Opening Remarks - World Agroforestry Centre

24 Pages·2006·0.2 MB·English

Table of Contents
Opening Remarks 3
Overview of the Voices of Poor Livestock Keepers in the Lake Victoria Basin
Study 3
Sharing of Preliminary results from Vihiga district 5
Map 1: Study Sites in Vihiga District 6
Table 1: Sub locations that were sampled for the study in Vihiga district... 6
Table 2: Main occupations in Vihiga district 7
Table 3: Sources of information on livestock 7
Table 4: Type of livestock information sought 8
Table 5: Information farmers have been seeking on farmyard manure 9
Table 6: Percentage of sources of information who failed to provide
information that was needed 9
Table 7: Sources of livestock information in the study sites 9
Table 8: Type of livestock information sought in the study sites 10
Table 9: Gender and livestock information sources 11
OUTPUTS FROM WORKING GROUPS 11
GROUP ONE: How can the functions of community-based organizations be
strengthened to better meet the needs of poor livestock keepers? 11
Task 1. Define a community-based organization (CBO) 11
Task 2. Describe main types of CBOs in Vihiga District 11
Task 3: What are the roles of youth groups, self help groups, women
groups in meeting the needs of the poor 11
Task 4: Describe how those roles can be strengthened 12
GROUP TWO: Describe what is means to be a poor livestock keeper in
Vihiga District 12
Task 1: Definition of a livestock keeper 12
Task 2: What distinguishes people as poor livestock keepers (indicators).. 12
Task 3: How do livestock keepers become poor/non-poor? 12
GROUP THREE: How can the needs of poor livestock keepers be better
met? 13
Task 1: What information do livestock keepers need? 13
Task 2: Are they getting this information now? 13
Task 3: How can the gaps be filled? 14
Task 4: Identify who will fill the gaps? 14
GROUP FOUR: Are there ways or methods for reaching poor people that
would be more effective (e.g. schools, church groups, markets)? 14
Task 1: List the alternative methods that have good potential 14
Task 2: How could those methods be strengthened? 14
Task 3: Are there any successful experiences in Vihiga district? 15
Task 4: Priority actions 16
Conclusions and reflections on the workshop 16
District Livestock Production Officer's final comments 17
Some agencies providing services to farmers in Vihiga district 18
Programme 21
Participant List 22
2
Opening Remarks
By Arlington Omushieni - District Agriculture and Livestock Extension
Officer, Vihiga District
The Government of Kenya has established a new National Agricultural Extension
Policy that formally ends the government monopoly on the provision of
agricultural information. The new policy instead encourages pluralistic
extension involving government agencies, non-governmental organizations,
community-based organizations and the private sector to meet the needs of our
farming communities. The Extension Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development is expected to lead extension efforts and to coordinate the
activities of all extension providers.
This study - Voices of Poor Livestock Keepers - will help to guide the
implementation of this policy in Vihiga District. The study will help the
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development to better understand the needs
of poor people and provide guidance on how those needs can be better served.
We in Vihiga are thankful to ICRAF fro conducting the study in the district for
the benefit of all stakeholders especially farmers.
We look forward to workable recommendations derived from this workshop,
which will help to improve agricultural extension service delivery to farmers in
Vihiga district.
Overview of the Voices of Poor Livestock Keepers in the Lake Victoria Basin
Study
By Brent Swallow, ICRAF - World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi
DFID has invested a great deal of funds into livestock health and production
research but is concerned about the level of impact. In this respect it is
leading a consortium of donors interested in livestock research to find out how
the poor can benefit from the "livestock revolution." DFID is focusing its
research and development interventions on the needs of the poor. To do this it
engaged consultants in 2001 to assess suppliers of livestock information in East
Africa. DFID also supported ILRI to do a study of livestock production and
poverty in developing countries which identified the Lake Victoria Basin as a
concentration of poor people and livestock within the African continent.
In 2002, ICRAF is leading a component of the study that focuses on the
information and technology needs and sources for poor livestock keepers in the
Lake Victoria Basin. Project activities have been implemented in 10 selected
districts of the basin regions of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda in collaboration
with a number of partners. Support for the study and this workshop is
provided by DFID and ICRAF core funds.
