Case study on farmer-to-farmer extension system in Kenya.

Presented at the International Farming Systems Association Seminar.

Rome, November 2005

 

KENYA’S AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

Kenya is primarily an agricultural country in which, agriculture constitutes a shrinking, but important 26% of the national gross domestic product.  Changes in national GDP figures over the last four decades since independence directly reflect changes in agricultural GDP and this in-turn mainly reflects changes in rainfall amounts and world prices for horticultural products, coffee and tea.

 

The role of the Kenya’s agricultural sector is to contribute to food security for the population estimated to be about 30 million (National Human Population and Housing Census, 1999).  The sector has not performed well due to many factors such as low productivity; produce marketing and the related problems, the long time unfavorable policies and unfavorable weather conditions. Due to the population pressure, land, which is the single most important natural resource for agriculture, has continuously been subdivided.  This has led to some parts of arid and semi-arid lands initially unsuitable for crop farming having been converted into agricultural use while sections of natural forests initially protected, have been cultivated in order to provide food and livelihood support to the 67% of the Kenyans living in the rural areas. The number of people estimated to be living in poverty was 17 million (56% of the population by the year 2001).   Three quarters of the poor people live in rural areas, according to welfare monitoring surveys (Ministry of Planning and National Development, 2003).

 

The role played by agriculture in the Kenyan economy cannot be overemphasized.  The sector is expected to contribute to the national economic recovery as envisaged in the Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation. The sector contributes 26% directly to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and a further 27% indirectly. The sector accounts for 80% of rural employment, 60% of export earnings, 45% of annual government revenue and almost all raw materials for agro-industries.   The Kenyan agriculture is mainly rain-fed with 20% of land being medium to high potential and producing most of the crops while 75% is arid and semi-arid lands (Nasals), receiving little and unreliable rainfall and is best suited for extensive livestock production. The ASAL areas are the main source of red meat and are occupied by pastoralists and agro-pastoralists.

 

Six commodities, namely, beef cattle, dairy products, maize, tea, coffee and domestic horticulture account for 68% of the agricultural production and contributes about 17% of Kenya’s total economy.  Agriculture-related activities, including transportation, trading and processing, make for another 20-30% of the economic activity, signifying that agriculture and its related activities are responsible for up to half of the economic activity in the country (IEA, 2001).

 

Notwithstanding the fact that small-scale farms contribute 80% of the agricultural GDP, many of these farms do not provide farmers with sufficient means to live on; 50% of Kenya’s rural farming households are involved in off-farm income–earning activities (Tegemeo Institute, 1998). These together with the low contribution to agricultural production by the arid interior lowlands (80% of land area) constitute the key issues in Kenyan agriculture today.

 

 

THE EXTENSION SYSTEM IN KENYA IN THE LAST THREE DECADES

The extension and research systems in Kenya have been a public good provided by the government with the help of development agencies during the 1970 and 1980’s. Different models of extension were used but all had a component of the “expert” and the “recipients”. The 1990’s brought the structural adjustment programs by the World Bank which essentially meant that government should get out of non-core business of offering services and allow the private sector to take over. For this reason the government announced liberalisation of services which hitherto where provided free of charge. The expectation was that the private sector would take up these roles which were no longer in the domain of government. The problem, however was that there was no private sector which was ready and willing to invest in this sector. There was therefore a total collapse of the extension system in the country. This is a big challenge in a country where most of the small-holder farmers are not agronomists and most are not even literate.

The Kenya National federation of Agricultural Producers (KENFAP) was confronted by the need for extension services by the members, who had nowhere else to turn to and demanded that the organisation get ways and means of offering this important service without which most farmers were neither able to make a living out of farming as nor pay their membership due This became a major condition for members to pay their membership dues. While the organisation took a new turn to meet this new challenge, there were great challenges of resources in terms of capital and personnel.

 

THE PRACTICE

 

To overcome the above constraints KENFAP through the executive board decided to use the FAO farmer schools concept. However, they did not have the resources to engage the extension staff and they therefore adopted the system to suit their meagre resources. The members themselves offered to have some of the farmers as trainers and leaders in this process as hiring of staff like the government or FAO was not possible. Hence the method got the name “Farmer –to-farmer extension”.

