Kenya National School Milk Program Final Report

MOLD/ Smallholder Commercialization Program
Feasibility Study Report on the Proposed School Milk Program in Kenya
MINISTRY OF LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT

SMALLHOLDER DAIRY COMMERCIALIZATION PROJECT
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT ON THE PROPOSED

SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM IN KENYA
&
PROPOSED PROGRAM TECHNICAL DESIGN DOCUMENT

(ABRIDGED VERSION)
Prepared & submitted by
BENSON & ASSOCIATES

Accountants & Business Advisers
www.bensoncpas.com
27 May 2011

DISCLAIMER
This document is prepared solely for the use and benefit of the Smallholder Dairy Commercialization
Program under the Ministry of Livestock Development of the Government of Kenya. Neither the authors
nor Benson & Associates accept or assume any responsibility or duty of care to any third party.

LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS

AFC
Agriculture Finance Corporation
C.B.O
Community Based Organization
DCA
Dairy Commercialization Area
DDCA
District Dairy Commercialization Areas
D.E.O
District Education officer
DFID
Department for International Development-U.K
E.R.S
Economic Recovery Strategy
F.P.E.
Free Primary Education
G.O.K
Government of Kenya
ILRI
International Livestock Research Institute
IMF
International Monetary Fund
KARI
Kenya agriculture Research Institute
K.C.C
Kenya Co-operative Creameries
K.D.B
Kenya Dairy Board
MDG
Millennium Development Goals
M.O.E
Ministry Of Education
MOLD
Ministry of Livestock development
MOPS
Ministry of Public Health Services
M.P.R
Mathematical Policy Research
M&E
Monitoring and Evaluation
MT
Metric Tons
NGO
Non-government Organization
P.S.P
Project and Sector Profile
PSU
Primary sampling units
SDCP
Small Dairy Commercialization Program
SMP
School Milk Program
TOR
Terms of Reference
UN
United Nations
UNICEF
United Nations Childrens Education Fund
UNHCR
United Nations High Commission for Refugees
USADA
United States Department of Agriculture
UNDP
United Nation Development Program
WHO
World Health Organization
WFP
World Food Program

ACKNOWLEDGEM ENTS
The Consultants would like to acknowledge the contributions of various persons and stakeholders in the Dairy
industry. First and foremost we thank the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) for their
support to the development of the dairy sector in Kenya and also for funding this Study through the
Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Project (SDCP). We also thank SDCP awarding us the Contract to carry
out the feasibility study.
Secondly, we would like to thank Mr. Machira Gichohi-Managing Director of the Kenya Dairy Board for his
zeal and commitment towards the introduction of school milk and for finding time to chair consultative
meetings with stakeholders who currently support a Pilot School MILK Program that goes by the trade name
PACOH. The PACOH is spearheaded by the Kenya Dairy Board with technical assistance from Tetra Pak
and with other players that include the New KCC, the Ministry of Education (MOE), Ministry of Livestock
Development (MOLD) and Ministry of Health (MOH). In this group we would therefore wish to thank
individuals whose contributions have helped shape this report. They include: Dr. P.K Cherono-Technical
Services Manager and Paul Ndungu-Technical Officer both of KDB; Mr. Samwel Matoke-Deputy Director,
Livestock production and Mr. Luke Kessi-SDCP Desk Officer both of the MOLD; Ms Grace Gichohi-Program
Officer, Ministry of Public Health Services (MOPS).
Secondly we would also like to thank the senior officers of the Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Project
(SDCP) led by the Programme Coordinator Mr. Moses Kembe, Michael kibiego (Marketing Officer), Bernard
Kimoro (Dairy Production Specialist), Pauline Mbondo (Monitoring and Evaluation Officer) and Susan Kamole
(Procurement Officer) for their commitment and guidance throughout the Study period.
We also would like to appreciate the contributions of Kennedy Odoyo, the current Coordinator of the PACOH
School Milk Pilot Program, Kelly Boucher and Justus Ombok both of Tetra Pak for sharing the latters
extensive experience in School Milk Programs worldwide.
Last but not least we are indeed grateful to all the hundreds of dairy farmers, milk processors, parents,
teachers and other stakeholders that participated in field study on the re-introduction of a NATIONAL School
Milk Program in Kenya. To you all we say thank you very much for finding time to participate.
Bob Bosire
Managing Partner
Benson & Associates
Accountants & Business Advisers
www.bensoncpas.com

INTRODUCTION
This report contains the results of a Feasibility Study assignment that was commissioned to Benson and
Associates by SDCP to draw on best practices in using public-private partnerships to develop a
commercially based school milk Program in Kenya largely independent of government subsidy or donor
aid. The report examines the problems and lessons on the previous School Milk Program in Kenya and
also those from similar Programs in the region and internationally. Whereas the proposed school milk is
largely supposed to be independent of Government and donor financial support, special attention has
been given in drawing up targeting approaches for assistance to problem children from poor households
and those orphaned by HIV/AIDS. The primary objective of this Program is the expansion of dairy
markets by promoting milk drinking culture through school children.
The report also contains a
cost/benefit analysis of the Program and outlines implementation and promotion strategies that put
emphasis on a phased implementation approaches and promotion through direct awareness creation
and engagement on school-by-school basis.
The report is divided into two parts. Part A summarizes the Study Terms of reference which include
study objectives, study scope, study methodology and an analysis of study findings. Part B on the other
hand summarizes the proposed School Milk Program design components that include: its Vision,
Mission, Strategic Activities, institutional and management structure, implementation modalities, cost
implications, proposed funding sources, lobbying and promotion strategy, monitoring and evaluation
mechanism, sustainability issues, environmental impact assessment, socio-economic benefits of the
Program and way forward. Each of these areas are summarized below:

PART A:
SUMMARY OF STUDY DESIGN AND FINDINGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS
INTRODUCTION
1.0
Study Objectives
2.0
The Study Scope
3.0
Study Methodology
4.0
The Study Findings: Determining Whether the SMP Can Successfully Take Off
5.0
Challenges to Successful Implementation of a School Milk Program
6.0
Conclusions and Way Forward On Lessons Learned

PART A:
SUMMARY OF STUDY DESIGN AND FINDINGS
A summary of work done on each TOR and key findings that include lessons learned on similar
Programs and on public-private partnerships are contained in figure 1 to this report.
1.0
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The study objectives included among others the following:
Establishing if there were any useful lessons from previous SMP
Identifying and drawing on lessons from successful Regional/International Public-Private

Partnerships for SMP to guide design the proposed SMP
Determining after careful evaluation of all factors, whether the re-introduction of SMP in
Kenya is feasible.
Recommending the best operational & Management Structure & role of various
stakeholders for the SMP
Determining the cost implications of SMP & identifying the possible financing Sources
Recommending the best (marketing) promotion & lobbying strategy for the SMP if it were to
be re-introduced
2.0
Recommending the optimal implementation Plan for the SMP if found feasible
Establishing a Performance Measurement Model to monitor the effectiveness of SMP
Determining the environmental impact of SMP.
THE STUDY SCOPE
To determine the feasibility of the SMP, it was imperative to look at and establish the true position of the
following factors which are critical to a successful launch of a SMP:
Smallholder Dairy Farmers Willingness to Participate
Acceptance by the School fraternity to Participate
An Assessment of Key Stakeholder Willingness to participate in the proposed SMP
An Assessment of the National, Regional/Provincial & Local/District Demand & Supply of

Milk and the Economic Viability of the SMP
An Assessment of the Current Processing Capacity & Processors Willingness to participate

in the SMP
An Assessment of Logistical & Distribution systems
An Assessment of Cost & Funding of SMP: Donor and Enterprise Financing Availability
Determination of Economic & Financial viability

3.0
STUDY METHODOLOGY
3.1
Literature Review
Data collection came from three main sources that are: extensive review of literature on the school milk
programs that included the previous school milk scheme in the Country that was commonly known as
the Nyayo Milk School Milk Scheme; localized school milk schemes such as those sponsored by Tetra
Pak and WFP; the on-going Pilot School Milk Program sponsored by Tetra Pak, KDB, KCC, MOE and
MOLD among others; also reviewed include similar schemes in Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, El Salvador,
Brazil and Iran among others.
Other key literature reviewed include, Issues in development of school milk schemes by FAO, Canada,
2004; the Six gold standards for successful school feeding programs by WFP, 2004; Success stories
and international best practices were identified and incorporated in this study report and program design
document.
3.2
Field survey
A structured questionnaire was developed and administered on selected teachers, parents, pupils,
processors and other key stakeholders within the 9 Districts under the SDCP Program. The entry points
for the Study were the Dairy Commercialization Areas (DCA) already identified and put under the Small
Holder Dairy Commercialization Program (SDCP) in the nine Districts. The nine Districts are namely:
Kisii Central, Nyamira, Bomet, Nandi North, Trans Nzoia, Bungoma, Lugari, Uasin Gishu and Nakuru.
The Study involved interviewing selected dairy farmers, parents, teachers and pupils of schools within
the DCAs, farm in-put and credit suppliers. Other critical stakeholders included key Ministries-Ministries
of Livestock, Education, Agriculture, and Co-operative Development. Fifteen farmers per District were
sampled randomly from the (DCAs). The ratio of private schools to public schools was used to arrive at
the total of both groups of schools to be visited. In each school selected, one PTA member/ teacher
(preferably the head) and a total of 4 pupils (2 from lower primary and 2 from upper primary) were
interviewed individually.
3.3
Consultative Forums with key stakeholders
This was a key source of information and was successfully applied to obtain important information from
the Steering Committee of the on-going Pilot Program. The members consulted include the KDB, Tetra
Pak, MOE and MOLD among others.

4.0
THE STUDY FINDINGS: DETERMINING WHETHER THE SMP CAN SUCCESSFULLY BE REINTRODUCED.
4.1
School Fraternity Willingness to participate in the SMP
The Study established that generally the school fraternity that comprising of parents, teachers and pupils
is very supportive of the Program at about 85% and 96% of the parents and teachers respectively of
those interviewed look forward to it. However only 20% of the parents interviewed indicated willingness
to pay for the milk mainly because of the precedence set by the previous Program in which the milk was
given free. In addition, most of the respondents were concerned on how the proposed SMP would be
managed to avoid the pitfalls of the previous Program.
4.2
The Dairy farmers & Processors Willingness to participate in the SMP
The Study found out that generally the dairy farmers and processors are also supportive of the Program.
Though dairy farming was mentioned as being the most the most preferred farming activity in the target
districts, it was however found that that only 40% the milk is preserved and mainly by boiling. And like
the school fraternity, the respondents raised issue with how the proposed SMP can be implemented and
managed without running into trouble like the previous School Milk Scheme.
4.3 Milk Supply and Demand Situation
An analysis of the projected production and consumption of milk in Kenya indicates that Kenya is a net
surplus producer of milk which by 2016 is expected to be in excess of over 1.1 billion litres before School
Milk Programme is introduced (see Table below). This means that the surplus milk will cover the SMP
requirements by more than 4 times and still leave a surplus of more than 839 million litres which course
should go to the export market. This position provides a solid assurance for adequate supply to the
SMP.

