Variety for Security: agricultural and nutritional diversity in Western Kenya
-
Upload
b4fn -
Category
Technology
-
view
127 -
download
3
description
Transcript of Variety for Security: agricultural and nutritional diversity in Western Kenya
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