PARTICIPATORY ASSESSMENT OF MVURE – KONGEI VILLAGE, KIHURIO WARD.

SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPME PROGRAM
ICD 782 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND PRESENTATION.
ASSIGNMENT No. 1 :PARTICIPATORY ASSESSMENT OF MVURE – KONGEI VILLAGE, KIHURIO WARD.
SAME DISTRICT – KILIMANJARO REGION
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND INFORMATION PRESENTATION.
STUDENT NAME: MR. KAHABI, APOLINARY MEDARD
ID NO. 726985: ARUSHA CENTRE
INSTRUCTOR: Mr. Michel Adjibodou.
TERM / YEAR: THIRD SEMISTERR, 2008 – 2009
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION.. 4
1.1. Research methodology and approaches. 5
2. THE TARGET COMMUNITY.. 7
3. STAKEHOLDERS. 8
3.1. Local Ward and Village government leaders. 8
4. BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY.. 9
4.1 Background of the study. 9
4.2 Purpose of the study. 9
4.3. Objectives of the study. 9
5. METHODOLOGY.. 10
5.1. Characterization of the study area. 10
5.1.1 Upland agro-ecological livelihood system. 10
5.1.2 Midland agro-ecological livelihood system. 11
5.1.3 Lowland irrigated agro-ecological livelihood system.. 12
6. SAMPLING.. 13
6.1. Preparation for questionnaire survey. 14
6.2 Data collection. 15
6.3. Data analysis. 18
6.3.1. Exploration of livelihood enterprises share. 18
7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.. 22
7.1. Household characteristics. 22
7.2. Description of benchmark variables. 22
7.2.1. Group membership. 22
7.2.2. Living standard. 23
7.2.3. Food poverty. 24
7.2.4. Land holding. 25
7.2.5. Demographic characteristics. 26
8. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS. 30
8.1. Employment/occupational attributes. 30
8.2. Household dependence ratio. 32
8.3. Housing facility and amenities. 34
8.4 Ownership of assets. 39
8.4.1 Assessment of Physical access to social services. 42
8.4.2. Household food security and livelihood trend. 47
8.4.3. Assessment of livelihood enterprises. 48
9. COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT.. 49
9.1. Participation in the planning process. 49
9.2. Participation in collective actions, and benefits from an extensionist and NGOs. 50
9.3. Gender issues. 52
10. HEALTH AND HIV/AIDS. 53
10.1. What can you say about HIV/AIDS?. 53
10.2. Major means of HIV/AIDS spread. 53
10.3. Major control measures of HIV/AIDS. 54
10.4. Perceived community-level impacts of HIV/AIDS. 55
11. PERCEPTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY.. 55
12. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS. 58
13. REFERENCES. 60

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Same district is one and the largest among the six districts forming the Kilimanjaro Region. The district is located between 4° and 5°South and 37°00’ and 39°00’ East, Occupying an area of 5,186 sq km. which is about 39% of total area of the region [13,309 sq.km] making it the largest district in the region, and it is bordering Mwanga district to the North, Simanjiro district ( which belong to Arusha region ) to the west and South West; Lushoto district to the South-East, Korogwe district to the south and the republic of Kenya to the North – East. The arable land is about 45,000 ha while that suitable land for irrigation is 12,000 ha out of which only 7,500 hectares are under traditional and modern irrigation; Total of 518,600 hectares out of these 346,200 hectares or 71% is used for pasture, and only 8.1% is under cultivation). Average annual rainfalls of 500-200mm / year support all the agricultural activities in the district.
The study area for the baseline survey report covers Kihurio ward, located in SAME district. Kihurio ward has an average population of 8,072 [1,570 Men, 1,845 women]; 2,432 Children under 12 years old [1,009 Boys; 1,112 Girls] with 2,070 households. According to 2002 population census, the Mvure – Kongei village had a population of 4222 people (1008 males and 1137 females; 2077 children’s) out of which 2,209 are productive work force distributed over 1022 households. The main occupation of this community with an average household income of Tshs. 250,000 to 800,000 is divided as follows.
Table No. 1: Community working groups
No.Working group Occupation
1 Men
♠ Agricultural practices such as crop farming, outdoor animal raring, burnt bricks and charcoal making, petty business
2 Women
♠ Agricultural practices such as crop farming, plus hand crafts; eg. Basket and carpet making
3 Boys
♠ Agricultural activities such as crop farming mainly paddy production and charcoal burning
4 Girls
♠ Agricultural activities such as crop farming plus small business like mama lishe
5 Childrens
♠ Schools and helping parents during off school hours and weekends and holidays.
1.1. Research methodology and approachesResearch was conducted in only one [1] selected village of Mvure – Kongei in Kihurio ward. Since the community knows better her status, a participatory community assessment was conducted using both qualitative and quantitative methods to collect primary and secondary data through community stress analysis of the elements like voluntarisms, modality of decision making process, peoples involvements, leadership style and status; District profile, Geographical features, location and climatic condition, the physical features and vegetation characteristics, education facilities, health facilities, socio-economic activities for poverty status and strategies to alleviate it. In the process various methodologies and tools was used such as Literature review, stakeholder analysis, on spot analysis, direct observation, focused group discussion and structured interviews, and transect walk; to administer the assessments, was able to register the community strength, weakness, opportunities and threats so as to be able to identify and organise them easily. The ultimate result was a narrative summary of the participatory assessment report.
Participatory Assessment is a research conducted involving the community in data collection. In this method, perspective and views of the researched community were taken into consideration due to the fact that the community will be the beneficiary of any intervention to be made and will be involved to decide whether the problems identified are correct and they will also agree on the proposed solutions thereof. Participatory Assessment is defined as a method for determining, from the insiders point of view; what activities are needed and can be supported; whether insiders accept the activities proposed by outsiders and; whether the activities are reasonable and practical[1].
The participatory assessment exercise was carried out by involving different stakeholders in the Community such as Elder, Village leaders, farmers, livestock keepers, farmers group members etc; about 36 people were involved [16 - day 1; 13 – day 2 and 21 - day 3], whereas the assessment involved also [7] community economic groups with almost 240 members in total.
The objective for conducting the assessment was to determine the strength, stress, challenges, opportunities and the priority needs of the people in Mvure - Kongei village. The tools used for the assessments and the analytical process was focus group discussion; structured questionnaire - interview, and observation, transect walk, stakeholder analysis, timeline, and trends – events which aided in learning more about the community daily life. Altogether, the participatory assessment included the community assessment, the economic assessment, the environmental assessment, and the health assessment. All in all this was intended to answer the question, “why this community?” and set the stage for the next question “what is the problem?’ and “how do we address it in this community?’[2]
Questionnaires were designed for each type of assessment in terms of Community Assessment, Economic Assessment and Health Assessment, following guidelines provided by CED Program student hand book page 39-42. The questions in the questionnaire were tested before conducting a live interview. The questions were targeting individuals in Mvure - Kongei village as geographical unit of analysis. Sample of individuals for interview were picked randomly in every sub-village of the village, Kihurio Ward. The sample included farmers, village government officials, business people, employees in different sectors, members of the selected institutions in the community. Face to face talk was conducted on some people and other people were provided with the forms to answer the questions and the forms collected the next day. Similar responses in each question were counted and recorded for the purpose of determining community stress, economic stress, environment stress and health stress.
Rwegoshora H, (2006), “defined research design as an arrangement of conditions for collection and analysis of data in a manner that aims to combine relevance to the research purpose with economy in procedure. Research design is just like a road map to guide researcher in conducting research. It is a guiding instrument for achievement of the research objectives. This research was conducted using mainly explanatory research design, also known as descriptive research design, in which reasons are explained why certain relationship occur. Therefore the report seeks to provide explanations for what has been observed. Furthermore explanation / descriptive design is not entirely motivated and guided by hypothesis. The main objective of the design is to acquire knowledge about the problem[3].
The social science research was conducted using both quantitative and qualitative methods of collecting data. Rwegoshora, H, M (2006) defined quantitative method as a statistical method in which measurement of variables under study is done. Burchinal L. G (1977), explained that quantities method of data collection as reporting observation in terms of numbers. Thus responses of questions in terms of “Yes” or “No” are counted and conclusion made based on the outcome. A qualitative method of collecting data on the other hand was based on view and opinions of people generated through research. People’s responses on various questions were counted in order to arrive to a conclusion, which is quantitative data collection approach. On the other hand qualitative approach was deployed during formal and informal discussion with people in the community while conducting assessment on community, economical, environmental and health. Likewise personal experience and observations assisted in arriving to a conclusion as an application of qualitative data collection methods. The latter method was more advantageous because it took into serious consideration on the perspectives and views of the researched community who took part in finding solution for the identified problem.
2. THE TARGET COMMUNITY
Despite the evident efforts shown by Mvure - Kongei beneficiaries and their supporters, there have been and still there exist challenges that hinder the intended progress among the community members. They lack the capacity to manage their resources in a dynamic and coherent manner, they are stigmatized by the so-called lack of capital to support their envisioned investments, there is insufficient motivation and freedom to innovate freely because of the perceived high risks associated with these innovations, they do not seize the evolving opportunities because of failure to see them or they perceive them to be highly risky. Other principal hindrances include the inexistence of a proper coordination system among community members and lack of partial or full support by all the existing local agricultural and non-agricultural sub-systems in the area. Lack of these prerequisites hampers the capacity of this community to envision confidently their sustainable future and contributes to the absence, among the community members, of systematized actions that are based on life-long objectives.
The target groups of the intended project covers an area of 629 ha-village of the Mvure - Kongei village community with 866 households encompassing the population of 1008 men, 1137 women, 2,077 children, who are depending much their livelihood on natural resources available, these community members includes (smallholder farmer groups, Livestock keepers/Agro-pastoralists), Community traditional leaders, Local institution leaders, Extension workers, Influential people, Politicians, Religious leaders and institutions like Islam, Seventh day Adventist, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Pentecost, Policy makers, Local councilors, Law enforcers, like minded local Community Based Organisations (CBOs) and NGOs, Research Institutions and Development Partners (Donors). Over the coming three-years SMECAO – host institution shall continue focusing on these groups in its service provision. Special attention will be paid to the poor and marginalized groups and participation of women in development activities.
The Mvure – Kongei community is the ultimate target to be served by the project which is located in Kihurio Ward, Ndungu division, the communities are expected to effectively participate in the project through organizational support and facilitation by SMECAO and the student involved but however
3. STAKEHOLDERS
The stakeholders analysis done in collaborations with key stakeholders from the ward and Mvure-Kongei village includes the people, groups or institution which are likely to be affected by a proposed project (either negatively or positive) or those which can be affect the outcome of the project, these includes:
<a name="_Toc201250416">3.1. Local Ward and Village government leaders
Ward and Village government leaders expect the project to improve livelihood of the residents. Leaders participated in facilitating and mobilizing seven [7] farmers groups namely Vijana group -12 members [involved in burnt brick making and fishing]; Mvure farmers group – 20 members [involved in paddy farming]; Jitengeni – Makuyuni group – 40 members [(JIMA) involved in paddy production]; Minazini-Maparakanga group -40 members [(MIMA) involved in vegetable production]; Changarawe A&B group -40 members [(CHACHA)- involved in vegetable production, Ihindi-Mabambara-Kidundai group -40 members [(IMAKI) Groundnuts production]; and Women group -40 members [involved in Environment Management] to respectively effectively participate in entrepreneurship and development programmes. The local Government have greatly encourage women participation in all undertakings by removing inhibiting traditional laws, customary, values and any other constraints.