A project was formulation by the author with the help of the Country Director of FAO who was persuaded about this collaboration and offered information on the methodoly of the farmer field schools, to seek resources from FAO. The Ministry of Agriculture had been also persuaded as the grant would be signed by the Minister of Agriculture. A tripartite agreement was then formed with the FAO, Ministry of Agriculture and KENFAP.

The initial pilot was in three districts in Kenya; Muranga, Nyeri and Kiambu

 

There were 10 field schools in every district and 5 would be run by government extension workers and 5 by farmers (members of KENFAP). The training was conducted by FAO trainers already trained through the farmer –field schools programme. This meant having farmers trained with ministry technical staff and this was quite a new experience for the two groups.

 

Farmers formed schools, where they discussed with other members and made priorities for their training. The work of the lead farmer was to get the resource people to assist in the identified areas of learning from the whole spectrum of service providers and this was done with the help of the KENFAP field officers. Seed money was needed to pay for the costs of this resource person as the training took place on farmers’ fields. The farmers were also resource people teaching the others a practice that worked for them in their own fields. These field schools are still on-going as they could go on with very little support and members are able to contribute to sustain the process. Over time KENFAP has got more resources and have expanded and continue to provide seed money for new innovations which require an external input.

This process proved very successful and some schools have become full fledged commodity groups. An example is the Maragua Banana Producers who started this way and were able to focus on the development of Banana production for consumption and market. Other groups in Nyeri were able to penetrate the export market with fresh produce and in Kiambu; they have concentrated on the leafy vegetable for the local supermarkets and other outlets.

 

ASSESSMENT AND IMPACT

This process give rise to the reality that farmers could indeed be in charge of determining their own needs and addressing them as opposed to the top-down extension approach of the 1970’s and the 1980’s.

The most impact aspect is that farmers were able to come together at the local level not only to do the learning but to be able to influence the market and do collective bargaining, increasing their chances of earning a good price in the market. Others were able to penetrate the export market as they were able to achieve the right quantity to allow for collection by the export companies. These are normally the very small holders who would not otherwise have been able to penetrate the market on their own.

 

This experience shifted the focus of KENFAP from being entirely a lobby network to an organisation providing services to the members.

This model of working has been adopted in the Kenya Agricultural Productivity Program and farmers are now in a position to choose their extension providers from and alley of service providers.

 

Lessons learnt

• There is a real need to empower farmers by making them get involved in decision making right at their level
• This process empowers farmers to understand their place in the development chain and they are better able to demand service from third parties
• There is high level of sustainability as the farmers are active actors being trainers themselves and teaching each other through learning by doing
• This is a grassroots process right where the poor live and they are all included in the process regardless of their land size and asset level
• The extension/ service providers have been able to appreciate the farmers as real partners other than receivers of knowledge.

 

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO CHANGE

Any change in the social sector requires champions who are willing to be unpopular with changing from the known to the unknown. The factors attributed to this were a real overhaul of the organisation and a new restructing to take up these new roles.

 This meant new leadership and staff who were willing to walk this unfamiliar path. New development partners with the same kind of vision and this requires a lot of boldness as it can be a real risk for an organisation. The leaders must be willing to say no to development partners who want to impose their development models on them. The old staff who did things differently both in the ministry and KENFAP had a lot of opposition to this way of working and many had to get out of the way.

The other main constraint was the policies were not inline with this kind of working though the liberalisation had taken place. This means there was no real framework and great room for resistance from the government staff. This was however resolved through personal persuasion.

 

MAINSTREAMING AND SCALING-UP

 

This is an excellent process as the production is determined by the producers themselves, the most important factor is to have food for the family and surplus for the market. The fact that the farmers are able to exchange with their other members in other parts of the country opens opportunities for markets elsewhere in the country, the advantage of the membership in the organisation.

The work has been promoted in the 20 districts where the Kenya Productivity Program is taking place and KENFAP is taking the lead. More needs to be done to train and get more members involved.