RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR KENYA’S CUT-FLOWER …MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoU Memorandum of...
Transcript of RESEARCH PRIORITIES FOR KENYA’S CUT-FLOWER …MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoU Memorandum of...
TECHNOPOLICY BRIEF 14
Maurice BoloNancy M. MuthokaRacheal WashisinoVirginia MwaiDaniel Kisongwo
RESEARCH PRIORITIES FORKENYA’S CUT-FLOWERINDUSTRY: FARMERS’PERSPECTIVES
AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORK
Published by
The African Technology Policy Studies NetworkP.O. Box 10081 - 00100, General Post Office,
Nairobi, Kenya.
© 2006 African TechnologyPolicy Studies Network (ATPS)
ISBN:
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Printed byMajestic Printing Works
ABOUT THE AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NET-WORKThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multi-disciplinarynetwork of researchers, policy makers, actors in the private sector and otherend-users interested in generating, promoting and strengthening innovativescience and technology policies in Africa. With a regional secretariat in Nairobi,the network operates through national chapters in 23 African countries, withan expansion plan to cover the entire sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the objectives of the network is to disseminate research results to policymakers, legislators, the organized private sector, civil society, mass media andfarmers’ groups through publications, dialogue and advocacy. Among its rangeof publications are the Working Paper Series (WPS), Research Paper Series(RPS), Special Paper Series (SPS) and the Technopolicy Briefs.
ATPS is supported by a growing number of donors including the InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC), the Carnegie Corporation of New York,the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, the OPEC Fund, Ford Foundation,Coca-Cola Eastern Africa, the African Development Bank, and the Royal DutchGovernment.
ABOUT THE TECHNICAL CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURALAND RURAL COOPERATION (CTA)The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) wasestablished in 1983 under the Lome Convention between the ACP (AfricanCaribbean and Pacific) Group of States and the European Union Member States.Since 2000, it has operated within the framework of ACP-EC Cotonou Agreement.
CTA’s tasks are to develop and provide services that improve access toinformation for agricultural and rural development and to strengthen thecapacity of ACP countries to produce, acquire, exchange and utilise informationin this area. CTA’s programmes are designed to: provide a wide range ofinformation products and services and enhance awareness to relevantinformation sources; promote the integrated use of appropriate communicationchannells and intensify contacts and information exchange (particularly intra-ACP); and develop ACP capacity to generate and manage agriculturalinformation and to formulate ICM strategies, including those relevant to scienceand technology. CTA’s work incorporates new developments in methodologiesand cross-cutting issues such as gender and social capital.
Acronyms
ACP African Caribbean and PacificATPS African Technology Policy Studies NetworkCTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural
CooperationEU European UnionHCDA Horticultural Crops Development AuthorityJKUAT Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and
TechnologyKARI Kenya Agricultural Research InstituteMoA Ministry of AgricultureMoU Memorandum of Understanding
1.0 Background 1
2.0 The Contribution of Research in the FloricultureIndustry 3
3.0 The Case for Demand-led Research in FloricultureSub-sector 7
4.0 Farmers’ Key Concerns 9
5.0 Research Priorities: A Farmers’ Agenda 12
6.0 Other Non-research Concerns 15
7.0 Survey and Comparisons of Farmers’ Prioritieswith Current/on-going Research in Kenya 17
8.0 Conclusions 20
Table of Contents
The Executive DirectorThe African Technology Policy Studies Network
3rd Floor, The Chancery, Valley RoadP.O. Box 10081 00100 General Post Office
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-020-2714092/168/498Fax: +254-020-2714028Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.atpsnet.org
For more information on this series and ATPS, contact:
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
1
Background
1.0
The Kenyan floriculture sub-sector is the fastest growing in thehorticultural sector contributing Kshs. 18, 719 billion (•207.99billion1) out of the total horticultural exports of Kshs. 32,590 billion(•362.1 billion) according to Horticultural Crops DevelopmentAuthority (HCDA) statistics (2005). In the last decade (1995-2004),Kenya’s cut flower export earnings grew by more than 300 percentat a time when the country’s overall export growth stood at 40percent. Over the same period, the volume of flower exportsincreased fifty-fold from 29,373 metric tones in 1995 to 81,217.83metric tons in 2005 (HCDA, 2005) as illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1: Volumes and values of cut flowers exported from Kenya(1995-2004)
Year Volume in Value in Value inMetricTonnes Kshs. Million Euros Million
1995 29,373 3,642 40.471996 35,212 4,366 48.511997 35,850 4,888 54.311998 30,220 4,857 53.971999 36,992 7,235 80.392000 38,757 7,166 79.622001 41,396 10,627 118.082002 52,106 14,792 164.362003 60,983 16,496 183.292004 70,666.3 18,720 2082005 81,217.8 22,897 254.41
Source: HCDA Export statistics (all figures rounded to the nearest whole number)
1 All conversions are according to 2006 average exchange rates of Kshs. 90 to the euro
○ ○ ○ ○
2
Technopolicy Brief 14
It is noteworthy that the contribution of small-scale flower growersto these export figures is minimal and on the decline as illustratedin table 2. Recent findings by Fintrac (2005) have shown that theshare of summer flowers in the total flower exports is under atremendous decline (Table 2).