Production
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Variance-before SMP
SMP
Consumption
Local Consumption
3,323,000,000
3,455,000,000
3,593,000,000
3,736,000,000
3,885,000,000
4,040,000,000
4,201,000,000
4,369,000,000
4,565,000,000
4,771,000,000
4,984,000,000
5,283,040,000
5,600,022,400
2,969,000,000
3,058,000,000
3,149,000,000
3,244,000,000
3,341,000,000
3,441,000,000
3,545,000,000
3,686,000,000
3,834,000,000
3,987,000,000
4,147,000,000
4,312,880,000
4,485,395,200
354,000,000
397,000,000
444,000,000
492,000,000
544,000,000
599,000,000
656,000,000
683,000,000
731,000,000
784,000,000
837,000,000
970,160,000
1,114,627,200
56,060,967
136,426,533
220,894,508
254,098,695
264,793,565
275,385,308
Variance-after
SMP
626,939,033
594,573,467
563,105,492
582,901,305
705,366,435
839,241,892
Source: Ministry of Livestock Development: Dairy Development Master Plan, July 2010
4.4
Key Stakeholder Support
The following Key Stakeholders were consulted to gauge their willingness to support the SMP: Ministry
of Education (MoE), Ministry of Livestock Development (MoLD), Ministry of Co-operatives Development,
Kenya Dairy Board (KDB), New Kenya Co-operative Creameries (KCC), Tetra Pack (K) Limited, Land
OLakes Inc., United Nations World Food Program (UNWFP) and United Nations Childrens Education
Fund (UNICEF).
As at the time of writing this report, mixed responses had been received from the above stakeholders.
UNWFP did not respond in writing to enquiries but referred the Consultant by phone to the information
on their website which indicates they assist in the design and funding of similar programs. There were
no responses from UNICEF. All the other key stakeholders consulted including KDB, MOE, MOLD, Tetra
Pak and New KCC have all given positive responses on their commitment to support a National Milk
Program. In fact the latter group, are members of an Interim National School Milk Steering Committee,
which currently runs a School Milk Program on a Pilot basis that initially targets private schools under
the banner PACOH..
A number of consultative meetings have been held with some of the members of this Committee notably
KDB and Tetra Pak and substantial lessons gratefully learnt from the Pilot Program. Those lessons have
10

been used to complement experiences gathered from other similar Programs and other relevant sources
to draw up the design for the proposed National School Milk Program.
4.5
The Future of PACOH: A desk Assessment & recommendations
According to reports prepared for the Program by Tetra Pak, PACOH was conceived in 2007 and
launched during the 3rd term of 2008 targeting mainly private schools in and around Nairobi. By end of
2nd term of 2009, a total of 56 schools had been recruited into the Program with over 160,000 litres of
milk supplied. And as by 12th May 2011, 155 schools had been recruited and were actively participating
in the Program with milk consumption going up to some 193,000 litres.
With the above statistics, there can be no doubt that PACOH initiative has received good response but
now the challenge is how to sustain the momentum and achieve even better results. It is understood that
the stakeholders are keen to expand the program to include more schools including public ones and to
cover more areas of the Country. To achieve this, the Pilot need to be expanded and better organized
to be more focused, effective and ensure sustainability in the longer term. There is no evidence that a
feasibility study preceded the launch of PACOH. Without a well conceived and proper Program Design
to guide effective implementation, PACOH is likely to go the way the Nyayo Milk Scheme went!
For PACOH to grow into a National Milk Program, the following challenges must be addressed:
(i)
Lack Clearly defined Strategic Blue print
There was no evidence to indicate that the Vision, mission, goals and objectives, and incidental strategic
activities of the Program had been well thought-out and catered for in either a Strategic plan or other
similar blue prints before it was launched. This has caused confusion as to who does what and with
issue of funding now in abeyance, as is understood from Tetra PAK representatives, possible donors
have insisted that an independent body with appropriate legal status be formed to coordinate the
activities of the Program before any funding can be provided. And without full analysis of the costs and
benefits from such a Program, it would as expected, be very difficult to convince not only the donors but
also Government, on the need to support such a Program and especially given the not so positive
experiences from the previous School Milk Scheme.
It would therefore be reasonable to recommend that the intended expansion of PACOH, be put on hold
pending finalization and approval of this feasibility study by the stakeholders report and Program Design
for a national school program. The Program Design for the proposed national school milk annexed to
11

this feasibility report assumes a collective effort and a pooling of resources by all stakeholders towards a
national school milk program with one vision and mission and clear goals to be achieved in best interest
of the Country as a whole.
The stakeholders in the school milk program will be mobilized at all levels of Government, civil society
and school communities in general to reach consensus on the modalities to govern the Program and on
the role each of the stakeholders will be required/requested to play to make the Program effective.
PACOH was conceived in 2005 and with the key learning's from the Former School Milk Program,
targeted to benefit Primary school children and Parents at first instance and secondary, the Government,
Private/Public entities as well as the community
On the downside of it, Tetra PAKs assessment of the pilot identifies KCCs Approach to Supporting
Program Implementation as inadequate and needs to be reviewed. Further, Tetra Pak identifies lack of
strong oversight by the Stakeholders Forum and post-consumer waste created by the Program as
critical threats to the future of the program.
(ii).
Design of Guidelines: The School Milk Program Operational Manual
Tetra Pak recommends this Manual be prepared and distributed to the participating schools and
stakeholders for use. While there is no doubt about the usefulness of such Manual in a delicate
operation such the school milk, care should be taken to ensure that Manuals are not treated just like any
other literature to be given casual perusal and discarded. The Manual should act as a basis for the
training that teachers, school committees and other operatives in the Program will need to undergo to
ensure Program execution meets the highest operational and hygienic standards.
Whereas this appears to be an appropriate modality, it should be a guideline which should be sold to
the stakeholders and especially the schools fraternity as a whole as that will be the focal point for end of
Program operational area decisions which will rest with school committees in consultation with parents
and teachers.
4.6
Institutional framework for a successful school based feeding Program
The institutional framework is closely linked to the implementation modality. There are several models of
implementation: the most appropriate is based on the context and on local capacity. To make a decision
12

as to the choice between a centralized and decentralized system, these should be based on a careful
analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the different parts of the system. Centralized systems have
been found to be capital intensive, complex in terms of procurement, quality control and logistics issues,
lack of local support and in most cases, doomed to fail!
By contrast, a more decentralized school feeding Program such as the Brazilian model, where resources
are channeled to the regions or districts for the purchase of food locally, will need a lighter structure at
the top with more capacity at the local level for managing procurement and delivery processes.
The choice between the two modalities should take into account the following International good
practices that require:
(i)
Having in place an institution that is accountable with adequate resources, managerial skills
and staff, knowledge and communication facilities that is in charge of managing and
implementing the Program.
(ii)
Designing procurement and logistics arrangements based on what can be procured locally,
taking into account costs, in-country production capacity and food quality/safety.
(iii) Procuring locally to sustain developing regional economies: local procurement provides
several benefits to the local economy. Transportation costs are lower and funds are injected
in the local economy;
(iv) Minimizing negative impact on the environment.
(v) Take into account involvement of all stakeholders-both government agencies and private
sector partnerships.
Regardless of the degree of decentralization of the Program, there is always the need to have an
institution at the central level that is responsible for its overall implementation. The central-level
institutional home should perform the following functions:
overall design and implementation of the Program and its results;
channelling and mobilizing appropriate resources for the different focus areas;
monitoring and evaluation;
aligning with broader development strategies;
aligning with sectoral policy processes;
setting priorities, targets and guidelines for the Program;
identifying key implementation functions;
diagnosing capacity and capacity gaps;
providing overall supervision.
13

5.0
CHALLENGES TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF A SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM
Literature review reveals that school a number of well meant school feeding programs and indeed
including those of school milk programs failed to succeed because they faced a number challenges. Key
of these challenges include the following:
5.1
Difficulties in Piloting School Feeding Programs
Selection of schools to run a pilot of a school feeding Program may turn to be the greatest challenge for
the Programs take-off. This will be expected to be case especially because of subsidies that will be
offered to the problem children or to schools in problem areas for that matter, as this may provide
avenues for politicians to point the wrong finger at favouritism and corruption! In Tanzania, the pilot
project coincided with abolition of all parental contributions to schools and school fees leading in some
areas to initial resistance by some parents as majority felt the Government was reneging on its
commitment to free education to all! In addition, if only a few schools are selected in particular area,
there will be what WFP calls pull-factor in which children from schools outside the Pilot Program to
those within thereby causing disruption to learning.
In an almost related scenario, in their realist review of school feeding Programs in disadvantaged
children trials from five continents that spanned eight decades to understand the efficacy of school
feeding Programs published in the internet (2007), Trisha Greenhalgh, professor of primary health care,
Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University College London etal, found that
deviation from the study protocol can be an important problem. One study reported, for example, that: It
was originally intended that Group 1 would be a control group. However it was impossible to obtain
cooperation without distributing some supplements to all the boys. Asking school staff to withhold food
from hungry children when others are getting fed, or trying to stop children sharing food with their
friends, was poor study design as well as ethically questionable. Consultation with the target population
at design stage seems to help prevent such problems by producing an intervention that engages staff
and incorporates their practical wisdom of what is workable. Lieberman and colleagues, for example,
originally intended to randomise their participants by pupil but a steering group drawn from the local
community rejected this and they eventually allocated by school, with one experimental and one control
school.
The bottom line to this challenge is that selection of schools to run on school feeding pilot Program,
14

especially because assistance will be offered to problem children/schools, selection must be carefully
done and in the case of schools, the decision of the majority parents must bind all the parents for the
Program to avoid running into ethical problems. Most importantly, actual implementation of the Program
must be preceded by direct awareness approaches with parents at various schools.
Furthermore and according to WFP, the most adequate targeting approach is geographical as opposed
to individual or school-based: often resources are scarce and spotty coverage of schools is scattered
across a wide area, causing the so-called pull factor children moving from non-Program to Program
schools, even moving across districts. WFP recommends that all schools in a catchment area should be
targeted to prevent this problem. The neediest areas should be prioritized and all schools in those areas
should be then included to prevent the pull-factor (Kenya and Pakistan).
5.2
Problem Children
A report presented by the Tanzanian delegates to the 3rd International Milk Conference in Uganda in
2005 indicated that coverage of the children in selected schools could not reach 100% because there
were orphans and children from very poor families who could not pay for the milk. Consequently this
necessitated that the National Committee on school Milk Program be required to raise funds from
Government, donors and International Community to subsidize problem children.
5.3
Challenges of Milk Distribution in Schools
The Tanzanian case also identified involvement of teachers in the supervision of the actual distribution
of milk in schools to children as one of the other difficulties that face school milk. This calls for ways and
means of handling the distribution of milk in schools. By and large, teachers and other school workers
should be trained and some incentives provided to encourage them participate effectively in the
exercise. The following box shows how Pakistan went about capacity issue in the school feeding
Programs, lessons which can be borrowed in the design of the proposed SMP in Kenya:
5.4 Involvement of Processors and other Milk Vendors in the Campaign
Where milk vendors took part in the sensitization campaign there was misunderstanding of the
campaign to be a sales push obscuring the benefits to the children. This created jitters among parents
and slowed down acceptance (Tanzania, School Milk Program Report, 2005).
15

6.0
6.1
CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD ON LESSONS LEARNED
Conclusions
The overarching conclusion from this analysis of international best practices is that school feeding
Programs including the school milk Programs, should be informed by good practices and lessons
learned. Good practices are practical tips for effective Program design and implementation from
those that have achieved some success. Lessons learned from past experiences act as safeguards
to avoid repeating past mistakes.
Although there are many different types of school feeding, high-quality, sustainable Programs have
certain common characteristics. The six new standards that have emerged and as analyzed
above provide a benchmark for quality and sustainability. Ideally, these standards will be part of this
proposed SMP design, with corresponding targets. As the proposed SMP will largely be parents
driven at school level, these six benchmarks should be adapted to the specific school context within
which the SMP is promoted.
6.2
Recommendations for way forward

(i)
All existing school programs include the PACOH should brought together and
merged into a National School Milk Program to facilitate common policy
guidelines and uniformity M&E approaches especially issues that touch of
health and safety among others.
(ii)
An interim all inclusive National School Milk Steering Committee should be

formed to popularize the Design Model proposed for the program.
(iii)
Implementation of a NATIONAL School Milk Program should be guided by the

recommendations in the design document to ensure it is effective, efficient and
sustainable.
16

PROPOSED NATIONAL SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM
PART B
PROGRAM DESIGN MODEL & IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
17

PART B:
Proposed National School Milk Program
Table of Contents
1.0
Introduction
2.0
The Recommended Institutional & Management Structure for the Proposed Smp
3.0
Program Operational Activities & Role of Key Stakeholders
4.0
Implementation Modalities & Cost Implications
5.0
Financing the Program Activities
6.0
SMP Promotion & Lobbying Strategy
7.0
Socio-Economic Benefits of the Program
8.0
Program Sustainability Design Issues
9.0
Program Environmental Impact Assessment
10.0
Monitoring And Evaluation: Impact Assessment
11.0
Conclusions and Way Forward
11.2
Recommendations on Way Forward
18

