ITHE ROLE 0 S~LHOLDER FARMER GROUP IN DELIVERY
~
OF AGRICULTURAL SERVICES FOR IMPROVED LIVELmOODS
IN MURANG' A DISTRICT, KENYA
\ MWANGI STANLEY NDEGWA
C50/CE/I0219/04
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT FOR THE AWARD OF
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN THE SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES '--
AND SOCIAL SCIENCES OF KENYATTA UNIVERSITY
DECEMBER, 2009
Mwangi, Stanley
The Role of .
Smallholder Farmer
111111111g1111111D~111111111
2011/351100
•
Declaration
This thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other
University.
Signed: ;fflo~ Date: ~.c?.:-:.!.~.;':".~.J .e=:: ..
Mwangi Stanley Ndegwa
C50lCE/10219/04
Declaration by Supervisors
This thesis has been submitted with our approval as the appointed University Supervisors.
.~.u1-- OLflot ( c:LolO
SIgned: ~ Date: .
Dr. Dorothy N. Mutisya
Senior Lecturer
Department of Geography
Kenyatta University
Signed: ~.~~ .. : Date: d.-:.1.t.2::( ~ ..I .
Prof. Chris A. Shisanya I
Associate Professor
Department of Geography
Kenyatta University
11
Dedication
To my dear wife Judy Njeri and son Brian Mwangi for their prayers and encouragement
throughout my studies.
iii
Acknowledgements
My sincere appreciation goes to my two supervisors Dr. Dorothy N. Mutisya and Prof.
Chris A. Shisanya, who patiently guided me throughout this work. I am also grateful to
Dr. Wambugu, Dr. Waswa and Dr. Monicah Mucheru-Muna for finding time out of their
busy schedules to make useful contributions that helped me improve this work.
Special thanks go to Ann Kuria for her assistance in data analysis, Mr. John Muchiru and
Mr. Joseph Kagwithi for their participation in primary data collection. I also appreciate all
interviewees for their cooperation. I thank the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture in
Kahuro Division for their assistance when identifying the active farmer groups in the
study area.
Special appreciation goes to all members of staff of the Department of Geography,
Kenyatta University for the support they offered to me throughout this study. Gratitude is
also extended to my classmates Felistus Mbugua, Eustas Kithumbu plus other regular
masters students for their companionship through the long academic journey. Finally, I
would like to acknowledge that without God's grace this study would never have been
completed.
IV
Table of Contents
Declaration ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgements iv
Table of Contents v
List of Figures vii
Operational Definitions of Key Terms ix
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms x
Abstract xi
CHAPTER ONE 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Research Questions 4
1.4 Research Objectives 4
1.5 Research Hypothesis 5
1.6 Justification of the Study 5
1.7 Scope and Limitations of the Study 6
CHAPTER TWO 7
LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Overview of Related Studies 7
2.2 Emergence of Farmer Groups 8
2.3 The Role of Farmer Groups in the Delivery of Agricultural Services 9
2.4 Challenges Facing Farmer Groups 13
2.5 Policy -Oriented Measures towards Improving Access to Agricultural Services 14
2.6 Gaps in Literature 16
2.7 Conceptual Framework 17
CHAPTER THREE 20
RESEARCH METHODOLOGy 20
3.1 Study Area 20
3.1.1. Geographical Location and Size of the Study Area 20
3.1.2 Physiographic and Natural Conditions 20
3.1.3 Economic Activities 22
3.2 Research Design 23
3.3 Target Population 23
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedures 24
3.5 Research Instrument and Nature of Data Generated 25
3.5.1 Primary Data 25
3.5.2 Secondary Data 27
3.5.3 Pilot Survey 27
3.6 Data Generation Procedures 28
3.7 Data Analyses Procedures 29
v
CHAPTER FOUR 32
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 32
4.1 General Characteristics of the Sampled Population 32
4.1.1 Gender of the Household Heads 32
4.1.2 Age and Marital Status of the Respondents 33
4.1.3 Education Level of the Respondents 34
4.2 Formation of Farmer Groups in Kahuro Division 35
4.2.1 Features and Composition of Farmer Groups 35
4.2.2 Farmer Groups' Objectives 38
4.2.3 Farmer Groups' Core Activities 39
4.2.4 Factors Influencing the Choice of Farm Enterprises 40
4.3 Effects of Farmer Groups on Agricultural Services Delivery 44
4.3.1 Marketing Services 44
4.3.2 Extension Services 48
4.3.3 Financial Services 52
4.4 Challenges Constraining Farmer Groups from Accessing Agricultural Services 58
4.4.1 Factors Internal to the Farmer Groups 58
4.4.2 Challenges External to the Farmer Groups 60
4.5 Policy Recommendations to Improve Smallholders' Access to Agricultural
Services 62
CHAPTER FIVE 65
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 65
5.1 Summary ofthe Research Findings 65
5.2 Conclusions 68
5.3 Recommendations 69
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research 71
APPENDICES 78
Appendix I: Questionnaire 78
VI
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework Illustrating the Role of Farmer Groups in Delivery of
Agricultural Services 18
Figure 3.1: Map ofKahuro Division, Murang'a District Showing Farmer Group
Locations 21
Figure 4.1: Household Head Gender 32
Figure 4.2: Age of the Respondents 33
Figure 4.3: Marital Status of the Respondents 34
Figure 4.4: Education Levels ofthe Respondents 34
Figure 4.5: Duration of Membership to Farmer Groups 35
Figure 4.6: Source oflnitiative to Form Farmer Groups 36
Figure 4.7: Source of Farmer Groups' Funding 37
Figure 4.8: Objectives of the Farmer Groups '- 38
Figure 4.9: Farmer Groups' Core Activities 39
Figure 4.10: Factors influencing Farm Enterprise Choice 41
Figure 4.11: Sizes of Land Owned by Kahuro Residents 42
Figure 4.12 Priority Staple Foods Purchased in Kahuro 43
Figure 4.13: Rating of Food Security in Kahuro .43
Figure 4.14: Main Farm Produce Sold through Farmer Groups 44
"
Figure 4.15 Marketing Channels for Horticultural Produce 45
Figure 4.16 Milk Outlets used by Dairy Farmers .46
Figure 4.17 Farmers Access to Marketing Services 47
Figure 4.18: Sources of Market Information 48
Vll
Figure 4.19: Main Source of Extension Advice 49
Figure 4.20: Farmers Access to Extension Services 50
Figure 4.21: Crop Management Training 51
Figure 4.22: Livestock Management Training 52
Figure 4.23: Source of Farmer Groups' Credit.. , 53
Figure 4.24: Modes of Financial Assistance 54
Figure 4.25: How Farmer Groups' Credit was Utilized 54
Figure 4.26: Farmers' Access to Financial Services 55
Figure 4.27: Assessing of Main Agricultural Services 56
Figure 4.28: Additional Benefits of Farmer Groups 57
Figure 4.29: Factors Internal to the Farmer Groups 59
Figure 4.30: Challenges External to the Farmer Groups 61
Figure 4.31: Suggested Solutions to Challeges Facing Farmer Groups 63
Figure 4.32: Future of the Farmer Groups 64
V1l1
Operational Definitions of Key Terms
Agricultural Services include the provision of extension advice, marketing and financial
services, including farm inputs such as planting seeds, fertilizers and chemicals,
veterinary services, to smallholder farmers (FAO, 1982).
Farmer Groups refer to voluntary small groups, comprising of about 20--30 smallholder
farmers, who engage in activities aimed at improving the livelihoods of members (FAO,
1998).
Smallholder farmer refers to one who undertakes farming activities on a small farm. For
the purpose of this study, a small farm size does not exceed 5 acres (FAO, 1982).
IX
ASSP
DGAK
FFSs
FAO
GDP
GoK
IFAD
ISAAA
JICA
KARl
MDGs
MoA
NEPAD
NGOs
SPSS
SSA
WB
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
Agricultural Services Support Programme
Dairy Goat Association of Kenya
Fanner Field Schools
Food and Agricultural Organization
Gross Domestic Product
Government of Kenya
International Fund for Agricultural Development
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications
Japanese International Cooperation Agency
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
Millennium Development Goals
Ministry of Agriculture
New Partnership for African Development
Non- Governmental Organizations
Statistical Package for Social Sciences
Sub-Saharan Africa
World Bank
x
Abstract
Since the 1990s, there has been liberalization affecting the delivery of agricultural
services in many sub-Saharan African countries. The introduction of a free market in
Kenya has led to the collapse of the cooperatives that had monopoly on agricultural
produce marketing and input supply subsidized by the Government. On the other hand,
the private sector, which is in its nascent stage, often find it uneconomical to provide
most agricultural services to the smallholder farmers particularly, due to poor
infrastructure in many rural areas. Thus, in many instances widespread gaps have been
created in agricultural service provision which adversely affects smallholder agricultural
productivity. As adaptive strategies smallholder farmers in several developing countries
have organized themselves as groups in attempt to improve their access to agricultural
services. Studies on cooperatives and women groups with the latter often focusing on
socio-cultural objectives particularly, on home economics and merry-go rounds are also
common. However, little focus has been on the grassroots local initiatives' role in
smallholder agricultural development. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
evaluate the role played by farmer groups in enhancing smallholder farmers' access to
. agricultural services in Kahuro Division, Murang'a District, Kenya. Stratified random
sampling (using four locations) was used to obtain the study sample of 80 respondents.
Researcher-administered questionnaires were used to collect the primary data for this
study. Secondary data was also used. Data analysis for this study was done using
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel computer software.
The study revealed that up to 75% and 50% of respondents indicated that the main
driving force behind the formation of the farmer groups was their desire for increased
incomes; and increased food production respectively. Clear objectives are prerequisite for
effective functioning of groups. It was noted that members of the 8 farmer groups
sampled engaged in diverse income-generating enterprises such as horticultural farming
and dairy-goat keeping. On average, about 52% of members indicated that their access to
three agricultural services namely; marketing, extension and financial services had
improved after joining farmer groups. The above fmdings clearly indicate that farmer
groups have enormous potential of enhancing smallholder farmers' access to agricultural
services. Majority of the respondents (87%) identified the poor access to farm credit as
the most critical challenge they were facing; followed by high cost of inputs (71%), low
selling prices of farm produce (69%); and persistent drought (61%). To foster financial
independence this study recommends that farmer groups should be formed around
income-generating activities. The government, private sector plus NGOs should also
support such grassroots efforts through capacity building that will go along way in
improving management of farmer groups. Farmer groups can only flourish ir; ?::
environment with proper climate for group development. Improved access to agricultural
coco'"";"P'3 ~!:r()'_lgheffective farmer groups will lead to increased agricultural productivity
nludl Jirc:ctly enhances food security and improved livelihoods.
Xl
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The crucial role of agricultural development in Sub-Sahara Africa (SSA) as the engine for
rural development has been re-confirmed (NEPAD, 2002). This results in part from the
drive for reaching the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by 2015 and in particular
MDG 1; a 50% reduction of poverty in SSA, which is predominantly rural (WB, 2002). It
is realised that in order to achieve the MDGs, a more effective approach to innovation for
agricultural development is needed (WB, 2002).
Kenya's economy is largely agro-based, with the agricultural sector accounting for 26%
of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and 60% export earnings (GoK, 2001). In addition,
agriculture indirectly contributes by about 27% to the country's GDP through
manufacturing, distribution and other service related sectors and it also employs more
than 80% of Kenya's workforce (GoK, 2003). Agriculture is therefore, the most
important tool for promoting national development. Kenya's Vision 2030 isolates
agriculture as a key sector in the strategy if the country is to realize the targeted average
GDP growth rate of 10% annually (GoK, 2007).
1
Kenya's agriculture is predominantly small-scale farming, mainly in the high potential
areas. Smallholder farmers account for about 75% of the total agricultural output (GoK,
2003). Smallholder agriculture is often less able to cope with constraints that derive from
the Structural Adjustment Programmes (Gautam, 2000). Many smallholder farmers in
Kenya have little influence on their farming situation, a condition that leads to apathy
(GoK, 2003). Therefore, the main objective of agricultural development should be to
change this situation. This is because smallholder agriculture has the highest potential for
realizing the needed agricultural development in Kenya (GoK, 2003).
Traditionally, most of agricultural services for the smallholder farmers are provided
through public institutions (Anandayayasekeram et aI., 2001). As a result of on-going
economic structural adjustment programmes (SAPs), most of the publicly provided
services have been withdrawn with the assumption that the private sector will move in to
fill the gaps created by government withdrawal (WB, 2001). However, contrary to the
expectations of many, the private sectors are ve slow to move in and are very selective
in their investments. Thus in many instances gaps ve been created in agricultural
"
service provision (Anandayayasekeram et aI., 2001). "
As a result, in the recent past smallholder farmers in several developing countries have
organized themselves as groups to address these problems (Beddington et aI., 1994).New
approaches such as farmer field schools (FFSs) are being tested to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of disseminating technologies (Gautam, 2000). Towards
further understanding of these emerging farmers participatory agricultural service
delivery approaches the current study was conducted.
