problem children/schools, selection must be carefully

done and in the case of schools, the decision of the majority parents must bind all the parents for the

Program to avoid running into ethical problems. Most importantly, actual implementation of the Program

must be preceded by direct awareness approaches with parents at various schools.

Furthermore and according to WFP, the most adequate targeting approach is geographical as opposed

to individual or school-based: often resources are scarce and spotty coverage of schools is scattered

across a wide area, causing the so-called pull factor children moving from non-Program to Program

schools, even moving across districts. WFP recommends that all schools in a catchment area should be

targeted to prevent this problem. The neediest areas should be prioritized and all schools in those areas

should be then included to prevent the pull-factor (Kenya and Pakistan).

5.2 Problem Children

A report presented by the Tanzanian delegates to the 3

rd

International Milk Conference in Uganda in2005 indicated that coverage of the children in selected schools could not reach 100% because there

were orphans and children from very poor families who could not pay for the milk. Consequently this

necessitated that the National Committee on school Milk Program be required to raise funds from

Government, donors and International Community to subsidize problem children.

5.3 Challenges of Milk Distribution in Schools

The Tanzanian case also identified involvement of teachers in the supervision of the actual distribution

of milk in schools to children as one of the other difficulties that face school milk. This calls for ways and

means of handling the distribution of milk in schools By and large teachers and other school workers


16/58


6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD ON LESSONS LEARNED

6.1 Conclusions

The overarching conclusion from this analysis of international best practices is that school feeding

Programs including the school milk Programs, should be informed by good practices and lessons

learned. Good practices are practical tips for effective Program design and implementation from

those that have achieved some success. Lessons learned from past experiences act as safeguards

to avoid repeating past mistakes.

Although there are many different types of school feeding, high-quality, sustainable Programs have

certain common characteristics. The six new standards that have emerged and as analyzed

above provide a benchmark for quality and sustainability. Ideally, these standards will be part of this

proposed SMP design, with corresponding targets. As the proposed SMP will largely be parents

driven at school level, these six benchmarks should be adapted to the specific school context within

which the SMP is promoted.

6.2 Recommendations for way forward

(i) All existing school programs include the PACOH should brought together and

merged into a National School Milk Program to facilitate common policy


17/58


18/58


PART B: Proposed National School Milk Program

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 The Recommended Institutional & Management Structure for the Proposed Smp

3.0 Program Operational Activities & Role of Key Stakeholders

4.0 Implementation Modalities & Cost Implications

5.0 Financing the Program Activities

6.0 SMP Promotion & Lobbying Strategy

7.0 Socio-Economic Benefits of the Program

8.0 Program Sustainability Design Issues

9.0 Program Environmental Impact Assessment

10.0 Monitoring And Evaluation: Impact Assessment

11.0 Conclusions and Way Forward

11.2 Recommendations on Way Forward


19/58


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Program Background

The feasibility study that led to the proposal to set up a National School Milk Program was funded

by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) through the Smallholder Dairy

Commercialization Project (SDCP) as provided for under the GOK/IFAD Smallholder Dairy

Commercialization Program of 2005, as part of a strategy in the project component of Development

of the milk marketing chain.

The various design components of this Program draw on international best practices in public-

private-partnerships, lessons from challenges and problems from the previous School Milk Program

in Kenya and also those of similar kind from other parts of the region and internationally to ensure

the proposed school milk is not only sustainable, but also profitable and beneficial to the various

stakeholders within the dairy sector value chain.

1.2 Legal status and Mandate of the SMP

The Program will run by a Board of Trustees (BOT) who will manage an Endowment Fund to be set up

the Trustees Act in the Ministry of lands. It will be a body corporate with powers to acquire and dispose

property and other resources, to sue and be sued under the laws of the land. The BOT will bear the

ultimate responsibility for the effective discharge of the Funds mandate including establish effective

controls to efficiently manage the Funds resources and protect them from misuse and misappropriation.

The BOT will be nominated in accordance with the provisions in the Trust Deed taking into account

multi-sectoral stakeholder interests


20/58


21/58


22/58


2.0 THE RECOMMENDED INSTITUTIONAL & MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE FOR THE PROPOSEDSMP

2.1. Organization Chart

The institutional and management structure proposed for this Program borrows heavily from positive

lessons from similar programs in other countries that include Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Brazil and El

S l d th d i t ti ll d d Si ld t d d f f l h l


23/58


Registration of a National School Milk Program Trust Fund (NSMPTF) by the NSMPSC

under Trustees Act, at the Ministry of Lands and also nominate the first Trustees

Formation of County School Milk Program Steering Committees (CSMPSC)

Formation of School-Level School Milk Program Committees (SSMPC)

The NSMPSC to set up Program Management Unit (PMU) to act as the executive agency

for the Program. This to be set up at National level with Coordinating Units at County level.

The recommended Management structure for the proposed SMP is an agency type in which all key

stakeholders will be represented in a central national coordinating body, the National School Milk

Program Committee (NSMPC). The NSMPC will in turn be expected to delegate their responsibilities to

the County School Milk Program Committee (CSMPC) that will be formed to represent all the key

interests and to coordinate the activities of the SMP at the County level. Each school will also be the

encouraged to form School Milk Program Committee (SMPC) which will coordinate and oversee day-to-

day operations of the SMP at the school level. NSMP will establish a SMP Program Management Unit

(SMPPMU) which will carry out the actual activities of the SMP including promotion and coordination of

fundraising activities and payments for milk on behalf of the problem children among others. The

SMPPMU will operate Coordination Offices at the County level to steer Program activities at the County.

The County Offices will be manned by a skeleton staff-Coordinator and an Office Assistant.


24/58


3.0 PROGRAM OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES & ROLE OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS

3.1 Milk Production for the SMP

Milk requirements for the schools participating in the proposed SMP will be sourced from the local milk

processors. Where the supply may be short of the demand, the Ministry of Livestock Development

(MoLD) will be expected to devise strategies to stimulate and encourage farmers especially the

smallholder dairy ones to start and or expand their production.

