political ecology agroforestry · scale farmers in developing countries. this thesis use the...
TRANSCRIPT
Political Ecology &
Agroforestry
A case-study from Kitale, Kenya
Author: Emma Svantes
Supervisor: Anders Törnqvist
Bachelor Thesis
2010
Abstract
The majority of the people in Kenya are living in poverty and 80 per cent of the population is
living in rural areas. For decades the country has emitted problems with land degradation, soil
erosion and lack of fertile soil. Agroforestry is a method were different species of trees are
planted together with crops to prevent land degradation and to improve productivity for small
scale farmers in developing countries. This thesis use the political ecology approach together
with a case study and follow-up from Kenya to present the importance of social, economical
and political stability to create a sustainable development from a human- and ecological
perspective. With a thesis of agroforestry implementation from 2006 as a background, a
follow-up was conducted in 2010. It became noticeable that the majority of the farmers were
affected by the political violence in 2007 and that the riot and the unstable situation had
negative impact on the farm economy, the production and the food supply in general. The
conclusion is that agroforestry is one of many methods for a sustainable human and
agricultural development, but stable social, economical and political structure is crucial.
Table of content
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Presentation ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Aim and research questions .............................................................................................. 2
1.2.1 Aim ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.2.2 Research questions ..................................................................................................... 2
2. Method ............................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Method of interviews ........................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Considerations in field ...................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Methods for landscape analysis ........................................................................................ 4
2.4 Field study method ........................................................................................................... 6
3. Theoretical framework ........................................................................................................ 8
3.1 Development ..................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Political ecology ............................................................................................................... 9
3.2.1 The concept ................................................................................................................ 9
3.2.2 The society and political ecology ............................................................................. 11
4. Kenya ............................................................................................................................... 12
4.1 Geography ....................................................................................................................... 12
4.2 Land use .......................................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Politics ............................................................................................................................ 14
4.3.1 Colonial heritage ...................................................................................................... 14
4.3.2 Political reform ....................................................................................................... 15
5. Agroforestry .................................................................................................................... 16
6. VI Agroforestry Programme .......................................................................................... 17
7. Case study from 2006, implementation of agroforestry, Trans Nzoia ....................... 18
8. 2010 Case study, Kenya .................................................................................................. 18
8.1 Endebess 1. ..................................................................................................................... 18
8.2 Endebess 2 ...................................................................................................................... 20
8.3 Endebess 4 ...................................................................................................................... 22
8.4 Cherengani 2 ................................................................................................................... 23
8.5 Cherengani 3 ................................................................................................................... 25
8.6 Cherengani 4 ................................................................................................................... 26
8.7 Kiminini 2 ....................................................................................................................... 28
8.9 Farmers’ perception of their situation in 2010 in comparison to 2006 ........................... 29
9. Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 32
10. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 36
11. Reference list ................................................................................................................... 40
Literature ............................................................................................................................... 40
Articles .................................................................................................................................. 40
Electronic sources ................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 1. The farmers’ perception of changes in economic situation, crop production, fruit availability, food supply and amount of livestock between 2006 and 2010. .......................... 29
Figure 2. Total number of farmers who named each crop as one of the five most important food or cash crop on their farm. ............................................................................................. 30
Figure 3. The farmers’ perception of the changes in soil erosion, soil fertility and availability of fuel and timber between 2006 and 2010. .......................................................................... 31
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Presentation
Agroforestry is a method were different species of trees are planted together with crops to
prevent land degradation, soil erosion, and to improve productivity for small scale farmers in
developing countries.
The majority of the people in Kenya are living in poverty and 80 per cent of the population is
living in rural areas. For decades the country has emitted problems with soil erosion and lack
of fertile soil. As a result there are several ongoing projects, both national and international
with the purpose to increase the agricultural life through agroforestry methods.
The Swedish non-governmental organization VI-SKOGEN (VI agroforestry programme), is
working in Trans Nzoia together with small scale farmers to increase their productivity
through agroforestry methods. In March 2006 a group of students from Högskolan Dalarna
in collaboration with VI-SKOGEN conducted a field study of agroforestry implementation at
a household level in the area. The aim with this report is to follow up the progress from that
study.
Kenya suffers from widespread corruption and ethnic tensions and during the 2007 elections
the country experienced ethnic violence that cost more than 1000 peoples life’s and forced
about 300 000 people to leave their homes. Since more than 80 per cent of the Kenyan people
are dependent on agricultural life the slow agricultural development effects the country’s
socio-economical situation.
Political ecology is a theoretical approach which can be use to study and analyze sustainable
development. This report use the political ecology approach together with a conducted case-
study of agroforestry in Kenya to present the importance of social, economical and political
stability to create a sustainable development from a human and ecological perspective.
2
1.2 Aim and research questions
1.2.1 Aim
By using a pilot study from 2006 as background and a conducted follow-up study from 2010,
my aim is to analyze the progress of agroforestry among small-scale farmers in Trans Nzoia,
Kenya. The political ecology approach will be used as method to explain the result of the
follow-up and the case study.
1.2.2 Research questions
- What is the farmers’ perception of their situation in 2010 in comparison to 2006 in
terms of the economic situation, the crop production and the food supply?
- Is the political ecology approach applicable for the case-study analysis of
agroforestry progress between 2006 and 2010 in Trans Nzoia?