Table 2: Estimated share of summer flowers from total exportedflowers (2000-2003)
Volume (Million Tons) Value (KES Million)Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2001 2002 2003
Total 38756.7 41396 52106.7 60982.9 7165.6 10626.9 14792.3 16495.5exports
% share 13.5 9.2 6.4 5.1 8.6 6.2 4.1 4.8
of total
Source: Fintrac 2005
The Horticultural Crop Development Authority (HCDA) has notedthat there is enormous growth potential in the small-scale flowergrowers if appropriate financial and technical assistance as well asa supportive policy can be put in place (Kiptum 2005). Most small-scale farmers are located in Nyandarua, Thika and Kiambu districtsand mostly grow summer flowers such as eryngium, arabicum,tuberose, mobydick, mollucella, ornis, lilies and agapanthus.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
3
The Contribution of Research in the FloricultureIndustry
2.0
The overall enormous growth in value, acreage and volume ofKenya’s cut flower industry has been largely attributed to a robustprivate sector involvement and externally-sourced knowledge andtechnologies. Kenya has adequate technical and human capacityand skills but this has not been adequately utilized by the industry.A study jointly conducted by the African Technology Policy StudiesNetwork (ATPS) and the Technical Centre for Agricultural andRural Cooperation (CTA) in 20042 found weak linkages/interactionsbetween the flower farmers and the local research system causingthe floriculture industry to rely on external3 knowledge to solve theindustry’s problems. This over-reliance on external knowledge hascontributed to the under-utilization of indigenous research capacityin Kenya, even though most of the stakeholders interviewedconcurred that Kenya has adequate skilled and well-trainedmanpower.
A number of factors explain the weak linkages and consequentunder-utilization of Kenya’s indigenous research capacity. Theyinclude:
2 The ATPS/CTA study in 2004 focused on the processes by which actors in the industryharness science, technology and innovation to bring new knowledge and technologies intoeconomic use. For further insight see Bolo (2005). “Agricultural, Science, Technology andInnovation Systems: the case of Kenya’s floriculture industry.” CTA, the Netherlands.3 External knowledge in this case refers to knowledge which is sourced from outside Kenyaand for which Kenya’s flower farmers have to pay heavy consultancy fees and royalties. Itis knowledge generated by the international research as contrasted with the local researchsystem
○ ○ ○ ○
4
Technopolicy Brief 14
a. Organizational cultures and proceduresOver time, organizations develop certain habits and practices thatdetermine how they relate to other actors within the system andrespond to ‘new shocks.’ The weak linkages between the localresearch system and the flower growers is characteristic of the private– public institutions dichotomy. The large flower growers (whodominate flower business) are private companies who are interestedin keeping trade secrets to ensure their survival and competitivenessin the market. On the other hand, the local research system consistsmostly of public institutions, such as, Kenya Agricultural ResearchInstitute (KARI) and the universities whose mandate includes serviceto the nation and are obligated to disseminate any information thatwould help improve the livelihoods of the general populace. Thepublic research system therefore considers such information,knowledge and technologies as public goods. This divergentapproach to information and knowledge acquisition, sharing anduse undermines a close interaction and sharing of knowledge andinformation between the industry and the public researchinstitutions.
Moreover, the slow, bureaucratic procedures in the public researchinstitutes undermine their ability to respond to urgent farmers’requests. During the interviews, farmers narrated their experienceswith public research institutions whereby it took up to four monthsto get results from local laboratories, whereas if they sent samplesto laboratories abroad, it would take them about two working daysto get results by email. Farmers’ needs (such as disease outbreaks)are usually urgent and require immediate solutions. The delays fromthe local public research system forces farmers to seek solutions frominternational research establishments.
b. Attitudes and perceptionsMore often, research priorities in public institutions are set by thescientific community with little attempt to involve the beneficiariesin priortiy setting. This tendency has led to research institutions
○ ○ ○ ○
5
Research Priorities for Kenya’s Cut-flower Industry: Farmers’ Perspectives
being isolated from the immediate needs of society. This approachis often motivated by the assumption that the scientists andresearchers know what the farmers want. As such, research oftenignores farmers’ perceptions hence the outcome often does notsatisfy farmers’ needs. It is noteworthy that KARI has beguninvolving stakeholders and intended beneficiaries in setting theresearch agenda for the institute and has involved other stakeholdersin priority setting since mid 1990s.