3.2 Milk Processing for the SMP

The Mapping of well established milk production and processing institutions was conducted during the

study and it was noted that the institutions can produce and process enough milk for the school milk

Program. Each school will make the choice to participate in the Program or not. Once the school decides

to participate, it will pick a processor of their choice, who in all probability will be locally based, to cut

down delivery expenses. This arrangement will avoid the transportation problem that bedeviled the

previous School milk Program where milk was supplied by only one supplier, the KCC. From the

mapping of the processing and production institutions in the country, it was established that there will be

enough milk in the country to run the school milk Program when it kicks off. Any of the licensed

processors in the attached Annex can be picked to serve its locality to ensure the benefits arising from

the expanded market for dairy products are enjoyed within the local economy.

3 3 Milk Packaging for the SMP


25/58


Schools within close proximity to processors may arrange for bulky delivery and distribution through

dispensers if this can be hygienically handled and if it can realize substantial savings on the price of

the delivered milk.

The Kenya Dairy Processors Association may also consider agreeing to a common packaging to

make easier for common health and personal growth promotional messages to be passed over the

children. It may also Lead to savings if bulky contracts are entered with one or so supplier of

packaging material. The decision however will remain with the schools eventually and they may need

to be brought into any such discussion.

3.4 Milk Distribution within the SMP

From the positive lessons from other countries such as Tanzania among others, it is proposed that milk

sourcing and processing and distribution in this proposed SMP be done by local processors on terms

and conditions to be agreed with individual school fraternity. Local procurement has been established

as the most common approach within regional school milk programs and has emerged as the more

common approach overall. Local procurement is being actively being embraced as a means to achieve

sustainable school feeding programs and, at the same time, to use the purchasing power of the program

as a stimulus for the local agricultural economy. As such, local purchase of milk for school milk feeding

is seen as a force multiplier, benefiting children and the local economy at the same time.

3.5 Quality Control Management within the SMP


26/58


The work of KEBS will be complimented by that of the Kenya Dairy Board (KDB). The KDB is the main

regulatory body in the dairy industry that was established under the Dairy Industry Act, Cap 336 of the

Laws of Kenya. As stipulated in part II Section 5 of the Act, the Board is managed by a Board ofDirectors with a Chairman appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture. Nominees to the Board are appointed

from selections from District Agricultural Committees (DACS), Provincial Agricultural Boards (PABS) and

the Central Agricultural Board (CAB). The Managing Director is responsible for the day to day running of

the Board. Other Board members include large-scale dairy producers and processors.

KDB has the responsibility of developing, promoting and regulating the dairy industry.

The key Roles and Responsibilities of the KDB will include:

Organize, regulate and develop efficient production, marketing, distribution and supply of dairy

produce required by different classes of consumers;

Promote quality assurance to attain the high quality products with emphasis on hygiene of

milk production;

Encourage proper use of milk containers for transportation and storage facilities

for milk and milk products;

Regulate the sales of raw milk and importation of dairy produce;

Promote the consumption of quality milk and milk products;

Develop, promote and advise on proper packaging equipment and materials;

Licensing of milk producers and processors to permit a high degree of private enterprise in

production and processing of dairy products;

E f t f th D i I d t A t th h ti h ki ti d ti


27/58


4.0 IMPLEMENTATION MODALITIES & COST IMPLICATIONS

4.1 Implementation of Pre-Operating Activities

Several Program activities will need to be undertaken prior to a successful official launch. The proposed

National School Milk will rely to a good extent on the experiences of the on-going Pilot program but at

the same time keeping in line with the provisions of this Program design document. Key of these pre-

operating activities includes:

establishment of a truly National Steering Committee representing all key stakeholders,

preparation of Trust Deed and registration of a Trust Fund,

mobilization of critical resources for the establishment of an executive secretariat,

recruitment of key staff, and ,

preparation of necessary promotional material and,

lobbying Government and development partners and other private sector players to raise the

necessary funds to support the launch and sustained promotion efforts country wide in line with

the proposed implementation schedule.

The detailed activities and completion Timelines are contained on Schedule 8 attached.


28/58

MOLD/ Smallholder Commercialization ProgramFeasibility Study Report on the Proposed School Milk Program in Kenya

28

PROPOSED PHASED PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES & COMPLETION TIMELINES

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

No. Task Name

.

Days Start Finish Precedessors

Required

Responsible Output Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g Se p Oc t No v De cJan-

Dec

Jan-

Dec

Jan-

Dec

Jan-

Dec

Jan-

Dec

1

Finalize Feasibility

Study Rpt 10 23/5 31/5 Draft Rpt

Info from

KDB B&A Final Draft Rpt

2Stakeholders' Forum(SF) 1 2-Jun 2-Jun Final Draft

Hall &Copies SDCP Comments

3 Revise Final Draft Rpt 5 6-Jun 10-Jun SF Comments Time B&A Final Report

4

Form All-inclusive

NSMPSC 10 13/6 24/6 Final Report

Time/KDB

Hall KDB/SDCP NSMPSC

5

Finalize Trust Deed for

NSMPTF 10 27/6 8-Jul

Draft Trust

Deed 250,000/- B&A Final Trust Deed

6

Fast Track Registration

NSMPTF 15 11-Jul 29-Jul

Final Trust

Deed 25,000/- NSMPSC

NSMPTF

Registered

7

Mobilize Resources to

set up PMU 30 1-Aug 30-Aug

Reg. of

NSMPTF

3m/- for

mobilization NSMPSC

Raise Kshs.

35m.

8

Recruitment of Key

PMU Officials 30 1-Aug 30-Aug

Reg. of

NSMPTF 500,000/- NSMPSC

Raise Kshs.

35m.

10

Prepare Promotional

Material 30 1-Aug 30-Aug

Reg. of

NSMPTF Kshs.1m/- Consultant

Promotional

Materials

9 Set up PMU Secretariat 15 1-Sep 16-Sep

Sufficient

Funds Kshs. 35m. NSMPSC Functional PMU

11

Start Public campaigns

at selected Counties N/A 1-Sep n/a

Sufficient

Funds

Kshs.

5m/p.a.

NSMPSC &

PMU

welcomes the

Pgm

12

Set up County PMU

Offices N/A 1-Sep n/a

Sufficient

Funds

Funds per

buget

NSMPSC &

PMU

Functional PMU

Offices in

selected

Counties

13

o ze esources to

finance other Pgm N/A 1-Aug 30-Aug

eg. o

NSMPTF

m - or

mobilization NSMPSC

equate un s

per budget

14

Recruitment of Schools

into pgm N/A 1-Sep N/A

Sufficient

Funds

Kshs.

