SCALING UP OF MICRO-CATCHMENT WATER HARVESTING
TECHNIQUES FOR FRUIT TREES PRODUCTION BY SMALL SCALE
FARMERS IN YATTA DISTRICT, KENYA
By
Mumu Joseph Munyi (B.Sc. Agric)
N50/10297/07
,
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Master of Environmental
Science (Agroforestry and Rural Development) in the School of Environmental Studies,
Kenyatta University
June 2011
Mumu, Joseph Munyi
Scaling up of
micro-catchment water
Ilmll~~nlIIIIHI~111I1III
2012/383355
Vr"'ll\./'.a -..-.. • ••.••. _ -
DECLARATION
This thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree or any other
award in any other University
Signed~ _
Mumu Joseph Munyi
Date -0!z1~I
This thesis has been submitted for examination with our approval as University
supervisors
1. Prof. James B. Kung'u
Associate Professor
Dep ent o~~tffillD-lJ~ental Sciences, Kenyatta University
Signed.-T-----TP'-~~---Da~ ,6\6~~t>\L-
2. Prof. Grace W. Bunyi
Associate Professor
Department of Educational Management, Policy and Studies, Kenyatta University
Sign_-=~_--==~=-··~-""---.---"-.:'tof--" Date--=G=---..l-\-=~=--\-,--:2.._C)_~\_\~,
3. Dr. Faith N. Nguthi
International Services for the Aquisation of Agribiotec Applications (ISAAA)/Kenya
Agricultural Research Institute (KARl)
Sign~ Date (. W '2.. I 1>----
DEDICATION
To my wife Winnie, my children Marvin and Adrian, who remained an inspiration and
stood by me throughout the study period. To my mother, your care and guidance has
shaped my life to what I am today.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to the Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya, for granting me a two year study
leave. I would like to thank my lead supervisor Prof James Kung'u under whose
guidance I was able to carry out my research within the project 'Bridging information
Gap between Researchers, Farmers and Extension in Water harvesting Technologies for
Fruit Trees Productivity in the Drylands' funded by the Commission for Higher
Education (CHE), Kenya I sincerely thank my other two supervisors Prof Grace Bunyi-,
of Kenyatta University and Dr. Faith N. Nguthi (ISAAA/KARI) for their valuable
contributions towards my research. I am indebted to the farming community in Yatta,
local leaders, Ministry of Agriculture technical staff (Yatta District headquarters and
Yatta Division) and the Ndalani Secondary School community for their active
participation in sharing their time, knowledge, views and support during my research
field work. I am also grateful to my colleague Peter Kariuki for his encouragement
throughout my study period.
Above all, praise is to the Almighty God for the gift of knowledge and opportunity to
serve other people through this work.
111
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration .i
Dedication .ii
Acknowledgement. .iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures :::: viii
List of Abbreviation and Acronyms .ix
Abstract. x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background Information 1
1.2 Problem Statement and Justification .4
1.3 Research Questions 5
1.4 Research Objectives 5
1.4.1 Overall Objectives , 5
1.4.2 Specific Objectives 6
1.5 Conceptual Framework. 6
1.9 Definition of Terms 8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVlEW 9
2.1 Overview of Water Harvesting in Agriculture 9
2.2 Water Harvesting Technologies in Fruit Production 10
2.3 Scaling Up of Technologies 12
2.4 Role of Participation 13
2.5 Participatory Extension Approaches 14
2.6 Information Dissemination to Farmers 16
2.7 Interactive Learning 17
2.8 Farmers' Perception on Water Harvesting in Fruit Trees 17
2.9 Summary of Gaps 18
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY. 20
3.1 Study Area : 20
IV
3.2 Research Design 22
.../
3.3 Sampling Procedure 24
3.4 Data Collection Methods 25
3.5 Data Management and Analysis 26
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 28
4.1 Household Characterization 28
4.1.1 Sex of the Households 28
4.1.2 Age of the Respondents 29
4.1.3 Education 30
4.1.4 Household Wealth .31
4.1.5 Farming Experience · 32
4.2 Farm Produce Resource 33
4.2.1 Farm Size in Yatta District... 28
4.2.2 Marketing Infrustructure 35
4.2.3 Farm Labour. 35
4.2.4 Off-farm Activities 38
4.2.5 Fruits Marketing Constraints 39
4.3 Crop and Food Production Management .40
4.3.1 Food Security .40
4.3.2 Use of Farm Yard Manure .43
4.3.3 Fruit TreesFarming .44
4.3.4 Sourcing of Fruit Seedlings 46
4.3.5 Watering Practice for Fruit Trees .48
4.4 Factors Affecting Fruit Trees Improvement 50
4.4.1 Mango Variety and Number in Relation to Various Measured Variables at
Farm Level ' 50
4.5 Water Harvesting in Fruit Trees Farming 54
4.5.1 Awareness Period on Micro-catchment Water Harvesting Techniques 54
4.5.2 Micro-catchment Water Harvesting Techniques 55
4.5.3 Analysis for Micro-catchment Techniques in Relation to Various Variables
v
Measured at Farm Level.. 56
4.6 Fanners Perceptions on Technologies in the Study Area 59
4.6.1 Farmers' Perceived Constraints in Fruit Production 59
4.6.2 Perceived Benefits of Micro-catchment Water Harvesting 61
4.6.3 Perceived Problems of Micro-catchment Water Harvesting 62
4.7 Strategies of Coping with Water Stress in Fruit Trees in the Study Area 64
4.8 Sources of Information on Water Harvesting Technologies 65
4.8.1 Agricultural Extension Services 67
4.8.2 Farmer to Farmer Extension 68
4.8.3 Opinion Leaders 69
4.9 Participatory Extension Methods for Water Harvesting Technologies in Fruit Trees
in the Study Area 69
4.9. 1Publicity Communication Channels Used in the Study Area 71
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 73
5.1 Conclusions 73
5.2Recommendations 74
Suggestions for Further Research 76
References 76
Appendices 85
Appendix 1 Farmers Interview Schedule 85
Appendix 2 PRA GuidanceQuestions 92
Appendix 3 Checklist for Key Informants 93
Appendix 4 Yatta District Crops Statistics Report (2008) 95
Appendix 5 Activities Schedule at the interactive site and Farmers Attendance 96
Appendix 6 V- Shaped Semi-circular bunds 97
Vl
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Age of the respondents 29
Table 4.2 Family size and marital status of the respondents , 30
Table 4.3 Education Level of Respondents 30
Table 4.4 Household Own Status Ranking 31
Table 4.5 Duration of Farming , 32
Table 4.6 Land Size Ownership 33
Table 4.7 Land Area Cultivated , 34
Table 4.8 Land Ownership Status 34
Table 4.9 Farm Produce Marketing 35
Table 4.10 Status of Family Labour Sale , , 3 7
Table 4.11 Main Off-farm Activities 38
Table 4.12 Fruits Marketing Constraints in Yatta 39
Table 4.13 Period of Food Shortage at Household Level.. '" .41
Table 4.14 Average Household Food Harvest. Consumption and Sale .42
Table 4.15 Livestock Ownership .43
Table 4.16 Main types of Fruit Trees Planted in the Study Area '" .45
Table 4.17 Sources of Fruit Seedlings .47
Table 4.18 Correlation Coefficient Between Number of Mango Trees, Variety and
Various Variables Measured at Farm Level.. 51
Table 4.19 Micro-catchment Water Harvesting Techniques Used in the Study Area ..56
Table 4.20 Correlation Analysis for Micro-catchments Water Harvesting Techniques
And Various Variables Measured at Farm Level.. 57
Table 4.21 Main Fruit Trees Problems in the Study Area 60
Table 4.22 Perceived Benefits of Micro-catchment Water Harvesting Techniques 62
Table 4.23 Main Strategies to Cope With Water Stress in Fruit Trees 64
Table 4.24 Participatory Extension Forums in the Study Area 70
Table 4.25 Main Communication Channels for the PRA Meeting Publicity , 71
..
Vll
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Conceptual Framework on Scaling Up of Technology in The Study Area ?
Figure 2.1 Water Harvesting Principle ." .10 r
Figure 3.1 Study Area Map of Yatta District .21
Figure 4.1 Sex of the Householdhead 28
Figure 4.2 Sources of Farm Labour in Study Area 36
Figure 4.3Status of Family Labour Sale 37
Figure 4.4 Farm Produce Use at Household Level. 40
Figure 4.5Mango Varieties Planted in the Study Area .45
Figure 4.6 Watering Fruit Trees after Planting .48
Figure 4.7Source of Water for Farming 49
Figure 4.8 Awareness Period on Water Harvesting in the Study Area 54
Vlll
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ASALs
CHE
GoK
FAO
FGD
FFS
IIRR
KARl
MoA
NALEP
NDFRS
NGO
NSWCP
PRA
SASE
SIDA
SPSS
SSA
UNDP
UNSO
URWA
WHO
Arid and Semi-arid Lands
Commission for Higher Education
Government of Kenya
Food and Agriculture Organisation
Focus Group Discussions
Farmers Field Schools
International institute of Rural Reconstruction
Kenya Institute of Agricultural Research
Ministry of Agriculture
National Agriculture and Livestock Extension Programme
National Dryland Farming Research Station
Non Governmental Organisation
National Soil and Water Conservation Programme
Participatory Rural Appraisal
Semi Arid Savannah Environment
Swedish International Development Agency
Statistical Package for Social Sciences
Sub-Saharan Africa
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Office to Combat Desertification and Drought
Uganda Rainwater harvesting Association
World Health Organisation
IX
ABSTRACf
The main source of livelihoods for the majority of households living in the semi-arid
areas of Eastern Kenya is Agriculture. Kenya has over 80% of the arable land located in
water scarce areas with recurrent dry spells. The semi-arid areas support approximately
25% of Kenya's population. The micro-catchments water harvesting technologies to
address rainfall variability have been developed and promoted by public research and
development institutions for the last two decades in these areas. Water harvesting
technologies at farm level cannot be viewed in isolation. Its introduction has to be
integrated with other production techniques in this case fruit trees production
improvement. Fruits production under rain-fed farming is a major source of food and
income for many household in Yatta District. The main objective of this study was to
identify and describe the key variables that affect effective scaling up micro-catchment
water harvesting technologies and fruit production improvement at farm level. The study
was also meant to capture farmer's perceptions as an input to understand the current
farming system, constraints and opportunities. A partnered demonstration site on micro-
catchment water harvesting techniques in fruit production was used for interactive
learning to compliment effective household data collection during the study. Mango and
pawpaw were planted under water harvesting techniques at the site to enhance farmers'
participation during the study. Mango was mainly used as a fruit of reference to fruit
production during the study, since it is widely grown in the area and similar water
harvesting techniques are applied to other fruits grown. PRA tools like scoring and
ranking, focus group discussion were initially used to collect data at the interactive site.
Comprehensive semi-structured interviews were then conducted for 120 respondent
farmers practicing fruit production to obtain data on socioeconomic profile. The
statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) tools were used to analyse relationships
between the socio-economics attributes such as farming experience, age, education level
and water harvesting in fruit production. The analysis results showed significant
correlation between fertilizer use, fruit planting purpose, watering period, number of
mangoes planted, total farm produce use, awareness period and the semi-circular bund
water harvesting technique. Descriptive analysis results indicated that about 43% of the
respondents used micro-catchment water harvesting techniques in fruit trees production.
Semi-circular bunds and closed bunds were the main types of micro-catchment water
harvesting techniques in fruit trees production in the study area. Over 55% of the
respondents indicated dry spell and drought as the main constraint in fruit trees
production improvement. The farmers, perceptions on micro-catchment water harvesting
and fruit trees production improvement were based on their rational decisions towards
appropriateness of the technologies after participation in interactive learning/demo site.
This study recommended that the micro-catchment water harvesting technology and fruit
trees production improvement should be presented/promoted as a combined extension
package to farmers in the dry areas but not isolated from each other. The Ministry of
Agriculture should take lead to improve the existing information dissemination
channels/pathways mainly to facilitate small scale farmers' participation in scaling up
water harvesting in fruit trees improvement.
x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Information
Over 60% of the land in Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) falls under the Semi Arid Savannah
Environment (SASE) which is characterized by low and variable rainfall which rarely
exceeds 800 mm with most areas receiving 200-300 mm annually (Ngigi, 2003). An
estimated 38% of the population in sub-Saharan Africa (roughly 260 million people) lives
in drought prone drylands (UNDPIUNSO, 1997). During the last decade, Kenya has
continued to experience recurrent drought and dry spells situation that highlights the
increased risks to human beings and livestock. It is estimated that 9.0 million hectares of
ASALs in Kenya could be cultivated using runoff/water harvesting (FAa, 2000).
The upsurge of interest in water harvesting derives from a growing recognition that
human well being is threatened in many places because the quantity of water available is
insufficient to meet the expanding needs. There is need to use alternative interventions
that are sensitive to rural livelihoods and knowledge. One such intervention is
improvement of the existing rainfed agriculture by incorporating rain water harvesting
and conservation technologies to supplement the unreliable rainfall (Lynam, 2006).
While irrigation may be the most obvious response to drought, it has proved costly and
can only benefit a fortunate few. There is now increasing interest in a low cost alternative
generally referred to as micro-catchment water harvesting.
1
Technological change has been the main source of increased agricultural productivity
throughout history (Sachs, 2002). In the last decade, many projects were started in the
SSA on water harvesting component thus reflecting the growing interest in the techniques
as a potential remedy for drought and land degradation (Critchley et aI., 1992).
In Kenya water harvesting techniques programmes were started way back in early 1980's
but mainly aimed at control of soil erosion (Hogg, 1986). In the past, runoff has been
seen as being destructive and requiring controlled diversion from agricultural lands as
witnessed by over 30 years of soil conservation practices in Kenya
The growing crisis on water for farming has focused attention on ways to make greater
use of rainfall and runoff through water harvesting. A significant gain in crop production
under rainfed agriculture will therefore have to come from small scale water harvesting in
combination with good crop husbandry practices at farm level. The farmers need to be
empowered through interactive learning in order to overcome the socioeconomic
constraints and widen the spectrum of technologies relevant to their specific needs. It is
the interaction between farmers and extension groups that largely determines whether
resource-poor farmers can gain access to technology; and whether that technology is
relevant. Many of the small scale farmers have been slow or unable to adopt quickly the
water harvesting technologies developed to improve crop productivity at farm level (Hai,
1998).
The need for improved technologies is particularly acute in dry areas where the scaling
up basis should be out of the water harvesting options disseminated and still practiced by
2
the farmers. Extensive research efforts have been done on water harvesting in Kenya and
success stories documented (Hai, 1998). However even though water harvesting is
proven technologies to increase food security in the ASALs (FAO/AGL, 2000) the
factors that influence these technologies integration into fruit trees production have not
been explored. This has led to indiscriminate, isolated recommendations for either micro-
catchment technologies or fruit trees production improvement at farm level. There is need
to consider the factors that influence the integrated scaling up of these technologies at
farm level. According to IIRR (2000), scaling up entails bringing more benefits in a
geographical area hence achieving widespread and lasting impact.
In Yatta District, Kenya few farmers are using water harvesting technologies attests to the
need to accelerate their spread. Fruit trees are an important component of the farming
systems of semi arid regions of Yatta District, Kenya The popular fruits grown include
mango (Mangifera indica L.), pawpaw (Carica papaya), .and citrus (Citrus spp.) for
family consumption and income generation. Introduction of high yielding fruits varieties
(grafted varieties) in Yatta, resulted into improved productivity but moisture stress
greatly hindered tree development and survival (MoA, 2008). Water harvesting is used to
secure the survival of tree seedlings and to spur the farmers to look after the trees (Hai,
1996). The technology information dissemination and participatory extension approaches
are very critical aspect in the success of technologies scaling up among the farmers. The
lack of effective dissemination pathways for technologies can be an obstacle in its scaling
up (Kabwe et al., 2002).
3
1.2 Problem Statement and Justifiration
The dry areas of Kenya are characterized by low and highly variable seasonal rainfall,
making crop failure a common feature (Gichangi et al., 2007). Thomas (1993) noted that
in the ASALs, rainfall alone is inadequate and should be supplemented by water
harvesting methods. Water harvesting techniques for fruits growing in dry areas like
Yatta District, has been going on for more than a decade in Kenya, and some promising
technologies have been developed (Ngure,2002). Despite the past promotion of micro-
catchment water harvesting technologies like the V-bunds and U-bunds , it has proved
difficult to sustain the capacity for scaling up water harvesting activities to spread
beyond a project, in both space and time.