1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Program Background
The feasibility study that led to the proposal to set up a National School Milk Program was funded
by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) through the Smallholder Dairy
Commercialization Project (SDCP) as provided for under the GOK/IFAD Smallholder Dairy
Commercialization Program of 2005, as part of a strategy in the project component of Development
of the milk marketing chain.
The various design components of this Program draw on international best practices in publicprivate-partnerships, lessons from challenges and problems from the previous School Milk Program
in Kenya and also those of similar kind from other parts of the region and internationally to ensure
the proposed school milk is not only sustainable, but also profitable and beneficial to the various
stakeholders within the dairy sector value chain.
1.2
Legal status and Mandate of the SMP
The Program will run by a Board of Trustees (BOT) who will manage an Endowment Fund to be set up
the Trustees Act in the Ministry of lands. It will be a body corporate with powers to acquire and dispose
property and other resources, to sue and be sued under the laws of the land. The BOT will bear the
ultimate responsibility for the effective discharge of the Funds mandate including establish effective
controls to efficiently manage the Funds resources and protect them from misuse and misappropriation.
The BOT will be nominated in accordance with the provisions in the Trust Deed taking into account
multi-sectoral stakeholder interests.
The BOT will perform the following functions:
Overall design and implementation of the Program and its results;
channeling and mobilizing appropriate resources for fund the SMP Secretariat and subsidies for
problem children;
monitoring and evaluation;
aligning the SMP with broader development strategies;
aligning the SMP with sectoral policy processes;
setting priorities, targets and guidelines for the Program;
identifying key implementation functions;
diagnosing capacity and capacity gaps; and
providing overall supervision.
19

1.3
Vision of the SMP
A Country Kenya free of poverty, illiteracy and malnutrition.

1.4
Mission of the SMP
To promote the expansion of the market dairy market and increase household incomes for dairy farmers,
improve school attendance and health of the children in Kenya by encouraging a milk drinking culture
through school children.
1.5
Goals & Objectives of the SMP
The Program objectives are to:

Expansion of dairy markets by promoting milk drinking culture through school children
Alleviation of household poverty through increased household incomes by increasing milk sales
in the short term and milk demand and market in the long-term
Alleviate malnutrition and temporary/hidden hunger and improve health status among school
children and boost community development
Build a milk drinking culture among school children which they will be expected to pass on to
their own children
Improve school attendance
1.6
Strategic Actions for the SMP
The key strategic actions for the Program will include:

Establish an effective national SMPF Secretariat to coordinate the Programs activities
Design and circulate National Guidelines For Targeting of problem children
Create/Adapt Program Guidelines and Forms to be Distributed to all Stakeholders and Targeted
Schools
Establish Uniform Consumption Modalities
Deliver Detailed Program Orientation Sessions to Targeted Schools and/or Parents
Create and Disseminate Program promotion activities
Implement a Recycling Initiative for the empty packages
Design and implement a Data Collection to Ensure Accountability & to Measure Program Impact
20

1.7
Statement of Values
SMPTF is committed to serve on its mandate as founded and propelled by fair play. An in particular,
SMPF is committed to promoting and exemplifying the values of equitable distribution of resources,
accountability, transparency, justice, respect for the safety, healthy and sanctity of human life and
gender equality in all its relationships and interactions, internally and externally. Further that in doing so,
the SMPTF will be guided by the relevant provisions in the Constitution of the Republic of Kenya.
1.8
Guiding principles
SMPTF is committed to:

Upholding the highest professional, health and ethical standards in its activities
Gender-sensitive considerations
Fostering accountability to partners and stakeholders
Working collaboratively with a variety of actors based on shared concerns
Needs and impact oriented initiatives
Stewardship of the material and human resources
21

2.0 THE RECOMMENDED INSTITUTIONAL & MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE FOR THE PROPOSED
SMP
2.1.
Organization Chart
The institutional and management structure proposed for this Program borrows heavily from positive
lessons from similar programs in other countries that include Tanzania, Uganda, Malawi, Brazil and El
Salvador among others and, internationally recommended Six gold standards for successful school
feeding Programs developed by UNWFP after comprehensive analyses of 134 such Programs and
cases worldwide covering a period of over 45 years. These gold standards or six quality benchmarks
for school feeding are:
(i)
sound alignment with national policy frameworks;
(ii)
stable funding and budgeting;
(iii) evidence-based Program design;

(iv) strong institutional and implementation arrangements;
(v) strong partnerships and inter-sector coordination;
(vi) strong community participation and ownership.
The institutional and management structure recommended for the NSMP has the following components:
Formation of an all-inclusive National School Milk program Steering Committee (NSMPSC)

representing all key stakeholders
22

Registration of a National School Milk Program Trust Fund (NSMPTF) by the NSMPSC
under Trustees Act, at the Ministry of Lands and also nominate the first Trustees
Formation of County School Milk Program Steering Committees (CSMPSC)
Formation of School-Level School Milk Program Committees (SSMPC)
The NSMPSC to set up Program Management Unit (PMU) to act as the executive agency
for the Program. This to be set up at National level with Coordinating Units at County level.
The recommended Management structure for the proposed SMP is an agency type in which all key
stakeholders will be represented in a central national coordinating body, the National School Milk
Program Committee (NSMPC). The NSMPC will in turn be expected to delegate their responsibilities to
the County School Milk Program Committee (CSMPC) that will be formed to represent all the key
interests and to coordinate the activities of the SMP at the County level. Each school will also be the
encouraged to form School Milk Program Committee (SMPC) which will coordinate and oversee day-today operations of the SMP at the school level. NSMP will establish a SMP Program Management Unit
(SMPPMU) which will carry out the actual activities of the SMP including promotion and coordination of
fundraising activities and payments for milk on behalf of the problem children among others. The
SMPPMU will operate Coordination Offices at the County level to steer Program activities at the County.
The County Offices will be manned by a skeleton staff-Coordinator and an Office Assistant.
23

3.0
PROGRAM OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES & ROLE OF KEY STAKEHOLDERS
3.1
Milk Production for the SMP
Milk requirements for the schools participating in the proposed SMP will be sourced from the local milk
processors. Where the supply may be short of the demand, the Ministry of Livestock Development
(MoLD) will be expected to devise strategies to stimulate and encourage farmers especially the
smallholder dairy ones to start and or expand their production.
3.2
Milk Processing for the SMP
The Mapping of well established milk production and processing institutions was conducted during the
study and it was noted that the institutions can produce and process enough milk for the school milk
Program. Each school will make the choice to participate in the Program or not. Once the school decides
to participate, it will pick a processor of their choice, who in all probability will be locally based, to cut
down delivery expenses. This arrangement will avoid the transportation problem that bedeviled the
previous School milk Program where milk was supplied by only one supplier, the KCC. From the
mapping of the processing and production institutions in the country, it was established that there will be
enough milk in the country to run the school milk Program when it kicks off. Any of the licensed
processors in the attached Annex can be picked to serve its locality to ensure the benefits arising from
the expanded market for dairy products are enjoyed within the local economy.
3.3
Milk Packaging for the SMP
It is recommended that the milk to be supplied to schools be in a Ready-to-Drink (RTD) format which
according to packaging experts, provide satisfaction for nutritional, food safety and Program
management concerns. When choosing package, the issue of quantity and quality and safety come
into play.
There is also the issue of size of package. The milk can be packaged in a 200ml, 125ml or 250ml
packages depending on the choice of the parents/individual schools. The advantages of each of these
sizes and other types of packages will be agenda during sensitization sessions to help parents make
informed choices. In doing so, representatives of a short list of packaging organizations may be asked
to make presentation with the decision for selection left to parents/school committees to make.
To enable integrate the SMP into other existing Programs for children; the packages can be designed
to carry messages promoting health and education. Children can also design their own packages as
well as create their own school feeding mascots.
24

Schools within close proximity to processors may arrange for bulky delivery and distribution through
dispensers if this can be hygienically handled and if it can realize substantial savings on the price of
the delivered milk.
The Kenya Dairy Processors Association may also consider agreeing to a common packaging to
make easier for common health and personal growth promotional messages to be passed over the
children. It may also Lead to savings if bulky contracts are entered with one or so supplier of
packaging material. The decision however will remain with the schools eventually and they may need
to be brought into any such discussion.
3.4
Milk Distribution within the SMP
From the positive lessons from other countries such as Tanzania among others, it is proposed that milk
sourcing and processing and distribution in this proposed SMP be done by local processors on terms
and conditions to be agreed with individual school fraternity. Local procurement has been established
as the most common approach within regional school milk programs and has emerged as the more
common approach overall. Local procurement is being actively being embraced as a means to achieve
sustainable school feeding programs and, at the same time, to use the purchasing power of the program
as a stimulus for the local agricultural economy. As such, local purchase of milk for school milk feeding
is seen as a force multiplier, benefiting children and the local economy at the same time.
3.5
Quality Control Management within the SMP
The Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) will be incorporated in the SMP in order to provide the crucial
quality control management within the SMP. Kenya Bureau of Standards is a Statutory Organization of
the Government of Kenya established by the Standard Act, Cap 496 of the Laws of Kenya in July 1974.
The Mandate of KEBS is to provide Standardization, Metrology and Conformity Assessment services
through promotion of Standardization in Commerce and Industry, Provision of Testing and Calibration
facilities, Control of the use of Standardization marks, undertaking educational work in standardization,
facilitation of the implementation and practical application of standards, maintenance and dissemination
of the International System of Unit(SI) of measurements. Therefore it is charged with enforcement of
standards and certification of quality standards of all products and services in the country. In this
Program its role is largely confined to the large processors and importers of dairy products since most of
the smaller dairy enterprises do not even have labels against which they can be traced.
25

The work of KEBS will be complimented by that of the Kenya Dairy Board (KDB). The KDB is the main
regulatory body in the dairy industry that was established under the Dairy Industry Act, Cap 336 of the
Laws of Kenya. As stipulated in part II Section 5 of the Act, the Board is managed by a Board of
Directors with a Chairman appointed by the Ministry of Agriculture. Nominees to the Board are appointed
from selections from District Agricultural Committees (DACS), Provincial Agricultural Boards (PABS) and
the Central Agricultural Board (CAB). The Managing Director is responsible for the day to day running of
the Board. Other Board members include large-scale dairy producers and processors.
KDB has the responsibility of developing, promoting and regulating the dairy industry.
The key Roles and Responsibilities of the KDB will include:
Organize, regulate and develop efficient production, marketing, distribution and supply of dairy
produce required by different classes of consumers;
Promote quality assurance to attain the high quality products with emphasis on
hygiene of
milk production;
Encourage proper use of milk containers for transportation and storage facilities
for milk and milk products;
Regulate the sales of raw milk and importation of dairy produce;
Promote the consumption of quality milk and milk products;
Develop, promote and advise on proper packaging equipment and materials;
Licensing of milk producers and processors to permit a high degree of private enterprise in
production and processing of dairy products;
Enforcement of the Dairy Industry Act through anti-hawking operations and prosecutions;
Training farmers on clean milk production and modern techniques of animal

through short courses and seminars.
26
Management

4.0
IMPLEMENTATION MODALITIES & COST IMPLICATIONS
4.1
Implementation of Pre-Operating Activities
Several Program activities will need to be undertaken prior to a successful official launch. The proposed
National School Milk will rely to a good extent on the experiences of the on-going Pilot program but at
the same time keeping in line with the provisions of this Program design document. Key of these preoperating activities includes:
establishment of a truly National Steering Committee representing all key stakeholders,
preparation of Trust Deed and registration of a Trust Fund,
mobilization of critical resources for the establishment of an executive secretariat,
recruitment of key staff, and ,
preparation of necessary promotional material and,
lobbying Government and development partners and other private sector players to raise the
necessary funds to support the launch and sustained promotion efforts country wide in line with
the proposed implementation schedule.
The detailed activities and completion Timelines are contained on Schedule 8 attached.
27

Schedule 8
PROPOSED PHASED PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES & COMPLETION TIMELINES
No. Task Name
Finalize Feasibility
1 Study Rpt
Stakeholders' Forum
2 (SF)
Revise Final Draft Rpt
Form All-inclusive
4 NSMPSC
Finalize Trust Deed for
5 NSMPTF
Fast Track Registration
6 NSMPTF
Mobilize Resources to
7 set up PMU
Recruitment of Key
8 PMU Officials
Prepare Promotional
10 Material
3
Set up PMU Secretariat