Farmers in their daily activities experiment and continuouslyinnovate, sometimes accidentally. Unfortunately, scientists/researchers fail to notice these innovations and when they do, theyquestion the scientific basis of farmer’s innovations. While thescientific rigour should not be compromised, it is important thatthe research community appreciate that the farmer innovationsprovide solutions to their (farmers’) immediate problems. Theresearch community should consider how to optimize/add valueto and improve the farmer innovations using approved scientificmethods. Flower farmers on the other hand are seldom willing todisclose their innovations to scientists and researchers for fear oflosing the innovations. Farmers also view researchers as better versedin theory while inexperienced and lacking in the practical skills offlower growing. These attitudes and lack of trust/confidence hinderthe smooth collaboration between the farmers and the researchers/scientists.
c. Weak operational capacity of public institutionsThough Kenya has the requisite technical and human capacity toserve the floriculture industry, they are not adequately financed torespond effectively to the farmers’ needs. This has been attributedto lack of funds and operating facilities. During the interviews, itemerged that KARI-THIKA had introduced some flower varieties(such as mobydick, lilies, gerbera, gladiolus amongst others) whichhad been tested in parts of Nairobi, Eastern and Central provinces.These varieties proved popular with the small-scale farmers but the
○ ○ ○ ○
6
Technopolicy Brief 14
farmers lacked the capacity to continually produce these flowersand tended to rely heavily on KARI-THIKA to support theirenterprises through provision of seeds. KARI-THIKA helped small-scale farmers import seeds for lilies but the farmers were unable tocontinue after the KARI-THIKA support ceased while the Centerhas been able to supply seeds for certain flower varieties such asarabicum and gladiolus. The Center has taken to signing memorandaof understanding (MoU) with large-scale flower farmers for serviceprovision in which the large-scale farmers meet part of the costs ofthe services rendered.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
7
3.0
The Case for Demand-led Research inFloriculture Sub-sector
The above findings underscore the need to improve the interfacebetween and among scientists, researchers, farmers, policy makersand service providers and build the capacity of industry stakeholdersto conduct demand-led research. There is also the need for greaterrecognition of the value of farmers’ experimentation and innovation.
In response to that need, a multi-stakeholder team comprising theMinistry of Agriculture (MoA), the Kenya Agricultural ResearchInstitute (KARI), the Horticultural Crops Development Authority(HCDA) and Karen Roses Ltd (representing farmers) under theleadership of ATPS and with financial support from CTA embarkedon a national case study whose main purpose was to accord farmersand other research consumers greater involvement in setting theresearch agenda for the industry. The team held consultativemeetings with farmers (with special emphasis on the small-scalefarmers) and other stakeholders in order to foster closer collaborationbetween the local research system and the flower industry.
The specific objectives of these consultations were:• To facilitate the development and implementation of
demand-led research programmes• To bring relevant issues to the attention of policymakers• To build capacity of stakeholders in participatory research
priority setting• To facilitate closer dialogue between the research community
and the beneficiaries and consumers of research outputs
○ ○ ○ ○
8
Technopolicy Brief 14
These consultations realized two key outcomes namely:• Farmers came up with a prioritized list of research topics
that would address both the short-term and long-termneeds of the industry
• Farmers and other stakeholders drew up a list ofrecommendations that would require policyinterventions/action in order to strengthen the industry.
This policy brief summarizes the results of consultative meetingswith farmers and other stakeholders in Thika, Limuru and Naivashaheld between March and June 2006. It also highlights some non-research policy recommendations suggested by the farmers duringthese consultations.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
9
4.0
Farmers’ Key Concerns
During the consultative meetings, farmers raised a number of keyissues undermining their ability to attain optimum productivity.These issues are summarized below:
a. Harnessing Farmers’ InnovationsFarmers continuously innovate but the innovations need to be‘perfected’ and scaled up. When farmers are innovating, the processof experimentation and innovation is seen as part of the daily routineand activities. Farmers narrated how in the course of their dailyactivities, they discovered a lot of bio-control agents in the farmsthat were useful in controlling various pests and emphasized thatthis knowledge needed to be harnessed through continuousinteractions between the farmers and researchers at the farm level.They called for a liaison officer who would pick up these innovationsand use research methods to scale up the innovations, improve themethodologies and come up with scientifically tested products.Farmers suggested that KARI (and other research institutions)should work closely with farmers and engage itself in the isolation,documentation and replication of these local technologies in pestmanagement.