Objectives of the study are:
3
a) Identify where significant numbers of poor livestock keepers are located
in the Lake Victoria basin
b) Describe how those poor livestock keepers access new knowledge and
technologies, with emphasis on knowledge and technologies pertaining
to livestock
c) Identify what the levels of demand for new livestock related knowledge
and technologies are and to what extent these information needs are
being met
d) Document which civil society organizations operate in the Lake Victoria
basin and to what extent they actually, and potentially, cater for the
interests of poor livestock keepers
e) Suggest what ways civil society organizations can be empowered to
enable poor people to better access new information and technologies
Methodology
The main focus of the study was on the demand-side of information and
innovation flow. Our approach to the study was to represent the range of
conditions that prevail across the poorer parts of the Lake Victoria Basin. To
best capture this, the study adopted a multi-layered approach starting from
the regional level to the household level. At the regional and national levels,
the study is still compiling and reviewing literature and on going studies on
farming system characterization, farmer advisory services, and information
sources. The next level of aggregation is the district level. Districts were
chosen to represent high levels of poverty and contrasting social-cultural and
agro-ecological conditions. In Kenya, Vihiga, Bondo and Migori districts were
chosen on the basis of those criteria. Qualitative methods and secondary
information were used to collect information at the district level. Within each
district, sub-locations were then selected to represent the major socio-cultural
and agro-ecological circumstances and contrasting access to information and
services. Participatory methods (e.g. search conferences) were used to collect
information for the locations. Households in each sub-location were randomly
selected for a household survey.
The research tools used were key informant interviews, participatory tools such
as the use, access, control/ownership matrix to show information and
innovation around the resources, and the search conference. At the household
level, a questionnaire was administered. The team implementing the study
includes ICRAF researchers and consultants, a lecturer from Egerton University,
staff from local government and the Tanzanian Forestry Research Institute, and
staff from non-governmental organizations in Uganda. Mr. David Amudavi, a
lecturer at Egerton University, led the implementation of the field work in
Vihiga District, working closely with Nelson Mango, Wilson Nindo and Rosalynn
Gichimo.
Fieldwork in Vihiga District was conducted in August and September 2002 and
preliminary results have been compiled. This workshop is now being convened
to advance three objectives: 1) Share the preliminary results of the study with
stakeholders who could benefit from the results in the design of their own
future activities; 2) Obtain reactions to our interpretations of the results - Are
the results an accurate depiction of the situation in the district? and 3)
Brainstorm with stakeholders on what the results mean for agricultural
technology development and information dissemination in Vihiga district. The
workshop will proceed as follows: (1) Nelson Mango will make a presentation
of the main results obtained to date on behalf of the study team; (2) we will
have a plenary discussion of those results; (3) the participants will break into 4
working groups to discuss specific topics raised by the study; and (4) the
working groups will report back to the plenary sessions.
Sharing of Preliminary results from Vihiga district
By Nelson Mango, Consultant, ICRAF - World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi
Vihiga district is one of the eight districts in Western province. It lies between
longitude 34° 30' East and 35° 0' East and between 0°and 0° 15' North. The
total population of Vihiga district as the per the 1999 Population and Housing
Census was 498,882 with an annual growth rate of 3%. The annual rainfall is
between 1800-2000mm per annum. The size of the District is 563 square
kilometres and the population density is 886 persons per square kilometre. The
number of people continues to increase, as farm sizes remain static. Due to
small farms and large families there is high pressure on the land. The infant
mortality rate is 98 for every 1,000 live births. A large labour force is engaged
in agricultural and livestock production activities.
The average farm size is 0.5ha. Most farms are under subsistence farming.
The major farm related problem is declining soil fertility. According to the
finding of this study the average household size is 6.
In Vihiga district, data was collected in six sub-locations: namely
• Hamuyundi in West Maragoli location,
• Madzuu in Mungoma location,
• Kaptech in Shaviringa location,
• Gamalenga in Tambua location,
• Esabalu in South Bunyore location and
• Emmukunzi in East Bunyore location.
The region is largely occupied by three main ethnic groups of the Luhya
community in the district namely: Maragoli, Banyore and Tiriki. In each region,
two representative sub locations were chosen, one representing a high
potential sub location and the other representing a medium potential sub
location. Twenty households were selected in each sub-location using random
sampling. The survey covered farm characteristics, production technologies in
livestock production, horticulture, fruit, timber and collective action in
community based natural resource management. Six enumerators were used,
one for each sub-location.
5
Map 1: Study Sites in Vihiga District
Table 1: Sub locations that were sampled for the study in Vihiga district
Division Location Sub Ethnic No. of HH Classification
location grouping interviewed
Luanda South Esabalu Banyore 19 High potential
Bunyore
Tiriki Tambua Gamalenga Tiriki 20 High potential
West
Vihiga Mungoma Madzuu Maragoli 21 High potential
Emuhaya East Emukunzi Banyore 20 Medium
Bunyore potential
Tiriki East Shaviringa Kaptech Tiriki 19 Medium
potential
Emuhaya East Ebusamia Banyore 1 Medium
Bunyore potential
Sabatia West Hamuyundi Maragoli 20 Medium
Maragoli potential
(Source: Analysis of household data collected by study)
()
Some of the results of the data analysis of the questionnaire produced the
following results that were shared with the participants.