2
1.2 Problem Statement
The small-scale farmers in Kenya continue to face poorer and more uncertain access to
agricultural services (Muturi at al., 2001). Due to budgetary constraints, the Kenyan
government has found it expensive and difficult to reach all small-scale farmers scattered
allover the rural areas with adequate agricultural services. This situation is aggravated by
the absence of sufficient incentives to lure the private sector to come in and fill the
widespread gaps created by government's partial withdrawal and liberalization in
provision of some agricultural services (GoK, 2003). This has resulted in inadequate and
uncoordinated provision of agricultural services among many smallholder farmers in
Kenya and consequently low agricultural productivity (Gautam, 2000).
Agricultural produce markets in Kenya, and in particular those in which small-scale
farmers are involved, face problems in adjusting to free trade and liberal economic
policies (Muturi, et aI., 2001). Earlier research work such as one study conducted by
Ombuki (1995) in Kisii District-Kenya also revealed that credit programmes offered
through cooperatives did not reach the smallholder coffee farmers. Studies on women
groups focusing on socio-cultural objectives particularly, on home economics and merry-
go rounds are also common (Coppock et al., 2005; Muzaale and Leonard, 1982).
However, little focus has been on the grassroots local initiatives' role in smallholder
agricultural development (Taylor and Mackenizie, 1992; Anandayayasekeram et al.,
2001). Therefore, the current study focused on the role of mixed-sex farmer groups in
delivery of agricultural services.
3
1.3 Research Questions
1. What factors have influenced the formation of fanner groups in the study area?
11. To what extent have fanner groups assisted their members to access better and
more agricultural services?
111. What are the key challenges constraining fanner groups from accessmg
agricultural services in the study area?
iv. Which policy recommendations would contribute towards improving smallholder
fanners' access to agricultural services?
1.4 Research Objectives
The broad objective of the study was to determine the role of fanner groups in enhancing
fanners' access to agricultural services for improved livelihoods. Specific objectives of
this study were:
1. To explore the factors that influenced the formation of fanner groups in the study
area.
11. To determine the extent to which fanner groups have assisted their members to
access better and more agricultural services.
111. To identify the key challenges constraining fanner groups from accessmg
agricultural services in the study area.
IV. To make policy recommendations that would contribute towards improving
smallholder fanners' access to agricultural services.
4
1.5 Research Hypothesis
The guiding hypothesis for this study was:
Hol There is no significant difference in smallholder farmers' access to agricultural
services before and after joining farmer groups.
1.6 Justification of the Study
The ever increasing demand for food in Kenya calls for the concerted efforts towards
increased agricultural productivity (GoK, 2003). The findings of this study will contribute
to increased understanding of the role of farmer groups in delivery of agricultural
services, with which a new optimism for local initiatives will emerge. Working through
small groups, farmers will reduce costs of accessing agricultural services (FAO, 2002).
Another category of beneficiaries of this study's fmdings include providers of agricultural
services, that is; public, private sector and Non-Governmental Organizations who will
incur lower costs while delivering agricultural services to small-scale farmers through
farmers groups (GoK, 2001).
The rationale behind the focus on farmer groups is that development can only be
sustained if it takes place at the grassroots level, when the beneficiaries are fully involved
in the decision making process (Chambers, 1983). The active participation of
communities creates a sense of responsibility and ownership of the development process
(Baron et aI., 1993). The study findings will assist rural development planners to align
government policies with farmers' initiatives so as to attract maximum support inline with
the current bottom-up approach in development; where community-based efforts in self-
help groups are supported by relevant policies (Mbilinyi and Gooneratne, 1992).
5
The choice of the study area was prompted by the fact that there is a priority need to
address the growing food insecurity problem in Kahuro Division (GoK, 2001).
Agriculture is the main productive sector in the study area. Therefore, improving
agricultural performance is therefore a sure strategy to raising the livelihoods of the
majority populace in Kahuro Division (GoK, 2001).
1.7 Scope and Limitations of the Study
Due to limited resources this study was confined to Kahuro Division and not the entire
Murang'a District. Further, this study only focused on issues related to the economic roles
played by farmer groups. The study also concentrated on three agricultural services. This
is because the respondents identified marketing, extension education and access to farm
credit as the most highly demanded agricultural services. This study excluded farmers
who had not joined farmer groups and instead targeted smallholder farmers who were
members of particular farmer groups.
The study also limited itself to farmer groups that were registered as self-help groups
under the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development. Registration gave
farmer groups legal recognition and thus easily identified by the researcher from the
above mentioned Ministry records. Misinterpretations of questions in the questionnaire
used, due to reasons such as low education levels among some respondents, were
eliminated through vernacular oral administration of the questionnaires by the researcher
and data enumerators.
6
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Overview of Related Studies
There is very little documented work related to the role played by farmer groups in
delivery of agricultural services (Heemskerk and Wennink, 2004). Much of the earlier
research (for example, studies conducted by Bager, 1980 and Ombuki, 1995) tended to
concentrate on cooperative societies. Much of documented literature on women's groups
activities tend to emphasize on socio-cultural issues such as health, education or income
generating opportunities outside agriculture (Mutoro, 1997; Coppock et al., 2005). The
reluctance of farmers to participate in any kind of group marketing can be explained by
the negative experiences in many cooperative societies. Many of these cooperative
societies have a history of financial and organizational mismanagement (Dijkstra and
Magori,1994).
Social capital in form of groups is used in communities worldwide, especially in rural
areas, as safety nets to cope with risks and for mutual assistance (Davis and Negash,
2005). There are many types of groups in rural Kenya. Experiences by IFAD show that
the involvement of farmer groups in provision agricultural services is a key factor in
achieving smallholder agricultural development (lFAD, 2001). Therefore, the researcher
focused on role played by farmer groups in delivery of agricultural services for improved
livelihoods of the smallholder farmers.
7
2.2 Emergence of Farmer Groups
A number of farmer groups emerged, with varying origins (including from the collapsed
cooperatives) but all attempting to operate in principles of collective self-help while
avoiding negative aspects of cooperatives (pretty, 2003). There has been remarkable
increase in the number of farmer organizations other than cooperatives in Kenya as the
economy continues to be more liberalized (GoK, 2003). Much of the task of providing
agricultural services will have to be done through farmer groups because of the inability
of Government to effectively do so and absence of a strong private sector (Heemskerk
and Wennink, 2004).
Farmer groups appear to have found a more permanent niche and do undertake all the
activities of cooperatives (Kingma et aI., 1997). Farmer groups are generally smaller than
cooperatives, less bureaucratic in procedures and more autonomous from government's
influence (Mulwa, 2004). One difference with the cooperatives is that farmer groups
limit the size of their membership. Small groups of 20-30 members maintain a greater
sense of solidarity and mutual responsibility (ASSP, 2004). In small groups farmers can
share information and experiences freely and thereby learn from one another (JICA,
2004).
.Before group formation it is essential that the problems are identified first. The secret of
solving a problem is proper identification of the problem (Chambers, 1983). It cannot be
taken for granted that just because farmers engage in a few agricultural practices together,
it will be easy and natural for them to organize and operate farmer groups. FAO (1998)
8
noted that it requires time and patience to organize farmer groups. Besides, there are very
few organizations that have the time to facilitate such grassroots organizations. However,
the role of group promoter in the formation of farmer group should be that of facilitation
only and not dictating what is to be done by the group (JIeA, 2004). The present research
explored the factors that influenced formation of farmer groups in the study area.
2.3 The Role of Farmer Groups in the Delivery of Agricultural Services
Abdulazim (2000) carried out a study focusing on farmers in Landcare groups in Bathurst
District of New South Wales, Australia. The fundamental theme of his research was to
develop an essential understanding of the farmers and grazers' attitudes and behaviour
change in response to different extension approaches. His study revealed that Landcare
groups did not bring any change to farm practice. While Abdulazim's study focused on
farmer groups formed through top-down approach (initiated by the Government) in a
developed country, the current study concentrated on groups that are largely farmers'
initiated in a developing country.
FAO (1998) carried out a study in the Western Province of Zambia on empowering
women through farmers groups. The focus of the research was on group development
process and its effect on participants' access to extension services. FAO's study revealed
that group formation had indeed increased access to agricultural extension services for
group members. While FAO's study tended to be limited to extension services, the
present study included the role of farmers groups in enhancing access to other agricultural
services such as marketing and farm credit services.
9
Davis and Negash (2005) examined the effects of gender and wealth on participation in
community groups in Meru Central District, Kenya. They sought to assess and determine
whether differences exist in information access and diffusion by men and women farmers.
Their study found out that gender, household composition and age affected participation
in community groups. Wealth did not have any significant effects on participation in
community groups. Their study covered a wide variety of community groups such as clan
groups, water groups, church groups, merry-go-rounds and dairy- goat farmer groups. In
contrast, the current study concentrated on the role of farmer groups in delivery of
agricultural services only to allow deeper analysis on the same.
In many parts of rural Kenya, smallholder farmers continue to face marketing problems.
This is caused largely by the fluctuating nature of many agricultural produce prices
(Muturi et al., 2001). Dijkstra and Magori (1994) reported on horticultural studies
conducted in Kisii, Nyamira, Nyandarua and Taita Taveta Districts. The studies
comprised of two surveys, namely a farm and a trade survey. The farm survey aimed at
estimating farm produce revenues both in absolute terms and in comparison with other
sources of income. In addition, sales arrangements and farmer-trader relations were
investigated. The trade survey aimed at estimating gross trade margins and net trade
profits at different marketing levels. Moreover, marketing policies and trading practices
were investigated in order to judge the performance of the marketing systems.
Dijkstra and Magori (1994) reported that cooperative marketing of horticultural produce
by groups of farmers was very rare in Kenya. Further they noted that there was scanty
10
reliable marketing information for farmers and that the number of middlemen had
dramatically increased. They also noted that active participation of the government in the
marketing of agricultural products was marginal. Horticultural marketing in Kenya is left
in the hands of private traders. The trade requires high degree of flexibility which is
suited for private entrepreneurs than to bureaucratic government- owned institutions.
Many horticultural farmers preferred selling their produce through middlemen, who
would pay a lower price but promptly (Dijkstra and Magori, 1994).
Dijkstra and Magori (1994) also reported that in the face of cartels of middlemen and
with virtually no reliable market information, majority of smallholder farmers are left
with very little market power. They are therefore, obliged to accept whatever prices are
offered for their farm produce. While the two surveys conducted by Dijkstra and Magori
focused on traders, the focus of the present study was farmers. However, it is important to
note that farmers can also be traders as they engage in selling their own produce. Since
then, the farmers' perceptions on group marketing of horticultural produce might have
changed. This study explored the possibility of organizing smallholder farmers to market
their produce collectively. Production and marketing must be regarded as complementary
actions. In Kenya, the need for food marketing has tremendously increased since an
expanding proportion of the population is unable to produce their own food. This is partly
due to rural-urban migration and development of sectors of the economy other than the
agricultural sector (Muturi et aI., 2001).
Muturi et al. (2001) conducted a study aimed at assessing the roles of agricultural
marketing for smallholder farmers in Kenya. The study was undertaken in Kirinyaga,
11
Meru and Maragua Districts, in the highlands of central Kenya. The study indicated some
areas that appeared to be bottlenecks in the study area: market information, use of farm
inputs, in particular certified seeds; storage; transport and farmer organizations.
Commenting on farmer's access to farm credit, study noted that farmers' knowledge of
issues related to agricultural credit was almost non-existent except in Kirinyaga District.
Farmers in Maragua and Meru Districts listed lack of information as the main reason for
not accessing credit, followed by fear of running into debt. While their study concentrated
on marketing as one of the incentive that farmers require in order to increase their
production, the current study included other agricultural services such as farm credit and
extension services.
Ombuki (1995) conducted a study in Majoge Chache Location in Kisii District. His study
revealed that most credit programmes offered through formal cooperatives did not reach
the small-scale coffee farmers in the area and whenever they did, they did so at the wrong
time. Muthoni (1998) carried out a study in Kandara Division of the then Murang'a
District. Her study also revealed that fmancial constraints resulted in low use of farm
inputs by many smallholder farmers in the area. The current study aimed at finding out
whether farmers' access to farm credit had improved when farmers work in groups.