Start Public campaigns
11 at selected Counties
9
Set up County PMU

12 Offices
Mobilize Resources to
13 finance other Pgm
Recruitment of Schools
14 into pgm
NOTES/KEY
Abbr.
B&A
KDB
SDCP
SF
NSMPSC
NSMPTF
PMU
No. of
Days
Start
10
23/5
2-Jun
6-Jun
10
13/6
10
27/6
15
11-Jul
30
1-Aug
30
1-Aug
30
1-Aug
15
1-Sep
N/A
1-Sep
N/A
1-Sep
Finish Precedessors
31/5 Draft Rpt
2-Jun Final Draft
Reources
Required
Info from
KDB
Hall &
Copies
10-Jun SF Comments Time

Time/KDB
Hall
24/6 Final Report
Draft Trust
250,000/8-Jul Deed
Final Trust
25,000/29-Jul Deed
Reg. of
3m/- for
mobilization
30-Aug NSMPTF
Reg. of
500,000/30-Aug NSMPTF
Reg. of
Kshs.1m/30-Aug NSMPTF
Sufficient
Kshs. 35m.
16-Sep Funds
Sufficient
Kshs.
5m/p.a.
n/a Funds
N/A
Sufficient
n/a Funds
Reg. of
1-Aug 30-Aug NSMPTF
N/A
1-Sep
Sufficient
N/A Funds
Output
B&A
Final Draft Rpt
SDCP
Comments
B&A
Final Report
KDB/SDCP
NSMPSC
B&A
Final Trust Deed

NSMPTF
Registered
Raise Kshs.
35m.
Raise Kshs.
35m.
Promotional
Materials
NSMPSC
NSMPSC
NSMPSC
Consultant
NSMPSC
NSMPSC &
PMU
Funds per
NSMPSC &
buget
PMU
3m/- for
mobilization NSMPSC
Kshs.
5m/p.a.
NSMPSC &
PMU
Benson & Associates, Accountants & Business

\Kenya Dairy Board
Smalholder Dairy Commercialization Programme
Stakeholders' Forum comments
National School Milk Steering Committee
National School Milk Program Trust Fund
Program Management Unit
28
Completion Timelines in 2011
Entity
Responsible
FunctionalPublic
PMU
Targetted
welcomes the
Pgm
Functional PMU
Offices in
selected
Counties
Adequate funds
per
budget
Schools
recruited in
selected
Counties
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Jan- Jan- Jan- Jan- JanDec
Dec
Dec
Dec
Dec

4.2
Piloting on Selected County basis
A Phased Implementation approach is recommended. This approach will accord the Program executors
the opportunity to learn from challenges and pass on the benefits to the next phase. It is recommended
that the Program should cover every region (which were previously known as Provinces) on a pilot basis
on a selected number of Counties. There will basically be six (6) Phases, each representing a fiscal year
with year one starting 1 July 2011 and thereafter until 30 June 2016. As indicated on Schedule the table
below, Phase one (2011) will cover 10 Counties spread throughout the Country with subsequent Phases
covering 14, 15, 6, and 2 Counties respectively.
29

4.3
Cost/benefit Analysis
This implementation strategy is expected to achieve the following targets:

Year No. of
No. of
Counties Children
recruited Recruited
into Pgm
2011
10
2012
14
2013
2,075,962
Benefits from the Program

Cumulative Total litres
Contribution to
no. of
Consumed In GDP (Kshs)
Cihldren in Year
Pgm
School Milk Program Costs

No. of
Capital Exp Total
Amount of
Total Program
New Jobs during Yr
Operating
Subsidies
(Kshs)
Created
(Kshs)
during Yr
(Kshs)
(Kshs)
2,075,962
56,050,967
4,035,689,666
16,815
21,777,500
82,857,763
2,017,834,808
2,122,470,070
2,976,873
5,052,835
136,426,533
10,804,981,439
24,113
27,027,000
170,800,424
5,402,490,720
5,600,318,143
15
3,128,443
8,181,278
220,894,508
19,244,329,500
25,340
31,853,250
281,761,795
9,622,164,750
9,935,779,795
2014
1,229,785
9,411,063
254,098,695
24,350,786,128
9,961
14,015,430
351,245,759 12,175,393,064 12,540,654,253
2015
396,106
9,807,169
264,793,565
27,913,266,643
3,208
5,138,991
401,516,523 13,956,633,321 14,363,288,835
2016
392,287 10,199,456
275,385,308
31,932,777,039
3,178
441,668,175 15,966,388,520 16,408,056,695
Totals
47
10,199,456 1,207,649,576 118,281,810,365
82,616
10,199,456
99,812,171 1,729,850,438 59,140,905,182 60,970,567,701
Note: detailed computations of this costs and benefits are contained Schedule 1 attached.
From the table above, it is clear that by the time Program covers the entire Country in 5 year time, over 10million children will have been recruited into the
Program and supplied with milk at a total cost of over Kshs. 61billion. This however compares favourably with the benefits that would accrue to the
economy including a contribution to the GDP of Kshs. 118billion over the same period and generating substantial employment for several people in the
whole value chain. FAO estimates that in Kenya, dealing in every 100 litres of milk through the Small Milk Processor, which in the case of the proposed
School Milk Program is expected to be the most preferred mode of distribution of milk to schools, employment for about 0.3 people is generated. And with
an estimated Annual consumption of over slightly more than 275million litres of milk at the end of the 5th year, this should create a whopping 80,000 jobs
for players within the dairy value chain!
30

KENYA SCHOOL MILK PROGRAMME

PROPOSED PHASED PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION & CORRESPONDING COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Description of Item
KEY OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS
Total Number of Counties (excluding NBI)
No. of Counties Recruited into Pgm
Cumulative No. of Counties Recruited
No. of Schools Recruited
No. of Children Recruited into Pgm in the Year
Cumulative no. of Children Recruited
Annual Consumption of Milk Per Child (Ltrs)
Total Qty of Milk consumed/Year (Ltrs)
Average number of 250ml Pkts Consumed
Average cost of 250ml milk pkt (Kshs)
Amount of subsidy (50% of Cost) (Kshs)
Capital Exp for H/O (Kshs)
Operating Exp for H/O (Kshs)
Capital Exp/County Office (Kshs)
Operating Exp/County Office (Kshs)
PROGRAM BENEFITS TO THE ECONOMY
Contribution to GDP (Gross Milk Sales)
Cumulative Employment Generation
PROGRAM COSTS (FIGURES IN KSHS)
Capital Expenditure
Capital Exp-Head Office
Capital Exp-County Offices
Total Capital Expenditure
Program Operating Expenditure
Operating Exp-Head Office
Operating Exp-County Offices
Total Operating Expenditure
Program Subsidies
Payments for subsidized milk
Total Program subsidies
TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS
Note
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
2011
2012
2013
SCHEDULE 1
2014
2015
2016
Total
47
10
10
47
14
24
47
15
39
47
6
45
47
2
47
47
47
2,075,962
2,075,962
27
56,050,967
224,203,868
18
9
4,227,500
31,132,513
1,755,000
5,172,525
2,976,873
5,052,835
27
136,426,533
545,706,133
20
10
34,245,764
1,930,500
5,689,778
3,128,443
8,181,278
27
220,894,508
883,578,030
22
11
37,670,340
2,123,550
6,258,755
1,229,785
9,411,063
27
254,098,695
1,016,394,780
24
12
41,437,374
2,335,905
6,884,631
396,106
9,807,169
27
264,793,565
1,059,174,261
26
13
45,581,112
2,569,496
7,573,094
392,287
10,199,456
27
275,385,308
1,101,541,232
29
14
50,139,223
2,826,445
8,330,403
4,035,669,616
16,815
10,804,981,439
40,928
19,244,329,500
66,268
24,350,786,128
76,230
27,913,266,643
79,438
31,932,777,039
82,616
4
6
4,227,500
17,550,000
21,777,500
27,027,000
27,027,000
31,853,250
31,853,250
14,015,430
14,015,430
5,138,991
5,138,991
5
7
31,132,513
51,725,250
82,857,763
34,245,764
136,554,660
170,800,424
37,670,340
244,091,455
281,761,795
41,437,374
309,808,385
351,245,759
45,581,112
355,935,411
401,516,523
50,139,223
391,528,952
441,668,175
4,227,500
95,584,671
99,812,171
240,206,325
1,489,644,113
1,729,850,438
2,017,834,808
2,017,834,808
5,402,490,720
5,402,490,720
9,622,164,750
9,622,164,750
12,175,393,064
12,175,393,064
13,956,633,321
13,956,633,321
15,966,388,520
15,966,388,520
59,140,905,182
59,140,905,182
2,122,470,070
5,600,318,143
9,935,779,795
12,540,654,253
14,363,288,835
16,408,056,695
60,970,567,791
3
3
31
47
47
47
26,667
10,199,456
10,199,456
118,281,810,365

Notes to the Phased Implementation Schedule-Schedule 1

Note 1: Recruitment of Schools & Children on County Basis
Schools and children will be recruited into the Program on a systematic manner based on selected Counties countrywide. The recruitment
will proceed simultaneously to give effect to the sense of inclusiveness and is planned to take 5 years startling in earnest on 1 July 2011 and
till June 2016 when all the 47 Counties and all schools in the whole Country are expected to have been covered. The average number of
children to be recruited at a region (region representing the former administrative Provinces) has been arrived at by multiplying the average
County pupil enrolment in the region (obtained by dividing the total pupil enrolment in the region-as this figures were readily available-by the
total number of Counties in that region) by the number of Counties selected for recruitment in a particular year. The average pupil enrolment
figures have been adjusted to reflect an average growth rate of 4% per annum. After recruiting all the Counties-establishing County Offices
and recruiting schools into the Program, activity will shift from serious recruitment to maintenance and minimal promotion targeting the
natural incremental into enrolment. The detailed children enrolment projections and recruitment figures are contained in Schedule 2 below.
Note 2: Milk Consumption: Analysis of Cost of Subsidy, Contribution to GDP and Employment Creation.
It has been assumed that each child will consume some 250ml packets of milk per a week which gives total consumption per a child per
month of 3 litres and 27 litres per annum per child. With the total child recruitment into the Program rising from 2,075,962 in 2011 to
10,199,456 in 2016, milk consumption rises in tandem from 56 million litres in 2011 to 275 million in 2016. At the prices of Kshs.18 per a
packet of 250ml, it gives a total contribution to GDP of Kshs. 4.0 billion if the first year (2011) which rises to an a huge Kshs. 32.0 billion in
2016. Within a span of 5 years, total contribution amounts to Kshs. 118.3 billion while creation of new jobs tops 82,616 by 2016. Creation of
new jobs is based on the FAO guideline which provides that for every 100 litres of milk traded through smallholder processors, 0.03 jobs are
created (or alternatively, 3 jobs are created for every 10,000 litres traded through smallholder processor), which is the strategy adopted for
this Program.
Note 3: Recommended Subsidy

A Subsidy of 50% of the market price of milk has been recommended for budgeting purposes. This amount however will be availed for
problem children that include the orphans and children from marginalized communities and households below absolute poverty lines. These
children will be vetted and selected at grassroots/school level by parents/teachers of the respective schools using a targeting criterion to be
developed by the PMU in consultation with Board of Trustees. Subsidies are expected to come from various sources including special
discounts by the processors and packers, government and donors. And at the rate of 50% of the market price and given the level of children
recruitment as explained in 2 above, that amount of subsidy rises from Kshs. 2.0 billion in 2011 to Kshs. 16.0 billion per annum by 2016.
Note 4: Capital Expenditure for PMU Head Office
The items comprising capital expenditure for the PMU Head Office in Nairobi are detailed on Schedule 4 and include such items as furniture
and fittings, office equipment, computers and accessories and, motor vehicles all value at Kshs. 4,227,500. This will be is a once off
expenditure
Note 5: Operating Expenses-PMU Head Office
The items comprising operating expenditure for the PMU Head Office in Nairobi are detailed on Schedule 5 and include such items as staff
salaries, office rent, communication expenses, promotion and publicity, staff travel and accommodation among others. These are recurrent
expenditures and are estimated at average of Kshs 2,013,876 and 31,132,513 per month and annually respectively. A provision for annual
inflation of 10% has been incorporated in the projections.
Note 6: Capital Expenditure for County Coordination offices
The items comprising capital expenditure for a County Offices are detailed on Schedule 6 and include such items as furniture and fittings,
office equipment, computers and accessories and, motor vehicles all value at Kshs. 1,755,000. This will be is a once off expenditure and
represent a common Model Office for County Coordinating offices country wide. This expenditure will be incurred only at the time of
establishing a County Office. By the time all the County offices are established in 2016, a total of Kshs. 96 million would have been spend on
capital expenditure at the Counties.
Note 7: Operating Expenses-County Offices
The items comprising operating expenditure for the County Coordinating Office are detailed on Schedule 7 and include such items as staff
salaries, office rent, communication expenses, promotion and publicity, staff travel and accommodation among others. These are recurrent
expenditures and are estimated at average of Kshs 293,044 and 5,172,525 per month and annually respectively. A provision for annual
inflation of 10% has been incorporated in the projections. These expenditures will be incurred only if a County Office has been established.
The more the County Offices are established the more the operating expenses are incurred. When all all County Offices are established by
2016, a total average of Kshs. 392 million will be spent annually as operating expenses at the 47 Counties country wide.
32


