Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE
SUSTAINABLE FARM TIMBER FOR SMALLHOLDER CROPPING SYSTEMS
SAMMY CARSAN
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE MASTERS IN SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE DEGREE OF THE FACULTY OF NATURAL
AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES (CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE)
JANUARY 2007
STUDY LEADER: Dr. ALDO STROEBEL
STUDY PROMOTER: Dr. ANTHONY SIMONS
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was made possible by the support and guidance of many individuals, from the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), University of the Free State (UFS) and the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) all of whom I owe much gratitude to. Firstly my gratitude go to Dr. Anthony Simons (ICRAF) and Professor Izak Groenewald (CSA) for supporting my career development and facilitating my study within my work environment. I am intellectually indebted to my study promoters Dr. Aldo Stroebel, Dr. Tony Simons and Prof. Izak Groenewald for their insights and invaluable advice to the successful completion of my study. MSA lecturers at the UFS are also thanked for their insightful and critical academic modules. I wish to express my profound gratitude, sincere appreciation and indebtedness to many of my colleagues at ICRAF, Dr. Ramni Jamnadass for introducing and encouraging me to pursue this master’s degree course at the UFS, to Jonathan Muriuki, Bernard Muia, Joseph Kirimi, Ann Nyambura, Grace Kaimuri, Valentine Gitonga and Paul for in many ways supporting my entire study. Special thanks to Stella Muasya for facilitating timely budget allocation for my study trips during a very difficult time of financial constraints. My appreciation to the travel office at ICRAF, Mahmouda and Grace for their superb support. From a research stand point, I acknowledge the help of research support unit at ICRAF, for the data management and analysis induction training which further helped sharpen my data management skills. The support by Caleb Orwa and the GIS unit at ICRAF is appreciated for their willingness to share the study area mapping and geo-referencing. Special thanks to Sallyanne Muhoro for facilitating data entry, local contacts and secondary data assemblage. Many thanks to colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture and British American Tobacco for their assistance during field survey logistics; special mention to Andrew Muita, Samuel Nabea, Josephat Kaimenyi, Charles Kariuki and Nzioki for their great help on facilitating farmer interviews. I also wish to thank the many farmers who shared their time, experiences and knowledge during the field survey. My study programme would not have been fruitful without the generous scholarship support from the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture and the Trees and Markets Theme at ICRAF. Great appreciation to CSA secretariat, Mia Kirsten and Sanet Neethling for their readiness to support my administrative matters at the CSA and UFS. Lastly and by no means least, I am greatly indebted to my wife Josy Kathuu and son Eddie for their love and unfailing support during the entire study and write up.
iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ASAL: Arid and Semi Arid Lands
BAT: British American Tobacco
CSA: Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
DBH: Diameter at Breast Height
FAO: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
FD: Forest Department
FYM: Farm Yard Manure
ICRAF: World Agroforestry Centre
INRA: Integrated Natural Resource Assessment
KEFRI: Kenya Forestry Research Institute
KFMP: Kenya Forestry Master Plan
KFWG: Kenya Forests Working Group
KIFCON: Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Project
KTDA: Kenya Tea Development Agency
KWS: Kenya Wildlife Service
LM: Lower Mid-land
MD: Man Days
MDG’s: Millennium Development Goals
MSA: Masters in Sustainable Agriculture
NGO: Non-Governmental Organization
NRM: Natural Resource Management
UFS: University of the Free State
UM: Upper Mid-land
UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme
PRSPS: Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Sciences
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... ii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. vii
APPENDICES.....................................................................................................viii
SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER ONE....................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND......................................................................................1
1.2 SMALLHOLDER TIMBER DEMAND IN KENYA ....................................4
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT .......................................................................6
1.4 STUDY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................7
1.5 STUDY AREA.........................................................................................8
1.5.1 Agriculture .......................................................................................9
1.5.2 Forests ............................................................................................9
1.5.3 Climate ..........................................................................................10
1.5.4 Coffee and cotton zones................................................................10
1.5.5 Socio- economic status .................................................................11
1.6 SUSTAINABILITY THEMES AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ......12
1.7 STUDY POTENTIAL AND LIMITATIONS.............................................17
1.8 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................17
CHAPTER TWO .................................................................................................18
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................18
2.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................18
2.2 SMALLHOLDER TIMBER IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.....................19
2.3 SUSTAINING SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS..........................................22
2.4 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................25
v
CHAPTER THREE .............................................................................................27
3.0 RESEARCH METHODS.......................................................................27
3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH.....................................................................27
3.2 SAMPLING...........................................................................................27
3.3.1 Study technique.............................................................................29
3.3.2 Data collection...............................................................................29
3.3 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................30
3.4 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................30
CHAPTER FOUR ...............................................................................................31
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ..........................................................31
4.1 LAND SIZE ...........................................................................................31
4.2 SMALLHOLDER CROP PRODUCTION...............................................31
4.2.1 Cropping system...................................................................................33
4.3 PRODUCTION INPUTS .......................................................................35
4.3.1 Gross margin calculations for maize crop......................................36
4.5 FARM TIMBER PRODUCTION............................................................40
4.5.1 Timber species on farm.................................................................40
4.5.2 Timber volumes on farm................................................................41
4.5.3 Managing smallholder timber ........................................................44
4.6 MARKETING SMALLHOLDER TIMBER ..............................................45
4.7 SWOT ANALYSIS ON SMALLHOLDER TIMBER................................47
4.8 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................48
CHAPTER FIVE..................................................................................................49
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................49
5.1 CROP PRODUCTION ..........................................................................49
5.2 SMALLHOLDER TIMBER ....................................................................51
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................54
APPENDICES.....................................................................................................59
vi
LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Projected wood demand in the high & medium-potential districts (‘000 m3) ........................................................................................................................4 Table 2. Annual rainfall and temperature in the coffee and cotton zones of Meru district .................................................................................................................11 Table 3 Selected cereal crop production volumes in Meru central in year 2003 32 Table 4 Other crop production in tonnes per hectare........................................32 Table 5. Maize Gross Margin per hectare..........................................................37 Table 6 Selected cereal crop gross margins comparisons.................................38 Table 7 Identified crop production limitations and means to improvement.........39 Table 8 Timber species utilized in the coffee and cotton zones of Meru Central41 Table 9 Summary of total timber volumes and stem numbers on farm..............42 Table 10 Projected wood supply and demand in the high-potential and medium-potential districts under the master plan scenario (‘000 m3)................................42 Table 11 SWOT analysis on smallholder timber marketing ...............................47
vii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Map of Meru Central District in Kenya ...................................................8 Figure 2 Issues and interventions influencing low smallholder timber value .......15 Figure 3 Smallholder systems conceptual model...............................................16 Figure 4 Smallholder cropping systems against food and cash farming objectives............................................................................................................................33 Figure 5 Smallholder agricultural crop types and cropping systems ..................34 Figure 6 Timber volumes in the cotton-coffee systems......................................43 Figure 7 Typical farm timber marketing channels in Meru Central .....................46
viii
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Survey Questionnaire......................................................................59 Appendix 2 Major pests and diseases ...............................................................61 Appendix 3 Common tree species on farm: Mount Kenya area.........................62 Appendix 4 Percentage number of trees and species in all zones of Mt. Kenya63 Appendix 5 Meru map........................................................................................64
ix
SUMMARY Smallholder agricultural systems often demonstrate a complexity of practices
embedded in local and traditional technologies geared to sustaining household
incomes and food objectives. Farm timber and mainly subsistence crop
production practices were assessed through a broad cross-sectional survey in
Meru Central District of Kenya. Secondary data together with findings of a related
study were collated to inform smallholder practices against broad sustainability
dimensions.
Most smallholder tree and agricultural crop cultivation are based on the
assumption that the two are sufficiently mixed to provide household tree product
needs, food and income. Crop production in the surveyed area was found to be
largely subsistence in nature with mixed systems incorporating crop polyculture
on land sizes between one and two hectares on average. Production is strongly
hinged on mixed systems even though farmer preference on monocultural
cropping was recorded. Overall, food and income objectives define cropping
systems on available land. There is a strong reliance on the ‘green revolution’
inputs to boost production even though sometimes only meager resources are
available. Soil nutrient depletion is implicated in limiting possible production
potential.
Timber tree cultivation along with subsistence crops, even though practiced for
several decades is found to be an emerging enterprise for many smallholders.
Different smallholder cropping systems were found to support varying levels of
timber production. For instance, the cotton zone was found to have more timber
volumes than the coffee zone per farm. Farm timber production practices are on
the one hand found to experience huge market opportunities and on the other
certain peculiar challenges. Poor timber quality occasioned by poor silvicultural
practices and poor pricing are key set backs on the practice. Routinely, poor
policy support environment is cited as the key bottleneck stifling smallholder
timber enterprise growth. Failed plantation forestry seems to give impetus to
smallholder timber. This study investigates smallholder timber management
x
practices while providing an indicative potential of the resource. Wood production
on farm lands and settlement consist of 20% sawn wood 7% pole and 73%
fuelwood. Projected supply from farmlands in the medium and high potential
zones was poised to rise from 64% in 1995 to over 80% by year 2020.
Future tree cultivation in the medium and high potential coffee zone will however
have to justify use of available land, labour and capital against crop enterprises.
1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This introductory chapter discusses the background of the study, encapsulates
the problem area(s) to be addressed and sets out key objectives to be followed.
The study area is evaluated while the broad topic conceptualization is discussed
in the context of sustainable farming systems.
1.1 BACKGROUND
Timber tree production on small-scale farms is actually a composite asset
important to many smallholder farmers. Smallholder timber cultivation is typically
practiced along with subsistence crop and livestock production systems. Trees
are usually grown together with crops in conventional mixed farming systems and
may be planted along farm boundaries, in the cropland, along the contours and
sometimes in blocks. Other planting patterns involve trees as hedgerows
between crops and in lines providing wind breaks (Holmgren et. al., 1994;
Tyndall, 1996). On the steep slopes of the coffee and tea zones, with persistent
soil erosion, trees on farm serve an important function in preventing soil erosion
where deep sparse roots bind soil together to resist water erosion; whereas in
the low lying cotton zone trees twin as boundary markers and windbreaks.
Largely, farm grown timber is seen on small farm sizes averaging one hectare.
The choice of tree species to plant usually varies with individual farmer tree
knowledge, interest and land size but may also depend on other factors such as
species compatibility with crops, duration to harvesting and the value of end
products (Simons et. al., 2000; Lengkeek et. al., 2005). Overall, trees on farm are
appreciated for their role in meeting domestic wood requirements, provision of
income and enhancing soil biophysical conditions. Indigenous timber species
such as Cordia africana, Milicia excelsa, Newtonia buchananii and Vitex
keniensis are further appreciated for their soil improvement roles amongst other
functions such as water catchment protection and certain cultural values.
2
The tree and agricultural crop mix on smallholder farms is therefore an
interdependent practice which seems to play a key role in securing many
smallholder livelihoods (Lengkeek & Carsan, 2004). An example of the crucial
links is perhaps depicted by the recent farmer experiences on poor prices on key
agricultural crops (such as coffee, cotton, sugarcane) and where farmers turned
to trees on farms as the alternative income generating enterprise. Trees on farm
serve as a “safety net”, providing not only income but a low-cost source of food,
fuel, fodder and housing materials (Holding & Roshetko, 2003; Scher, 2004).
The critical role played by the smallholder timber sub-sector is reinforced by a
number of emerging factors in recent years creating new opportunities for
smallholder farmers to participate profitably in the tree product and service
markets (Opanga, 2001). A number of studies and policy reviews now recognize
the economic value of the tree resources on farms and the need to strengthen
the sub-sector to attain social-economic objectives such as poverty reduction
(Magcale-Macandog et al., 1999). For instance FAO (2005) notes that, local
communities now control at least 25% of the developing world’s forests and in
forest-scarce countries local farmers are actively growing trees for commercial
use. In Kenya, (with now less than two percent forest cover) smallholder timber
has gained prominence owing to unsustainable plantation logging and
subsequent government ban on the same. Demand for environmental services
(e.g. carbon) from trees is further poised to raise the potential market value of
timber tree crops owned by farmers. It is now recognized that farmers have a
competitive advantage for particular market segments, due to their proximity to
local markets, price advantages and perhaps lower tree cultivation costs (Scherr,
2004). However, their inadequate organization capabilities result to individual
marketing denying them greater bargaining power and market position. There is
need to test workable farmer collective action models to bring real benefits to tree
farmers and create incentives to emerging farmer crop enterprises.
3
To ensure increased and continuous benefits from smallholder timber farming
especially in the rural settings where they are needed the most, critical resource
audits will need to be considered to facilitate market planning. Ideally, the
importance of subsistence crop production along farm timber production is now
widely appreciated. However, the critical functional balance between the two
elements in the different agro-ecosystems is sub-optimally understood along
biophysical, social and economic dimensions. Area specific knowledge especially
for the different agro-ecological zones is often lacking to inform applicable
management practices (Carsan & Holding, 2001). There seem to be an inherent
complexity of input-output relationships amongst the different smallholder farmer
enterprise mixes, the opportunity cost of alternatives not withstanding. The
farming systems are dependent on rainfall and intermittent irrigation where water
is sufficient. In addition, enormous pressure is being exerted on the high potential
areas by increasing population leading to land subdivisions and fragmentation.