Farmers applauded the efforts of the input suppliers who had theirrepresentatives stationed in the growing areas. These representativesvisited and interacted with farmers in their farms, helped identifyfarmers’ problems and provided solutions. Research institutions areencouraged to emulate this example to allow researchers interactmore closely with farmers to enable them pick up, modify theinnovations, monitor progress and give feedback to farmers.Moreover, the farmers’ experiences form a crucial body of tacit
○ ○ ○ ○
10
Technopolicy Brief 14
knowledge that can be harnessed to form the basis of new researchin the industry.
b. Development of indigenous flowers for commercializationFarmers noted that there was over-reliance on imported varietiessuch as roses, carnations, lilies, alstromeria amongst others for whichfarmers have to pay royalties. They noted that Kenya is rich inbiological diversity and research should be conducted on Kenya’sflora to identify and develop indigenous flower varieties forcommercialization. The KARI case of mobydick is an example ofhow local research could be targeted to harness the country’sbiodiversity. It also emerged that farmers have been trying todomesticate some wild flowers such as papyrus (Cyperus papyrusL) on their own and called upon the researchers to support theirefforts to introduce new flowers in the market.
Closely related with the need to develop indigenous flowers, farmersalso strongly recommended the breeding of new flowers that couldbe “branded Kenyan.” The farmers raised concern that even thoughKenya is the largest exporter of cut flowers in Africa andcommanded a huge share of the EU market, the country had notbred its own flowers and still relied heavily on growing importedvarieties.
c. Exploitation of small-scale exporters by middlemenSmall-scale flower farmers and exporters have difficulties accessingthe international export market due to stringent phyto-sanitarystandards, high freight costs, lack of knowledge of these marketsamongst other constraints. This has created room for middlemenwho enter into loose agreements with farmers to buy their flowersor help them access the export markets. Farmers narrated numerouschallenges they faced with these unregulated middlemen includinglow buying prices and failure to honour agreements (failing to collectproduce) leading to huge losses by the farmers. The farmers stressedthe need to form cooperatives to help them improve their bargaining
○ ○ ○ ○
11
Research Priorities for Kenya’s Cut-flower Industry: Farmers’ Perspectives
positions and urged the government to facilitate the formation ofthese cooperative societies. The small-scale farmers furtherrecommended that they be facilitated to negotiate legally bindingcontracts with the middlemen and ensure they were not exploitedwhen entering into such agreements.
d. Lack of research informationThe farmers decried the lack of easily accessible information onvarious flower growing aspects including; knowledge on flowervarieties per ecological zones, production technologies andmarketing. This lack of information partly explains why farmersturn to international companies for solutions. The farmers stronglyrecommended the establishment of a Floriculture Center withbranches in the major growing areas to act as a one-stop shop wherefarmers could find information on all the flower growing aspects.The farmers further suggested that this Center should be designedin a manner that woud allow farmers to display their innovationsand share their knowledge and information with other farmers aswell as scientists and researchers. In addition, the farmersrecommended that brochures containing research findings be madeavailable and in local languages.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
12
Research Priorities: A Farmer’s Agenda
5.0
For any research activity to be useful, it must be sensitive to localneeds and priorities as well as allow ownership of its agenda by theintended beneficiaries. In the case of floriculture research, farmersand exporters are the key stakeholders and their views should helpinform research decisions. During the consultative meetings in themajor growing areas (Thika, Limuru and Naivasha) farmersidentified and prioritized their research needs. They also suggestedsolutions to some of the challenges facing the industry. Table1(opposite page) shows the areas identified and the steps the farmershave suggested for the research community as well as thepolicymakers.
○ ○ ○ ○
13
Research Priorities for Kenya’s Cut-flower Industry: Farmers’ Perspectives
Pro
ble
m A
rea
Pro
ble
m D
escr
ipti
on
Far
mer
s’ S
ug
ges
ted
So
luti
on
Pes
ts a
nd
- Far
mer
s la
ck k
now
ledg
e an
d ad
equa
te- M
ore
rese
arch
on
avai
labl
e, a
fford
able
, effe
ctiv
e bi
o-co
ntro
l met
hods
Dis
ease
s in
form
atio
n on
alte
rnat
ive
bio-
cont
rol
- T
rain
ing
on re
leva
nt p
est c
ontr
ol m
etho
dolo
gies
and
opt
ions
met
hods
for
pest
con
trol
of p
est c
ontr
ol.
Dev
elo
pm
ent o
f-
Far
mer
s ov
er-r
elia
nce
on s
ame
flow
erR
esea
rch
shou
ld fo
cus
on id
entif
icat
ion
and
test
ing
of d
iffer
ent f
lora
for
new
/ in
dig
eno
us
varie
ties
sinc
e th
e ea
rly 1
990s
pote
ntia
l use
vari
etie
s- T
he p
oten
tial o
f loc
al b
iodi
vers
ity is
not
- D
evel
opm
ent o
f ind
igen
ous
varie
ties
for c
omm
erci
aliz
atio
n; c
olle
ct
bein
g fu
lly h
arne
ssed
/exp
loite
dlo
cal g
erm
plas
m, i
mpr
ove
them
and
test
in o
vers
eas
mar
kets
.