5m/p.a.

NSMPSC &

PMU

recruited in

selected

Counties

NOTES/KEY

Abbr.

B&A

KDB

SDCP

SF

NSMPSC

NSMPTF

PMU

National School Milk Program Trust Fund

Program Management Unit

Schedule 8

Completion Timelines in 2011

Benson & Associates, Accountants & Business

\Kenya Dairy Board

Smalholder Dairy Commercialization Programme

Stakeholders' Forum comments

National School Milk Steering Committee


29/58


4.2 Piloting on Selected County basis

A Phased Implementation approach is recommended. This approach will accord the Program executors

the opportunity to learn from challenges and pass on the benefits to the next phase. It is recommended

that the Program should cover every region (which were previously known as Provinces) on a pilot basis

on a selected number of Counties. There will basically be six (6) Phases, each representing a fiscal year

with year one starting 1 July 2011 and thereafter until 30 June 2016. As indicated on Schedule the table

below, Phase one (2011) will cover 10 Counties spread throughout the Country with subsequent Phasescovering 14, 15, 6, and 2 Counties respectively.


30/58


30

4.3 Cost/benefit Analysis

This implementation strategy is expected to achieve the following targets:

Year No. of

Counties

recruited

No. of

Children

Recruited

into Pgm

Cumulative

no. of

Cihldren in

Pgm

Total litres

Consumed In

Year

Contribution to

GDP (Kshs)

No. of

New Jobs

Created

Capital Exp

during Yr

(Kshs)

Total

Operating

during Yr

(Kshs)

Amount of

Subsidies

(Kshs)

Total Program

(Kshs)

2011 10 2,075,962 2,075,962 56,050,967 4,035,689,666 16,815 21,777,500 82,857,763 2,017,834,808 2,122,470,070

2012 14 2,976,873 5,052,835 136,426,533 10,804,981,439 24,113 27,027,000 170,800,424 5,402,490,720 5,600,318,143

2013 15 3,128,443 8,181,278 220,894,508 19,244,329,500 25,340 31,853,250 281,761,795 9,622,164,750 9,935,779,795

2014 6 1,229,785 9,411,063 254,098,695 24,350,786,128 9,961 14,015,430 351,245,759 12,175,393,064 12,540,654,253

2015 2 396,106 9,807,169 264,793,565 27,913,266,643 3,208 5,138,991 401,516,523 13,956,633,321 14,363,288,835

2016 0 392,287 10,199,456 275,385,308 31,932,777,039 3,178 0 441,668,175 15,966,388,520 16,408,056,695

Totals 47 10,199,456 10,199,456 1,207,649,576 118,281,810,365 82,616 99,812,171 1,729,850,438 59,140,905,182 60,970,567,701

Benefits from the Program School Milk Program Costs

Note: detailed computations of this costs and benefits are contained Schedule 1 attached.

From the table above, it is clear that by the time Program covers the entire Country in 5 year time, over 10million children will have been recruited into the

Program and supplied with milk at a total cost of over Kshs. 61billion. This however compares favourably with the benefits that would accrue to the

economy including a contribution to the GDP of Kshs. 118billion over the same period and generating substantial employment for several people in the

whole value chain. FAO estimates that in Kenya, dealing in every 100 litres of milk through the Small Milk Processor, which in the case of the proposed

School Milk Program is expected to be the most preferred mode of distribution of milk to schools, employment for about 0.3 people is generated. And with

an estimated Annual consumption of over slightly more than 275million litres of milk at the end of the 5 thyear, this should create a whopping 80,000 jobs

for players within the dairy value chain!


31/58


31

KENYA SCHOOL MILK PROGRAMME

PROPOSED PHASED PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION & CORRESPONDING COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS SCHEDULE 1

Description of Item Note 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

KEY OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS

Total Number of Counties (excluding NBI) 1 47 47 47 47 47 47 47

No. of Counties Recruited into Pgm 1 10 14 15 6 2 - 47

Cumulative No. of Counties Recruited 1 10 24 39 45 47 47 47

No. of Schools Recruited 1 26,667

No. of Children Recruited into Pgm in the Year 1 2,075,962 2,976,873 3,128,443 1,229,785 396,106 392,287 10,199,456

Cumulative no. of Children Recruited 1 2,075,962 5,052,835 8,181,278 9,411,063 9,807,169 10,199,456 10,199,456

Annual Consumption of Milk Per Child (Ltrs ) 2 27 27 27 27 27 27

Total Qty of Milk consumed/Year (Ltrs) 2 56,050,967 136,426,533 220,894,508 254,098,695 264,793,565 275,385,308

Average number of 250ml Pkts Consumed 2 224,203,868 545,706,133 883,578,030 1,016,394,780 1,059,174,261 1,101,541,232

Average cos t of 250ml milk pk t (Kshs) 2 18 20 22 24 26 29

Amount o f subsidy (50% of Cost ) (Kshs) 3 9 10 11 12 13 14

Capital Exp for H/O (Kshs) 4 4,227,500 - - - - -

Operating Exp for H/O (Kshs) 5 31,132,513 34,245,764 37,670,340 41,437,374 45,581,112 50,139,223

Capital Exp/County Office (Kshs) 6 1,755,000 1,930,500 2,123,550 2,335,905 2,569,496 2,826,445

Operating Exp/County Office (Kshs) 7 5,172,525 5,689,778 6,258,755 6,884,631 7,573,094 8,330,403

PROGRAM BENEFITS TO THE ECONOMY

Contribution to GDP (Gross Milk Sales) 4,035,669,616 10,804,981,439 19,244,329,500 24,350,786,128 27,913,266,643 31,932,777,039 118,281,810,365

Cumulative Employment Generation 16,815 40,928 66,268 76,230 79,438 82,616

PROGRAM COSTS (FIGURES IN KSHS)

Capital Expenditure

Capital Exp-Head Office 4 4,227,500 - - - - - 4,227,500

Capital Exp-County Offices 6 17,550,000 27,027,000 31,853,250 14,015,430 5,138,991 - 95,584,671

