Titus O. Magomere

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 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.

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 Farmer Personal Characteristics • 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 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. • 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

9. Results (Farmer participation) Table 1. Distribution of respondents according to their extent of participation in the horticultural extension process. • 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

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) Table 2: Distribution of respondents according to their levels of adoption of innovations in horticultural production . • 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.

12. Variables used • Age. • Formal education. • Marriage status. Results (farmer personal characteristics) Table 3: Data on farmer’s age.

13. Results (farmer personal characteristics) Table 4: Data on farmer's years of formal education.

14. Table 5: Data on farmer’s marriage status. Results (farmer personal characteristics)

15. Variables used • Distance from the market to the farm in kilometres • Post-harvest losses of products Results (Easier accesibility to horticultural markets) Table 6: Data on distance to market.

16. Results (Easier accesibility to horticultural markets) Table 7: Data on post harvest losses.

17. Table 8. The influence of farmer participation in the adoption of improved horticultural practises in Machakos and Kakamega. Farmer participation in horticultural improvement programmes positively influences their adoption of modern agricultural practices in Machakos and Kakamega • 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.

18. 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. Farmers personal characteristics influence farmer participation in horticultural improvement programs

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

20. 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. Conclusion

21. Thank You