Apart from delivery of agricultural services to members, farmer groups aim to attract
private and public agricultural service providers to work in their areas of operation. There
is need for locality specific coordination of activities that ensure that agricultural services
are made available within an area. The essence of such coordination of activities is the
establishment of linkages between input suppliers, financiers; research and extension
12
service providers. Coordination ensures that each of the above agricultural services
providers can invest in the area, confident that the complementary services that farmers
need to make profitable use of their services are indeed available (FAO, 1998). Improved
access to agricultural services is a prerequisite in promoting agricultural production and
development. Farmer groups have the potential of enhancing smallholder's access to
agricultural services. However, research by FAO showed that establishment of
sustainable farmer groups has been difficult (FAO, 1998).
2.4 Challenges Facing Fanner Groups
Onduru et al. (2002) reporting on farmer groups in Western Province of Kenya noted the
problem of over-dependency on 'handouts' from the donors. Strong top-down
sponsorship of farmer groups by external donors tended to weaken allegiance of the
leadership to the members. Leaders of groups that over-depend on 'handouts' from
donors tend to respond to the directives of their paymasters as opposed to the wishes and
aspirations of the members (Onduru et al., 2002).
Coppock et al. (2005) conducted a study on women groups in arid Northern Kenya
focusing on how groups were formed and governed and what activities they pursued.
Their study revealed that the greatest threat to the sustainability of women groups in
Northern Kenya came from external factors such as drought, resource scarcity, poverty
and political incitement as well as internal factors such as unfavourable group dynamics
and illiteracy.
13
Muzaale and Leonard (1982) carried out a study on women groups working with
agricultural extension advisors in three districts in Kenya namely: Baringo, Busia and
Taita Taveta. The main theme of their study was to assess women's impact in food
production and malnutrition. Their study found out that women groups suffered the
problem of withdrawal of membership during prolonged periods of drought leaving only
famine-resilient members. Women operating with fewer resources were particularly
exposed to seasonal stress as they were required almost throughout in their farms at
certain seasons such as planting and harvesting periods. For such women participation
costs in their groups were high in terms of time and labour.
Problems that have led to the collapse of grassroots organizations include hijacking of
organizations from above. There is often a tendency by more powerful; better connected
members of the group to hijack leadership and thus end up reaping more benefits as
compared to the rest of the members (Bergdall, 1993). In the present study
recommendations on measures that can be taken to curb such leadership problems are
identified in order to enhance smallholder farmers' access to agricultural services through
farmer groups.
2.5 Policy -Oriented Measures towards Improving Access to Agricultural Services
In order to fulfill the millennium development goal on reducing rural poverty by 50% by
2015, access to agricultural services by smallholder farmers becomes a must (Heemskerk
and Wennink, 2004). The overall challenge for agricultural development in Africa
remains to improve and coordinate provision of agricultural services (Knox et. al., 2004).
14
Links can be illustrated by interdependence between the different agricultural services
that farmers require (IFAD, 2001).
IFAD (2001) noted that effective demand for purchased inputs will be higher where credit
is available and farmers have access to relevant research and market facilities. Loan
repayment will be higher where there are reliable markets and research will have greater
impact where there is strong extension system to promote its fmdings. Sustainable and
coordinated access to agricultural services by numerous smallholder farmers is likely to
be achieved through activities of farmer groups (Anandayayasekeram et aI., 2001).
Legislation and the registration of groups is a condition for the mobilization of social
capital at community level (WB, 2001). Farmer groups can only be empowered if
government, as a neutral player spearheads the community empowerment process and
ensures that all external interventions are aligned with local priorities. Farmer groups can
only flourish in an environment with proper climate for group development and in a
society in which groups are encouraged to speak and sure to be listened to (IFAP, 1990).
With the change from the linear transfer of technology model (research- extension-
farmers) agricultural research practitioners now accept that communities have
considerable capacity to plan and implement programmes. True farmer participation in
research and extension priority setting can only take place through strong farmer groups
that are accountable to their members (Heemskerk and Wennink, 2004). Establishment of
sustainable farmer groups becomes a priority. Such efforts need to be complimented by
15
strengthening and empowering all local planning bodies, public and private service
providers, but also by mechanisms that avoid politicization of farmer groups (Heemskerk
and Wennink, 2004). Based on fmdings of the current study some recommendations have
been made that would contribute towards improving smallholder farmers' access to
agricultural services.
2.6 Gaps in Literature
Both public and private sector research and extension prefer delivering agricultural
services through farmer groups (JICA, 2004). Since the 1990s, there has been
liberalization affecting the delivery of agricultural services (WB, 2001). The introduction
of a free market in Kenya has led to the collapse of the cooperatives that had monopoly
on agricultural produce marketing and input supply subsidized by the Government (GoK,
2007). The private sector is hesitant to provide agricultural services to the smallholder
farmers scattered in rural areas due to bad roads (Anandayayasekeram et al., 2001).
This study underscores the fact that establishment of more farmer groups will go along in
narrowing the widespread gaps created in provision of agricultural services, particularly
to the smallholder farmers. Studies on women groups focusing on socio-cultural
objectives particularly on home economics and merry-go-rounds have been conducted
(Muzaale and Leonard, 1982; Mutoro, 1997; Kamonji, 2003; Mituki, 2003; Coppock et
aI., 2005). What has been rare is to fmd groups having their main focus on agriculture.
While many studies concentrate on cooperatives and women groups, this study focuses on
the role of farmer groups in delivery of agricultural services.
16
2.7 Conceptual Framework
This study was based on the premise that poor delivery of agricultural services is to blame
for low agricultural productivity (Figure 2.1). For instance, provision of agricultural
extension services to individual small-scale farmers is often expensive and has limited
coverage (WB, 2001). Financial institutions also find it unprofitable to offer credit
facilities to individual small-scale farmers scattered in rural areas. High administrative
costs for small volume loans are often cited as constraining financial providers from
reaching scattered small-scale farmers (Anandayayasekeram et al., 2001). Inaccessibility
to adequate agricultural services has led to low agricultural productivity and consequently
low incomes and food insecurity.
If farmers themselves would organize the collecting, transportation and selling their
produce, they would be in a position to enjoy substantial profits, otherwise earned by the
numerous, often unscrupulous middlemen (Muturi et al., 2001). Farmer groups facilitate
group extension which is cost-effective thus enhancing greater interaction between
members themselves, providing an opportunity to exchange beneficial experiences
(Heemskerk and Wennink, 2004). Through group extension, farmers can better link up
with agricultural extension services (FAO, 1998). Extension helps to structure farmers'
existing knowledge and enable farmers to acquire specific knowledge related to certain
problem solutions so that they can act on possible alternatives (Mati, 2005).
17 r.:~'1"~\l ii ~ f1 ,'~ .~~,;';
r \
S~LHOLDERFARMERS
~ 1
Delivery of Agricultural Services Delivery of Agricultural Services
through Individual Farmers through Farmer Groups
~ !
Inaccessibility to Agricultural Access to Better and More
Services Agricultural Services
1 1
Poor Crop and Livestock Better Crop and Livestock
Husbandry Husbandry
~ 1
Low Productivity therefore Food High Productivity therefore Food
Insecurity and Low Incomes Security and Increased Incomes
~ 1
Poverty and Underdevelopment Improved Livelihoods hence
Sustainable Development
Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework Illustrating the Role of Farmer Groups in Delivery of
Agricultural Services (Source: Author 2007)
18
When farmers access loans as a group, even the asset-poor farmers can access funds and
thus increase agricultural production (Uphoff, 1986). Group loans enable lenders to
benefit from lower costs of advancing credit through larger transactions and increasingly
reliable demands for loans. Group loans reduce the lenders' cost of credit administration
as credit supervision is passed to group officials (Clark, 1990).
Sustained access to agricultural services by numerous small-scale farmers is likely to be
achieved through the activities of farmer groups. Farmer groups have enormous potential
to serve the collective interests of otherwise marginalized farmers, reducing the costs of
agricultural services delivery to farmers (Pretty, 2003). Improved access to agricultural
services through farmer groups will lead to increased agricultural productivity which
directly enhances food security and improved livelihoods (Waterlow, 1998).
19
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Study Area
3.1.1. Geographical Location and Size of the Study Area
Kahuro Division (Figure 3.1) is one of the four divisions of Murang'a North District in
Central Province of Kenya. It is bordered by Kangema and Mathioya Divisions to the
North and Kiharu Division to the East. Kahuro Division is divided into four
administrative locations namely Mugoiri, Kahuhia, Weithaga and Murarandia Locations.
The Division's headquarter is at Kahuro shopping centre in Mugoiri Location. Other
important market centres include: Kahatia, Kahuti and Karuri shopping centres, which
serve as supply points as well as delivery points for agricultural inputs and outputs (GoK,
2001).
3.1.2 Physiographic and Natural Conditions
The area experiences sub-tropical climate. There are two rain seasons, that is, March to
May (long-rains) and October to November (short rains). The bimodal rainfall received in
the area ranges between 900mm to 1400mm per annum (Jaetzold and Schmidt, 2006).
The Eastern parts are drier than the western region that borders Kangema Division.
Temperatures vary with altitude with the eastern parts being warmer than the western
region. Temperatures experienced in the area range between 14°Cand 26°C (GoK, 2001).
The larger part of the terrain is moderately steep but does not significantly affect
settlement patterns. The area is well drained by several rivers and their tributaries
(Jaetzold and Schmidt, 2006).
20
37"00'
0"45'
WEITHAGA
4
MJRARANDIA
KEY 2 0"45'
C Division BO\8'ldaryc::J Locations
# Division Headquarter
NRoadS
1 Gakaki 5 Mirichu
2 Kamwea 6 Mukandu A
3 Kiriti 7 MukanguUnited WyE
4 Wanjengi 8 MukanguBio-banana s
5 0 5 10 Kilometers
~~~~~~~~~~~i
5
MARAGUA
DISTRICT
37"00'
Figure 1: Kahuro Division in Muranga North District showing locations of Farmer
Groups in Focus
Source: (Muranga District Development Plan, 2001)
21
3.1.3 Economic Activities
Economic activities in the division are dominated by agriculture. Despite the rich
resource base, the division has a perennial food deficit, which is mitigated by purchases
from other districts in the country. There is urgent need to address the issue of declining
food security in this area. Agricultural systems in Kahuro Division reveal a number of
ways in which farmers strive to maintain agro-diversity ender conditions of extreme land
scarcity. The high population pressure has led to over-cultivation of the scarce land
resulting into declining crop yields and general land degradation. Over the years, this has
resulted into excessive land fragmentation, hence reduction in land holdings. Low
agricultural productivity and scarcity of alternative economic opportunities has made
many families face chronic food scarcity and poverty.
Intensive smallholder agriculture practiced in Kahuro Division is highly diversified as a
strategy of avoiding overall crop failure. Mixed farming is widely practiced with dairy
farming particularly, zero grazing becoming popular, as more and more land has come
under permanent cultivation, leading to diminishing grazing land (GoK, 2001). Many
smallholder farmers nowadays, tend to specialize in production of high value
commodities such as horticultural crops and milk:.Food needs are scarcely met through
purchase of staple food from local markets using cash obtained from the sale of
horticultural produce and milk:.
22
Commercial activities in the area are dominated by retail businesses. The division has
limited industrial activities, which are also largely agro-based such as tea and coffee
factories. The area has an enterprising population that stands at 92,104, with a population
density of 552 Sq. km. (GoK, 2001). According to a poverty assessment survey
conducted in 2000, about 35% of the population in Kahuro Division is living below the
poverty line (GoK, 2001). The most vulnerable groups to poverty included the women,
children and the unemployed who mainly comprised of the youth. Improvement in
agriculture will definitely uplift the livelihoods of the majority of the population in
Kahuro Division because agriculture is their lifeline.
3.2 Research Design
This study adopted a cross-sectional survey approach to determine the role of farmer
groups in enhancing smallholders' access to agricultural services, thereby promoting
improved livelihoods. This method enabled the researcher to extract both qualitative and
quantitative data. Survey research is appropriate for generating data from a large sample
of respondents within a short time (Mugenda and Mugenda, 1999). Quantitative research
utilised in this study focused on a representative sample and then generalised the results
to the population from which the sample was drawn.
3.3 Target Population
The target population for this study was the smallholder farmers who had joined active
farmer groups in Kahuro Division. At the time of data collection, there were about twenty
23
active farmer groups in Kahuro Division. Each Location had an average of five farmer
groups, while every farmer group consisted of about 25 members (GoK, 2001). The
accessible population included members of eight farmer groups existing in the study area.
