Brief description
The multi-phase project supported smallholders in the regions to the east/south-east of Mount Kenya in the transition from rain-dependent farming to irrigated agriculture. In addition to increasing agricultural production, the main goal was to improve the living conditions of rural households. The project made use of existing organised groups and cooperatives and issued loans according to a group lending principle – 50% of the measures were financed from grants, while the remaining measures were covered by loans to groups of smallholders.
Result:
Thanks to the measures, it was possible to increase the area of irrigated farmland. According to household surveys, the option to use irrigation allowed for a diversification of agricultural products. As a result, the smallholders were able to better adapt their selected products to market demand and, in some cases, switch to cash crops, i.e. agricultural products with higher margins.
The project measures did not result in any significant change inbiomass production. This developed similarly in areas that were structurally comparable to the project regions but that were not targeted by the project.
However, the irrigation measures did have a positive impact on harvesting cycles. In the project regions, smallholders were able to plant and harvest crops more regularly than those in other areas with similar attributes. According to some of the smallholders in the target group, the project helped to make agricultural work their main source of employment and secure a constant stream of income.
Special feature of data sources
In addition to household surveys, the evaluation used multispectral satellite imagery and FAO WaPor 2.0 satellite data. This facilitated advanced analyses such as zonal statistics and the creation of visualisations of project areas and their characteristics.
The satellite data enabled the analysis of areas that were still in the implementation phase and without survey data. This made it possible to compare project areas from Phase III with structurally similar project areas from Phase IV, where irrigation has not yet been implemented. This approach enabled an impact measurement using a difference-in-difference approach.
The difference-in-difference analysis revealed that the project did not have a significant effect on biomass production in the project regions. It was only after the additional analysis of satellite images that a change to the harvesting cycle could be identified – and thus an additional positive impact of the project.
In this case, the use of new data sources complements traditional evaluation methods – and facilitates a more robust and extensive evaluation of the project impact.