The consequence has been cultivation on water catchment areas and in some
instances tree over harvesting to pave way for crop cultivation and facilitate land
tenure. Because of the marginal and fragile nature of many of the systems where
the greatest output for smallholder timber and agricultural crops occur, special
attention is needed to maintain and enhance the productive potential of these
systems. Small-scale farmers are feared to have removed large quantities of
nutrients from their soils without using sufficient amounts of manure or fertilizer to
replenish fertility. This has resulted in high annual nutrient depletion rates of 22
kg nitrogen, 2.5 kg phosphorus, and 15 kg potassium per hectare of cultivated
land over the past 30 years in 37 African countries – an annual loss equivalent to
$4 billion worth of fertilizers (Sanchez, 2002; Garrity, 2004).
The overall sustainability of these smallholder production systems have therefore
come under a sharp focus due to the growing intensification pressure further
caused by a rapid population growth (UNEP, 2002). The growing wood demand
formerly relied on plantation and an indigenous forest resource is particularly
calling out for an alternative sustainable supply source. Agricultural farms and
4
especially smallholder farmers known to retain a variety of tree species on farm
have the potential to tremendously benefit from tree enterprises on farm. The
practice and emerging market is therefore curious to research and resource
planning efforts to countries like Kenya with serious wood demand shortfalls.
1.2 SMALLHOLDER TIMBER DEMAND IN KENYA
Kenya’s timber market is one of the most lucrative in the Great Lakes region with
supplies being sought from neighboring countries and the Congo. Local supply
however faces huge shortfalls and the government was forced to zero rate import
duties since the year 2001. According to Kenya’s Forestry Master Plan (KFMP),
demand for sawn wood was projected to grow from 203,000 m3 in 1990 to
262,800 m3 in 2020. Projected total demand for wood in the high and medium
potential districts is poised to rise form 15,084,000 m3 in 1995 to 30,679,000 m3
in the year 2020 (Table 1).
Table 1 Projected wood demand in the high & medium-potential districts (‘000 m3)
Wood demand 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Firewood 7993 9251 10686 12251 13889 15593
Wood for charcoal 5085 6298 7351 8511 9726 10972
Poles 948 1111 1308 1544 1823 2153
Industrial wood 1058 1209 1378 1543 1709 1961
Total wood demand 15084 17869 20723 23849 27147 30679
Source KFMP, 1994 The role of smallholder timber in supplementing rural households’ huge firewood
needs is particularly singled out here. Kenya’s Ministry of Energy (MoE, 2003)
identifies firewood as the most common type of energy used in the country with
close to 89% of rural and 7% of urban households reporting regular use, giving a
national average of 68% of all households. The average annual per capita
consumption is approximately 741 kg and 691 kg for rural and urban households,
5
respectively. It is estimated that smallholder agroforestry systems now contribute
up to 84% of all biomass fuel needs for rural households. Conversely, wood
production on farmlands and settlements consist of 20% sawnwood, seven
percent pole and 73% fuel wood.
The only substantial increase in tree planting by the hectarage and wood
production by the volume is therefore occurring on farms. In high potential areas,
woody biomass already equals that of indigenous forest and commercial forest
combined (KFMP, 1994). Since the indigenous forest area is so rapidly shrinking,
smallholder timber farming offers certain advantages over plantation and
indigenous forest logging in general. Where benefits are perceived, little effort is
required to get farmers to invest in tree planting for the steadily growing timber
market (Carsan & Holding, 2006). However, timber businesses dependent on
smallholder timber producers need to forge closer links so as to secure the future
of the emerging sub-sector. Current tree logging practices on farm are noted to
be wasteful as the technology and skills utilized by wood processors are not
properly sharpened to maximize on log recoveries, which is currently estimated
at between 25-30% (Onchieku, 2006).
Current smallholder timber marketing is therefore feared to be unsustainable and
will likely precipitate a ‘market failure’ given the recent high timber demand
characterized by ‘mining’ of timber trees from farms. Over-harvesting and poor
management practices at farm level offer minimal social and economic benefits
to farmers in both the short and the long run (Holding et. al., 2002). To cope with
the increasing demand to produce more food on the same land, individual
farmers are ironically forced to effect drastic changes in a manner threatening the
very sustainability of smallholder farming. It is now upon research to develop
means of evaluating whether current land management practices will lead
towards sustainable smallholder timber production or away from it. Relevant
information for better land management will be required to harmonize food
production with the often-conflicting interests of economics and the environment
6
(Syers et. al., 1995). Long term environmental and social concerns associated
with current outputs need be evaluated to ensure cross-generational equity
(Smyth & Dumanski, 1995).
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT
For smallholder farmers currently producing a wide range of timber products,
there is a risk that timber supply from farms may not be sustainable in the long-
run. Over-harvesting of timber trees on farm is rampant and in some instances is
depleting farms of tree resources given the prevailing low farmer bargaining
power. Of particular concern, are farms in difficult and marginal site conditions
such as steep slopes, dry lands, where tree removal will hasten land
degradation. Remnant tree species found on farm are also fast getting depleted
owing to the difficulties especially on propagation. Interestingly, farmers are often
aware of unsustainable tree harvesting practices but are not in a position to
enhance tree cultivation practices owing to certain tree farming challenges such
as poor access on planting material, competing farm enterprise on limited land
size and tree management technical knowledge gaps.
There is therefore a need to support smallholder tree planting initiatives through
provision of quality and quantity tree germplasm along relevant management
knowledge tailored to emerging and future market opportunities (Garrity, 2004).
Current low tree planting trends and over harvesting imbalance is suspect and
feared to threaten the continuity of the very tree-crop growing practice that has
supported farming households over the years. Tree over harvesting on farm is
attributed to a readily available market, poorly defined property rights1 structure,
low cost farm trees, low cost logging, poor pricing, inconsistent policy and
legislative barriers (Carsan & Holding, 2006). Therefore although the market for
smallholder timber exists, overall social, economic and environmental benefits
will be lost if current practices are not supported by appropriate interventions.
1 Bundle of entitlements defining the owner’s rights, privileges and limitations for use of a resource
7
Already a bulk of timber trees from farms fetch low prices due to the combination
of factors aforementioned. This is exacerbated by poor policy provisions on the
wider role of smallholder timber even for poverty mitigation.
It is against this backdrop that this study sought to illuminate on the current
status of smallholder timber and subsistence crop production in Meru District,
one of the districts with a high agricultural potential in Kenya. The study was
inspired by the greater involvement of smallholder farmers in timber tree
production against unsustainable indigenous and forest plantations characterized
by over logging, bans and planting backlogs. More critically, sustainability of the
very farm timber production will be lost in the absence of concerted interventions
to ensure cross generational equity, if the current farm timber harvesting
practices is anything to go by. The study is further challenged by a diminished
role assigned to smallholder tree production in both forestry and agricultural
policy frameworks or even national strategies such as the Poverty Reduction
Strategy Papers (PRSP’s). The study takes cognizance of the need to sustain
and enhance current smallholder tree-crop production practices while imparting
relevant knowledge to inform policy and avert wider consequent losses.
1.4 STUDY OBJECTIVES
In order to realize the overall goal of the study, namely to investigate the status of
smallholder timber and subsistence crop production in agroforestry systems of
Meru Central, several interlinked objectives were identified. These are:
1. To investigate current smallholder tree and crop management practices
2. To determine current levels of production for farm timber and crops
3. To understand levels of smallholder incomes on timber and crops
4. To make recommendations regarding long-term sustainability
8
1.5 STUDY AREA
Meru Central is one of the 13 districts in the Eastern Province of Kenya (Figure
1). It lies between latitudes 1o 30’ South and 0o 35’ North and between longitudes
30o20’ and 39o5’ East (Pelley et al., 1985) and covers an area of about 3012
square kilometres, with over 705 square kilometres that has potential for
livestock and agricultural farming. The district’s altitude ranges from 5200 m
above sea level (Mt. Kenya) to the flat lands of Giaki/Gaitu and lower Nkuene,
Igoki and Abogeta of 400 m above sea level. Soils in Meru are moderately to
highly fertile with higher fertility generally occurring in the middle altitudes
(Jaetzold & Schmidt, 1983).
Figure 1 Map of Meru Central District in Kenya (Source: Lengkeek, 2003) There is a strong tradition of agroforestry in the district with the planting of
diverse trees on farms. Farm biomass inventories reveal regular occurrence of
9
seven cubic metre per hectare, rising up to 17 m3 ha-1, in similar mixed stand
agroforestry systems (Njuguna et. al., 1999). Common tree species planted on
farm include: Grevillea robusta, Vitex keniensis, Eucalyptus saligna and Cordia
africana (Lengkeek & Carsan, 2004).
1.5.1 Agriculture
Meru people predominantly practise mixed farming, i.e. crop cultivation and
animal husbandry. There are 100 large-scale farms (over 20 ha) and
approximately 90,000 small-scale farms. Cash crops produced include coffee,
tea, tobacco, cotton, miraa (Catha edulis) and macadamia nuts. Common staple
crops grown include maize, beans potatoes, sorghum, pigeon peas, cassava,
yams and arrow roots. Oil crops such as sunflower, groundnuts, cotton and
soybeans are produced in the marginal coffee zone (MoA, 2005). A variety of
horticultural crops such as cabbages, tomatoes, kales and onions are also
produced in the coffee zone (UM 2). The first rains (April-May) support these
crops and are also useful in supporting the whole year crops such as bananas,
mountain pawpaw, avocadoes, passion fruits and mangoes (MoA, 2005).
Dairy production in the coffee zone is by ‘zero grazing system’ where two to three
animals are stall-fed in a ‘carry and feed system’. Pasture is grown on farm and
animals are not allowed to free range. In the marginal coffee zone farmers graze
cattle freely or paddock-feed them. Integration of agroforestry practices remain
an inherent part of crop and animal production in these systems.
1.5.2 Forests
Gazette forest blocks in the district cover approximately 843 km2 or 30% of the
district’s total area. The main timber species in the indigenous forests include:
Brachylaena sp., Calodendrum capense, Catha edulis, Cordia africana, Croton
macrostachyus, Croton megalocarpus, Ficus thonningii, Hagenia abyssinica,
Juniperus procera, Lovoa swynnertonii, Markhamia lutea, Milicia excelsa, Ocotea
usambarensis, Olea capensis, Olea europaea ssp. africana, Olea welwitschii,
10
Premna maxima, Prunus africana and Vitex keniensis (KWS, 1999). The
plantation forests in Meru cover a total area of 4302 ha comprising Cupressus
lusitanica, Pinus patula, Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus species. Native species,
Vitex keniensis and Cordia africana have also been planted in designated
plantation areas (MoE, 2000). Appendix 4 shows an indicative percentage of all
the species around the different zones in the Mount Kenya. Large-scale charcoal
production and illegal logging continue to heavily impact on the natural forests.
Some of the most targeted species include: Ocotea usambarensis, Juniperus
procera, Olea europaea ssp. africana and Hagenia abyssinica (KWS, 1999).
1.5.3 Climate
The climate and rainfall in the study area is greatly influenced by Mt. Kenya and
the Nyambene Hills. The short rains occur between March and May and the long
rains from October to December (Pelley et. al., 1985). Rainfall varies from 2 600
mm annually in the upper highlands of Mt. Kenya to 500 mm in the lower dry
parts of the district. Meru District is one of the districts with high agricultural
potential in Kenya. Most agro-ecological zones found in Kenya are found here
(Pelley et al., 1985). These include: UH1 and UH2 (pyrethrum/dairy zone), UM1
(tea/dairy zone), UM2 (coffee zone), UM3 (marginal coffee zone), LM3 (marginal
cotton zone), LM3 and LM4 (sorghum/millet zone) and LM5 (ranching zone)
(Appendix 5). Successful and productive rain-fed agriculture is however limited to
a comparatively small part of the district but its output is one of the highest in the
country (Jaetzold & Schmidt, 1983).
1.5.4 Coffee (UM2) and cotton (LM3) zones
The coffee and cotton zone characterize the main agricultural production zones
in Meru. Further, they broadly represent the agro ecological zones widely defined
by distinct agro-climatic factors. The names of the main zones refer to the
potentially leading crop grown here. There are however other crops that can be
grown here as well. The generalized agro-ecological zones in Kenya are based
on the FAO characterization of 1978. The two zone groups are more
11
appropriately distinguished by temperature and moisture levels experienced.
They are also characterized based on the probability to meet the water
requirements for the leading crops i.e. the climatic yield potential. The zones are
roughly parallel to Braun’s climatic zones of the precipitation/evaporation index.