There is a challenge to identify factors which affect systematization and extrapolation of
successful experiences in water harvesting technologies and fruit trees production
improvement. In Kenya, experience shows that water harvesting technologies have been
developed and promoted in isolation from the fruit production improvement engagements
at farm level because the factors for integration have not been established. According to
URW A, (2003) similar study in Uganda showed that water harvesting technologies at
farm level cannot be viewed in isolation. Its introduction has to be integrated with other
production techniques in this case fruit trees production improvement. The underlying
assumption is that once the integration factors are established it will prompt change for
sustainable scaling up of water harvesting in fruit trees production improvement. The
critical link between the information flow and the adoption decision chain, namely farmer
access to information, the dissemination pathways and the participatory extension
approaches for effective use in scaling up micro-catchment water harvesting
4
technologies, has also not been established in Yatta District. Recognizing these factors
and the coalitions they form, will help our understanding to enhance the process scaling
up of water harvesting and fruit trees improvement in Yatta District.
Scaling up also requires a good understanding of the socioeconomic characteristics of the
potential user (Ayuk and Jera, 2000). In addition, there is need to identify and overcome
technologies transfer barriers or gaps inorder for the farmers to use micro-catchments
water harvesting technologies for fruit tree farming at farm level Yatta District.
1.3 Research Questions
1. What are the possible factors that influence fruit production improvement at farm level
in Yatta District?
2. What are the factors that determine the use of micro-catchment water harvesting
technologies in fruit tree production at farm level?
3. Which are the farmers' perceptions on the preferred micro-catchment water harvesting
techniques for fruit trees improvement?
4. How do information on water harvesting technologies in fruit trees production get
disseminated and diffused into the household farming systems in Yatta District?
1.4 Research Objectives
1.4.1 Overall Objective
To identify the overall factors that influence scaling up of micro-catchment water
harvesting technologies and fruit trees improvement by the small scale farmers in Yatta
District.
5
1.4.2 Specific Objectives
1. To identify the factors that determine fruit trees production improvement at farm level
in Yatta District.
2. To find out attributes that influence the possibility of scaling up of micro-catchment
water harvesting technologies and fruit trees production improvement in Yatta
District.
3. To find out the fanners perception on the preferred micro-catchments water harvesting
techniques for fruit trees production improvement in Yatta District.
4. To determine the participatory extension methods and information dissemination
pathways preferred in the scaling up of water harvesting technologies in fruit tree
production in Yatta District.
1.5 Conceptual Framework
The building elements for the. concept include building upon scaling up experience of
partners and strategic partnership arnong the stakeholders in scaling up of water
harvesting technologies for fruit trees productivity (Figure 1.1). Partnership implies a two
way flow of questions and information, with participating community members,
researchers and extension workers learning from each other (Karega et aI., 2006).
Participatory process and use of interactive learning sites will ensure relevance of the
technology promoted for uptake and scaling up. This also facilitates feedback amongst
the partners and strengthens fanner-extension-research-private sector linkages. There is
6
also diversified information dissemination pathways used for effective knowledge
transfer among participating partners.
Fruit
production
improvement
aspects
Research &
extension
collaboration
Water
harvesting
technologies
Fanner
Socio-
economic
attributes
Scaled up levels
at the farm of
water harvesting
and·fruit
production
Figure 1.1 Conceptual framework on scaling up of technologies in the study area
It is therefore important to give support to the sharing of ideas, through communication
networks and the exchange of information between farmers, extension agents, policy
makers and other practitioners. When it comes to growth and diversification of an activity
essential social processes are involved.
The conceptual frame will apply to the fanners in Yatta District based on the following
key principles
a) active involvement of key participants: Individuals need to belief they are part of
the technology promotion for scaling up
7
b) farmers perception of technology: perceived benefits will improve scaling up as
opposed to perceived problems
c) Practical exposure/hands on experience: This instills confidence in one's ability to
choose and use the technology. It is an awareness improvement strategy
d) appropriate information dissemination strategy: This will lead to continuous
learning and sharing of ideas /knowledge
e) Involvement of essential social processes: Understanding the role of socio-
economics factors on scaling up technology.
Growth hinges on social interactions, emerging relationships, .networks, co-option,
collusion and co-operation. All of these lead to a continuous learning and innovation
process.
1.6 Definition of Terms
• Within farm water harvesting: These are water harvesting technologies where there
is no runoff generation area but instead aim at conserving the rainfall where it falls in
the cropped area (Rockstrom 200.0).
• Scaling up: This entails bringing more quality benefits to more people, more quickly
over a larger geographical area hence achieving widespread and lasting impacts.
• Micro-catchments: These are techniques in which the catchment is small mainly 1-
30 m long and does not allow for overflow of excess runoff but instead it encourages
runoff infiltration and storage. These techniques can easily be done manually in small
scale farms in rainfall deficit area (Hai, 1998).
8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General Overview of Water Harvesting in Agriculture
Africa is seen as a dry continent, but overall, it actually has more water resources per
capita than Europe. However much of Africa's rain is in bursts and is rapidly swept away
(Malesu, 2008). Sustainability of agricultural output now has a high place on the
agricultural agenda due to widespread deforestation and environmental degradation
(Chambers et al., 1989). At the same time population projection indicate that in many
countries rural areas will have to support much larger populations with many people
living in fragile and difficult environments. The time has come to realize the great
potential for greatly enhancing water supplies and smallholder agricultural production by
harvesting more of the rain when and where it falls. In East Africa water harvesting
technologies are used to permit crop production in areas where normal rainfed cultivation
is not possible. Water harvesting is more effective in areas where annual average rainfall
is between 200 mm-700 mm (Reij et al., 1996). It is evident that water harvesting can
both improve and stabilize yields and is one element oflocallevelland use management.
According to Hudson (1992), emphasis has been put more on soil conservation at the
expense of on farm water management. Most of the soil and water conservation
measures can be considered to be in situ water harvesting, where water management is
the main objective aimed at (i) improving infiltration (ii) reducing water losses from the
root zone and (iii) improving crop water use productivity. Promotion of people centered
research and development efforts and to invest in alternative technological approaches
will rescue lost opportunities to raise agricultural productivity, in economically viable,
9
environmentally friendly and socially uplifting ways (IIRR, 2000). Acceptance of
technologies by the farmers is seen to depend largely on their sustained involvement in
the development and implementation (Oweis et al., 1999). There are overall gains and
synergies to be made by maximizing the efficient use of on farm rain water harvesting for
crop production (FAO, 2000). This is possible through improving overall crop yield,
conservation of soil and water resource base and improved fruit tree survival and growth
rate. Within farm water harvesting is one of the simplest and cheapest and can be
practiced by all land use systems (Rockstrom, 2000).
2.2 Water Harvesting Technologies in fruit production
Water and nutrient harvesting for agricultural production is a strategy used in Kenya to
improve land use and resource conservation (MoA, 2005a), The period between 1960-
1990 saw water conservation activities extended both in the number of techniques used
and in levels of farmer adaption in Machakos District (Tiffen et al., 1994). Some of these
techniques are micro-catchments water harvesting systems which consists of a distinct
catchments area and cultivated area that are adjacent to each other (Figure 2.1)
I catchmentI
~1RUNOFF
cult.iva ced
area
Figure 2.1 Water harvesting principle
10
Boers and Ben-Asher (1982) specified that the distance between the catchments area and
the runoff receiving area of micro catchments must be less than 100 meters. Some
advantages of micro-catchments have been highlighted as specific runoff yield compared
to larger catchments (Bruins et al., 1986), due to their simplicity, inexpensiveness and
easy reproducibility.
Micro-catchments are mainly used for growing trees or bushes. This technique is
appropriate for small-scale tree planting in any area which has a moisture deficit. Besides
harvesting water for the trees, it simultaneously conserves soil. Some of these micro-
catchments water harvesting systems are the various forms of bunds, V and U- shaped
micro-catchments which have been used successfully in some arid and semi-arid regions.
Micro-catchments water harvesting techniques have been found to be very successful for
fruit production in the ASALs (Oweis et aI., 1999). According to Hai (1998), water
harvesting technologies have the capacity to improve food security, income level and the
standard of living through increased production. Mugwe et al., (1999) reported high
survival (> 80%) for mango seedlings planted using semicircular micro-catchments in a
dry AEZ in Cambia catchment of Gachoka Division, Mbeere District, Kenya. Semi-
circular bunds placed in a staggered formation allow water to collect in the hoop for
greater infiltration. Excess water is displaced around the edges of the bund when the hoop
area is filled with water. Contour bunds are generally used on slopes less than five
percent, while semicircular bunds are usually only used if the slope is less than three
percent (Hatibu and Mahoo, 1999). V-shaped micro catchments are similar to
11
semicircular bunds except that a V-shaped catchments area is used instead of a hoop
shaped area.
Water harvesting techniques for fruits growing especially mangoes in dry areas has been
going on for more than a decade in Kenya. Some promising technologies have been
developed and the research has moved from the stations out into farmers' fields. However
the biggest challenge remains the adoption and adaptation of these technologies. Main
factors hindering the spread of these technologies are lack of information at the farm
level, inappropriate objectives and approaches. The small scale farmers find on farm
water harvesting and conservation techniques initially labourious or costly to implement.
Subsistence oriented farmers economize on the use of their own labour and tend to resist
technologies that they view as labour intensive (Raintree, 1983). However, these
techniques deliver attractive returns on investment and substantially reduce risks (Sanders
et aI., 1996).
2.3 Scaling Up Technologies at Farm Level
From early 1990's scaling up has become an important research and development issue
(Urvin and Miller, 1999). According to Blackburn and Holland (1998), scaling up
generally is defined as an expansion which has cumulative impact. This is an increase in
the number of participants or places in which participation occurs. Scaling up is the sum
of all actions, principles and methods that facilitate dissemination of technologies leading
to their adaptation and adoption resulting in widespread impact inside and sometimes
outside targeted areas in a given ecosystem. Before selecting a specific technique, due
12
consideration must be given to the socioeconomic aspects prevailing in the area of
concern as they are paramount and will affect the success or failure of the technique
implemented (World Bank, 2003).
Scaling up encompasses issues at the heart of achieving sustainable growth in
smallholder agriculture in Africa The expectation to have wide and long lasting impact
upon technology implementation has not been realized and the direct benefits has only
reach a small fraction of people mainly within the area of implementation (World Bank,
2008). Central to scaling up will be developing the organizational and institutional
capacities, the partnerships, and the coordination necessary to go from reaching hundreds
of farmers to reaching hundreds of thousands of farmers (Lynam, 2006). Accelerated
impact can only be achieved by selecting the most effective means of dissemination
(Makaya, 1999). It is not the technologies that are scaled up but processes and principles
behind the technologies/innovations. According to (llRR, 2000) scaling up is a basis of
participatory and learning process with focus on (i) the principles behind the technologies
rather than on the technologies themselves (ii) enhancing innovative capacity (iii) people
empowerment and relationship building. According to World bank (2003), scaling up is
the means that lead to replication, spread or adaptation of techniques, ideas, approaches
and concepts- and as an end: increased impact. Further, Hunter (1993) noted that labour
resource is often the household most binding constraint in southern Africa.
2.4 Role of Participation
Participatory approaches are part of a broader movement towards involvement of local
people in development (Rain tree and Hoskins, 1990). There are numerous causes of
failure in extension development projects due to lack of local participation on long term
13---
sustainability ( Shepherd, 1989; Kerkhof 1990). In promoting peoples participation, local
people are given a chance to define their own objectives and help activate the social
processes involved in decision making and technology use (Raintree and Hoskins, 1990).
Participation extension can play a vital role in understanding and building local
knowledge base. This bottom-up approach has gained increased recognition; local
problems and issues are identified, diagnosed and remedied by or with the local people
based on their holistic view of the situation (Leach and Mearns, 1988).
According to Chambers (1983), neither the farmers nor outside scientist can know in
advance what the others know, It is by talking, traveling, asking, listening, observing and
doing things together that they can most effectively learn from one another. Real
participation begins with identifying a problem and planning how to solve it, and ends
with monitoring and evaluating the completed activity leading to enablement and
empowerment (Barrow, 1996). Interactive participation enables and empowers people to
have a stake in maintaining useful structures or technologies (pretty, 1994). Farmer
participation enhances efficiency and effectiveness in scaling up technologies that
enables use oflocal knowledge (Mugendi et al., 2007).
2.5 Participatory Extension Approaches
Extension implies more than imparting knowledge (Barrow, 1996). It aims to create
awareness that is conducive to action to improve natural resource management and
facilitate change. Participatory extension approaches allow for real and sustained
improvement by shifting responsibilities to local people and involving them directly.
14
Participatory approaches are by their nature empowering and transformational (Mugendi
et al., 2007). Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) is considered one of the most important
means of encouraging a more participatory enabling and empowering approach for rural
people or farmers (Chambers and Guijit, 1995). One of the PRA major strength is that it
is flexible, adaptable and has an array of communication devices by which daily
extension-farmer-researcher interaction can be conducive to learning.
Some of the participatory approaches include meetings (barazas), focus groups, farm
visits, field demonstrations, field days, farmer to farmer training and farm trials. Focus
groups are ideal for conducting active participation discussions. People become more
aware of their problems and are better able to make realistic decisions. Individual farm
visits enable the most intimate contact and facilitate frank discussions leading to the best
cooperation and participation (IIRR, 1998). Field demonstrations targets both group and
individuals who are exposed to variety of field activities, for instance, planting fruit trees
and maintenance. Farm trials are used to test a technology based on real farm conditions.
Farmers and researchers undertake testing and experimentation with various technology
components by doing diverse trial exercises. Participation enhances relevance of the
technologies developed, allows inclusion of farmers, local knowledge to enhance
possibility of micro-catchment water harvesting technology use in fruit farming. There is
need to appraise the available methodologies for application among collaborators in
scaling up of knowledge, information and technologies on water harvesting in fruit trees.
15
2.6 Information Dissemination to Farmers
Information can best be conceived as a productive resource, potentially limiting and
influencing the efficiency of production. The decision making process in agriculture rests
squarely on information available to farmers (Reddy, 2008). Dissemination corresponds
to communication of information related to scientific, technical, economic, social,
institutional, administrative, legal, historical or cultural in nature. Information is useful
only if it is available. There has been an effort to intensify dissemination of the
technologies to small-scale farmers with the ultimate objective of improving their
livelihood. Many different organizations and actors are involved in developing and
disseminating agricultural knowledge and skills in different parts of Kenya, as
opportunities in rainfed agriculture [MoA, 2005a). The various methods of information
dissemination channels to farmers include print and mass 'media (radio, pamphlets),
church gatherings, schools, fellow farmers, extension agents, Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs). Information sharing is through communication to reach the target
beneficiaries. There is plenty of evidence from all spheres of human activity that
information communication is more effective when there is interaction between the
participants and when all sides are actively involved in the process (Simbowo and
Campbell, 1992). Information is useful only if it is available: if the users have access to
it, in the appropriate form and language, it is communicated and circulates among the
various users with appropriate facilities and, ifit is exchanged.
16
2.7 Interactive Learning
This is participatory information exchange where partners and farmers come together and
share their experiences (Noordin et al., 2007). They also see from the demonstration site
on-going technologies. The interactive learning sites are locations where research and
development activities are piloted and promoted. Such sites should be located
strategically for ease of accessibility by both partners and farmers to facilitate interactive
learning. Examples of convenient areas to site such centers include schools (both
primary and secondary), Farmers Field Schools (FFS), Focal areas and Catchment areas.
These sites are used for experience sharing on the different technologies relevant to the
stakeholders' interests through capacity building (Noordin et al., 2007). In addition, these
sites act as training seeds/seedlings production units, exchange visits and local centers for
knowledge. For the last twenty five years, not only are more people working with small
scale farmers on sustainable agricultural projects, but we also see more impact and more
people who have benefited from the knowledge about small scale farming.
