February 17th, 2026

In 2020, FSD Kenya set out to Tala – a semi-arid farming community in eastern Kenya, marked by climate stress and limited market access. Despite its proximity to Nairobi and Machakos towns, Tala remains disconnected from growth opportunities. Smallholder farmers, especially women, face low liquidity, weak capabilities, and poor access to markets and services, limiting income generation and resilience. 

Building on lessons from FSD Kenya’s finance for livelihoods project in Marsabit, where group-based interventions improved women’s economic empowerment, the project aimed to test whether a poultry value-chain approach could strengthen resilience and improve incomes through three levers: farming capabilities, access to finance, and market linkages.  

Partnering with Hand in Hand Eastern Africa (HiH EA), the project team worked through farmer groups, trained lead farmers and paravets, and brokered connections to input suppliers, offtake markets, and extension services. To unlock finance, FSD Kenya partnered with Equity Bank, offering a credit guarantee and co-designing a group-based savings and credit solutions, supported by financial literacy trainings.  

After 4 years of implementation of this project, FSD Kenya commissioned the University of Bath to assess the impact of this pilot on income, resilience, and women’s empowerment. This study provides an in-depth understanding of the pathway of change triggered by this intervention, including insights and lessons learned from the pilot.  

Highlights 

• Finance linkages: A demonstration model with Equity Bank, backed by a credit guarantee, enabled lending to remote previously formally excluded groups. Loans were important in increasing incomes and savings for resilience. Most of the groups onboarded during the project had continued to be served by the bank. However, Equity signaled it cannot scale this model without a guarantee which was deemed a necessary cushion in trialling new clients. 

• Service delivery: The paravet model created a sustainable foundation for local veterinary services. 

• Market coordination: Lead farmers trained groups, helping them to enhance their capability and to achieve economies of scale (e.g., bulk buying) and connect with agrovets and the Ministry of Agriculture. 

• Expanded markets: Poultry productivity gains attracted input providers, improving choice—general inflation in the country occasioned by severe drought drove up input costs, making commercial poultry farming less viable. HiH EA’s training on making feed locally reduced costs, but commercial feeds remain essential for improved breeds. Even those who exited commercial poultry emphasised the resilience value of indigenous poultry systems—local breeds and free foraging—as chickens could always be sold in emergencies, providing vital liquidity.

Insights and lessons learned

Important questions about how we think about finance for sustainable livelihoods in vulnerable farming communities emanated from this work: 

• Productivity vs. sustainability: In fragile eco-systems and markets vulnerable to inflation shocks and dependent on high-cost imports, should our goal be maximising output or building resilient farming ecosystems? If resilience matters, what agricultural practices—and models—truly deliver it? Is a value-chain approach enough, or do we need more holistic food systems or livelihoods strategies?

• Households vs. sectors: Farmer households are complex, diverse, and deeply gendered in how they engage with local economies. Are we missing opportunities by focusing narrowly on value chains instead of broader rural livelihoods, including off-farm income generating opportunities centred on women? 

• Role of finance: If resilience matters, financial models must allow liquidity when households need it most. Should savings be collateralised in ways that weaken their risk-buffering role? How do we design group-based finance that supports inclusion and fosters resilience, as well as supporting investment? 

• Linkages and power: Which market linkages genuinely add value to rural households? Does deeper dependence on global value chains create more risk than opportunity? How can farmers become “market makers,” with bargaining power to shape terms—including financial solutions? Should we invest more in collectives to strengthen coordination and avoid elite capture? 

• Inclusion and equity: Market-led models often leave the poorest behind. How do we design for inclusion—building capabilities, strengthening bargaining power, and supporting diversification beyond farming? What role can rural–urban linkages play? What role could extension services and tech-enabled farming play in creating opportunities for youth—through labour markets and service provision? 

 Overall, the project generated the following impact highlights: 

• 50 percent of beneficiaries reported higher productivity, driven by better farming practices. 

• 64 percent saw income gains, partly from poultry farming and partly from investing in small businesses enabled by credit. 

• 30 percent felt more resilient, thanks to savings and assets like poultry that could be liquidated in times of need—but market-led models also raised risk exposure, especially as poultry input costs spiked during the project. 

• Women’s empowerment strengthened, with greater economic engagement (especially through small businesses) and stronger household influence. 

• 18 groups were linked to Equity bank, mostly successfully. 54 percent of beneficiaries reported diversification of investments due to access to financial solutions with a majority of women having increased ability to save as a result of interventions by the pilot. 

Click here for the the full report

Click here to read/download the synthesis report slide deck.

TAGS

CATEGORIES