The overall rainfall means show variability of 1500-2400 mm for coffee zone and
1200-1400 mm for the cotton zone. Topography is varied with ranges of 1280-
1680 m for the coffee zone and 910-1280 m for the cotton zone (Table 2).
Table 2 Annual rainfall and temperature in the coffee and cotton zones of Meru
60% reliability of rainfall
60% reliability of growing period
Agro-ecological zone
Altitude(m) Mean Temp.(oC)
Mean rainfall (mm)
1st rains (mm)
2nd rains (mm)
1st rains (days)
2nd rains (days)
Coffee zone (UM 2)
1280-1680 20.6-18.2 1500-2400 450-800 450-800 135-155 135-155
Cotton zone (LM3)
910-1280 22.9-20.6 1200-1400 450-600 450-600 105-115 85-105
Source: Jaetzold & Schmidt (1983)
1.5.5 Socio- economic status
Agriculture is the lifeline of 80% of Kenya’s poor who live in rural areas, including
farmers, workers and unemployed. Kenya’s agriculture provides up to 70% of all
the employment. Consequently, creating jobs and increasing income in the
sector is vitally important and if achieved, will have an important direct effect on
poverty (GoK, 2000).
The overall incidence of poverty in Kenya has risen from 52% in 1982 to an
estimated 56% in the year 2000. During the same period, rural absolute poverty
has increased from about 48% to about 60% with the rural areas and urban
informal settlements being more adversely affected. In the arid and semi-arid
areas, the poor account for as much as 80% of the population with women and
children comprising the majority (PRSP, 2000). Certain occupations, such as
subsistence farmers (46% poor) and pastoralists (60% poor) have a higher than
12
average incidence of poverty. Subsistence farmers account for over 50% of the
total poor in Kenya (PRSP, 2000). This pattern can be partly attributed to
differences in the fertility of land and the affordability of inputs to improve
productivity. In terms of income distribution, Kenya ranks highly in its in-
equitability.
Meru Central district with half a million people has between 40 and 60% of the
households estimated to fall below poverty line. Farming is the main economic
activity with the average farm size of two hectares (Ministry of Agriculture,
2000a).
Restoring high and sustainable agricultural growth is therefore critical for
alleviating poverty. Preservation and sustainable use of natural resources for
agriculture need to form the cornerstone of policies that ensure resources are
available to improve the quality of life for present and future generations.
1.6 SUSTAINABILITY THEMES AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
‘Smallholder farming’ is a term often not clearly understood as ‘smallholders’ are
often defined by their particular farming extent in any one given context. For
instance, land hectarage is one parameter often used to distinguish between
smallholder and large scale farmers. While hectarage seems a legitimate
parameter particularly in large scale capital intensive monocultural systems in the
West, it falls short of depicting socio-economic dimensions, characterized by
limited inputs, labour intensive polycultural systems in particular difficult
environmental circumstances such as experienced in most third world countries.
Therefore, a farmer with an expansive hectarage of land and a limited production
area in these circumstances will be characterized as a smallholder despite the
amount of land controlled. In addition, farmers in the high potential areas
characterized by a smaller hectarage but a higher output per unit area are also
clustered as smallholders.
13
Smallholder farming systems in this study are therefore more clearly
distinguished on the level and type of inputs and outputs for given choices of
individual farmer enterprise. Production systems are largely characterized by a
dependence on family labour, low capital input and a diversity of small individual
farm enterprises. A common feature for this production system depicts an
insufficiency of any single farm enterprise to meet household needs on its own.
Farmers practicing sharecropping2 and tenant farming3 though limited in the
diversity of farming enterprise will often be included in this bracket.
Smallholder timber practiced in these rather complex systems begs the inclusion
of different systems dimensions to place its operational definition. This study
therefore identifies smallholder timber to involve elements of crop production with
selected timber species cultivated as an integral part of the whole smallholder
farming system. Therefore smallholder timber is simply defined here as ‘all timber
competitively produced and marketed often on a limited proportionate scale to
any one given agricultural enterprise or farmland holding’. The choice of a given
timber enterprise on farm is selected amongst competing farm enterprises. It may
engage many small scale actors on its marketing and product value chain. It’s
characteristically practiced on a ‘limited proportionate scale’ (compared to a
given forest logging stands) to other agricultural enterprises or even on a free
stand on any one given farm land.
Though depicted as a small enterprise in this definition, smallholder timber is
found to be a multi-sectoral activity touching both on forestry and agriculture with
a sub-optimally defined potential. Adequate qualitative and quantitative
description is missing to characterize the complex production practices and
resultant value chain functions as conducted by tree nursery operators, small
2 Sharecropping is the working of a piece of land by a tenant in exchange for a portion, usually half, of the crops or the revenue that they bring in for the landowner. 3 Agricultural system in which land owners rent their land to farmers and receive either cash or a share of the product in return.
14
timber businesses, chainsaw operators, timber yard owners, tea factories, local
administration, micro finance providers and other smallholder timber marketing
facilitators who seem to have very specific issues with regard to farm grown
timber (Pasiecznik & Carsan, 2006). A social, technical, economic and
environmental analysis of the entire sub-sector seems a useful means to inform
interventions (Holding & Roshteko, 2003). More specifically, stakeholder
evaluation of certain bottlenecks in smallholder timber and crop farming identifies
low income and low produce value as inimitable issues akin to this practice. Key
challenges are identified and several possible interventions conceptualized. It’s
however imperative that particular intervention scenarios are rigorously examined
to continuously scrutinize factors around sustainable smallholder production.
Any one given circumstance is unique and consensus in arriving at optimal
solutions may be a hard task requiring sustained inquiry so as to improve farming
skills, resource base management and inform policy issues. Conceived
interventions should yield multiple benefits across different stakeholders. It is
further conceptualized that a number and variety of environmental, economic and
social factors will underlay successful smallholder production systems. A
mapping of the current issues that directly influence farmer incomes and produce
value in the target production systems is presented (Figure 2).
15
Figure 2 Issues and interventions influencing low smallholder timber value Problem areas informed through this mapping and evaluation are best redressed
through multi-sectoral interventions. Possible interventions are therefore
identified and proposed for stakeholder evaluation. Careful evaluation of certain
structural elements is needed with particular attention hinged on the following:
• Improvements on small holder farming practices should not only
concentrate on technological options, but also activities that create
awareness on expected and improved returns
• Need to improve knowledge, farm management skills and optimal use of
available resources to include value adding
• Support for farmer institutions such as marketing associations and
networks to redress common constraints while attaining bargaining power
• Inform important policy aspects, which improve markets and sustains
production systems
16
In order to improve on smallholder production systems and enhance livelihoods,
an integration of critical multi-sectoral elements is needed in a two way feedback
mechanism. Each element is assumed to be functional, interdependent and self
driving to attain this collective goal. Figure 3 helps to depict a model representing
this association.
Figure 3 Smallholder systems conceptual model
For sustainable production systems to be attained the model integrates different
sectoral components in two-way interacting loops and a one way feed to
smallholder improvements. Target elements needing attention for integration
include smallholder capacity and institutional development, functional markets
and marketing systems, responsive policy framework and tailored research and
development programmes. The arrows in the model indicate directional feedback
and support mechanisms. Stakeholder interest and participation incentives are
assumed across the board for the different actors involved.
17
1.7 STUDY POTENTIAL AND LIMITATIONS
This study has gathered important data on smallholder practices using a
relatively small sample size. Collated data has helped analyze smallholder
cropping systems with timber trees as critical component. The study builds on the
emerging body of knowledge on smallholder timber marketing and helps draw
critical lessons from failed plantation forestry.
Sustainability of smallholder cropping systems was studied through a cross
sectional assessment of underlying farming practices through a survey research
design. Data collected therefore only provided a ‘snapshot’ of the systems. It is
now recognized that the study would have benefited more through a longitudinal
study design to monitor and measure the dynamic trends on smallholder
practices while gaining a deeper understanding of the underlying social-
economic indicators. The study was limited in scope as it only evaluated crops
and tree enterprises as ‘stand alone enterprises’ on smallholder farms. Though
the current trends towards sustainability or away from it were grasped through
certain indicators set out, the study may have missed on the multitude of factors
influencing integrated systems and often requiring multiple quantitative data
measurement through experimentation.
1.8 CONCLUSIONS Sustainable smallholder farming systems will not only require to be informed by
economic benefits but also how well the inherent natural resource base is
managed. There is need to inform the current smallholder cropping system on
certain pathways to grow the value of their enterprises especially through
diversification without causing further resource degradation. The challenge is
however compounded by an increasing human population on the available
resources.
18
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter takes a critical evaluation of existing literature on smallholder
cropping systems with particular emphasis on smallholder timber production
experiences cutting across regions and specific countries. Success stories on
smallholder timber are depicted while challenges of plantation forestry are
highlighted with a view of understanding underlying causes and hopefully draw
lessons for smallholder timber. Despite the paucity of literature on smallholder
timber practices in particular, emerging experiences highlight certain pathways to
its growth and sustainability. Specific factors to grow the sub-sector practices are
shown to include technical awareness, enabling policy and market interventions.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
It is estimated that between 500 million and one billion smallholder farmers
worldwide, grow farm trees or manage remnant forests for subsistence and
income (Scherr, 2004). Indeed local communities now control at least 25% of the
developing world’s forests and in forest-scarce countries local farmers are
actively growing trees for commercial use (FAO, 2003). Agriculture and forestry
therefore, can no longer be thought of as mutually exclusive activities, even
though national and international statistics are only kept on the differentiated land
cover of these systems and the data on the extent of integrated agroforestry
systems are not available (Simons & Leakey, 2004). More critically, the
integration of crops, livestock and trees within smallholder farming systems is not
often clearly understood in terms of optimal outputs and inherent sustainability.
Dynamics in smallholder systems with impacts on natural resource use and
management can however be illustrated by for instance grazing communities
whereby, when rainfall is adequate, smallholders intensify their systems by
moving from pure grazing systems to mixed farming systems so as to diversify
production and increase income (Stroebel, 2004).
19
A deeper understanding on the role of tree for diverse smallholder systems is
nonetheless hampered by poorly accumulated literature. Efforts to audit tree
stocks outside forests enlist those of FAO where a global inventory of ‘trees
outside forests’ has been initiated. Preliminary results show that in Punjab, India,
farm trees account for 85% of the province growing stock while in Sri-Lanka over
70% of industrial wood comes from trees outside forests (FAO, 2001). The
ongoing Integrated Natural Resource Assessment (INRA) are expected to give a
more holistic and comparative assessment on the different tree resources.
International experiences on forestry and agro forestry to meet various objectives
be they community or commercial are of varied fortunes and challenges. For
instance, many ambitious woodlot projects have failed to meet planned
expectations due to management constraints and poor sustainability plans which
leave out target communities. A good example is the many woodlots established
during the past 55 years in the former homelands of the Eastern Cape of South
Africa owing to environmental concerns and which have fallen to poor state due
to management issues falling short of providing the anticipated benefits to the
target community (Ham & Theron, 2001).
The practical management of tree farming within agricultural cropping systems
therefore not only requires data collection on the practices but also a good
understanding of farmer community experiences on what systems work best and
where. Smallholder farming practices are diverse with no single recipe as to the
best practices they rather seem to thrive on a combination of experiences with
certain degree of trial and error phenomenon.
2.2 SMALLHOLDER TIMBER IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES
Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania are some of the world’s regions with the
greatest potential for tree domestication to contribute to sustainable development
(Simons & Leakey, 2004). In Kenya, it is estimated that the amount of woody
biomass material on farm-lands is more than that of indigenous and plantations
20
forests combined (KFMP, 1994). However, the commercial value of farm grown
trees has remained unproven owing to huge market incentives in the past to
access bulk logs from government plantation and indigenous forests. Faced with
serious planting backlogs, illegal logging practices, land and squatter related
problems, fire incidences and general poor management, state forest timber
logging has recently become threatened and unsustainable (KWS, 1999).
In the neighboring Uganda, deforestation process of approximately 91,000 ha per
year has been difficult to slow down, because 70% of Ugandan forests are on
private land (FAO, 2001). Natural forests cover 21% of the land area, but most
of these forests are highly degraded and have a low production capacity. The
remaining timber plantations of less than 8,000 ha are in poor condition because
management has been neglected (Ebert, 2004). Owing to the steadily improving
political and economic situation, the demand for construction timber and the
prices are steadily increasing. The country is in need for suitable, well-
investigated species for plantations as well as for natural forests and agroforestry
systems. A recent study on the silvicultural potential of Maesopsis eminii
(Buchholz et. al, 2005) reveals that, the lack of information on site-specific growth
potential and management information of native tree species has contributed to
low investment in indigenous species for saw log plantations.
In Ethiopia, estimates of the potential benefits from the sustainable harvest of
Eucalyptus poles from household managed woodlots in Tigray suggest an annual
average return of approximately 370 EB (US$ 98) per capita in 1998 (Jagger &
Pender, 2003). Similarly, in Uganda, farm grown Eucalyptus grandis and Pinus
caribaea is preferred to meet household needs of fuelwood, poles and timber for
building due to its fast growth and coppicing characteristics. Investment in tree
planting is therefore emerging as a potential economic ativity in the low potential
areas and particularly in areas with relatively good market access.
