Titus O. Magomere
description
Transcript of Titus O. Magomere
Farmer participation in adoption of horticultural innovations in Kenya:
A comparison of Kakamega and Machakos district.
Titus O. Magomere
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.
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 people’s participation is the people’s 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.
Geneletti’s (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.
Farmer Participation in KenyaThe 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.
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.
Access tohorticultural
markets
Farmer Personal
Characteristics
Farmer participation
Adoption of Improved
technologies
Study districtsA 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.
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.
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.
Farmer’s attendance to demonstrations in horticulture,
Farmer’s attendance to agricultural shows,
Farmer’s community leadership roles,
Farmer’s attempts to solve own farm problems,
Farmer’s initiative to consult agricultural extension agents,
Farmer’s attendance to public barazas (meetings),
Farmer’s 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
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.
Kakamega Machakos
Level of participation (scores)
ƒ % Level of participation (scores) ƒ %
High (>6) 10 20 High (>6) 12 24
Average (3-6 scores) 27 54 Average (3-6 scores) 31 62
Low (<3 scores) 13 26 Low (<3 scores) 7 14
Total 50 100 Total 50 100
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.
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 .
Kakamega Machakos
Level of adoption (scores) ƒ % Level of adoption (scores) ƒ %
High (>6) 9 18 High (>6) 14 28
Average (3-6 scores) 25 50 Average (3-6 scores) 29 58
Low (<3 scores) 16 32 Low (<3 scores) 7 14
Total 50 100 Total 50 100
Results (farmer personal characteristics)
Table 3: Data on farmer’s age.
Kakamega Machakos
Age frequency percent Age frequency percent
30 7 14 30 6 12
30-45 20 40 30-50 19 38
45-60 16 32 45-60 15 30
60 7 14 50 10 20
TOTAL 50 100 TOTAL 50 100
Variables used
Age.
Formal education.
Marriage status.
Results (farmer personal characteristics)
Table 4: Data on farmer's years of formal education.
Kakamega Machakos
Yrs of education Frequency Percent Yrs of education Frequency Percent
none 17 34 none 14 28
1-4 14 28 1-4 18 36
5-8 12 24 5-8 11 22
8 7 14 8 7 14
TOTAL 50 100 TOTAL 50 100
Results (farmer personal characteristics)
Table 5: Data on farmer’s marriage status.
Kakamega Machakos
Marriage status Frequency Percent Marriage status Frequency Percent
Single 4 8 Single 2 4
Married 35 70 Married 39 74
Divorced 2 4 Divorced 3 6
Widowed 9 18 Widowed 6 12
TOTAL 50 100 TOTAL 50 100
Results (Easier accesibility to horticultural markets)
Table 6: Data on distance to market.
Kakamega Machakos
Market distance Frequency Percent Market distance Frequency Percent
Near (< 5Km) 10 20 Near 17 34
Average (5-20 Km) 24 48 Average 29 58
Far (> 20Km) 16 32 Far 4 8
TOTAL 50 100 TOTAL 50 100
Variables used
Distance from the market to the farm in kilometres
Post-harvest losses of products
Results (Easier accesibility to horticultural markets)
Table 7: Data on post harvest losses.
Kakamega Machakos
Losses Frequency Percent Losses Frequency Percent
50% 15 30 50% 6 12
25-50% 23 46 25-50% 27 54
25% 12 24 25% 17 34
TOTAL 50 100 TOTAL 50 100
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.
Participation Adoption Kakamega Machakos
Level Level ƒ % ƒ %
High High 12 24 20 40
Low 9 18 6 12
Low High 8 16 9 18
Low 21 42 15 30
χ2 = 4.433 df = 1 P= 0.05 (95%) R = 0.443
χ2 = 7.962 df = 1 P= 0.05 (95%) R = 0.597
There is a strong relationship between participation in horticultural extension and adoption of
better farm practices in Kakamega χ2 = 4.433 R = 0.443 and Machakos χ2 = 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.
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.
Farmer’s 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.
Farmer Easier accessibility to horticultural markets encourages farmer participation in horticultural
improvement programmes
Farmer’s 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.
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.
Thank You