3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedures
Stratified random sampling was used to obtain the study sample for this study. To avoid
spatial bias, location administrative boundaries were used to divide the study area into
four zones. From each of the four locations, two farmer groups were purposively selected
on the basis of their specialization on particular agricultural activities. The study targeted
farmer groups specializing in a variety of agricultural activities such as horticultural
cultivation, dairy farming and dairy goat keeping. The same number of farmer groups was
picked from the four locations to form an appropriate sample. This could be justified
because farmer groups were almost evenly distributed across four locations of Kahuro
Division. Therefore, a sample comprising of 8 farmer groups was picked from a total of
20 farmer groups existing in the area. The farmer groups selected included Mukangu Bio-
banana, Gakaki, Mirichu, Mukangu United, Kamwea, Mukandu, Kiriti and Wanjengi.
Guided by the agricultural extension officers working in the area, the leaders of the 8
farmer groups selected were identified. Using membership lists, nine representatives from
each farmer group were randomly selected (with the help of random numbers). This
procedure yielded 80 respondents; which included leaders of the eight farmer groups.
Farmer group leaders acted as key informants. Using snowball sampling procedure, the
standardized questionnaire was administered to the 80 members of farmer groups. The
24
procedure started with the fanner group leader who identified the first member, and the
latter was used to locate the home of the next member of their group (earlier randomly
selected) from their neighbourhood.
The obvious advantage of random sampling is that it ensured inclusion in the sample; of
the representatives from the eight selected fanner groups. Random sampling was also
adopted in picking the nine members from the eight selected fanner groups because this
would allow generalization to the larger target population and could also allow the use of
inferential statistics (Sproull, 1988).
3.5 Research Instrument and Nature of Data Generated
This study utilized both primary data and secondary data.
3.5.1 Primary Data
A semi-structured questionnaire (Appendix1) was used to extract both quantitative and
qualitative primary data for this study. The questionnaire was used to generate data from
the 80 members of fanner groups forming the sample of this study. Researcher-
administered questionnaires enabled the interviewer to conduct interviews with the 80
respondents. Researcher-administered questionnaires were advantageous (over self-
administered questionnaires) in that they enabled extraction of detailed data which could
otherwise not have been possible.
25
Section one of the questionnaire aimed at obtaining the respondents' personal data such
as: their age, sex, level of education and size of the land they owned. This data was useful
in revealing the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents. Level of formal
education was measured in terms of the highest level of formal education attained by the
respondents. The dependent variable in the study is access to agricultural services by
members of farmer groups.
Data extracted in the second part of the questionnaire included the factors that led to the
formation of farmer groups. The respondents were asked to explain why and how their
respective groups were formed. The respondents were also asked to provide more data
related to the core functions of various farmer groups, leadership, membership and
sources of funds. This data was useful in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of these
farmer groups.
The third section of the questionnaire was used to generate data on farmers' access to
agricultural services after joining the farmer groups. Data about the sources, relevance
and uses of agricultural services acquired was obtained. This data helped in assessing the
role of farmer groups in the delivery of agricultural services; which was the underlying
theme of the study.
The last section focused on extracting data related to challenges that farmer groups faced
with a view to promoting interventions for the same. The respondents were required to
state the challenges facing their farmer groups. Data obtained in this section particularly
on the possible solutions suggested by the respondents was incorporated in the
26
recommendations made to strengthen the farmer groups. The aim was to make farmer
groups more effective in improving members' access to agricultural services and thus
improving their livelihoods.
3.5.2 Secondary Data
In addition to the primary data, this study also made use of secondary data. Secondary
data collected included literature on farmers' access to agricultural services, group
dynamics, food security and rural development in general. This data was extracted from
scholarly journals by organizations such as FAO and World Bank, published and
unpublished theses, papers presented at various conferences, plus various government
publications such as Murang'a Development Plan, 2001. The documents were obtained
from the Internet, public universities' libraries and other institutional libraries such as
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI).
3.5.3 Pilot Survey
Before embarking on the actual task of primary data collection, a pilot survey was carried
out to test the reliability and validity of the research questionnaire used. Reliability is the
measure of the degree to which a research instrument yields consistent results or data
after repeated trials. On the other hand, validity is the degree to which results obtained
from the analysis of the data actually represent the phenomenon under study (Marshalls
and Rorsman, 1995).
27
Five members of various farmer groups and one leader of one group which had similar
characteristics as the study population were picked to form the pilot sample. However,
those who were included in the pilot survey did not form part of the sample for the actual
study. The pilot survey was used to test on a number of design aspects and to familiarize
the researcher with the questionnaire. During the pre-testing of the instrument, the
researcher was able to assess the two research assistants' ability to perform the task.
Finally, permission was sought from the relevant authorities including the four chiefs in
charge of the four locations covered by the study.
3.6 Data Generation Procedures
The researcher administered the 80 questionnaires with the help of two trained research
assistants, who were university graduates with thorough knowledge of the area of study
because they hailed from that locality. The two were trained on how to ask questions and
how to probe for answers. Every item in the questionnaire was discussed to ensure correct
interpretations of the questions. The local language, that is, Kikuyu, was used during the
interviews to ensure common understanding among the respondents.
Identification accompanied with proper introduction explaining the purpose of the study
helped to create a relaxed rapport with the respondents. To win the respondents'
confidence and trust, the researcher assured the former of the confidentiality of their
responses. To create a good rapport between the researcher and the respondents, the
former had to make the latter to feel that taking part in the exercise was worthwhile.
28
Researcher-administered questionnaires were more flexible compared to self-
administered questionnaires because the interviewer could adapt to different situations
and get the required information. Researcher -administered questionnaires had distinct
advantage; they were more personal in nature and the researcher could easily gauge the
validity of the responses through interviewees' body language and facial expressions.
Probing questions helped to establish the depth and validity of responses.
Administering questionnaires in the farmers' own homes facilitated more relaxed
conversations. It also offered the interviewers the possibility to learn more about the
respondents from observing them in their own farms. The choice of the exact
interviewing location can make a difference. Interviewing the people in their own
'territory' that is, their own home, can facilitate a more conducive atmosphere and more
balanced responses (Kings, 1969). Appointments through prior visits to the respective
respondents on when to see them were made to determine their convenient time. The
above procedures and precautions enabled collection of relatively reliable primary data on
the role of farmer groups in delivery of agricultural services in Kahuro Division.
3.7 Data Analyses Procedures
Data analysis for this study was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) and Microsoft Excel computer packages. The raw data from questionnaires was
first cleaned, coded and grouped into themes consistent with the study objectives. Coded
data was entered into a Microsoft excel worksheet and imported into statistical package
for social sciences (SPSS) for analysis. To determine various relationships among
29
selected variables, descriptive statistics such as frequency distributions and percentages
were applied.
A Chi- Square was performed to test and compare the relationship between members'
access to agricultural services before and after joining farmer groups. The researcher
sought to test the hypothesis that 'there is no difference in members' access to agricultural
services after joining farmer groups using the three agricultural services highly demanded
by members namely: extension, marketing and farm credit facilities.
Chi-Square compares the proportion observed in each category with what would be
expected under the assumption of independence between two variables. To determine the
significance of the test, the obtained Chi-Square value was compared with the critical or
the table value. If the obtained value is greater than the critical value, the null hypothesis
is rejected; and if the calculated X2 is less than the critical value, the null hypothesis is
accepted.
To apply Chi- Square, the following considerations should be observed (Kothari, 1996):
1. The frequencies must be absolute and not percentages or proportional values
11. The expected frequency in any category must not be less than 5
111. The null hypothesis must not permit zero entries in the expected categories
30
Chi- Square is defined by the formula X2 =L (0- E) 2 (Source: Kothari, 1996)
E
Where:
X2 = Chi- Square value o = Observed frequencies
E = Expected frequencies L = Summation
The degree of freedom = (r-1) (k-1)
Where r = Number of rows in the tables k = Number of columns in the tables
The degrees of freedom are important because the probability of obtaining a specific Chi-
Square depends on the number of cells in the table. A test of significance helps the
researcher to determine whether the obtained results truly hold at any given confidence
level.
31
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 General Characteristics of the Sampled Population
Eight farmer groups in Kahuro Division, Murang'a North District were the focus of this
study. These were: Mukangu Bio-banana, Gakaki, Mirichu, Mukangu United, Kamwea,
Mukandu, Kiriti and Wanjengi. A total of 10 farmers from each farmer group were
picked, forming a total sample size of 80 respondents
4.1.1 Gender of the Household Heads
Approximately 62% of households interviewed were headed by women, while 38% were
headed by male (Figure 4.1). This can be explained by the fact that agriculture is
becoming predominantly a female sector as a consequence of faster male out-migration
(Peacock et. al. 2004). In Kenya, about 86% of smallholder farmers are women (GoK,
2003).
Female
62%
Male
38%
Figure 4.1: Household Head Gender (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
32
4.1.2 Age and Marital Status of the Respondents
A large proportion of the farmers (48%) were aged between 51 and 60 years, about 23%
were aged between 41 and 50 years and only 13% were aged below 30 years (Figure 4.2).
The small number of young farmers (under 40 years) was the result oflack of interest in
agriculture among the youth in the study area (GoK, 2001).
51-60 Years
21-30 Years
31-40 Years
41-50 Years
o 5 10 15 20 25 30
Frequency (%)
35 40 45 50
Figure 4.2: Age of the Respondents (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
Majority of the respondents (70%) were married (Figure 4.3). Approximately 14%, 10%,
and 6% of the respondents were widowed, single and divorced! separated respectively.
The latter categories had a huge task of rising up their families single-handedly. They
mainly relied on small-scale agricultural enterprises for survival and thus the need to pull
their resources together and form groups.
33
Windowed
14%
Divorced!
Seperated
6%
Single
10%
Figure 4.3: Marital Status of the Respondents (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
4.1.3 Education Level of the Respondents
Majority of the respondents (64%) had primary education (Figure 4.4); while only about
6% had attained post-secondary (tertiary) level.
Tertiary Level
Secondary Level
Primary Level
No Formal Education
o 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency (%)
Figure 4.4: Education Levels of the Respondents (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
60 70
Fonnal education broadens the outlook and knowledge of the fanner and thus educated
fanners are more receptive to innovations (Uphoff, 1996). Majority of the respondents
34
were literate and therefore more inclined to embracing the idea of organizing themselves
into groups in order to enhance their access to agricultural services.
4.2 Formation of Farmer Groups in Kahuro Division
4.2.1 Features and Composition of Farmer Groups
All the eight farmer groups interviewed are composed of both men and women, but
youths were extremely few. Purposively, one committee member from each of the eight
farmer groups was interviewed, while the rest (90%) were ordinary members. Majority of
these farmers (60%) have been members of the group for over five years (Figure 4.5).
3-5 Years
31%
1-2 Years
9%
Figure 4.5: Duration of Membership to Farmer Groups (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
Five out of the eight farmer groups namely: Kamwea, Mukandu, Mirichu, Wanjengi and
Kiriti were initiated by the farmers themselves, Mukangu Bio-Banana Group was formed
out of a Non-Governmental Organization's initiative, Gakaki was Government-initiated;
while Mukangu United was initiated by a private company (Figure 4.6) .
35
Private Sector
13%
N on-Govemrrental
Organizations
13%
Govemrrent
12% Fanners Insative
62%
Figure 4.6: Source of Initiative to Form Farmer Groups (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
According to all respondents interviewed, leaders (committee members) were
democratically elected by the members themselves. Membership to these farmer groups
was also voluntary as recommended by JICA (2004).
Six out of the eight groups (75%) comprised of 21- 30 members each, while 25% had
over 30 members each. These farmer groups had restricted their recruitment of new
members in order to maintain their preferred small sizes of an average 25 members. A
stable membership promotes continuity of particular farmer groups. Valuable time is lost
when a constant stream of new members has to be inducted into the groups (JICA, 2004).
Interviewees reported that applicants to various farmer groups were carefully screened
based on their character, trustworthiness, cooperation and aptitude to be a team player.
These farmer group members' responsibilities included attending meetings, actively
supporting group's activities, and making periodic contributions as agreed upon. Four of
36
the Farmer Groups interviewed (Mukangu Bio-banana, Gakaki, Mirichu and Mukangu
United) reported that they had monthly meetings, three groups namely (Kamwea,
Mukandu and Kiriti) met fortnightly, while one group (Wanjengi) met once annually.
Frequent meetings enhance cohesion and performance of groups (Oyster, 2000).
All respondents stated that their source of funding was mainly from their periodic
contributions and registration fees by new members (Figure 4.7). Members contributing
resources is a good indicator of their commitment to their groups. Only few respondents
indicated that they had received funds from external sources, particularly from NGOs
operating in the area.
