variety for security: a case study in western kenya

Variety for security: A case study in Western Kenya

Mary Kanui, PhD student (Geography & Environment)28th August 2014

Outline

1. Background & objectives

2. Methods

3. Completed research: results3.1 Farm agrobiodiversity3.2 Market agrobiodiversity

4. Upcoming research: overview4.1 Nutrient diversity4.2 Dietary diversity

5. Conclusions & recommendations

Background & objectives

1. Agrobiodiversity as a path to household food security?

• Food security: availability, accessibility, utilization of adequate food

• Agrobiodiversity: components of biodiversity of relevance to food & agriculture

• In Africa, up to 80% of agriculture practised by smallholder farmers

• To what extent does agrobiodiversity contribute to food, nutrition & health?

1. Agrobiodiversity- Kenyan context

• Species numbers:• ~ 35,000 animal, plant & micro-organism species• 3 sustaining species: maize, wheat, rice (Ekesa, 2009)

• High food shortfalls and malnutrition rate• Yet local agrobiodiversity under-utilized as primary food security resource (Frison et al., 2006)

• Western Kenya:• High agrobiodiversity• But 50% population below poverty line with high malnutrition and poor health (Abukutsa-Onyango, 2002)

1. Study objectives

Food accessibility & market integration

Food plant diversity (animals and plants) & underlying factors

Functional diversity (animals and plants)

Dietary diversity (overall household, women)

Methods

2. Study sites

Teso southLM1, LM2

1550-1800 mm

Teso southLM1, LM2

1550-1800 mm

BondoLM 3-5

1020-1100 mm

BondoLM 3-5

1020-1100 mm

MumiasLM1

1800-2000 mm

MumiasLM1

1800-2000 mm

VihigaUM1

1800->2000 mm

VihigaUM1

1800->2000 mm

© Bioversity 2012

2. Research instruments

Farm survey

•Goals: 1) ABD richness, abundance& usage ( 2) food sources (3) dietary diversity (T3)

•Scope: 30 farms (0.37ha) in 6 villages

•Time: Sep/Oct ‘12(T1), Nov/Dec ‘12 (T2) & July/Aug ‘14 (T3)

Market survey

•Goal: Food sources, prices & availability

•Scope: 7 markets

•Time: Sep/Oct ‘12 (T1) & July/Aug ‘14 (T2)

Focus Group Discussions

•Goal: Perceptions on ABD by farmers (gender-disaggregated)

•Scope: 12 discussions

•Time: Sep/Oct ‘12

Results (completed research)

3.1 Farm agrobiodiversity

3. Completed research

3.2 Market agrobiodiversity

• Species: basic taxonomic unit for distinct organisms• Varieties: different types within a species naturally occurring• Cultivars: cultivated varieties

• Species richness: number of different distinct organisms• Species abundance: number of individuals per species

Differentiation of key terms

3.1.1 ABD (on-farm food plant) richness

Teso71 species

Teso71 species

Bondo72 species

Bondo72 species

Mumias48 speciesMumias

48 species

Vihiga 47 species

Vihiga 47 species

© Bioversity 2012

Sorghum Sorghum bicolorbicolor

VegetablesVegetables

Zea maysZea mays

CerealsCereals

Starchy rootsStarchy rootsPulses Pulses

PhaseolusPhaseolusvulgarisvulgaris

Saccharum Saccharum officinarum L.officinarum L.High-sugar foodsHigh-sugar foods

FruitsFruits

3.1.1 Most common plant ABD (Mumias & Vihiga)

Brassica Brassica oleraceaoleracea

VignaVignaunguiculataunguiculata

Ipomoea Ipomoea batatasbatatas

Persea Persea americanaamericana

Musa Musa sapientumsapientum

Capsicum Capsicum annuumannuum SpicesSpices

Sorghum Sorghum bicolorbicolor

VegetablesVegetables

Zea maysZea mays

CerealsCereals

Starchy rootsStarchy rootsPulses Pulses PhaseolusPhaseolus

vulgarisvulgaris

Saccharum Saccharum officinarum L.officinarum L.High-sugar foodsHigh-sugar foods

FruitsFruits

Commelina Commelina Spp.Spp.

