CHEM3440

1
Titus O. Magomere
Farmer participation in adoption of horticultural
innovations in Kenya A comparison of Kakamega
and Machakos district.
2
Introduction

• Modern agricultural technology is not applied
  optimally in small scale agriculture.
• Attributed to Non-adoption of technologies and
  innovations is still identified as an important
  constraint in the small scale agricultural
  sector.
• Caused by several several factors including
• Approach taken by research institutions and the
  universities to create, deliver, implement and
  evaluate such technologies,
• Farmer deficiencies in the adoption and
  internalization of the same.
• In the past 20-30 years there has been a clarion
  call for a paradigm shift towards a more
  participatory dispensation at all steps of
  innovation creation and delivery to farmers.

3
Farmer Participation

• When farmers participate at all levels of
  extension adoption of agricultural innovations
  tend to increase (Chambers et al, 1989).
• farmer participation has continued to be both
  an unclear and ambiguous terminology and
  therefore an elusive phenomenon in development
  programmes.
• The United Nations Task Force on Rural
  Development (1977) defined popular participation
  as, An active process in which the participants
  take initiative and action that is stimulated by
  their own thinking and deliberation and over
  which they can exert effective control.
• The 1982 World Consultation Forum on The
  Churches and Peoples of Participation, noted
  that peoples participation is the peoples
  initiatives to assert themselves as subjects of
  history. It is marked by the development of new
  knowledge by the people, including the
  appropriation and control of technology so that
  it serves the people.
• Genelettis (1975) defines participation as the
  influence on the decision-making process of all
  levels of social activity and social
  institutions. This view emphasises the need for
  the rural masses to be enlightened enough to know
  their roles and responsibilities in any given
  scenario.
• Uphoff (1981) notes that empowerment is a key
  aspect of participation, but it is not the whole
  of participation.

4
Farmer Participation in Kenya

• The internal forces educational level, level of
  awareness, and skills necessary for
  participation. The external factors existing
  governments and formal institutions.
• Governments are normally rigid and view farmers
  as ignorant and thus can't contribute in
  development
• Most of the landmark rural development policy
  documents, have given specific attention to
  farmer participation but its application is
  wanting.
• Sessional paper No. 10 of 1965 African Socialism
  and its Application to Planning in Kenya
• National Development Plan, 1984-88 District
  Focus for Rural Development (Blue book, March
  1987)
• Sessional paper No.1 of 1986 on Economic
  Management for Renewed Growth.
• Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have shown
  considerable success in the involvement of
  farmers in their development agenda. However,
  passive participation and Active participation.
• Important to initiate an appropriate strategy by
  which improved farming practices from research
  stations will be transmitted to the farmers. Lele
  (1975) notes that such a strategy should enlist
  the active support and participation of the
  farmers at all levels.
• Incorporation of farmer participation in the
  adoption of improved horticultural practices is a
  prerequisite for achieving the full potential in
  horticultural production. Currently 300,000
  hectares of land are under horticultural
  production with annual export volumes of 91193
  tonnes of flowers, 15671 tonnes of fruits and
  85323 tonnes of vegetables (HCDA 2007).
• Small-scale farmers contribute to 80 of the
  total horticultural produce used locally while
  the large-scale growers account for 20 of the
  horticultural produce. Thus its important to
  expand the small scale sector by increasing
  adoption of innovations.

5
The research

• The study inquired into the role of farmer
  participation in the adoption of improved
  horticultural practices in Machakos and Kakamega
  districts of Kenya.
• It inquired into the factors that influence
  farmer participation in the two districts.
• It studied the influence of farmer personal
  characteristics and farmer accessibility to
  horticultural markets on farmer participation.

Farmer Personal Characteristics
Farmer participation
Adoption of Improved technologies
Access to horticultural markets
6
Study districts

• A survey was undertaken in Kakamega and Machakos
  districts of Kenya, which are important small
  scale holder horticultural production areas.
• Both districts have peculiar climatic and social
  conditions but have a similar problem of high
  poverty levels and high population. Machakos is
  situated in the semi-arid region while Kakamega
  is located in a high potential area for
  agricultural production.
• Both districts are beneficiaries of governmental
  and non-governmental supported extension services
  in horticultural production that utilize
  participatory approaches, moreover, the
  disparities in horticultural production in the
  two districts are huge where Machakos district
  performs distinctly better than Kakamega district.

7
Research methods

• The two districts were compared to explain the
  difference in participation in horticultural
  extension.
• Both probability and non-probability sampling
  techniques were used to secure the sample of
  heads of households for study.
• In both districts a multi-stage sampling design
  was utilized to get the final sample of 50
  household heads per district. In this design the
  population was broken down into clusters.
• The number of clusters in a district was related
  to the intensity of horticultural production and
  the diversity of horticultural commodities
  produced. The clusters were formed along
  Agro-ecological zones (AEZs).
• A total of fifty household heads were sampled and
  interviewed using a standard interview schedule
  (questionnaire) in each district.
• Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive
  statistics, contingency tables, chi square tests
  and correlations using SPSS statistical package.