- Ken
ya o
ver-
relia
nce
on im
port
ed v
arie
ties
- H
arne
ss in
dige
nous
kno
wle
dge
on w
ild fl
ower
s w
ithin
loc
al
yet
the
coun
try
is a
key
exp
orte
r of f
low
ers
com
mun
ities
, doc
umen
t and
test
them
- B
reed
ers
shou
ld b
e su
ppor
ted
to c
ome
up w
ith n
ew v
arie
ties
and
get
a “K
enya
n b
ran
d”
Po
st h
arve
st- L
ack
of p
ost-
harv
est h
andl
ing
know
ledg
e- T
rain
ing
of fa
rmer
s on
pos
t har
vest
han
dlin
g te
chni
ques
and
pra
ctic
es
han
dli
ng
- Hig
h po
st h
arve
st lo
sses
- Con
duct
rese
arch
on
alte
rnat
ive,
affo
rdab
le c
oolin
g, p
acki
ng a
nd
- Lac
k of
ade
quat
e, a
cces
sibl
e fa
cilit
ies
and
stor
age
met
hods
-
capa
city
- Con
duct
rese
arch
on
enha
ncin
g th
e po
st h
arve
st q
ualit
y of
diff
eren
t
flow
er ty
pes
Mar
keti
ng
- Exp
loita
tion
by m
iddl
emen
/bro
kers
- Enh
ance
cap
acity
of f
arm
ers
to s
ign/
ente
r int
o bi
ndin
g co
ntra
cts
with
- Lac
k of
aw
aren
ess
of in
tern
atio
nal t
rade
mid
dlem
en
agre
emen
ts- E
duca
te fa
rmer
s on
rele
vant
inte
rnat
iona
l tra
de a
gree
men
ts s
uch
as
- Lac
k of
info
rmat
ion
on m
arke
t tre
nds/
the
Lom
e IV
Con
vent
ion,
Eco
nom
ic P
artn
ersh
ips
Agr
eem
ents
(EP
A’s)
requ
irem
ents
and
WT
O) a
nd th
eir i
mpl
icat
ions
- Ina
bilit
y to
mee
t mar
ket s
tand
ards
/reg
ulat
ions
- Org
aniz
e re
gula
r for
ums
to s
ensi
tize
farm
ers
on m
arke
t tre
nds,
- Bra
ndin
g an
d br
and
iden
tity
(nee
d to
dev
elop
requ
irem
ents
and
sta
ndar
ds
mar
ketin
g ‘s
loga
ns’ f
or K
enya
n pr
oduc
ts)
- Res
earc
h on
cha
ngin
g m
arke
t tre
nds,
pre
fere
nces
and
requ
irem
ents
Ta
ble
1:
Far
mer
s’ r
esea
rch
an
d t
rain
ing
pri
ori
ties
○ ○ ○ ○
14
Technopolicy Brief 14
- Lac
k of
dom
estic
mar
ket f
or fl
ower
s- I
ncre
ase
farm
ers’
acc
ess
to IC
Ts to
ena
ble
them
obt
ain
mar
ket
info
rmat
ion
thro
ugh
the
inte
rnet
- D
evel
op a
Ken
yan
bran
d/sl
ogan
for K
enya
n flo
wer
s
- Con
duct
rese
arch
to q
uant
ify th
e lo
cal d
eman
d/m
arke
t and
dev
elop
it
for
loca
l var
ietie
s
Info
rmat
ion
- Far
mer
s ar
e no
t exp
osed
to re
sear
ch fi
ndin
gs- D
isse
min
ate
rese
arch
find
ings
wid
ely
thro
ugh
non-
tech
nica
l bro
chur
es
Dis
sem
inat
ion
- Lac
k of
info
rmat
ion
on fl
ower
var
ietie
s su
itabl
ean
d in
loca
l lan
guag
es
for d
iffer
ent a
gro-
ecol
ogic
al z
ones
- lac
k of
- Set
up
a flo
ricul
ture
cen
ter w
ith b
ranc
hes
in m
ajor
gro
win
g ar
eas
upda
tes
on th
e ne
w in
nova
tions
in p
rodu
cts
- Set
up
info
rmat
ion
desk
s in
the
maj
or g
row
ing
area
s
and
farm
ing
tech
niqu
es- H
old
regu
lar m
eetin
gs/in
tera
ctio
ns b
etw
een
rese
arch
ers
and
farm
ers
- Ina
cces
sibi
lity
to in
form
atio
n in
rura
l are
as- T
ap, d
ocum
ent a
nd d
isse
min
ate
farm
ers’
dis
cove
ries
and
indi
geno
us k
now
ledg
e
Inp
uts
- Poo
r ski
lls in
fert
ilize
r and
tech
nolo
gy- R
esea
rch
on a
nd tr
ain
farm
ers
on e
ffici
ent f
ertil
izer
use
, wat
er h
arve
stin
g
appl
icat
ions
- Mas
s pr
oduc
tion
of c
lean
pla
ntin
g m
ater
ials
e.g
. thr
ough
tiss
ue
- Wat
er c
atch
men
t are
as g
ettin
g de
stro
yed
due
cultu
re a
nd c
ertif
ied
seed
s
to b
ad fa
rmin
g m
etho
ds- I
mpr
ove
acce
ss to
affo
rdab
le a
nd re
liabl
e so
il pH
ana
lysi
s an
d pe
st
- Far
mer
s do
not
kno
w w
hich
fert
ilize
rs to
use
anal
ysis
adv
isor
y ce
nter
s
and
whe
n to
app
ly th
em- D
evel
opm
ent o
f ind
igen
ous
mat
eria
ls in
to p
estic
ides
- H
igh
inpu
t cos
ts, s
uch
as, s
eed
and
- Dev
elop
bio
logi
cal m
etho
ds/p
lant
ext
ract
