Agricultural knowledge and information systems in …...Marion Kamau, Jessica Ndubi, Francis Musembi, Lucy Mwaura and Rita Joldersma Abstract This paper reports on a study of agricultural

Agricultural Research& Extension Network

Network Paper No.107

July 2000

ISBN 085003 489 2

The Agricultural Research and Extension Network is sponsored by the UK Department for International Development (DFID)The opinions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of DFID.

We are happy for this material to be reproduced on a not-for-profit basis. The Network Coordinator would appreciate receiving detailsof any use of this material in training, research or programme design, implementation or evaluation.

Network Coordinator: Catherine Longley Assistant Editor: Helen Suich Administrator: Alana Coyle

AGRICULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMSIN KENYA – IMPLICATIONS FOR TECHNOLOGY

DISSEMINATION AND DEVELOPMENT

David Rees, Martha Momanyi, Joseph Wekundah,Felister Ndungu, Jacob Odondi, A. O. Oyure, Dymphina Andima,

Marion Kamau, Jessica Ndubi, Francis Musembi,Lucy Mwaura and Rita Joldersma

AbstractThis paper reports on a study of agricultural knowledge and information systems (AKIS) undertaken by the KenyaAgricultural Research Institute and the Ministry of Agriculture. Field research was conducted in four districts ofKenya, including high-potential and pastoral areas, to document and assess the significance of different actorsand organisations as potential uptake/dissemination pathways for agricultural technologies, and to consider waysto improve the performance of the knowledge and information systems in the districts. Databases of the organisations,institutions and actors involved in agriculture in the four districts were compiled, and a series of participatory andrapid appraisal exercises were carried out with people concerned with agriculture in selected sub-locations anddivisions within each district.

The AKIS of Kenya’s smallholder farmers are diverse and complex, varying with agricultural enterprise,agroecology, and from district to district. Agribusiness plays a major role in the AKIS of Kiambu district near toNairobi, whilst government and non-government agencies are the major ‘external’ actors in the pastoral areas ofWest Pokot. NGOs and church organisations are particularly active in Homa Bay, but their coverage is limited.Links between external institutions and organisations, for both government organisations and NGOs, are generallyweak and poorly coordinated.

The major sources of knowledge for smallholders are local (neighbours, family, markets and community-based organisations). Between 40 and 70 per cent of respondents reported government extension as an importantsource of information, though both farmers and extension personnel themselves expressed dissatisfaction with thequality and frequency of their interactions. NGOs are also important sources of information in those areas wherethey are active. Churches, chief’s barazas (community meetings) and agricultural companies are significantinformation sources in some locations.

Most farmers considered that their most pressing information requirement which was not being adequatelyaddressed was information on technical details of farming (e.g. chemical application rates, how to manage lateblight in potatoes, where to get certified seed, the most appropriate varieties for a given location, housing andmanagement of livestock, etc.).

Inadequate human resources (government and non-government extension) and poor local leadership(particularly for CBOs) were seen as the most serious barriers to effective information flow by farmers, whereasgovernment and NGO extensionists stressed lack of resources to mobilise communities, and poor communicationswith researchers leading to information distortion.

Potential delivery systems and entry points for knowledge dissemination were tabulated, but were quitediverse – district-specific and commodity-specific strategies are needed. Increased use of networking and pluralismin provision of extension and research services are advocated to increase cost-effectiveness, equity and efficiency ofagricultural development. The importance of participatory learning approaches was emphasised by many of thestudy participants. Government research institutes could capture a pivotal role in the AKIS of the future throughincreased emphasis on strategic alliances with other development agencies, the production of teaching materialsdesigned for facilitating participatory learning, and the production of ‘basket-of-options’ information materialsfor farmers and extensionists.

iii

Agricultural knowledge & informatin systems in Kenya…

CONTENTSPage

Abstract i

Acknowledgements iii

List of tables and figures iv

Acronyms iv

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 METHODOLOGY 1

3 THE FARMING SYSTEMS OF THE FOUR DISTRICTS 2

4 AGRICULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN 2THE FOUR DISTRICTSOrganisations and institutionsActivities linking the various actors of the knowledge systemsCommunication networksPrime moversLinkage matricesBasic configurations

5 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NETWORKS SERVING FARMERS 10Agricultural sources of informationTypes of information receivedProblems of information flow

6 UPTAKE PATHWAYS AND ENTRY POINTS 12

7 NETWORKING AND PLURALISM FOR MORE EFFECTIVE 13AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

REFERENCES 15

ENDNOTES 16

Acknowledgements

This work was funded and supported by the Government of Kenya and the UK Department for International Devlopment (DFID). Wethank the many farmers and colleagues within KARI, the Ministry of Agriculture, other ministries and NGOs, who assisted in collecting thedata discussed in this report.

David Rees can be contacted through the Serere Agriculture &Animal Production Research Institute, PO Soroti, UGANDA.Tel: +256 77 221349/51 Fax: 77 280351/45 61444Email: [email protected] Momanyi can be contacted at Adra Kericho, Kericho,KENYA. Tel: +254 361 20205 Email: [email protected] Wekundah can be contacted through ETC East Africa, POBox 76378, Nairobi, KENYA. Tel: 254 2 445421/2/3Fax: 254 2 445424 Email: [email protected] Ndungu can be contacted through the Ministry ofAgriculture, PO Box 30028, Nairobi, KENYA. Tel: 254 2 718870Fax: 254 2 725774 Email: [email protected] Odondi can be contacted through the Ministry ofAgriculture, PO Box 27, Kakamega, KENYA.Tel/fax: 254 331 20503A Oyure and Lucy Mwaura can be contacted through theMinistry of Agriculture, PO Box 30028, Nairobi, KENYA.Tel: 254 2 718870 Fax: 254 2 725774

Dymphina Andima can be contacted through KARI, PO Box57811, Nairobi, KENYA. Tel: 254 2 583301-20Fax: 254 2 583344 Email: [email protected] Kamau can be contacted through KARI, P O Box 57811,Nairobi, KENYA. Tel: 254 2 583301-20 Fax: 254 2 583344Email: [email protected] Ndubi can be contacted through KARI, P O Box 57811Nairobi, KENYA. Tel: 254 2 583301-20 Fax: 254 2 583344Email: [email protected] Musembi can be contacted through KARI, P O Box 57811Nairobi, KENYA. Tel: 254 2 583301-20 Fax: 254 2 583344Email: [email protected] Joldersma can be contacted through the Royal TropicalInstitute (KIT) Agricultural and Enterprise Department, PO Box95001, 1090 HA Amsterdam, THE NETHERLANDS.Tel: 31 20 5688269/374 Fax: 31 20 5688498Email: [email protected]

Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper 107

iv

AcronymsACK Anglican Church of KenyaADPP Animal Draft Power ProgrammeAEP Agriculture and Environment ProgrammeAI artificial inseminationAIC African Inland ChurchAKIS agricultural knowledge and information

systemsAMREF African Medical Research FoundationASK Agricultural Society of KenyaBAT British-American Tobacco, LtdCARE-K Canadian and American Relief Everywhere-

KenyaCBO community based organisationC-MAD Community Mobilisation Against

DesertificationDFID Department for International Development,

UKEAT Environmental Action TeamELCK Evangelical Lutheran Church of KenyaGO government organisationGoK Government of KenyaICIPE International Centre of Insect Physiology &

EcologyILRI International Livestock Research InstituteKARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute

KIOF Kenya Institute of Organic FarmingLABALU Lake Basin Land Use ProgrammeLH Lower Highlands agroecological zone