Loans
o 20 40 60
Frequency (%)
80 100
Donations / Grants
RegistrationFees
Member's ContrIbution
rJ Yes DNo
Figure 4.7: Source of Farmer Groups' Funding (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
37
4.2.2 Farmer Groups' Objectives
Majority of the farmers (75%) indicated the desire for increased incomes as their main
driving force behind joining farmer groups (Figure 4.8). It was noted that members of the
eight farmer groups engaged in diverse income-generating enterprises, which had helped
them improve their food security situation and had enabled them meet other fmancial
obligation such as educating their children.
Improve Access to
Agricultural Services
Increase Food
Production
Desire fur Increased
Incomes
o 10 30 70 8020 40 50 60
Frequency (%)
Figure 4.8: Objectives of the Farmer Groups (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
Approximately 50% of respondents stated that they had joined various farmer groups in
order to increase food production from their small farms. Like majority of Kenyans, these
respondents were facing the challenge of food insecurity, hence the need for increased~
food production. However, this study revealed significant changes that the smallholder
farming community had undergone. In many parts of Kenya, this sector is progressively
shrugging off its status of subsistence farming and feeding the regional market economy
(GoK, 2003). By catering for the urban population, food crop farming is becoming
profitable, embodying the predominant agricultural trends (peacock et al., 2004).
38
About 25% of the respondents had joined the farmer groups due to the need to improve
their access to agricultural services and innovations. These results are in agreement with
findings by FAO (1998) which underscored the fact that agricultural services are essential
for increased adoption of innovations and commercialization of smallholder agriculture.
4.2.3 Farmer Groups' Core Activities
The study observed that 3 farmer groups (Gakaki, Mirichu and Mukangu United)
comprising of 38% of the respondents had specialized in horticultural farming (Figure
4.9). The main horticultural crops grown included improved bananas varieties, french
beans, kales, cabbages and passion fruits.
Horticulture and Dairy Goat Farming ~~
Dairy FarmiI]g
Dairy-Goat Fanning ~~_
Horticultural Fanning
o 5 10 15 20 25
Frequency (%)
30 35 40 .
Figure 4.9: Farmer Groups' Core Activities (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
It was observed that 7 out of 8 farmer sample groups tended to specialize in one
agricultural enterprise as its core activity. These activities were carried out by members
on their individual farms. Some of the farmer groups had common demonstration farms
that were offered voluntarily by members who owned relatively larger parcels of land.
39
Each farmer group engaging in dairy- goat keeping had organized to have one of its
members as the custodian of the high-breed (German Alpine) buck owned by the whole
group.
Dairy goat keeping and dairy farming were also popular, each having two farmer groups
engaged in these enterprises. These fmdings were in agreement with FAO's experiences
that supported the view that focusing on a single activity initially affords farmer groups
leaders the opportunity to polish their collective activity management skills before taking
on additional tasks (FAO, 1998). Moreover, economies of scale are more difficult to
realize under conditions of diversity; nevertheless; when a particular group's activities
compliment one another, they may improve on the group's performance (Mutoro, 1997).
4.2.4 Factors Influencing the Choice of Farm Enterprises
The study revealed that the choice and adoption of various farm enterprises was
influenced by various factors. The 'most important' factor was marketability of farm
produce (60%) of the respondents (Figure 4.10) and subsistence needs (33%). Pressing
financial needs explain why marketability of farm produce has an important influence on
the farmer's decision on what to produce. Muturi (2000) observed that farmers need to
engage in farm enterprises that generate cash for essential household requirements such as
payment of school fees, clothing and medical expenses. It was noted that about 14% of
the respondents was influenced by their neighbours to adopt certain kinds of farm
enterprises.
40
Less
Important
~
S
r//////////////////. ~/, >.
I
I , , I I l't"1 I ,
~
. ",,·,'.W""iWj '.'::.'
I. ' I ' f f I ' t J t f t f ~ J , t I f I ' J I II
>',;)J
I
I I I', I , . , f I f I , , I . I f I , f , r f I I I
Average
Important
Most
Important
o w ~ 00 W
Frequency (%)
E3 Extension Officer's
Advice
r2I Neighbour's
Influence
IIj Availability of Farm
Inputs
o Subsistence Needs
o Marketability of
Produce
Figure 4.10: Factors Influencing Farm Enterprise Choice (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
This study observed that even though it would be more profitable to grow food for sale,
some smallholder fanners still continued to use their fields for production of subsistence
food crops. The reason given was that sometimes, the market was undependable.
Availability of farm inputs was rated as 'important' factor influencing choice of
enterprise by 45% of the respondents. For instance, dairy goat farming was popular
among the farmer group members who could not rear cattle due to lack of enough space
on their small plots (Figure 4.11). Land is the basis for the farmer group's activities and
therefore portrayed as a source of livelihood; thereby epitomizing a community's well-
being in Kahuro Division (GoK, 2001).
Majority of the respondents (89%) owned small farm holdings, ranging between 1 - 3
acres. About 64% of the respondents owned an average 1 - 1.9 acres, while 25% owned
41
2 - 2.9 acres (Figure 4.11). Only 4% of the respondents were reported to own above 3
acres of land. The rapidly increasing population confronted with a diminishing resource
base had resulted in severe land degradation in the area. Over-cultivated soils have led to
perpetual decline in agricultural productivity and many families faced the threat of
chronic food insecurity (GoK, 2001).
>3 Acres
2-2.9 Acres "-
1-1.9 Acres
o 10 20 30 40
Frequency (%)
50 60 70
Figure 4.11: Sizes of Land Owned by Kahuro Residents (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
The mam staple foods purchased to supplement the respondents' households food
requirements were (Figure 4.12) beans (86%), maize (84%), vegetables (77%) and maize
flour (72%).
42
Potatoes
Others
Rice
Maize Flour
Vegetables
Maile
Beans
30 40 60 70 80o 10 20 50
Frequency (%)
Figure 4.12 Priority Staple Foods Purchased in Kahuro (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
Approximately 80% of the respondents stated that they experienced food shortages. When
asked about how they viewed food security situation in this area, majority of the
respondents (70%) rated it as poor (Figure 4.13).
Poor
70%
Fair
21%
90
Figure 4.13: Rating of Food Security in Kahuro (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
43
4.3 Effects of Farmer Groups on Agricultural Services Delivery
The second objective sought to find out whether members' accessibility to agricultural
services had changed after joining their respective farmer groups. The study focused on
three agricultural services namely; marketing, agricultural extension and financial
services.
4.3.1 Marketing Services
The main farm produce sold through the farmer groups were milk (25%), bananas (25%),
french beans (25%), and dairy goats (12.5%) among others (Figure 4.14). While bananas
were mainly sold locally, french beans were mainly produced for the export market.
Fruits sold through the farmer groups included mangoes and avocados, while other
vegetables were mainly kales and tomatoes.
Others Vegetables
Fruits I
IDairy Goats -I
Milk I(,1
French Beans I , ,
Bananas
I
o 5 10 15 20 25
Frequency(%)
Figure 4.14: Main Farm Produce Sold through Farmer Groups (Source: Author's Survey
2007)
44
Members of the farmer groups reported that there was a strong linkage between the
quality and prices offered for these horticultural produce. For instance, it was reported
that quality standards for the exported produce are very high, thereby necessitating
marketers to undertake extension services in order to achieve the desired standards. The
main marketing channel as reported by 87% of the respondents was though their farmer
group (Figure 4.15).
Fanner Groups
87%
-----~
Brokers I
MXldlemen
5%
Others such as
Neighbours
1%
Personal SeDlingin
Local Markets
7%
Figure 4.15 Marketing Channels for Horticultural Produce (Source: Author's Survey
2007)
There were a number of private companies and NGO's involved in the marketing of
horticultural produce. For instance, Nicola Farm Company specialized in marketing of
french beans while Techno Serve Company purchased bananas from farmer groups. It
was reported that fruits and vegetables are mostly sold through middlemen and personal
selling at the local market centres. Muturi et al. (2001) reported that the distance to
markets and the road infrastructure are the main factors that influenced the choice of
marketing channels.
45
One of the farmer groups specializing in dairy farming (Wanjengi) seemed to be highly
organized as far as marketing of milk was concerned. This particular farmer group had
enabled dairy farmers to market their milk collectively using their own means of
transport. The study revealed that 90% of members engaged in dairy farming were selling
their milk through the farmer groups (Figure 4.16).
Fanner Groups
90%
-------~~---.
LocalHotels
6%
Other Outlets
---(Neighbours)
1%
Figure 4.16 Milk Outlets used by Dairy Farmers (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
However, a small portion of farmers (7%) reported that they sell their milk to the local
hotels and neighbours. The few members who preferred selling their milk through
alternative outlets cited pressing financial needs that required immediate cash as the
reason for their move.
Respondents' views were sought concerning change in access to marketing services after
joining their respective farmer groups. Majority of the respondents (74%) reported that
46
their access to marketing services had improved after joining their respective farmer
groups (Figure 4.17).
Better
o 10 20 30 40 50
Frequency (%)
60 70 80
Worse
NoChange
Figure 4.17 Farmers Access to Marketing Services Source (Author's Survey 2007)
Farmers were asked to identify and rate their sources of market information starting with
the most important to the least important. The 'most important' source of market
information as reported by 55% of the farmers was traders and their personal visits to the
local market (Figure 4.18). Electronic media, mainly local radio stations also played an
'important' role in passing on market information as reported by 40% of the respondents.
About 33% stated that they occasionally derived market information from their fellow
farmers, while 25% of respondents rated agro-input dealers as 'important' sources of
market information. Print media including newspapers and books was rated the 'least'
important source of market information by about 75% of the respondents.
47
Most Important
Important
Average
Important
Less Important
Least Important
20 60o
Frequency (Oft»)
40
~ Newspapers and Print
Media
I!]Television and Radio
EJ Other Farmers /
Neighbours
E3 Agro-Input Dealers
iii Traders / Personal Market
Visits
'------------
80
Figure 4.18: Sources of Market Information (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
4.3.2 Extension Services
All the 80 respondents reported to have ever been visited by agricultural extension
personnel whether public or private. The main source of extension service as reported by
53% of respondents was the Government (Figure 4.19). These results concurred with the
findings of a study conducted by Davis and Nagash (2007) in Meru District which
reported that the government was the most important source of information for dairy-goat
fanner groups. This study further noted that the dairy-goat project illustrated an effective
partnership between the public and private sectors, where NGOs provided the funds and
the Ministry of Agriculture provided personnel.
48
OtherSources
such as Charitable
Organizations
14%
Non-Govermnental
Organizations
15%
PrivateSector
18%
PublicSector
53%
Figure 4.19: Main Source of Extension Advice (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
Private companies operating in Kahuro Division such as Nicola Farm Company; had
extension programmes related to the inputs they supplied or farm products they were
marketing. IFAD (2001) noted that agro-processing and marketing firms provide
agricultural extension services to their target farmers as a means of reducing input supply
risks. Input suppliers of seeds, agricultural chemicals, farm equipment, livestock feeds
and veterinary service providers also incorporate agricultural extension as their marketing
strategies. The methods they use to recoup the cost of extension provision vary
considerably from input suppliers incorporating the costs into the price of their products
to direct charges for services rendered by consulting firms. However, one major
shortcoming of such private extension agents is that they often serve the interests of their
firms, which may not be necessarily the farmers' interests (Anandayayasekeram et al.,
2001).
Members of farmer groups interviewed were asked to give their views about extension
advice, either on crop and livestock management they had received. About 73% of the
49
respondents felt that the quality of extension services had improved after joining the
farmer groups (Figure 4.20). Majority of members of farmer groups interviewed reported
that public agricultural extension workers visited their groups on demand. However, on
average the number of visits made by agricultural extension workers had risen from
barely any (before joining the farmer group) to about six visits annually (after joining the
group). Farmers also added that the extension advice they received was relevant to their
farming needs. The extension advice received was largely on modem farming methods as
dictated by respective groups' farming enterprises.
Worse
o 10 20 30 40 50
Frequeocy(%)
60 70 80
No Change
Improved ,,'
Figure 4.20: Farmers Access to Extension Services (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
Farmer who specialized in crop farming reported to have received extension advice on:
irrigation techniques (38%) for horticultural crops such as french beans; crop cultivation
techniques (25%); harvesting and storage methods (23%) - especially for vegetables and
fruits due to their perishable nature (Figure 4.21). Other forms of crop management
training received by farmers through farmer groups included soil fertility management
and utilization of various crop varieties (7%).
50
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Frequency (0/0)
Utilization of Various Crop Varieties
Soil Fertility Management
Harvesting and Storage Methods
Crop Cultivation Techniques
Irrigation Techniques
Figure 4.21: Crop Management Training (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
Livestock farmers in vanous farmer groups reported to have received training on
livestock management. For instance, farmer groups that had dairy-goat farming as their
main activity were advised on dairy- goat management. Majority of the farmers (60%)
received training on livestock breeding techniques (Figure 4.22). Still, about 33% of
livestock farmers have received training on better ways to manage fodder; while 7% were
trained on livestock disease prevention and control. The respondents reported that the
extension advice received was useful in improving agricultural productivity.