21
In Cameroon, nearly 75% of the population lives in rural areas, 95% of which are
agricultural smallholders. The country’s strategy for rural development as
articulated in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, tackling rural poverty
involves improving smallholders’ livelihoods. Tree crops are identified as an
important source of employment and revenue for smallholders in Cameroon and
are also some of the most important traded commodities (World Bank, 2002).
Tree crops, as opposed to other cash crops, present significant opportunities in
terms of economic growth and poverty reduction in rural areas, because they can
be part of integrated sustainable farming systems carried out at the village level
(targeting directly the poorest groups of the population).
Elsewhere, an upland community’s census conducted in the Philippines in 1989
revealed that 77% of households relied on upland farming which is dominated by
cash crop usually grown in mixtures with fruits and forest trees (Damasa et. al.,
1999). Fast tree growth in high potential and medium potential areas makes tree
growing a feasible agricultural land use option. In addition, favourable market
conditions have induced small-scale farmers to grow trees for the market. Fast
growing trees such as Gmelina arborea, Acacia mangium and Paraserianthes
falcataria are planted with annual crops on farms and fallow lands (Bertomeu,
2004; Roshteko et. al., 2004).
In several regions of Argentina, agroforestry systems which originated with the
European colonization are currently being adopted to meet local needs. The
Province of Misiones, in the Northeast of Argentina has an area of about 30,000
km2, less than one percent of the total country. However, it produces over 75% of
the country’s timber (Eibl et. al., 2000).
Globally, wood demand was forecast to amount to three billion cubic metres in
2005, similar to the total removals recorded for 1990 and averaging 0.69 percent
of the total growing stock. While Asia reported a decrease in wood removals in
recent years, Africa reported a steady increase. It is estimated that nearly half of
22
the removed wood was wood fuels. Informally or illegally removed wood,
especially wood fuel, is not usually recorded, so the actual amount of wood
removals is undoubtedly higher (FAO, 2005).
As wood demand increases around the world, management of the natural
resource base in a sustainable and integrated approach is essential to achieve
sustainable tree production on farms. In this regard, it is necessary to implement
strategies aimed at protecting different types of production systems and to
achieve integrated management of environmental resources such as soils and
tree genetic resources. Unsustainable tree production often characterized by
over-harvesting of trees, have raised concerns over the optimal farm productivity
per unit land over vast farmer production systems. Sustainable farming practices
that involve crop diversification to the extent of timber tree crops therefore need
to be adequately informed (Kindt, 2002; Lengkeek, 2003).
2.3 SUSTAINING SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS
In discussing opportunities to redress the priority goal of reducing poverty and
hunger problems stipulated in the Millennium Development Goals through
agriculture, the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, observes that 60%
of the rural populations in Africa live in areas of good agricultural potential and
poor market access, while only 23% live in areas of good agricultural potential
and good market access. The remaining 18% live in the most difficult
environment with poor agricultural potential (GDPRD, 2005).
To ensure sustainability of small holder tree-crop systems that largely support a
steadily increasing rural population, strategies to increase production capacity of
existing land area without diminishing its regenerative capacity are needed.
Mercado et. al. (2003) points out that in the context of timber based hedgerows
the tree is an important economic component of the system. The timber yield and
its by-products for example fuel wood largely influences total system productivity.
Trees share the resource base (light, water and nutrients) with the crops. The
23
right choices of tree species and silviculture practices are required so that trees
don’t out-compete food crops. Muchiri et. al. (2001) estimates a mean annual
volume increment of eight to 18 m3 ha-1 for Grevillea robusta in agroforestry
systems in ten year period. However, with maximum competition diameter at
breast height (dbh) growth is reduced by 29% while mean annual height is
reduced by nine percent.
By and large it’s instructive from the sustainability criterion that at a minimum,
future generations should be left no worse off than current generations in
resource exploitation. Sustainable smallholder tree production offer an
opportunity to ensure broad based benefits are realized particularly in the rural
settings where the practice is common. Scherr (2004) observes that local
producers may be more familiar with local product and processing preferences,
composed of particular tree species mix and spatial pattern capable of producing
multiple streams of income. It is now widely recognized that farm trees can in
addition, increase agricultural productivity when grown as windbreaks, fodder
banks, live fences, or nurse trees for perennial cash crops.
Clear lessons on failed forest plantation logging, help caution unsustainable
pathways on smallholder timber development. For instance, for many years
Kenya relied on plantation and indigenous forests for all the timber requirements.
Timber production soon became unsustainable resulting to logging bans. The
sub-sector is now challenged by poor planning resulting in planting backlogs,
logging malpractices, frequent fire outbreaks and little investment on the sector.
Over logging of Cuppressus lusistanica and Pinus patula facilitated by
government subsidies gave local timber businesses a competitive edge but was
not sustainable in the long-run resulting in a ban imposition. Experiences in other
countries such as Malaysia, report that a 35,000 hectares plantation stand of
Acacia mangium established between 1985 and 1987 was not sufficient to cover
a loan repayment while several thousands hectares of Gmelina aborea planted in
Sabah in 1980 for round wood had no market. The wood was sold at price
24
covering cost of harvesting and transportation only (Bertomeu, 2004). While in
Thailand, annual production of Tectona grandis (Teak), an important timber
species in the Asia-Pacific fell by approximately 87% between 1971 and 1985
due to poor plantation management (Roshteko et. al., 2004).
The collapse of natural forest logging in the 1980’s in the Philippines resulted in a
huge shortage of timber. Fast growing trees and shrub species are currently
being grown as part of a wide variety of land use systems including tree fallows,
woodlots, tree plantations, agroforestry systems, isolated/scattered tree plantings
and shrub secondary forest areas (Damasa et. al., 1999). In Ethiopia, questions
have been asked over smallholder farmer emphasis on cereal production around
the Tigray highlands despite low returns (Jagger et. al., 2003). Whether to shift
production to include woodlot management for greater income generation
opportunities and a positive impact on biodiversity preservation and
environmental sustainability are emerging research questions.
As farmlands timber emerges to absorb losses in forests, woodlands and bush
lands, Kenya’s experiences provide a useful learning point. Kenya’s Forestry
Master Plan (1994) estimate that 40% of the woody biomass found outside forest
is actually from planted trees. The total volume of trees planted by farmers equal
that of closed canopy indigenous and plantation forests combined. It is estimated
that farmlands and settlements on average contain on average about nine cubic
metres of woody biomass, increasing at an annual rate of about 0.5 m3/ha
(KFMP, 1994).
Sound management of the existing natural resource base is now a pre-requisite
for sustainable tree-crop production on farms. In this regard, it is imperative to
implement strategies aimed at enhancing different types of production systems to
achieve optimal management of environmental resources such as soils and tree-
crop genetic resources (Lengkeek, 2003). Unsustainable production practices
25
characterized by tree over-harvesting have raised concerns over the optimal farm
productivity per unit land over the complex farmer production systems.
Ideally, increased smallholder production for competitive commodities beckons
sustainable farming practices. However, farming practices need not be promoted
on the assumption of a uniform rural population. Smallholder rural farmers are
often a heterogeneous group with very different socio-economic conditions.
Subsistence oriented farmers, whose main objective is food security and risk
reduction, have been found to shun fast growing tree species due to competition
with food crops (Magcale-Macandog et.al., 1999; Mercado, 2003). In the larger
central highlands of Kenya, it’s reported that on a per hectare basis, a row of
Grevillea reduces maize yields by about five percent. However, maize and beans
field with a row of Grevillea on the boundary is slightly more profitable than maize
and beans alone (Tyndall, 1996).
Tree-crop planting has the potential to mitigate impacts of deforestation hinged
on socio-economic and environmental consequences. The practice is expected
to increase farm productivity, reduce need to clear more forest, help conserve
soil of cropped land, diversify farm income and provide products that would
otherwise be obtained from forests (Bertomeu, 2004). However secure land
tenure along well-defined property rights structures and accessible markets are a
pre-condition for long-term investments on the land (Carsan & Holding, 2006).
2.4 CONCLUSIONS
Most information on smallholder timber was found to be site specific and
scattered on different scale, sectors and institutions. Lessons on unsustainable
plantation forestry are similar and can be cross fertilized. The existing body of
knowledge for smallholder timber practices however needs to be strengthened
through more research to help a deeper understanding. Though most literature
dwells on promoting tree planting as one of the solutions to counter the problems
26
of deforestation, economic and social impacts are not clearly delineated to inform
and facilitate policy planning. Clear strategies on tree products marketing leading
to sustainable tree enterprises remain curious to practitioners. Quantitative
evaluation of farm tree resources is particularly limited and fragmented on case
studies with curious methodologies. Nonetheless, the impacts of failed plantation
forestry practices and the critical role played by farm timber to generate income
are clear and seem well reconciled.
27
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 RESEARCH METHODS
This chapter provides insights into how the study was conducted. It highlights the
research design, methods of data collection, sampling and means to drawing key
findings and conclusions.
3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH
Rural smallholder agricultural systems often demonstrate a complexity of
practices embedded in local and traditional technologies. To gain a good
understanding of the systems, broad data gathering techniques therefore
seemed pertinent. Accordingly, this study encompassed both qualitative and
quantitative research approaches to realize the objectives. To assess and inform
the status of smallholder timber and subsistence crop production in the target
area, a combination of explorative and descriptive designs were used to integrate
the findings. Due to the geographical expansiveness of the study area and the
many smallholder farmers deemed homogeneous in terms of production
practices, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in two key smallholder
production systems (the cotton and coffee zones) delineated as problem areas
requiring production sustainability assessments. The survey instrument
(Appendix 1) utilized sought to assess key issues on choices of tree-crops
enterprise by smallholders, and kinds of input-output management strategies
currently practiced for both crops and timber production in the distinct production
systems.
3.2 SAMPLING
Given the large geographical coverage of the study area a representative sample
frame was required to draw a reliable sample (University of Reading, 2000).
There is however no readily available lists of farmers at the location level from
which to draw samples. Several alternative sampling frames were therefore
28
investigated for aptness. These included list of farmers from local administrative
leaders, records of land ownership from the Ministry of Lands and Settlement,
the Ministry of Agriculture’s catchment groups and lists of farmers from local
farmer institutions (coffee and tobacco cooperatives). The latter was used to
draw a simple random sample as it was deemed most updated and
representative. A total of 18 farmers were randomly selected for household
interviews and 31 farms considered as units of analysis from a previous related
biomass study.
Target farmers for interviews were purposively drawn from two key agro
ecological zones within Meru Central District. The two zones are distinct agro-
ecological zones (coffee and cotton/tobacco zones), delineated as representing
the problem statement. The cotton zone was divided into the upper zone
(Mitunguu area) and the lower zone (Giaki area). The two zones were further
stratified into three sub-locations each: Nkuu njumu, Mitunguu and Maraa
(Mitunguu) and Runyuone, Kathwene and Mbajone (Giaki).
Nkuu njumu and Maraa sub-locations and Runyuone and Mbajone sub-locations
in Mitunguu and Giaki respectively were purposively selected to provide sample
farmers for interviews. The four locations were desired as the available sample
frame representing over 80% of all the households present. The relative
homogeneity of the farming practices in the target locations further guided the
location selection and eventual size of target sample. A simple random of eight
farmers was drawn from each sub-location with a view of interviewing at least
five farmers in each of the four sub-locations. The bigger random sample
selection catered for failed interviews due to relocations, deaths or other factors
deemed to cause a particular interview to fail. A total of 18 farmers were
successfully interviewed within the four sub locations.
For the coffee zone, two large subdivisions were again used; the main coffee
zone and the marginal coffee zone. Two sub-locations were purposively selected
29
as representative of each guided by local knowledge on climatic factors and
production factors. The local coffee factories which maintains local contacts of
over 75% of farmers in the target zone was used to draw a simple random
sample for the four selected sub-locations. A total of 16 farmers representative
of the four sub-locations were considered from a previous related study.
In both zones, key local informants, extension staff from the Ministry of
Agriculture and private institutions were used to provide logistical support to
reach the randomly selected farmers for interviews. Appointments and consent
for interviews was sought from prospective interviewees with the purpose and
benefits of the study explained prior to the actual interview.
3.3 DATA COLLECTION
3.3.1 Study technique
Several survey techniques were combined to conduct farmer and farming
systems assessments in the respective cotton and coffee zones. Individual
farmer interviews, farm walks, focus group discussions and key informant
interviews (local administration, forest and agricultural department staff) and local
managers in the private sector with a direct interest in farm wood e.g. British
American Tobacco (BAT) and coffee factories were used to ascertain current
farmer timber and crops production practices. A previous case study on related
work was integrated to collate and build on the new data collected. Compatible
secondary data was identified to help triangulate key study findings.