s to
redu
ce th
e ex
cess
ive
inor
gani
c fe
rtili
zers
pest
icid
e us
e
- Ina
dequ
ate
clea
n pl
antin
g m
ater
ial
- R
esea
rch
on w
ater
use
effi
cien
cy fo
r diff
eren
t flo
wer
type
s
tech
niqu
es, p
rote
ctio
n of
cat
chm
ents
are
as a
nd
chem
ical
use
; irr
igat
ion
equi
pmen
t and
met
hods
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
15
6.0
Other Non-research Concerns
There are other non-research concerns of flower farmers which cameup strongly during the consultations. They relate to governmentpolicies affecting floriculture, input prices and supplies and the needsfor infrastructural development. Table 2 (next page) summarizesthese concerns and the farmers’ recommendations.
○ ○ ○ ○
16
Technopolicy Brief 14
Pro
ble
m A
rea
Pro
ble
m D
escr
ipti
on
Su
gg
este
d S
olu
tio
n
Go
vern
men
t- G
over
nmen
t is
aloo
f to
smal
l-sca
le- G
over
nmen
t to
set u
p an
aud
it sy
stem
for f
arm
ers
and
cert
ify th
ose
who
sup
po
rtfa
rmer
pro
blem
sat
tain
thes
e st
anda
rds
- Hig
h co
sts
of p
rodu
ctio
n/in
puts
- Gov
ernm
ent t
o se
t up
and
enfo
rce
qual
ity s
tand
ards
- Hig
h ta
xatio
n (f
low
er fa
rmer
s ar
e ex
pose
d- H
arm
oniz
e an
d re
duce
taxa
tion
on fl
ower
s
to m
ultip
le o
f tax
es)
- Gov
ernm
ent t
o fo
rmul
ate
a m
arke
t-dr
iven
cur
ricul
um in
edu
catio
nal
- Str
ong
shill
ing
affe
cts
expo
rts/
inst
abili
ty o
fin
stitu
tions
to s
uppo
rt th
e in
dust
ry
pric
es- G
over
nmen
t to
form
ulat
e po
licie
s an
d fra
mew
orks
to fa
cilit
ate
e-co
mm
erce
- Gov
ernm
ent s
houl
d fa
cilit
ate
smal
l-sca
le fa
rmer
s to
atte
nd lo
cal a
nd
inte
rnat
iona
l exh
ibiti
ons
and
trad
e fa
res
- Gov
ernm
ent s
houl
d su
ppor
t man
ufac
ture
rs to
pro
duce
che
aper
loca
l
ferti
lizer
s
- The
Cen
tral
Ban
k of
Ken
ya s
houl
d re
gula
te th
e ap
prec
iatio
n of
the
shill
ing
agai
nst m
ajor
cur
renc
ies
to s
tem
loss
es
Infr
astr
uct
ure
- Few
/lack
of
cool
ing
faci
litie
s fo
r- C
reat
e co
nduc
ive
envi
ronm
ent f
or in
vest
men
t in
frei
ght s
ervi
ces
smal
l-sca
le fa
rmer
s- L
ocal
Aut
horit
ies
to m
aint
ain
all f
eede
r roa
ds
- Hig
h ca
rgo/
frei
ght a
nd h
andl
ing
char
ges
- Coo
ling
faci
litie
s to
be
esta
blis
hed
at fa
rm c
olle
ctio
n po
ints
to p
reve
nt
- Hig
h el
ectr
icity
cos
tsqu
ality
det
erio
ratio
n
- Poo
r roa
d an
d ra
il ne
twor
k- H
arne
ss s
olar
ene
rgy
for u
se a
s al
tern
ativ
e so
urce
of h
eatin
g du
ring
cold
nig
hts,
or s
ourc
e of
ene
rgy
Fin
anci
ng
/- L
ack
of f
arm
er-f
riend
ly p
rodu
cts
fina
ncin
g/- F
arm
ers
shou
ld b
e fa
cilit
ated
to fo
rm s
avin
gs a
nd c
redi
t coo
pera
tives
Cre
dit
faci
litie
scr
edit
inst
itutio
ns(s
acco
s) to
offe
r sof
t loa
ns to
them
- Hig
h in
tere
st ra
tes
on lo
ans
from
- B
anks
sho
uld
have
inno
vativ
e pr
oduc
ts ta
ilore
d to
the
need
s of
the
com
mer
cial
ban
ksin
dust
ry
Ta
ble
2:
Fa
rmer
s’ n
on
-res
earc
h c
on
cern
s
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
17
7.0
Survey and Comparisons of Farmers’ Prioritieswith Current/On-going Research in Kenya
It is noteworthy that KARI has begun involving stakeholders andintended beneficiaries in setting the institute’s research agenda. KARIconducted its first priority setting workshop in 1996 and morerecently in 2005. This workshop identified key constraints affectingsmallholder flower farmers as inadequate supply of clean plantingmaterial, obsolete flower varieties, lack of appropriate productiontechnology and poor post-harvest handling.