2.8 Farmers Perception on Water Harvesting in Fruit Trees
Farmers are considered to have subjective preferences for specific characteristics inherent
in technologies/innovations (Makokha et al., 1999). These preferences are assumed to
playa significant role in technology adoption and scaling up. Rogers (1995) argues that
observability is one of the characteristics of innovation as perceived by the individuals
which is important in explaining their adoption patterns.
Perception can be viewed as awareness of objects and events in the environment which
~
one acquires through senses (Blake et aI., 1983). This is thus ones biased opinion
17
regarding events and objects and is shaped by among other factors, expenence. The
perceptions are generated based on the farmers' understanding of micro-catchment water
harvesting techniques productivity in fruit farming, Farmers' perceptions influence the
adoption of a technology based on the appropriateness of certain characteristics of the
technology being promoted/scaled up. When farmers perceive a lot of benefits overriding
in a technology, they have higher likelihood of adopting/scaling up than farmers who
perceive problems. Farmer tend to select from an array of introduced technologies and
recommended practices that they perceive to be most appropriate to the natural and socio-
economic conditions in which they operate (Sands, 1986).
The opportunities and constraints in the use of micro -catchment water harvesting for fruit
trees production is based mainly on the production systems and production resource base
at the farm level. Depending on their unique farm and family' circumstances farmers are
able to adapt the technology in their farming systems. In general, farmers' perceptions are
important in determining which technology to scale up at farm level.
2.9 Summary of Gaps
It is generally agreed that water harvesting technologies use in agriculture improve crop
production. Field studies have shown that it is not realistic to expect small scale farmers
in developing countries like Kenya to scale up water harvesting technologies if crop
production improvement aspects are not addresed and integrated in technologies
promotion. Likewise, available studies are mainly focused on scope of increasing
activities on water harvesting technologies III the drylands, little has been done to
18
understand the perceptions, social interactions, emerging relationships for scaling up
water harvesting at farm level.
Above all it is necessary that the systems are appreciated by the communities where they
are introduced. Without popular participation and support, projects are unlikely to
succeed. Though the participatory approaches are in existence their effectiveness remain
underemphasized, dispersed and little attempts have been made to understand their
attributes in water harvesting and fruit farming at farmers level.
Otherwise, water harvesting technology is relevant to the semi-arid and arid areas where
the problems of environmental degradation, drought is most evident yet possibility of
scaling up remains low.
19
CHAPTER 3:METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study Area
Yatta District is one of the administrative districts that form Eastern Province (MoA,
2008). The District was curved out of the larger Machakos District in 2007 and it has 5
administrative Divisions namely Ndithini, Yatta, Masinga, Katangi and Ikombe. The
District borders Thika and Kangundo Districts to the west, Kitui and Mwingi Districts to
the east, Mwala District to the south and Mbeere District to the north and Maragua
District to the north-west. The District covers an area of 2469.9 km2 most of which is
semi-arid. The main agro-ecological zones are Lower Midland zone 3 (LM3), LM4 and
LM5. The most limiting resource in Yatta District as a whole has always been and still is
water (Tiffen et al., 1994). The high and medium potential areas where rain fed
agriculture is carried out successfully consist of less than 10 per cent of the total area.
The rainfall is characterized by temporal and spatial variability from season to season and
year to year. Average annual rainfall varies between 500 and 800 mm, with bimodal
distribution that allows for two crop growing seasons. Soils vary in depth depending on
the parent material and slope (Tiffen et al.,1994). They are generally low in organic
matter and deficient in nitrogen. There are perennial rivers like Athi and Thika rivers but
most others are seasonal (Figure 3.1). However, most farming systems are based on rain-
fed crop production integrated with varying levels of livestock rearing (KARI-NDFRC,
1995).
20
The major challenges affecting farming systems in Yatta are similar to those in other
semi-arid regions, such as low and erratic rainfall and fragile soils with declining
Yatt.District
~
chemical and physical soil fertility. With low and unreliable agricultural production and
dwindling natural resources, the livelihoods of local people are under considerable
LEGEND
I
~ Water body
" ""1"" Rivers
/ (Roads
~ Sampling Site
I~ Foresto Division Boundary
31"t5' 31"45'
pressure. Most people sell their harvested crops at low prices soon after harvesting to
Figure 3.1 Study area map of Yatta District
meet urgent financial needs. They later purchase food from traders at exorbitant prices,
leaving them with no food for a bigger part of the year.
21
3.2 Research design
The research design entailed initial use of a demo site which provided opportunity for
information and knowledge exchange with farmers on factors affecting technologies
scaling up at farm level in Yatta District. Evidence based on collected data at farm,
household and community level was used to justify application of the experience in other
contexts. This involved identification of the situations based on the study objectives and
collecting data to support the drawn conclusions. According to Mugenda and Mugenda
(1999), an exploratory designed research should be guided by the stated objectives. The
sample unit used for the study was mainly the household head. The study sample size was
based on the representation and objectivity element and random selection was used to get
the respondents.
Several data collection tools were used as follows:
Questionnaire Survey
A structured questionnaire (Appendix 1) was designed to obtain information as per the
specific objectives of the study. Pre-testing of the questionnaire was conducted at NdaIani
sub-location whereby 10 households were randomly selected. This was done prior to the
main survey to check the content and validity of the questionnaire.
Participant Observation
Participant observation technique was used at the interactive/demo plot to collect data
during this study. It provided the context within which ail other methods applied and
functioned as the initial medium for learning on social and physical environment
interrelations. Giving farmers an opportunity to practically experience the different
22
activities that are performed in using the different technologies is important in that it
gives them confidence (Mugwe et al., 2010)
Checklist
A checklist (Appendix 2) was used to collect infurmation from the key informants. A key
informant is an individual who is willing, accessible to talk to and has greater depth of
knowledge about the issue in question (Mosha, 2002). In this regard, key informants
included field extension officers, chiefs, village elders, opinion leaders. A checklist
(Appendix 3) was also used to guide the Participatory Rural Appraisal based on gathering
information on knowledge, perception and practices of farmers in promoting micro-
catchment water harvesting in fruit trees.
The Interactive /demo site
This was a demonstration and participatory research site at Ndalani Secondary School,
Yatta which was used to facilitate data collection through Participatory Rural Appraisal
(PRA) activity during the study. This was through courtesy of a project titled 'Bridging
Information Gap between Research, Farmers and Extension in Water harvesting for Fruit
Trees Productivity in the Drylands'. Three improved mango varieties (kent, apple and
ngowe) were planted in the demo site with V- bunds and U- bunds micro-catchment
water harvesting treatments. During the study, interactions at the site enabled farmers to
make direct observations related to water harvesting technologies and fruit trees
improvement practices. Data relevant to the study objectives was collected at the site
through use of PRA tools. Participatory methods of data collection were preferred
because according to Wilson et al. (2004), they encourage more discussions, involvement
and offer much greater insight than can be obtained from questionnaires. PRA tools used
23
included focus group discussions (FGD), matrix sconng and ranking and direct
observations. Prior to PRA, a reconnaissance visit to the study area was done to provide a
general picture. In addition, household interview data was collected using structured and
semi structured questionnaires.
3.3 Sampling Procedure
The study area covered three sub-locations (Ndalani; Kakumini and Kithendu) of Yatta
Division that was based on their proximity (3km radius) to the interactive and
demonstration site. Farmers were invited to the PRA meeting by use of various
information pathways such as radio, posters, churches, chiefs and extension field staff
public barazas. Approximately 75- 80% of the total population in the area was engaged in
fruit trees production at varying levels (MoA, 2008). The sampling frame was a list of
1204 farmers engaged in fruit trees production in the study area was obtained from the
Ministry of Agriculture field staff Simple random sampling estimation of the sample size
was used based on the level of precision set for the study. In setting the level of precision
the acceptable margin of error and the confidence level must be specified. The sample
size of 120 was estimated using the following formula used in social science research
(Mutai, 2000).
n = Z2 (l-p)
X2p
z- The standard normal deviate at 95% confidence level (1.96)
x- estimated accuracy (10%)
p- Value of the proportion in the target population estimated to have the
characteristics being measured (75%)
24
n- Sample size (120)
n = 1.962(1-0.75)
0.12x 0.75
The desired sampling interval was calculated from 1204/120 = 6. Through random
simple sampling a number between 1 and 6 was randomly selected to determine the first
sample number and later farmers selected at intervals of 6 until a sample of 120 farmers
was realized. A simple random sampling was used to select the sample members. This
gave every household an equal likely chance of being selected and avoided any bias that
may have arisen. Purposive sampling was used to identify key informants. This technique
allowed the use of cases that had the required information.
. 3.4 Data Collection Methods
Initially, during the reconnaissance visit to the study area, consultations were made with
farmers, extension, research and other collaborators to agree on a convenient site for the
Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) activity. The study mainly used primary data
collected from 120 households growing fruits trees in the study area The data were
collected through household survey, complimented by PRA data (focus group
discussions, scoring and ranking and direct participant observation) at the
interactive/demonstration site in the study area. These tools were used together to ensure
active participation and to capture individual and community views.
The study involved representative sample of farmers' household environments in the
study site. Simple random sampling procedure was used to select the households from a
25
list of fruit growing farmers in the study area prepared by MoA field staff Interviews
were conducted by appointment at the home and farm of the farmer to directly observe
both their households and farm conditions. Comprehensive semi structured interviews of
one or both heads of households (male and female) were conducted to obtain qualitative
and quantitative data on household characteristics, farming system, livelihood sources,
household production, off farm employment and development of water harvesting in fruit
trees. The survey was conducted with the assistance of three enumerators using a
structured, pre-coded questionnaire. The questionnaire was initially pre-tested on about
10 fanners. It was later discussed, modified and then finally applied to the 120
respondents. Interviews were mainly conducted using the local Kikamba language. All
the three research assistants were native speakers of local language and had farming
backgrounds. Key informant interviews were used to collect specialized information from
targeted individuals using questionnaires interview guides. Issues of interest included the
biophysical factors, farmers' capacity building and identification of fruit trees growing
farmers in the study area In this regard, Ministry of Agriculture staff, local
administration and local opinion leaders were interviewed.
3.5 Data Management and Analysis
The data collected was organized by coding, calculating the frequency, means and
percentages. Microsoft excel and the statistical package for social sciences (SPSS)
modular software were used to process the survey data according to the specific
objectives of the study. Coding was done where open form and other verbal responses
occurred to enable use of quantitative analysis (Stem et al., 2004). Descriptive statistics
26
and simple linear correlation analysis were used to examine the effect of the measured
variables at farm level micro-catchments water harvesting technologies and fruit trees
production improvement aspect. Patterns and relationships in the data were identified,
interpreted and results explained. The unit of analysis was the household head.
Descriptive statistics and simple linear correlations analysis are used to examine
existence and degree of relationship among the variables under study (Mead and Carrow,
1983).
27
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Household characterization
4.1.1 Sex of Householdhead
About 80% of the households were male headed in the study area (Figure 4.1). Land in
the study area is mainly owned by men and they are also responsible for key decision
making on farm production and resources conservation at the farm level. Results of this
study concur with those of several other studies done on gender in relation to land and
farm outputs control in sub-Saharan Africa (Fortmann, 1988). The ratio male:female for
the study sample was 4:1. Through the key informants, the study established that
ownership right of land in the area is more than 90% with men due to the fact that tree
ownership is related to land tenure.
~
~
Figure 4.1 Sex of the household head
This was found to affect women's rights to own or inherit and the right of disposal of
trees and their products. However, key informants pointed out that women were not
denied access and use of land in the study area.
28
4.1.2 Age ofthe respondents
About 66% of the respondents were in the age of 41 years and above (Table 4.1). The
young farmers below 30 years made up only 10% of the respondents. farmers adopted
conservation technologies at farm level. The study found that older farmers controlled
land through the various land ownership tenure status. A study by Kipsat, (2007) showed
that age was a key variable considered in decision making on whether to adopt a
technology or not.
Table 4.1 Age of the respondents
Age Frequency Percentage (%)
21 to 30 years 12 10
31 to 40 years 29 24
41 to 50 years 22 18
51 to 60 years 32 27
Over 60 years 25 21
Total . 120 100
Source: Field data, 2008/2009
About 57% of young people (21-40 years) who engaged in farming especially the male,
had access but no control over their parents land. About 23% were either landless or
squatters in their parents land. This is a major challenge in scaling up of conservation
technologies at farm level. The average household size was seven, with an equal number
of male and female family members. Over 46% of the households consisted of 7 to 9
29
members of family (Table 4.2). According to Ramadhani (1995) findings, bigger families
had more available labour and had higher chances of practicing new technologies.
However, the study found that larger families tended to hire out labour during the peak
dry period that coincides with maintenance and construction of water harvesting
structures for fruit trees production improvement.
Table 4.2 Family size and marital status
Family Percentage Percentage
size Frequency (%) Marital Status Frequency (%)
lto3 8 7 Widow 15 13
4to6 49 40 Widower 3 2
7to9 55 46 Married 100 84
Over 9 8 7 Single 2 1
Total 120 100 Total 120 100
Source: Field data, 2008/2009
On marital status, 84% of the respondents were married, the rest were either widowed or
single. It was observed that decision making on water harvesting in fruit trees was mainly
by the male head of the household (married status households). According to the key
informants this decision making process influenced negatively the scaling up of water
harvesting and fruit trees improvement at household level.
4.1.3 Education
The respondents in the study area had low to medium literacy level with about 64%
attaining primary level education, 24% secondary level, 8% post secondary level and 4%
had never attended school (Table 4.3).
Table 4.3Education level of the respondents
Frequency Percentage (%)
Primary 77 64
Secondary 29 24
Tertiary 8 7
University 1 1
None 5 4
Total 120 100
Source: Field data 2008/2009
30
Education level was one of the variables used by the community for wealth
categorization of the households in the study site.
4.1.4 Household Wealth
Participatory comnnmity wealth ranking was used during the study. According to Phiri
(2004), the community defines the wealth criteria and households classify/rank
themselves according to these criteria Based on the local community wealth ranking,
farmers had an average income and were categorized as medium to poor (Table 4.4 ).
Table 4.4 Household own wealth status ranking
Wealth category Wealth criteria used % Frequency
N= 120
Poor Mud grass house
Farm less than 1 acre/landless
Perennial casual labourer 15
Food insecure throughout the year
Very low farm production
Low education/ illiterate
No livestock
Middle wealth Fire cured mud brick/cement house
Farm size 2-6 acres
Owns local livestock 83
Use mainly ox-plough/ox cartlbicycle
Subsistence/commercial farm production
Owns small business/medium employment
Medium education level
Wealthy Large farm over 10acres
Large permanent stone house (residential)
Large off farm business/employment
Owns improved livestock breeds 2
Highly educated (university)
Food secure throughout the year
Degree of mechanized farming (tractor)
Commercialized farming
Source: FIeld data, 2008/2009
31
The information was used to characterize the households into 3 well being categories
namely poor, middle wealth and wealthy.
The results was supported by data collected from the key informants that showed main
wealth indicators in the study area included farm size, level of education and off-farm
activities like business/employment and food security. Education was regarded as a key
factor in relation to off-farm employment, assets ownership and to some degree the use of
modem farming technologies. Crop farming was the main livelihood, supplemented by
income from livestock husbandry, casual labour, vocational jobs, teaching, civil service,
government pension and remittances from working relatives.
4.1.5 Farming Experience
Most of the farmers were the original residents of the study area. Over 56% of the
respondents had an average of 15 years farming experience and thus had wide knowledge
on the factors constraining farm productivity in the area (Table 4.5).
Table 4 5 Duration of farming of the respondents
Frequency
Farming experience N=120 Percentage (%)
Less than 5 years 3 3
5 to 10 years 27 22
10 to 15 years 23 19
Over 15 years 67 56
Total 120 100
Source: Field data, 2008/2009
Evidence from the study findings, showed that due to their farming experience, farmers
in Yatta had adapted some coping strategies to improve fruit seedlings survival at farm
level as will be discussed later. Farmers' practical experience put them at a comparative
32
advantage over scientists in terms of their farming practices, their priorities and their
constraints (Mascarenhas, 1991).