4. BACKGROUND, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
4.1 Background of the study
Conducting of a detailed Participatory assessment [Community, Economic, Environment and Health] is one of the partial fulfilments of Msc. Community Economic Development course. The DATA are concerned with determination of potentials for utilizing the scarce resources present at MVURE – KONGEI, KIHURIO ward for the betterment of the community. The main goal of the study was to generate data and establish a community economic, technical data bank for reference and implement a model project.
4.2 Purpose of the study
The study is specifically needed for THREE fold purposes:
a) Study is to ensure that it becomes a source of information and guide for both CSOs - SMECAO and all other development organizations and programme aiming at supporting Rural Enterprises in Kihurio ward.
b) Exploration of other agro-economic potentials together with having decision on how to assist the respective community on utilization of scarce resources for realization of environemental management and food security, enhancement of household income of Mvure – Kongei, Kihurio Ward, Same district.
c) Facilitation in planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation
4.3. Objectives of the study
The broad objective of the study was to recommend technically feasible and community acceptable options for sustainable exploitation of the agro-economic potentials and optimizing utility of the key resources for sustainable improvement of peoples’ livelihoods in the Mvure – Kongei village, Kihurio ward of Same District. This broad objective was delivered by addressing the following specific objectives:
1. To assess sources and causes of stress on cross-cutting issues of Community [political planning, participation, and gender], Health [HIV/AIDS, Malaria etc] and Environmental sustainability.
2. To study current agricultural practices of smallholder farmers in the village, which have greater impact on livelihoods-improvement.
3. To identify the economic potential of existing agricultural ventures and other unexploited agricultural possibilities and means of improving the performance of the current agricultural practices.
5. METHODOLOGY
5.1. Characterization of the study area
The study area spans from the midland of Pare Mountains constituting the Eastern Arc Mountains to the lowland estuary of Mkomazi game reserves. The study coverage is bounded by Usambara Mountain on the south – east, the Mkomazi game reserve on the north - east and Pare Mountain on the West. Administrative boundaries are less relevant in characterizing livelihood contexts and practices in agro-ecological systems. In this respect, the study further zoned the survey clusters into three broad livelihood systems. These livelihood systems include an upland intensive agro-ecological system, lowland rainfed agro-ecological system and lowland irrigated agro-ecological system.
5.1.1 Upland agro-ecological livelihood system.
a) Survey clusters
The study sub-villages in this zone included Igurutu – Ihindi; Jitengeni; Kidundai; and Mabambara.
b) Upland agro-ecology
The Mvure - Kongei livelihood system comprises of the midland part of the extensive ranges of the Pare Mountains. The Pare Mountains fall in the Eastern Arc Mountains, this is a worldly renowned biodiversity hotspot. A Topographically, the midland is comprised of gentle slopes, valley bottoms and to less extent flat terrains. These highlands receive bimodal rainfall of up to 400-800 mm per year. Firstly, short rainy season farming with or without supplemental irrigation, which starts from October to March. Secondly, long rainy season farming with or without supplemental irrigation, which starts from April to July. Thirdly, off-season irrigated farming done during dry months of August to October. The peak of this zone is the Shengena forest which is the habitat of biodiversity fauna and flora species. The Shengena forest catchments capture the rainfall and gradually release rainwater which collects into streams and springs. These springs provide water for domestic and traditional irrigation. Traditional irrigation system envisages different forms of rainwater management including conventional soil and water conservation practices (e.g. terraces, ridges), diversion of stream flows using furrows, and utilization of traditional rainwater storage facility for supplemental and off-season irrigation. However, these springs and streams experience low flows during the dry period of the year, which reduce the command area for irrigation.
c) Livelihoods
The centres of study villages are some distance at least 40 kilometres uphill from the Dar es Salaam –Arusha – Nairobi highway towards Mkomazi game reserve. Physical access to input and output markets is constrained by poor road infrastructure. The steep slope terrain makes road construction difficult and expensive. Where the road infrastructure is constructed by the community or the local government, it degrades too fast from erosive runoff from roadside hills. The major livelihood source of people in Mvure - Kongei is agriculture. As in a case of other rural parts of rural Tanzania, the agrarian households tend to diversify their livelihood portfolios. Important off-farm opportunities include artisanal works (e.g. carpentry, masonry, weaving, and pottery), petty business, marketing of vegetables and transfers from kinsfolk working outside the village. Mvure - Kongei zone has electricity services which are an avenue for rural industrialization particularly through agro-processing.
5.1.2 Midland agro-ecological livelihood system.
a) Survey clusters
Midland system is located in the middle of the other livelihood systems envisaging Minazini, Changarawe “A”; Changarawe “B” and Maparakanga; sub-villages which is spatially larger..
b) Agro-ecology
The lowlands of midland fall within the Maasai steppe and Mkomazi game reserve agro-ecological zone, which is characterized by rolling plains with reddish sandy clay soils of relatively low fertility formed on basement complex rocks. The lowland has an annual rainfall of around 200-600 mm per year of a bimodal pattern, with about 200 mm in the short rainy season from November – January (locally called ‘vuli’) and 400 mm in the long rainy season from March – May (locally called ‘masika’). Potential evapo-transpiration is over 2,000 mm per year. On top of being erratic, such seasonal rainfall is not adequate to provide the water requirement even for drought resistant crop such as sorghum. midland is not endowed of seasonal streams and perennial river as in cases of upland and lowland instead it is transacted by ephemeral rivers in forms of gullies. This makes farming predominantly dependent on incidental rainfall. However, some farmers innovatively utilize the runoff by diverting runoff from gullies, road drainage infrastructure, and rangeland and foot/cattle paths into crop fields to improve soil moisture.
c) Livelihoods
Large populations of people reside along the Dar es Salaam, Ndungu, Mkomazi – Same to Arusha- Nairobi roadway. Livelihoods of people in this area are dependent on agriculture. However diversifying beyond farming is not an exception. Some residents of this zone are involved in trading ventures entailing shops, exchange trade of agriculture produce and livestock. Good access to transport services resulting from proximity to the roadway, and access to vehicles and large private traders do provides brokerage and speculation opportunities to the some residents, especially youths with business acumen. The area along the roadway hosts major periodic markets which are held on weekly basis where farmers from different areas sell crops and buy consumable items. There beyond the area along the roadway reside agro-pastoralists who mainly keep livestock and to some extent undertake crop cultivation. The District headquarters, the Ndungu irrigation scheme, Mkomazi game reserve and Kalimawe dam [fishing and irrigation] are which provide employment and off-farm livelihood possibilities are found in this zone. Other off-farm livelihood opportunities include burnt bricks making and selling charcoal, the business which is done along the roadside. upland zone has electricity services which is an avenue for rural industrialization particularly through agro-processing.
5.1.3 Lowland irrigated agro-ecological livelihood system
a) Survey clusters
In Lowland livelihood system the wards touched in the study were Mvure, and makuyuni. Sub-villages
b) Agro-ecology
Lowland occupies the estuary of the Mkomazi and Yongoma River which ultimately drains into Indian Ocean. Being in the windward side of the Pare Mountains the zone receives some amount of rainfall. The extensive catchment of the steeply sloping Pare Mountains yields the runoff that flows into the adjacent lowlands before joining the Pangani River which ultimately drains in the Indian Ocean. The area is inhabited by smallholder commercial farmers undertaking irrigated farming, agro-pastoralists and pure pastoral communities dominated by maasai. Farming activities fostered to irrigated agriculture involving diversion of water from Yongoma River, and Kalimawe dam. However, because diverted water could not reach all farmers and arable land, a large number of farmers are still dependent on incidental rainfall for crop production. Increased access to irrigation water by vast majority of farmers is mainly limited by technical and institutional barriers. Key technical barriers include lack of means and technologies of diverting/abstracting water from the river, and poor water conveyance canal systems in which on-the way loss water from deep percolation and evaporation is immense. The single most institutional barrier is discouragement of increased upstream abreactions by the basin-level water governance authority.