PROGRAM MANAGEMENT UNIT (UNIT) NBI H/Os
Schedule 4
CAPITAL BUDGET
Particulars
Furnitute & Fittings
Notes
Units
Cost/Unit
Amount
Executive Desk & Chair
30,000
30,000
Desks for Officers (5@12,500/-)
12,500
62,500
Officers seats (5@12,500/-)
12,500
62,500
Conference table (1@25,000/)
25,000
25,000
Conference seats (30@5,000/-)
30
5,000
150,000
Visitors Chairs (10 chairs@5,000/-)
10
5,000
50,000
3
55
50,000
5
1
1
1
3
1
1
7,500
40,000
20,000
20,000
12,500
10,000
7,500
150,000
530,000
37,500
40,000
20,000
20,000
37,500
10,000
7,500
50,000
75,000
50,000
172,500
250,000
75,000
50,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
150,000
375,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
150,000
Office Partitions & Fittings

Sub-total
Office Equipment
File Cabinets (5@7,500/-)
Cash Safes (1@40,000/-)
Printer
Photocopier
Telephone sets (5@12,500)
Binding Machine
Fax Machine
Sub-total
Computers & Accessories
Desktops (5@50,000/-)
Laptop (1@75,000/-)
Internet Connection
13
5
1
1
Motor Vehicles
Chief Executive Car
Office Car-General Use
Motor Cycles
7
1
1
1
Sub-total
GRAND TOTAL
3,150,000
4,227,500
33

KENYA SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM
Schedule 5
PROJECTED OPERATING EXPENSES
Program Management Unit (PMU)-NBI H/Os

PARTICULARYS
Monthly
Annual
12
5 Years
5
Administration-Staff Costs
Chief Executive Officer
Finance & Administrative Officer
Public Relations Officer
Public Health/Food Scientist
Logistics Officer
Administrative Assistant
Driver
NSSF
Medical Costs
Leave Pay
Sub-Total
Other Administration Costs
Office Rent & Rates (Nbi)
Directors/Trustees Honoraria
Programme Promotion & Publicty
Printing & Stationery
Telephone & Postage
Periodicals & Magazines
Entertainment
Staff Travel & Accommodation
Audit & Accountancy
Staff Training
Professional Services
Subscriptions
Insurance
Repairs & Maintenace
Miscellaneous
Bank Charges
Motor Vehicle Running
Sub-Total
150,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
50,000
35,000
25,000
5,500
5,000
10,000
580,500
1,800,000
1,200,000
1,200,000
1,200,000
600,000
420,000
300,000
66,000
60,000
120,000
6,966,000
9,000,000
6,000,000
6,000,000
6,000,000
3,000,000
2,100,000
1,500,000
330,000
300,000
600,000
34,830,000
75,000
110,000
1,000,000
25,000
25,000
3,500
10,000
50,000
25,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
19,376
5,000
10,000
500
50,000
1,433,376
900,000
1,320,000
12,000,000
300,000
300,000
42,000
120,000
600,000
300,000
120,000
120,000
60,000
232,513
60,000
120,000
6,000
600,000
24,166,513
4,500,000
6,600,000
60,000,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
210,000
600,000
3,000,000
1,500,000
600,000
600,000
300,000
1,162,563
300,000
600,000
30,000
3,000,000
120,832,563
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
2,013,876
31,132,513
155,662,563
34


PROGRAM MANAGEMENT UNIT (UNIT)-COUNTY OFFICE
Schedule 6
CAPITAL BUDEGT-FOR ONE COUNTY OFFICE
Particulars
Furnitute & Fittings
Notes
Units
Cost/Unit
Amount
Coordinator's Desk & Chair
25,000
25,000
Desks for Officers (2@7,500/-)
7,500
37,500
Officers seats (2@7,500/-)
7,500
37,500
10
2,500
25,000
2
23
10,000
1
0
1
2
1
0
7,500
5,000
12,500
2,500
-
20,000
145,000
7,500
5,000
25,000
2,500
-
Visitors Chairs (10 chairs@2,500/-)

Office Partitions & Fittings
Office Equipment
File Cabinets (1@7,500/-)
Cash Safes (1@40,000/-)
Printer/Photocopier
Telephone sets (2@12,500)
Binding Machine
Fax Machine
-
5
50,000
75,000
20,000
1
0
1
2
1
0
1,500,000
150,000
Computers & Accessories

Desktops (1@50,000/-)
Laptop (1@75,000/-)
Internet Connection
Motor Vehicles
Coordinator's Car
Motor Cycles
GRAND TOTAL
40,000
50,000
20,000
70,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,755,000
35

KENYA SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM
Schedule 7
PROJECTED OPERATING EXPENSES
Program Management Unit (PMU)-County Expenditure Structure

PARTICULARYS
Administration-Staff Costs
County Coordinator
Office Aassistant
Driver
NSSF & NHIF
Medical Costs
Leave Pay
Sub-Total
Other Administration Costs
County Office Rent & RateS
County Committee members Honoraria
Printing & Stationery
Telephone & Postage
Periodicals & Newspaper
Entertainment
Staff Travel & Accommodation
Audit & Accountancy
Staff Training
Professional Services
Subscriptions
Insurance
Repairs & Maintenace
Miscellaneous
Bank Charges
Motor Vehicle Running
Sub-Total
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
Monthly
Annual
12
5 Years
5
75,000
30,000
25,000
1,500
1,500
5,000
138,000
900,000
360,000
300,000
18,000
18,000
60,000
1,656,000
4,500,000
1,800,000
1,500,000
90,000
90,000
300,000
8,280,000
15,000
55,000
3,000
3,000
1,000
14,000
2,500
8,044
1,000
22,500
30,000
155,044
180,000
660,000
36,000
36,000
12,000
168,000
30,000
96,525
12,000
270,000
360,000
3,516,525
900,000
3,300,000
180,000
180,000
60,000
840,000
150,000
482,625
60,000
1,350,000
1,800,000
17,582,625
293,044
5,172,525
25,862,625
36

5.0
FINANCING THE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
5.1
Program Cost Implications
As illustrated in the Table in 3.3 above, it has been estimated that the SMP at national level will require
enormous resources in the range of an average of about Kshs. 10 billion per annum. In fact this
requirement rises from over about Kshs. 2.0 billion in the first years (2011) to a staggering Kshs. 16
billion per annum. And whereas parents are expected to foot the bill, with absolute poverty prevalence
for most Counties being way above 70%, at least about 50% of the total children population in the
Country is estimated to be problem children that will require assistance until substantial improvements
are achieved in the economy.
This therefore mean that the bill for the supply of milk to problem children will be expected to be borne
from other sources including subsidies from Government, donors and other sources.
5.2
Program Financing Sources
School feeding Program funding comes from a variety of sources, from governments or regional
authorities, international or local grants or from parents. Government funding is the most common
model. Suppliers often offer favourable deals on products or distribution to bring down the cost of
feeding. In that regard this proposed SMP will pursue the various forms of funding to meet its capital
and operational requirements.
37

ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS & PROPOSED FINANCING PLAN

Description of Item
Note
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Total
Kshs
Kshs
Kshs
Kshs
Kshs
Kshs
Kshs
PROGRAM COSTS (FIGURES IN KSHS)

Total Capital Expenditure
21,777,500
27,027,000
31,853,250
14,015,430
5,138,991
99,812,171
Total Operating Expenditure
82,857,763
170,800,424
281,761,795
351,245,759
401,516,523
441,668,175
1,729,850,438
Total Program subsidies
2,017,834,808
5,402,490,720
9,622,164,750
12,175,393,064
13,956,633,321
15,966,388,520
59,140,905,182
TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS
2,122,470,070
5,600,318,143
9,935,779,795
12,540,654,253
14,363,288,835
16,408,056,695
60,970,567,791
PROPOSED FINANCING PLAN

Processors
25%
530,617,518
1,400,079,536
2,483,944,949
3,135,163,563
3,590,822,209
4,102,014,174
15,242,641,948
Packers
20%
424,494,014
1,120,063,629
1,987,155,959
2,508,130,851
2,872,657,767
3,281,611,339
12,194,113,558
Donors
25%
530,617,518
1,400,079,536
2,483,944,949
3,135,163,563
3,590,822,209
4,102,014,174
15,242,641,948
Government
20%
424,494,014
1,120,063,629
1,987,155,959
2,508,130,851
2,872,657,767
3,281,611,339
12,194,113,558
Interest on Trust Fund
10%
212,247,007
560,031,814
993,577,979
1,254,065,425
1,436,328,884
1,640,805,669
6,097,056,779
Total
100%
2,122,470,070
5,600,318,143
9,935,779,795
12,540,654,253
14,363,288,835
16,408,056,695
60,970,567,791
38

5.2.1
Funding by the Parents
In this proposed SMP, parents will foot the bill for their childrens needs. The parents will determine
the frequency and quantity of milk their children will take and on the payment modalities. They will
decide to pay for it monthly or through a fund that will be paid for once every term or so. The decision
will be theirs. It is expected that half (50%) of the parents will be in a position to pay for their children
and the rest will be assisted through subsidies. By extension therefore, 50% of the total cost of the
milk consumed by the problem will be part of the Program cost to be financed from other sources.
5.2.2
Subsidies by Processors and Packers
In line with experiences from other countries and the on-ongoing Pilot School Milk Program
spearheaded by KDB with technical support from Tetra Pak with active participation of the Kenya Private
Schools Association (KPSA), it is recommended that processors and packers participating in the
Program all agree to provide subsidies to the cost of the milk through special discounts in general or to
the very needy problem children. This will make the milk cheaper, more affordable and facilitate easier
administration of this component of the subsidy as it will not involve actual movement of cash. It is
estimated that this source of finance can provide up-to about at least 45% of the total Program Cost with
the processors and packers each contributing 25% and 20% respectively.
5.2.3
Funds from Donors
The cost of the Secretariat and that of the problem children who will be systematically identified can be
met from donor funding. Some of the donors that the Fund should target include IFAD, FAO, UNWFP,
World bank and other sources of funding including private foundations such as the Aga Khan
Foundation, Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation and individual donations from royal families or the
business community.
It is recommended that the PMU in consultation with the BOT engage the services of an expert in
project proposal preparation for funding purposes to assess the funding needs of the problem children
and other Program needs and make a case for specific requests.
39

5.2.4
Funds from special sponsorship
Government should be lobbied to enact legislation and regulations that enable private and public
enterprises to sponsor SMPs in one or so schools like in the case of football clubs across the country as
part of their corporate social responsibility. Cost incurred to support such SMPs can be treated as a tax
deductive expenses and special mention made during special National days. Already TetraPak is doing
this sponsorship and deserves a commendable mention.
5.2.5
Official Central/County Government Funding
The National and County Committees on School Milk Program should lobby both the Central and County
Governments respectively to make a commitment to create a budget line for school Milk in the national
budget and county budgets as part of enabling those from poor families and orphans to access school
milk as part of fulfillment of aces to food in line with the new Constitution.
This provision has been made with full knowledge that the Program is supposed to be independent of
official funding from the Government. However, WFP experience from the many Programs that have
participated in or evaluated indicate that it is vitally important to find the right balance between Programs
that count on community participation and ownership (a vital factor for sustainability) and Programs that
seek to be mainly funded by communities. According to WFP, the latter places significant expectations
on communities and is often not a realistic option to reduce dependence on external assistance. Without
government involvement, community-supported school feeding including school milk hardly stands on its
own feet.
5.2.6
Creation of Trust Fund
It is proposed that the Central Government create a special Trust Fund to be called The School Milk
Trust Fund to finance school milk operations especially the cost of problem children. This Fund should
be created from proceeds of privatization or special levy, just like in the case of El Salvador for instance,
where a national law passed in 2000 determined that the proceeds of the privatization of the national
telecommunication company be allocated to a trust fund. The interests gained would benefit social
Programs such as school feeding. To date, the trust fund has generated about US$32 million. In 2008,
earnings from the trust fund represented 30 percent of the government expenditures for the Program.
40