The institute then embarked on research to address these constraintsstructured along the following themes: production (cropmanagement, crop protection and post harvest handling) andvarietal development.
In crop production, technologies for various flower crops (gladiolus,arabicum, ornis, erygium, lilies and gerbera) were developed anddisseminated to more than 2000 flower farmers throughdemonstrations, field days, field schools and training in Central andEastern provinces in Kenya. Thirty seven (37) varieties of lilies(Oriental, Eastern and Asiatic) were introduced from Europe andevaluated. Out of these, ten (10) varieties have been recommendedfor commercialization. A further twenty two (22) varieties of gerberawere introduced and their performance tested both on-station andon-farm and six (6) varieties were released for commercialization.Nine (9) varieties of gladiolus were introduced and evaluated andsix (6) varieties released for commercialization.
Research in crop management technologies has concentrated ondetermination of spacing and nutrition requirements for a variety
○ ○ ○ ○
18
Technopolicy Brief 14
of flowers, while major insect pests and diseases have also beenidentified and documented. Integrated pest management (IPM)options for the control of soft rot disease in flowers was developedas was a tissue culture propagation protocol for lilies.
Floriculture research in Kenyan Universities:Floriculture research is being done in various Kenyan Universitiesincluding: the University of Nairobi, Egerton University, MoiUniversity, Maseno University, Jomo Kenyatta University ofAgriculture and Technology and Kenya Methodist University.
A brief survey on current and on-going research work at theuniversities revealed that some of the research projects carried outin various universities include:
• Effect of neem and aloe extracts on powdery mildew on roeplants (Egerton University)
• Effect of gibberellic acid, shade and vernalization onproductivity of Ranunculus asiaticus (Persian buttercup)grown in the Kenyan Highlands (Egerton University)
• Intercropping roses and spider plant to control spider miteson rose plants (Thesis; Egerton University)
• Survival of propagated roses (Rosa hybrida) as affected byage and storage periods of cut-wood (Maseno University)
• The effectiveness of glyphosates as an inhibitor of tropicresponses in cut roses (Maseno University)
• In vitro culture on lilies-Project (JKUAT)
• Control of Erwinia Soft Rot in Zantadeschia (JKUAT)
• Calla Lily in vitro culture for Hatabor Rainbow Bloom –Limuru (JKUAT)
• Evaluation of different propagation media and techniquesfor ornamental crops (Moi University)
• Domestication of indigenous plants for use as ornamentalcrops for both small- and large-scale farmers (Moi University)
○ ○ ○ ○
19
Research Priorities for Kenya’s Cut-flower Industry: Farmers’ Perspectives
• In vitro propagation and gene manipulation or ornamentalcrops (Moi University)
• Proposed research: The use of medicinal plant extracts asbiopesticides (Kenya Methodist University)
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
20
8.0
Conclusions
a. PoliciesThe government should target/harness the latent potential of small-scale flower farmers/exporters through well packaged policyincentives. Kenyan small-scale farmers face a different set ofchallenges from the large scale farmers and the “one-size-fits-all”policies for the industry may not be the most effective ways ofpromoting the industry. Whereas large-scale producers/exportershave overcome most of the production constraints and are focusingmore on marketing/markets, the small-scale farmers have a widearray of problems that can be better tackled through policies focusedand targeted at their special needs.
b. ResearchA comparison between the farmers’ research needs vis-à-vis the on-going and current research reveals that the public research systemsemphasize more on crop production and pests and diseases whilethe farmers’ agenda is much broader. A quick scan through theresearch in public research institutions showed that:
i. Kenyan small-scale farmers yearn for a product/varietybranded “Kenyan” and have been attempting todomesticate wild flowers. Besides, the farmers holdvaluable indigenous knowledge on the pesticidal effects ofsome flowers and trees. Biological control methods are alsodiscovered continuously through the farmers’ interactionwith nature. The government and research communityshould tap and develop this knowledge. In so doing, theymust ensure that the “holders of this knowledge”- thefarmers - are adequately recognized and compensated.