c) Livelihoods
Lowland zone is situated relatively far from the highway and the railway line. The rural road network is the worst compared to other zones. Major livelihood enterprises are farming (rainfed and irrigated), livestock keeping and casual labouring in small-scale commercial farming activities. Casual labouring involves mainly youths from within the localities or who come from outside to seek jobs in commercial vegetables production. Ventures in commercial vegetables production is mostly done by outsiders who come and seek through outright purchase or rent of irrigable land from the village land allocation committee. The most critical problem spurring social disintegration is the growing conflict between cultivators and agro-pastoralists. Farmers accuse agro-pastoralists for grazing their crop fields and destruction irrigation canals, while pastoralists accuse cultivators for expanding cultivation their historical pastureland which has significantly reduced area for grazing. In some parts of Tanzania such conflicts have already caused bloodshed among the two rivals.
6. SAMPLING
By design the plan was to have a minimum of 15 respondents per agro-ecological livelihood system. On average each agro-ecological livelihood system had not less than three villages or sub-village clusters. This means each study village or sub-village cluster required to have a minimum of 15 respondents in respective samples. Another consideration made during sampling was to ensure a mix of farmers who have and do not membership in groups/associations supported by CSOs and Local government development programmes like PADEP, TASAF, etc. The support of CSOs as the case of other development partners is channelled through groups of farmers. So it was relevant to see if there is difference in terms of economic well-being between farmers directly supported by CSOS through groups and non-group farmers. Taking these aspects into considerations, 8 to 7 farmers were selected from the category of group and non-group farmers. From the lists of group members provided by CSOS for respective study villages or sub-village clusters, 8 or 7 members were randomly drawn for to represent the group sub sample. STATA software which has a built-in command for drawing a random sample was used during sampling. Selection of non-group respondents was done in the field during the survey. To do this, the village leaders were requested to identify a non-group respondent neighbouring each of the pre-selected farmer affiliated to group. Selection of group and non-group respondents was not gender biased as a significant number of women belonged to groups and sampling of non-group ensured inclusion of women.
6.1. Preparation for questionnaire survey
Preparation for questionnaire survey involved design of questionnaire, training of enumerators, pre-testing of the questionnaire, and arrangements for fieldwork. The architecture of the questionnaire entailed three broad parts under which fell sub-sections of embedded aspects (Appendix 1). First part comprised the core welfare indicators as community assessment on education, employment, household workforce, household assets, household amenities, and poverty predictors that were presented as sub-sections together with household background information. The second part dwelled on the economic/livelihood aspects of economic options, assessment of agricultural enterprises, agribusiness (inventory of non-traditional crops, value-adding, agro-finance, and infrastructure). Part three comprised of both cross-cutting issues of political planning participation, gender, health status assessment [HIV/AIDS, Malaria, etc] and environmental sustainability. In order to increase accuracy and efficiency in the interview process the questionnaire was translated into Swahili which is the official language well understood by both the interviewers and interviewees.
Six [6] enumerators including 3 women and 3 men were recruited to participate in undertaking the survey. Professionally, the team of enumerators composed certificate, diploma and degree holders who had practical experience in questionnaire surveys. Training was done in two phases for two days. The first phase involved training on the theoretical and practical insights into research in general and social survey in particular. Critical aspects that were introduced under the first phase were: the concept of research as a systematic enquiry, the art and science for establishing convenient interviewer-interviewee interface and probing, and the externalities of leading questions. The second phase involved going through all the questions as to understand the construct and the intended purpose of each question and pre-testing the instrument in the field. The outcomes of pre-testing involved re-sequencing of the some questions and establishing common of style asking some questions which seemed not to be straight to the respondents. Arrangements for fieldwork were done by informing formally the village and sub-village leaders, and chairpersons of farmers’ groups. The letters specifying the date of visit to a particular village/sub-village cluster were distributed in all sub-villages for 5 days before the survey started. The arrangement was efficiently possible mainly because CSOS has built a strong social capital with the local communities where it has been working for years.
6.2 Data collection
The data collection exercise started on April, 2008 [FGD]; 12th May 2008 and ended on 27th May 2008. The fieldwork took a total 21 days which characterize our survey to be cross-sectional. Collection of primary data collection using a questionnaire survey went parallel with short focused group discussions (FGD) specifically to investigate the prospects for the participatory assessment. The discussions were fostered around four [4] critical concepts of Community empowerment and emancipation [Infrastructure and Policy], Economic assessment [Poverty, livelihood, Production, Value adding, Marketing, Processing, and Marketing]; Environment management [Natural resources utilization versus local ecosystem services], Health assessment [Facilities, Services, distances to, Prevailing and dominant diseases like HIV, Malaria, etc.]. Efficient linkage of these four aspects is very central for absolute poverty reduction through transformation of rural subsistence farm-sector to market oriented rural agribusiness sector and sustainable agriculture and environmental managements. The thrust for assessing the potential and constraints for rural agribusiness which is a new window CSOS intends to intervene in the near future. At least one FGD was conducted in each agro-ecological livelihood systems to assess the four aspects underlying the path to rural transformation. The primary data which formed the centrepiece of the technical analysis was collected using the questionnaire. The common questionnaire was addressed to a total of 36 respondents selected randomly in the three [3] agro-ecological livelihood systems. The survey team included six [6] enumerators, namely Kahabi, A. Medard; Gevarong Myombe; Evalina Mwenga; Hellen Semadio;Nyaki E. Mkenga and Ruth M. Kitonga; the structure of respondents by sub-village and agro-ecological livelihood systems is as indicated in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Statistically the sample size less than 30 is considered small for undertaking plausible statistical analysis. This is not likely to affect the credibility of inferential results as the rigorous analyses were crafted on agro-ecological systems which have statistically large samples (n>30) and not on administrative wards.
Arguably, such representation with the overall sample of 36 respondents is more than enough for an in-depth exploratory socio-economic survey. Empirically, Farm Level Applied Research Methods for Eastern and South Africa (FAMESA) suggest that 80 to 120 respondents adequate for socio economic study in Sub Saharan Africa (Matata, 2001 Cited in Hella 2003).
The target groups of the intended project covers an area of 629 ha-village of the Mvure - Kongei village community with 866 households encompassing the population of 1008 men, 1137 women, 2,077 children (2002 national census) who are depending much their livelihood on natural resources available, these community members includes (smallholder farmer groups, Livestock keepers/Agro-pastoralists), Community traditional leaders, Local institution leaders, Extension workers, Influential people, Politicians, Religious leaders and institutions like Islam, Seventh day Adventist, Roman Catholic, Anglican and Pentecost, Policy makers, Local councilors, Law enforcers, like minded local Community Based Organisations (CBOs) and NGOs, Research Institutions and Development Partners (Donors). Over the coming three-years SMECAO – host institution shall continue focusing on these groups in its service provision. Special attention will be paid to the poor and marginalized groups and participation of women in development activities.
The Mvure – Kongei community is the ultimate target to be served by the project which is located in Kihurio Ward, Ndungu division, the communities are expected to effectively participate in the project through organizational support and facilitation by SMECAO and the student involved but however. The stakeholders analysis done in collaborations with key stakeholders from the ward and Mvure-Kongei village includes the people, groups or institution which are likely to be affected by a proposed project (either negatively or positive) or those which can be affect the outcome of the project, these includes:

Figure 1: Respondent distribution per sub-village.
Distribution of the overall sample by sub-village envisages 19% Jitengeni; 17% Maparakanga; 11% Changarawe “A” and Kidundai; 8% the rest were from Changarawe “B”, Igurutu – Ihindi; Mabambara; Makuyuni and Minazini who has the least proportion because it has small but sparsely settled and transhumance population. The quality of the household survey depended much on who speaks on behalf of the household. The household head followed by spouse are the most informed household members. However, the old son or daughter is the third member who could as well speak on behalf of the household if the parents are absent. Other aspects that are likely to affect the quality of research outputs that needed to be understood is whether the interview involved an interpreter and the willingness of the research clients to participate. Such aspects are not only indicating the quality of the results but are informative in future planning of research. The overall readiness of sample respondents to participate in the interviews was very good as most of the interviews were undertaken with selected respondents with very low rate of refusal and replacement (Figure 1 and Table 1). High level of credibility of the data and ultimately the results emanating from these data was assured as majority of the respondents were heads of households with relatively few cases of spouses and old children being the respondents.
Table 1 / Figure 1: Respondent representations

6.3. Data analysis
Approaches to data analyses are presented by each of the specific objectives fostered to deliver the overall objective and purpose of the study. Information gathered from FGDs was used to enrich the discussion of results from rigorous analyses of the data from the questionnaires. However, the rigorous analyses were preceded by the descriptive of household characteristics. These characteristics entail demographic, social, and economic variables which are core welfare indicators. These core welfare indicators include education, employment, household workforce, assets, household amenities and poverty predictors. Simple statistics such as numbers, %, and mean were used in the descriptive analyses.
<a name="_Toc210036017">6.3.1. Exploration of livelihood enterprises share
This broad analysis aims at addressing the first specific objective. The first objective was fostered to describe the current agricultural practices among other livelihood options contribute to the household welfare. Two core analyses were undertaken under the first objective. First was the descriptive analysis of major livelihood occupation of utmost four key members who shoulder the household. Second was the descriptive and graphical analysis of the share of livelihood enterprises.
6.3.1.1 Descriptive analysis of major occupation of key household members
Beforehand, it is important to justify the use of at most four [4] household members in the occupational analysis. The primary challenge in social survey is on how to keep the household interviews shorter and precise but still revealing. This is because farmers have other pressing obligations to fulfil and mostly are not materially compensated for their time devoted to the interviews. This urges putting a critical eye on each question and judge whether it has an added value to delivering the purpose of the study. To our study, collecting background information on each household member did not seem to have a significant added value but eating the time and precious attention for other important questions. As a result, we decided to concentrate on four [4] key household members in asking background information, occupational options being among. According to the 2002 national census, the mean of average household size of the study wards was around four [4] people. This used was the basis for considering 4 members in collecting detailed information on socio-economic variables. Under this analysis, cross-tabulations of major livelihood occupations and other variables such as gender, age, bio-physical location, group belonging were undertaken.
6.3.1.2. Desegregations of livelihood enterprise shares
This analysis aimed at revealing the contribution of different livelihood enterprise on the entire well-being of the household. The term well-being here refers to proportionate aggregation of direct income and imputed enterprise output which is consumed at home. Enterprises involved were crop production, livestock, business, salaried employment, wage work/casual labour, artisanal work, handcraft, natural resource exploitation, and remittances. Of interest, the enterprises were not broadly instead respective major activity was specified. The Pie charts disaggregated by different socio-economic and bio-physical factors were used in the analysis. The analysis of Pie charts was followed by qualitative assessment of performance trend and major constraint facing respective enterprise activity.
6.3.1.3. Identification of economic potential of existing and potential agricultural enterprises
This broad analysis aims at addressing the first specific objective. Major sub-analyses include desegregations of the share of different enterprises on the household well-being and economic performance of crop enterprises. This is the core objective of the study which the results of which would guide interventions in improving smallholder agriculture in plea of reducing rural poverty and vulnerability. Under this analysis fall three specific analyses. These include analysis of gross revenue from at most five [5] crop enterprises, detailed analysis of profitability of the major income crop enterprise, and assessment of agribusiness potential and constraints.
6.3.1.4 Analysis of gross revenue of crop enterprise portfolio
Under this analysis utmost five [5] crop enterprises were assessed in terms of physical yield and gross revenue. The thrust of this objective is to unveil the economic potential of the portfolio of crop enterprises. It ended up in gross revenue after excluding inclusion of costs of production and exchange to enable inclusion of more crop enterprises. Given the timeframe and resources it was not possible to collect data on labour and costs for five enterprises from farmers who do not usually keep records. However, this analysis ended up in ranking these crop enterprises in terms of their potential in food security and income generation. The crop which ranked first in terms of income generation was carried forward in a detailed analysis of profitability where cost and labour input analyses were taken care of. It should be noted that performance of crop enterprises in the semi-arid dry-lands is mainly affected by seasonality.
The concept of seasonality was used in this study as a basis of analyzing performance of crop enterprises. Mostly in dry-land areas farmers are used to experience seasons that are either “above average” (A-average) or “below average” (B-average). B-average seasons have rainfall amount that is below the long-term mean and/or unevenly distributed within the season, while A-average seasons have rainfall above the long term mean and also more evenly distributed. If the seasonal rainfall is above average but unevenly distributed within a growing season to meet crop water requirement during critical growing stages, the season is still “B-average” because the yield is still affected as in case of “B-average” season. The B-average seasons can be characterized by either seasonal drought or a series of dry spells. The construct of seasonality holds as well under irrigated conditions as erratic rainfall affects river flows. Contrary to A-average seasons, in B-average seasons associated with droughts the amount of water in river is reduced the situation termed as hydrological drought. In our survey, the interviewer explained the seasonality concept to respondents on which information on the performance was tailored. For both short and long-rainy A and B-average seasons, related data included name of enterprise, typology of farming whether it was irrigated, rainwater harvesting systems or irrigated by drawing water from the perennial River, acreage, and yield and unit market price.
b) Returns to labour (GM/person-day)
Valuation of rural family labour has been another area of economic debate. Many economic analyses of rural enterprises have focused on the use of official minimum wages and disregard the use of opportunity cost of unskilled labour. But, minimum wage usually over-estimate labour opportunity cost in rural areas (Senkondo et al., (2004). Some authors have suggested that family labour has an opportunity cost of zero while others like Kunze (2000) argue the opposite. Kunze (2000) comments that, because even at high unemployment rates and even social activities, which often express social security involvement, require a rate above zero. Fox et al (2000) suggested three scenarios of dealing with family labour in his paper on economic viability of water harvesting in rural Kenya and Burkina Faso. The three family labour costs used by Fox are full opportunity cost, alternative opportunity cost and zero opportunity cost. Full opportunity cost takes the value of labour to equal the daily labour wage. Alternative opportunity cost is the value of wage equivalent that someone has forgone for not being engaged in the alternative activities. Zero opportunity cost is when the family labour is considered zero which assumes that, due to unemployment, the alternative activity for labour is idle. Taking into account of such complexity, in this study, the family labour was retained as person-days and not valued in monetary terms. One person-day is considered to be equal to one adult (aged 15 years and above) working manually in the farm for 8 full hours. In order to get returns to labour, the gross margins were expressed in per person-days of family workforce employed in different farm operations.
6.3.1.5 Assessment of potential and constraints for agribusiness
Agribusiness aspects were analyzed descriptively using frequency distributions. Aspects of interest were the household and community level inventory of non-traditional crops found in the localized marketplaces, reasons for not adopting non-traditional crops and suggestions for effective uptake, and extent and constraints for value adding practices for crop and livestock produce. Other agribusiness aspects assessed were agricultural credit and state of infrastructural services. All these agribusiness aspects falls under the philosophy termed as ‘Link ProVaMIP’, that is linkage of production value adding, marketing, infrastructure and policy. This school of thought is required for radical and rapid transformation of rural subsistence farm-sector into profitable agribusiness sector. The results from descriptive analysis on the potential and constraints for agribusiness development were enriched with findings from FGDs.
6.3.1.6 Assessment of governance participation, gender, HIV/AIDS and environment
This broad analysis aims at addressing the first specific objective. Analyses of these cross-cutting developmental issues were qualitative entailing frequencies. The hardcore of this analysis was to evaluate reflections of local perceptions and practices to national policies and strategies for administering these critical issues for development.
7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
7.1. Household characteristics
Characteristics of respondent households precede presentation of results from rigorous analyses fostered to deliver the specific objectives. Insights into the characteristics of respondent households provide a better and elaborate understanding of the socio-demographic and livelihood dimensions for enriching interpretation of results from rigorous analyses. Discussion of household characteristics was categorized into demographic, social and economic perspectives. Demographic characteristics entail gender of household head and household size. Educational attributes of four [4] key members of the household discussed under social characteristics. Economic characteristics include core indicators of welfare which are employment, household workforce, household assets, household amenities and poverty predictors. In each agro-ecosystem, these characteristics were systematically cross-tabulated against a set of benchmark variables envisaging group membership, living standard, subjective food poverty, land holding, number of cattle owned and gender of heads of households. Beforehand, it is important to assess these benchmark variables by which the basic characteristics of the respondent households are compared.
7.2. Description of benchmark variables
7.2.1. Group membership
Group membership refers to affiliation of farmers to the groups supported by CSOS. CSOS as other development agencies working in rural areas has been intervening through groups. Group approach for rural development assistance is efficient in terms of being cost and time effective. In the first place, these groups are formed to deliver economic objectives for the benefits of their members, attained through collective actions. Figure 1 shows that respondents in with group membership comprised 75% (n=27). The remaining proportions to make 100% are attributed to non-group farmers entailing 25% (n=9) respectively. Major socio-economic activities undertaken by these groups include management of irrigation water and associated infrastructure such as canals, community water intake structures, promotion of environmental, paddy and vegetable production, management agro-processing, burnt bricks making, and anti HIV/AIDS campaigns.