5.3
Targeted Subsidy Interventions
The Program will identify cases of needy children that will require subsidies. Subsidies will be made to
available to schools or Counties on blanket basis as this will have rebel effects. Subsidies that may be
allowed to schools on blanket basis while leaving neighbors out will, according to studies, cause
disaffection and disapproval of the SMP citing discrimination!
For planning purposes however, it is noted that about 50% of the total children enrolment will not afford
to pay for the milk. From available Government statistics, this is generally the case in all the districts
within the Program area. The statistics show that of the 9 Districts within the Program area, Kisii Central
had the highest absolute poverty incidence at 51% with Nakuru being the lowest at 37% respectively.
These figures mean that the people within these figures can hardly afford a decent meal a day leave
alone paying for school needs for their children, with milk not even thought of! These are the households
who, despite of the introduction of the free primary school education, most of their children are still out of
school! This position is strengthened by a Report containing the results of a study carried out among
14,340 school going population (aged (6-17 years) who had attended school but were not currently
attending school, in which they were asked to give the reasons for not being currently in school. The
main reasons for not currently attending primary school level was lack of money and lack of interest
(Well-being in Kenya, KNBS, 2008). The report indicate that lack of money for school expenses was
reported by the majority of the children (61%), which implies that there is a significant group of people
who are not taking advantage of the FPE Program. The report says the reason for this are not clear, but
gives the incidental costs to schooling such as like school uniform and feeding as a big burden to some
parents.
Therefore, the planning for global subsidies for the school milk must done but disbursement be based on
needy or what are commonly known as problem children who must be carefully identified by the parents
meeting at school level. The names of these children should then be compiled for each District/County
by School and up-to National level. Funds raised for these problem children should then be disbursed to
the respective participating schools directly supported by a list of benefiting children.
The mode of disbursement used by the FPE Program shall be adopted by the Program management.
It is further observed and proposed that, since children attending private schools are a testimony of their
parents ability to pay for the milk; they should be excluded from receiving subsidies until there is no
more needy child! In the same vein, children from extreme poverty areas such as North-Eastern and
some parts of Eastern among others, should be targeted for 100% at implementation stage.
41

6.0
SMP PROMOTION & LOBBYING STRATEGY
The promotion and lobbying strategy for the SMP proposed under this section aims to create awareness
among the various key stakeholders and secure their commitment to the Program to ensure it is
effective and sustainable. The promotion and lobbying will be directed at both at the decision-making
levels of the government to ensure the Program is well embedment in national policy frameworks on the
one hand and on the other, ensure a steady flow of resources from parents, Governments and
development partners necessary to sustain the Program.
In line with international best practice, the top organs in the SMP and particularly the BOT, will
continuously engage decision makers to ensure the Governments at the Central and County levels
prioritize support for the school milk Program. Among the key milestones in this direction will be to lobby
Government at all levels to create budgetary line for support to the SMP, get the Government to pass a
policy in support of SMP and convince Government to create and provide seed money for a SMP
Endowment Fund. These milestones will provide encouragement to international organizations and
NGOs and other development partners of the Governments commitment which experience, ultimately
makes it a lot easier to attract counterparty funds.
It is hoped that the BOT will use the strong arguments made for the case in support of this proposed
Program to lobby Government and articulate the case for the SMP to all the other stakeholders. Another
dimension of this promotion and lobbying strategy for the SMP will be to ensure the BOT is represented
in the room when policy decisions are made, meaning that school milk Programs advocates need to
provide adequate and timely policy advice to decision makers during key meetings and processes. In
addition, the BOT will need to organize and facilitate stakeholder discussions at various venues around
the Country to arrive at a consensus on the general modus operandi. In doing so, the BOT can draw and
apply the lessons from similar national workshops on school feeding workshops held in 2008 and 2009
in Afghanistan, Benin, Haiti, Malawi and Pakistan which helped stakeholders arrive at a consensus on
school feeding. The BOT may also seek sponsorship to enable them learn from what other countries are
doing which would include study visits, case studies and general information sharing which would help to
galvanize support and commitment for the school milk Program.
42

7.0
SOCIO-ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROGRAM
The proposed SMP is expected to enlarge the milk market by a very substantial proportion, boost
incomes of the smallholder dairy farmers, spur investment opportunities in the sector and create
employment to small people within the smallholder milk supply chain. Some of the benefits expected
from this Program include:
Economic Return on investment
Socio- Returns: promote food security
Enlargement of Markets
Development of a Strong Culture of Milk Consumption
Enhancement of Competitiveness of the Dairy Value chain
Enhanced regional development through local procurement of the milk as much is practicable.
Promote milk production systems through encouragement of commercialization of the

smallholder dairy farmer.
Poverty Reduction through improved education Standards
The introduction of the SMP is expected to expand school enrollment and improve attendance
tremendously. With a sustained SMP, there is expected to be a significant improvement in the level of
education within a span of 5-8 years which will, according to available statistical evidence, greatly
reduce the poverty levels in the country. This is because an educated population brings with it better
skills and improved innovation which expands employment and income generating opportunities. With
better incomes, the people are able to afford better and well balanced lives.
The results of comparisons between the level of education show positive effects of education in
reduction of poverty, according to the Basic Report on well-being in Kenya by the KNBS, 2005/06. It
shows that in both rural and urban areas of Kenya, the level of education of household head is inversely
related with the incidence of poverty. In the rural areas, the incidence of poverty drops from 65.5% for
household heads with no education, to 51.5% for those with primary education and 27.2% for household
heads with secondary education.
In the urban areas, the same dramatic drop in incidence of poverty by education of household head was
observed. The incidence of poverty drops from 68.7% for those household heads with no education, to
47.9% for those with primary education and 22.0% for those with secondary education. The report
43

continues that in both the rural and urban areas, there are dramatic shifts in depth and severity of
poverty with increase in the level education of household head.
8.0
PROGRAM SUSTAINABILITY DESIGN ISSUES
The proposed SMP will incorporate cost sharing mechanisms in which the able parents will pay for cost
of the milk supplied to their children while special cases will be subsidized with recovery progressively
increased with the aim full cost recovery after say a period of 5 years. This cost sharing should be
designed to take into account special needy cases that may require support for longer periods. In
addition, central and County Governments will be lobbied to introduce a budget line in their respective
budgets that caters for subsidies to SMP.
According to WFP, on the minimum standard, to design and implement high-quality, feasible,
sustainable and cost-effective school feeding Programs the following good practices should be taken
into account:
(i)
nationally led school feeding Programs, backed by political will with strong policy statements,
such as in Brazil, Honduras and India;
(ii)
a sound analysis of country context, which leads to well targeted and well designed Programs,
such as in Kenya and Pakistan;
(iii)
a planned transition to government ownership, such as in Malawi, El Salvador and Ghana;

and
(iv)
local food procurement, food processing and fortification which stimulates local food
economies and can empower smallholder farmers and womens groups, such as in Cte
dIvoire, Ghana, Indonesia and Tanzania.
The following sections expound on these characteristics that have later been relied upon in the design of
the Proposed Milk Program in Kenya
(a)
Advocacy, sound policy advice to governments, leading and facilitating evidence-based

discussions with national and international stakeholders all play a critical role in the quality
and sustainability of school feeding Programs.
(b)
Many donors including Brazil, Canada, Italy and the US provide multi-year funding which
allows for longer-term planning. Provision has been made to lobby donors to pledge financial
support to the Program as part of its fund raising strategy.
(c)
Sound advice and support to decision makers in-country help them to have clear ideas about
needs and financial implications of the Program. For example, WFP Malawi and the World
44

(d)
For the Program to attract funding from various stakeholders both local and among donor
partners on a sustainable basis, special attention will need to be put on the issues of
accountability for funds and other resources of the Program.
(e)
The pilot strategy of the Program will be critical for the national Program to succeed. Scaling
up should be done based on properly documented lessons verified by all key stakeholders to
ensure sustained support from children, schools, farmers, government agencies, donors and
other stakeholders.
(f)
Since national demand for milk is expected to sustainability increase with a new school milk
Program, it is critical that dairy farmers in various parts of the county be encouraged to
produce more milk.
(g)
In view of the fact that most parents are currently spending money on their children for food
when they are in school, a strong communication strategy that will address the benefits of
milk as a healthy and rich substitute to the many unhealthy products being sold in the market
will have to be continuously and creatively explained to the parents, teachers and other
stakeholders countrywide.
(h)
Continuous monitoring and evaluation will need to be incorporated in the program right from
the pilot stage. One of the major reasons that caused the failure of Nyayo milk program was
lack of transparency in the management of the Program. The fact that the Program was
viewed as a government project made some sections of the society not to support it.
Continuous audit of a new school milk Program by civil society and other stakeholders will be
critical in ensuring such a Program succeeds.
45

9.0
PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The proposed SMP is expected to cause minimal negative impact to the environment. However, it is
recommended that a professional environmental impact assessment be undertaken to determine the
actual impact of such a Program to the environment especially as regards the selected packaging
materials and processing once implementation starts.
10.0
MONITORING AND EVALUATION:
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Monitoring processes, outputs and outcomes is crucial to guide implementation and to steer the
Program on a regular basis. M&E systems are a very important source of information for policymakers
and decision makers in the government. As far as possible, M&E systems should not duplicate the
governments own systems; instead, they should be designed according to the existing set-ups and
information flows. This prevents schools from being overburdened and mainstreams the Program into
existing national structures. In Kenya, an innovative computer-based monitoring system is jointly run by
the Ministry of Education and WFP. This information is used to make planning, design and targeting
decisions, eventually phasing out when needs decrease and re-orienting the Program to other, needier
schools.
The M&E Model proposed for this Program aims at maximizing the impact and lessons learnt and to
minimize the risk of project failure. It proposes that regular monitoring and evaluation be conducted to
follow project progress and influence project success. Project success is seen as the project achieving
or exceeding its intended impact within its allocated resources. Monitoring, including systematic
reporting, are standard requirements for all our projects regardless of duration and budget. Through
monitoring and evaluation, the Program design seek to influence project success, collect
practical lessons to guide future projects and ensure sharing of experience and best practices.
The following tools will be applied in the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the school milk
Program:
monitoring visits at project site
meetings with project partners and stakeholders
narrative reporting
financial reporting
46

Monitoring visits at field level will be carried out by the implementing partners and stakeholders. The
purpose of the visits at field level is to obtain a first hand impression of the school Programs
achievements in relation to the project plan and to discuss progress and obstacles with the partners
Focus will be on learning best practices, sharing experience and finding solutions in collaboration.
A report will be prepared by the Secretariat following each monitoring visit using a standard formats
included in this Report. As a supplement to visits at field level, regular meetings will be held amongst
Program Partners to discuss progress in implementation and obstacles encountered.
Depending on the project duration, the partner will be required to submit the following reporting:
Semi-annual progress report(s). A narrative document focusing on implementation of

activities, major achievements, problems faced and solutions found.
Project completion report. A report providing an analysis of achievement of project objectives,

design, impact and sustainability. It will enable identification of positive and negative lessons
learned.
For evaluation purposes the following reports will be used on a case by case basis depending on
project duration and complexity:
Table 1: Monitoring and Evaluation of the School milk Program
Element Name
Safety milk quality &
distribution
Time Frame
Annual
M & E Indicators
Certifications
delivery
reports
notes, health reports
no of litres of milk
Monitoring Tools
Reports from schools
and health officers
report & MOE reports
Implementing Agency
PMU, Processors KDB
,KBS, MOE
Public relations &

promotion
Annual
Enrollment
Annual
Annual
Community
counseling
Annual
No of meetings
Internet
reports,
facebook etc no of
meetings
Quarterly
reports
from MOE
Reports from health
officer schools
Minutes of meeting
Managers of scheme
processors DCA Members
GOK
MOE
Nutrition
Public awareness
meeting reports on
internet etc
School reports of
enrollment
Health of pupils
47
PMU,
Health Officer
(PMU)KEPSA,
County Officials
Stakeholders Responsibility
HACCP continuous inspection
taste grand
continuous
checking by PTA teachers &
pupils train kids to know good
milk
Road shows public meetings
public by KDB etc
Teachers, Parents
To have joint activities with
medical schools
Joint meeting with medical
schools etc