Total Capital Expenditure 21,777,500 27,027,000 31,853,250 14,015,430 5,138,991 - 99,812,171

Program Operating Expenditure -

Operating Exp-Head Office 5 31,132,513 34,245,764 37,670,340 41,437,374 45,581,112 50,139,223 240,206,325Operating Exp-County Offices 7 51,725,250 136,554,660 244,091,455 309,808,385 355,935,411 391,528,952 1,489,644,113

Total Operating Expenditure 82,857,763 170,800,424 281,761,795 351,245,759 401,516,523 441,668,175 1,729,850,438

Program Subsidies 3

Payments for subsidized milk 3 2,017,834,808 5,402,490,720 9,622,164,750 12,175,393,064 13,956,633,321 15,966,388,520 59,140,905,182

Total Program subsidies 2,017,834,808 5,402,490,720 9,622,164,750 12,175,393,064 13,956,633,321 15,966,388,520 59,140,905,182

TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS 2,122,470,070 5,600,318,143 9,935,779,795 12,540,654,253 14,363,288,835 16,408,056,695 60,970,567,791


32/58


33/58


KENYA SCHOOL MILK PROGRAMME Schedule 4

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT UNIT (UNIT) NBI H/Os

CAPITAL BUDGET

Particulars Notes Units Cost/Unit Amount

Furnitute & Fittings

Executive Desk & Chair 1 30,000 30,000

Desks for Officers (5@12,500/-) 5 12,500 62,500

Officers seats (5@12,500/-) 5 12,500 62,500

Conference table (1@25,000/) 1 25,000 25,000

Conference seats (30@5,000/-) 30 5,000 150,000

Visitors Chairs (10 chairs@5,000/-) 10 5,000 50,000

Office Partitions & Fittings 3 50,000 150,000

Sub-total - 55 530,000

Office Equipment -File Cabinets (5@7,500/-) 5 7,500 37,500

Cash Safes (1@40,000/-) 1 40,000 40,000

Printer 1 20,000 20,000

Photocopier 1 20,000 20,000

Telephone sets (5@12,500) 3 12,500 37,500

Binding Machine 1 10,000 10,000

Fax Machine 1 7,500 7,500Sub-total - 13 172,500

Computers & Accessories -

D kt (5@50 000/ ) 5 50 000 250 000


34/58


KENYA SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM Schedule 5

PROJECTED OPERATING EXPENSES

Program Management Unit (PMU)-NBI H/Os

PARTICULARYS Monthly Annual 5 Years

12 5

Administration-Staff Costs

Chief Executive Officer 150,000 1,800,000 9,000,000

Finance & Administrative Officer 100,000 1,200,000 6,000,000

Public Relations Officer 100,000 1,200,000 6,000,000

Public Health/Food Scientist 100,000 1,200,000 6,000,000Logistics Officer 50,000 600,000 3,000,000

Administrative Assistant 35,000 420,000 2,100,000

Driver 25,000 300,000 1,500,000

NSSF 5,500 66,000 330,000

Medical Costs 5,000 60,000 300,000

Leave Pay 10,000 120,000 600,000

Sub-Total 580,500 6,966,000 34,830,000

Other Administration CostsOffice Rent & Rates (Nbi) 75,000 900,000 4,500,000Directors/Trustees Honoraria 110,000 1,320,000 6,600,000Programme Promotion & Publicty 1,000,000 12,000,000 60,000,000

Printing & Stationery 25,000 300,000 1,500,000

Telephone & Postage 25,000 300,000 1,500,000

Periodicals & Magazines 3,500 42,000 210,000

Entertainment 10,000 120,000 600,000

Staff Travel & Accommodation 50,000 600,000 3,000,000

Audit & Accountancy 25,000 300,000 1,500,000Staff Training 10,000 120,000 600,000

Professional Services 10,000 120,000 600,000

Subscriptions 5 000 60 000 300 000


35/58


KENYA SCHOOL MILK PROGRAMME Schedule 6

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT UNIT (UNIT)-COUNTY OFFICE

CAPITAL BUDEGT-FOR ONE COUNTY OFFICE

Particulars Notes Units Cost/Unit AmountFurnitute & Fittings

Coordinator's Desk & Chair 1 25,000 25,000

Desks for Officers (2@7,500/-) 5 7,500 37,500

Officers seats (2@7,500/-) 5 7,500 37,500

Visitors Chairs (10 chairs@2,500/-) 10 2,500 25,000

Office Partitions & Fittings 2 10,000 20,000

- 23 145,000

Office Equipment -

File Cabinets (1@7,500/-) 1 7,500 7,500

Cash Safes (1@40,000/-) 0 - -

Printer/Photocopier 1 5,000 5,000

Telephone sets (2@12,500) 2 12,500 25,000

Binding Machine 1 2,500 2,500

Fax Machine 0 - -

- 5 40,000

Computers & Accessories -

Desktops (1@50 000/-) 1 50 000 50 000


36/58


KENYA SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM Schedule 7

PROJECTED OPERATING EXPENSES

Program Management Unit (PMU)-County Expenditure Structure

PARTICULARYS Monthly Annual 5 Years

12 5

Administration-Staff Costs

County Coordinator 75,000 900,000 4,500,000

Office Aassistant 30,000 360,000 1,800,000

Driver 25,000 300,000 1,500,000

NSSF & NHIF 1,500 18,000 90,000

Medical Costs 1,500 18,000 90,000

Leave Pay 5,000 60,000 300,000

Sub-Total 138,000 1,656,000 8,280,000Other Administration CostsCounty Office Rent & RateS 15,000 180,000 900,000County Committee members Honoraria 55,000 660,000 3,300,000

Printing & Stationery 3,000 36,000 180,000

Telephone & Postage 3,000 36,000 180,000Periodicals & Newspaper 1,000 12,000 60,000

Entertainment - - -

Staff Travel & Accommodation 14,000 168,000 840,000

Audit & Accountancy - - -

Staff Training 2,500 30,000 150,000

Professional Services - - -

Subscriptions - - -

Insurance 8,044 96,525 482,625

Repairs & Maintenace 1,000 12,000 60,000Miscellaneous 22,500 270,000 1,350,000

Bank Charges - - -

Motor Vehicle Running 30,000 360,000 1,800,000


37/58


38/58


38

ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS & PROPOSED FINANCING PLAN

Description of Item Note 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Kshs Kshs Kshs Kshs Kshs Kshs Kshs