51
o 10 20 30
Frequency (%)
40 50 60
AniIml Fodder
Marageneot
Livestock Dsease
Maragerrerr
Livestock Breeding
Tecbnques
Figure 4.22: Livestock Management Tmining (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
4.3.3 Financial Services
Agricultural credit is a key to facilitating input in agricultural development (Ombuki,
1995). The inevitable commercialization of subsistence agriculture and the adoption of
improved technologies require the use of extra financial resources beyond smallholders'
personal savings (FAO, 1998). NGOs operating in Kahuro Division were the main source
of farm credit, particularly in form of supplying inputs to members of the farmer groups.
Majority of the respondents (73%) reported that they had received some form of financial
assistance mainly from Non-Governmental Organizations (Figure 4.23). Other sources of
fmancial assistance included micro-finance institutions and commercial banks.
52
Non-Govermnental
Organzators
(NGOs)
73%
Micro- Finance
Irntitutions
12%
Other Institufuns
7%
Figure 4.23: Source of Farmer Groups' Credit (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
Majority of the farmer groups received financial assistance in the form of farm inputs
(33%), while about 30% received improved dairy-goat breeds (Figure 4.24). It was
reported that one farmer group involved in french beans (such as Mukangu United) had
received financial assistance in form of farm inputs namely seeds and chemicals from
agro-processing private company (Nicola Farm Company). Another farmer group
(Mukangu Bio-banana) reported to have received tissue-culture banana plantlets on credit
through a grant from Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) by the name International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (lSAAA). The fmdings of this
study concurred with the fmdings of Kithira (2004); who reported that NGOs were in the
forefront in funding self-help groups in Meru Central District.
53
None
15%
Cash
13%
Farm Inputs
includingFertilizers
and Seeds
33%
Dairy GoatBreeds
30%
Figure 4.24: Modes of Financial Assistance (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
Farm credit received by members of farmer groups was utilized it in various ways. About
41% of the respondents reported to have utilized farm credit acquired in restocking and
buying better grades of livestock in order to improve agricultural productivity (Figure
4.25). About 30% of respondents had purchased farm inputs such as fertilizers and seeds.
Bought Better Grade Stock
Purchased Seeds
Purchased Fertilizer
None
o 10 20 25 30 35 405 15 45
Figure 4.25: How Farmer Groups' Credit was Utilized (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
Frequency (0/0)
54
Respondents' views were sought concerning any changes in accessing these financial
services after joining their respective groups. About 42% of the respondents reported that
access to credit facilities had improved after joining the group, while about 39% felt that
they had not observed any change in accessing fmancial services (Figure 4.26). Even in
situations where farm credit facilities were available, members of fanner groups cited fear
of running into debt, and lack of information, as some of the reasons why they were not
seeking financial assistance.
Worse
19% Improved
42%
No Change
39%
Figure 4.26: Fanners' Access to Financial Services (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
This study noted that availability of farm credit at reasonable rates of interest had enabled
many fanner group members to purchase additional inputs such as seeds, chemicals and
fertilizers. Timeliness of farm credit was also reported to have been enhanced by fanner
groups according to the respondents' reports. Group lending had improved the borrowing
rates among smallholder fanners who were earlier discriminated against due to lack of
adequate collateral. It was noted that fanner groups had led to increased loan acquisition
levels; and had also facilitated follow-up by lenders to ensure proper use of loans
borrowed. Further, about 68% of the respondents observed that the conditions and
55
procedures of obtaining such credit have become less stringent after joining their
respective farmer groups change.
Overall, it was evident that the farmer groups have assisted their members to access better
and more agricultural services. Majority of the farmers (60%) got improved access to
marketing services, compared to 54% improved extension services and 41% improved
access to credit facilities (Figure 4.27). On average, about 52% of members indicated that
their access to the three agricultural services had improved after joining farmer groups.
These results were also supported by the Chi- Square Test; whose calculated value was
21.08; which was greater than the critical value (8.52) at 0.05 significant level of
confidence, with four degrees of freedom. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no
change in the access to agricultural services before and after joining farmer groups was
rejected, thereby confirming the research hypothesis that there was a change in farmers'
access to marketing, extension and financial services after joining the groups.
FinancialServces <
Marketing Services
AgriculturalExtension
Serv£es
o 20 40 60 80
Frequency (%)
Improved r2t Not Improved
Figure 4.27: Change in Accessibility to Agricultural Services after Joining Farmer Groups
(Source: Author's Survey 2007)
56
The respondents were asked to rate the performance of their respective farmer groups in
delivering the three agricultural services namely: marketing, extension and financial
services. Majority of respondents (59%) rated their performance as 'good', about 40% felt
it was 'average', while only 1% felt it was 'outstanding.' Farmers went ahead and
suggested measures to improve performance of their groups as discussed later in this
chapter.
Apart from enhanced access to agricultural services members of farmer groups reported
that they had experienced other benefits. Majority of the farmers (51%) have gained
welfare services, with 19% of respondents gaining social security, 11% (mostly
committee members of various farmer groups) acquiring a higher status in the society
(Figure 4.28).
Spiritual/FeJIowship
Home EconomicsIniorrraton
SelfActualUation
HigherStatus inSociety
SocialSecurity
Welfu.reServies
o 10 20 30 40 50 60
Frequency (%)
Figure 4.28: Additional Benefits of Farmer Groups (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
57
4.4 Challenges Constraining Farmer Groups from Accessing Agricultural Services
The respondents were asked to identify the major challenges that these farmer groups
were facing. Both internal and external factors posed significant challenges to the well-
being of these farmer groups.
4.4.1 Factors Internal to the Farmer Groups
The farmers were required to rate internal factors (administrative constraints related to
how their group operates) affecting their groups' performance. The fmdings of this study
showed that: about 90% of the farmers felt that their group had a special niche in the
development of their community (Figure 4.29). However, though not of high magnitudes,
several internal constraints were identified by the farmers. There was inadequate gender
representation in leadership of some of the farmer groups as reported by 17% of
respondents. It was reported that members of farmer groups discussed freely in a relaxed
atmosphere and listened to each other with a high degree of participation; members had
decision-making responsibilities and therefore they 'owned' their farmer groups.
58
Excellent
Very Good
~.+.++.++••"++ ••~.+ •••+••+.I
.,",..•.,"',..•.,' ,"~, ..•.'"
c"", ", """"""'~
i I r I f fl' ~ .t~~lJt t '~J i 'll,ftf~& f f * 4J~
~
~
Average
Poor
~////.
t I ~ J' I
I IIIAdequate Networking withother Relevant Institutions
IIJ Capacity Building
Opportunities
~ Conflicts are Not Avoided
but Dealt with
Constructively
I fiJ Group has Special NIChe in
Development of the
Community
rJ Group Activities meet
Farmer's Feh Needs
13Fair Gender Representation
at all Levels
§Leadership f; Competent,
100 Approachable,
Accountable - . ,--
o 20 40 60
Frequency (%)
80
Figure 4.29: Factors Internal to the Farmer Groups (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
Also, about 80% of respondents felt that since their farmer groups were formed as a result
of the farmers' own initiatives, their activities met the felt needs of the community.
Majority of respondents (73%) observed that farmer groups provided numerous
opportunities for members to learn new skills (through agricultural extension advice) and
members had access to information including market information, However, about 27%
of farmers interviewed felt that there was inadequate networking with other relevant
institutions.
About 42% of respondents felt that leadership in their farmer groups is less competent
due to inadequate leadership expertise among some of their leaders. This was also due to
the fact that these leaders were elected based on their reputation and not whether they
59
possessed a development vision. Worse still, there was a tendency to 'recycle' leaders
based on the assumption that these leaders were more experienced and therefore able to
lead their respective farmer groups better. About 37% of respondents reported
disagreements; and constant absenteeism especially by women who had to manage both
their households and attend meetings. Disagreements were said to be caused by lack of
shared vision among members of particular farmer groups. The larger the group, the more
difficult it was for its members to identify a common need and objective (place et al.,
2002).
4.4.2 Challenges External to the Farmer Groups
Majority of the challenges experienced were mainly external to the farmer groups, that is,
those that the farmers had little or no control over, but which affected performance of
such groups. Using a modified five-point Likert scale, the respondents were asked to rate
challenges they faced in their farmer groups. Majority of the respondents (87%) identified
the poor access to farm credit as the most critical challenge they were experiencing
(Figure 4.30).
About 71% of respondents complained of the high cost of inputs including seeds,
fertilizers, livestock fodder and chemicals used to control pests and diseases. It was
reported that about 69% of farmers (including two farmer groups that specialized in
banana farming); sold their produce at low prices, thereby incurring losses. It was noted
that low income was in some instances due to improper post-harvest handling of farm
60
produce such as poor storage facilities of perishable commodities such as leafy vegetables
and milk.
Most Critical
Critical
Moderate
Less Critical
Least Critical
"--l m Low Produce Selling Prices
I
Frequency (%) ~ Inadequate Crop and
Livestock Husband
o 20 40 60 80
§High Cost of Farm Inputs
D Dilapidated Road Network
~Drought
E21 Small Farms
1.1 Poor Access to Farm
Credit Facilities
100
Figure 4.30: Challenges External to the Fanner Groups (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
Other challenges rated as most critical by 63% of the fanners was the small farm
holdings. Fanners have responded to population pressure on land by adopting intensive
fanning practices such as zero grazing. Persistent drought experienced in the area had
impacted negatively on agricultural production as was reported by 61% of the
respondents. Although fanners had received extension advice, 54% lacked adequate
know-how on crop and livestock husbandry and also lacked adequate access to market
information.
61
A dilapidated road network in Kahuro Division was another senous challenge as
mentioned by 42% of the respondents from different farmer groups. The farmer group
that was engaged in marketing milk reported that they were facing serious transport
problems particularly during wet seasons as loose-surface roads become muddy.
Members that were cultivating french beans particularly in farms that were far away from
the collection centres also reported that they were experiencing transport problems. These
farmers had to trek for long distances, sometimes through difficult terrain characteristic of
the area. Such challenges constrained the affected members of farmer groups from
accessing agricultural services in one way or the other.
4.5 Policy Recommendations to Improve Smallholders' Access to Agricultural
Services
Based on the challenges faced by farmer groups in Kahuro Division, respondents gave
several suggestions which; if implemented; would go along way towards improving
performance of farmer groups. Majority of the respondents (85%) felt that their
agricultural production would improve if they had access to more financial credit in order
to expand their farming enterprises (Figure 4.31). Still, 85% of respondents suggested that
the government should come up with a way to regulate and lower the cost of farm inputs;
thereby making them more accessible to all farmers.
62
--------------------------------------
Most
Important
Important
~
till!Average
. ~. . " , , . . . . " . . .. . ".,• • • • • • • • r 0 • ~ , L • • ~ •• •
• • • " •• , ••• .,. ¥ •• ," " ••• " ••,. > " .
"""'''"////// '/////// c////// '.1'1
-"
.Ii ••.•..,",..•....•....•.,,""""""",: ..•....•..
• ~ • • - < • •. ~~. - , . .
:!]
Least ;p
Important 1o':'~=~;;;-..""/:v="'=V'~~""o>>:":.;/'=".V"::"':y'V":"':"".,;.·~~~"'=".""'>::"'I_··
80
~ Improve Road Network
fi!J Low Cost ofFann Inputs
o Increase Access to Market
Information
CI Improve Access to Financial
Services
f2I Diversification to Other
Income Generating Activities
[illProper Timing of Meetings
fa Conflict Resolution
Mechanismso 40 60 100 a Training Fanner Group
Leaders and Members
Figure 4.31: Suggested Solutions to Challenges Faced by Farmer Groups (Source:
Author's Survey 2007)
20
Frequency (%)
About 83% of the respondents expressed their wish to diversify to other income
generating projects in the future. This they said would ensure they get additional income,
not to mention reducing the risks involved in specializing in a single enterprise. Further,
63% of respondents identified the need for capacity building through being empowered
with skills on crop and livestock husbandry. They called on the government and the
private sector to be supportive through offering additional agricultural extension
personnel and through the establishment of more farmer groups in Kahuro Division.
About 60% of farmers felt that access to up-to-date market information would go along
way in helping them package and sell their produce at internationally acceptable
63
standards; which would ensure that they attract new customers while retaining the old
customers. This would also protect them from being exploited, especially on the pricing
of their farm produce. About 57% of respondents urged the government to improve the
road network in order to minimize post- harvest losses due to delayed transport of
perishable farm produce.