3.3.2 Data collection
The survey was conducted between August and September 2006 in Meru
Central district. The interview tool consisted of a structured questionnaire with
closed and open-ended questions. The questionnaire tool was triangulated to
cross-check accuracy of responses provided. Further, a checklist of points for
probing on particular issues was used to introduce a greater degree of interaction
30
on the part of the interviewee and especially to guide the open ended questions.
Observation schedules were used to enumerate timber tree species on the farms
and features of interest on individual farming practices. Data from a related case
study in the target area was ascertained and elements of interest identified and
used in support of the study objectives. Particular data on agricultural crops
management was collated from the recent Ministry of Agriculture resource
management guidelines on the district (MoA, 2005).
3.3 DATA ANALYSIS
Collected data on crop cultivation, inputs management together with timber tree
species produced on farm was analyzed using simple descriptive statistics such
as means, frequency counts and percentages. Collected data was entered into
Excel and analysis executed using Excel and SPSS statistical package (SPSS,
2000). Qualitative data was coded to facilitate certain quantitative interpretations.
3.4 CONCLUSIONS
Smallholder farming practices are unique and sometimes practices are nested in
existing indigenous knowledge making their understanding a complex issue.
There is the need to exercise flexibility in data collection and collation while
engaging multiple data collection instruments and techniques. However certain
smallholder practices are homogeneous and can be tackled with even a small
sample size. Finally, with often poor formal record keeping practices in most rural
settings, quantitative data collection including sampling exercises can be
challenging, time consuming and requiring participatory approaches to aid in
interpretation.
31
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Most smallholder tree and agricultural crops cultivation are based on the
assumption that the two are sufficiently mixed to provide household tree product
needs, food and income. The underlying inherent cropping system is often
overlooked in supporting the tree and crops production objectives. This section
therefore attempts to delineate the potential of current cultivation practices and
evaluates underlying factors pertinent to their sustainability from collected data.
Insights on the separate crop and timber practices are delineated to understand
their operations in terms of inputs, outputs, management and marketing.
4.1 LAND SIZE
The average land size holding for the sampled farms was in the indicative mean
range of between one to two and half hectares. Minimum farm holding of less
than a hectare (0.2 ha) was found in the coffee zone while the maximum holding
of 11 hectares was found in the cotton zone. Mean farm holding in the cotton
zone is between one to three hectares. There was only one case of land below
one hectare, found in the cotton zone, indicating the generally larger farm
holdings in the zone. The largest farm holding encountered in the coffee zone
was two and half hectares which also was the only farm above two hectares. The
intensiveness of cultivation and land sub-division is probably depicted by the
small land holding of less than one hectare per household.
4.2 SMALLHOLDER CROP PRODUCTION
Crop production in the surveyed area was found to be largely subsistence with
mixed systems incorporating crop polyculture4. Cereal crop production is
particularly significant in the surveyed area. Table 3 gives estimates of key cereal
4 Polyculture distinguishes ‘all of the multiple cropping situations from monoculture [cropping] and indicates that an area is being used for more than one crop at a time’.
32
crops production in hectarage and volumes in the district. Maize and beans form
the major staple crops cultivated per hectare. Overall, even through large
coverage areas are recorded with maize actual production is meager on a per
hectare basis. Indeed beans production is more than that of maize on a per
hectare calculation. Cash crops such as coffee, tea and wheat are important in
the district with large agricultural area coverage.
Table 3 Selected cereal crop production volumes in Meru Central in year 2003
Crop Area in (Ha) Production (Tons) Maize 39970 483 Sorghum 2670 27.5 Beans 39900 179 Cowpeas 1490 8.8 Pigeon peas 1510 9.1 Dolicos 1320 8.7 Wheat 5490 110 Tea 4700 44000 Coffee 18650 10426 Grams 640 3
Source: MoA, 2005 Other crops (Table 4) such as Irish potatoes, bananas and vegetables such as
cabbages and tomatoes are important food crops and are emerging high income
earners in the district. The variety of all the crops produced in the district is
indicative of the potential for higher production perhaps through use of high yield
varieties seed, farmyard manure, better crop husbandry and better crop
marketing arrangements.
Table 4 Other crops production in tonnes per hectare
Crop Area in (Ha) Production (Tons) Banana 960 18 Cabbages 453 14 Irish potato 15730 1438 Tomatoes 460 12 French beans 456 5
Source: MoA, 2005
33
4.2.1 Cropping system
Food and income objectives define cropping systems on available land. Farmer
food objectives are met through mixed cropping systems while income objectives
are best achieved through monocultural systems. Indicative collated data show
that the combined objectives on food and cash seem best realized through
monocultural and mixed cropping systems. Intercropping systems are marginally
useful for subsistence food needs (Figure 4). Though the benefits on
intercropping would seem important, farmer crop production seem driven by both
household food and income needs.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
monoculture intercropping mixed croppingcropping systems
crop
inci
dent
cou
nts
foodcashfood/cash
Figure 4 Smallholder cropping systems against food and cash farming objectives
There seem to be a growing farmer preference on monocultural cropping in the
survey area. Production is however strongly hinged on mixed systems even
though the maintenance of current levels remains curious. Benefits of mixed
cropping systems are clear and seem well accepted. Mixed cropping systems
even appear to replace intercropping which are shown to be minimal. The
benefits of monocultural and the mixed systems practices, on the biophysical
34
parameters of the land are however not clear and remain curious to overall
sustainability questions.
Certain cereal crop mixes such as maize, beans, pigeon peas, sorghum and
ground nuts are utilized in the different cropping systems to attain the
aforementioned farming objectives. The systems however remain subsistence
characterized by maize and beans production for household food and cash
needs. Mixed cropping is preferred for all cultivated crops with monoculture
systems preferred for maize, beans and tobacco. Mixed cropping and
intercropping systems are recorded as important for maize, beans, sorghum and
pigeon peas (Figure 5).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Banan
aBea
ns
Black b
eans
Cowpe
as
Green g
ram
Ground
nut
Maize
Pigeon
peas
Sorghu
m
Sunflo
wer
Toba
cco
crops
crop
ping
sys
tem
cou
nt
IntercroppingMixed croppingMonoculture
Figure 5 Smallholder agricultural crop types and cropping systems
The significance of the maize and bean crop is demonstrated by it’s cultivation in
all the cropping systems unlike other crops on farm. Crops such as cowpeas,
sorghum and pigeon peas regarded as ‘traditional’ crops seem to be cultivated
as ‘filler’ crops for the main staple crops. Their importance is nonetheless
35
identified along food provision goals as overall production volumes remain
minimal for trade. Surprisingly, these ‘traditional’ crops are more demanded and
usually fetch higher local market prices than maize and beans. Maize is
particularly preferred as the staple food as it was reported to be easily prepared
meal in multiple forms such as grain, greens and flour.
Overall, farmer crop production systems appear pegged on risk reducing
strategies where avenues for producing continuous household streams of
benefits are strived for. There seem to be an entrenched practice of mixed
cropping system particularly for farmers with less than one hectare of land. For
farmers with larger farm sizes mono-cropping is practiced to some extent. To
smooth income over time, crops with low correlations in yield, price, cost or net
return are planted. Yields and prices are reported to vary unpredictably while a
dependence on the seasonality cropping encourages cultivation of multiple
crops. Differences in incidences of irrigation practices, soil conditions and
general farm management are likely to explain some of the differences in
cropping patterns and achieved yields.
4.3 PRODUCTION INPUTS
Cultivation of smallholder agricultural crops in the surveyed area is rain-fed on
the short and long rains incidences. Crop yields are pegged on certain levels of
inputs including: fertilizer, planting seeds, pesticides and labour for weeding,
planting and produce harvesting. Though soils are relatively rich, farmer
perception is that adequate harvests are only realized with adequate fertilizer
provision. Prices of fertilizer, pesticides, and seeds were however reported to be
constraining leading to less than required application per farm holding. Fertilizer
was identified as the most important input limiting production. Interviewed
farmers report that fertilizer use is limited or not used at all. However, cash crops
farmers for instance for tobacco, benefit from a loan facility on fertilizer provided
by local tobacco buying companies. Farmers in turn use provided fertilizer to
36
produce their subsistence food crops. Local trade and exchanges with farmers
not enjoying the facility was reported to be common.
An interesting crop rotation practice was noted with some of the farmers
producing tobacco. Immediately after the tobacco crop, a maize crop is followed
on the same planting hole to take advantage of the previous season fertilizer
application. Pest and disease is also managed through similar means where
pesticides provided on a loan scheme are utilized to manage food crops pest and
diseases. As for planting seeds, traditional seeds are used and in other instances
hybrid seeds are purchased. Seeds for planting were however reported to be of
varying quality depressing yields. Some farmers were however observed to be
unaware that use of seeds from their hybrid crop harvest for planting depresses
yields.
A ranking of all the inputs requirements reveal that labour for weeding, planting
and harvesting were the most limiting factors for optimal production. There is a
reliance of family labour for most farm work with division of labour suffering
gender imbalances. The cost of fertilizer and pesticides are the next most
important factors. Isolated cases of poor crop production skills and soil erosion
management were observed on several farms visited.
4.3.1 Gross margin calculations for maize crop
Maize was the commonest subsistence crop produced by all farmers in the
surveyed area. Farmer investment appear tailored to the maize crop as a priority.
The crop’s output to meet both food and income objectives is therefore critical.
An assessment of this output on a per hectare basis is hereby considered using
gross margin5 tabulation on the incomes, variable costs, and fixed cost within
three hypothetical management systems. Table 5 shows characteristic variable
cost and resultant net margin for a hectare of maize crop in the surveyed area
under three variable inputs. Management level III gives far more economic
5 Gross margin is the value of enterprise output less the variable costs attributable to the enterprise.
37
benefits due to economies of scale realized by producing more maize bags while
management level I provides the farmer with the least economic benefits for a
maize enterprise. Table 5 Maize Gross Margin per hectare
Management level* I II III
Pure stand one season Price/unit (Kes) Qty
Value (Kes) Qty
Value (Kes) Qty
Value (Kes)
Output (bag)/income 1200 20 24000 25 30000 30 36000
Variable Costs Seed (hybrid) 190 15 2850 20 3800 20 3800 Fertilizer 20:20:0 (50 kg) 1750 2 3500 Fertilizer (CAN, 50kg) 1350 2 2700 1 1350 1 1350 FYM (lorry) 1600 2 3200 2.5 4000 Insecticides* 400 1 400 1 400 1.5 600 Total Variable Costs (TVC) (KES/Ha) 9450 8750 9750 Gross Margin (KES/Ha) 14550 21250 26250
Allocatable Fixed Costs Land preparation (ploughing, harrowing) 2000 1 2000 1 2000 1 2000 Planting (MD*) 100 5 500 6 600 6 600 Manual weeding (MD) 120 20 2400 20 2400 20 2400 Top dressing (CAN) (MD) 100 3 300 5 500 10 1000 Spraying Buldock (MD) 100 3 300 3 300 3 300 Harvesting (MD) 100 5 500 5 500 3 300 Shelling (MD) 160 5 800 6 960 10 1600 Dusting (MD) 100 6 600 10 1000 10 1000 Bagging ganny bag (no) 100 10 1000 15 1500 20 2000 Total Fixed Costs 8400 9760 11200 Net Margin (KES/Ha) 6150 11490 15050
*MD: man days, Brands of insecticides used include: Lanet/othin/bestox *Management level: different levels of inputs and costing are shown as I, II & III
Tabulation of the gross margin calculation presented here is however based on
certain assumptions such as: maize crop production is done on a pure stand
basis with all the inputs used purposefully for maize crop production; fertilizer and
farm yard manure is assumed to be alternately used in the three management
levels; the split of costs when shared inputs such as insecticides and top
dressing chemicals are used within farmer crop enterprises in the mixed cropping
are not factored either. Inputs costing were particularly difficult given the poor
38
record keeping practices by farmers. For instance family labour, livestock manure
and slurry were regarded as an internal cost to the farmer given the difficult
circumstance to estimate the real costs for these inputs.
A comparison of gross margins across several subsistence cereal crops
produced in the surveyed area provides a good comparison on economic yields
on farmer investment (Table 6). Per hectare production volumes are estimated
on a per acre basis due to the small scale production of these crops in the often
mixed cropping systems. However, in comparison to the dominant maize crop
their gross margin earnings are of high value. Ground nuts, green grams, and
pigeon peas are particularly produced on a low scale but provide high value
return per farm holding. The food objectives are even greater given the nutritional
value of these crops.
Table 6 Selected cereal crop gross margins comparisons
Crop Gross margin/Ha. Approx. no. of bags (90 Kg) Price (KES) Beans 7286 10 2300 Maize 15603 40 1200 Cowpeas 18375 15 1800 Pigeon peas 10150 17.5 3000 Groundnuts 45500 15 4000 Green grams 30504 38 3000
Source: Adapted from MoA, 2005 Management expertise and crop-specific experience are assumed to determine
yields realized. However per unit costs are likely to fall with more acreage, labor
use and general management efficiency. Overall, even though gross margin
does not measure profit, it shows the contribution of an enterprise to fixed costs,
interest and capital expenditure.