8
Results (Farmer participation)

• The two districts were compared to explain the
  difference in participation in horticultural
  extension.
• It was proposed that those farmers who
  participated in horticultural improvement
  programmes were more likely to make a wide range
  of adoptions.
• Participation of farmers in horticultural
  extension was measure by seven variables.
• Farmers attendance to demonstrations in
  horticulture,
• Farmers attendance to agricultural shows,
• Farmers community leadership roles,
• Farmers attempts to solve own farm problems,
• Farmers initiative to consult agricultural
  extension agents,
• Farmers attendance to public barazas (meetings),
  
• Farmers membership in community based
  organizations.
• Farmers in Machakos exhibited higher scores on
  all the variables than in Kakamega but there were
  variations in participation within each district

9
Results (Farmer participation)

• The scores obtained by each of the respondents on
  all of the seven indicators of the participation
  variable, were summed up and the distribution was
  as shown in Table1

Table 1. Distribution of respondents according
to their extent of participation in the
horticultural extension process.
10
Results (Adoption of better horticultural
practices)

• Adoption was considered a prerequisite for better
  horticultural production and it was thought to be
  influenced by farmer participation.
• This variable was measured using the specific
  indicators, which were based on the adoption of
  specific practises, products or techniques.
• use of tissue culture seedlings,
• use of knapsack sprayers,
• use of chemical herbicides,
• use of economic drip irrigation,
• use of leguminous cover crops,
• use of agro-forestry
• use of contour ploughing.

11
Results (Adoption of better horticultural
practices)

• Scores were awarded to respondents on each of the
  indicators, such that respondents that adopted an
  innovation got a score of one while those who did
  not got a nil score. The scores obtained by each
  of the respondents on all of the seven indicators
  were added up and the distribution was as shown
  in Table 2.

Table 2 Distribution of respondents according to
their levels of adoption of innovations in
horticultural production .
12
Results (farmer personal characteristics)

• Variables used
• Age.
• Formal education.
• Marriage status.

Table 3 Data on farmers age.
13
Results (farmer personal characteristics)
Table 4 Data on farmer's years of formal
education.
14
Results (farmer personal characteristics)
Table 5 Data on farmers marriage status.
15
Results (Easier accesibility to horticultural
markets)

• Variables used
• Distance from the market to the farm in
  kilometres
• Post-harvest losses of products

Table 6 Data on distance to market.
16
Results (Easier accesibility to horticultural
markets)
Table 7 Data on post harvest losses.
17
Farmer participation in horticultural improvement
programmes positively influences their adoption
of modern agricultural practices in Machakos and
Kakamega
Table 8. The influence of farmer participation in
the adoption of improved horticultural practises
in Machakos and Kakamega.

• There is a strong relationship between
  participation in horticultural extension and
  adoption of better farm practices in Kakamega ?2
  4.433 R 0.443 and Machakos ?2 7.962 R
  0.59.
• The relationship between participation and
  adoption was stronger in Machakos than it was in
  Kakamega. More farmers participate in
  horticultural extension activities in Machakos
  thereby exhibiting higher levels of adoption.
• More farmers in Kakamega had low adoption due to
  low participation (42) than in Machakos (30).
  This situation might be due to the differences in
  the mix of factors the affect both farmer
  participation and adoption of innovations in
  horticultural production.

18
Farmers personal characteristics influence farmer
participation in horticultural improvement
programs

• Farmers years of formal education, age and
  marital status influences their participation in
  horticultural extension programmes and their
  adoption innovations.
• Farmers between the ages of 30-45 had the highest
  participation in both districts while the lowest
  participation was recorded among farmers below 30
  years and above 60 years.
• Farmers age has a more distinct effect on
  participation in Machakos than in Kakamega.
• Farmers who had more than four years of formal
  education recorded higher participation in both
  districts while most farmers who had less than
  four years of formal education had average to low
  participation.
• More than 60 of the farmers in both districts
  were married and had average to high levels of
  participation. Most of the single, divorced and
  widowed farmers showed average to low levels of
  participation.
• It was evident that the middle age, more educated
  and married individuals had more interest in
  participating in horticultural extension.

19
Farmer Easier accessibility to horticultural
markets encourages farmer participation in
horticultural improvement programmes

• Farmers proximity to horticultural markets
  significantly influence their participation in
  horticultural improvement programmes.
• Farmers who were closer to the markets
  participated more in extension than those who
  were further away.
• Farmers in Machakos had higher proximity to
  horticultural markets than those in Kakamega,
  partly due to the presence of farm gate buyers in
  Machakos.
• Farmer participation is significantly influenced
  by the post harvest losses incurred by
  horticultural farmers.
• Farmers who had high post harvest losses tend to
  exhibit lower participation than those with less.
  
• Farmers in Machakos district exhibited lower post
  harvest losses and therefore had higher
  participation scores in horticultural extension.
• Farmers who grew their horticultural products
  close to a market or farmers who had good roads
  to their farms, less post harvest losses and
  higher profitability of horticulture increased
  the farmers interest in horticulture and
  therefore their participation in horticultural
  extension.

20
Conclusion

• Farmers participation in horticultural
  improvement programmes positively influenced
  their adoption of improved farm practices in both
  study districts.
• Machakos district were more participative in
  horticultural extension than their counterparts
  in Kakamega district and thus, they tended to
  adopt more of the improved farming practises than
  the farmers from Kakamega district.
• Farmers age, education, and marriage status
  influenced farmer participation in both Kakamega
  and Machakos district. It was evident that the
  middle age, more educated and married individuals
  had more interest in participating in
  horticultural extension.
• Shorter distance to the market, less post harvest
  losses and higher profitability of horticulture
  increased the farmers interest in horticulture
  and therefore their participation in the
  extension of improved farming practises.
• Policy should focus on setting up an agricultural
  extension service that encourages the
  participative approach at all levels.
• The extension agents should play the role of
  facilitators who encourage the farmers to own the
  process of their own development.

21
Thank You