PROGRAM COSTS (FIGURES IN KSHS)

Total Capital Expenditure 21,777,500 27,027,000 31,853,250 14,015,430 5,138,991 - 99,812,171

Total Operating Expenditure 82,857,763 170,800,424 281,761,795 351,245,759 401,516,523 441,668,175 1,729,850,438

Total Program subsidies 2,017,834,808 5,402,490,720 9,622,164,750 12,175,393,064 13,956,633,321 15,966,388,520 59,140,905,182

TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS 2,122,470,070 5,600,318,143 9,935,779,795 12,540,654,253 14,363,288,835 16,408,056,695 60,970,567,791

PROPOSED FINANCING PLAN

Processors 25% 530,617,518 1,400,079,536 2,483,944,949 3,135,163,563 3,590,822,209 4,102,014,174 15,242,641,948

Packers 20% 424,494,014 1,120,063,629 1,987,155,959 2,508,130,851 2,872,657,767 3,281,611,339 12,194,113,558

Donors 25% 530,617,518 1,400,079,536 2,483,944,949 3,135,163,563 3,590,822,209 4,102,014,174 15,242,641,948

Government 20% 424,494,014 1,120,063,629 1,987,155,959 2,508,130,851 2,872,657,767 3,281,611,339 12,194,113,558

Interest on Trust Fund 10% 212,247,007 560,031,814 993,577,979 1,254,065,425 1,436,328,884 1,640,805,669 6,097,056,779

Total 100% 2,122,470,070 5,600,318,143 9,935,779,795 12,540,654,253 14,363,288,835 16,408,056,695 60,970,567,791


39/58


5.2.1 Funding by the Parents

In this proposed SMP, parents will foot the bill for their childrens needs. The parents will determine

the frequency and quantity of milk their children will take and on the payment modalities. They will

decide to pay for it monthly or through a fund that will be paid for once every term or so. The decision

will be theirs. It is expected that half (50%) of the parents will be in a position to pay for their children

and the rest will be assisted through subsidies. By extension therefore, 50% of the total cost of the

milk consumed by the problem will be part of the Program cost to be financed from other sources.

5.2.2 Subsidies by Processors and Packers

In line with experiences from other countries and the on-ongoing Pilot School Milk Program

spearheaded by KDB with technical support from Tetra Pak with active participation of the Kenya Private

Schools Association (KPSA), it is recommended that processors and packers participating in the

Program all agree to provide subsidies to the cost of the milk through special discounts in general or to

the very needy problem children. This will make the milk cheaper, more affordable and facilitate easier

administration of this component of the subsidy as it will not involve actual movement of cash. It is

estimated that this source of finance can provide up-to about at least 45% of the total Program Cost with

the processors and packers each contributing 25% and 20% respectively.

5.2.3 Funds from Donors

The cost of the Secretariat and that of the problem children who will be systematically identified can be

met from donor funding. Some of the donors that the Fund should target include IFAD, FAO, UNWFP,


40/58


5.2.4 Funds from special sponsorship

Government should be lobbied to enact legislation and regulations that enable private and publicenterprises to sponsor SMPs in one or so schools like in the case of football clubs across the country as

part of their corporate social responsibility. Cost incurred to support such SMPs can be treated as a tax

deductive expenses and special mention made during special National days. Already TetraPak is doing

this sponsorship and deserves a commendable mention.

5.2.5 Official Central/County Government Funding

The National and County Committees on School Milk Program should lobby both the Central and County

Governments respectively to make a commitment to create a budget line for school Milk in the national

budget and county budgets as part of enabling those from poor families and orphans to access school

milk as part of fulfillment of aces to food in line with the new Constitution.

This provision has been made with full knowledge that the Program is supposed to be independent of

official funding from the Government. However, WFP experience from the many Programs that have

participated in or evaluated indicate that it is vitally important to find the right balance between Programs

that count on community participation and ownership (a vital factor for sustainability) and Programs that

seek to be mainly funded by communities. According to WFP, the latter places significant expectations

on communities and is often not a realistic option to reduce dependence on external assistance. Withoutgovernment involvement, community-supported school feeding including school milk hardly stands on its

own feet.


41/58


5.3 Targeted Subsidy Interventions

The Program will identify cases of needy children that will require subsidies. Subsidies will be made toavailable to schools or Counties on blanket basis as this will have rebel effects. Subsidies that may be

allowed to schools on blanket basis while leaving neighbors out will, according to studies, cause

disaffection and disapproval of the SMP citing discrimination!

For planning purposes however, it is noted that about 50% of the total children enrolment will not afford

to pay for the milk. From available Government statistics, this is generally the case in all the districtswithin the Program area. The statistics show that of the 9 Districts within the Program area, Kisii Central

had the highest absolute poverty incidence at 51% with Nakuru being the lowest at 37% respectively.

These figures mean that the people within these figures can hardly afford a decent meal a day leave

alone paying for school needs for their children, with milk not even thought of! These are the households

who, despite of the introduction of the free primary school education, most of their children are still out of

school! This position is strengthened by a Report containing the results of a study carried out among14,340 school going population (aged (6-17 years) who had attended school but were not currently

attending school, in which they were asked to give the reasons for not being currently in school. The

main reasons for not currently attending primary school level was lack of money and lack of interest

(Well-being in Kenya, KNBS, 2008). The report indicate that lack of money for school expenses was

reported by the majority of the children (61%), which implies that there is a significant group of people

who are not taking advantage of the FPE Program. The report says the reason for this are not clear, but

gives the incidental costs to schooling such as like school uniform and feeding as a big burden to some

parents


42/58


6.0 SMP PROMOTION & LOBBYING STRATEGY

The promotion and lobbying strategy for the SMP proposed under this section aims to create awarenessamong the various key stakeholders and secure their commitment to the Program to ensure it is

effective and sustainable. The promotion and lobbying will be directed at both at the decision-making

levels of the government to ensure the Program is well embedment in national policy frameworks on the

one hand and on the other, ensure a steady flow of resources from parents, Governments and

development partners necessary to sustain the Program.