(2000–2400m altitude)LM Lower Midlands agroecological zone

(1000–1500m altitude)MHAC Manor House Agricultural CentreMoA Ministry of AgricultureMoH Ministry of HealthMYW Maendeleo ya Wanawake – national body

coordinating women’s groupsNCPB National Cereals and Produce BoardNGO non governmental organisationOFPEP On-Farm Productivity Enhancement ProjectPRA participatory rural appraisalRAAKS rapid appraisal of agricultural knowledge

systemsSDA Seventh Day AdventistSWOT strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats

analysisUM Upper Midlands agroecological zone (1500–

2000m altitude)UH Upper Highlands agroecological zone

(2400–2800m altitude)VI VI Agroforestry Project (a Swedish NGO)

Tables and figuresTable 1 Actors/stakeholders consulted during the study 3Table 2 Organisations and institutions active in agriculture in the four districts 3Table 3 Kamagai sub-location linkage matrix (Homa Bay) 5Table 4 Sources of information received by farmers in the four districts 11Table 5 Sources of information mentioned by smallholder farmers (% respondents from 12

semi-structured interviews)Table 6 Media by which the farming communities have received agricultural information 12Table 7 Types of information received by farmers and CBOs (% respondents in 13

semi-structured interviews)Table 8 Problems of information flow as perceived by GoK and NGO organisations, farmers and CBOs 14Table 9 Potential delivery systems in Trans Nzoia, West Pokot, Homa Bay and Kiambu 15

Figure 1 Locations of the study, showing agroecological zones and 1989 population densities 1Figure 2 Nderu sub-location communication network 4Figure 3 Prime mover septagram: Kaibichbich sub-location 4Figure 4 Basic configurations, Trans Nzoia District 6Figure 5 Basic configurations, Homa Bay District 7Figure 6 Basic configurations, Kiambu District 8Figure 7 Basic configurations, West Pokot 9

AGRICULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMSIN KENYA – IMPLICATIONS FOR TECHNOLOGY DISSEMINATION

AND DEVELOPMENTDavid Rees, Martha Momanyi, Joseph Wekundah, Felister Ndungu,

Jacob Odondi, A. O. Oyure, Dymphina Andima, Marion Kamau, Jessica Ndubi,Francis Musembi, Lucy Mwaura and Rita Joldersma

This article reports on a study undertaken by theKenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and theMinistry of Agriculture (MoA) of the AKIS of four districtsto document and assess the significance of differentactors and organisations as potential uptake/dissemination pathways for agricultural technologies,and to consider ways to improve the performance ofthe knowledge and information systems. The studyemployed qualitative methods of social enquiry (Engel,1997; Garforth and Usher, 1997) and focused particularlyon the perceptions of smallholder farmers, communitybased organisations (CBOs) and local actors in bothpastoral and high-potential farming areas.

2 METHODOLOGYThe study was implemented in Trans Nzoia, West Pokot,Homa Bay and Kiambu districts (Figure 1). Methodsand tools were selected from rapid appraisal ofagricultural knowledge systems (RAAKS), participatoryrural appraisal (PRA), and strengths, weaknessesopportunities and threats analysis (SWOT) (Salomon and

1 INTRODUCTIONKenya has a great variety of agroecological conditionsbroadly correlated with altitude and aspect, ranging fromarid pastoral rangelands to tropical alpine conditions(Jaetzold and Schmidt, 1983). Over fifteen major ethnicgroups practise farming in Kenya, with populationdensities ranging from 12 persons/km2 in parts of WestPokot to over 800 persons/km2 in Kiambu (Governmentof Kenya, 1993). Infrastructure development variesconsiderably, and farm sizes range from less than oneacre in the densely populated areas to over 100 acres(Government of Kenya, 1993), largely affected by theagricultural potential of these areas. This diversity inagroecology, ethnicity, population density andinfrastructure expresses itself in the various farmingsystems found within the region, and influences localagricultural knowledge and information systems (AKIS)(Röling, 1989). Many different organisations and actorsare involved in developing and disseminating agriculturalknowledge and skills in different parts of Kenya, leadingto a broad range of opportunities and needs forinformation transfer.

Figure 1 Locations of the study, showingagroecological zones and 1989population densities (persons/km2)

Agroecological zones (Jaetzold and Schmidt 1983): UH, LH, UM and LM refer to Upper Highlands 2400–2800m above sea-level; LowerHighlands, 2000–2400m; Upper Midlands, 1500–2000m; and Lower Midlands, 1000–1500m, respectively, with subscripts indicatingrelative water supply (1= wet, 6 = very dry)

LelanUH1-2 50

Saboti, KiminiUM4 249

LimuruLH2-3 250

GithunguriUM2 750

CheparariaLM5 13

Nairobi

Rangwe, NyarongiLM2-3 100-120

Kiambu

Homa Bay

Trans Nzoia

West Pokot


2

Engel, 1997; Pretty et al., 1995)1. In each district, keyactors (MoA, KARI, NGO and CBO representatives,private companies, churches, and other governmentdepartments) described their perceptions of theknowledge and information systems in their areas, listedand categorised agricultural actors, and selected twodivisions for study. This was followed by a meeting ineach selected division (MoA officials, NGO and CBOrepresentatives, church groups, other governmentdepartments) to document their perceptions of theknowledge and information system, and to select twosub-locations for data collection. In each selected sub-location, meetings were held to identify key actors foragricultural knowledge and information; identifyagricultural knowledge and information types; identifyand select stakeholders for further analysis; rankagricultural enterprises with different groups of men,women, youth, NGO and government representatives;and recruit nine local people to implement the interviewsand data collection in their sub-location. The datacollection teams were recruited on the basis ofknowledge of the local area, ability to guide discussion,relate well with the community, ability to read and write(minimum 50 per cent of the team), and gender balance.They were trained in PRA and RAAKs tools and pre-tested the checklists with the consultants, KARI and MoAstaff. Feedback meetings were held in each sub-locationto triangulate and confirm the data collected. A total of1100 people from the four districts contributed theiropinions and perceptions to the study (Table 1).

3 THE FARMING SYSTEMS OF THE FOURDISTRICTS

The study areas covered a wide range of agroecologicalzones and population densities. Small scale agricultureis predominant throughout, with 10–20 per cent offarmers growing high value cash crops (sugar-cane,tobacco, coffee, tea, flowers and horticulture). Most ofthe livestock kept are indigenous breeds; dairy cattle(pure and crosses) are largely confined to high potentialareas. Infrastructure is fairly well developed in TransNzoia, with population densities of 250 persons/km2

(1989 census data). Agroecological zones in West Pokotrange from UH

1 (upper highlands/mountainous terrain)

to LM6 (lower midlands/rangelands), resulting in a wide

range of enterprise combinations. Infrastructuredevelopment is relatively low throughout the district,as are population densities. Mixed farming is practisedin the wetter areas (UH, LH, UM and LM

1-3), whilst

pastoral farming is the main system in the rangelands.Mixed smallholder farming is predominant in Homa Bay(87 per cent of farmers), and infrastructure developmentis relatively poor in the study areas selected, with fairlylow population densities (100 persons/km2). Kiambudistrict is close to Nairobi with its substantial markets,and has a relatively well developed road network. Largescale farmers (10 per cent of the total) specialise inhigh value cash crops (coffee, tea, flowers andhorticulture) for sale locally or abroad.

In all four districts, income generation was the mostimportant criterion for ranking agricultural enterprisesaccording to the smallholder farmers, CBOs and tradersinterviewed, followed by provision of food for the family.Other important aspects were ease of marketing, abilityto provide good returns from limited space, and abilityto provide returns in a relatively short period of time.Men, women, youth and extensionists were in broadagreement about the most important enterprises in eacharea – poultry and vegetables tended to be ranked higher,or more frequently, by women; whereas agroforestry wasmentioned only by men, not by women farmers.