4.2 Fann Production Resources
4.2.1 Farm Size
The average landholding in the study area varied from 3-5 acres and was usually
fragmented mainly to dependant sons. The cultivated area was proportional to the farm
size of the household. About 77% of the respondents owned farms that were 2- 6 acres
(Table 4.6) with the older farmers owning bigger farm sizes. The study observed that the
intensity of land use was inversely to the farm size owned which was mainly attributed to
family labour scarcity especially during the peak period. Barron, (2004) noted that in
many parts of SSA, population growth has increased demand for agricultural land so that
today farmers use approximately 2-8 acres for an average household.
Table 4.6 Land size ownership
Frequency
Farm size (acres) N=120 Percentage (%)
Less than 2 8 6
2to6 92 77
6 to 10 12 10
Over 10 8 7
Total 120 100
Source: Field data, 2008/2009
The study findings also showed that the cultivated farm area was proportional to size of
land owned by the household. Most of the farmers in the study had cultivated an average
of 5 acres (Table 4.7) mainly for crops production.
33
Table 4.7 Land area cultivated
Frequency Percentage (%)
Cultivated area (acres) N=120
Less than 2 9 8
2 to 6 87 73
6 to 10 18 15
Over 10 6 4
Total 120 100
Source: FIeld data, 2008/2009
However, it was observed that farm size was not linked to water harvesting technology
application. Most of the land ownership was through inheritance (Table 4.8).
Table 4.8 Land ownership status in Yatta
Ownership Frequency Percentage (%)
N=120
Own-inherited 98 82
Own-purchased 6 5
Squatter settlement (GoK) 12 10
Communal/clan 4 3
Total 120 100
Source: FIeld data, 2008/2009
The study observed that most of the young farmers did not have secure land tenure
because land usage was through the courtesy of the parents as land custodians.
These farmers usually lacked the incentive to invest in long term land conservation
activities since they were not guaranteed ownership rights. Inheritance of land in the
study area is mainly through the customary laws. Barron's (2004) findings were that the
customary inheritance laws did not favour women to own and control land in most parts
of East Africa.
34
4.2.2 Marketing Infrastructure
Basic institutional facilities were available in the study area but were not adequately
developed to meet the farmers' basic needs. About 73% of the respondents mainly sold
their produce in the local markets and only 5% had access to outside market (Table 4.9)
Table 4.9 Farm Produce Marketing
Marketing outlets Transport facilities
Produce outlet frequency Percentage frequency Percentage
(%) (%)
subsistence 4 3 Vehicles 17 14
Local market 87 73 Ox-carts 32 27
Farmgate 23 19 Bicycles 49 41
Outside market 6 5 Motorcycles 22 8
Total 120 100 Total 120 100
Source: FIeld data 2008/2009
Transportation facilities were poor and the roads were mainly earth which made
communication difficult especially during the rains period. According to the key
informants most the people relied mainly on motorcycles and bicycles as the main means
of transport. The study results indicated that 59% of the respondents relied on bicycles
and motorcycles mode of transport popularly known as boda boda. About 14% of the
respondents used the public transport vehicles especially to access the outside markets.
The ox-carts were used for short distance errands to facilitate activities like harvesting
and farm inputs transportation within the study area.
4.2.3 Farm labour
Majority of the households (62%) relied mainly on household labour, 37% on hired
casual labour and only 1% on hired permanent labour (Figure 4.2). The family provided
the highest proportion of farm labour. Casual labour was engaged during periods of
35
60
70.------------------------~
i
50
40
30
20
10
0+---
I 0 Percentag~
Yes No
Figure 4.3 Status on overall household labour sale
Hired labour was mainly used for labour intensive farm activities like ox-ploughing
weeding and harvesting. The seasonality of farming activities like land preparation,
weeding and harvesting determined the family labour availability patterns in the study
area.
Family labour was important in subsistence farming in the study area as most people
lacked incentives to hire labour. Subsistence farming was associated with low returns for
farming in the study area. Over 57% of the sampled households sell family labour to
others mainly within the locality (Table 4.11). The study also found that all family
members were involved in the labour sale.
37
Table 4.11 Status family labour sale
Frequency
Labour sale locality N=77 Percent
Within the location 44 57
Outside the location 33 43
Total 120 100.
N- number of farmers engaged in labour sale
Source: Field data 2008/2009
Households that have wage earning options and face poorly developed fanning systems
or highly unstable markets for agricultural outputs maybe almost wholly subsistence
producers (Hunter, 1993). Low income from farming activities forced most of the fanners
to look for off-farm and on-farm casual jobs leaving their farms in poorly managed state
resulting to even lower productivity and income.
4.2.4 Off- farm Activities
The main off-farm activities in the study area farmers engaged in were mainly for
generating income for the household towards meeting their primary needs like food.
According to FAO (1999) off-farm activities provide an important source of earning for
small holders and landless farmers. Casual labour was found to be the most important
off-farm activity in the study area (Table 4.11). About 47% of the respondents are
engaged in casual labour, business/trader (16%), salaried employment (12%).
Table 4.11 Main off-farm activities of respondents
Frequency
Activity N=120 Percentage
None 20 17
Casual labour 57 47
Salaried employment 14 12
BusinesslTrader 19 16
Vocational work 6 5
Pensioner 4 3
Total 120 100
Source: FIeld data 2008/2009
The business trade activities included selling farm produce, burning and selling charcoal,
transport services, kiosks and retail shops. Vocational work included carpentry, masonry
and repair/maintenance w~rks like mechanic. This study noted that the diversification of
activities at household level in the study area contributed to the improvement of
38
household economy. The income from off-farm activities was mainly used to meet family
needs like clothing, school fees and food. Through diversification of household activities,
the risk of food security is reduced (Mosha, 2002).
4.2.5 Fruits Marketing Constraints in the Study Area
The study findings in Yatta showed that fanners experienced problems related to
marketing of farm produce (Table 4.12). About 64% of the respondents listed poor prices
as a major constraint in fruits marketing. At the marketing stage, a major constraint is the
poor prices for fruit produce from the areas. This further contributes to post-harvest
losses and a deterioration of quality leading to low selling prices especially during the
high supply period.
Table 4.12 Fruits marketing constraints in Yatta
Frequency
Constraint N=120 Percentage (%)
Poor roads 4 3
Distance to market 23 19
Poor prices 76 64
Market information 17 1 IIl~
Total 120 100
Source: FIeld data, 2008/2009
About 19% of the respondents were constrained by distance to market outlets and 14%
lacked marketing information. In many districts in Kenya, transport cost and low prices
for fruits during peak season are reported to be prohibitive, both in within local and
outside markets (FAO, 2004). Marketing infrastructure is viewed as an extension
facilitating factor and aid in developing micro-catchment water harvesting technologies at
farm level.
39
4.3 Crop and Food Production Management
4.3.1 Food Security
In Yatta, the study showed that farming is characterized by smallholding farms relying on
maize intercropped with beans and pigeon peas for subsistence production. This is
supported by the environmental history of Machakos District (inclusive Yatta) which has
been extensively documented and studied (Tiffen et al., 1994). Main food crops grown
by farmers in the study area included maize, beans, cowpeas, pigeon peas and millets.
About 64% of the respondents used their total farm produce mainly for subsistence
(Figure 4.4). It was observed that, household food security in the study area was often
determined by the farm food availability, prices of agricultural produce and income
earned from both farm and off- farm employment. Over 72% of the respondents in the
study area did not produce adequate food at farm level. When their food ran out, farmers
indicated that they normally bought from the local markets.
- Figure 4.4 Status farm produce use at household level
40
This was based on FAOIWHO, (1992) report that food insecurity exists when members
of a household have inadequate diet for part or throughout the year or face possibility of
inadequate diet in future. On average, over 41% of the sampled households relied on
purchased food and relief for duration of 4-6 months annually.
Overall, about 78% of the respondents perceived the food deficit at household level as an
annual occurrence in the study area Majority of the respondents (68%) reported to
experience food shortages within 3 months after harvesting the short rain annual food
crops in January (Table 4.13). The results also showed that 29% of respondents faced
food shortages from April to June (3-6 months after harvest) and 8% from July to
September (6-9 months after harvest). The period reviewed is based on a post-harvest
period for the short rains which is viewed as a reliable season for good crop performance.
Table 4 13 Period of food shortage at household level
Period of food shortage Number of respondent Percentage (%)
n=94
January- March 64 68
April- June 26 29
July- September 4 3
Total 94 100
n- number of respondents who reported annual food deficit
Source: Field data, 2008/2009
This is supported by Ikonge et al. (2005) who has reported that 69% of the population in
Yatta experienced period of food shortage on annual basis. According to the Ministry of
Agriculture (2008) situational report, the farmers in Yatta experienced almost a total
failure of crops harvest during the March-May rains. According to key informants, during
the critical food shortage most people resorted to consumption of fruits especially
41
mangoes and root crops. The respondents appreciated the presence of different varieties
of fruits in their locality that were regarded as an additional food source. Food production
in the study area is mainly under rainfed farming which often results to low production if
not total failure especially in absence of soil and water management practices. This is
supported by Ringio (1990) findings that efforts to produce enough food in most parts of
SSA are affected by various factors such as drought, rainfed farming, poor storage, poor
technical knowledge and low soil fertility. The income farm activities in the study area
included sale of food and cash crops. These were maize, millets, beans, pigeon peas,
fruits (mangoes, pawpaw and citrus) and cotton. The average proportion of various farm
produce consumed at household level and sold for income in the study area is presented
in Table 4.14.
Table 4.14 Average household food harvest, consumption and sale.
Season Average quantity harvested in Average percentage of harvested
100 kg per household quantity consumed and sold per
household
2008 Produce Harvested consumed at % Sold for
croppmg household mcome
year Maize 2.5 62 38
Millets 1.5 42 58
Beans 1.8 55 45
Pigeon peas 2.2 47 53
Cowpeas 1.3 38 62
Mangoes 18 68 32
Citrus 7 35 65
Pawpaw 3 70 30
Cotton 1 0 100
Source: Field data 2008/2009
According to the key informants, households in the study area obtained food mainly from
their own farms, markets and to a little extent, relief supplies. It was reported that
42
respondents engagement in both on-farm and off-farm activities were less affected by
food shortage. Table 4.14 shows that large proportion of harvested maize (62%), beans
(55%), mangoes (68%) and papaw (70%) was consumed at household level. Fruits are
highly valuable in the livelihoods of small scale fanners in Yatta District as a source of
food and income. Fruits are frequently consumed when in season and are an important
source of income in the ASALs (Mugwe et al., 1999). The study observed that, maize
crop failure was a recurrent phenomenon in the study area, and fruits when in season
contributed highly to food security during such situations.
4.3.2 Use of farm yard manure in fruit tree
The study findings indicated t livestock as the main source of organic manure in the study
area. The main types of livestock kept in the study area include indigenous cattle, goats
and poultry. About 97% of the respondents kept one or a 'combination of the main
livestock type. This is supported by Runkadema (1984) findings that fanning systems of
semi-arid Kenya are usually characterized by livestock usually kept as indigenous cattle,
local goats and poultry. Out of the 97% of the respondents who kept livestock, 48% had
mainly cattle, 83% goats and 98% poultry (Table 4.15)
Percentages do not add to 100 because of multiple responses.
4.15 Livestock ownership
Livestock % household Mean number
Cattle 48 2
Pawpaw 83 4
Citrus 98 7
This study also revealed that livestock keeping by fanners in was due of several factors.
First, farmers mainly use the oxen drawn plough for land preparation and weeding.
Secondly livestock keeping is viewed in terms offarm production as a source of manure.
43
Manure is one of the traditional methods of maintaining soil fertility in semi-arid areas of
Eastern Kenya (Omiti, 1998). According to the study findings, manure production was
from cattle and goats. This concurred Lekasi et al. (2001) that postulated only cattle and
goats make major contribution to manageable manure production and free range chicken
do not contribute substantially to quantity of manure at farm level.
4.3.3 Fruit Tree Farming
Fruit tree farming was considered an entry point in scaling up micro-catchment water
harvesting technologies in Yatta. Fruit farming was an important part of the farming
system of the household in.the study area For the purpose of the study all the farmer
respondents had fruits tress at various levels of production. At least 45% of the
respondents owned more than 10 mango fruit trees. Currently the incentive for water
conservation technologies should be increased crop production (Hudson, 1993). The
average number of mango fruit trees planted was 12 trees per farmer. The fruits were
usually intercropped with food crops like maize and beans. During the PRA meeting in
the study area, mango was the most preferred type of fruit tree for planting in the farms.
Pawpaw and citrus fruit trees followed in that order by ranking. Similar finding was
observed through the data collected during the households interview (Table 4.16).
According to the Ministry of Agriculture (2008) situational report the main types of fruit
trees were mangoes, papaws and citrus which accounted for over 70% of the total
hectarage under fruit farming in YattaDistrict. Results in Table 4.l6 shows that about
94% of all the respondents had planted mangoes in their farms.
44
Table 4.16 Main types of fruit trees planted in the study area
Fruit Frequency Percentage I
Mango 114 94
Pawpaw 102 85
Citrus 77 64
I Percentages do not add to 100 because of multiple responses.
The study findings at farm level indicated that popularity of the type of fruit tree was
mainly based on aspects like the fruit capacity to tolerate drought, income generation
consumption level and planting material availability. This finding concur with Minae and
Akyeampong (1988) who observed that to establish a fruit orchard in Kenya, tree
specifications include climatic/edaphic, high fruit production, early maturity/fruiting and
ease of acquisition of planting materials. Fruits are highly valuable in the livelihoods of
small scale farmers in Yatta District. They are frequently consumed when in season and
are an important source of income (Mugwe et al., 1999). Evidence from this study also
showed that mango fruit played a key role to mitigate against hunger at household level
during its on season period. Only about 38% of the respondents had mainly planted the
improved mango varieties and the rest had planted the local varieties (Figure 4.5).
:J Local types
o Improved varety
Figure 4.5 Mango varieties planted in the study area
45
The main season for citrus fruits was in the months of May, June, July and August.
Mangoes come into full production in one major season spanning the months of January,
February, March and April. Pawpaw production was more evenly distributed throughout
the year with some element of peak season in March and June.
The local mango varieties are usually left to grow without much crop husbandry (MoA,
2003). Through key informants and field observations in the study area, the most popular
grafted mango varieties among the farmers included Apple, Ngowe and Kent. Inorganic
fertilizer use for fruit farming in the study area was found to be very low. Only 12% of
the respondents used inorganic fertilizers during planting of fruit trees especially in
improved mango varieties. Report by the Ministry of Agriculture (2003) indicated that I'. ij
the local mango varieties fetch low prices at the markets due to their high fibre content.
This made them unpopular for fresh consumption as compared to the improved varieties.
Most farmers had not planted the highly valued improved mango varieties in the study
area due to the risk of drying. About 58% of the farmers cultivated mango fruit for home
consumption and 42% mainly for income generation.
4.3.4 Sourcing of Fruit Seedlings
Only about 2% of the farmers interviewed sourced their mango seedlings from registered
government nurseries (Table 4.17). These nurseries are usually located in very far places
hence inaccessible to most farmers. At farm level FAO, (2004) noted that lack of clean
fruit planting materials was one of the key constraints faced by the farmers. Majority of
the farmers (54%) sourced their mangoes seedlings from informal local nurseries, 40%
from own farm nurseries while 4% accessed from seedlings hawkers at the open markets.
46
Table 4 I7Source of fruit seedlings
Type of fruit Source of seedlings Frequency' Percentage (%)
seedling
Mango Own farm nursery 46 40
Informal commercial
nursery 61 54
Seedlings hawkers 5 4
Registered GoK
nursery 2 2
Total 114 100
Pawpaw Own farm nursery 57 56
Informal commercial
nursery 34 33
Seedlings hawkers 11 11
Registered GoK
nursery 0 0
Total 102 100
Citrus Own farm nursery 4 5
Informal commercial
nursery 43 56
Seedlings hawkers 28 36
Registered GoK
nursery 2 3
Total 77 100
1- number of respondents who had planted fruit trees (mangoes, pawpaw, citrus)
Source: Field data, 2008/2009
Own farm nursery is farm prepared site for germinating seeds to meet a farmer's
seedlings requirement for planting (Mung'ala et al., 1988). The main purpose of own
nurseries was to enable individual farmers to become self sufficient by intensifying the
production of their own fruit seedlings. Informal commercial nurseries differ from own-
farm nurseries on the basis of their income generating nature. However the study
observed that most of these nurseries were not able to guarantee the quality of the
seedlings due to their varying qualities. The study found that, on pawpaws seedlings
sourcing, 56% of the respondents relied on own farm nurseries, 33% sourced from
informal local nurseries 11% from the seedlings hawkers and none accessed from GoK
registered nurseries. On citrus seedlings sourcing in the study area, the study found that
47
56% of the respondents accessed seedlings from the informal commercial nurseries, 5%
from own farm and only 3% sourced from government registered nurseries (fable 4.17).