In line with international best practice, the top organs in the SMP and particularly the BOT, will

continuously engage decision makers to ensure the Governments at the Central and County levels

prioritize support for the school milk Program. Among the key milestones in this direction will be to lobby

Government at all levels to create budgetary line for support to the SMP, get the Government to pass a

policy in support of SMP and convince Government to create and provide seed money for a SMP

Endowment Fund. These milestones will provide encouragement to international organizations andNGOs and other development partners of the Governments commitmen t which experience, ultimately

makes it a lot easier to attract counterparty funds.

It is hoped that the BOT will use the strong arguments made for the case in support of this proposed

Program to lobby Government and articulate the case for the SMP to all the other stakeholders. Another

dimension of this promotion and lobbying strategy for the SMP will be to ensure the BOT is represented

in the room when policy decisions are made, meaning that school milk Programs advocates need to

provide adequate and timely policy advice to decision makers during key meetings and processes In


43/58


7.0 SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROGRAM

The proposed SMP is expected to enlarge the milk market by a very substantial proportion, boost

incomes of the smallholder dairy farmers, spur investment opportunities in the sector and create

employment to small people within the smallholder milk supply chain. Some of the benefits expected

from this Program include:

Economic Return on investment

Socio- Returns: promote food security

Enlargement of Markets

Development of a Strong Culture of Milk Consumption

Enhancement of Competitiveness of the Dairy Value chain

Enhanced regional development through local procurement of the milk as much is practicable.

Promote milk production systems through encouragement of commercialization of the

smallholder dairy farmer.

Poverty Reduction through improved education Standards

The introduction of the SMP is expected to expand school enrollment and improve attendance

tremendously. With a sustained SMP, there is expected to be a significant improvement in the level of

education within a span of 5-8 years which will, according to available statistical evidence, greatly

reduce the poverty levels in the country. This is because an educated population brings with it better

skills and improved innovation which expands employment and income generating opportunities With


44/58


continues that in both the rural and urban areas, there are dramatic shifts in depth and severity of

poverty with increase in the level education of household head.

8.0 PROGRAM SUSTAINABILITY DESIGN ISSUES

The proposed SMP will incorporate cost sharing mechanisms in which the able parents will pay for cost

of the milk supplied to their children while special cases will be subsidized with recovery progressively

increased with the aim full cost recovery after say a period of 5 years. This cost sharing should be

designed to take into account special needy cases that may require support for longer periods. In

addition, central and County Governments will be lobbied to introduce a budget line in their respective

budgets that caters for subsidies to SMP.

According to WFP, on the minimum standard, to design and implement high-quality, feasible,

sustainable and cost-effective school feeding Programs the following good practices should be taken

into account:

(i) nationally led school feeding Programs, backed by political will with strong policy statements,

such as in Brazil, Honduras and India;

(ii) a sound analysis of country context, which leads to well targeted and well designed Programs,

such as in Kenya and Pakistan;

(iii) a planned transition to government ownership, such as in Malawi, El Salvador and Ghana;

and

(iv) local food procurement, food processing and fortification which stimulates local food


45/58


46/58


9.0 PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The proposed SMP is expected to cause minimal negative impact to the environment. However, it is

recommended that a professional environmental impact assessment be undertaken to determine the

actual impact of such a Program to the environment especially as regards the selected packaging

materials and processing once implementation starts.

10.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION: IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Monitoring processes, outputs and outcomes is crucial to guide implementation and to steer the

Program on a regular basis. M&E systems are a very important source of information for policymakers

and decision makers in the government. As far as possible, M&E systems should not duplicate the

governments own systems; instead, they should be designed according to the existing set-ups andinformation flows. This prevents schools from being overburdened and mainstreams the Program into

existing national structures. In Kenya, an innovative computer-based monitoring system is jointly run by

the Ministry of Education and WFP. This information is used to make planning, design and targeting

decisions, eventually phasing out when needs decrease and re-orienting the Program to other, needier

schools.

The M&E Model proposed for this Program aims at maximizing the impact and lessons learnt and to

i i i th i k f j t f il It th t l it i d l ti b d t d t


47/58


Monitoring visits at field level will be carried out by the implementing partners and stakeholders. The

purpose of the visits at field level is to obtain a first hand impression of the school Program s

achievements in relation to the project plan and to discuss progress and obstacles with the partners

Focus will be on learning best practices, sharing experience and finding solutions in collaboration.

A report will be prepared by the Secretariat following each monitoring visit using a standard formats

included in this Report. As a supplement to visits at field level, regular meetings will be held amongst

Program Partners to discuss progress in implementation and obstacles encountered.

Depending on the project duration, the partner will be required to submit the following reporting:

Semi-annual progress report(s). A narrative document focusing on implementation of

activities, major achievements, problems faced and solutions found.

Project completion report. A report providing an analysis of achievement of project objectives,

design, impact and sustainability. It will enable identification of positive and negative lessons

learned.

For evaluation purposes the following reports will be used on a case by case basis depending on

project duration and complexity:

Table 1: Monitoring and Evaluation of the School milk Program

Element Name Time Frame M & E Indicators Monitoring Tools Implementing Agency Stakeholders Responsibility

Safety milk quality &distribution

Annual Certificationsdelivery reportsnotes, health reportsno of litres of milk

Reports from schoolsand health officersreport & MOE reports

PMU, Processors KDB,KBS, MOE

HACCP continuous inspectiontaste grand continuouschecking by PTA teachers &pupils train kids to know good


48/58


11.0 CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD

In view of the findings from this study, the proposed SMP is acceptable by the school fraternity, the dairy

farmers and processors and with proper promotional mechanisms proposed in this Report; the Program

should be successfully implemented.

To move forward, there is need to bring together all the key stakeholders especially the KDB, MoE,

MoLD, WFP, IFAD/SDCP among others to share experiences on the issues that may impact on thesuccessful launch of the SMP. It is important that every stakeholder appreciates the importance of a

proper study prior to launching any school based feeding Program including school milk, whether for

commercial or social reasons if it is to be sustained. This study report brings out important lessons from

other countries around the World and proposes a Program Design Model for the proposed SMP that

attempts to avoid mistakes of similar Programs while using the strong points as building blocks to ensure

that the proposed Program succeeds. In that regard, every stakeholder in the SMP and indeed any otherschool based feeding Program is welcome and should find this report useful.