○ ○ ○ ○
21
Research Priorities for Kenya’s Cut-flower Industry: Farmers’ Perspectives
ii. Research on inputs seems narrowly focused on seeds andplant media. It should be recognized that issues such asfertilizer combinations and efficiency, water use efficiency;equipment/methods, soil pH analysis amongst othersconstitute inputs to the farmers and research should begeared towards improving them too.
c. MarketsThere’s little focus on market research for the industry. Indeed,even the local/domestic market for flowers is not quantified eventhough a survey conducted by KARI in 2004 estimated it to beapproximately Kshs. 300 million annually. In the same year, HCDAestimated that small-scale farmers exported flowers worth Kshs.500 million accounting for 3 per cent of total flower exports.
It is imperative that the small-scale farmers are linked to markets(both domestic and export) in order to thrive. Indeed, a recent studyby Muthoka (2006) has concluded that, “small-holder summerflower production can only be profitable if the farmer is able to getaccess to relevant information that will assist in making the decisionson what to produce and when to produce”. Information on markettrends demands, tastes and preferences, transactional costs andprices should be easily available and updated.
Market access is closely related to phyto-sanitary compliance andproper (pre- and post-harvest) handling of flowers. As yet, there isminimal emphasis on post-harvest handling and training for thesmall-scale farmers. This constitutes an opportunity for the researchand training institutions.
○ ○ ○ ○ ○
22
Bolo, M. (2005). “Agricultural, science, technology and innovationsystems: the case of Kenya’s floriculture industry.” CTA, theNetherlands.
Kiptum, B.K. (2005). Building export markets for Kenyan flowers:challenges and opportunities facing small scale flower growers inKenya. Paper presented at the ATPS/CTA nationaldissemination and exhibition workshop on the flower industryin Kenya on March 31, 2005 in Nairobi.
Muthoka, N.M. and Muriithi, A.N. (2006). Smallholder summer Flowerproduction in Kenya: A myth or a prospect? Paper presented atthe 27th International Horticultural Congress (IHC), Seoul Korea13th -19th August 2006. Submitted to ACTA Horticulturae.
Research priorities at KARI Thika, 2005: Report of the prioritizationworkshop held at KARI-Thika on December 6th - 8th, 2005. KARI-THIKA, Kenya, edited by A. Muriuki, N.M. Muthoka, B.W.Ndungu, J. Kibaki, A.M. Ndegwa, G.W. Mbugua, J.K. Gitonga,B.K. Chege, and C.N. Waturu.
References
ATPS Technopolicy Briefs Series
Who Benefits from the New International Intellectual Property Rights Regime?And What Should Africa Do? by Ha-Joon Chang(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 1)
How Can We Constitutionalize Innovation, Technology and IntellectualProperty in Kenya ? by Bernard Sihanya(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 2)
What Can Biotechnology Do For Africa? How Can The Associated Risks AndUncertainties Be Managed? by Norman Clark(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 3)
Who Needs Technology Policy? by Ha-Joon Chang(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 4)
Keeping Hunger at Bay: Genetic Engineering and Food Security in sub-SaharanAfrica by John Mugabe(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 5)
Science in a Globalizing World: Implications for Africa by AweleMaduemezia(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 6)
How can Science and Technology in Africa be Formulated and Implemented?by Osita Ogbu(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 7)
How can Science and Technology Policy Aid Nigeria’s Reconstruction? byOsita Ogbu(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 8)
Can Africa Develop without Science and Technology by Osita Ogbu(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 9)
How can Innovation Systems and Innovative Clusters be used to DevelopAfrica? by Osita Ogbu(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 10)
What Danger Lies in the WTO-NAMA Negotiations for Africa? by Ha-JoonChang(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 12)
Maurice Bolo is a Research Officer and the Project Coordinator with the AfricanTechnology Policy Studies Network (ATPS).
Nancy Muthoka is a Research Officer with Kenya Agricultural Research Institute(KARI-THIKA).
Racheal Washisino is the Depot Manager (Limuru), Horticultural CropsDevelopment Authority (HCDA).
Virginia Mwai is the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture(MoA).
Daniel Kisongwo is the Farm Manager, Karen Roses Ltd.