Lastly, the respondents were asked to state their opinions about the future of their
respective farmer groups. About 86% of the respondents were optimistic about the
survival of their farmer groups to deliver agricultural services in future (Figure 4.32).
About 12% were uncertain, while 2% stated that the future was not promising if the
current challenges that they were facing are not addressed.
o 10 20 30 40 50 60
Frequency(%)
70 80 90
Uncertain
Not Promising
Promising
Figure 4.32: Future of the Farmer Groups (Source: Author's Survey 2007)
In order to improve access of agricultural services to members, thereby improving their
livelihoods, farmer groups should be strengthened. In addition, to the suggested solutions
by the respondents; further strategies to enhance performance of farmer groups have been
recommended in the next chapter.
64
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary of the Research Findings
The purpose of this study was to assess the role played by farmer groups in improving
smallholder farmers' access to agricultural services. The key findings were based on the
four specific objectives of the study.
A total of eight farmer groups in Kahuro Division, Murang'a North District were the
focus of this study. These were: Mukangu Bio-banana, Gakaki, Mirichu, Mukangu
United, Kamwea, Mukandu, Kiriti and Wanjengi. A total of 10 farmers from each farmer
group were picked, forming a total sample size of 80 respondents. Characteristics of the
respondents are highlighted first.
Majority of the farmers (48%) were aged between 51 and 60 years, about 23% were aged
between 41 and 50 years and only 13% were aged below 30 years. Majority of the
respondents (64%) had attained primary education. Majority of these farmers (60%) had
been members of their respective farmer groups for over five years. Six out of the eight
groups (75%) comprised of21- 30 members each, while 25% had over 30 members each.
All respondents stated that their source of funding is mainly their contributions and
registration fee by new members and that they had joined their respective groups
voluntarily. Majority of the respondents (89%) owned small farm holdings, ranging
between 1 - 3 acres. About 64% of the respondents owned an average 1- 1.9 acres, while
25% owned 2-2.9 acres ofland.
65
The first objective sought to explore the factors that influenced the formation of farmer
groups in the study area. According to 75% of the respondents, the main driving force
behind the formation of the farmer groups was their desire for increased incomes.
Members of the eight farmer groups engaged in diverse income- generating farm
enterprises. Three farmer groups (Gakaki, Mirichu and Mukangu United) had specialized
in horticultural farming; while 5 groups were involved in dairy goat keeping and dairy
farming. Approximately 50% of respondents stated that they had joined various farmer
groups due to the need to increase food production from their small farms. According to
majority of the farmers (60%), choice of farm enterprise was influenced by marketability
of produce; and subsistence needs (33%).
The second objective sought to determine the extent to which farmer groups had assisted
their members to access better and more agricultural services. All the 80 respondents
interviewed in Kahuro Division reported that since joining their respective farmer groups,
they had benefited through having improved access to marketing, agricultural extension
and financial services. The main farm produce sold through the farmer groups were milk
(25%), bananas (25%), french beans (25%), and dairy goats (12.5%) among others.
The main marketing channel as reported by 87% of the respondents was though their
farmer groups. The study revealed that 90% of members engaging in dairy farming were
selling their milk through the farmer groups. The 'most important' sources of market
information as reported by 55% of the farmers were traders and their personal visits to the
local market. Electronic media, mainly radio and television also played an 'important'
66
role in passing on market information as reported by 40% of the respondents. All
respondents have been visited by an agricultural extension officer. The main source of
extension service as reported by 53% of respondents was the Government. About 73% of
the respondents felt that the quality of extension services had improved after joining the
farmer groups. Also, majority of the respondents (73%) had received some form of
financial assistance particularly from Non-Governmental Organizations operating in the
area. Majority of the farmer groups reported to have received fmancial assistance in the
form of farm inputs (33%), while about 30% received improved dairy goat high breeds (
in particular, German Alpine bucks).
The third objective sought to identify the key challenges constraining farmer groups from
accessing agricultural services in the study area. Majority of the respondents (87%)
identified the poor access to farm credit as the most critical challenge they were facing.
About 71% of respondents complained of the high cost of inputs. About 69% of farmers
(including two farmer groups that specialized in banana farming); sold their produce at
low prices, thereby incurring losses. Another challenge rated as most critical by 63% of
the farmers was the small farm holdings. Persistent drought that had been experienced in
the area had impacted negatively on agricultural production as was reported by 61% of
the respondents. Still, 54% lacked adequate know-how on crop and livestock husbandry
and also lacked adequate access to market information.
The fourth objective sought to make policy recommendations that would contribute
towards improving access by the farming population to agricultural services. Majority of
the respondents (85%) felt that their agricultural production would improve if they had
67
access to more financial credit in order to expand their enterprises. Another 85% of
respondents suggested that the government should come up with a way to regulate and
lower the cost of farm inputs; thereby making them more accessible to more smallholder
farmers. About 83% of the respondents expressed their wish to diversify to other income
generating projects in the future. Further, 63% of respondents identified the need for
capacity building through being empowered with skills and know-how on crop and
livestock farming.
5.2 Conclusions
The 8 farmer groups sampled for this study had economic objective as the main reason
for their formation. As reported earlier the main driving force behind the formation of the
farmer groups was their desire for increased incomes. Such genuine reason for forming
farmer groups will definitely go along in enhancing their success. The study revealed that
all the 8 farmer groups selected were formed around income-generating activities which
foster high degree of financial independence which is crucial for sustainability of farmer
groups. Membership fees and periodic contributions by members increase commitment to
the activities of farmer groups. According to the assessment of the eight farmer groups as
reported by the respondents these groups had high possibility of survival despite
challenges faced.
The study has demonstrated that farmer groups are important link between farmers and
agricultural service providers. Farmer groups make it easier to reach specific, interested
68
fanners with agricultural extension services. Collective marketing enables fanners to
enjoy lower marketing costs per fanner and thus higher profits earned. Group lending had
improved the borrowing rates among the asset-poor smallholder fanners who were earlier
discriminated against due to lack of adequate collateral powers. These findings clearly
show that fanner groups help in improving smallholder fanners' access to agricultural
services.
However, the complexity of smallholder fanners' needs precludes any standard
prescriptions for improving access to agricultural services. Fanner groups have their
limits and their formation should not be seen as an end in itself, but the first step in the
needed efforts to provide smallholder with agricultural services.
5.3 Recommendations
• In line with Kenya's Vision 2030, the government should aim at assisting smallholder
fanner groups to add the value in agricultural products in order to raise incomes
mainly through processing products before they reach the market.
• The government and other institutions namely NGOs and the private sector should
come out and support smallholder fanner groups through offering fmancial assistance.
They should ensure that loans are made available at low interest rates and with low or
no collateral. Farm produce could also be used as collateral to enable fanners acquire
loans.
69
• The government should provide an environment that supports smallholder farmers'
initiatives regarding formation of farmer groups. In addition, the government should
liaise with the local farmers to identify gaps in areas that require agricultural
extension personnel and thereby supply them as per farmers' requirements. This
should incorporate extensive training on crop and livestock husbandry. Training will
also go along way in strengthening the management and leadership of farmer groups.
Market information should also be made accessible to farmers.
• The government should also improve infrastructure; including transport systems in
rural areas to enable quick and easy transport of fresh farm produce in order to reduce
post- harvest losses.
• The government should also regulate the cost of inputs in order for smallholder
farmers to afford agricultural inputs, thereby resulting into improved productivity.
This will in turn raise incomes for smallholder farmers, thereby enabling them to
improve their livelihoods.
70
5.4 Suggestions for Further Research
• In order to further our understanding about the role of farmer groups in promoting
smallholders' access to agricultural services, future studies should compare access to
agricultural services between members and non-members of farmer groups.
• Future studies could also capture non-members' perceptions of farmer groups and
their reasons for not joining such organizations.
• Another future study could assess whether there were socio-economic disparities in
accessing agricultural services among members of farmer groups.
• Similar studies may be replicated in other parts of the country; covering larger areas,
focusing on larger farmer associations and capturing other agricultural inputs such as
land and labour.
71
REFERENCES
Abdulazim, A. (2000). Aspects of Traditional versus Group Extension Approaches on
Farmer Behavioural Change in an Extensive Grazing Environment in the
Bathurst District of New South Wales, Australia Ph.D. Thesis, University of
South Wales Australia.
Anandayayasekeram, P., Dixon, J., Ebong, C., Lungu, 0., Mbuya J.N., Nyoni D.M.,
Torkelsson, A. (2001). A Source Book for FSA Training in Farmer Training
Institutions. Harare: FARMESA.
ASSP (2004). Farmer Empowerment Programme Component. Working Paper.
Agricultural Service Support Programme (ASSP). Joint Government of
Tanzania.
Bager, T. (1980). Marketing Cooperatives and Peasants in Kenya. Uppsala:
Scandinavian Institute of African Studies.
Baron, R.S., Kerr, N.L., and Miller, N. (1993). Group Process, Group Decision, Group
Action. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bebbington, A.J., Merill-Sands, D. and Farrington, J. (1994). Farmer and Community
Organizations in Agricultural Research and Extension; Functions, Impacts
and Questions. Agricultural Administration-Research and Extension
Network Paper 47. London: OD!.
Bergdall, T.D. (1993). Methods for Active Participation: Experiences in Rural
Development from East and Central Africa. Nairobi: Oxford University Press
East Africa.
72
Bingen, J., Kasuta, E., Verstraelen K. and G. Tembo, (2000).Availability and Use of
Agricultural Services among Small-Small Farmers and the Role of Farmer
Organizations in Zambia.
Chambers, R. (1983).Rural Development: Putting the Last First. London: Longman.
Chitere, O.P., and Mutiso, R. (1991). Working with Rural Communities: A
Participatory Action Research in Kenya. Nairobi: Nairobi University Press.
Clark J. (1990).Democratizing Development: The Role of Voluntary Organizations.
Oakwood Avenue: Kumarian Press.
Coppock, D.L., Desta, S., Wako, A., Aden, I., Gebru, G., Tezera, S. and Tadecha, C.
(2005).Women's Groups in Arid Northern Kenya: Origins, Governance, and
Roles in Poverty Reduction. Retrieved June 2, 2007.
Davis, K.E., and Negash, M. (2005). Gender, Wealth, and Participation in
Community Groups in Meru Central District, Kenya. International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Retrieved May 7, 2007.
Dijkstra, T., and Magori, T.D. (1994). Horticultural Production and Marketing in
Kenya. Nairobi: Ministry of Planning and National Development.
FAO (1982). Improving the Organization and Administration of Agricultural
Servicesfor Small Farmers in Mrica. Nairobi: Government Printers.
FAO (1998). Reform and Decentralization of Agricultural Services: A Policy
Framework. Rome: Policy Assistance Division and Agricultural and Economic
Development Analysis.
Gautam, M. (2900).Agricultural Extension: The Kenya Experience. An Impact
Evaluation. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
73
Government of Kenya (2001). Murang'a District Development Plan, 2002-2008.
Nairobi: Government Printers.
Government of Kenya (2003). Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture 2004-2014.
Nairobi: Government Printers.
Government of Kenya (2007). Kenya Vision 2030. The Popular Version. Nairobi:
Government Printers.
Heemskerk, W. and Wennink, B. (2004). Building Social Capital for Agricultural
Innovation: Experiences with Farmer Groups in sub-Saharan Africa.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Royal Tropical Institute.
IFAD (2001).Agricultural Extension and Support for Farmer Innovation in Western
and Central Africa: An Assessment and Outlook for AID. Rome: IFAD's
Evaluation Committee.
IFAP (1990). Sustainable Farming and the Role of Farmer Organizations.
Wageningen: Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Development.
Jaetzold, R. and Schmidt, H. (2006).Farm Management Handbook of Kenya. Natural
Conditions and Farm Information. Nairobi: Ministry of Agriculture.
nCA (2004). Community Empowerment Manual on Farmer Organization and
Good Agricultural Practice. Nairobi: nCA.
Kamonji, V.W. (2003). An Investigation of Resources Women Farmers Use to
Enhance Household Food Security: A Case Study of Embu District-Kenya.
Msc. Kenyatta University, Unpublished Thesis.
Kingma, K. and Mafuru, J.M. (1996). Guidelines for Farmer Research Groups
Establishment, Coordination and Monitoring. Joint Government of Tanzania.
74
Kithira, F. (2004). Household Food Security of Members and Non-Members of Self-
Help Women Groups in Miriga-Mieru West Division in Meru-Central
District-Kenya. Msc. Kenyatta University, Unpublished Thesis.
Knox, A., and Lilja, N. (2004). Collective Action and Property Rights for Sustainable
Development. Farmer Research and Extension. IFPRIlCAPRI.