These results indicated that farmers in the study area are trying to bridge the gap on
seedlings unavailability through the alternative sources though there is a possibility of
seedling quality being compromised. Farmers tend to use inferior low yielding seedlings
sourced from informal local nurseries by virtue of their accessibility (FAO, 2004). In
addition the supplies of seedlings from GoK registered nurseries may be unreliable
particularly for remote rural areas.
4.3.5 Watering Practice for Fruit Seedlings
. Ii
According to key informants, one of the strategies common at farm level to mitigate
against drying of fruit seedlings after planting was watering. About 59% of the
respondents watered their fruit seedlings after planting and 41% relied on rains after
planting (Figure 4.6). However the study observed that watering was ineffective
considering the water scarcity during the dry season in the study area.
~
~
Figure 4.6 Watering fruit seedlings after planting in Yatta
48
In the ASALs this method of watering fruit trees is tedious, labour intensive and
unsustainable at farm level (Mugwe. et al., 1999). The study observed that the duration of
watering period was subject to the level of water conservation techniques at farm level.
This is supported by Rockstrom's (2000) findings that drought and dry spell mitigation
through on-farm rain water management could be the key to improved crop production in
the current farming systems in the arid areas. Farmers applying fruit watering strategy
after planting seedling were using mainly the bucket method for an average period
ranging from 1- 2 months. The study results indicate that about 84% of the respondents
sourced their farming water from rivers while 8% sourced from dams, 5% from shallow
wells, 2% used tap water and 1% from boreholes (Figure 4.7). The water was a constraint
due to the long distance and the tedious means of fetching it from rivers.
Shaflovv .
wells
Dam
Percentage \~-&}
Figure 4.7 Farming water sourcing in the
49
Fetching water was mainly by women who carried it on their backs or to a lesser extent
used of ox-carts. The seasonality of some rivers cause the distance covered to fetch water
to increase during the dry period. On average the respondents described the distance as
near to far and by estimate ranged from 1- 2 km to the nearest water source.
4.4. Factors Affecting Fruit Trees Production Improvement
4.4.1 Mango Variety and Number in relation to Various Variables Measured at
Farm Level
The number of mango trees planted and variety (improved or local varieties) planted are
important in determining the level of fruit productivity for the household, climatic
conditions remaining constant (Table 4.18). Some important insight can be drawn from
these results in relation to the various measured variables effects and the selected key
fruit trees aspects (number of mango trees and variety). In this analysis, the important
concern is on the sign (+ or -) and the significance of the different variables rather than
with the magnitude of the coefficient. The significant variables for number of mango
trees planted include age of fanner (p= 0.05), farm size (p= 0.05), farming experience
(p= 0.05), fruit planting purpose (p= 0.01), manure use in fruit trees (p= 0.05), fertilizer
use in fruit planting (p= 0.01), Distance to water source used in farming (p= 0.01),
watering of fruit trees (p= 0.01), food buying period (p= 0.01) and micro-catchments
technologies awareness period (p= 0.01). Age of farmer, farm size, fanning experience,
fruit planting purpose and awareness period have positive correlations.
50
Table 4.20 Correlation coefficient between number of mangoes, variety and vanous
variables at farm level
Number of mangoes
Variable planted
I Mangoes fruit tree aspects
Age of farmer (years) 0.217*
Farm size (acres) 0.189*
Farming experience (years) 0.185*
Manure use in fruit planting - 0.202*
Fertilizer use in fruit planting - 0.276**
Fruit planting purpose 0.609**
Distance to farming water - 0.290**
Watering period fruit trees - 0.359**
Food buying period/year -0.452**
Awareness on micro-catchments 0.244**
Mango variety
0.016
- 0.093
0.200*
0.140
0.200*
- 0.262**
0.200
0.124
0.274**
- 0.206*
**Correlation is significant at p= 0.01 (2 tailed)
*Correlation is significant at p= 0.05 (2 tailed)
Source: Field data, 2008/2009
Farmers with large farms were more likely to plant many mangoes trees (r=0.189, p=0.05
n=114) since they had space for other crops. Due to the large canopies of mangoes tress
(especially the local type), when intercropped within the crop land much space for crop
production is lost (Mugwe et aI., 1999). Older farmers in the study area were more likely
to plant mangoes (r=0.217, p=0.05, n=114) due to the security ofland tenure as compared
to young farmers. Farmers usually lack the incentive to invest in land which they do not
have or not guaranteed ownership rights in the future. Inheritance of land in the study
area was mainly through the customary laws. This concurred with Barron (2004) who
noted that the customary inheritance laws did not favour women and youth to own and
control land in most parts of sub-Saharan Africa
According to the key informants, farmers of all ages in the study area had earlier equal
access to technical information on mango fruit trees production and that made age to lack
significant relation to mango variety planted. This agrees with Kipsat (2007) who noted
51
that age of decision maker may lack significant contribution on whether farmers adopt
technologies if farmers of all ages had equal access to technologies/information. With
more experience farmers tended to plant more mango fruit trees (r=0.185, p=0.05, n=114)
and more varieties choice (r=0.200, p=O.OI, n=114). With experience, farmers have been
able to assess and apply the various benefits of mangoes farming overtime. Manure use in
fruit planting, fertilizer use, distance to farming water and watering fruit trees had
negative correlations.
The study found that older farmers seemed to have a positive attitude towards planting of
mango fruit trees at subsistence level. Age had a positive correlation to the number of
mango fruit trees planted (r=0.217, p=0.05, n=114). Fruits are highly valuable in the
livelihoods of small scale farmers and older farmers had more time on the farm to have
planted more fruit trees. The mangoes are viewed as a source of food security since they
mainly consumed at household level. They are frequently consumed when in season and
are an important source of nutrients especially for children (Rice et aI., 1991). Farmers
with few fruit trees had tended to use inorganic fertilizers and that most farmers planted
high number of mangoes for income generation. The more the mango fruit trees a farmer
had the lesser the use of manure (r= -0.202, p=0.05, n=114) and fertilizers (r= -0.276, p=
0.01, n=114). According to key informants, farmers in the study area believed that
manure use attracted termites which damaged fruit trees. However the respondents who
had planted improved varieties were more likely to use inorganic fertilizers (r=0.200, p=
0.05, n=114) due to their high compensatory value.
52
The study observed that the improved varieties of mangoes were more marketable and
fetched higher prices at both farm gate and market level as compared to the local
mangoes. The study found that farming experience (r=O.200,p=O.05, n=114),fertilizer
use(r=O.200, p=O.05), and fruit planting purpose(r=-O.262, p=O.OI), are significant
variables in the productivity of mangoes in the study area. These variables need to be
considered in combination with other interventions towards scaling up micro-catchment
water harvesting techniques in fruit productivity. Farming experience, fertilizer use and
food buying period have positive correlation. The fruit planting purpose(r=-O.262,
p=O.Ol) and awareness period on(r=-0.206, p=O.05) micro-catchments technologies have
negative correlation with the mango varieties. The study findings showed that
experienced farmers were aware of the various mango varieties for planting in their
farms.
Fruit farming in the study area was seen as a way of farm products diversification to
reduce production risks and enhance economic benefits from the farming systems. This
had successfully wooed farmers, to take up the planting of improved mango fruit varieties
introduced Yatta District. The MoA (2008) reported that the more fruits produced from
the farms, the less pressure there was towards the sale of staple food crops harvests for
income and food at household level.
53
4.5 Integration of Water Harvesting in Fruit Trees Farming
4.5.1 Awareness Period on Mj~ro-cakhment Water Harvesting Technologles
About 37% of the respondents in the study area became aware of the micro-catchment
water harvesting technologies less than one year ago. Another 9% of the respondents
became aware in the past 1 to 5 years period, 15% during the past 5 to10 years and 39%
have been aware of the technologies for over 10 years (Figure 4.8).
over 10 years
5 to 10 years
1t05 years
Dm-111gstudv (less 1veal').•.••. ..;. v .....""
20o 40
Percentage
Figure 4.8Awareness periods on water harvesting technologies in the study area.
At the interactive learning site awareness entailed practical exposure of the rmcro-
catchment water harvesting techniques to the farmers through active participation.
The same period that the interactive learning site operated in the study area was when the
majority of the sampled farmers became aware of the micro-catchment water harvesting
in fruit trees productivity.
54
60
The study observed that awareness on technologies was mainly the Ministry of
Agriculture mainly through donor supported projects/programmes. This is supported by
Mutunga's (2002) report, that after donor funding was terminated in mid 1999 there was
a decline of water harvesting activities at farm level in the ASALs .This was attributed to
reduced level of awareness on water harvesting technologies in crop production (Figure
4.10). Awareness creation is a learning process through which skills and knowledge
about a technology are acquired by the participants prior to implementation. Through the
key informants, this study noted there the decline in the public extension services
provision by the Ministry of Agriculture over the years that affected the information
transfer to farmers. Similarly it was also observed that the frontline extension officers did
not have the technical confidence to sustain the transfer of water harvesting information
to the farmers. Similarly, the informal personal transfer of knowledge was not technically
reliable. Most of the extension approaches like training and visit, earlier used have not
been participatory enough to articulate clearly the needs of small scale farmers. For an
agricultural technology to be adopted, famers must first be aware of its existence and its
potential for practical relevance to them. Awareness creation in the study area was
viewed as the initial step in accessibility of technology information by farmers in priority
setting.
4.5.2 Micro-catchment Water Harvesting Techniques
The study results showed that about 43% of farmers in the study area used two main
micro-catchment water harvesting technologies for fruit productivity at farm level. Out of
this, 63% ~plied semi-circular bunds, while 37% used the closed micro-catchments
55
(Table 4.19). This indicated that some fanners were aware of the importance of simple
micro-catchments water harvesting techniques in the improvement of fruit trees
production in the study area
Tabl 419 Mi hm h ed· th de cro-catc entwater arvestmg tee iques us m e stu yarea
Water harvesting technique frequency (n= 51) Percentage
Closed micro-catchment 19 37
Semi-circular bunds 32 63
Total 51 100
n- number of fanners usmg the techniques
Source: Field data, 2008/2009
The study found that semi-circular bunds (U- bund and V- bund) were the most preferred
micro-catchment water harvesting technique for fruit trees productivity among the small
scale farmers in the study area.
4.5.3 Analysis for Closed and Semi-circular Micro-catchments in Relation to
Various Variables Measured at Farm level
Pearson correlation was used to understand patterns and relationships between water
harvesting technologies and the various variables that had been measured (Table 4.20).
According to Stem et al. (2004), the ordinary correlations between two variables measure
the extent and strength of linear relationship between them. The results indicated that
closed micro-catchment water harvesting technique is significantly influenced by
fertilizer use (p=0.05), fruit planting purpose (p= 0.01), watering period for fruit trees (p=
0.01), distance of water source (p=O.OI) number of mangoes planted (p=0.05) and
awareness period (p=0.05).
56
Table 4.21 Correlations analysis for the micro-catchment water harvesting techniques and
various variables at farm level
Variable
Age (years)
Farm size (acres)
Farming experience (years)
Manure use
Fertilizer use
Fruit tree problems
Fruit planting purpose
Farm labour source
Watering period for fruit trees (months)
Information on water harvesting
Distance to source for farming water
Mango fruit variety planted
Total farm produce use
Adequate food production
Number of mangoes planted
Awareness period (years)
Micro-catchment water harvesting structures
Closed micro- Semi-circular bunds
catchment
-0.038
-0.082
-0.025
0.112
0.228*
-0.243
-0.236**
-0.136
-0.245**
-0.015
0.371 **
0.111
-0.339**
0.146
-0.182*
-0.181 *
-0.042
0.036
-0.117
0.081
0.264**
-0.273**
-0.345**
-0.228**
-0.315**
0.213*
-0.006
0.245**
- 0.230*
0.209*
-0.350**
-0.407**
**Correlation is significant at p= 0.01 (2 tailed)
*Correlation is significant at p= 0.05 (2 tailed)
Source: Field data, 2008/2009
Semicircular bunds construction is significantly influenced by fertilizer use (p= 0.01),
fruit tree problems (p=O.OI), fruit planting purpose (p= 0.01), farm labour source
(p=0.01), watering period for fruit trees (p=0.01), informationon water harvesting (p=
0.05), mango fruit variety planted (p=0.01), adequate food production (p= 0.05), number
of mangoes planted (p=0.01), total farm produce use (p=0.05) and awareness period on
micro-catchments water harvesting (p=0.01). The results indicated that farmers are more
likely to use fertilizers with closed micro-catchment (r=0.228, p=0.05, n=19) and semi-
circular (r=0.264, p=O.OI, n=32) water harvesting technologies. This is due to the reduced
risk of drying of fruit trees under water harvesting. Distance to source for farming water
had positive correlation to closed micro-catchment (r= 0.371, p=O.OI, n=19). Farmers
57
near water sources were more likely to use closed micro-catchments. According to the
key informants in the study area, the closed micro-catchment technology was usually
used by farmers near rivers as water holding basins during watering of the fruit trees.
Adequate food production had positive correlation to semi-circular micro-catchments (r=
0.209, p=0.05, n=32). This results indicate that farmers practicing micro-catchment water
harvesting were more likely to achieve food self sufficiency. According to Hudson's
(1993) findings; it is clear that better water conservation/harvesting technologies aids to
better production by reducing the risk of crop failure. There was positive correlation
between farmers using semi-circular bunds and sourcing information on water-
harvesting technologies (r= 0.213, p=O.OI, n=32). According to the findings of this study,
farmers required extension services provision to scale up water harvesting techniques at
farm level. This is supported by Roger's (1995) argument that lack of contact with
extension services often has been identified as an impediment to effective scaling up of
technologies at farm level. The purpose for fruit planting negatively correlated to the use
of the closed micro-catchment water harvesting techniques (r= -0.236, p=O.Ol, n=19)
and semi-circular bunds (r= -0.345, p=O.OI, n=32). This implied that farmers who
construct micro-catchment water harvesting structures in fruit trees were not likely to
plant mango fruit trees for home consumption especially under semi-circular bunds.
According to the key informants in the study area, farmers preferred using water
harvesting techniques mainly on improved varieties for income generation. Farmers using
semi-circular bunds in fruit trees were likely to experience less fruit problems mainly in
relation to water stress and drought (r= -0.273, p= 0.01, n=32). A study by Ngure (2002)
in Kitui found that U-bunds (semi-circular) micro-catchment water harvesting techniques
58
improved the amount and duration of water availability to the plants roots, thus reduce
moisture stress.
Watering period for fruit trees had negative correlation with both micro-catchment water
harvesting techniques with semicircular bunds (r = -0.315, p=O.OI, n=32) and the closed
micro-catchment (r = -0.245, p=O.OI, n=19). This is because these farmers had a better
understanding of the fact that micro-catchment techniques improved water availability to
the fruit trees which reduced the watering period. Water harvesting and crop husbandry
are seen as the most important strategies for increasing crop production in the ASALs
(Gichangi et al., 2007). Respondents with short awareness period were more likely to
practice both closed (r= -0.181, p=0.05) and semi-circular bunds (r= -0.407, p=O.Ol)
micro-catchment water harvesting technologies at farm level. From the findings of this
study, information generation and dissemination on all aspects of micro-catchment water
harvesting technology in fruit trees production is vital for its scaling up at farm level.
Degrande (2005) argues that research and extension have always been challenged to
develop and diffuse technologies which are adoptable by farmers. This study further
established that farmer's most pressing information requirement was information on
technical details on micro-catchment water harvesting technologies.