4.4 CROP PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS Several farmer constraints and suggested improvement solutions were provided
to inform current production levels. Table 7 summarizes responses gathered
from all the interviews. Resource constraints such as for fertilizer, pesticides and
39
planting seeds are showed to cause farmers to use limited quantities of the same
or none at all depressing yields. Access to capital for inputs like fertilizer was the
commonest constraint identified from almost all the interviews.
As most of the system is rainfall dependent, provision of irrigation water services
by the government was requested in about 70% of the interviews. Expensive
fertilizer was by far the most limiting factor after poor rains. High cost of
pesticides and ineffective pesticides were also mentioned as limiting (Appendix 2
lists some of the major pest and diseases experienced in the district). Others
include poor quality seeds and varieties, mixed cropping practices which reduced
yield per individual crop enterprise, poor farm tending practices and soil erosion
which is sometime accompanied by flooding. Table 7 Identified crop production limitations and means to improvement
Identified Limitations Suggested Improvements 1. Inadequate pesticide use Control pest and diseases 2. Limited capital Provide access to capital 3. Limited farm size Reclaim idle or fallow land 4. Mixed cropping
Line spacing yields more Practice monocultures on maize and beans
5. Pests & diseases
Plant maize after tobacco crop Provide access to capital Proper tending Training awareness
6. Poor seeds Provide quality seeds Improve seed quality and varieties
7. Poor timing on planting, weeding Correct operations timing 8. Rainfall shortage Provide irrigation water 9. Soil erosion Build terraces
Provide more fertilizer Build terraces though expensive
10. Expensive fertilizer
Provide access to capital Reduce fertilizer prices
11. Labour constraints Provide access to capital It is interesting to note the challenges highlighted by farmers were blamed on
external causes beyond the control of most smallholders. Solutions also seem to
be expected from external sources and a high expectation on government
40
interventions. It is suspected that current reduced agricultural extension services
support are negatively impacting on smallholder practices hence affecting
production.
4.5 FARM TIMBER PRODUCTION
Timber tree cultivation along subsistence crops even though practiced for the last
many years, was found to be an emerging enterprise in many of the farms
visited. Trees produced on farm in the past were only revered for their household
services such as firewood and domestic wood provision. Lately, there is an
emerging farmer interest to undertake tree planting as a competitive farm
enterprise like other crop enterprises. The practice is on the one hand found to
experience certain huge market opportunities and on the other certain peculiar
challenges. Failed plantations forestry seems to give impetus to tree planting on
farm. While a poor policy support environment is cited as the key bottleneck
stifling smallholder timber enterprise growth. This study takes an audit of
smallholder timber management while providing an indicative potential of the
resource.
4.5.1 Timber species on farm
A rapid analysis on the kinds of tree species utilized for timber and firewood
showed abundance of species richness though poorer on per farm coverage. At
least 17 tree species were identified on farms in both the cotton and coffee
systems for timber amongst other uses. Grevillea robusta is the most cultivated
timber species in both the coffee and cotton zones comprising a bulk of about
43% of all the species found on any given farm. Table 8 gives a percentage
value of other timber species found on the farm in both the coffee and cotton
systems. The average for species such as Cassia siamea, Milletia dura and
Combretum molle is skewed as they were only found in greater abundance in the
cotton zone. Vitex keniensis was more abundant in the coffee zone. Important
timber species found in both systems include: Eucalyptus spp., Cordia africana,
Trichillia emetica and fruit species Persea americana and Mangifera indica.
41
Table 8 Timber species utilized in the coffee and cotton zones of Meru Central
Number and percentage of trees per farm Tree Species Coffee zone Cotton zone Percentage (%) Grevillea robusta 89 200 43.5 Militia dura 40 12.6 Cassia siamea 31 9.8 Persea americana 12 22 4.6 Juniperus procera 20 6.3 Combretum molle 16 5.1 Cordia africana 3 15 2.8 Croton macrostachyus 1 12 2.6 Eucalyptus spp. 20 4 3.8 Mangifera indica 4 4 1.1 Trichilia emetica 8 3 1.7 Acasia. abyssinica 3 0.8 Azanrza garckeana 3 0.8 Ficus sp. 3 0.8 Markhamia lutea 3 2 0.8 Vitex keniensis 9 2.8 More specifically, the cotton zone is found to contain a much larger diversity of
timber species on a per hectare basis than the coffee system. This is probably
attributed to several factors such as a more extensive farm holding, less intensity
of cropping patterns and a higher abundance of remnant natural vegetation on
farms. The coffee system on the other hand faces a much higher number of
competing crop enterprises on a very limited amount of land. Choice of
enterprise to be retained is therefore competitive and must yield a relatively good
economic return. Smallholder timber trees with a long gestation period are
therefore rigorously screened against temporal and spatial parameters within an
individual farmer circumstance. Appendix 3 provides a listing of the commonest
tree species found on farm in this region.
4.5.2 Timber volumes on farm
In a related component timber biomass survey for 31 smallholder farms indicative
volumes are provided. The farms occupied an area of 58 hectares and yielded a
total wood volume of 1900 m3 within the range of 43-80 m3. The minimum total
42
volume per farm recorded was two cubic metres, while the maximum volume
recorded per farm was 181 m3. Mean volume per hectare in the coffee zone is
between 33-50 m3 while the minimum and maximum recorded volume per
hectare was ten and 150 m3 respectively. These volumes are contributed by
approximately 135-212 stems per farm and 105-158 stems /ha respectively in the
two zones (Table 9). Table 9 Summary of total timber volumes and stem numbers on farm
Mean volume (m3) and stem number Total volume (m3) and stem number Mean vol. range farm-1 43-80 Total volume on farm 1900
Mean stems range farm-1 135-212 Total no. stems on farm 5400
Mean vol. range Ha-1 33-50 Total vol. by the hectarage 1330
Mean stems range Ha-1 105-158 Total stems by hectarage 4070
n= 31 farms, range means expressed at 90% confidence level According to the Kenya Forest Master Plan, farmlands timber has emerged to
absorb losses in forests, woodlands and bush lands. Projected wood supply from
farmlands in the high and medium potential zones was projected to increase from
64% in 1995 to over 80% in the year 2020 (Table 10). Table 10 Projected wood supply and demand in the high-potential and medium-potential districts under the master plan scenario (‘000 m3)
Sustainable wood supply 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Indigenous forests 1942 1916 1909 1909 1909 1909
Forest plantations 2149 2600 2402 2840 3245 3815
Farms and settlements 7437 10386 13375 16421 19479 22553
Sub-Total 11528 14902 17686 21170 24633 28277
Farms as % of the sub-total 64 70 76 78 79 80
Wood from clearings & substitutes 1648 1917 2118 2430 2754 3086
Total wood supply 13176 16819 19804 23600 27387 31363
Wood demand 15084 18024 21041 24294 27786 31527
Wood surplus/deficit -1908 -1205 -1237 -694 -399 -161
Source: KFMP, 1994
43
Deficits were envisaged to accumulate in year 2005 and steadily decline by year
2020 as more trees growing are undertaken on farms. Projected total demand for
wood in the high and medium potential districts was poised to rise from
15,084,000 m3 in 1995 to 30,679,000 m3 in the year 2020 (KFMP, 1994).
A closer analysis of the coffee and cotton production systems reveals curious
disparities in amounts of wood volume and type of species supported by each
system. Trees planted on farm were classified along four different key functional
uses namely timber, fuelwood, fruits and others. The ‘timber’ category emerged
as the most widely produced category in both systems. The cotton zone is
revealed to produce a much larger volume of wood (832 m3) than the coffee
system (432 m3) proportionately (Figure 6). These however overlap when
firewood volume is considered as species could be used simultaneously for both
purposes.
1916
1025
18040
863
274
8623
1116
438367
238
432
33112
410
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Timber Fuelw ood Fruit tree OthersUse category
No.
of S
tem
s-V
ol.(m
3) C
ofee
_Cot
ton
Zone
No. of stems_cottonVol. (m3)_cottonNo. of stems_coffeeVol. (m3)_coffee
Figure 6 Timber volumes in the cotton-coffee systems
The much larger smallholder timber volume production in the cotton zone is
attributed probably to the larger farm holdings usually over two hectares
44
compared to the lesser holdings in the coffee zone usually below one hectare
attributed to rampant land subdivision.
1.5.3 Managing smallholder timber
Smallholder farmers in Meru produce a sizeable amount of Grevillea robusta on
farm. It is estimated that up to 200 stems of Grevillea of size 30 dbh are available
per hectare in the cotton zone (Oginasako et. al., 2006). However, standing
volumes are of different quality due to use of traditional and sometimes deficient
silvicultural methods such as pruning and pollarding. Trees are therefore poorly
managed for timber production. Inadequate technical support from extension
services is attributed to this situation. Planting material often obtained from other
farmers’ nurseries, community nurseries and institutions nurseries such as forest
departments is of dubious quality. Tree growing is often practiced on mixed
planting systems with agricultural crops in the high potential zones of the district.
In the medium potential zone such as the cotton zone with relatively larger
agricultural land and crop polycultures, tree planting is mostly done on farms
external boundaries, on single line planting, or block planting. From the farm
species assessments, there appears to be an over-reliance on Grevillea for most
timber related household and market requirements. There are however other
potential timber species that have not been utilized adequately to meet the
expanding wood demand. Fast growing timber species such as Eucalyptus sp.,
Casuarina equisetifolia, Maesopsis eminii have not been cultivated adequately to
grow the farm timber portfolio. Many rural farmers have the competitive
advantage of available land, labour and tree planting culture to maximize tree
production on farm. However, despite the emerging evidence of farm tree
potential as a feasible agricultural land use option, secure land tenure sufficed as
a pre-condition for long-term investments such as smallholder timber which is a
long gestation enterprise.
45
4.6 MARKETING SMALLHOLDER TIMBER
Farm sourced timber can in many aspects be regarded as an emerging sub-
sector with peculiar marketing bottlenecks. The product however has a
formidable growth potential if managed in an orderly manner and receives
necessary institutional support. Already farm grown timber supports the wood
industry with different timber products with the wood demand expected to
increase further with the rapid population growth. Smallholder timber is a
relatively new market compared to plantation logging, it is largely unproven and
there are many speculations on how it will function, how fast it will grow and how
big it will get.
Though there is a growing demand, farmer marketing challenges are suspected
to yield poor economic returns for many smallholders with limited value chain
power and a marginalized market position. Further the opportunity cost on the
limited land may be too high given the low prices for farm grown timber. An-
unrealistically high sales volumes of timber are calculated just to break-even, let
alone make profit. The marketing process therefore urgently needs a profitable
solution. Little information is available on the opportunity costs and the
profitability of certain tree-crop combinations particularly on small-scale farms
characteristic of the region under study. Use of household labour and resources
is often not factored in the production process hiding the real costs of the
enterprise. The enterprise is further too dependent on intermediaries for its
economic functionality; farmers are not able to access profitable markets directly
or wield any channel power. Their eventual margins remain minimal risking the
profitability and sustainability of the whole enterprise.
For farm grown timber, quality and pricing are likely to be the critical basis for
competition. For farmers hoping to reap bigger margins, quality of timber bole
has to be ensured through proper tree tending practices. Figure 7 shows a
typical farm timber value chain in Meru Central district.
46
Figure 7 Typical farm timber marketing channels in Meru Central
The survey established that firewood sourced from farms find their way to the
market through a ‘zero supply channel’ (Figure 7). There are no middlemen or
stages between small-scale producer and users. In this scenario, there is no
transfer of ownership of the material other than between the farmer and end
user. The farmer is in direct contact with the customer and is therefore more
informed of customer behavior, pricing and expected product demand. In the one
and two level supply channels, transfer of product ownership may occur with
participating intermediaries in the chains. The specific features of the
collaboration are depicted in Figure 7. Timber chains tend to be complex with
customers sometimes owning all the stages of the chain, especially for the high
value furniture and construction consumers.
47
4.7 SWOT ANALYSIS ON SMALLHOLDER TIMBER
SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threat) is a useful tool for
auditing the overall strategic position of a smallholder timber business and its
environment. Strengths and weaknesses are internal factors, while opportunities
and threats are external factors impacting on the business. A broad synthesis of
the factors impacting on smallholder timber marketing is highlighted in the SWOT
analysis in Table 11.
Table 11 SWOT analysis on smallholder timber marketing
Strengths Consumer preference for sustainable grown timber Logging bans in natural forests and plantations Large woody biomass on farm Farmers willing to invest in timber tree planting Limited initial investment Easy local market access
Weaknesses Poor tree valuation techniques & tree management Lack of capital Poor germplasm access Poor farm planning, small scale operations Poor infrastructural network in the rural areas Poor market access, market intelligence systems
Opportunities Policy change in favor of farm forestry 1% per capita increase in wood demand Microfinance facilities Available research support from: ICRAF, KEFRI Increased capabilities through farmer group formation
Threats Unfavorable legal provisions Over harvesting practices pest and diseases due to inferior germplasm Government regulations on tree felling Land sub-division.