11.1 Conclusions

Management and promotion of School Milk Programs has to run for long a period and has to be

sustainable in for the full benefits to be realized. It is at the planning stage that it will be decided whetherit will be a short term feeding project as is doneduring emergencies such as during and after famines

and floods or a long term feeding Program aimed at correcting nutritional deficiencies among children to


49/58


Sustainability should be the key objective in order to get the intended benefits of the proposed school

milk Program. Parents will have to agree to participate in the Program after sensitization and decision . Inmost urban areas parents give their children some money to spend on some food items while at school.

The amounts may be small but usually more than the price of a 250 ml pouch of pasteurized milk. Once

the parents are convinced they only have to advise their children to spend their daily allowance on milk.

The Implementing Agency/PMU to solicit external funding for the Program in problem areas and Semi-

Arid and Arid Lands (ASALs) including children such as orphans. The school boards are closer to theparents and children and they know the problem children. In addition their request for funding has a

larger chance of being considered favorably because it comes from the community and not an Outside

body. Delivering a comprehensive, integrated package under the leadership of the government in

partnership with UN agencies and NGOs, ensures that the multiple benefits of school feeding are

maximized and can lead to wider socio-economic impacts. Sensitization to be done by a neutral body

comprising of experts (NGOs, Dairy Board, , MOLD). This arrangement will remove the problem of theProgram being seen as a sales campaign.

The Implementing Agency/PMU to advertise tenders so that the identified processors and suppliers can

tender openly and transparently. This brings the actual control of the Program to the implementing

agency, milk processors and parents themselves and therefore more transparent. Lack of transparency

may discourage parents from contributions if there is any suspicion of dishonesty.

The PMU/ Implementing Agency to oversee the Program by setting a level playing field for all the

stakeholders School milk Programs have benefits to the various stakeholders The PMU will ensure that


50/58


(iii) The NSMPSC should immediately lobby Government for budgetary support in the next

financial year

(iv) The NSMP should start immediate fund raising contacts with key stakeholders to secure

necessary funds to set up the PMU and coordination offices in the initial County targets

(v) Implementation of a National School Milk Program should be guided by the recommendations in

the design document to ensure it is effective, efficient and sustainable.

(vi) The study also recommends the need to educate the handlers (teachers, etc) on proper and

hygienic milk handling. Preferably processors should deliver the milk to the schools nearest to

them so as to reduce transportation costs and unnecessary delays often resulting to milk

spoilage and wastages.

(vii) It is repeated here as an emphasis that school milk decisions especially the choice of processor,

mode of payment and administration and especially the beneficiaries of the subsidy fund be left

to parents and teachers at school committee level.

(viii) The NSMPSC should look for a sponsor to fund a study tour for the NSMPSC and PMU Staff to

one or so of the success story destinations.


51/58


ANNEXES


52/58


53/58


Limuru MilkProcessors P.O. Box 563 LIMURU 066-71369

Fresh Milk, Ghee, Lala &Yoghurt Country Wide 20,000

Meru Central

DairyCooperative Unit P.O. Box 2919 MERU 30081/2

Fresh Milk, Mala, Yoghurt,UHT, Ghee, Cream Country Wide 26,000

Molo MilkLimited P.O. Box Molo 051-721156 051-721156

Fresh Milk, Mala, Yoghurt,Butter And Ghee Country Wide 15,060

New K.C.C.Cheese Factory

P.O. Box30131 NAIROBI 55298/551873 Cheese Country Wide 3,000

New K.C.C.Eldoret P.O. Box 609 ELDORET 053-2060588 Fresh Milk & Milk Powder

North Rift &Western &ForExport 100,000

New K.C.C. Ltd

Miritini

P.O. Box

93907 MOMBASA 0717-200258

Pasteurised Whole Milk &

Mala Coast Region 290,000New K.C.C.Naivasha Private Bag NAIVASHA 050-2020310 Chilled Fresh Milk

Naivasha &Nairobi 30,000

New K.C.C.Nyahururu P.O. Box174

NYAHURURU 0734-683395 UHT Nyahururu 100,000

New K.C.C.-Kitale Factory Private Bag KITALE 054-30440

P/Milk, Butter, Ghee,Skim & Full Cream, Kitale 100,000

New K.C.C.Dandora

P.O. Box30131 NAIROBI 650448

Pasteurised Milk, Yoghurt,Mala & Butter Country Wide 261,000

New K.C.C.Factory Kiganjo P.O. Box 3 KIGANJO 061-86233/027 Powder Milk & Fresh Milk Country Wide 35,000

New K.C.C.Sotik P.O. Box 191 SOTIK 0720-014628

Fresh Milk, Mala, MilkShakes & UHT Country Wide 20,000

Nyota DairiesLtd P.O. Box 2151 KITALE 054-31773

Fresh Milk, Mala, Yoghurt,Butter, Ghee Kitale 15,000

P.N.K. GaitaraPamside DairyLtd P.O. Box 745 THIKA 020-2319874

Pasteurised Milk, Yoghurt& Mala Country Wide 10,000

Ruba Mills Ltd

Box 102

ELDORET

053-

2061760

Pasteurised Milk, Yoghurt

& Mala Country Wide 10,000Sameer

Agriculture &Livestock Kenya P.O. Box 318- Whole Milk, Yoghurt,


54/58


Table 3: Identified Potential Licensed Milk Production and Processing Institutions

Licensee Address Town Telephone ProduceArea ofSale Capacity

Ardash DevelopersLtd

P.O. Box 318-00600 NAIROBI 553771/75

Fresh milk, Yoghurt,Butter, Ghee &Cheese

countrywide 50,000

Afrodane FoodIndustries P.O. Box 46336 NAIROBI

050-50557/5055

pasteurized milk,mala, yoghurt, butter&

countrywide 20,000

Bio Food ProductsLtd P.O. Box27623-00506 NAIROBI 3503596/7

F&N Yoghurt,

S/Flavoured,Sterilised, Cream

countrywide &

COMESARegion 5,000

Brookside DairyLimited P.O. Box 236 RUIRU 067-54010/2/54

pasteurized milk,mala, yoghurt, butter&

CountryWide 375,000

Buzeki Dairy Limited P.O. Box 85532 MOMBASA 041-2318611

Pasteurized milk, &Fermented DairyProducts

CoastRegion 10,000

Crown CreameriesLtd P.O. Box 14236 UPLANDS 0721-421007

Whole milk, Butter,Yoghurt, ice cream uplands 20,000

Delamere Holdings Private Bag NAIVASHA 050-2020675Fresh milk, Yoghurt,Cheese & Mala