4.6 Farmers Perception on Preferred Micro-catchment Water Harvesting Techniques
4.6.1 Farmers Perceived Constraints in Fruit Production
Prolonged dry spells (water stress period) and termite infestation were the mam
challenges faced by farmers in the establishment and management of fruit trees (Table
4.21). According to the key informants, termite attack was more severe during the dry
season than in the wet season. It was found that the termites attacked the planted fruit
59
seedlings after a prolonged water stress period making termite attack and drought to be
closely linked problems on fruit trees. According to FAO (2004) findings, erratic rainfall
is a key constraints faced by mangoes fruit trees farmers in the dIY areas of Kenya In
Yatta, the study observed that there was low emphasis on micro-catchment water
harvesting technologies at farm level in comparison to soil conservation structures hence
the pronounced effect of water stress.
Table 4.21 Main fruit trees problems in the study area
Frequency
Constraints (N=120) Percentage (%)
Dry spells and drought 66 55
Termites infestation 31 26
Livestock damage 7 6
Poor quality seedlings 16 13
Total 120 100
Source: Field data, 2008/2009
Findings from the key informants indicated low levels of water harvesting at farm level
increased the risk of rainfed planted fruit seedlings failure leading to reluctance by
farmers to invest in improved fruit trees in the study area Hudson (1993) argues that the
preferred approach will be to manage land for maximum water infiltration and minimum
surface runoff in order to achieve better yields where soil moisture is a constraint
This study found that most farmers in the study area released their livestock to free range
in the farms after harvesting the annual crops (maize, beans and pigeon peas) thus caused
damage to fruit trees. This is supported by Mugwe et al. (1999) findings that grazing
livestock animals are usually a menace to young fruit tree seedlings and farmers protect
them by using twigs of thorny trees.
60
4.6.2 Perceived Benefits of Micro-Catchment Water Harvesting
In the study, farmers' perceptions on the status of micro-catchment water harvesting in
fruit trees were estimated using the semi-circular bunds as the reference point. This was
due to the fact that the technique was mostly used by the farmers in the study area
Participants observations was amongst the data collecting technique used at the
interactive learning /demo plot site on water harvesting technologies and fruit trees
improvement activities. The sampled farmers were asked about their observations after
they participated in the various activities on water harvesting at interactive learning site
in the study area (Table 4.22). Observation was mainly based on perceived benefits that
included ease of construction, applicability of technology, soil erosion control, seedlings
survival increase, control of within farm runoff This agrees with Pennel, (1999) who
reported that perception is usually based on sufficient reliability of the technology to
deliver the sought benefits. About 83% were of the opinion that the micro-catchments
water harvesting structures were easy to construct in comparison to the high labour,
capital intensive and land losing (space) terraces structures widely used by farmers for
soil and water conservation at farm level. This is supported by Thomas (1993) findings
that micro-catchment water harvesting techniques do no result to loss of land for crops
and are not labour-intensive as compared to terraces structures. Over 97% of the
respondents were of the opinion that there was improved fruit survival through micro-
catchment water harvesting at the interactive learning site demo plot.
61
Tabl 422 P . db fi f rni h h h 1e erceive ene ts 0 rrucro-catc ment water arvestmg tee no ogles
- (%) frequency (N= 120)
Agree Disagree No opinion
Observation
Easy to construct 83 15 2
Applicable to all types of fruit trees 86 6 8
Controls soil erosion 66 31 3
Improves Seedling Survival 97 2 1
Controls Within Farm Runoff 80 16 4..3 Agree; 2 DIsagree; 1 No Opinion
This agrees with Mutai (1986) who reported high survival rate for fruit seedlings planted
using modified semi-circular bunds (V-bunds) in a dry agro-ecological zone in southern
Kitui, Kenya. About 66% of the respondents also believed that there was control of soil
erosion and 80% observed that the structures controlled within farm runoff
4.6.3 Perceived Pro blems of Micro-catchment Water Harvesting
This data was collected through scoring and ranking of the perceived problem on micro-
catchment water harvesting technology use in their farming system. Each respondent was
allowed to score for the most severe problem as perceived at farm level. The respondents
(35%) perceived ox-ploughing as the most serious problem in the use of micro-catchment
water harvesting techniques in fruit trees production at farm level (Table 4.23). In the
study area land preparation, planting and weeding is mainly done using oxen drawn
plough. Farmers find it difficult to maneuver the micro-catchment water harvesting
structures during land preparation using ox-plough. About 26% perceived excessive
maintenance time, 17% layout of structures and 13% destruction by livestock as
problems related to micro-catchment technologies use at farm level.
62-_.
T bl 423 P . d bl f . h h hnla e erceive pro ems 0 micro-catc ment water arvesnn g tee o ogles
Problem Response Percentage (%) Rank
(N= 120)
Hamper ox-ploughing 42 35 1
Excessive maintenance time 31 26 2
Layout of structures difficult 21 17 3
Destruction by livestock 16 l3 4
Hinders intercropping 10 9 5
Total 120 100
Source: Field data 2008/2009
On maintenance time for the micro-catchment water harvesting structures, respondents
felt it would reduce the available time to eam extra income through off farm casual
labour especially where the overall household labour is sold. The farmers argued that
after harvesting the annual crops, they free ranged the livestock into the farms to feed on
the crops harvest leftovers. This livestock cause serious damage to the micro-catchment
water harvesting structures by the livestock rendering them ineffective for water
harvesting. This study noted that repair for damaged structures is usually delayed by the
farmer and this compromises the efficiency of micro-catchment water harvesting
techniques. On layout of structures the respondents argued that the technical
measurements requirement for the structures would be a problem to many farmers due to
the low literacy levels. The observations made by the farmers on micro-catchment water
harvesting techniques were based on the diverse bio-physical and socioeconomic
environments at the farm level. Through observations, farmers were able to study the
basic characteristics of the micro-catchment water harvesting technology. This was the
initial step in action learning to determine the technology usefulness in their farming
systems.
63
4.7 Strategies of Coping with Water Stress in Fruit Trees in the Study Area
The study found that farmers used a wide range of coping strategies against water stress
in fruit trees production. This shows that farmers were well aware of the adverse effect
of water stress in fruit tree seedling survival rate. About 92% used contour ploughing,
67% planted cover crops mostly legumes and 54% planted fruit in terraces were among
the most widely used by the farmers. Mulching and bottle feeding was used by 16% of
the farmers in the study area (fable 4.23). The study observed that mulching is an
effective method of conserving water in ASALs. This concurs with Onduru et al. (2002)
who found that when practiced mulching has benefits such as reducing evaporation,
runoff and soil erosion. Constraints on the use included unavailability and attract termites
during dry spells.
Table 4.23 Main strategies to cope with water stress in fruit trees
Coping strategy Yes No
% Frequency (N=120)
Mulching
Contour ploughing
Bottle feeding
Planting in terraces
Bucket watering
Planting cover crops
16 84
92 8
16 84
54 46
35 65
67 33
Source: Field data, 2008/2009
The farmers adapted mulching as a strategy to conserve soil moisture and at the same
time improve soil fertility. Majority of the farmers used contour ploughing having
understood its importance as an ecologically protective adaptation for soil conservation.
64
"-
Through the key informants, the study found that the contour ploughing was linked to
terracing and popular with fanners since it had extensively been applied as a soil
conservation measure at farm level in the study area
The study observed that fanners planted fiuit trees within the terraces as a technically
protective adaptation to water harvesting and improve survival of fiuit seedlings. Farmers
in the study area tried to combine productive and protective strategies in the soil and
water conservation technologies to minimize negative consequences and threats to the
sustainability of their farm production system. Growing fruit trees intercropped with
legumes such as cowpeas was a common practice in the study area Information collected
from key informants in the study area indicated that planting of cover crops in the study
area was primarily practiced to improve food production through intercropping at farm
level. It is always appropriate to appreciate the farm level managerial and decision
making capacity of the farmers in their own rights.
4.8 Sources of Information on Water Harvesting Technologies in Fruit Tree
Production
The agricultural extension services provided to farmers through the Ministry of
Agriculture was the main source of information on micro-catchment water harvesting
techniques in the study area This was a source of information for 46% of the respondents
in the study area. Farmer to farmer extension messages exchange on water harvesting was
27% and self innovation accounted for 13% of the respondents (Figure 4.11). The study
also identified other sources of information on water harvesting as local opinion leaders
6%, parents 2%, research agents 2% and mass media 4%. To ensure effective information
65
dissemination, appropriate distribution channels must be designed and facilitated to play
this critical role (MoA, 2005a).
ii
!Q)Is->
: ~ extension agent
I~j farmer-tanner ~••••••••••
f ~ j
!~
i~
I~:::
,
·~l
selfinnovation
parent
opinion leaders
research agent ·~t
mass media
o 30 ..t{l10 20
% frequency
Figure 4.11 Main sources of information on water harvesting technologies for
fruit production in the study area
50
This information include indigenous technical knowledge, technical knowledge generated
through formal research work, knowledge and information accessed through training
institutions and extension systems, or otherwise available through publications and
electronic media (MoA, 2001). In real life, it was found that agricultural knowledge and
information was available from many sources apart from the government funded
extension services in the study area (Figure 4.11). The source of information included
their experiences (self innovation) and those of their colleagues to develop an insight of
water harvesting technologies.
66
4.8.1 Agricultural Extension Services
This was public extension services mainly offered by the government through the
Ministry of Agriculture in the study area and accounted for about 46% of the respondents
(Figure 4.11). The role of extension in the study area was to provide information to
farmers which allowed them better use of available resources by increasing technological
options and organization skills. The National Water and Soil Conservation Programme
(NWSC) in Yatta District during the 1980s and 19905, was to a greater extent supply
driven by the government (MoA, 2001). Farmers were assisted with tools to implement
resource conservation in their farms. Farmers abandoned or lacked the initiative to scale
up the technologies introduced including the micro-catchment water harvesting in fruit
trees production. Further, the decline in funding of extension services from the
government (public sector) affected the technologies scaling up in Yatta District. The
service (public) has been blamed for non performance and lack of accessibility and
confidence in the extension workers has been waning (MoA, 2001).
In the ASALs it is more difficult to achieve sustainability due to other factors like high
poverty levels and low erratic rainfall that come into playas in the case of Yatta District.
The initially supply driven extension by the government has now changed to demand
driven extension under the current National Agriculture and Livestock Extension
Programme (NALEP) in the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA, 2005b). The concept of
demand driven extension in the study area has not been well interpreted to allow the
needs of the farmers in micro-catchment water harvesting in fruit trees productivity to be
well catered for. In the study area, public extension continues to playa big role despite
the government efforts to encourage support from other collaborators in provision of
67
extension services (MoA, 2001). The study also found that extension-research linkage
has weakened due to the low collaboration among or between institutions responsible for
research and extension. Farmer-research-extension linkages in the study area had not
been strengthened towards improved contact with the farmers for greater input in scaling
up of micro-catchment water harvesting technology for fruit tree production in Yatta
District.
4.8.2 Farmer to Farmer Extension
Farmer to farmer extension was found to be a major source of information on water
harvesting in the study area About 27% of the respondents relied mainly on this source
of information (Figure 4.11). This was where farmers shared information and knowledge
drawn from their own experiences. Farmer to farmer dissemination plays a key role in
spreading agricultural technologies especially with the declining formal extension
systems throughout Africa. Information generation and dissemination on all aspects of
water harvesting technologies was vital for its success at the farm level in the study area.
Essential aspects of information for water harvesting should embrace the totality of the
technology values at the farm. Agricultural knowledge and information included
indigenous technical knowledge, technical knowledge and information accessed through
training institutions and extension systems or available through publications and
electronic media. According to Doss and Morris (2001), uptake of a new technology is
influenced by farmers contact with extension services. Farmers could become the
extension workers on their own if allowed to fully participate on the technology
development and dissemination. The farmer-farmer extension improvement in Yatta was
dependent on capacity building for lead farmers by specialists in various aspects of
68
technologies. The use of farmer to farmer information dissemination is more economical
and can reach more farmers as they are widely spread out, even in areas where public
extension services have not reached (Kabwe et al., 2002).
4.8.3 Opinion Leaders
Opinion leaders such as village elders, progressive farmers, and administrative officers
were also used to pass on messages to other members of the community. These were
local leaders with capability to mobilise people for meetings. Only 6% of the respondents
relied on this source of information (Figure 4.11). The opinion leaders lack the technical
capacity to disseminate the micro-catchment water harvesting techniques and were
considered more as facilitators (Kabwe et al., 2002). The opinion leaders in the study area
relied mainly on word-of-mouth rather than the practical skills to disseminate the
information on micro-catchment water harvesting technologies.
4.9 Participatory Extension Methods for Water Harvesting Techniques in Fruit
Trees Production
The respondents in the study area reported different extension approaches used by the
Ministry of Agriculture to pass technical information to farmers on water harvesting and
fruit trees production in the study area (Table 4.23). These mainly included barazas,
demonstrations, farmers' field days and farm visits. The participatory extension
approaches referred to the forums for technical and other knowledge/information
exchange on micro-catchment water harvesting technologies that farmer accessed and
used in the study area. This study found that informal meetings (forums) accounted for
about 30% of the respondents' information exchange on water harvesting. These informal
69
meetings include open market days, religious gathering and social gatherings. Farmer to
farmer and opinion leaders sourcing of information relied mainly on these informal
forums. Farmers are experts on most aspects of their farming system and especially those
which are readily observable (Richards, 1985). Participation makes it possible to achieve
more profound changes in the way farmers think and act (Ban and Hawkins, 1997). The
farmers also become motivated and cooperative if they share responsibilities aimed at
achieving sustainable farming system.
Table 4.23 Participatory extension forums in the study area
Extension Forum Frequency (N=120) Percentage (%)
Informal meetings 36 30
Baraza 26 22
Farmer field day 14 12
Farm visits 27 22
Farm trials 2 1
Demonstrations 3 3
Stakeholders meetings 1 1
Common interest groups 11 9
Total 120 100
Source: Field data 2008/2009
The use of methods that emphasized groups approach rather than individual farmers was
found to be more effective due to their relatively low cost. Most of the information
sourced through the informal meetings was not technically reliable in implementing
micro-catchment water harvesting techniques in fruit trees production. Common interest
groups (9%) were mainly local best practice groups which were used to increase the
capacity of the farmers to scale up the introduced farming technologies. Common interest
groups can address knowledge demands of farmers (Hoang and Graham, 2006). Together
they can find It easier to get inputs, credit, technical advice, transport and market. In
70
order to be effective there is need for capacity building in managerial and leadership and
production skills which can be a basis of community empowerment. Farmers need to be
trained to have more knowledge on expected benefits and how to integrate water
harvesting in their farming systems. According to the key informants, lack of trainings
and follow ups was a main hindrance to the scaling up of micro-catchments water
harvesting techniques in the study area
4.9.1 Publicity Communication Channels Used in the Study Area
Various communication channels were used to reach the farmers to attend formal
participatory extension meetings at the interactive learning site in the study area These
included the chiefs public barazas, primary schools, churches, posters and mass media.
During the first PRA meeting attended by 98 farmers at the interactive leaning site, all
these channels were used concurrently to reach the farmers in the study area as shown in
Table 4.24. Publicity was a process of making the PRA activity known to the targeted
farmers and aimed at achieving contact with extension agent. This is supported by
Douglas (1993) who noted that PRA meeting was the initial entry point towards
community participation through involvement in planning and implementation of
activities.
Table 4.24 Main communication channels for the PRA meeting publicity in the study
area
Dissemination Pathway Frequency (N= 98) Percentage.'
Ramo 31 32
School 23 24
Church 35 36
Chiefs baraza 27 28
Posters 19 20
MoA staff 43 44
! Percentages do not add to 100 because of multiple responses.
71
The study found that a combination of communication pathway should be used to
improve information flow in the study area This agrees with Mugwe et al. (2010) who
noted that appropriate technology communication strategy should be multimedia Overall
the Ministry of Agriculture (44%) was fuund to be a major facilitator in dissemination of
information to the farmers (Table 4.24). The Ministry of Agriculture controls the public
extension provision with staff at the farm level in the study area The church (36%),
radio (32%) and chief's baraza (28%) were the other more effective channels of
communication with wide coverage of respondents in the study area. According to Paul
Mundy and Jacques Sultan (2001), information is a basic element in any development
activity and must be available and accessible to all. Posters are visual aids used to
communicate technical information to the farmers in the study area
72
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
The study highlighted that household and farm level factors play an important role in
influencing scaling up of water harvesting and fruit trees production at farm level.