Maize, poultry, vegetables, beans, agroforestry andsweet potatoes were listed as high priority enterprisesin all four districts, regardless of agroecological zone.Dairy, beef cattle, Irish potatoes, finger millet, pyrethrum,wool sheep and coffee were considered high priorityonly in the cooler areas (upper highlands to uppermidlands); whereas fruits, sorghum, pasture, cattle, bees,sheep, cassava, groundnuts, sugar cane, sunflower andpearl millet are the major enterprises in the warmer,lower midland parts of Kenya.

4 AGRICULTURAL KNOWLEDGE ANDINFORMATION SYSTEMS IN THE FOURDISTRICTS

Organisations and institutionsUsing simple check lists, details of the organisations,institutions, groups and individuals considered activein agriculture were collected by the study teams andsupplemented by the various district extension staff whoparticipated in the study. These were tabulated for eachdistrict to form AKIS databases for the study areas,detailing names and locations, membership, primarypurpose and principal agricultural interests.

Public sectorBetween 16 and 20 government departments, parastatalsand/or international agricultural research centres areactive in agriculture in the four districts (Table 2).Comments throughout the study suggest a public sectorthat is both centralised (i.e. decision-making in Nairobi)and fragmented (i.e. poor coordination betweenministries and departments within districts).

Private sectorOrganisations, institutions and individuals providinggoods and services to farming communities includeindividual traders and stockists, trading companies, seedand livestock suppliers, agrochemical and veterinarygoods suppliers, transporters, tractor and oxen rentalsuppliers, providers of artificial insemination and bullschemes, pest control groups and consultants, ethno-veterinarians and millers. The private sector is muchmore active in Trans Nzoia and Kiambu than in WestPokot or Homa Bay. The involvement of agribusinessin technology development and dissemination is largelylimited to high-potential investments and cash crops/


3

enterprises, however. Many private sector individualsand companies are considered to be very exploitativein their dealings with smallholder farmers.

NGOsTwelve, eight, eight and four agricultural NGOs areactive in parts of Trans Nzoia, West Pokot, Homa Bayand Kiambu respectively (Table 2). Some of these arealso involved in knowledge generation through adaptiveresearch, carried out either by local farmers (e.g. CARE-K in Homa Bay) or by NGO staff (e.g. MHAC and EATin Trans Nzoia), as well as sector-oriented servicedelivery at local level. In Kenya there are more than1,000 registered NGOs involved in a wide range ofdevelopment activities, spending over £100m annually,with considerable experience in knowledgedissemination, training, provision of goods and services,and capacity building at a local level. NGOs are clearlyof considerable (and growing) importance to anyknowledge dissemination effort in Kenya. Theirlimitations, however, include: low capacity to cover largeareas and numbers of people; poor record ofpartnerships with government and the private sector;tendency to create parallel structures; and institutionalimpermanence. Recent initiatives to encourage NGOsto work more closely with each other have not hadmuch impact so far (Keengwe et al., 1998).

ChurchesReligious organisations have played, and continue toplay an influential role in rural Kenya. Many forms ofassociation beyond the family are church based,including women’s groups and friendships, and churchleaders are often locally influential. As such, they offerconvenient entry points to many CBOs. Their long-termcommitment to development makes them excellentpotential partners for knowledge dissemination. Thereis also a strong potential for collaboration in adaptiveresearch and technology verification with agriculturally-oriented development wings of the major churches.Horizontal linkages between divisions of the samechurch operating in different districts, and betweendifferent churches operating in the same area, are oftenweak, however, and their involvement in agriculturalactivities varies district by district, and even division bydivision.

CBOsSince independence, the Harambee movement(‘working together for development’) has encouragedself help and self-help groups. Many self-help groupsare well developed, particularly in the higher potentialareas of the country, and provide potential entry pointsfor knowledge dissemination and generation. MostNGOs maintain links with CBOs, and have often beenresponsible for their formation. CBOs active in

Homa Bay

>164

817++++

+

+

+

Table 2 Organisations and institutions active in agriculture in the four districts

Community based organisations (farmer froups, women’s groups, self-help groups, dip committees, water committees, youth groups, etc.)NGOs/churches active in agricultureGovernment departments/ Parastatals/ International AgenciesSchoolsInput suppliers/Stockists (tools, chemicals, fertilisers, feeds, etc.)Service Suppliers (AI, ploughing, pest control, veterinary and para-vets,etc.)Traders and transporters (Private companies – large and small,individuals, etc.)Other agribusiness (Producers/networks for milk, horticulture, tobacco,chickens, flowers, etc.)

Trans Nzoia

>260

1216++++

++

++

++

West Pokot

>80

820+++

+

+

Kiambu

>85

416++++

++

++

++

+ Present but numbers not estimated; ++ Many present, numbers not estimated

Table 1 Actors/stakeholders consulted during the study

DistrictDivisionFarmersCBOsTraders/stockistsGoK Depts.NGOsPrivatecompaniesSub-locationfeedbackmeetingsTotal

Kiminini2327---

-

Saboti3033

-

19

District5360-23

2

19

139

Chepararia5413---

-

79

Lelan5020---

-

68

District10433-24

-

147

290

Nyarongi48174--

-

120

Rangwe30417--

-

95

District78581144

-

215

370

Limuru6243--

-

75

Githunguri7353--

-

74

District1339642

-

149

303

Trans Nzoia West Pokot Homa Bay Kiambu


4

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��ch

��

��

��

!�"��

��"��

Kiambu the principal market links are with farmercooperatives, private processing plants and individualtraders.

Extension and training linkagesIn the Trans Nzoia and West Pokot (Lelan division) studyareas extension and training activities are mainly carriedout by GoK, though there is also locally intensiveimplementation by NGOs. In the Homa Bay study areasthere is more extensive coverage by NGO and churchgroups, private companies (BAT and Mastermindspecifically for tobacco), as well as by government. Themain extension and training links in the Kiambu studyareas are with cooperatives, private veterinarypractitioners and private companies. Neighbours, friends,family members, community based groups and tradersplay an important role in dissemination (extension/training) in all areas, but particularly in lower West Pokotdistrict and Nyarongi division of Homa Bay.

Basic needs linkagesIn the pastoral study area of West Pokot, NGOs andchurches (ELCK, VI, OXFAM, World Vision) play animportant role in the provision of basic needs to thepastoral communities (shelter, sanitation, etc.).

Information seeking linkagesParticularly in Kiambu and Trans Nzoia, individualfarmers, CBOs and traders seek information from GOand NGO agencies on agricultural problems and marketsituations.

Communication networksCommunication network diagrams were prepared byfarmers and CBOs in all sub-locations as aids tovisualising the relative importance of organisations/institutions for provision of information (e.g. Figure 2 –distance from the centre indicates the relevance to theorganisation concerned). In Nderu (Kiambu) farmers

agriculture in the study area include women’s groups,4K clubs, youth groups, dip committees, watercommittees, zero-grazing groups, commodity groups andfarmer cooperatives. Their primary focus is usuallyfundraising; agriculture tends to be the secondary focus.In arid and semi-arid marginal areas, CBOs have oftenbeen established as part of relief food efforts.

Activities linking the various actors ofthe knowledge systems

Service linkagesIn the areas of study in Trans Nzoia these includeveterinary services, tractor hire, AI, crop spraying, supplyof seeds and seedlings, and supply of other inputs. Inthe Homa Bay and Kiambu study areas service linkagesmainly revolve around veterinary services (authorisedand ethno-veterinary) and inputs supply. In the WestPokot study areas these are generally confined to para-vets, water committees and veterinary services.