Table 2 / Figure 2: Group membership by agro-ecosystems

7.2.2. Living standard
Living standard of the household refers to number of sleeping rooms per capita. This was obtained by dividing the number of rooms used by members for sleeping to the household size. A households with a figure of up to two rooms per capita was considered to be ‘better-off‘ and that with a figure exceeding two rooms was considered ‘worse-off’. The former case provides a possibility of the husband and spouse sleeping in a single room which is ethically acceptable. The latter case, suggests a situation of poor living standard with a possibility of parents sleeping together with children in the same room, which is socially unethical. Figure 3 shows that majority of households in the study area (81%) were relatively better-off compared to other households in the same area study (19%) with worse-off living condition. The housing based living standard declined from the populated highlands to the sparsely populated lowlands. Historically, lowland dwellers of Pare ethnic migrated from the highlands primarily due to land pressure and in search of pastures for livestock. With exception of those residing in a strip of centres along the highway, an extended drier area from the highway to the estuary of permanent river comprise poor crop cultivators, agro-pastoralists and nomadic pastoral communities with poor housing facilities.

Figure 3: Living standard (welfare) by agro-ecosystems

7.2.3. Food poverty
Absolute food poverty could be expressed in terms income or consumption expenditure necessary to access the food basket that provides caloric energy requirement per adult equivalent (2300 kCal). This is possible where food consumption or expenditure measurement is possible, in this study; food poverty was defined in a qualitative way with reference to the daily frequency of taking main meals. Three meals per day was a threshold used to characterize qualitative food poverty. It is expected that a food non-poor household is able to feed its members at least three times in a day entailing the breakfast, lunch and dinner. Table 4 and Figure 4 shows that extent of food poverty in respective agro-ecosystems exhibited a trend contrary to that of living standard. The proportions of food non-poor respondents in the study area indicate 47.2% while the food poor respondents were 52.8%, respectively.
Table and Figure 4: Food poverty by agro-ecosystems

7.2.4. Land holding
The land holding as expressed in per capita terms by dividing the amount of land owned by the household to the household size. Land as the primary natural capital is the basic resource vital for livelihood endeavours. Figure 5 shows that most of respondent households in respective agro-ecosystems had land holding per capita of up to an acre. Percentage-wise this comprised 61% for majority household respondent own 1 to 1.1 acre of land and 39% of respondent owns 1.1 to 5 acres of land. Apparently, no any respondent households in the agro-ecosystem had a land holding per capita exceeding 5 acres. The two situations suggest land scarcity and high value of land in irrigated intensive agro-ecosystems.

Figure 5{a, b}: Land holdings per household level

With respect to gendered land ownership, Figure 5b shows that ownership of land is more prominent among male-headed households than female-headed households. Proportionately, male-headed households in intensive agro-ecosystem revealed to be favoured (53%) in terms of land ownership compared to female-headed in the same agro-ecosystems (47%) respectively.
7.2.5. Demographic characteristics
7.2.5.1 Household size
The household size refers to the total number of household members in the respondent households. It should be noted that the household referred to here is not adjusted to household composition and scale economies to take care of composition and scale effect, respectively. In livelihood assessment household size informs on important aspects such as labour availability, resource divisibility which implicates on resource poverty, and aggregate costs of living.
a) Household size by food poverty
Intrinsically, household size implicates on the food access status as the former is equivalent to mouths to be fed. Consistently, the food poor households tended to relatively larger than food non-poor households interviewed in respective agro-ecosystems. The food poor households with 5 to 10 members comprised 53%, mostly having up to 1 acre of land (61%); whereas the non food poor (47%) have up to 5 land (39%) of all interviewed n=36 households in the agro-ecosystems, respectively.

Figure 6 / Table 6: Food Poverty and Land ownership as a measure of poverty at household level.

b) Household size by land holding
Household size has a stern socio-economic implication on land intra-household land access. Patriarchal land transfer system which dominates customary land tenure in rural Africa, sons have a claim on the parental land when they part to establish as independent households. In this regard, it is important to compare land holding and the number of people with virtual of claim on it. Across all agro-ecosystems, Figure 8 show that the predominant household size category of 5 to 10 people fallen consistently under the land holding per capita category of up to 1 acre. Arguably, such situation suggests stern land scarcity which may lead to landlessness among household members in future.
c) Household size by gender of household head
When the household wealth is partitioned among members, larger households tend to be poor. In this regard, large household size is connected with likelihood of a household to fall into a poverty trap in a long-run if not instantly. Moreover, in the discourse of poverty and welfare analysis, female-headed households are highlighted as being vulnerable to poverty. This again forms nexus of largeness of household, female-head and poverty which necessitates comparison of household size and gender. Figure 7 shows that most of male-headed households (83%) were relatively large (5 to 10 people) compared to female headed households (17%).

Figure 7: Household size by agro-ecosystems and gender of head

7.2.5.2. Human capital characteristics
Formal literacy and extra skills of household head was evaluated to evaluate state of human capital in household. Human capital is critical in transforming other forms of capitals into livelihood security. The human capital status of the head of household matters most in the household prosperity as he/she is the central decision-maker in the household.
a) Highest level of formal education attained by the household head
Figure 8 shows that generally majority of household heads had ability to read and write irrespective of group belonging. The relationship between living standard and literacy is indispensable. The extent of ability to read and write is exorbitant in the study area / agro-systems (generally > 56%) regardless of living standard typology (Figure 3 above). After assessing ability to ready and write as one facet of literacy and human capital at large, it is also important to assess the level of formal education attained by heads of households. Such evaluation was done by along group membership in respective agro-ecosystems. Figures 8(a), and (b), show that primary education (> 56%) was the most predominant level of formal education attained by the household heads in the study areas. For the level of primary education, there is no evident difference among heads of households with and without group belonging. Relatively, attainment of secondary education which is the highest level was a case in the agro-ecosystem (11% for group and non-group, respectively). Lowest level of education which is nursery / no formal training was significantly low.

Figure 8(a / b): Highest education of household head in the agro-ecosystems

b) Extra skills possessed by the household head
Figures 14(a, b, c) show that most of heads of households interviewed did not have any off-school or vocational training. Post-school professional training in collages which impart skills required to carry out career tasks was considered here. With exception of lowland rainfed agro-system, no much difference between group and non-group categories in terms of household heads that did not have skills acquired through off-school training. Generally invariable, across the studied agro-ecosystems and group belonging, the lead areas for off-school and vocational training include farming, local militia exercises, artisan activities (e.g. weaving, needlework, pottery) and technical jobs (e.g. masonry, carpentry, bicycle/vehicle repairs). Apparently, in the lowland rainfed at least some group households reported to have received training in agro-processing. CSOS has recently started a training programme on agro-processing as a strategy for reducing post-harvest losses and value adding to crops.

Table: 9: House hold head educational obtained

Table 10: Extra education/skills obtained by household head

8. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Analyses for economic characteristics of the households involved in the survey included assessment of employment / occupational attributes, dependency ratio, housing and amenities, ownership of assets, access to services, food security and livelihood trend. Across the three study agro-ecosystems, these economic characteristics are basically analyzed on the basis of group membership. In order to keep the discussion readable the tables and figures were kept in the annexes and were just cross-referenced in the discussion.
8.1. Employment/occupational attributes
Assessment employment attributes involved four key household members that are the household head, spouse and other two members. These were considered as key generators of the household economy. Benchmark variables explored for each of these four household members were gender, whether he/she contributes income, position in the household, whether he/she worked in the last 30 days preceding the survey, his/her occupation the whole year, and readiness to seek now job. Table 1.1 (Annex 2) and Figure 11 shows that most of first key persons among interviewed (97%) households were male heads and they contribute to household income. For the second persons in Table 1.2 (Annex 2) most of them were female spouses and they contribute (100%) to household income. The remaining third (75%) and fourth persons (55.6%) in (Tables 1.3 & 1.4 in Annex 2) were male and female children and they did still contribute to the household income.
Figure 11: Contribution to household income by household head and nature of payment.