About 59% of farmers watered their seedlings after planting with rivers as the main
source of water. However, watering was found to be ineffective and unsustainable due to
the seasonality of rivers. This intervention is tedious and labour intensive due to the long
distance to the rivers. About 38% of respondent farmers had planted improved mango
varieties mainly for commercial purpose and since most farmers were subsistence, the
uptake was still low.
In this study the semicircular micro-catchments were found to be preferred by the farmers
in Yatta District. Overall 43% of the respondent farmers used micro-catchment water
harvesting in fruit trees production at varying levels. Among these 63% of the farmers
used semicircular bunds technique. Farmers preferred micro-catchment water harvesting
techniques as compared to the labour and capital intensive soil conservation structures
like the terraces in the study area
Farmers preferred planting improved fruit varieties under micro-catchment water
harvesting for compensatory gain in terms of value (income). This is because micro-
catchment water harvesting technologies use in fruit trees production improvement by
farmers had the potential to reduce crop failure risk due to water stress.
The overall results show that fertilizer use, fruit planting purpose, watering period for
fruit trees, total farm produce use, number of mangoes planted and awareness period are
73
significant variables in the scaling up of micro-catchment water harvesting techniques for
fruit production in Yatta District. These are key factors to be considered for success in
promotion/scaling up of water harvesting and fruit trees production improvement in the
study areas. Farmers were found to have used a wide range of coping strategies like
mulching, bottle feeding and planting in terraces to counter the effect of water stress at
farm level. This shows that farmers have realized the importance of water harvesting to
address the moisture constraint in fruit production.
The active participation of farmers, showed their enthusiasm in scaling up micro-
catchments water harvesting in crop production improvement in Yatta District. The
farmers, perceptions on micro-catchment water harvesting and fruit trees production
improvement were based on their rational decisions towards appropriateness of the
technologies after participation in interactive learning/demo site.
Dissemination of Information on water harvesting technologies and fruit trees production
improvement was mainly done through the government led extension forums like
barazas, field days and farm visits. Awareness creation as a learning process was vital in
the scaling up of the micro-catchment water harvesting technologies at farm level.
5.2 Recommendations
The Ministry of Agriculture should concentrate on promotion fruit production on a
commercial basis in semi arid areas by improved agronomic practices like provision of
quality planting materials to act as an incentive for farmers to integrate water
conservationlharvesting technologies at farm level. Water harvesting should be an
integral core requirement in crop production at farm level in all farming systems in Yatta.
74
The micro-catchment water harvesting technology and fruit trees improvement should be
presented/promoted as a package to fanners and not isolated from each other.
Research and extension collaboration /partnership should aim to develop and diffuse
water harvesting technologies in crop production through strengthened linkage with land
users/farmers. The highlighted farmers' perceptions on micro-catchment water
harvesting in fruit trees are very important for planning, designing and implementation of
the technologies.
Effective participatory approaches and dissemination pathways should be used to
empower the land users/farmers and improve skills at farm level. The Ministry of
Agriculture should take lead to improve the existing information dissemination
channels/pathways mainly to facilitate small scale farmers participation in scaling up
water harvesting in fruit trees improvement.
5.3 Suggestion for Further Research
There is need to establish and document the compensatory gain for various crops 10
relation to micro-catchment water harvesting technologies for comparative consideration
at farm level. Now that the micro-catchments technologies preferred have been
established, there is need to evaluate their adaptation and performance based on various
treatment factors like productivity and fruit tree-crop (intercrop) interactions.
75
References
Ayuk E.T. and Jera R, 2002. Scaling Up Improved Fallows in Zimbabwe: A
Comparative Analysis with Other Organic Sources of Soil Fertility Improvement
Practices. Proceedings of the Regional Agroforestry Conference, 20-24 May
2002, Aventura Resort Warmbaths, South Africa
Ban AW. van den and HS. Hawkins 1997. Agricultural Extension, Blackwel Science,
London, UK.
Barron 1., 2004 Dry Spell Mitigation to Upgrade Semi- Arid Rainfed Agriculture: Water
Harvesting and Soil Nutrient Management for Smallholder Maize Cultivation in
Machakos, Kenya Doctoral Thesis in Natural Resource Management, Stockholm
University, Sweden.
Barrow E.G.C., 1996. The Drylands of Africa: Local Participation in Tree Management.
Initiatives Publishers. Nairobi, Kenya
Blackburn 1. and J. Holland (eds.), 1998. Who Changes? Institutionalizing Participatory
in Development. IT Publications, London, UK.
Blake R, 1.Lopiccolo, J. Holahan and S. Scarr. 1983. Psychology Today an Introduction.
Randon House, New York.
Boers T.M., and 1. Ben-Asher, 1982. A Review of Rainwater Harvesting. Agricultural
Water Management 5: 145-158.
Bruins H1., M. Evenari, and U. Nessler, 1986. Rainwater-harvesting Agriculture for
Food Production in Arid Zones: The Challenge of the African Famine. Applied
Geography 6(1): 13-32.
Chambers R, A Pacey, L.A Thrupp, 1989. Farmers First: Farmer Innovation and
Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technology Publication, Southampton,
London, UK.
Chambers R, 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. p246. Longman, USA
Chambers R and 1 Guijit, 1995. PRA- Five Years Later, Where are We Now? Forest,
Trees and People, no.26/27, pp. 4-14.
Critchley W., Reij C. and A Sanchez 1992. Water Harvesting for Plant Production, Vol
11 Case Studies and Conclusions for Sub-Saharan Africa World Bank Technical
Paperno. 157, African Technical Department Series, Washington DC.
76
Doss CR. and M.L. Morris 2001.How does Gender Affect Adoption of Agricultural
Innovation? The Case of Improved Maize Technology in Ghana. Agric. Econ. 25:
27-39.
Degrande A, 2005. Adoption Potential of Two Agroforestry Technologies: Improved
Fallows and Domestication of Indigenous Fruits in the Humid Forest and
Savannah Zones, Cameroon. PhD Thesis, Ghent University, Belgium.
FAO, 2004. Value Chain Analysis: A Case Study of Mangoes in Kenya. Tropical and
Horticultural Products Services and Trade Division, FAO.
FAO, (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2000. International
Rice Commission Newsletter. VoL 49, Rome, Italy.
FAOIAGL. 2000. Water Harvesting fur Improved Rainfed Production and Supplementary
Irrigation. WH Training Course. www.fao.org/landandwater/aglw/wharv.htm.
FAO, 1999. Food Security Goal. Hunger and Food Security, Issue 2: 1-14
FAOIWHO, 1992. International Conference on Nutrition: Improving Houshold Food
Security. Major issuesfor Nutrition Strategies. Theme and Paper no.IRome: 12-
57
Fortmann L., 1988. Tree Tenure Factors in Agroforestry with Particular Reference to
Africa. In: Whose Trees? Proprietary Dimensions of Forestry. Westview Press,
Bolder, CO, USA
Gachanj a S.P. and P. IIg, 1990. Fruit Trees Nurseries, Ministry of Agriculture. Nairobi,
Kenya.
Gichangi E.M., E.N. Njiru, JK Itabari, 1.M. Wambua and A Karuku 2007. In: Bationo
(eds) 2007. Advances in Integrated Soil Fertility Management in SSA: Challenges
and Opportunities. Springer, 759-765.
Graaf J de 1996. The Price of Soil Erosion; an Economic Evaluation of Soil
Conservation and Watershed ManagementWOTRO Project No. 45-104.
Netherlands: Netherlands Foundation for Advancement of Research (WOTRO).
Hatibu N., and H Mahoo, 1999. Rainwater Harvesting Technologies for Agricultural
production: A Case for Dodoma, Tanzania. In Conservation Tillage with Animal
Traction, ed. P.G Kambutho, and T.E. Simalenga Harare, Zimbabwe: A
Resource Book of Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa
(ATNESA).
77
Hai M., 1996. Water Harvesting Experiences for Fruit Trees Production in ASAL Areas
of Kenya: A Case Study of Kaumoni Demonstration, Mwingi District. Paper
Presented at First National Agroforestry Conference, 25-29 March 1996, Muguga,
Nairobi, Kenya.
Hai M., 1998. An lllustration Manual for the Development of Micro Catchment
Technique for Crop Production in Dry Areas, Regional Land Management Unit
(RELMA), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA),
Nairobi, Kenya.
Hoang T., D. Graham 2006. Farmer interest groups: Factors Influencing their
Sustainability and Their Involvement of Extension Agencies
web :http://www.regional.org.au/au/apen/2006/refereed 16/2852. tuhoang
Hogg, 1986. Water Harvesting in Semi Arid Kenya: Opportunities and Constraints. A
Consultant Report for Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya.
Hudson N.W., 1992. Land Husbandry. BT Batsford Ltd, London, UK. 192pp.
Hudson N.W., 1993. Soil and Water Management for Nineties: New Pressures, New
Objectives. In: Hudson N. and J.R. Cheatle, 1993. Working with Farmers for
Better Land Husbandry, Intermediate Technology Publishers, London, UK.
Hunter J.P., 1993. Economic Considerations for Participatory Development. In: Hudson
N. and Cheatle J.R. 1993 Working with Farmers for Better Land Husbandry,
International Technology Publication, London, UK.
Ikonge 1, D. Kigera, D. Kamunge, 2005. Machakos Long Rains Assessment Report
(2005). Machakos District, Kenya.
IIRR, 2002. Farmers Changing the Face of Technology: Choices and Adaptations of
Technology Options. International Institute of Rural Reconstruction. Silang,
Cavite, Philipines.
IIRR, 2000. Going to Scale: Can We Bring More Benefit to More People Quickly.
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, YC. James Yen Centre, Silang,
Cavite, Philipines.
IIRR, 1998. Sustainable Agricultural Manual for Eastern and Southern Africa.
International Institute of Rural Reconstruction.
78
Kabwe G., R. Katanga, P.L. Mafongoya, I.M. Grundy, D. Phiri, F. Kwesiga 2002.
Dissemination Pathways for Scaling Up Agroforestry Options in Eastern Zambia
In: Rao M.R. and Kwesiga F.R. (eds) 2004. Proceedings of the Regional
Agroforestry Conference on Agroforestry Impacts on Livelihoods in Southern
Africa: Putting Research into Practice, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF),
Nairobi, Kenya.
Karega R., J. Njuki, J. Kung'u, J Mugwe, F. Muriu, M. Mucheru-Muna 2006.
Participatory Problem Diagnosis, Monitoring and Evaluation and Scaling Up. In:
Mugendi D.N., M. Mucheru-Muna, and J. Mugwe (eds.) Soil Fertility: Enhancing
Community Extension. Manilla Publishers, Nairobi, Kenya
KARI-NDFRC, 1995. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, National Dryland Farming
Research Centre, Katumani, Machakos, Kenya
Kerkhof P., 1990. Agroforestry and Africa. A Survey of Project Experience. Panos,
London.
Kipsat M.J, 2007 Socio-Economics of Soil Conservation in Kericho District, Kenya. In:
Bationo A., B. Waswa, 1. Kihara, 1. Kimetu 2007 Advances in Integrated Soil
Fertility Management in SSA: Challenges and Opportunities. Springer,
Netherlands.
Leach G. and R. Mearns, 1988. Beyond the Woodfuel Crisis. People, Land and Trees in
Africa. Earthscan, London
Lekasi, J.K., J.C Tanner, S.K. Kimani and P.J.c. Harris 2001. Manure Management in
the Kenyan Highlands: Practices and Potential. Henry Double Day Research Association
(HDRA), Ryton-on Dunsmore.
Lynam JK., 2006. Scaling Up, Out and Beyond: Approaches to Technology
Dissemination in Africa http//csdngo.igc.org/agriculture/agr scalinguphtm
Makaya P.R., 1999. Dissemination and Development in Zimbabwe. In: Ayuk E., B. Dery,
F. Kwesiga, and P. Makaya (ed.) Proceedind of the 13tit International Southern
African Plannining and Review Meeting, 5-11 July 1999, Mangochi, Malawi. pp
165-168.
Malesu M., 2008. Africa Looks Up to Rainwater Harvesting to Boost Farming. In:
Obanyi G. (ed) Transformations Quarterly, Issue no. 14, April-June 2008. World
Agroforesty Centre, Nairobi, Kenya
Mascarenhas 1., 1991. Participatory Rural Appraisal, Proceedings of the February 1991
PRA Trainers Workshop No. l3,llED, London.
79
Mead R. and R.N. Carrow, 1983. Statistical Methods in Agriculture and Experimental
Biology. Chapman and Hall Ltd., London.
Minae S. and E. Akyeampong (eds), 1988. Agroforestry Potentials for the Land Use
Systems in the Bimodal Highlands of Eastern Africa: Kenya AFRENA Report
No.3, ICRAF, Kenya
MoA, 2008. District Situational Reports, 2008. District Agricultural Office, Ministry of
Agriculture, Yatta District, Kenya.
MoA, 2005a Strategic Plan 2005- 2009, Ministry of Agriculture, Kilimo House, Nairobi,
Kenya.
MoA, 2005b. Project Document, National Agricultural and Livestock Extension
Programme (Phase 11). July 2005- June 2010, Nairobi, Kenya.
MoA, 2003. Ministry of Agriculture Annual Report, 2002-2003. Kilimo House, Nairobi.
MoA, 2001. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. National Extension Policy
(NAEP), Government Press. Nairobi, Kenya
Mosha B.D., 2002. Assessment of Home Gardens as Potential Source of Household
Income and Food Security in Eastern Uluguru Mountains, Msc. Thesis, Sokoine
University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania.
Mugenda O.M. and AG. Mugenda 1999. Research Methods: Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches. African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS),
Nairobi
Mugendi D., Mugwe 1., Muna-Mucheru M., Karega R., 2007. Dissemination for
Integrated Soil Fertility Replenishment Technologies Using Participatory
Approaches in Central Highlands of Kenya In: Bationo A, Okeyo 1.M., Waswa
B.S., Mapfumo P., Maina F., Kihara 1. (eds.) 2007. Innovations as Key to the
Green Revolution in Africa: Exploring Scientific Facts, Symposium Abstracts.
Mugwe 1., M. O'Neill, S. Gachanja, J. Muriuki, 1. Mwangi 1999. Participatory
Evaluation of Water Harvesting Techniques for Establishing Improved Mango
Varieties in Smallholder Farms of Mbeere District, Kenya. In: Scott D.E., R.H.
Mohtar and G.C. Steinhardt (eds) 1999. Sustaining the Global Farm, Soil
Conservation Organization Meeting. May 24-29, 1999. Purdue University.
Mugwe IN., D.N. Mugendi, M. Mucheru Muna, 1.M. Muthamia 2010. Methodologies
and Approaches for Uptake and Scaling Up Soil Fertility Management
Technologies in Africa; A Review Discussion Paper, Presented at Association for
Strengthening Research in East, Central Africa (ASARECA), Regional
Workshop, 22-24 February 2011, Nairobi, Kenya. ~
80
Mundy P. and 1. Sultan, 2001. Information Revolutions: How Information and
Communication Management is Changing the Lives of Rural People. Technical
Centre for Agricultural- and Rural Cooperation (CTA). Wageningen,
Netherlands.
Muthami F.K, 2002. Rainwater Harvesting in Coast Province, Kenya. Greater Horn of
Africa Workshop, 5-8 August, 2002. Nairobi, Kenya.
Mutunga R.K, 2002. Rainwater Harvesting and Agicultural Policy, Ministry of
Agriculture, Kenya Greater Horn of Africa Rainwater Partnership Workshop,
5-8 August, 2002, Nairobi, Kenya.
Ngigi S.N., D.B. Thomas, K Mutunga, D.M. Mburu (eds.) 2003. Rainwater Harvesting
for Improved Food Security: Promising Technologies in the Greater Horn of
Africa Rainwater Partnership (GHARP) and Kenya Rainwater Association
(KRA), Nairobi, Kenya
Ngure K, 2002. Evaluation of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Kitui District, Kenya.
Greater Horn of Africa Rainwater Partnership Workshop. 5-8 August 2002,
Nairobi Kenya.
Noordin Q., J. Mukalama, D. Rotich, E. Wabwile, J. Lynam, 2007. Scaling Up Options
on Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Western Kenya: The Case of
COSOFAP: Challenges and Opportunities. In Bationo A, B. Waswa, J. Kihara, J.