Market linkagesIn Trans Nzoia these are supported by maize traders,Kenya rundas (traders/transporters who operate bybicycle), vegetable vendors/hawkers, milk hawkers andprivate processing plants. In West Pokot and Homa Baythe principal marketing linkage is with individuallivestock traders, and also with commodity traders. In

#$� �� %��

%��

&%�!

'$#�&!'$'

(�!)%$ �) $'

*%!�+��##(�

!,�!

%-�!�� .$ /'!#/'

0/-%�,!�!$ *

Figure 2 Nderu sub-location communicationnetwork

· Dairy Coops: provide inputs closer and give credit;market milk

· Private Vet Practitioners: give prompt service but chargehigh fee, some are not honest

· Agriculture Extension: not regular in farms· Other Farmers: give advice freely and are close· Stockists: provide inputs but business interests· Unga Ltd: interact with stockists mainly· KARI, ILRI: interact with a few farmers (farm sites), – no

other interactions with other farmers

Figure 3 Prime mover septagram: Kaibichbichsub-location


5

rated the dairy cooperative as their most important sourceof information, followed by other farmers. Governmentextension and private vets were rated third inimportance, followed by stockists and Unga Ltd (anational feeds supply company). KARI and ILRI werealso mentioned. In Homa Bay and West Pokot NGOsand churches (VI, ELCK, CARE-K, C-MAD, LABALU, AEP,and ADPP) were considered important, but only in thosefew divisions where they are active. In Kiambugovernment extension, dairy cooperatives (Limuru andGithunguri), private veterinary practitioners, stockists,hawkers and traders were considered the mostimportant. In Trans Nzoia, other farmers, stockists, Kenyarundas, VI, village elders and veterinary services wererated key in provision of information. In all cases localactors were the most important sources for agriculturalinformation, and the relative importance of the manydifferent external actors varied with location.

Prime moversPrime mover septagrams were used to assist invisualising who has the most influence on agricultureon a day-to-day basis (e.g. Figure 3 – the higher thepoint the stronger the influence). In Kaibichbich (West

Pokot) input suppliers and the market were seen asmost influential in farmers’ day-to-day lives, extensionless so, and research and committees even less so. InTrans Nzoia the septagrams varied according to location– extension, research and policy were consideredinfluential in Sabot where KARI has on-farm trials, butnot in Kiminini. In Kiairia (Kiambu) research, marketing,input suppliers and extension were perceived asinfluential by men, whilst processing plants and creditwere not. Women considered all of these as lessimportant than the men did. In Kamdar (Homa Bay)men gave great importance to government securityofficials (stating that cattle theft was a considerableproblem in the area), whilst women considered otherproducers, government and non-government extensionas more important.

Linkage matricesLinkage matrices were prepared by the rural datacollection teams to analyse which actors link to oneanother (e.g. Table 3). Throughout the study areas theperception was that almost all institutions/organisationslink directly to farmers or CBOs; and almost all havelimited linkages with the other organisations originating

��

� � � � � � � ! "� �� !� "� ��

� ( % . . 1 1 . 1 . 1 1 . . . . 1 . . 1 . 1 . 1 1 . .

� ��% . . . . . 1 . 1 1 . . . 1 . . . . . 1 . . . 1 .

� ��2�, . . . 1 . . 1 1 1 . . 1 . 1 1 . 1 . 1 1 1 1 . .

� ��) 1 . . 1 . 3 3 3 3 . . 1 . 1 1 . . . 3 3 3 1 . .

� &3�� 1 . 1 1 . 3 . 1 1 . . 1 1 1 . . 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1

� �� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . .

� ��% 1 1 1 1 1 . 3 3 3 . 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 . 3 3 3 3 3

��"�*�� 4�5��* 3 . . 1 1 . 3 1 1 . . . . 1 . . 1 . 1 . 1 1 . .

! �$�%�6 1 . 1 3 1 . 3 . 1 . . 3 3 1 1 1 1 . 3 1 3 1 3 1

"� 5�� 1 . 1 3 1 . 3 . 1 . . 3 3 1 1 1 1 . 3 1 3 1 3 3

�� 5%��2�( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

�� 78��/ . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . .

�� 5�$ . 1 1 1 3 . 3 3 3 3 . . 3 3 3 . . . 3 3 3 1 . 1

�� 5��2�, . 1 . . 1 . 3 3 3 3 . . 3 3 3 3 1 . 3 3 3 1 1 1

�� 9 1 . 1 1 1 . 3 3 3 3 . . 3 3 1 . 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1

�� 7��&� 1 . 1 1 . . 1 . 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 1 1

�� "��:��; . . . . . . . . 1 1 . . . 1 . . . . 1 . . 1 . .

� �"��8��+ 1 . . . . . 1 . . 1 . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 1 .

!� <( %=�"��:�� . . . . 1 . 1 . . . . . . . 1 . . 1 1 . . 1 1 .

"� ��; 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 . . 1 1 3 1 . 1 . 1 1 1 1 1

�� 8�� . . 1 1 1 . 1 . 1 1 . . 1 1 1 . . . . 1 . 1 1 1

�� 2��*<%*'=

1 . 1 1 . . 1 . 3 3 . . 1 1 3 . . . 1 1 3 1 3 3

�� & 1 . . 1 . . 3 1 3 3 . . 1 1 1 1 . . . 1 3 1 3 .

�� 7�, . 1 . . 1 . 3 3 3 3 . . . 1 3 1 . 1 1 3 3 3 1 1

�� ' . . . . . . 3 3 3 3 . . 1 . 3 . . . . 3 3 3 . .

Agricu

ltura

l Resea

rch a

nd

Exten

sion N

etwork P

aper 1

07

6

Figure 4 Basic configurations, Trans Nzoia District

'�

*�

0��,�5

#!'

&%�!

%$

, )'%

�� )!

##

(')3�

!�!(

*

)

#( $(

'�$

$

&�

))

&� ��

/�(6

;-

�&#-

+ �-'

+-

,$

&��

��

Marketing

Input Supplies

Extension &Training

Research

Small scalefarmers Large scale

farmers

Farming communities

Weak linkages

Regular linkages

Important linkages

Soft boundaries

MarketingTP TransportersNCPB National Cereals & Produce BoardKCC Kenya Cooperative CreameriesLT Livestock tradersMT Maize tradersKR Kenya Rundas (traders)VV Vegetable vendorsMH Milk hawkers

Input SuppliersSC Seed companiesDC Drug companiesOIS Other input suppliers (MEA, Meyer Farm, Kimala)S StockistsUnga Ltd

ResearchKARIICIPE

Farming communitiesWG Women’s groupsYG Youth groups4K Primary schoolsYF Secondary schoolsFRGS Farmer research groupsOG Other groups

Extension & TrainingGovernment extension:AE Agricultural extensionLE Livestock extensionVS Veterinary services

Non-government extensionEAT Environmental Action TeamMH Manor House Agricultural CentreVI VI Agroforestry projectOO Other organisations (ELCK, AIC, ACK)

Private ServicesOP Oxen ploughingTP Tractor ploughingEV Ethno-veterinaryD DieselPSV-M Mironjo AI services

CM

SCoKN

AF AC

CK IK La AEP

AE LE VS FD HP

GA

SFOC

PASOHR

VVCTLTFV

FT

T

KC

ADC

FT

CT

S

FCS

IC K KE

LC

LaG

WG

YGVWG

DC

LAC

VDC

CC

AD

YF

4K

Breeders/Brooders

Breeders/BroodersKARI NaivashaADC ADC FarmsLC Lake chickKC Kenchick

MarketingT TransportersFT Fruit tradersFV Fruit vendorsVV Vegetable vendorsCT Cereal tradersLT Livestock traders