Nairobi,Naivasha,Nakuru 7,000

Doinyo Lessos Ltd P.O. Box 169 Eldoret0321-63308/206

Femented Milk,Cheese, Yoghurt

CountryWide 20,000

Egerton University P.O. Box 536 NJORO 051-2217639 Yoghurt

Egerton

University 1,000

Eldoville Farm Ltd P.O. Box 24390 NAIROBI 882642/88343Whole milk, Yoghurt,Cream, Cheese

CountryWide 1,150


55/58



Kilifi Plantation Ltd Private Bag KILIFI 203558162

Pasteurised Milk,Fermented Milk,Cream

CoastProvince 12,000

Kinangop Dairy P.O.Box 429NORTHKINANGOP 050-50515

Fresh Milk, Mala &Yoghurt

NaivashaNairobi 80,000

Kiyaga FoodProcessing Plant

P.O.Box54039-00200 NAIROBI 0722-397883

Whole Milk, Yoghurt& Mala

CountryWide 1000

Lari Dairy AllianceLtd P.O. Box 208 UPLANDS 050-50914

Pasteurised Milk,Yoghurt, MaziwaLala uplands 30,000

Limuru MilkProcessors P.O. Box 563 LIMURU 066-71369

Fresh Milk, Ghee,Lala & Yoghurt

CountryWide 20,000

Meru Central DairyCooperative Unit P.O. Box 2919 MERU 30081/2

Fresh Milk, Mala,Yoghurt, UHT, Ghee,Cream

CountryWide 26,000

Molo Milk Limited P.O. Box Molo 051-721156 051-721156

Fresh Milk, Mala,Yoghurt, Butter andGhee

CountryWide 15,060

New K.C.C. CheeseFactory P.O. Box 30131 NAIROBI 55298/551873 Cheese

CountryWide 3,000

New K.C.C. Eldoret P.O. Box 609 ELDORET 053-2060588

Fresh Milk & Milk

Powder

North Rift &Western &

for Export 100,000

New K.C.C. LtdMiritini P.O. Box 93907 MOMBASA 0717-200258

Pasteurised WholeMilk & Mala

CoastRegion 290,000


56/58



Ruba Mills Ltd

P.O. Box 102

ELDORET

053-

2061760

Pasteurised milk,

Yoghurt & Mala

Country

Wide 10,000

Sameer Agriculture& Livestock KenyaLtd

P.O. Box 318-00600 NAIROBI 555863

Whole Milk, Yoghurt,Cheese, Butter

CountryWide 20,000

Sidik Hussin MiyanjiT/A Miyanji Dairy P.O. Box 84381 MOMBASA

040-3202615/07

Fresh milk, Yoghurt& Mala

SouthCoast,MombasaCity 1,600

Spink Knit Dairy Ltd P.O. Box 78377 NAKURU 051-2212492UHT, Fresh Milk,Yoghurt, Ghee

CountryWide 300,000

Stanley & SonsLimited

P.O. Box18889-00500 NAIROBI 0722-833277

Whole Milk, S/Milk,Yoghurt, Mala,Cream,

Nairobi,Machakos,Makueni,Mombasa 3,400

Sunpower Products P.O. Box 4112 NAIROBI 066-948686

Pasteurised milk &

Yoghurt Nakuru 1,500Source: Kenya Dairy Board 2010


57/58

Table 4: Standards

No Standard Targets

1 Sound alignment with the national

policy framework

The national level Poverty Reduction Strategy identifies school feeding as an education/social

protection intervention. The sector policies and strategies identify school feeding as an education/social

protection intervention (Education Sector Plan, Nutrition Policy, Social Protection Policy). There is aspecific policy related to school feeding or school health and nutrition, which specifies objectives,

rationale, scope, design and funding of the Program.

2 Stable funding and budgeting

There is a budget line for school feeding and national funds from the government or from donors that

covers the needs of the Program consistently. Local and national level structures (districts, regions or

central offices) include school feeding in their annual budgets and plans.

3

Evidence-based Program design

The Program has appropriate objectives and rationale corresponding to context and policy framework.

The Program identifies appropriate target groups and targeting criteria corresponding to Program

objectives and context. The Program has appropriate food modalities and food basket corresponding to

context, objectives, local habits and tastes, availability of local food, costs and nutritional objectives. All

children in the Program receive deworming alongside school feeding. There is a handover plan in

place, which has been agreed with the government, and includes timeframe and milestones

4

Strong institutional

and

implementation

arrangements

There is a national institution mandated with implementation of school feeding. There is a specific unit

in charge of overall management of school feeding within the lead institution at the central level; the

unit has sufficient staff, resources and knowledge. There are adequate staff and resources for

management and implementation at the regional level. There are adequate staff and resources for

management and implementation at the district level. There are adequate staff, resources and

infrastructure for implementation at the school level. Procurement and logistics arrangements allow for

procuring food locally, taking into account costs and capacity of cooperating parties, in-country

production capacity, quality of food and stability of food supply. There is a resourced monitoring and

evaluation system, which is functioning, is structured and managed within the lead institution, and is

used for implementation and feedback

MOLD/Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Program


58/58

MOLD/Smallholder Dairy Commercialization ProgramFeasibility Study of School Milk Program: Draft Report 1

58

5

Strong partnerships and inter-sector

coordination

School feeding is linked with other school health and nutrition, social protection activities or Programs.

There is an inter-sector coordination mechanism for school feeding in place, which is operational and

involves all stakeholders and partners of the institution (education, health, agriculture and others). The

Program is designed and implemented in

partnership with all relevant sectors, international agencies, NGOs, private sector and local business

representatives.

6

Strong community participation and

ownership (teachers, parents, children)

The community has actively participated in Program design. The community actively participates in

Program implementation. The community contributes (to the extent possible) resources (cash, in-kind)

to the Program

kenya national school milk program final report

Documents