From the SWOT analysis, smallholder timber marketing is revealed to be a multi-
sectoral activity with many challenges requiring pursuit through many alternative
and complementary approaches. Though detailed description has often been
missing to characterize production practices, many players in the sub-sector
including tree nursery operators, small timber businesses, chainsaw operators,
timber yard owners, tea factories local administration, micro finance providers
and other marketing facilitators all seem to have pertinent roles to play. A social,
technical, economic and environmental analysis of the entire smallholder timber
practice appears to be a useful means to inform interventions.
48
4.8 CONCLUSIONS
From the results and discussions it is indicative that smallholder crops and timber
have complimentary roles to play in realizing food and income objectives for
practicing households. Both enterprises however have very specific requirements
necessary in order to yield sustainable benefits. Multi-sectoral interventions are
indeed required to realize these benefits.
49
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study concludes on certain sustainability dimensions influencing smallholder
crop and timber production practices. More so, specific recommendations for
improvement are integrated to help inform subsequent follow-up interventions.
5.1 CROP PRODUCTION
Smallholder farmers have certain strengths to produce food and generate income
through a mix of different farm enterprises. Though agricultural crops have been
over-relied on as means to provide food and income, trees produced on farm
have recently emerged as an important asset to complement the seasonal crop
household benefits. Smallholder farmers, thought too dependent on natural
resources for food production, seem to practice certain innovative production
practices that encompass sustainability. These include mixed cropping systems,
diversified cropping portfolios and maximum use of sometimes meager resources
at their disposal. However, incidences of poor practices leading to land
degradation are observed in the study. There is an emerging trend for mono-
cropping on farms larger that one hectare accompanied by limited knowledge on
the drawbacks of the practice especially on soil nutrient depletion. There is an
emerging farmer dependence on synthetic inputs such as pesticides and
inorganic fertilizers to facilitate production while the use of cultural practices to
enhance soil nutrition is ignored. Mulching practices and use of farm yard
manure is particularly limited as many small-scale farmers opt for the ‘green
revolution’ production means. Animal manure produced on farm is poorly stored,
usually in the open, leading to nutrients leaching and quality degradation.
The environmental consequences of synthetic inputs seem poorly sensitized as
the study recorded an increased demand of the same. Soil degradation in the
formerly fertile soils of Meru Central are noted through indicators such as
depressed yields and rampant soil erosion occurring in many of the farms.
50
Construction of soil conservation structures such as terraces are shunned due to
their intense labour and capital requirements. Current smallholder economic
practices only appear to satisfy subsistence needs with many farmers only
managing break even outputs. A more comprehensive study is however required
to delineate all the input and output factors on smallholder farming. The study
encountered difficulties particularly in calculating hidden farmer costs during
production. An interesting observation on the inputs is the tendency by most
smallholders to use below par inputs citing capital constraints when fertilizing
soils or when controlling pest and diseases. The drawback of this low input and
‘saving’ strategies is less outputs and increased inputs requirements for future
enhanced production. Though maize farming is by far the largest enterprise on
farm it’s not necessarily the most benefiting economically. Traditional crops
farming though practiced to a less comparative extent show the potential to
provide more nutritional food and income benefits to smallholders.
Ideally, smallholders have the potential to use a variety of farming strategies to
enhance their food and income levels through awareness on sustainable
practices such as agroforestry, mixed cropping systems and use of integrated
pest management. Use of soil conservation practices to improve soil nutrition
quality such as minimum tillage, application of animal manure, cover cropping,
mulching and composting could be utilized to boost current practices.
Certain high value crops such as ground nuts, pigeon peas and soybean if
incorporated in the mixed cropping systems have the potential to improve soil
quality as they are leguminous. They also bring bigger incomes as they fetch
high prices at the local market with unmet demand. Furthermore, these crops
also require less water and tolerate drought and short rain incidences better than
maize crop which is widely grown and often fetching low prices due to surpluses.
51
5.2 SMALLHOLDER TIMBER
This study cumulates evidence on the role of farm timber to supplement farmer
agricultural crops cultivation objectives of household incomes and food needs.
Though tree cultivation on farm is an old practice, there are several challenges to
grow the practice into an enterprise. Farmers are shown to be poorly equipped
with the necessary marketing skills, capital, policy support and market networks
to effectively develop the enterprise. The study however shows farmers could
tremendously influence their smallholder timber value chain through
improvements on farm timber quality through better management and pricing.
Current farm timber marketing is suspect as farm timber fetches low prices and
the opportunity cost on the land and labour against high value agricultural crops
is not clear. In Meru central there is an over-reliance on few fast growing exotic
species namely, Grevillea robusta for trade. Management and tree ownership on
farm is also poorly defined. Harvesting is poorly planned and over-harvesting
characterizes selling opportunities. The trend is unsustainable as tree gestation
period is long even though new planting is taking place. Intergenerational equity
is taken to be lost with the current practice. Stocks of wood shown here to have
the potential to rival forestry supplies need to be more comprehensively
assessed to determine what volumes will maximize benefits for both producers
and consumers. This study shows farmers are unable to estimate the quantities
of wood and value of products. There is inadequate knowledge on tree species
choices for high quality timber production.
Some cropping systems such those of the lower parts of Meru central district
often incorporating mixed cropping and mono-cropping systems are shown to
offer a greater potential to produce farm timber on a per hectare basis. Future
efforts to enhance production need to be targeted to these zones as they are
also experiencing more harvesting and are more marginal in terms of biophysical
production factors. Future tree cultivation on the high potential and intensive
coffee zone will however more likely have to justify use of available land, labour
52
and capital, against crop enterprises. The environmental impacts of the emerging
trends remain open to research.
A key finding from the study is that a tree on farm is an important asset to many
rural dwellers even though they lack necessary capital and legal means to exploit
them. There is however a tendency to undertake tree planting exercises in
response to market signals. It is evident that farmers are willing and able to plant
a wide variety of tree species, when their direct benefits are clear. In this regard,
there is an over-reliance on Grevillea robusta and other exotics such as
Eucalyptus to respond to market demands for firewood and timber.
Diversification of fast-growing species would enhance farmers’ product options.
Farmers’ tree planting activities are however limited by lack of coordination on
germplasm supply, leading to poor diversity and quantity available at farm level.
Some recommended means for farmer outputs improvements involve:
• Farmers could source elite planting material and increase their planting
quantities. Clonal planting material (e.g. Eucalyptus from South Africa
done by Mondi) is fast growing and will provide returns within a shorter
period compared to seedlings.
• Correct management practices e.g. thinning and pruning could also be
used to improve timber quality.
• Farmers could also fetch more income by selling primary processed
timber than the current practice of selling whole standing trees. This could
be done through small investments on machinery or even through more
inexpensive ways like hiring existing mobile benchers and chainsaw
millers.
• Capital to undertake the associated farm level operations could be
sourced through micro-finance facilities which provide softer lending terms
tailored to individual circumstances. Farmer groups could benefit from
collective bargaining power and group collateral.
53
• Farmers could also explore opportunities to sell wood directly to urban
consumers (combine both backward and forward integration) and
eliminate the cost of selling through middlemen. Contractual arrangements
could be sought with established saw millers to supply farm timber.
54
REFERENCES Bertomeu, M. 2004. Smallholder Timber production on sloping lands in The
Philippines: A systems approach. World Agroforestry Centre. South East Asia Regional programme.
Betser, L. Mugwe, J. and Muriuki, J. 2000. On-farm production and marketing of
high-value tree products in the central highlands of Kenya. In: Temu A.B., Lund G., Malimbwi R.E., Kowero G.S., Klein K. and Malende Y. (eds), Off-forest Tree Resources of Africa, The African Academy of Sciences: 226–240.
Buchholz, T. Tennigkeit, T. and Weinreich, A. 2005. Indicators and Tools for
Restoration and Sustainable Management of Forests in East Africa Maesopsis eminii - a production model. I-TOO working paper No. 27
Carsan, S. and Holding, C. 2006. Growing farm timber: practices, markets and
policies. The meru timber marketing pilot programme case studies and reviews. World Agroforestry Centre.
Carsan, S. & Holding, C. (ed). 2001. Proceedings of the Second Meru Timber
Marketing Stakeholders Workshop, Nairobi. Meru timber marketing programme:FAN/MoARD/ICRAF. (http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/pdf/ICRAF/TimberReport.pdf)
Damasa, B. Magcale-Macandog, Menz, K. Rocamora, PM. 1999. Smallholder
timber production and marketing: the case of Gmelina arborea in Claveria, Northern Mindanao, Philippines. International Tree Crops Journal, Vol. 10: 61-78.
Ebert, SJ. 2004. Silvicultural potential of Milicia excelsa. I-TOO working paper
No. 18 Albert-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg Waldbau-Institut Freiburg, Germany.
Eibl, B. Fernandez, RA. Kozarik, JC. Lup, A. Montagnini, F. & Nozzi, D. 2000.
Agroforestry systems with Ilex paraguariensis (American holly or yerba mate) and native timber trees on small farms in Misiones, Argentina. Agroforestry Systems 48: 1–8.
FAO, 1998. FRA 2000 Terms and definitions. Forest resources assessments programme working paper No. 1. Rome Italy. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
FAO, 2005. Global Forest Resources Assessment. ISSN 0258-6150 Garrity, DP. 2004. Agroforestry and the achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals. Agroforestry Systems 61: 5–17.
55
Global Donor Platform for Rural development (GDPRD), 2005. The role of
agriculture and rural development in achieving the Millennium Development Goals- a joint donor narrative. Secretariat of the global donor platform for rural development, Bonn, Germany: 50.
Government of Kenya (GOK), 2000. Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
2000 – 2003. Report prepared by the Government of Kenya. Ham, C. and Theron, T. 2001. Community forestry resources: a case study of
selected woodlot in Eastern Cape province. South African Forestry Journal, No. 191: 65-74.
Holding, C. Mwaura, M. Muchai, D. and Carsan, S. 2002. Farm sourced timber:
the changing structure of the timber industry in Kenya. Linking research, extension and advocacy to address farmers needs, Agricultural Research and extension (AgREN) ODI Newsletter.
Holding, C. and Roshetko, J. 2003. Farm-level timber production: orienting
farmers towards the market. Unasylva 212: 48-62. Holmgren, P. Masakha, EJ. & Sjoholm, H. 1994. Not all African land is being
degraded: a recent survey of trees on farms in Kenya reveals rapidly increasing forest resources. Ambio 23(7): 390-395.
Jaetzold, R. and Schmidt, H. 1983. Farm management handbook of Kenya (Vol.
II), Central Kenya, Ministry of Agriculture, Nairobi. Jagger, P. Pender, J. and Gebremedhin, B. 2003. Woodlot devolution in northern
Ethiopia: opportunities for empowerment, smallholder income diversification, and sustainable land management. EPPTD discussion paper No. 107, International Food Policy Research Institute, N.W. Washington, D.C. U.S.A.
Kenya Forestry Master Plan (KFMP), 1994. Development Programmes, Ministry
of Environment and Natural resources, Nairobi: 123-149. Kindt R. 2002. Methodology for tree species diversification planning for African
ecosystems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ghent, 327 pp. KWS, 1999. Aerial survey of the destruction of Mt. Kenya, Imenti and Ngare
Ndare forest reserves. Report prepared by Kenya Wildlife Service: 26. Lengkeek, AG. 2003. Diversity Makes a Difference, Farmers Managing Inter and
Intra Specific Tree Species Diversity in Meru Kenya. PhD Thesis, WUR.
56
Lengkeek, AG. & Carsan, S. 2004. The process of a participatory tree domestication project in Meru, Kenya. Development in Practice, Vol. 14 No. 3.
Lengkeek, AG. Kindt, R. Maesen, LJG. Simons, AJ. and Oijen, DCC. 2005. Tree
density and germplasm source in agroforestry ecosystems of Meru, Mount Kenya. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 52: 709–721.
Magcale-Macandog, DB. Menz, K. Rocamora, PM. Predo, CD. 1999.
Smallholder timber production and marketing: the case of Gmelina arborea in Claveria, Northern Mindanao, Philippines. International Tree Crops Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1:61-78.
Mercado, AR. Cadisch, G. Pailagao, C. Arcinal, G. Loma, L. Pagalan, E. 2003.
Potential of timber based hedgerow intercropping systems as smallholder agroforestry option on sloping acid upland soils. Paper presented during the First National Agroforestry Congress held at LSU Baybay, Leyte on Nov. 19-20.
Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), 2000a. Timber marketing in Igoki and Ntakira
locations of Meru central district Kenya. Compiled by CT Mariene for DALEO Meru central. PRA . report Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Meru central, Kenya, 34 pp.
Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), 2000b. Meru Central District vital information.
Internal note by Mary Mwaura District. Soil Conservation Officer. Ministry of Agriculture District Agricultural Office, Meru, Kenya, 3 pp.
Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), 2005. Meru Central District, resource management
guidelines. District agricultural office, Meru. Ministry of Energy (MoE), 2003. Task force report: Energy sector development
strategy, Nairobi (http://www.energy.go.ke/renewable.php) Njuguna, PM. Holding, CA. and Munyasya, 1999. On farm woody biomass
surveys (1993 and 1998): a case study from Nakuru and Nyandarua Districts in Kenya. In: A.B. Temu, G Lund, RE. Malimbwi, GS. Kowero, K . Kleinn, Y. Malende, I. Kone, (Eds) 2000. Off-forest tree resources of Africa. Proceedings of a workshop held at Arusha Tanzania. The African Academy of Sciences (AAS)
Oginosako, Z. Simitu, P. Orwa, C. and Mathenge, S. 2006. Are they competing
or compensating on farm? Status of indigenous and exotic tree species in a wide agro-ecological zone of Eastern and Central Kenya, surrounding Mount Kenya. ICRAF Working paper No. 16. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre.
57
Onchieku, JM. 2006. Challenges of small-scale sawmilling industry in Kenya.
Paper presented to workshop on Chainsaw milling Technology and emerging innovations: Kaguru Training Centre, Nkubu, Meru on the 6-7 February.
Opanga, P. 2001. Grevillea timber market chains rapid assessment in Meru.
A meru timber marketing pilot project activity report.
Pasiecznik, N.M and Carsan, S. 2006. Turning Trees to Timber, A chainsaw demonstration/training course report (http://chainsaw.gwork.org)
Pelley, D. Avidor, H. Kraus, M. Shoresh, D. and Krayn, G. 1985. Planning project
for the Meru District, Kenya. In: Smith S. (ed.), Integrated Rural Development Foundation, Settlement Study Centre Rehovot, Israel: 11–28.
PRSP, 2001. Meru Central district PRSP. Consultation report 2001-2004.
Ministry of Finance and Planning. (www.treasury.go.ke/prsp) Roshetko, JM. Mulawarman, & Purnomosidhi, P. 2004. Gmelina arborea – a
viable species for smallholdertree farming in Indonesia? New Forest 28: 207–215.
Scherr, SJ. 2004. Building opportunities for small-farm agroforestry to supply
domestic wood markets in developing countries. Agroforestry Systems 61: 357–370, 2004.
Sanchez, PA. 2002. Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science 295: 2019–2020. Simons, AJ. and Leakey, RRB. 2004. Tree domestication in tropical agroforestry
Agroforestry Systems 61: 167–181 Simons, AJ., Jaenicke, H., Tchoundjeu, Z., Dawson, I., Kindt, R., Oginosako, Z.,
Lengkeek, A., and DeGrande, A. 2000. The future of trees is on farms: Tree domestication in Africa. In: Forests and Society: The role of research. XXI IUFRO World Congress, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: 752-760.
Smyth, AJ. & Dumanski, J. 1995. A framework for evaluating sustainable land
management. Canadian Journal of Soil science 75: 401-406. SPSS, 2000. SPSS for Windows Version 9. Standard Version.
58
Stroebel, A. 2004. Socio-economic complexities of smallholder resource-poor ruminant livestock production systems in Sub-saharan Africa. PHD Thesis, University of the Free State: 204
Syers, J.K., Hamblin, A & Pushparajah, E., 1995. Indicators and thresholds for the evaluation of sustainable land management. Canadian Journal of Soil science 75 : 423-428.
The University of Reading (UoR). 2000. Some basic ideas of sampling. Statistical
Services Centre, The University of Reading, UK. Tyndall, B. 1996. The socioeconomic of Grevillea robusta within the coffee land-
use system of Kenya, Agroforestry Research Networks for Africa (Afrena), Report No.109.
UNEP (United Nations Environmntal Programme) 2002. Global Environmental
Outlook 3. London: Earthscan, 63-72. World Bank, 2002. Re-Investing in Smallholder Agriculture in Cameroon:
Tree Crops and Sustainable Diversification Opportunities. Brief Note.
59
APPENDICES Appendix 1 Survey Questionnaire
Interview No: __________
Interviewer: ____________
Date: _________________
1. Farmer/ Respondents name: ___________________________________________ 2. Division:________________Location:___________________Village:_________ 3. GPS: _____________________________________________________________ 4. Farm size: _________________________________________________________ 5. Agro ecological zone (AEZ): __________________________________________
6. Please list types of crops cultivated and traded on your farm: Amount of production
during: Amount traded/ consumption/year
Main crops (variety) cultivated
Type of farming: cash crop, food, other
Land size/crop
Cropping systems (MS, PC, ICAF/AS, other)
Short rains Mar/Apr
Long rains Oct/Nov
consumed
traded
Observations
Cropping System: Mixed system (MS), Monocultures (MC), Polycultures (PC), Intercropping (IC), agroforestry/alley cropping (AF), other
7. What are the key inputs and management levels for the main crop enterprises on your farm? Types & Qty of inputs used (e.g. manure, fertilizer, seeds, pesticide, labour) Short Rains (Mar/April) Long Rain (Oct/Dec)
Main Crop (variety)
Type Qty Type Qty Price/unit
Observations
Fertilizer fertilizer
manure manure
seeds seeds
pesticides pesticides
Labour:
Weeding
Planting
harvesting
Labour:
Planting
Weeding
harvesting
60
8. What factors limit production of each enterprise?
9. What do you think is needed for improved levels of production?
10. Who are the key buyers for your farm produce? How is supply organized?
11. What are the problems faced during marketing farm produce?
12. In your opinion, how can some of the challenges be resolved?
13. Which timber tree species are cultivated and traded on farms? List kinds of timber species planted on your farm
Planting systems line, block, mixed niches
Quantities On-farm
Number of trees planned for sale (timber, firewood)
Pricing
Amount for own use
Constraints on trading timber
14. What are the current management practices for timber trees on farm?
List main timber species planted on the farm?
Amount planted/year
Source of planting material
Any fertilizing on planting? If yes, what amount/year?
Type of management & how often? (pruning, thinning pollarding other)
How many years before harvesting for timber?
Observations/Constraints on cultivation
15. Is extra labour required timber tree tending on farm? 16. Who are the key buyers? How is supply organized?
17. How are tree quantities for sale and pricing determined?
18. What are the problems faced during marketing of farm timber?
19. In your opinion, how can some of the challenges be resolved?
61
Appendix 2 Major pests and diseases Pest Crops Affected Control Remarks Stalkborer Maize, sorghum,
millet Use of buldock granules, use of insecticides (karate, Brigade)
Pest common in all areas
Bollworms Cereals, cotton, pulses
Simicidin, pyrethroids, fetrothion Prevalent in the lower zones of the district
Beanfly Drybean, Dolicos Frenchbean, cowpeas
Treat seeds with Gaucho. Use of systemic insecticides e.g dimethoate followed by buldock, karate
In all areas under beans
aphids Pulses, Cereals Tree crops
Use of insecticides: Marshall EC, Folimat, Karate, Fastac Achook (organic), Pyerin
All areas
loopers Pulses, cereals Use of insecticides pyrethroids All areas Thrips Coffee Use of insecticides: Pyrethroids,
Sumithion super, Fenitrothion, Lebycid, Fastac, pyerin
Very persistent especially during dry spell
Potato tuber moth
Potato tubers Timely harvesting Prevalent especially during dry spell
Sweet potato weevil
Sweet potato insecticides Farmers have difficulties in control
Army worms Cereals, pastures Use of insecticides such as Fenitrothion
Prevalent in the lower (dry zones)
Large grain borer
maize Super grain dust, actelic super Maize areas
Leaf miner Peas & coffee Trigard, evisect, lebacid, fastac All stages in peas. Dry periods in coffee
Mango weevil
mangoes Lebacid, Karate, dimethoate Spray before flower onset
Diamond back moth
Kales, Cabbages Use of insecticides brigade, karate, fastac
Farmers have difficulties in control
Whiteflies Pulses karate, fastac, decis Prevalent in dry areas Caterpillars Pulses, tomatoes,
kales Thuricide, dipel, 2x, fastac, pyerin, Prevalent in dry areas
Cutworms Pulses Dotron plus Rust Coffee pulses,
cereals, tree cropsMarshall ST Gaucho dressers for vector, Kocide, DM 45, folicur
In all maize growing areas
anthracnose Beans, mangoes, banana
Copper based fungicides Prominent during dry spells
Fusarium wilt Coffee, banana, passion
Sanitary practices
Bacteria wilt Solanacea family Filed hygiene, seed selection A threat in potatoes production
Blight Potatoes, tomatoes
Preventive fungicides (maconzeb) Curative fungicides (acrobat, ridomil) Use tolerant varieties: Tigoni & Asante Crop rotation
Tolerant high yielding varieties are becoming popular
Mosaic virus Potatoe, cassava. Beans, pepper
Use insecticides to kill vector.
Powdery mildew
Pulses,flowers Thiovit
Root rot Flowers, brassica family
Sanitary practices Crop rotation is useful
62
Appendix 3 Common tree species on farm: Mount Kenya area Encountered species, number of occurrences and average total trees on farm (Oginosako et. al., 2006) Botanical name Places where species was encountered & Average trees number on farm per species # % rank Average trees number per farm Grevillea robusta 183 13.2 1 70 Persea Americana 105 7.6 2 8 Musa sapientum 103 7.5 3 110 Eucalyptus saligna 100 7.2 4 56 Cupressus lusitanica 89 6.4 5 30 Mangifera indica 82 5.9 6 10 Croton megalocarpus 74 5.4 7 31 Carica papaya 57 4.1 8 53 Citrus sinensis 37 2.7 9 18 Eriobotrya japonica 36 2.6 10 9 Macadamia tetraphylla 35 2.5 11 12 Citrus limon 27 2.0 12 3 Commiphora eminii 27 2.0 12 45 Cordia Africana 27 2.0 12 9 Jacaranda mimosifolia 27 2.0 12 13 Psidium guajava 27 2.0 12 7 Schinus molle 24 1.7 17 9 Acacia mearnsii 19 1.4 18 89 Croton macrostachyus 18 1.3 19 13 Senna siamea 16 1.2 20 88 Vitex keniensis 16 1.2 20 13 Azadirachta indica 15 1.1 22 4 Bridelia micrantha 15 1.1 22 9 Terminalia brownii 13 0.9 24 23 Casuarina cunninghamiana 12 0.9 24 21 Juniperous procera 12 0.9 24 22 Acacia xanthophloea 11 0.8 27 27 Melia volkensii 11 0.8 27 7 Acacia tortilis 10 0.7 29 25 Acrocarpus fraxinifolius 10 0.7 29 2 Markhamia lutea 10 0.7 29 14 Tamarindus indica 9 0.7 29 9 Annona cherimola 8 0.6 33 7 Erythrina abyssinica 8 0.6 33 2 Acacia nilotica 7 0.5 35 77 Ficus natalensis 7 0.5 35 17 Ficus sycomorus 7 0.5 35 8 Prunus Africana 7 0.5 35 5 Kigelia Africana 6 0.4 39 2 Olea Africana 6 0.4 39 4 Pinus patula 6 0.4 39 25 Senna spectabilis 6 0.4 39 54 Berchemia discolor 5 0.4 39 5
63
Leucaena leucocephala 5 0.4 39 30 Balanites aegyptiaca 4 0.3 45 4 Commiphora Africana 3 0.2 46 9 Eucalyptus saligna 3 0.2 46 18 Podocarpus falcatus 3 0.2 46 4 Sapium ellipticum 3 0.2 46 25 Spathodea campanulata 3 0.2 46 5 Acacia polyacantha 2 0.1 51 4 Calliandra calothyrsus 2 0.1 51 7 Milicia excelsa 2 0.1 51 2 Milletia dura 2 0.1 51 49 Piliostigma thonningii 2 0.1 51 11 Terminalia mentally 2 0.1 51 2 Trichilia emetica 2 0.1 51 9 Zyzigium guinesis 2 0.1 51 4 Acockanthera chemperi 1 0.1 51 4 Albizia gummifera 1 0.1 51 3 Catha edulis 1 0.1 51 46 Celtis mildbraedii 1 0.1 51 5 Croton dichogamous 1 0.1 51 1 Cussonia holstii 1 0.1 51 7 Ehretia cymosa 1 0.1 51 6 Euclea divinorum 1 0.1 51 3 Fagara microphylla 1 0.1 51 1 Ficus benjamina 1 0.1 51 1 Rawsonia lucida 1 0.1 51 4 Sesbania sesban 1 0.1 51 5
Source: Oginasako et.al 2006
Appendix 4 Percentage number of trees and species in all zones of Mt. Kenya
64
Appendix 5 Meru map
Main Agro-ecological zones (Oginasako et.al., 2006)
![The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 - Waverley Council · Removal of hedgerows 5 . - (1) Subject to the exceptions specified in regulation 6, the removal[15] of a hedgerow to which these](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5f555b98769c625b9b37f6f6/the-hedgerows-regulations-1997-waverley-council-removal-of-hedgerows-5-1.jpg)