Extension & TrainingGovernment extension:AE Agricultural extensionLE Livestock extensionVS Veterinary servicesFD Forest DepartmentHP Homa Bay prisonsGA GoK/Amref

Non-governmental organisations:HR Homa Bay Rural Development ProgrammeIK Indegenous Knowledge Promotions ProgrammeAEP Agriculture Environment ProgrammeLa LabaluCK Care KenyaCM C-MADAD Animal Draft Power ProgrammeSo SONOBOPA Provincial administrationSF South Nyanza Future in our handsOC Other church organisations

ResearchK KARIIC ICPEKE KEFRI

Small scale farmersVDC Village development committeeLAC Location agroforestry committeeYG Youth groupYF Young farmers4K 4K clubs

Input SuppliersSCo Seed companiesAF Animal feedsAC Agro-chemicalsS StockistsFCS Farmers cooperative services

WG Women’s groupCC Catchment committeeLaG Labalu groupDC Dip committee

Figure 5 Basic configurations, Homa Bay District

Marketing

InputSuppliers

Small ScaleFarmers

Research

Extension &Training

Linkage

Soft boundary

Agricu

ltura

l Resea

rch a

nd

Exten

sion N

etwork P

aper 1

07

8

Marketing

Input suppliers

Extension & Training

Research

International Market

Other local markets, e.g.Kisumu, Mombasa

Nairobi Market

FCUT

FCSMP

FCSCM

FCSPM

MH VH

Small scale farmers

WC

WG SCC

DC

Medium scalefarmers

Large scalefarmers

Regular linkagesImportant linkages to limited sites

Important but irregular linkagesLinkage

Soft boundary

AFC

KCB BB SB

FT ET

I

KB

SC

KC

S

FarmingCommunities

AEVS

LE

FD

PI AICG PVCI

KETRI

ILRIKARI

Figure 6 Basic configurations, Kiambu District

DC

KEFRI

CD

FCS Farmers’ cooperative servicesFCU Farmers’ cooperative unionMP MilkCM CoffeePM Pyrethrum

Extension & TrainingGovernment extension:AE Agricultural extensionLE Livestock extensionVS Vetinary servicesCD Cooperative developmentFD Forestry Department

Non-governmental organisations:PI Plan InternationalAICG Gathuiria ProjetCI Compassion InternationalPV Private veterinary practitioners

MarketingCredit institutions:BB Barclays BankSB Standard BankKCB Kenya Commercial BankAFC Agricultural Finance

Corporation

ResearchKARI, ILRI, KEFRI

Farming CommunitiesWG Women’s groupsSCC Soil & water conservationWC Water committeesDC Dip committees

Input SuppliersSC Seed companiesDC Drug companiesKB KenbirdKC KenchickI IdealS Stockists

Transporters

Vendors & hawkers:MH Milk hawkersVH Vegetable hawkersFT Fruit tradersET Egg traders

Agricu

ltura

l know

ledge &

inform

atin

systems in

Ken

ya…9

/�(6

%7

%$

$

�$

�'

&��

��

'+

()

(%

)

%

,

)'

*

;*

��

,�&

;)

/� #

&%�!

;- +-�� &

+ �� ;�� *� #-;- +-

'

0��,�5

Figure 7 Basic configurations, West Pokot

InputSuppliers

Farming Communities

PastoralistCommunities

Mixed farmingCommunities

Extension &Training

Research

Marketing

ResearchKARI

Farming communitiesSmall scale mixed farmersPastoralist farmersWG Women’s groupsYG Youth groups4K Primary schoolsYF Secondary schoolsOG OtherDC Dip committeesWC Water committees

MarketingNCPB National Cereals & Produce BoardKCC Kenya Cooperative CreameriesMT Maize tradersAT Animal tradersT TransportersAb AbbatoirsFCS Farmers’ Cooperative SocietySY Sale yards

Extension & TrainingGovernment extension:AE Agricultural extensionLE Livestock extensionVS Veterinary servicesWD Department of WaterFD Forestry DepartmentCC County Council

Non-governmental organisationsVI VI agroforestry projectOF OxfamWV World VisionNHF Netherlands Harambee FoundationELCK Evangelical Lutheran Church of Kenya

OthersPA Provincial Administration (Ass. Chief)EV Ethno-veterinaryPV Paraveterinary

Input suppliersS StockistsUnga Ltd


10

outside rural communities, i.e. horizontal linkagesbetween institutions were perceived as weak. Somelinkages were noted between input suppliers andgovernment extension, and in some cases betweenNGOs and churches. Similar conclusions were reportedin other AKIS studies carried out in Kenya2 and inEthiopia and the Philippines (Ramirez, 1997).

Basic configurationsBasic configurations diagrams were constructed asoverviews of the AKIS of the different districts. Theseconfigurations synthesise the results of the semi-structured interviews, communication networks,septagrams and the feedback meetings with the ruralcommunity representatives (Figures 4–7). Whilst localactors had the greatest day-to-day influence and wereconsidered the most important sources of information,each study area also had a considerable number ofexternal actors. Horizontal linkages between most ofthe external organisations were generally poor; theirpredominant links were with the farmers and farmers’groups associated with the organisation. Markets andinput suppliers (agribusiness) are more important inthe relatively well developed Kiambu and Trans Nzoiadistricts, and the training, extension and basic servicesconstituent is more prominent in West Pokot. The NGOsactive in Homa Bay also contribute to research throughtheir adaptive research programmes.

5 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NETWORKSSERVING FARMERS

Agricultural sources of informationTable 4 summarises the various and varied sources ofinformation quoted by farmers, CBOs and traders inthe sub-location feedback meetings. Friends, relatives,neighbours, women’s groups and school/youth groupswere reported as major sources in every division. Otherorganisations such as farmer cooperatives, dipcommittees and agroforestry committees were significantin some divisions. Stockists, traders and markets werementioned as important sources in all but two divisions,and other agribusiness sources were important in somedivisions. Ethno-veterinarians were reported as majorsources of information in West Pokot, where they receivesupport from World Vision and the Evangelical Church.Commercial banks were listed as important informationsources in Kiambu. All divisions considered the Ministryof Agriculture as a major source of information (althoughquality and frequency of interactions often receivednegative comments – see below), and most also reportedgetting agricultural information from barazas (localmeetings called by the area chiefs – appointees of theOffice of the President.)

In three of the four districts (West Pokot, Homa Bay,Kiambu), information sources were ranked separatelyby men and women farmers. Overall, womenemphasised community sources, ranking neighbours,churches, CBOs and barazas most frequently. Men alsoindicated the importance of community sources

(especially family members and neighbours), but overallgave the highest priority to government extension.Similar results were reported from a study in Machakosand Makueni districts (Njuguna and Kooijman, 1999).For both men and women together, the sources rankedmost frequently in the top five were neighbours, barazasand GoK extension, followed by churches and familymembers. Farmer training colleges and organised tourswere mentioned least frequently. Semi-structuredinterviews with individual farmers showed similarpatterns (Table 5). Government extension staff werementioned as important information sources by half tothree-quarters of respondents, and neighbours andrelatives were listed as amongst the most importantsources. NGOs and churches were important sourcesof information only in those divisions where they wereoperating. Radio was mentioned as a medium ofagricultural information in all divisions (Table 6). Areview of a survey of 1,400 maize farmers in Kenyacarried out between 1992 and 1994 indicated similarpercentages of farmers reporting contact withgovernment extension services (Salasya and Hassan,1999), as did a recent case study of Embu and Mbeeredistricts (Kimenye, 1999).