Of much interest is to assess employment aspects for the four key household members. Table 2.1 Figure 2 shows that among were able to work in the last 30 days preceding the interview. As compared to the first person (Table 3.1), no notable differences across group membership categories and agro-ecosystems for engagement in job by second persons which entailed female spouses. Results in Table 1.1 (Annex 2) and Figure 11 suggest low rate of excuses for not working among first and second persons who predominantly male heads and female spouses. Smaller proportions of third and fourth persons (lowest 19.4% and highest 75% who worked) who widely were children worked in the previous 30 days compared to the first and second persons (Table 1.3 & 1.4). This means, children tended to experience more excuses from jobs compared to parents. It is worth understanding the major reasons for not working in the past 30 days. This involves only fewer cases of those who did not work. Use of percentages may superficially exaggerate the valid responses. In this juncture, the counts which seem to be more credible than percentages formed the basis of comparison. Major reasons that excused the first and second persons from working in the past 30 days were mentioned to be lack of jobs and sickness/morbidity - 2.8% to 19.4% (Tables 3.1 & 3.2 - (Annex 2)). Major reasons of not working for the third and fourth persons who predominantly were children were mentioned to be schooling and being too young for working effectively- 8.3% to 19.4% (Tables 3.3 & 3.4 - (Annex 2)). Lack of jobs which implies rural unemployment is the critical problem for rural development. Other two attributes used to evaluate household employment were the major common occupation and readiness to seek employment (last two aspects in Tables 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 & 3.4 - (Annex 2)). Major livelihood occupations for the first and second persons in the interviewed households were subsistence and commercial or market oriented farming. The third and fourth persons who were basically children in the household participated in activities undertaken by the parents. Arguably, the major occupations of the first persons who predominantly were heads of households are likely to be the major occupations of the households.
Employment theory refers to unemployment as an economic condition where an individual actively seeking or ready for jobs remains un-hired or engaged. This does not mean that the job seeker currently has nothing to do, but perhaps is not satisfied with the current job. In this study assessment of employment attributes ended up in exploring whether the respondents were potentially in a state of seeking new jobs. Apparently, most of first and second persons were ready for new jobs (Tables 3.1 & 3.2 - (Annex 2)). However, the tendency of readiness for new jobs was much lower for the third and fourth persons whom mostly were Children (Tables 3.3 & 3.4 - (Annex 2)).
8.2. Household dependence ratio
The dependence ratio is the number of dependents defined as younger than 15, the sick, disabled and older than 60 over the rest with ability. The argument is that, a household which comprises more dependents is more vulnerable poverty than a comparable household which has fewer dependents relative to members with ability. Across the Mvure – Kongei agro-ecosystems, the household dependence ratio was explored by group membership, living standard, food poverty, gender of household head and owned land holding. Most of these households had a dependence ratio of less than one to two dependents Figure 12 and 13 (6% - 14% versus 19% for younger than 15, the sick, disabled and older than 60 categories of households, respectively).
Figure 12: Household dependence (Younger than 15)

Figure 13: Household dependence (Older than 60)

Among other survival means such as family remittances, these households could be enjoying safety nets assured by the group membership they possessed. In respect proportion of worse-off households versus better-off households, the worse-off households tended to have more dependents relative to members with ability compared to better-off farmers. The proportion of better-off households with no any dependent exceeded that of worse-off households by Figure 3 [62% points (81% versus 19%)]. This finding suggests an association of improved welfare with a situation where all household members do work. All four households with no any of its members with ability were better-off.
Comparison of levels of dependence ratio by gender of household heads revealed no much difference that worth an attention. With respect to owned land holding per capita, notable difference was in the case of a dependence ratio range of 0.1 to 2. In this case, the proportion of households with per capita land holding of up to 1 acre exceeded that with per capita land holding of 1.1 to 5 acres. Land is a limiting factor for livelihood improvement in the highly populated and degraded upland intensive agro-ecosystem. One could imagine the challenge faced by the relatively land scarce households who still have the challenge to shoulder a considerable load of dependents. Three out of four (75%) households did not have a dependable person within the household, owned relatively bigger land of up to 5 acres. In this respect, renting out land and/or share cropping could be among the living strategies.
8.3. Housing facility and amenities
Assessment of housing facility and amenities encompassed aspects of quality, ownership and accommodation adequacy of main dwelling, status of connectivity to electricity, toilets and source of drinking water, and source of energy for cooking and lighting. The analyses were restricted to categories of group membership by agro-ecosystems. Intentionally, such characterization helps to measure the impact of CSOs across differentiated agro-ecosystems.
a) House quality (roofing, wall and floor types)
The quality of the main dwelling was assessed in terms of the typologies of material used to make the roof, wall, and floor. Results for this analysis are found in constellation of Table 4 under Annex 2 representing the percentages and counts of respondents. Most of respondents (>63.9%) in the agro-ecosystems, had their main dwelling roofed with corrugated iron sheet irrespective of 33% the predominant roofing material was grass-leaves.
In this agro-ecosystem, the proportion of respondents with the wall of the main dwelling is made of burnt earth bricks (> 60%). Nevertheless, the other households’ house walls of main dwellings were made of raw earth mud bricks (36%), equally 11% of respondents houses were made of cements blocks; and 3% by stones, respectively). Moreover, 72% of the households reported to have had the floor of their houses made of mud earth compared to 28% whose houses were floored with cement.

Figure 14 [a, b, c, d]: Household housing facility and amenities.

b) Ownership and adequacy of in-house accommodation
Ownership of in-house accommodation was assessed by establishing the status of ownership of the main dwelling. Assessment of adequacy of in-house accommodation of the main house involved determining the number of rooms per capita. Irrespective of group membership, throughout the study area most the homestead in which the respondents resided were owned by respective households (81% and above), and rest 17% of respondents from group and non-group households mentioned to be residing in free homestead, meaning that no rent is paid to the house lord (Figure 15(a)).
In earlier analyses, the household number of sleeping rooms per capita was as an indication of living standard. In this respect, the household with a single room accommodating more than two people was regarded to be of poor living standard. Assessment for adequacy, actually implies the same but done in a pragmatic way to present the statistics. In the agro-ecosystem, the mean per capita sleeping rooms for group and non-group households was about 2 (37%) and 4 (22%) for group and non-group households, respectively). This implies that for each household member at least 2 sleeping rooms were available.

Figure 15: Household ownership and number of rooms contained in a homestead.

c) Household connectivity to electricity
Connectivity of the homestead to electricity was another indicator of housing quality. Figure 16 shows that most of the interviewed group and non-group households (89%) in agro-ecosystems were not connected to electricity.

Figure 16: Connectivity of the household to electricity in agro-ecosystems by group membership
d) Toilets and drinking water
Better toilets and drinking water facilities are important elements of health and sanitation. The quality of these amenities was assessed through the make of the toilets and sources of drinking water. Throughout the agro-ecosystems, two widely used types of toilets were the pit latrine with and without a veil on the vent [Figure and table 14 parts (g; h)]

Figure 17: Household ownership and types of rooms’ household toilets.

According to Figure 17 the proportion of households possessing veiled pit latrines (97%) exceeded that of non-ownership households with the same make of toilets. Uncommon types of included the toilet with a pipe which empties into a pit located outside and the toilet which flashes directly into the sewerage canal. The percentage of households without toilets was relatively low < name="_Toc210036030">8.4 Ownership of assets
Ownership of different forms of physical assets defines the level of wealth of a particular household. Under this analysis an extensive set of assets owned by interviewed households will be assessed. However, much attention in terms of discussion will placed on land and livestock which are very central in the context of rural agrarian economies.
a) Assessment livestock assets
The livelihood rationale of livestock in rural Africa, particularly in dryland areas cannot be overemphasized. Among other roles, livestock assets serve as mobile bank savings accounts that can be used to finance claims and insure against risks and contingencies. Cattle and shots (goats and sheep) were considered under this assessment as they are important livestock in the study area.
In the agro-ecosystem, Figure 19: (a, b,) the about 22% of interviewed households (both group and non-group) reported to own one [1] cattle, and 19% [3 cattle], and such ownership are maintained the same over years from 2005 to 2007, It should be noted that, within this reference period occurred critical drought which might have caused considerable animal mortalities; Generally, no notable 14% respondents owns three [3] shots while about 11% reported owning only one [1] shot per household, respectively.

Figure 19: (a, b,) Livestock ownership

b) Assessment durable assets
Durables assets are important indicators of material wealth and welfare capability of a household. Durables can be converted into cash or used as security when a troubled household cannot meet livelihood obligations from immediate and intermediate assets. Immediate or current assets are those which can be used promptly such as include liquid savings and cash which can be secured through borrowing. While, intermediate assets are those that needs a considerable time before they are converted in a usable form such as livestock and stocks of produce. Eight assets included in the assessment were car, bicycle, phone, radio, watch, bed, television and iron. (Table 5 -Annex 3).

Ownership of car was limited to only less than 1% of households in the agro-ecosystems. Bicycle [22%], Phone [47%], Motorcycle [6%], Radio [83%], Watch [56%], Television [17%], Bed [97%] and Iron [56%] were the common assets whose ownership did not have apparent disparity among group and non-group households across agro-ecosystems.

Figure 20: (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h) Household durable assets [Bicycle, Phone, Motorcycle, Radio, Watch, Television, Bed and Iron]
In the agro-ecosystem, ownership of mobile phones was not widespread among group and non-group households since it is a relatively recent technology particularly in rural areas following an extension of network in the countryside. Television was possessed by few households (17% of the respondent), perhaps because of lack of electricity in this area. Contrary to other areas, a limited proportion of households in the agro-ecosystem owned an iron accounting to 56%.
8.4.1 Assessment of Physical access to social services
A variety of services were grouped three much related categories of services. This categorization was made just to improve the readability of discussion. This means a reader should not bother with which service is supposed to be in what category. These categories include social services, infrastructural services, and health, extension and banking services. Physical access to social services was assessed in terms of time duration (minutes) and distance (km) it takes to reach the service given particular means of travel.
i) Access to the market centre
In the context of this study, the market centre refers to the local marketplace where a household can buy and/sell tradable items. In the agro-ecosystem, respective proportions of respondents located within the travel time between 15 -30 minutes were 29% and of up to 0 -14; 30 - 45 minutes were 23% and 20% compared. Majority of interviewed households used to travel on-foot to the market centre (97%). The mean distance the households in the agro-ecosystem could travel to reach the market centre was 0.5 km [21%] and 1 km [27%].
Figure 21: (a, b, c, d) Access to market, public transport [time, distance, means etc]
ii) Access to bus or public transport stand
In the agro-ecosystem, Figure 21 (d) 39% of group respondents could reach the bus stand within a travel time of not more than 14 minutes compared to 31% of other respondents who could do so in 15 – 29 minutes. The longest travel time to the bus stand of more than 60 minutes was mentioned by 11% of respondents in the agro-ecosystem, respectively. In the agro-ecosystems, most of the respondents used to travel on foot to reach to the bus stand (> 97%).
iii) Access to primary school
In the agro-ecosystem, Figure 22: (a, b,) 56% of respondents could reach the nearest primary school within the travel time of up to 14 minutes. Only 3% of group respondents require the travel time of more than 60 minutes to reach the primary school. The sole way of getting to primary school was by travelling on foot.