Table 2: Main occupations in Vihiga district
Occupation Percentage
Farming 77
Agricultural casual labour 4
Non agricultural casual labour 5
Self employment 5
Formal employment 5
Other 5
(Source: Analysis of household data collected by study)
Major causes of poverty in Western Kenya
• High rate of population growth, especially in Vihiga, leading to strains on
factors of production such as land
• Very small farm sizes
• High levels of unemployment
• HIV/AIDS: 20% of the population of Vihiga is HIV positive
• Cost of production (crop and livestock) is high
• Low use/application adoption of agricultural innovation (use of hybrid
seeds, fertilizers and boma manure)
• Low status of cash crop farming
• Low status of farm /business credit
• Lack of enterprise sustainability (projects and investment initiative)
• Inadequate Lack of information on marketing systems
• Inadequate and poorly distributed infrastructure, that is, roads network,
electricity, water supply and marketing infrastructure
Table 3: Sources of information on livestock
Information Vihiga Bondo Migori Overall
source % of households indicating each information source
None 14 21 6 12
Agricultural 21 3 53 31
extension officer
Family member 8 6 14 10
Veterinary 15 67 12 20
officer
Experience 17 3 14 14
Neighbours/other 18 1 9
farmers
Village elders 5 2
Livestock traders 1 1 1
7
(Source: Analysis of household data collected by study)
• About one-third of households are reached by Agricultural extension or
Veterinary officers
• About one-third from neighbours or elders
• About one-third rely on own experience
Table 4: Type of livestock information sought
Information Vihiga Bondo | Migori Overall
type % of households indicating each information need
Feeding 22 4 7 13
Grazing 5 2
Treatment 19 82 56 42
and disease
control
Increase 8 5 6
production
Housing 2 1
Marketing 4 1 2
Livestock 6 4 8 6
breeds and
breeding
General 31 11 23 25
animal
husbandry
Poultry 4 2
keeping
(Source: Analysis of household data collected by study)
Across the three districts people are generally looking for information on:
• General animal husbandry,
• Feeding and
• Disease control. Interest in disease control varies tremendously
across the three districts, with 82 percent of households concerned
with disease control in Bondo and only 19 percent concerned with
disease control in Vihiga.
8
Table 5: Information farmers have been seeking on farmyard manure
Information type Vihiga Bondo Migori Overall
% of households indicating each information need
Which is better between 16 9
FYM and fertilizer
How to maintain 25 11 9 18
nutrients in FYM
Making best FYM 49 56 56 52
If it gives higher yields 3 11 16 9
Use/application of FYM 7 11 19 12
Best animal for FYM 11 1
(Source: Analysis of house lold data col ected by study)
Table 6: Percentage of sources of information who failed to provide
information that was needed
Information source Percentage %
Agricultural extension officer 44
Family member 28
Veterinary officer 17
Neighbours/other farmers 6
Village elders 6
(Source: Analysis of household data col ected by study)
• 44% of households have failed to get information they wanted from
Agricultural extension officers, while only 6% failed to get information
they wanted from family members or village elders.
Table 7: Sources of livestock information in the study sites
Study sites None / own Family Neighbours / Agric Traders
experience elders extension /
Vet. Officer
% of households ndicating each information source
Esabalu, Luanda 31 6 63 0
(Bunyore - high
potential)
Emukunzi, Emuhaya 15 35 50
(Bunyore - medium
potential)
Gamalenga, Tiriki 20 10 45 25
West (Tiriki - high
potential)
Kaptech, Tiriki East 24 4 32 32 4
(Tiriki - medium
potential)
Madzuu, Vihiga 50 19 31
9
(Maragoli - high
potential)
Hamuyundi, Sabatia 25 20 20 35
(Maragoli - medium
potential)
(Source: Analysis of household data collected by study)
Table 8: Type of livestock information sought in the study sites
Study sites Mainte Feed Graz Disease Hus Breeds Poultry Mrktg
nance ing ing treatment bandry
$ control
% of households indicating each information need
Esabalu, 10 25 5 30 10 10
Luanda
(Bunyore -
high
potential)
Emukunzi, 55 5 35
Emuhaya
(Bunyore -
medium
potential)
Gamalenga, 35 5 20 5 20 5
Tiriki West
(Tiriki - high
potential)
Kaptech, 12 8 12 28 8 4
Tiriki East
(Tiriki -
medium
potential)
Madzuu, 12 12 18 42
Vihiga i
(Maragoli -
high
potential)
Hamuyundi, 5 15 5 25 20 10
Sabatia
(Maragoli -
medium
potential)
(Source: Analysis of household data collected by study)
10