Types of information receivedTable 7 summarises the types of information obtainedby farmers, CBOs and traders as reported during semi-structured interviews. Operational skills was the maintype of information received in all four districts, followedby awareness/understanding (new opportunities/problems, etc.). Technical information was reportedlyreceived by 16–33 per cent of farmers, and 22–50 percent of CBOs. However, most end users felt thatinformation flow for this category was particularlydeficient; the major knowledge gap expressed in thefeedback meetings in all four districts was for technicalinformation (e.g. how to manage late blight in potatoes,where to get certified seed, the most appropriate varietiesfor a given location, housing and management oflivestock, etc.). Similar concerns were raised in theMachakos district study (KARI, 1999).

Problems of information flowThe results presented above indicate that governmentextension is a major source of information in all thecommunities investigated. However, neither thecommunities nor the extension personnel themselveswere satisfied with the quality or frequency ofinteractions. The main problem perceived by farmersand CBOs in information flow was inadequate humanresources, both in terms of numbers and knowledge/skills for GoK and NGO extension (Table 8). De-motivating factors were considered important – poorattendance of meetings, ignoring information, dishonestleaders (CBOs), use of the same farms fordemonstrations, inadequate means for farmer exchangevisits and mismanagement of groups. De-motivatingfactors mentioned by GoK and NGO extensionistsincluded lack of commitment and interest, inadequate


11

Table 4 Sources of information received by farmers in the four districts��# ��$%�� &�� ' ��

��2�* ��7�' ��& ��"�8� ��, ��/ �>�� , ��8��-

�(�)*�� +

��2��4�5�� ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

��78��/ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 3

�"��:��; ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

�"��8��4��8�' ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 ✓

��2��"�� ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 ✓ ✓ ✓

5��"��5�"��

��

✓ 3 ✓ ✓ 3 ✓ ✓ ✓

��"��; 3 3 ✓ 3 3 ✓ ✓ ✓

��-?=��2��2�

<?��6

✓ 3 3 3 3 ✓ 3 3

��,�-��,�� .

��5��4��' 3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 3

�5��2��4��"�� 3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 3

��23��8� 3 3 ✓ ✓ 3 3 3

��8��4�!�%4��8��6 ✓ ✓ 3 3 ✓ 3 3 3

��2��2�( 3 ✓ 3 3 ✓ 3 ✓ ✓

��'�$%6 3 3 3 3 ✓ ✓ 3 3

�5�� 0 ✓ 3 ✓ 3 3 3 ✓ 3

��'��8��& 3 3 3 3 3 3 ✓ 3

��7�� 3 3 3 3 3 3 ✓ ✓

��"��$ ✓ ✓ 3 3 3 3 ✓ ✓

� �� /�0

��%�� ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

��"�*�� 3 3 3 3 ✓ ✓ 3 3

��"�*��8�� 3 3 3 3 ✓ ✓ 3 3

��8��%��"��2�* ✓ 3 3 3 3 ✓ 3 3

��8�� 3 3 ✓ 3 3 ✓ 3 3

=��5��(�8��# �� < 3 3 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

��$�� ✓ 3 ✓ 3 3 3 3 3

5��6��8��(4��5�� ✓ 3 3 3 3 3 ✓ ✓

0�(& 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ✓

6(�/ 3 3 3 3 3 ✓ 3 3

��% ✓ 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

(!�!4!�,!4!�%& 3 3 3 3 ✓ 3 ✓ ✓

� ��1��1�2(0%

$% ✓ ✓ 3 3 3 3 3 3

��@�(��(��$!) ✓ ✓ 3 3 3 3 3 3

�%�� ✓ ✓ 3 3 3 3 3 3

�% .# 3 3 3 ✓ 3 3 3 3

��)5��; 3 3 3 ✓ 3 3 3 3

( % 3 3 3 3 3 ✓ 3 3

*%�3� 3 3 3 3 ✓ 3 3 3

&3 �%� 3 3 3 3 3 ✓ 3 3

((*% 3 3 3 3 3 ✓ 3 3

��% 3 3 3 3 3 ✓ 3 3

( ( # 3 3 3 3 ✓ 3 3 3

-/!(,#& 3 3 3 3 3 ✓ 3 3

��!��"��!��( 3 3 3 3 3 3 ✓ 3

#!& 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ✓

&�, 3 3 ✓ ✓ 3 3 3 3

��*��8�� ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 3

�!% 3 ✓ 3 3 3 3 ✓ ✓

&�% ✓ ✓ 3 ✓ 3 3 3 3


12

material resources and transport, and farmers simplyignoring information. Similar comments by Kenyanfarmers and extensionists have been recorded in manyother reports (i.e. den Bigellaar, 1995; Rees, Nkongeand Wandera, 1997; Rees et al., 1997; Sutherland, 1999;Salasya and Hassan, 1999).

6 UPTAKE PATHWAYS AND ENTRYPOINTS FOR TECHNOLOGY DELIVERY

Potential uptake pathways and entry points highlightedby the study are summarised in Table 9.

Government of KenyaGoK delivery systems are perceived by rural people tobe important sources of agricultural information. However,Government pathways are faced with considerableconstraints, and are unlikely to be effective unless human,financial and information problems are addressed.

Community based organisationsThe number and variety of CBOs makes them attractiveas potential users of agricultural information, but theirvery number and diversity also makes it difficult togeneralise about delivery systems/uptake pathways. Anyagency interested in agricultural development needs topay particular attention to cataloguing CBOs and their

uptake pathways in their mandate regions. Some generalremarks are made below.

Women’s groupsMaendeleo ya Wanawake (MYW) is a national networksupposed to act as a coordinating body for women’sgroups, and to support them through both political andtechnical activities (i.e. advocacy and lobbying forchange; training and skills development). As such, MYWhas a network which reaches to local levels, and thiscould provide a ready-made delivery system forknowledge dissemination. However, its networkingactivities are not effective in all districts, and somewomen’s groups are not affiliated to MYW. Women’sgroups, like others, have to register with the Ministry ofSocial Services to qualify for financial assistance fromGoK and donors. The Ministry of Social Services couldact as an entry point for women’s groups, but in practicerarely update their records or carry out any organisedfollow up activities. Through group meetings the HomeEconomics section of MoA operates with most women’sgroups on activities related to family nutrition, kitchengardens and child care. This could be an entry point togroups that complements the use of the conventionalMoA extension services.

Rural health clinicsAMREF in Homa Bay and Trans Nzoia, and primary healthcare clinics in all districts display information materials,and would welcome agricultural information also.

Youth groupsYouth groups, young farmers, 4K clubs and schools arebest reached through the MoA Rural Youth Office ratherthan through the Ministry of Education. It was notedduring the study that most of the youth groups areparticularly interested in short-term cash enterprises, andless in the reduction of production costs and/orenvironmental conservation.

Dip committeesAfter government support to village dips was withdrawn,various groups and committees came into being tooperate dips as private enterprises. Some youth groupsin Trans Nzoia are operating dips on a commercial basisand some dip committees in Homa Bay are operatedby farmers. Private vets in Trans Nzoia and Kiambualso give support in some cases. Such dip committeeswould be very appropriate for dissemination of betteranimal health and husbandry practices.