Kimetu 2007. Advances in Integrated Soil Fertility Mangement in SSA:
Challenges and Opportunities, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Omiti, 1., 1998. Micro level strategies to improve soil fertility in semi and agriculture.
Paper presented at 15th Symposium African Farming system-Research Extension,
Pretoria, South Africa. AFSRE.
Onduru D.D., L. Gachimbi, de Jager, F. Maina, F.N. Muchena 2002. Integrated
Nutrient Management to Attain Sustainable Productivity Increase in East African
Farming Systems: Baseline Survey Carried Out in Muthanu Village, Mbeere
District, Kenya.
Oweis T., A Hachum, J. Keijne, 1999. Water Harvesting and Supplemental Irrigation for
Improved Water Use Efficiency. SWIM Paper no. 7, IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka
pp.41.
Pennel D.J., 1999. Social and Economic Challenges in Development of Complex
Farming Systems. Agroforestry Systems 45: 393-409
Phiri D., P. Mafongoya, I. Jere, R. Katanga and S. Phiri (eds) 2004. Who is Using the
New Technology? The Association of Wealth Status and Gender with the
Planting of Improved Tree Fallows in Eastern Province" Zambia. Agricultural
Systems 79: 131-144
81
Pretty IN., 1994. Alternative Systems of Inquiry for Sustainable Development. IDS
Bulletin no.25 pp 37-48, Sussex, UK.
Raintree J.B., 1983. Strategies for Enhancing the Adoptability of Agroforestry
Innovations. Agroforestry Systems 1: 173-187
Raintree J.B. and M.W. Hoskins 1990. Appropriate R&D Support for Forestry Extension.
ICRAF Reprint no. 65. Reprinted from Planning Forestry Extension Programmes:
Report of a Regional Expert Consultation. 1988, FAO, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ramadhan T., 1995. Socio-economic Factors Affecting Agroforestry Adoption In
Shinyanga, Tanzania. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, USA.
Reddy D.E., 2008. Holistic View of Agricultural Information Transfer Systems. World
Library and Information Congress. 74th IFLA General Conference and Council
10-14 August 2008, Quebec, Canada http://www.itlaorg!IVJitla74/index.htm
Reij c., 1 Scoones, C. Toulin 1996. Sustaining the Soil: Indigenous Soil and Water
Conservation in Africa.
Rice RP., L.W. Rice and H.D. Tindall, 1991. Fruit and Vegetable Production in Warm
Climates. MacMillan Education Ltd., London.
Richards P., 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution: Ecology and Food Production in
West Africa. Hutchinson, London. '
Ringio O.L., 1990. Household Food Security In Tanzania. Research and Training
Newsletter. 591: 20-23
Rogers R, 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. Fourth Edition, Free Press, New York, USA.
Rockstrom 1,2000. Water Resources Management in Small Holder Farms in Eastern and
Southern Africa: An Overview. Physical Chemical Earth (B), 25(3), 275-283.
Runkadema M., 1984. Farming Systems of Semi-arid Kenya. A Comparison of East
Africa Agriculture and Forestry Journal (Special Issue: Dryland Farming
Research in Kenya) 44: 422-435
Sachs ID., 2002. The Essential Ingredient. New Scientist Aug. 17: 52-55
Sands D.M., 1986. The Technology Application Gap: Overcoming Constraints to Small
Farm Development. Research and Technology Paper 1, FAa, Rome.
Sanders lH.,Shapiro B.1 and Ramaswamy S. 1996. The Economics of Agricultural
Technology Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Baltimore: John Hopkins
University Press. 305pp.
82
Shepherd G., 1985 Social Forestry in 1985: Lessons Learnt and Topics to be Addressed.
ODr Social Forestry Network Paper 1a, London.
Simbowo H. and D. Campbell, 1992. Communication Skills Handbook. Agricultural
Information Research Centre (AIRC), Majestic Printing Works. Nairobi, Kenya.
Stem RD., R Coe, E.F. Allan and I.C. Dale (eds.) 2004. Good Statistical Practice for
Natural Resources Research. Statistical Services Centre, University of Reading,
UK; World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya.
Tiffen M., M. Mortimore, F. Gichuki, 1994. More People, Less Erosion, Environmental
Recovery in Kenya, ODL ACTS Press, Nairobi, Kenya.
UNDPfUNSO, 1997. Aridity Zones and Dryland Populations: An Assessment of
Population Levels in the World's Drylands With Particular Reference to Africa.
UNDP Office to Combat Desertification and Drought (UNSO), New York.
Urvin P and D. Miller 1999. Scaling Up: Thinking Through the Issues.
(http://www.brown.educlDepartments/World_Hunger_Program/hungerweblWHP/
SCALlNGU.html.)
URWA, 2003. Uganda Rainwater Harvesting Association. Evaluation of Rainwater
Harvesting Technologies for Domestic Use and Agricultural Production: A Case
Study of Southern Uganda.
Wilson 1M., RD. Stem, E.F. Allan, 2004. Surveys and Studies of Human Subjects. In:
Statistical Good Practice for Natural Resources Research. CAB International,
Wallington, UK, pp. 87-106.
World Bank, (2003) Scaling Up for Increased Impact of Development Practice. New
York.
World Bank, (2008) Roots of Resilience, World Resources Report, New York, USA.
83
Appendices
Appendix 1: Fanners' Interview &hedule
I am a student at Kenyatta University pursuing a Masters degree in Environmental
Studies. This interview schedule will be administered to you for purpose of data
collection. Iwould like to assure you that the information collected through this schedule
will be treated as confidential. It will only be used for my research purposes.
Background Information
Farm code .
Name ofinterviewer. .
Date of interview .
District .
Location sub location Village .
Farmer's name .
A. Household Characterization
A.l sex male [ ] female [ ]
A.2 Age (tick where appropriate)
(a) <20 years 0 (b) 21-30 years 0
(d) 41-50 years 0 (e) 51-60 years 0
A.3 What languages can you read in?
(c) 31-40 years 0
(f) Over 61 years 0
A.4 What languages can you speak?
A. 5 household head M [] F [ ]
A.6 education level of the household head Primary [ ] Secondary [ ]
Tertiary [ ] University [ ] Never went to school
A.7 marital status (tick): widow [] widower [] separated [ ] married (absent
spouse) [] married (spouse present) [ ]
A.8 Type of housing: stone walls [] mud walls [] timber [] bricks [ ]
others [specify] ., "
A.9 Family composition: ...•..... Male......... Female
Education level of most learned member
AI0. How long have you been farming?
Less than 5years [ ] 5-10 years [ ] 10-15 years [ ] Over 15 years [ ]
B) Land Utilization and Fruit Production
B.l Land holdings (acres): area owned
B.2 area cultivated (Acres)
84
B.3 Have you planted fruit trees? yes [] no [ ]
B.5 If yes, for what purpose? home consumption [ ] sale [] others [mention]
B.6 fruit types; Mangoes: Number [ ] source of seedlings
Papaya: Number [ ]
source of seedlings "
Citrus: Number [ ]
source of seedlings
B. 7 what was the size of the planting hole?
B.8 When planting did you use animal manure? Yes [] No [ ]
B.9 If yes, type of manure used: goat [ ] cow [ ] chicken [] others [ ]
B.I0 When planting fruits, did you use fertilizers? Yes [] No [ ]
B.11 If yes, which one(s)
B .12 what are the problems facing your fruit trees? drying [ ] diseases [ ] theft [ ]
others [ ]
B.l3 Are you willing to plant trees? yes [] no [ ]
B.14 If yes, which ones? Mangoes [] papaya [ ] passion fruits [] avocado [ ]
citrus [] guavas [ ] others [ ]
C) Water Harvesting in Fruit Trees
C.l sources of water for drinking and cooking
What distance? Near [ ] Far [ ] Very far [ ]
C.2 Sources of water for washing clothes
How far away? Near (] Far [] Very far [ ]
85
C.4 sources of water for fanning What distance? Near [ ] Far [] Very far [ ]
C.5 do you water your fruittrees/seedlings Yes [] No [ ]
C.6 If yes, in which months
C.7 Do you have any micro-catchment water harvesting techniques on the farm? Yes ( ]
No ( ]
C.8 If yes, which ones? Closed micro-catchments [] Semi circular bunds [ ] infiltration
pits [ ] None [ ]
C.9 What are the other types of water harvesting structures on the farm? Infiltration
ditches [] Contour terraces [ ] None [ ]
C.IO In which fruit trees do mainly practice water harvesting?
Improved mangoes [ ] papaws [ ] citrus [ ] none [ ]
C.II To what extent do you agree with the following statement on micro-catchment
water harvesting technologies in fruit trees?
5 Strongly Agree; 4 Agree; 3 Disagree; 2 Strongly Disagree; 1 No Opinion
Statement Level of importance
5 4 3 2 I
(a) Constrained by farm size
(b) Appropriate for High Quality Fruits (improved)
(c) Highly complicated for Small Scale Farmers
(d) Improves Seedling Survival
(e) Controls Within Farm Runoff
D) Labour Use
D.I where do you source for labour for your farm? only use household labour [] hire
casuals ( ] hire full time worker(s) [ ]
D.2 For which purpose do you hire labour? digging [] planting [] weeding [ ]
harvesting [ ]
others(mention) .
D.3 Does the family sell labour to others? Yes ( ] No [ ]
D.4 If yes who? father (] mother [] daughter(s)[] son(s)[ ]
D.5 where do you sell labour? within the location (] outside the location [ ]
others (specify) '" '"
D.6 For which farm activities does the family sell labour to others?
E) Livestock Production on the Farm
E. I Do you own animals? yes [ ] no [ ]
E.2 Number of cows; traditional cows ( ] number of grade/improved cows ( ]
Number of oxen [ ]
86
E.3 number of traditional goats: male [] female [ ]
E.4 number of dairy goats nannies [] bucks [ ]
E.5 Others (donkeys, chicken, pigs)
F) Production Activities and Orientation
F.l. what are the five main food crops grown
a) .
b) '" .
c) .
d) .
F.2. what are the most important income earning farming activities in your farm?
a) .
b) .
c) , .
d) .
e) '" .
F.3 apart from farming activities which other sources of income do you have?
a) .
b) '" '" '" '" .
c) .
d) '" '" .
e) .
F.4 farm production this year was used for (tick) only for subsistence (] for
subsistence and market [] mostly for market [ ]
G) Food Security
G.l Do you produce adequate food for the family? Yes ( ] No ( ]
G.2 If no, which do you buy and when?
Food type When bought
G.3 does food deficit occur every year? yes [] no [ ]
G.4 what production constraints do you face in your farm?
a) .
b) .
c) .
d) .
e) .
87
H) Technology information dissemination
H.l Do you belong to any farming group? Yes [] No [ ]
H.2 Do you cany out water harvesting activities as a group? yes [ ] no [ ]
H.4 How do you get information on water harvesting technologies for fruit production?
(Tick as appropriate)
Source Please tick
Self innovation
Extension agent
Parent
Another farmer
Research agent/centre
Mass media
Internet services
Others (specify)
..H.5 Are there established parncrpatory forums that you meet Withother stakeholders in
water harvesting to exchange your views and ideas Yes [] No [ ]
H.6 If yes, which are these forums?
Forum tick as appropriate
Baraza
Farmer field days
Farm visits
Farm trials
Demonstrations
Stakeholders meeting
Village workshops
agricultural shows
Others ( specify)
I.Marketing
1.1 where do you sell your farm produce? Farm gate [ ] Local market [ ]
Outside market [] Farm gate [ ]
88
I.2. who are the buyers of your farm produce? Fellow fanners [] Local traders [ ]
Outside traders [ ]
1.3. What are the main constraints to marketing of farm produce?
Distance to market [ ] poor roads [ ] poor prices [ ] market information [ ]
others (specify) [ l
J. Wealth indicators and wealth classes
Jl. What are the five main wealth indicators (give five in ranking order) 148
a) .
b) .
c) .
d) .
e) .
J2. What are the characteristics of a wealthy person?
a) Wealthy person
b) Medium wealthy person
c) Poor person
J3. How do you consider yourself?
a) Wealthy b) Medium wealthy c) Poor
K. Methods of Coping with Water Stress in Fruit Free Management
Kl. Which of the following methods/innovations do you apply in your farm?
Mulching [ ] Manure application [ ] Contour ploughing [ ]
89
Bottle feeding [ ] Planting in terraces structures [] Bucket watering [ ]
Planting cover crops [] none.I ]
90
Appendix 2
PRA Guidance Questions
1. How did you receive the information on this meeting?
2. What are the main crops/livestock production problems are experienced at farm level?
Suggest solutions for these problems.
3. What are the main fruit trees planted at farm level in this area?
4. What fruit trees are mainly preferred for planting at farm level? (Ranked in order of
preference)
5. Which are the important factors considered at farm level to guide in fruit tree choice
for planting?
6. Which water harvesting techniques are used in fruit trees production improvement?
7. What are the participatory approaches mainly used in extension of water harvesting
technologies and fruit trees improvement to farmers?
8. What do you prefer as the most suitable for an interactive learning! demonstration site?
91
Appendix 3
Checklist for Key Informants
The checklist questionnaires were addressed to village leaders, elders, field officers
(private and public) and community development agents. This was meant to obtain the
overview information about the micro-catchment water harvesting technologies and fruit
trees production aspects.
• Name of interviewee
• Sex
• Occupation
• Village
• Division
1. For how long have you lived in this area?
2. What are the main types of farming systems found in this area?
3. What are the main sources of income at farm level?
4. What are the main types of fruit trees planted by the farmers?
What are the sources of fruit trees planting material?
5. What are the preferential factors for improved fruit varieties at farm level?
6. Which types of micro-catchment water harvesting technologies are used in fruit trees
improvement?
7. When was the micro-catchment water harvesting technologies introduced for use by
the farmers in this area?
8. How do water harvesting technologies assist in fruit tree production?
9. What are the main production constraints for fruit trees production in this area?
92
10. What is your opinion on the integration of water harvesting in the households farming
system?
11. Who is involved in decision making at household level on micro-catchment water
harvesting and fruit trees production in this area? (Specify gender division of labour)
12. What would you suggest to be done towards scaling up micro-catchment water
harvesting technologies and fruit trees production improvement aspects?
13. What are the main sources of food in this area?
14. Do you think these foods are enough at the household level?
15. What are the major marketing constraints for fruits at farm and market level?
93
Appendix 4
Yatta District Crop Statistics Report (2008)
Crop category Crop TargetHa Target Target Total
YieldlHa Production
Food Crops Maize 33916 8.5 bags 282166
Sorghum 3955 8 bags 31640
Bulrush mill et 614 6 bags 3684
Finger millet 154 6 bags 924
Beans 11285 7 bags 78995
Cowpeas 7021 8 bags 56168
Pigeon peas 9500 9 bags 85200
Green grams 1720 7 bags 12040
Chick peas 1500 8 bags 12000
Dolichos 245 6 bags 1470
Cassava 4410 22 tons 97020
Sweet potatoes 380 20 tons 7600
Fruit crops Citrus 305 7 tons 2135
Pawpaw 360 18 tons 6480
Mangoes (local) 330 40 tons 13200
Mangoes(improved) 90 50 tons 4500
Bananas 325 15 tons 4875
Avocado 25 32 tons 800
Passion fruit 125 1tons 125
Guavas 10 2 tons 20
Industrial crops Cotton 450 0.6 tons 270
Sunflower 20 0.4 tons 8..Source: Mimstry of Agnculture Office, Yatta (2008)
94
Appendix 5
Activities schedule at the Interactive/demo site and fanners' participation
Activity Time Schedule Attendance I
No. of Male Female Total
days
PRA meeting September 2008 1 77 31 98
Hole September 2008 6 84 39 123
layout/digging/filling
Structures layout and October 2008 7 91 44 135
construction
Planting fruit seedlings October 2008 2 63 38 101
Routine husbandry November 2008- 4 57 24 52
April 2009
1 Farmers only recorded once per activity
95
Appendix 6:
V-Shaped Semi-circular Bune:!
OVERFLOW AROUND
BUND TIPS,
~
e-(I)
Source: FAO, 1998
( I
KENYATIA UNIVERSITY LI RARY
96