Figure 22: (a, b,) Access to primary school
iv) Access to secondary school
According to Figure 23 (a, b) indicated 53% of interviewed respondents could reach the secondary school within the travel time of 14 minutes by foot at a distance of 0.5km for approximately 26% of the respondent. Apparently, most of the group (3%) respondents needed the travel time of more than 60 minutes to reach the secondary school.

Figure 23: (a, b,) Access to secondary school

v) Access to health centre
Figure 24: (a, b,) shows that, 26% of group and non-group respondents mentioned as been able to get to the health centre within the travel time of 15 -30 minutes, respectively. In the same area, the 29% of group and non-group respondents travel for more than 60 minutes before they reach the health centre. And 24% and 27% respondent travel 1 to 2 km, respectively to reach health services.

Figure 24: (a, b,) Access to health services
vi) Accessibility to heath, extension and banking services
Accessibility to health services was assessed by asking whether a health worker existed in the village and how the house benefited from the presence of a health worker. As a rule adopted in this report, results were compared between respondents who belonged to groups and those who did not. In the study agro-ecosystem, about 58% of respondents noted the presence of a health worker in the village (Figure 25(a)). The remaining 42% were not aware of the presence of a health worker. Marginally, over a half of respondents irrespective of their typology cited to benefit from getting advice from the health worker by receiving training on public health and direct health care services , respectively.

Figure 25 (a, b): Presence of Health workers / Servants in the village.

vii) Accessibility to agricultural extension services
In the upland intensive agro-ecosystem, almost three quarters of both group (88.9%) respondents mentioned to be aware on the existence of an agricultural extensionist in the village and got agricultural advice and receiving trainings (Figure 26(a)). Advice differs from training in a sense that the latter involves a planned programme aiming at imparting hands-on farm skills, while the former might be abstract and by the way (unplanned) suggestions on good farming practices Eleven percent (11%) of respondents claimed to not benefiting from an existence of an extensionist..
Figure 25 (a, b): Presence of extension workers in the village.

viii) Accessibility/possession of a bank account
Possession of a bank account is taken as a proxy of access to financial services. Apparently, majority of all categories of respondents (over 83%) did not own bank accounts either by themselves or any member from their respective households did. In the upland intensive agro-ecosystem, entirely 6 respondents (17%) from group respondents claimed to possess the bank accounts. In the lowland agro-ecosystems no much difference was noted between group and non-group respondents. Overly, the results demonstrate poor access to formal bank services by rural farmers. In view of this, the challenge remains to be on how to link rural farmers to formal financial services alongside of developing rural micro-finance sector. The rationale of improved rural finance as to enterprise rural farm sector for poverty reduction cannot be overemphasized.

Figure 26 (a, b): Presence of Banking services in the village.

8.4.2. Household food security and livelihood trend
In this study, the household modest indicators of food security were considered. These include relative perceptions of an extent to which the household experienced food shortage in the past 12 months preceding an interview, and number of daily meals the household used to take and frequency of taking meat. As asked in the survey, the notion of food shortage implied inadequacy in food entitlement through both own production and procurement from the market. Therefore, the term food shortage as used in this report it is as well the best symptom of food insecurity. Assessment of livelihood trend involved asking the respondent to gauge his/her household and community situation at the moment of survey compared to the past one year.
i) Relative perceptions of an extent of food shortage
In the upland intensive agro-ecosystem, interviewed households that never mentioned to have experienced food shortage in the 12 months preceding the interviews accounted for 50% of households. This means, they experience food shortage to different extent. Such high rate of food deficit might be linked to fact that the survey coincided with a period of famine which resulted

Figure 27 (a, b): Presence of food services in the village.

ii) Number of daily meals and extent of taking meat
In qualitative food poverty analysis, indicators such as number of meals taken per day and frequency of eating protein-rich ‘luxurious’ foodstuff like meat are widely applied. The frequency of three meals per day is considered to be a threshold of food based qualitative welfare rating below which the household is considered relatively worse-off. Figure 28(a) shows that (72%) of respondents were used to take three meals per day. Results in Figure 32(b) indicate that 28% to- 31% of respondents took meat once to twice a week.

Figure 28 (a, b): Meals per day per household

8.4.3. Assessment of livelihood enterprises
Assessment of livelihood enterprises [Figures 29 (a, b, c, d) summarized in Tables 23 & 24 in Annex 6] involved exploring whether a certain potential livelihood option was major or not and what was the most important activity in each of the major livelihood enterprises. Crop, livestock and business were further assessed in terms of their livelihood share, contribution trend and the critical constraint hindering progression. Concentration on these three activities was because they were widely practiced by more people than other activities. Results of figures indicate that, in all studied agro-ecosystems, almost all respondents (6%) irrespective of group affiliation identified natural resource base activities and crop production to be among their major livelihood enterprise such that 2.8% is contributed by selling charcoal, palm tree fruits selling and 94.4% depends on crop production enterprises.

Figure 29 (a, b): NR – and Agro-production as livelihood enterprises

9. COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT
9.1. Participation in the planning process
In the agro-ecosystem, on average 32% and 25% group and group respondents cited the regular frequency of convening the sub village meetings to be 12 meetings per year and 5 in the past 12 months, respectively. For the case of village level, on average 56% and 38% group and group respondents cited the regular frequency of convening the sub village meetings to be 4 meetings per year and 4 in the past 12 months, respectively. Whereas on average 75% of the respondents were aware, involved thoroughly and participation on decision making process and about 78% judged the village authority to be good, transparent and accountable. The village general assembly meetings that were held actually held according to schedules.

Figure 30 (a, b): Sub- village meetings per year

On average 18% – 32% group respondents attended 2 - 5 sub village and village general meetings and actively participated by contributing opinions, and that have enhanced volunteerisms as well.

Figure 31 (a, b): Village meetings per year

Figure 32 (a, b): Local leadership and decision making set-up.

9.2. Participation in collective actions, and benefits from an extensionist and NGOs
In all the study agro-ecosystems participation in collective action for development was very impressive as over 97% of the respondents did so in the past 12 months preceding the survey (Figure 33(a, b), most activities each household participated were school, health service facilities and water development project through voluntarism; and this was contributed by almost 61%.
However, the benefits from the presence of an extensionist were 61% while that of NGOs in the village were not impressively felt by the respondents (36%). Slightly over a half (39%) of respondents replied to have had realized benefits from the existence of NGOs such as ADP – Nakombo World Vision and only 22% indicated the knowledge of my host organisation SMECAO.
Figure 32 (a, b): Collective action and development activities.

Figure 33 (a, b): Contribution of development partner.
9.3. Gender issues
Mainstreaming gender dimensions in the rural development is practically indispensable. This is because gender relations are far reaching in a continuum of entitlement to productive resources such as land, through resource transformation process particularly entailing labour input to decisions of utilization of outcomes such as farm income. In view of this, this study touched some critical spheres of the broader gender issue. These spheres included exploration of local perceptions of the position of women in development from the perspectives of the society and the household and gendered land ownership and means of acquisition. The results for these analyses are found in the Figures 34 (a, b, c, d) showing 19% and 22% participate equally in development arena and have same rights as man, respectively. Whereas, land ownership analysis showed that most of women obtained land from their husbands.

Figure 34 (a, b, c, d): Positions of women in development.
10. HEALTH AND HIV/AIDS
In this study exploration of HIV-AIDS pandemic was done on areas pertaining local perceptions on the disease in terms of what do people say about it, means of spread, control measures, and community level impacts of the disease (Figures compiled in Tables 55a-d in Annex 9). The discussion of the results is devoted to utmost four prominent aspects with sufficient responses (at least 10%).
10.1. What can you say about HIV/AIDS?
For this open question, the four prominent views given by the respondents in the agro-ecosystem were HIV/AIDS is there but not much; HIV/AIDS is a dangerous/killer disease, self-protection/fight the pandemic and HIV/AIDS pandemic is common in recreation area. The respective proportions of group and non-group respondents were 14%; 56%, 11% and 21%, respectively. These results entirely demonstrate that at local level really HIV/AIDS is already perceived and understood as a threat to human existence.

Figure / Table 35: About HIV / AIDS in development.

