Variety for security: A case study of agricultural,

nutritional and dietary diversity among

smallholder farmers in Western Kenya

Mary Kanui

PhD Candidate

School of Geography & the Environment

University of Oxford

LCIRAH Seminar, 10th January 2014

Outline

1. Background

2. Objectives

3. Methods

4. Completed research: results

4.1 Market agrobiodiversity (3 points)

4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity (2 points)

5. Upcoming research: overview

5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity

5.2 Gender & dietary diversity

6. Conclusions & recommendations

2

1. Agrobiodiversity as a path to household food security?

• Food security: food availability, access, utilization

• Agrobiodiversity: components of biodiversity of relevance to food &

agriculture

• In Africa, up to 80% of agriculture practised by smallholder farmers

• To what extent does agrobiodiversity contribute to food, nutrition &

health?

3

1. Agrobiodiversity-Kenyan context

• Species numbers

– ~35,000 animal, plant and micro-organism species

– 3 sustaining species: maize, wheat, rice (Ekesa, 2009)

• High food shortfalls and malnutrition rate

– Yet local agrobiodiversity under-utilized as primary food security

resource (Frison et al., 2006)

• Western Kenya:

– High agrobiodiversity

– But 50% population below poverty line with high malnutrition and poor

health (Abukutsa-Onyango, 2002)

4

2. Objectives

5

Food accessibility & market integration

Crop diversity & underlying factors

On-farm nutrient diversity (plant & animals)

On-farm dietary diversity between genders

3. Methods (for completed research)

6

Farm surveys

• Goals: ABD richness, abundance&

usage

• Time: Sep-Oct & Nov-Dec 2012

• Scope: 30 farms in 6 villages

Market surveys

• Goal: food sources, prices & availability

• Time: Sep-Oct 2012

• Scope: 7 markets

7

3. Study sites

4 Completed research

4.1 Market agrobiodiversity 4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity

8

4 Completed research

4.1 Market agrobiodiversity 4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity

9

4.1.1 What is the role of markets in household food access?

Food sources in Mumias district Food sources in Vihiga district

Food

group

Farm

(%)

Market

(%)

Family &

friends

(%)

Total

(%)

Farm

(%)

Market

(%)

Family &

friends

(%)

Total

(%)

39 53 8 100 47 52 1 100

52 23 11 86* 60 9 24 93*

65 25 9 99* 71 22 7 100

33 36 16 85* 47 12 40 99*

76 17 4 97* 81 9 9 99*

13 37 1 51* 28 15 13 56*

75 5 20 100 23 36 17 76*

17 16 0 33* 17 15 11 43*

10

4.1.2 What are the uses of on-farm produce?

On-farm food use in Mumias district On-farm food use in Vihiga district

Food group Home

consumption

(%)

Informal

market

(%)

Formal

market

(%)

Total

(%)

Home

consumption

(%)

Informal

market

(%)

Formal

market

(%)

Total

(%)

78 5 17 100 87 0 0 87

77 2 13 92 67 0 3 70

76 5 15 96 81 1 3 85

83 0 12 95 68 1 3 72

73 9 9 91 77 4 3 84

30 0 25 55 27 0 23 50

0 0 83 83 50 0 0 50

89 0 11 100 33 0 67 100

11

4.1.3 What is the extent of smallholder market integration?

12

• Out of the interviewed market traders:

– 15%: own production

– 10%: primary middlemen

– 75%: secondary middlemen

4.1 Market agrobiodiversity: Summary

13

Smallholders access food from

multiple sources

Smallholders produce food for both

home consumption and for sale

Smallholders are least involved as

sellers in formal markets

4 Completed research

4.1 Market agrobiodiversity 4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity

14

4 Completed research

4.1 Market agrobiodiversity 4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity

15

Sorghum

bicolorVigna

unguiculata

4.2.1 Farm agrobiodiversity: most common plant species

Vegetables

Zea mays

Cereals

Ipomoea

batatas

Starchy roots

Brassica

oleracea

Pulses

Phaseolus

vulgaris

Persea

americana

Musa

sapientum

Saccharum

officinarum L.

Sweets Fruits

Arachis

hypogaea

Spices

Capsicum

annum

16

4.2.1 How crop diversity varies: timepoints & agro-ecological zones

17

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Mumias

Vihiga

Summed Dominance Ratio (SDR) between September- October 2012

Cereals

Starchy roots/ tubers/green bananas

Vegetables

Fruits

Pulses/nuts/seeds

Sweets

Spices/condiments

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Mumias

Vihiga

Summed Dominance Ratio (SDR) between November- December 2012

Cereals

Starchy roots/tubers/green bananas

Vegetables

Fruits

Pulses/nuts/seeds

Sweets

Spices/condiments

4.2.2 Factors influencing species richness

• Stepwise multiple regression analysis

• Positively influenced:

– Age of household heads

• Negatively influenced:

– Migration of either husband or wife

18

Independent variables significant at p<0.05 , with standardized beta coefficient (with non-standardized beta coefficient in

brackets) as:1 0.513(0.354), 2 -0.422 (-5.415)

4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity: Summary

19

Importance of some food groups varies with agro-ecological zones

Species richness is influenced by socioeconomic factors

5 Upcoming research

5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity 5.2 Gender & dietary diversity

20

5 Upcoming research

5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity 5.2 Gender & dietary diversity

21

5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity

• Species richness explains taxonomic identity, not functional identity

• Nutritional functional diversity metrics:

– Summarize nutritional diversity of cropping systems

• Previous studies:

– Presence/absence-based functional diversity metric (Remans et al., 2011, DeClerck

et al., 2011)

• Gap on abundance-based functional diversity metric

– Modified Functional Attribute Diversity (MFAD) metric (Schmera et al., 2009)

– To fill gap: available data on crop abundance, livestock diversity and uses,

income ranges

22

5.1 On-farm nutritional diversity: key questions

23

What nutrients are available and what are missing for smallholders

to meet a balanced diet?

Using market price as proxy for food accessibility, how does food

accessibility compare to income levels?

5 Upcoming research

5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity 5.2 Gender & dietary diversity

24

5 Upcoming research

5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity 5.2 Gender & dietary diversity

25

5.2 Gender and dietary diversity

• Households with higher incomes can compensate for reduced on-

farm agrobiodiversity....

....but depends on who controls the income

• Subsistence-oriented crops viewed as women’s ‘domestic’ domain

• On-farm cultivation of nutritious foods....

.... doesn’t translate to equal food access for all household members

26

5.2 Gender & dietary diversity: key questions

27

How does on-farm crop diversity vary between female and male

headed households?

Is there a relationship between agricultural and dietary diversity

among these households?

6. Conclusions & recommendations

28

• Diversified food products are required to achieve dietary diversity,

food and nutrition security.

• Smallholder farmers utilize multiple channels to attain household

food security.

• Different food procurement channels need equal consideration in

extension, research and development.

Acknowledgements

• Supervisors:

• Sources of funding:

– Tuition funding at Oxford: Rhodes Trust

– Project funding at Bioversity (for completed research):GIZ-BMZ

• Smallholder farmers & market traders

• Local administration & contact persons

29

30

Thank you

mary.kanui@ouce.ox.ac.uk