11.0
CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD
In view of the findings from this study, the proposed SMP is acceptable by the school fraternity, the dairy
farmers and processors and with proper promotional mechanisms proposed in this Report; the Program
should be successfully implemented.
To move forward, there is need to bring together all the key stakeholders especially the KDB, MoE,
MoLD, WFP, IFAD/SDCP among others to share experiences on the issues that may impact on the
successful launch of the SMP. It is important that every stakeholder appreciates the importance of a
proper study prior to launching any school based feeding Program including school milk, whether for
commercial or social reasons if it is to be sustained. This study report brings out important lessons from
other countries around the World and proposes a Program Design Model for the proposed SMP that
attempts to avoid mistakes of similar Programs while using the strong points as building blocks to ensure
that the proposed Program succeeds. In that regard, every stakeholder in the SMP and indeed any other
school based feeding Program is welcome and should find this report useful.
11.1
Conclusions
Management and promotion of School Milk Programs has to run for long a period and has to be
sustainable in for the full benefits to be realized. It is at the planning stage that it will be decided whether
it will be a short term feeding project as is done during emergencies such as during and after famines
and floods or a long term feeding Program aimed at correcting nutritional deficiencies among children to
enable them to improve their learning capabilities while at the same time benefiting the dairy industry
and the national economy as a whole.
Robust analysis and informed advice on targeting, costing, implementation modalities, choice of rations
and local procurement solutions enable PMU/the implementing agency to choose the most adequate
options for preparing, budgeting and implementation of the school milk Program. It is proposed that the
Pilot stage starts with small number schools where the local county authorities, schools, school
committees and parents are approached and sensitized on the virtues of milk to the school children.
Such an approach will be followed by SDCP and stakeholders particularly administration, teachers,
parents, community, processors, transporters and producers. During the study the importance of the
school milk Program was supported by various experts who suggested that the Program has high
potential for increasing milk consumption, milk market volumes, promote school attendance, intellect,
and performance of school children and facilitate a milk drinking culture in the country.
48

Sustainability should be the key objective in order to get the intended benefits of the proposed school
milk Program. Parents will have to agree to participate in the Program after sensitization and decision. In
most urban areas parents give their children some money to spend on some food items while at school.
The amounts may be small but usually more than the price of a 250 ml pouch of pasteurized milk. Once
the parents are convinced they only have to advise their children to spend their daily allowance on milk.
The Implementing Agency/PMU to solicit external funding for the Program in problem areas and SemiArid and Arid Lands (ASALs) including children such as orphans. The school boards are closer to the
parents and children and they know the problem children. In addition their request for funding has a
larger chance of being considered favorably because it comes from the community and not an Outside
body. Delivering a comprehensive, integrated package under the leadership of the government in
partnership with UN agencies and NGOs, ensures that the multiple benefits of school feeding are
maximized and can lead to wider socio-economic impacts. Sensitization to be done by a neutral body
comprising of experts (NGOs, Dairy Board, , MOLD). This arrangement will remove the problem of the
Program being seen as a sales campaign.
The Implementing Agency/PMU to advertise tenders so that the identified processors and suppliers can
tender openly and transparently. This brings the actual control of the Program to the implementing
agency, milk processors and parents themselves and therefore more transparent. Lack of transparency
may discourage parents from contributions if there is any suspicion of dishonesty.
The PMU/ Implementing Agency to oversee the Program by setting a level playing field for all the
stakeholders. School milk Programs have benefits to the various stakeholders. The PMU will ensure that
farmers supplying the milk, processors distributing the milk, parents paying for the milk and children
drinking the milk all get their fair share of their efforts. Each school has to be approached separately to
ensure adequate explanation and avoid misunderstanding.
11.2
(i)
Recommendations on Way Forward
All existing school programs including the PACOH should be brought together and merged
into a National School Milk Program to facilitate common policy guidelines and uniformity
M&E approaches especially issues that touch of health and safety among others.
(ii)
An interim all inclusive National School Milk Steering Committee (NSMPSC) should be
formed immediately to undertake formation and registration of a School Milk Program Trust
Fund and to popularize the Design Model proposed for the program.
49

(iii)
The NSMPSC should immediately lobby Government for budgetary support in the next
financial year
(iv)
The NSMP should start immediate fund raising contacts with key stakeholders to secure
necessary funds to set up the PMU and coordination offices in the initial County targets
(v)
Implementation of a National School Milk Program should be guided by the recommendations in

the design document to ensure it is effective, efficient and sustainable.
(vi)
The study also recommends the need to educate the handlers (teachers, etc) on proper and
hygienic milk handling. Preferably processors should deliver the milk to the schools nearest to
them so as to reduce transportation costs and unnecessary delays often resulting to milk
spoilage and wastages.
(vii) It is repeated here as an emphasis that school milk decisions especially the choice of processor,
mode of payment and administration and especially the beneficiaries of the subsidy fund be left
to parents and teachers at school committee level.
(viii) The NSMPSC should look for a sponsor to fund a study tour for the NSMPSC and PMU Staff to
one or so of the success story destinations.
50

ANNEXES
51

Table 2: Licensed Milk Processors and Industry Players, 2010

Area Of Sales
Capacity
In Litres
Country Wide
50,000
Country Wide
20,000
Country Wide
5,000
Pasteurized Milk, Mala,

Yoghurt, Butter &
Country Wide
375,000
041-2318611
Pasteurized
Milk,
&
Fermented Dairy Products
Coast Region
10,000
UPLANDS
0721-421007
Whole
Milk,
Butter,
Yoghurt, Ice Cream
20,000
Private Bag
NAIVASHA
050-2020675
Uplands
Nairobi,
Naivasha,
Nakuru
P.O. Box 169
ELDORET
0321-63308/206
20,000
P.O. Box 536

P.O.
Box
24390
NJORO
051-2217639
NAIROBI
882642/88343
Yoghurt
Whole Milk, Yoghurt,
Cream, Cheese
Country Wide
Egerton
University
Country Wide
1,150
P.O. Box 744
KERICHO
032-32156/2058

Yoghurt, & Butter
Country Wide
25,000
P.O. Box 3
GITHUNGU
RI
066-65260
Yoghurt,
Fresh
Pasteurized Milk, Mala
Country Wide
70,900
P.O. Box 1373
LIMURU
066-74471-3/07
Country Wide
5,000
Happy Cow Ltd

Kabianga Dairy
Ltd
Kabiyet Agro L
Enterprises Ltd
Kilifi Plantation
Ltd
P.O. Box 558
NAKURU
051-851222
KERICHO
0720-699746/07
Country Wide
All Over East
Africa
4,450
P.O. Box 1595
Pasteurized Milk
Cheese, Yoghurt, Fresh
Milk & Mala
Fresh Milk, Mala, Ghee,
Butter & Cheese
P.O. Box 1902
ELDORET
0720-2123385
203558162
Kinangop Dairy
Kiyaga
Food
Processing
Plant
P.O.Box 429
KILIFI
NORTH
KINANGOP
050-50515
Eldoret
Coast
Province
Naivasha
Nairobi
10,000
Private Bag
UHT & Pasteurized Milk

Pasteurized
Milk,
Fermented Milk, Cream
Fresh Milk, Mala &
Yoghurt
P.O.Box
54039-00200
NAIROBI
0722-397883
Whole Milk, Yoghurt &

Mala
Country Wide
1000
P.O. Box 208
UPLANDS
050-50914
Pasteurized Milk, Yoghurt,

Maziwa Lala
Uplands
30,000
Licensee
Ardash
Developers Ltd
Afrodane Food
Industries
Bio
Food
Products Ltd
Address
P.O. Box 31800600
P.O.
Box
46336
P.O.
Box
27623-00506
Town
Telephone
NAIROBI
553771/75
NAIROBI
050-50557/5055
NAIROBI
3503596/7
Product Lines
Fresh Milk, Yoghurt,
Butter, Ghee & Cheese
Yoghurt, Butter &
F&N Yoghurt, S/Flavored,
Sterilized, Cream
Brookside Dairy
Limited
P.O. Box 236
RUIRU
067-54010/2/54
Buzeki
Limited
P.O.
85532
Box
MOMBASA
P.O.
14236
Box
Dairy
Crown
Creameries Ltd
Delamere
Holdings
Doinyo Lessos
Ltd
Egerton
University
Eldoville Farm
Ltd
Farmers
Milk
Processors Ltd
Githunguri
D.F.C.
Processing
Plant
Greenlands
Dairy Ltd
Lari
Dairy
Alliance Ltd
52
Fresh Milk, Yoghurt,

Cheese & Mala
Fermented Milk, Cheese,
Yoghurt
7,000
1,000
140,000
12,000
80,000

Limuru
Milk
Processors
Meru
Central
Dairy
Cooperative Unit
Molo
Milk
Limited
New
K.C.C.
Cheese Factory
New
K.C.C.
Eldoret
New K.C.C. Ltd
Miritini
New
K.C.C.
Naivasha
New
K.C.C.
Nyahururu
New
K.C.C.Kitale Factory
New
K.C.C.
Dandora
New
K.C.C.
Factory Kiganjo
New
K.C.C.
Sotik
Nyota Dairies
Ltd
P.N.K. Gaitara
Pamside Dairy
Ltd
Ruba Mills Ltd
Sameer
Agriculture
&
Livestock Kenya
Ltd
Sidik
Hussin
Miyanji
T/A
Miyanji Dairy
Spink Knit Dairy
Ltd
Fresh Milk, Ghee, Lala &

Yoghurt
P.O. Box 563
LIMURU
066-71369
P.O. Box 2919
MERU
30081/2
P.O. Box Molo

P.O.
Box
30131
051-721156
051-721156
Fresh Milk, Mala, Yoghurt,

UHT, Ghee, Cream
Butter And Ghee
NAIROBI
55298/551873
Cheese
P.O. Box 609

P.O.
Box
93907
ELDORET
053-2060588
MOMBASA
0717-200258
Fresh Milk & Milk Powder

Pasteurised Whole Milk &
Mala
Private Bag
NAIVASHA
NYAHURU
RU
050-2020310
Chilled Fresh Milk
0734-683395
Private Bag
P.O.
Box
30131
KITALE
054-30440
NAIROBI
650448
P.O. Box 3
KIGANJO
061-86233/027
P.O. Box 191
SOTIK
0720-014628
P.O. Box 2151
KITALE
054-31773
P.O. Box 745

Box
102
ELDORET
THIKA
0532061760
020-2319874
P.O. Box 31800600
NAIROBI
555863
MOMBASA
040-3202615/07
NAKURU
051-2212492
P.O. Box174
P.O.
84381
P.O.
78377
20,000
Country Wide
26,000
Country Wide
15,060
Country Wide
North Rift &
Western &For
Export
3,000
Coast Region
Naivasha
&
Nairobi
290,000
UHT
P/Milk, Butter, Ghee,
Skim & Full Cream,
Pasteurised Milk, Yoghurt,
Mala & Butter
Nyahururu
100,000
Kitale
100,000
Country Wide
261,000
Powder Milk & Fresh Milk

Fresh Milk, Mala, Milk
Shakes & UHT
Butter, Ghee
Country Wide
35,000
Country Wide
20,000
Kitale
15,000
Country Wide
10,000
Country Wide
10,000
Country Wide
20,000
South Coast,
Mombasa City
1,600
Pasteurised Milk, Yoghurt

& Mala
Pasteurised Milk, Yoghurt
& Mala
Whole Milk,
Cheese, Butter
Box
Box
Stanley & Sons Box

8889Limited
00500
NAIROBI
Sunpower
Products
P.O. Box 4112 NAIROBI
Source: Kenya Dairy Board 2010
Country Wide
066-948686
53
30,000
Yoghurt,
Fresh Milk, Yoghurt &

Mala
UHT, Fresh Milk, Yoghurt,
Ghee
Whole
Milk,
S/Milk,
Yoghurt,Mala, Cream,
Pasteurised
Milk
&
Yoghurt
0722-833277
100,000
Country Wide
Nairobi,
Machakos,
Mombasa
300,000
Nakuru
1,500
3,400