10.2. Major means of HIV/AIDS spread
According to figure 36, four widely reported means of spreading of HIV were adultery/fornication, unprotected sex, sexual intercourse and prostitution. These were reported by 28%, 28%, 17% and 8% of group and non-group respondents, respectively. Generally, the respondents associated HIV/AIDS pandemic spread with different facets of the act of sex.

Figure / Table 36: Major means of HIV/AIDS spread.

10.3. Major control measures of HIV/AIDS
In the studied agro-ecosystem, four control measures cited by the respondents were using condoms, stopping committing fornication / adultery, sticking to one trustful partner stop, and avoiding unprotected/careless sex. Respective responses for these aspects (figure 37) comprised of 44%, 17%, 17% and 14%, of group and non-group respondents. In this area other two extra control measures that were discussed are becoming religious and awareness creation reported.

Figure / Table 37: Major control measures of HIV/AIDS.

10.4. Perceived community-level impacts of HIV/AIDS
It was important to assess the impact of the HIV/AIDS pandemic as felt by the members of the community. In all study agro-ecosystems, the respondents expressed their concern that retardation of development/welfare, people get finished, reduced workforce, and the problem of orphanage. In the agro-ecosystem, respective proportions (figure 38) of group and non-group respondents were 33%; 31%, 19% and 17% of respondents. Such developmental HIV impacts cited the respondents are the ones widely known to development planners.

Figure / Table 37: Major perceived community-level impacts of HIV/AIDS.

11. PERCEPTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY
Local perceptions on sustainability of the environment were explored at the level of community, household, NGOs and the government. Under this aspect, the respondents were asked on the measures undertaken at household, community, NGOs and government levels which conserve the environment. Major contributing factors to environmental destructions are unsustainable community livelihood activities as shown on figure 18 (a, b) and figure 38 (a, b) these have been reported by 78% of the respondents. Activities contributing significantly are unsustainable tree cutting, unsustainable pastoralism, and charcoal making of which the scores are 44%, 22% and 17% of the respondents.
Environmental conservation measures taken by the respondents at household level included tree planting (cited 44% of respondents) and discouraging practices which degrade the environment (cited by 33% of respondents). The community environment conservation measure ranked as follows – tree planting (cited by 28% of respondents); discouraging practices which degrade the environment (cited by 19% of respondents), environmental advocacy (cited by 19% of respondents)., and promoting improved cooking stoves (cited by 14% of respondents). However, most respondent felt that the community takes no measure to conserve the environment, which in real sense might imply that the community has not yet done a credible job to end degradation of the environment. In glancing beyond the household and community, an exploration was made to iron out resource conservation measures taken by NGOs which ranked as follows – discouraging practices which degrade the environment (cited by 56% of respondents)., environmental advocacy (cited by 22% of respondents)., and promoting improved cooking stoves (cited by 14% of respondents).

Figure / Table 38 (a, b, c, d, e, f): Sustainable environmental measure by individual household, community, Government, and NGO.

Lastly, the conservation role the government fostering sustainable development is indispensable. The term ‘government’ entails both the central government and local government which is the surrogate of the former in implementing national development policies and strategies including environmental conservation. In the paradigm of sustainable development, the government is an everlasting institution which has to ensure the current livelihood is earned while maintaining the capacity of the environment to sustain the future generations and ecosystem services. In view of this, it was deemed important to unfold local perceptions on what conservation measures are taken by the government down in areas where the resource base is exploited. The government environment conservation measure ranked as follows –discouraging practices which degrade the environment (cited by 33% of respondents), environmental advocacy (cited by 28% of respondents), and promoting improved cooking stoves (cited by 17% of respondents). The portfolio of widely reported measures implemented by the general community entailed discouragement of degrading practices by the institutions of the village community through enforcement of by-laws and cultural codes of conduct, tree planting and environmental conservation advocacy mainly done through village meetings.

12. CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Despite the evident efforts shown by these beneficiaries and their supporters, there have been and still there exist challenges that hinder the intended progress among the farmers. They lack the capacity to manage their farms in a dynamic and coherent manner, they are stigmatized by the so-called lack of capital to support their envisioned investments, there is insufficient motivation and freedom to innovate freely because of the perceived high risks associated with these innovations, they do not seize the evolving opportunities because of failure to see them or they perceive them to be highly risky. Other principal hindrances include the inexistence of a proper coordination system among the farmers and lack of partial or full support by all the existing local agricultural and non-agricultural sub-systems in the area. Lack of these prerequisites hampers the capacity of these farmers to envision confidently their sustainable future and contributes to the absence, among the farms, of systematized actions that are based on life-long objectives.
All the three investment above will be very successful if the infrastructure especially the roads connecting the village with other areas, will be improved and become passable through out the year. Another important aspect is capacity building to village leaders and farmers, especially by training them on entrepreneurship, environmental management etc.; this training will enable them to utilize and manage the factors of production that is land, capital and labour properly by doing so, and they will be in a proper position to improve their economic status. The three [3] areas ranked above as possible areas for investments (i.e. irrigated agriculture and crop processing plant, agricultural marketing of input supply and outputs; Rural tourism and Ecotourism) are the possible ventures for developing a strong and sustainable local market economy by facilitation efficiency money circulation in the community and at the same time encouraging local enterprises growth, building local capacity to finance community economic development ventures so as to improve their income and eradicate poverty, among potential business and investment opportunities. But in order the investment to be successful they need a great assistance from the government (i.e. local and central) by creating and enabling and favourable environment, emphatically with a strong deliberate effort through financial support and capacity building of the community around Mvure – Kongei and the Kihurio ward as a whole.
The Management of the Ecological is therefore, partly caused by the dismantling of the traditional politically organised boundaries all these lead to difficultness in reaching high scale to Sustainable Agricultural Development. These are challenges to SMECAO, but we have learned from the factors, and indicators set, that triggered the recent dynamism of extension activity services and the participatory approaches. SMECAO have tried to improve its feedback mechanism between the farmers, village extension workers and the executive team. There is however an increased openness to learn from mistakes / shortfalls and swift implementation of the programme, which has led to an increased professionalism among executive members.
"Water is Life" for all human beings, but irrational approach has been applied in dealing with water rights to rural community in sustaining agriculture and livestock activities. To develop a comprehensive framework for sustainable development and management of the nation's water resources, in which an effective legal and institutional framework for its implementation will be put in place, the National Water Policy was developed in 2002
The host institution [SMECAO] will continue upholding its motto of being a "well functioning institutional set up" in delivering development assistance to small-scale farmers and agro-pastoralists of the Mvure – Kongei, Kihurio ward in attaining the expected programme results by 2009. In this respect, team building, synergy and adherence to the set core values will be encouraged and be a guiding principle in implementation of all activities of the project.
The anticipated commodity and tangible results from the project includes Community members being environmentally aware and concerned, the environments are physically well managed, the uses of energy saving stove significantly exists at most of project participative households, the rice husks burnt brick making furnaces technologies well adopted, adapted, replicated and being used.; Trees are planted and agro-forestry exists in farm plots altogether organised managed and supervised by a well functional village environmental management committee. For the projected impacts, the measure of actual practice change in community are behaviour towards selfishness in planning and utilization of communal property resource, however a master plan should be in place; yet we anticipate to see significant reduction in utilization of charcoal burning, tree cutting and deforestation; reduced soil erosion, pollution, and disruption of the ecosystem and desertification; but rather observe improved and increased water productivity and increased crop production; Adherences to and effective observation of enforcement of environmental laws, rules, regulation and policy guidelines. Whereas also the improvement of biodiversity and ecosystem, and reduced corruption and case reports are other evidences of success.

13. REFERENCES.
1. Burchinal, L. G (1977), “Methods for social researchers in developing countries”
2. CED (2007), “Program Student Handbook 2007 - 2009” The Community Economic Development Program, The Open University of Tanzania, Dar – es –Salaam
3. District Executive Director – DED (2004) “Data analysis report on service delivery status”, Same District Council , Kilimanjaro Region, Tanzania
4. Dr. Francis Lelo; Mr. Joseph Ayieko; Mr. Paul Makenzi; Ms Njeri Muhia; Mr. David Njeremani; Dr. Henry Muiruri; Mr. John Omollo; Mr. Washington Ochola (1995), “PRA Field Handbook for Participatory Rural Appraisal Practitioners”, Prepared by the PRA Programme Egerton University with assistance from Plan International.
5. Ephraim Senkondo, et al (2004), “Improving management of common pool resources in rainwater harvesting systems”, Soil-Water Management Group, Sokoine University of Agriculture
6. Hossea M.M. Rwegoshora (2006), “A Guide to Social Science Research”, Mkuki na Nyota Publishers, Dar es Salaam.
7. http://www.nrsp.org.uk/database/documents/1069.pdf
8. Narayan Deeper, Jennifer Rietbergen Mc Cracken (1998), “Participation and Social Assessments; Tools and Techniques”.
9. SMECAO (2007) Baseline survey report.
10. The Community wealth venture (2001), “The community wealth seekers’ guide, Mapping your assets and identifying opportunities”.
[1] CED Program Students Hand book 2007-2009, page 39
[2] CED Program Student handbook (2007-2009) p. 39
[3] Rwegoshora, H, 2006.