BidensBidenspilosapilosa

ManihotManihotesculentaesculenta

Lantana Lantana camaracamara

Psidium Psidium guajavaguajava

3.1.1 Most common plant ABD (Teso & Bondo)

SpicesSpicesCapsicum Capsicum annuumannuum

3.1.1 ABD importance in the 2 agro-ecological zones

Summed Dominance Ratio (SDR) of food plant species

3.2.2 Factors influencing plant ABD

Species richness

Shannon index

Shannon evenness

Adjusted R2

Predictor variables

TLU/household member (0.00-0.41; TLU=Tropical Livestock Units)

Household head age (22-57)Farming years (0.5-30)Ethnicity of household head is Luhya (0=no, 1=yes)

Shannon index Diversity

Shannon evenness

3.2.2 Factors influencing plant ABDSpecies richness Shannon index Shannon

evennessAdjusted R2 49.1** 22.8** 25.8*

Predictor variables

TLU/household member (0.00-0.41; TLU=Tropical Livestock Units)

0.5*** ns ns

Household head age (22-57)

0.5** ns ns

Farming years (0.5-30) ns 0.5** 0.4*

Ethnicity of household head is Luhya (0=no, 1=yes)

ns ns 0.4*

For each of the predictor variables, standardized beta (β) coefficients are indicated. *, **and *** represent significant differences at p ≤0.05, p ≤0.01, p ≤0.001, respectively according to F-Test (for the model) or T-Test (for predictor variables)

3.1.2 Farm types: plant ABD composition

Minimum variance- Squared Euclidean - Data log(e) transformed density matrix

M-053M-060M-059M-092M-144M-054M-098M-099M-145M-148V-012V-071V-074M-056V-018V-121V-072M-100V-079V-078V-015V-020M-095V-123V-122V-126

720 600 480 360 240 120 0

‘Long-standing cereal-sweet potato’

‘Cereal’

‘Large sugarcane’

3.1.3 ABD & household food security: is there a relationship?

Proportion of on-farm food consumed during the last five times of consumption

No direct relationship between food plant ABD & household hunger scores

3.1 Farm agrobiodiversity: Summary

Importance of some food groups varies with agro-ecological zones

Food plant species richness is mainly influenced by socio-economic factors

There is no direct relationship

3.1 Farm agrobiodiversity

3. Completed research

3.2 Market agrobiodiversity

3.2.1 What is the role of markets in household food access?

(M)=Mumias, (V)= Vihiga Proportion of food sources during the last five times of consumption

3.2.2 What are the uses of on-farm produce?

(M)=Mumias, (V)= Vihiga Main food uses

3.2.3 What is the extent of smallholder market integration?

• Out of the interviewed market traders:

• 15%: smallholder farmers/part-time traders

•10%: small scale/travelling traders

•75%: large scale traders/ wholesalers

3.2 Market agrobiodiversity: Summary

Smallholders access from multiple sources

Smallholders produce food for both home consumption and for sale

Smallholders are least involved as sellers in formal markets

Overview (upcoming research)

4.1 Nutrient diversity

4. Upcoming research

4.2 Dietary diversity

4.1 Nutrient diversity• Species richness explains taxonomic identity, not functional identity

• Nutritional functional diversity metrics:• summarize nutritional diversity of cropping systems

• Previous studies: •Presence/absence-based functional diversity metric (Remans et al., 2011, DeClerck et al., 2011)

• Gap on abundance-based functional diversity metric:• Available data: abundance of on-farm food plants and livestock• Unavailable data: abundance of foods sourced off-farm

4.1 Nutrient diversity: key questions

What nutrients are available and what are missing for smallholders to have a diverse diet?

Using market price as proxy for food accessibility, how does food accessibility compare to income levels?

4.1 Nutrient diversity

4. Upcoming research

4.2 Dietary diversity

4.2 Dietary diversity

• Households with higher incomes can compensate for reduced on-farm ABD…

… but depends on who controls the income

• Subsistence-oriented crops viewed as women’s ‘domestic’ domain

•On-farm cultivation of nutritious foods…

… doesn’t translate to equal food access for all household members

4.2 Dietary diversity: key questions

How does food diversity vary across households, using 1-day and 7-day recalls?

Is there a relationship between agricultural and dietary diversity among these households?

Conclusions & recommendations

• Smallholder farmers utilize multiple channels to attain household food security

• Households with subsistence-oriented farming systems are not necessarily more food and nutrition secure

• Smallholder farmers need support to:– diversify more into high-value nutrient-dense crops and livestock

species (mention lydia’s concl.on ASFs to create connection)– get organised to fill in local market gaps & add value to surplus

(perishable) produce– improve access to formal markets & market traders

5. Conclusions & recommendations

• Supervisors:– Dr. Gudrun Keding (Bioversity)– Dr. Katja Kehlenbeck (ICRAF)– Dr. Patricia Daley (Oxford)– Dr. Shonil Bhagwat (Oxford)

• Funding sources:– Tuition funding at Oxford:

Rhodes Trust– Project funding at Bioversity:

GIZ-BMZ & CRP A4NH

• Plant specialists:– Patrick Maundu

Acknowledgements

• Smallholder farmers & market traders

• Local administration & contact persons

• Research assistants & data entry clerks

• INULA colleagues & Bioversity Staff

www.bioversityinternational.org

Thank you