Mati, B. M. (2005). Overview of Water and Soil Nutrient Management under
Smallholder Rain-fed Agriculture in East Africa. Working Paper 105.
Colombo: International Water Management Institute (IWMI).
Mbilinyi, M. and Gooneratne, W. (1992). Reviving Local Self-reliance: People's
Responses to the Economic Crisis in Eastern and Southern Africa, Nairobi:
United Nations Centre for Regional Development (UNCRD).
Mituki, D.M. (2003). Factors Influencing Food Production and Household Food
Security among Women Farmers in Evurore Mbere District, Kenya, Msc.
Kenyatta University, Unpublished Thesis.
Mugenda, 0., and Mugenda, A. (1999). Research Methods: Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches. Nairobi: Acts Press Inc.
Mulwa, F.W. (2004). Managing Community-Based Development: Unmasking the
Mystery of Participatory Development. Nairobi: P. Olivex.
Muthoni, M.M. (1988). A Study of Women's Access to Agricultural Production
Inputs in Murang'a District, Kenya. Msc. (Agric Econ), UoN, Unpublished
Thesis.
Mutoro, B.A. (1997). Women Working Wonders: Small-Scale Farming and Role of
Women in Vihiga District, Kenya: A Case Study of North Maragoli
Amsterdam: Thela Publishers.
75
Muturi, S.N., Kilungo, J.K., Muendo, K.M., Mairura, Z., and Kariuki, J.G. (2001).
Marketing of Smallholder Produce: A Synthesis of Case Studies in the
Highlands of Central Kenya. Nairobi: RELMA.
Muzaale, P., and Leonard, D. (1982). Women's Groups and Extension in Kenya:
Agricultural Administration. Nairobi. Nairobi University Press.
NEP AD (2002). Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme. New
Partnership for Africa's Development (NEP AD). November 2002.
www.fao.org/docrep/005N63831 EN6831 EOOhtm.
Ombuki, C. (1995). Constraints to Smallholder Credit Farm Investment: A Case of
Coffee Farming in Majoge Chache Location, Kisii District, M.A. Unpublished
Thesis, Kenyatta University.
Onduru, D.D., Muchena, F.M., Gachirnbi, L., and Maina, F. (2002). Farmer Field
Schools in Western, Central and Eastern Kenya. Nairobi: KARl.
Oyster, C.K. (2000). Groups: A User's Guide. New York: Me Graw-Hill Company.
Peacock, C., Jowett, A., Dorward, A., Poulton, C., and Urey. (2004). Reaching the
Poor: A Call to Action, Investment in Smallholder Agriculture in Sub-Sahara
Africa. London: FARM-Africa.
Place, F., Kariuki, G., Wangila, J., Kristjanson, P., Makauki, A. and Ndubi, J. (2002).
Assessing the Factors Underlying Differences in Group Performance:
Methodological Issues and Empirical Findings from the Highlands of Central
Kenya. CAPRi Working Paper No. 25. CGIAR Systemwide Programme on
Collective Action and Property Rights.
76
Pretty, J. (2003). Social Capital and Connectedness: Issues and Implications for
Agriculture, Rural Development and Natural Resource Management in ACP
Countries. Review Paper for CTA.
Sproull, N. (1988). Handbook for Research Methods: A Guide for Practitioners and
Students in Social Sciences. London. Scarecrow Press Inc.
Taylor, D.R.F. and Mackenzie, F. (1992). Development from Within: Survival in
Rural Mrica. London. Routledge.
Uphoff, N.T. (1986). Local Institutional Development: An Analytical Sourcebook
with Cases. West Hartford Connecticut. Kumarian Press.
Waterlow, J.C. (1998). Feeding a World Population of more than 8 Billion People: A
Challenge to Science. New York: Oxford University Press.
World Bank Group (2001). Community Driven Development in Mrica. A Vision of
Poverty Reduction through Empowerment. www.worldbank.org/cdd.
77
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Questionnaire
Section 1 Respondent's General Data
1. Name of the respondent (optional)
2. Home Location: Kahuhia [] Weithaga [] Mugoiri D Murarandia []
3. Age (in years): 20-30 [] 31-40 [] 41-50 [] 51-60 Above 60 yrs D
4. Gender: Male [] Female []
5. Marital status: Married [] Single [] Widow D Widower []
Divorced [] Separated []
6. Have you ever been to school? Yes D No []
7. If yes, state the level of education attained?
Primary [] Secondary [] College []
Section 11 Land Tenure & Use
1. Land Size & Use
a) Do you own land? Yes [] No []
b) If yes, what is the size of your farm in acres?
Less than 1 acre [] 1-1.9 [] 2-2.9 acres [] above 3 acres []
c) What size of your land is:
i) Cultivated under crop production acres
ii) Under fallow __ acres
d) How was the land acquired? Inherited [] Purchased [] others (specify)
e) Have you rented any land? Yes D No []
f) If yes, what size of land is rented? acres.
78
liM
2. Household Headship
a) Name of the Household Head (decision maker) _
b) Gender of Household Head (HH)? 1= Male 2= Female
c) Occupation of the HH: 1= Farming 2= Business 3= others (specify) _
d) Relationship of respondent to HH (if not HH)
1= Spouse 2= Daughter 3= Son
e) Occupation of spouse: 1= Wife works on-farm full time 2= Husband works
on-farm full time 3= Both work on-farm full time
1) Size and age of the household members
A~ebracket Number
Below 20 years
20 -60 years
Above 60 years
3. Labour availability
a) Do you hire casuals? Yes [] No []
If yes, how often? Rarely [] Sometimes [] Usually 0 Always 0
b) Do members of this household sell off labour? Yes 0 No []
If yes, how often? Rarely 0 Sometimes [] Usually 0 Always []
79
Section 11 Agricultural Services Accessed through Farmer Groups
A Production Constraints
l.a) Do you face any food shortage in your household? Yes [] No []
b) What is your perception about food security ill your household?
Good [] Fair [] Poor []
c) List three priority types of staple food bought by your household? (Choose from
code): 1= Maize flour 2= Vegetables 3= Maize 4= Beans 5=
Rice 6=Potatoes 7= others (specify)
2. What major constraints prevent you from increasing your agricultural production?
Is this a Score (5 = most
Constraint constraint? critical,
Yes/No 1 = least critical)
Inadequate access to marketing
information
Inadequate knowledge in crop &
livestock production.
Poor access to farm credit facilities
Small farms
Drought
Others (specify)
3. Rate farm-level prices of the following farm inputs: Tick appropriately.
Farm inputs o tions
Very hi2h Hi2h Moderate Low Very low
Improved seeds
Veterinary services
e.g.A.I.
Fertilizers/ Agro-
chemicals
Labour
Animal feeds
Others (specify)
80
B. Factors influencing Formation of Farmer Groups
1. a) Are you currently a member of any farmer group? Yes [] No []
If yes, please fill in the table using the code provided below.
Name of Type of Your position Duration of Frequency
farmer farmer group in the farmer membership of regular
2roup 2roup meetings
Code: Type of farmer group: 1 = Mixed 2 = Women's 3 = Men's 4 = Youths'
Position in the farmer group: 1= Committee member 2 = Ordinary member
Duration of membership: 1 = 1-2yrs 2 =3-5 yrs 4= above 5 yrs
Frequency of regular meetings: 1= Weekly 2 = Fortnightly 3 = Monthly
4= Others (Special)
2. How many members does your farmer group have?
10-20 [] 21- 30 [] More than 30 []
3. How does one become a member of farmer group? Voluntary [] Involuntary []
4. Who initiated formation of farmer group, its objectives & main activities?
Initiator of farmer Objectives Group's core
2roup activities
Use the code below. Responses are not mutually exclusive
Initiator of the farmer group: 1 = Farmers themselves 2 = Government 3 = Non-
governmental organizations 4 = Private sector 5 = others (specify).
Objectives of farmer group: 1= Desire for increased incomes 2 = Increase food
production 3 = Improved access to agricultural services 4 = others (specify).
Farmer group's core activities: 1 == Horticultural farming 2 = Dairy goat keeping
3 = Dairy farming 4 = Merry-go-round 5 = Welfare activities 6 = others
(specify)
81
5. What factors did influence the choice offann enterprises?
a. Marketability of produce Il
b. Subsistence needs []
c. Availability of farm inputs []
d. Neighbours' influence []
e. Extension officers' advice []
f. others (specify)
Rank in terms of importance (1= most important & 6 least important)
6. How does your group get funds to run its operations?
Members' contributions [] Registration fees [] Donation! grants [] Loans [] others
7. How are leaders chosen in your group? Elected by members [] Self-imposed []
Appointed by outsiders [] others []
C. Role of Farmer Group in Delivery of Agricultural Services
1. List down the agricultural services that you receiving through your fanner group.
Marketing services [] Extension services [] Financial services [] others (specify)
2. Marketing Services
a) Do you sell any of your farm produce through your fanner group?
Yes [] No []
b) If yes, what farm produce do you sell? Milk [] Bananas [] French beans []
Other vegetables [] Fruits [] others (special) _
82
c) What among the following comprise the source of market information?
Source of information Is this a source? Score ( 10=most
Yes/No important, 1= least
important
Traders/ personal market
visits
Agro- input dealers
Other farmers/ Neighbours
TV & Radio
Newspapers (print media)
Extension officers
Others (specify)
3. Extension Services
a) Have you ever been visited and advised by an agricultural officer as farmer group?
Yes [] No [ ]
b) If yes, what is your main source of your extension advice? Public []
Private [] NGOs [] Charitable organizations [] other sources (specify)
c) Do you find the extension advice received through farmer group relevant to your
farming needs? Yes [] No [] Sometimes []
d) Have you ever received any training on crop or livestock management?
Yes [] No []
e) If yes, state the knowledge and skills acquired from the training?
Area of Training Skills learnt Has skills been
used? No/Yes
Crop management
Livestock management
83
f) In what way(s) have you benefited from the extension advice received?
Upgrading of dairy goat breeds [] Higher milk production [] Market information
access enhanced [] Better soil fertility management [] others (specify) [More than
one than one choice is acceptable]
g) Indicate the change in quality of the extension received after joining farmer group.
Better [] No change [] Worse []
4. Financial Services
a) Have you ever received any form of financial assistance through your farmer group?
Yes [] No []
b) If yes, what fmancial assistance did you receive? Cash [] Farm inputs e.g. Seeds,
fertilizers [] others (specify) _
c) How was the farm credit utilized? 1= Purchased seeds 2= Purchased fertilizers 3=
Bought better grade stock 4= others (specify) _
d) What was the source of the fmancial assistance that you received through farmer
group? Government [] NGOs [] Micro- finance institutions [] Commercial bank [] others
e) Indicate the change in conditions and procedures of obtaining the farm credit after
joining farmer group? Less stringent [] No change [] More stringent []
84
f) Indicate the change in access to agricultural services after joining farmer group.
Agricultural Service Improved Not improved
Agricultural Extension Services
Marketing Services
Farm Credit Facilities
g) Apart from agricultural services received through your farmer group, what other
benefits do you enjoy from the farmer group? Social security [] Welfare services [] Home
economics information [] Spiritual/ Fellowship 0 others (specify) _
Section 111 Challenges Facing Farmer Groups while Delivering Agricultural
Services
1. What major constraints hamper farmers' access to agricultural services through
your farmer group?
Constraint Is this a Score among How can it be
constraint? applicable addressed (See
Yes/No constraint suggestions &
code below)
Leadership
problems
Disagreements
Absenteeism
Illiteracy
Inadequate funds
Others (specify)
Suggested measures: 1= Training of group leaders and members 2= Conflict
resolution mechanisms 3= Proper timing of meetings 4= others
85
2. How do you rate the performance of your fanner group in delivery of
agricultural services? Outstanding [] Good [] Average [] Below average [] Others
3. How would you assess your fanner group on the following aspects? Tick in the
appropriate column using the key below the table.
Farmer's assessment
Aspect 0 1 2 3 4
Members discuss freely in a relaxed
atmosphere and listen to each other with high
degree of participation
Members have decision-making
responsibilities and therefore feel they "own"
their fanner group
Leadership is competent, approachable,
transparent & accountable and live beyond
the "founder syndrome" dilemma.
There is adequate gender representation at all
levels.
Fanner group activities meet the felt needs of
the communities.
Fanner group has a special niche in the
development of the community.
Conflicts are not avoided, but dealt with
constructively.
There are opportunities for members to learn
new skills & members have access to
information they need
There is adequate networking with other
relevant institutions/ inter-group relations/
willingness to learn from others.
Key: 0 = Never happens 1 = Poor 2 = Average 3 = Very good 4 = Excellent
4. Based on your above assessment, how do you perceive the future of your
fanner group? Promising [] Uncertain []
Thank you for generously sharing with me.
86