Table 3: Identified Potential Licensed Milk Production and Processing Institutions

Licensee
Address
Town
Ardash Developers
Ltd
P.O. Box 31800600
NAIROBI
553771/75
Afrodane
Industries
P.O. Box 46336
NAIROBI
05050557/5055
Food
Telephone
Area
Sale
Produce
Fresh milk, Yoghurt,
Butter, Ghee &
Cheese
pasteurized
milk,
mala, yoghurt, butter
&
Bio Food Products

Ltd
P.O.
Box
27623-00506
NAIROBI
3503596/7
Brookside
Limited
P.O. Box 236
RUIRU
067-54010/2/54
F&N
Yoghurt,
S/Flavoured,
Sterilised, Cream
pasteurized
milk,
mala, yoghurt, butter
&
Dairy
of
country
wide
country
wide
country
wide
&
COMESA
Region
Capacity
50,000
20,000
5,000
Country
Wide
375,000
Coast
Region
10,000
Buzeki Dairy Limited
P.O. Box 85532
MOMBASA
041-2318611
Pasteurized milk, &

Fermented
Dairy
Products
Crown
Ltd
P.O. Box 14236
UPLANDS
0721-421007
Whole milk, Butter,

Yoghurt, ice cream
Delamere Holdings
Private Bag
NAIVASHA
050-2020675
Fresh milk, Yoghurt,

Cheese & Mala
uplands
Nairobi,
Naivasha,
Nakuru
Doinyo Lessos Ltd
P.O. Box 169
Eldoret
032163308/206
Femented
Milk,
Cheese, Yoghurt
Country
Wide
20,000
Egerton University
P.O. Box 536
NJORO
051-2217639
Yoghurt
Egerton
University
1,000
Eldoville Farm Ltd
P.O. Box 24390
NAIROBI
882642/88343
Whole milk, Yoghurt,

Cream, Cheese
Country
Wide
1,150
P.O. Box 744
KERICHO
03232156/2058
Pasteurized
milk,
Mala, Yoghurt, &
Butter
Country
Wide
25,000
Githunguri
D.F.C.
Processing Plant
P.O. Box 3
GITHUNGU
RI
066-65260
Yoghurt,
Pasteurized
Mala
Country
Wide
70,900
Greenlands
Ltd
P.O. Box 1373
LIMURU
066-74471-3/07
Pasteurised milk
Country
Wide
5,000
P.O. Box 558
NAKURU
051-851222
Cheese,
Yoghurt,
Fresh Milk & Mala
Country
Wide
4,450
Fresh Milk, Mala,

Ghee, Butter &
Cheese
All
over
East Africa
140,000
UHT & Pasteurised

milk
Eldoret
10,000
Creameries
Farmers
Milk
Processors Ltd
Fresh
Milk,
Dairy
Happy Cow Ltd
Kabianga Dairy Ltd
P.O. Box 1595
KERICHO
0720699746/07
Kabiyet Agro &

General Enterprises
Ltd
P.O. Box 1902
ELDORET
0720-2123385
54
20,000
7,000

Licensee
Address
Town
Telephone
Produce
Kilifi Plantation Ltd
Private Bag
KILIFI
203558162
Pasteurised
Fermented
Cream
Kinangop Dairy
P.O.Box 429
NORTH
KINANGOP
050-50515
Kiyaga
Food
Processing Plant
P.O.Box
54039-00200
NAIROBI
0722-397883
Lari Dairy Alliance

Ltd
P.O. Box 208
UPLANDS
Limuru
Processors
P.O. Box 563
LIMURU
P.O. Box 2919
MERU
Milk,
Milk,
of
Capacity
Coast
Province
12,000
Fresh Milk, Mala &

Yoghurt
Naivasha
Nairobi
80,000
Country
Wide
1000
050-50914
Whole Milk, Yoghurt

& Mala
Pasteurised
Milk,
Yoghurt,
Maziwa
Lala
uplands
30,000
066-71369
Fresh Milk, Ghee,

Lala & Yoghurt
Country
Wide
20,000
30081/2
Fresh Milk, Mala,

Yoghurt, UHT, Ghee,
Cream
Country
Wide
26,000
Country
Wide
15,060
Milk
Meru Central Dairy

Cooperative Unit
Area
Sale
Molo Milk Limited
P.O. Box Molo
051-721156
051-721156
Fresh Milk, Mala,

Yoghurt, Butter and
Ghee
New K.C.C. Cheese

Factory
P.O. Box 30131
NAIROBI
55298/551873
Cheese
Country
Wide
3,000
North Rift &

Western &
for Export
100,000
Coast
Region
290,000
New K.C.C. Eldoret
P.O. Box 609
ELDORET
053-2060588
Fresh Milk & Milk

Powder
New K.C.C.
Miritini
P.O. Box 93907
MOMBASA
0717-200258
Pasteurised
Milk & Mala
Private Bag
NAIVASHA
050-2020310
Chilled Fresh Milk
Naivasha &
Nairobi
30,000
P.O. Box174
NYAHURU
RU
0734-683395
UHT
Nyahururu
100,000
New K.C.C.- Kitale

Factory
Private Bag
KITALE
054-30440
Kitale
100,000
New K.C.C. Dandora
P.O. Box 30131
NAIROBI
650448
P/milk, Butter, Ghee,

Skim & Full Cream,
Pasteurised
Milk,
Yoghurt, Mala &
Butter
Country
Wide
261,000
New K.C.C. Factory

Kiganjo
P.O. Box 3
KIGANJO
061-86233/027
Powder milk & Fresh

Milk
Country
Wide
35,000
New K.C.C. Sotik
P.O. Box 191
SOTIK
0720-014628
Country
Wide
20,000
Nyota Dairies Ltd
P.O. Box 2151
KITALE
054-31773
Fresh Milk, Mala,

Milk Shakes & UHT
Fresh milk, Mala,
Yoghurt,
Butter,
Ghee
Kitale
15,000
P.N.K.
Gaitara
Pamside Dairy Ltd
P.O. Box 745
THIKA
020-2319874
Pasteurised
Milk,
Yoghurt & Mala
Country
Wide
10,000
Ltd
New
Naivasha
K.C.C.
New
Nyahururu
K.C.C.
55
Whole

Licensee
Address
Town
Ruba Mills Ltd
P.O. Box 102

ELDORET
0532061760
Sameer Agriculture
& Livestock Kenya
Ltd
P.O. Box 31800600
NAIROBI
Telephone
555863
Produce
Area
Sale
of
Pasteurised
milk,
Yoghurt & Mala
Country
Wide
10,000
Whole Milk, Yoghurt,

Cheese, Butter
Country
Wide
20,000
1,600
Capacity
Sidik Hussin Miyanji

T/A Miyanji Dairy
P.O. Box 84381
MOMBASA
0403202615/07
Fresh milk, Yoghurt

& Mala
South
Coast,
Mombasa
City
Spink Knit Dairy Ltd
P.O. Box 78377
NAKURU
051-2212492
UHT, Fresh Milk,

Yoghurt, Ghee
Country
Wide
300,000
Nairobi,
Machakos,
Makueni,
Mombasa
3,400
Nakuru
1,500
Stanley
Limited
&
Sons
Sunpower Products
P.O.
Box
18889-00500
NAIROBI
0722-833277
Whole Milk, S/Milk,

Yoghurt,
Mala,
Cream,
P.O. Box 4112
NAIROBI
066-948686
Pasteurised milk &

Yoghurt
Source: Kenya Dairy Board 2010
56
Table 4: Standards
No
Standard
Targets
The national level Poverty Reduction Strategy identifies school feeding as an education/social
Sound alignment with the national
protection intervention. The sector policies and strategies identify school feeding as an education/social
policy framework
protection intervention (Education Sector Plan, Nutrition Policy, Social Protection Policy). There is a
specific policy related to school feeding or school health and nutrition, which specifies objectives,
rationale, scope, design and funding of the Program.
There is a budget line for school feeding and national funds from the government or from donors that
Stable funding and budgeting
covers the needs of the Program consistently. Local and national level structures (districts, regions or
central offices) include school feeding in their annual budgets and plans.
The Program has appropriate objectives and rationale corresponding to context and policy framework.
Evidence-based Program design

3
The Program identifies appropriate target groups and targeting criteria corresponding to Program
objectives and context. The Program has appropriate food modalities and food basket corresponding to
context, objectives, local habits and tastes, availability of local food, costs and nutritional objectives. All
children in the Program receive deworming alongside school feeding. There is a handover plan in
place, which has been agreed with the government, and includes timeframe and milestones
There is a national institution mandated with implementation of school feeding. There is a specific unit
Strong institutional
in charge of overall management of school feeding within the lead institution at the central level; the
and
unit has sufficient staff, resources and knowledge. There are adequate staff and resources for
implementation
management and implementation at the regional level. There are adequate staff and resources for
arrangements
management and implementation at the district level. There are adequate staff, resources and
infrastructure for implementation at the school level. Procurement and logistics arrangements allow for
procuring food locally, taking into account costs and capacity of cooperating parties, in-country
production capacity, quality of food and stability of food supply. There is a resourced monitoring and
evaluation system, which is functioning, is structured and managed within the lead institution, and is
used for implementation and feedback
MOLD/Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Program

Feasibility Study of School Milk Program: Draft Report 1
School feeding is linked with other school health and nutrition, social protection activities or Programs.
5
Strong partnerships and inter-sector
There is an inter-sector coordination mechanism for school feeding in place, which is operational and
coordination
involves all stakeholders and partners of the institution (education, health, agriculture and others). The
Program is designed and implemented in
partnership with all relevant sectors, international agencies, NGOs, private sector and local business
representatives.
Strong community participation and
The community has actively participated in Program design. The community actively participates in
ownership (teachers, parents, children)
Program implementation. The community contributes (to the extent possible) resources (cash, in-kind)
to the Program
58

Kenya National School Milk Program Final Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Kenya National School Milk Program Final Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MOLD/ Smallholder Commercialization Program

Feasibility Study Report on the Proposed School Milk Program in Kenya

MINISTRY OF LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT

FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT ON THE PROPOSED

PROPOSED PROGRAM TECHNICAL DESIGN DOCUMENT

Prepared & submitted by

BENSON & ASSOCIATES

MOLD/ Smallholder Commercialization Program

MOLD/ Smallholder Commercialization Program

LIST OF ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS

Agriculture Finance Corporation

Community Based Organization

Dairy Commercialization Area

District Dairy Commercialization Areas

District Education officer

Department for International Development-U.K

Economic Recovery Strategy

Free Primary Education

International Livestock Research Institute

International Monetary Fund

Kenya agriculture Research Institute

Kenya Co-operative Creameries

Kenya Dairy Board

Millennium Development Goals

Ministry of Livestock development

Ministry of Public Health Services

Mathematical Policy Research

Monitoring and Evaluation

Project and Sector Profile

Primary sampling units

Small Dairy Commercialization Program

School Milk Program

United Nations Childrens Education Fund

United Nations High Commission for Refugees

United States Department of Agriculture

United Nation Development Program

World Health Organization

World Food Program

MOLD/ Smallholder Commercialization Program

MOLD/ Smallholder Commercialization Program

The report also contains a

MOLD/ Smallholder Commercialization Program

SUMMARY OF STUDY DESIGN AND FINDINGS

The Study Scope

Challenges to Successful Implementation of a School Milk Program

Conclusions and Way Forward On Lessons Learned

MOLD/ Smallholder Commercialization Program

SUMMARY OF STUDY DESIGN AND FINDINGS

The study objectives included among others the following:

Establishing if there were any useful lessons from previous SMP

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

Establishing a Performance Measurement Model to monitor the effectiveness of SMP

Determining the environmental impact of SMP.

THE STUDY SCOPE

Smallholder Dairy Farmers Willingness to Participate

Acceptance by the School fraternity to Participate

An Assessment of Key Stakeholder Willingness to participate in the proposed SMP

An Assessment of the National, Regional/Provincial & Local/District Demand & Supply of

An Assessment of the Current Processing Capacity & Processors Willingness to participate

An Assessment of Logistical & Distribution systems

Determination of Economic & Financial viability

MOLD/ Smallholder Commercialization Program

Consultative Forums with key stakeholders

MOLD/ Smallholder Commercialization Program