*Refers to demonstrations, field days, tours, workshops, ASK shows- No response or not available

Table 5 Sources of information mentioned bysmallholder farmers (% respondents fromsemi structured interviews)

��,�3 ��$%

�� '��&

��

��

��

��"��>��:�� A B� C� ��

��"�� A D B ��

��78��/ B� �A A� �D

��2��4��5��8�4��( A� C� A� ��

�#6� �� B ��

��5��4��' A D� ��

��

E��2�� C� D� ��

��&�- �� D C�

��"#-/ �� C B� D

��8��8� 3 � B C

��5��( �� 3 ��

��5��"��/ �� A ��

Table 6 Media by which the farming communities have received agricultural information

��* ��$%�� &�� ' ��

��2�* ��7�' ��& ��"�8� ��, ��/ �>�� , ��8��-

��5��# 3 3 ✓ ✓ 3 3 ✓ ✓

��4�"�8��>5��# 3 3 3 3 ✓ ✓ ✓ 3

�>�8�&'%4��55�� ✓ ✓ ✓ 3 3 3 ✓ 3

��5�� ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

��( 3 3 ✓ 3 3 ✓ ✓ ✓


13

Soil and water catchment conservation committeesThe considerable number of soil and water catchmentconservation committees makes them attractive aspotential uptake pathways for general crop and livestockpractices, particularly those oriented towardsconservation and/or reduced costs of production. Whenthe soil and water conservation projects come to anend (after two or three years of government support),most of the committees become dormant. But it wouldbe easy for other organisations to revive them as uptakepathways for agricultural information. The District Soiland Water Conservation Offices would be an ideal entrypoint to these committees.

Other committeesWater committees, location agroforestry committees andvillage committees are active in some districts/divisionsand should be noted when delivery systems/uptakepathways are being inventoried.

Chiefs and barazasThe Provincial Administration (barazas) were mentionedby some respondents as potential delivery systems, butthe authoritative nature of chiefs/assistant chiefs wasseen as a potential problem for the uptake of technical,as opposed to civic, information. However, chiefs arekey stakeholders in all aspects of rural life and shouldbe consulted or actively involved in any disseminationeffort, particularly in low potential areas.

Service providers (agribusiness)The larger scale agribusinesses with their networks ofstockists, traders and farmers offer potentialdissemination pathways, provided they are assured thatthe distribution of information would enhance thepopularity of their outlets and that the information wasconsistent with their range of products.

NGOs and church organisationsThese are widespread throughout Kenya, but eachorganisation has limited coverage. Although there aresome horizontal linkages between different churchesand between churches and NGOs, the linkages are notstrong enough to offer any particular entry points. It is

��$%�� &�� ' ��

��!��"�$ �� #6� �� #6� �� #6� �� #6� ��5�$

��5��5��4��>% � B� D� D� �� B� �� A� ��

��"# � �� C� �A �� A ��

��5��>��8��$ � �� D� �� A� �� DA

�� B� � � � � ��

��( 3 3 3 C� 3 3 3 3

Table 7 Types of information received by farmers and CBOs (%respondents in semi-structured interviews)

1 E.g. Awareness of new varieties2 How to carry out farming practices, such as ploughing, spraying for pest control, etc.3 Technical details of farming practices (recommended row spacings, ploughing depths, chemical dilution rates,

sources of improved seed, etc.)

probably necessary to contact each separately to tapinto their rich networks. Their main offices in the districtscould be good entry points, and could also contributematerially to uptake/dissemination. In West Pokot, theEvangelical Lutheran Church of Kenya and World Visionare making determined efforts to contact and improveskills of para-vets and veterinary drug hawkers, and sowould be appropriate delivery systems for animal healthand husbandry information. The CBOs working withprojects under the Catholic Diocese of Homa Bay areattractive as potential uptake pathways for general cropand livestock practices oriented towards sustainableagriculture. Diocese activities include training in groupdynamics and leadership skills in an attempt to helpthe CBOs become self-sustaining. The entry point hereis the Diocese of Homa Bay. Several groups have beentrained in bio-intensive or organic farming practices inTrans Nzoia, Kiambu and elsewhere in Kenya.Environmental development groups have beenestablished and trained by CARE-K in Rangwe, HomaBay. These groups could be contacted through the SoilOrganic Matter Network, Association for Better LandHusbandry, Manor House Agricultural Centre, KenyaInstitute of Organic Farming (KIOF), EAT, CARE-K anda number of other NGOs and church organisations. Thegroups would not only be recipients of information butcould also be involved in dissemination to other farmers/groups.

7 NETWORKING AND PLURALISM FORMORE EFFECTIVE AGRICULTURALDEVELOPMENT

Most of the external actors reported here, and particularlygovernment institutions, interact directly with ruralcommunities. However there is little interaction betweenorganisations and institutions themselves, even thoughthey have similar objectives. Similar observations havebeen made elsewhere (e.g. Wanga, 1994; Ramirez, 1997;Keengwe et al., 1998) and indeed have underpinnedthe development of the AKIS paradigm and the RAAKSmethodology (Röling 1989; Engel 1997; Röling andWagemakers, 1998). Some analysts call for thedeconstruction and reconstruction of the whole systemof agricultural development and support into new


14

coalitions or platforms of actors (Chambers, 1993; Biggs,1995; Pretty, 1995; Engel, 1997). Although this may betoo radical for most governments, it does raise questionsof missed opportunities for collaboration and cost-sharingin research and dissemination and of networking andpluralism in the supply of research and extension services.

Liberalisation, structural adjustment and the increasingrole of NGOs and other organisations increase thecomplexity of agricultural development, and offer newopportunities for research, extension and training (Zijp,1998). The establishment of task-oriented networks andtask forces is often considered the most effective wayto tackle such complex issues with many differentstakeholders (Carley and Christie, 1992; Alders et al.,1993). The World Bank Rural Action Plan advocatesdrawing the many concerned actors together in moreeffective partnership, and recommends pluralism in thesupply of research and extension services to developmore cost-effective, equitable and efficient agriculturaldevelopment (Zijp, 1998). The AKIS paradigm and theRAAKS methodology, amongst others, offer tools thatcould assist government and non-governmentorganisations in such networking and the review of theirroles in today’s agricultural systems.

Throughout the study, farmers and other actorsemphasised the need for learning through directinteraction with researchers and extensionists. Evenwhere research institutions have developed expertisewith participatory approaches (e.g. KARI), it is notpossible for them to work directly with more than atiny percentage of the country’s smallholder farmers.The formation of strategic alliances with otherdevelopment agencies to address agricultural issues ofmutual interest is one way in which government researchorganisations could substantially increase their impact.Such al l iances would involve working withrepresentatives of the ‘farmer-congregations’ of theseagencies. Increased focus on the formulation ofresearch outputs into technical information materialsfor farmers , emphasis ing t ry ing-out andexperimentation by farmers’ groups, and thedevelopment of teaching and training-of-trainermaterials for intermediate users would be necessaryto assist those agencies in facilitating participatorylearning throughout their congregations. In this way,government research institutes could capture pivotalroles for themselves in the agricultural knowledgeand information systems of the future.

��0 ��(0% �(�)2�� 4

��"��F�5��! 5��"��8>��*��8��8��8�

��"��F�5��!<��4��5��>��45��7��=

��!��7��

5��5

��"��F�5��!��2��5�"�2�"��

��"4��5��,

��2��8��7��(��8�

�8��2�8��5��8��5�� 2��

��2��F�5��!

��5��"��F�5��!�>��5��

8��58��!��5��8��#-/�8�

%��8��8�5��8��

<�5��=��6

��7��5��5��!��2��

��!��7��

�5��5

��2��3�*

��5��7��F�5��!�>��8��=��

<��2��

��5��7��F�5��!��

��8��5��0

��2��>�, ��2��>�, ��!

��8��=��7��,��5��5��>��

<��

��5��5��#

��8�5��5��05��2��5��2��5

��8��

��(

��5��5��8��8��5�� 2��8��2�8

��5�2��8'

��"��"��"��3��!��8��8>��

��5��5��>��F�5��!

Table 8 Problems of information flow as perceived by GoK and NGO organisations, farmers and CBOs


15

Table 9 Potential delivery systems in Trans Nzoia, West Pokot, Homa Bay and Kiambu

Uptake PathwayGovernment pathways: Agriculture,livestock development, veterinaryservices, forestry

Government pathways:Office of the President (network ofChiefs and sub-chiefs)

Schools

Rural health clinics

Women’s groups

4K, young farmers, youth groups,schools

Dip committees

Soil and water catchmentconservation committees

Para-vets & veterinary drug hawkersNGO client networks

Church development congregations

Major agribusinesses (Kenya Seed,Ken-Chic, Babayi, Nyota, Meyer,Western, Mea Ltd, dairycooperatives, private entrepreneurs)

Farmers’/women’s groups- AEP,LABALU, ADPP Programme

Organic or bio-intensive CBOs(women’s groups, self-help andyouth groups)

Farmers’/women’s groups forenvironment and agriculturaldevelopment in Rangwe

Entry pointDistrict offices

District offices

see below – NOTMin. of Education

AMREF OfficesHoma Bay and TransNzoia onlyMoH Maternity ChildHealth Care Offices

Maendeleo yaWanawakeMOA HomeEconomics Dept.

MOA Rural YouthOffices

MOA Vet. Services –District Offices

MOA District Offices

ELCK, World VisionNGO offices

District offices andChurch HQ

Head offices

Diocese of HomaBay

MHAC,Kenya Institute ofOrganic Farming

CARE-Kenya

CommentsPotentially strong, well-organised networks; under-resourced and poorly motivated

Key actor in all aspects of rural life; strong networks thatcould easily contact all CBOs; strong potential blockingfactors

Commonly display various information materials;potentially very effective pathway

Commonly display various information materials;potentially very effective pathway

Bring groups together at divisional, district, provincial andnational levelsFocus more on health, education and home economics

Potentially strong network

Potential pathway for animal husbandry technologies

Become inactive after the conservation project iscomplete, but can easily be re-activated for similar/otheragricultural activities

West Pokot onlyNo useful umbrella organisations identified, but potentiallyvery effective

No useful umbrella organisations identified, but potentiallyvery effective

Very important potential pathways; need to be convincedthat the information will enhance their own outlets andnot compromise their business

May become inactive when projects come to an end, butcan be reactivated for agricultural activities

Great potential through their regular training of CBOs inbio-intensive/organic practices.

Regular visits and interactions;potential for distribution and dissemination of information.

REFERENCESAlders, C., Haverkort, B., and van Veldhuizen, L. (1993)

Linking with Farmers: Networking for low externalinput and sustainable agriculture. London: ITPublications.

Biggs, S.D. (1995) Contending Coalitions inParticipatory Methodology Development:Challenges for the new orthodoxy. Norwich:University of East Anglia.

Carley, M. and Christie, I. (1992) Managing sustainable

development. London: Earthscan Publications.Chambers, R. (1993) Challenging the professions:

frontiers for rural development. London: IntermediateTechnology.

den Biggelaar, C. (1995) ‘Linking actors in agriculturalknowledge system in Embu district’. AFRENA ReportNo. 103. Nairobi: ICRAF.

Engel, P.G.H. (1997) The Social Organisation ofInnovation. Amsterdam: Royal Tropical Institute.

Network Papers cost £3.00 sterling each (plus postage & packing).Please contact the Network Administrator at:

The Overseas Development Institute 111 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7HR, UKTelephone: +44 (0)20 7922 0300 Fax: +44 (0)20 7922 0399 Email: [email protected]

Information about ODI and its publications can be found on our World-Wide Web pages on the Internet at:http://www.odi.org.uk

Government of Kenya (1993) District Development Plans1994–1996.

Garforth, C. and Usher, R. (1997) ‘Promotion and uptakepathways for research output: a review of analyticalframeworks and communication channels’.Agricultural Systems. No. 55, pp. 301–322

Jaetzold, R. and Schmidt, H. (1983) Farm ManagementHandbook of Kenya. Volumes 1–3. Nairobi: Ministryof Agriculture.

KARI (1999) ‘Report on the workshop: agriculturalknowledge and information systems (AKIS)’ atNDFRC, Katumani. (Mimeo).

Keengwe, M., Percy, F., Mageka, O. and Adan, M.S.(1998) NGO Roles and Relationships. Partnershipdilemmas for international and local NGOs in Kenya.London: IIED

Kimenye, L.N. (1999) ‘Assessment of technologydissemination and utilisation by women and menfarmers: a case study of Embu and Mbeere districts’in J. Curry, M. Kooijman, and H. Recke (eds)Institutionalising Gender in Agricultural Research:Experiences from Kenya. Nairobi: KARI

Njuguna, E. and Kooijman, M. (1999) ‘Genderconsiderations in farm characterisation and problemidentification in the hill masses of Machakos andMakueni districts’ in J. Curry, M. Kooijman, and H.Recke (eds) Institutionalising Gender in AgriculturalResearch: Experiences from Kenya. Nairobi: KARI

Pretty, J.N. (1995) Regenerating Agriculture. London:Earthscan.

Pretty, J.N., Guijt, I., Thompson, J. and Scoones, I. (1995)A Trainers Guide for Participatory Learning andAction. London: IIED.

Ramirez, R. (1997) ‘Understanding farmers’communication networks: combining PRA withagricultural knowledge systems analysis’. GatekeeperSeries No. SA66. London:IIED.

Rees, D. J., Nkonge, C. and Wandera, J. (eds) (1997) AReview of Smallholder Agricultural Practices andConstraints in the North of the Rift Valley Province ofKenya. Kitale, Kenya: Kenya Agricultural ResearchInstitute.

Rees, D.J., Njue, E.K., Makini, F.W. and Mbugua, D.M.(eds)(1997) A Review of Smallholder AgriculturalPractices and Constraints in South West Kenya.Kitale, Kenya: Kenya Agricultural Research Institute.

Röling, N.G. (1989) ‘The research/extension interface aknowledge system perspective.’ ISNAR Staff Notes.

Röling, N.G. and Wagemakers, M.A.E. (1998) FacilitatingSustainable Agriculture. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Salasya, B. and Hassan, R. (1999) ‘The gender factor inmaize farming and technology transfer in Kenya’ inJ. Curry, M. Kooijman, and H. Recke (eds)Institutionalising Gender in Agricultural Research:Experiences from Kenya. Nairobi: KARI

Salomon, M.L. and Engel, P.G.H. (1997) Networking forInnovation: Windows and tools. Amsterdam: RoyalTropical Institute.

Sutherland, J. A. (ed) (1999) Towards Increased Use ofDemand Driven Technology. Nairobi: KenyaAgricultural Research Institute.

Wanga, E. O. (1994) ‘Kenyan case study. performanceof the agricultural knowledge and information systemin Kiambu district.’ International Workshop onAgricultural Extension in Africa, Yaoundé,Cameroon, 1994.

Zijp, W. (1998) ‘Extension: empowerment throughcommunication’ in I. Wallace (ed.) Rural knowledgesystems for the 21st century. Reading, UK: AERDD

ENDNOTES1 RAAKS methods included actor identification, actor

objectives, actor verification, communicationnetworks, linkage matrices, task analysis, primemover septagrams and basic configurations. PRAmethods included sketch maps, ranking and historicalprofiles.

2 Other AKIS studies include flower farming in Kiambu(Wanga, 1994); the coffee and tea based systems ofEmbu (den Bigelaar, 1995); and dryland farming inMachakos (KARI, 1999).

Documents

Agricultural knowledge and information systems in …...Marion Kamau, Jessica Ndubi, Francis Musembi, Lucy Mwaura and Rita Joldersma Abstract This paper reports on a study of agricultural