- What importance has stable structures (social, economy and politic) for a sustainable
development in a human and ecological perspective?
2. Method
2.1 Method of interviews
Qualitative research seeks to understand the world through its actors by interacting,
empathizing and interpreting the actions and perceptions of these actors. The qualitative
method is used to understand and explore the meaning of people´s worlds and the personal
impacts of social structures and individual behavior. Methods include a variety of tools and
techniques such as interviews, focus groups, conversation and discourse analysis, fieldwork
diaries, oral histories, photographs and video documents. They all together or alone, provide
powerful insights into the world of other people (Scheyvens, Storey, 2003).
Cross-cultural research takes place between people of different cultural heritages,
backgrounds and practices and can take place anywhere. The research is difficult and involves
3
complexities, dilemmas and sensitivities, but also a unique and extremely privileged
opportunity to learn from other people and to understand another world (Limb, Dwyer, 2001).
In formal rural research, the method of questionnaire analysis is the most common. Through
this method, the researcher may find out about subjects or whatever different purpose that is
required (Chambers, 1983).
When using semi-structured interviews, the “Why?” “What?” and “How?” questions can get a
much more flexible answer which allows the researcher to explore issues with the informant
and to clarify complex responses. A semi-structured interview is based on a number of
standard but open-ended questions, which makes every interview unique with different
interesting lines of enquiry and complementary questions. During a semi-structured interview
the researcher may add new questions that can explain and give a wider insight to the
informant and their world (Thomas, Mohan, 2007).
Local interpreters often can, and do become “informants” in the field and a person who open
doors to other worlds, and who guides the researcher in understanding why people act and
behave the way they do. The problem when using a local translator is that one can be limited
and trapped within their perspective on their own society. It is not until the researcher self
begins to speak the language that one can decode the translator’s interpretations (Desai,
Potter, 2006).
2.2 Considerations in field
One of the difficulties of the field study was my lack of Swahili. When not been able to speak
or even understand the language, one need to rely on interpreters and that they are given the
whole story and every aspect of the informant’s words.
“It is common for the translators to ´filter out´ what they consider unimportant, even though this
might be precisely what the researcher needs and wishes to know”( Desai, Potter, 2006).
As Desai and Potter advice against, this became visible during my interviews. I repeatedly
told both the interpreter and the informant about my aim with the interview and the purpose
4
with the study in general. When one try to understand and is genuine interested of knowing
about one’s life, it’s important to try to get the whole picture. There were times when I felt
that the interpreter simplified the informants answer and that forced me to repeat the answer
again and ask follow-up questions on the same answer. Still I’m aware that small and
sometimes important pieces of the information were lost during the translation.
When conducting interviews it is important to be aware that the age, sex and ethnic
background of the interviewer may impact upon the informant´s responses. Translation is
described as a social relationship of power and status (Desai, Potter, 2006). This aspect
creates another consideration, that the informant potentially feels uncomfortable when a field
officer from VI AFP and two white students from Sweden arrive unannounced to the farm.
The informant might perceive themselves as in a state of being inferior, and as a result feel the
need to answer in a way that he or she thought was expected and wanted.
The study from 2006 is a pilot study by several students, and therefore the interviews and the
results are not standardized, which in turn creates difficulties in developing a follow-up.
Individual perceive and cognize answers and contexts different and then make a personal
summary, affect the result and gives a specific and certain ground for follow-up.
Lack of time is another consideration that can affect the result of the study. When
interviewing it is important to spare some time and not feel stressed, this concerns both the
informant and the researcher. Every interview took around 1, 5 hour and was conducted with
one member of the household. If time was not a problem, it would have been interesting to
interview both a woman (wife) and a man (husband) of the household, separately. This
approach might give some interesting perspectives and a wider understanding of the
difference in the daily life of a Kenyan farming household.
2.3 Methods for landscape analysis
Students and geographers from Högskolan Dalarna (HDa) have for number of years been
working on a method to analyze landscape changes through fieldwork with handheld
computers and the use of GIS-technology in combination with interviews at household level
(Törnqvist & Westholm, 2009).
5
The method has been applied in East Africa for the last few years in cooperation with VI
Agroforestry Program (VI AFP) to indentify land cover/ land use relationships, extensions of
agroforestry and degradation of tropical forests (Törnqvist & Westholm, 2009).
The method of using spatial data such as aerial photos and satellite images, and process data
by remote sensing and/or in a Geographical Information System (GIS) is a common method
among geographers when studying spatial processes and changes over time. According to
Törnqvist and Westholm (2009) the experience by remote sensing and GIS are efficient tools
to monitor and analyze land cover changes. But since the remote data cannot reveal details in
the landscape and give sufficient answers to questions related to drivers for social and
economic changes, they claim that it is necessary to use multiple methods to understand the
changes and why the different scales occur (Törnqvist & Westholm, 2009.).
On existing maps, aerial photos or satellite images there are details of the landscape that are
not visible. When mapping on the ground it becomes possible to document these details of the
landscape and to create a more detailed map of the object. The collecting of data in the field is
done with handheld computers and GIS. Then by transferring the data to a desktop computer
(PC) using the software ArcGIS, it becomes possible to select and digitalize different objects.
Points, lines and polygons can then be presented and analyzed in newly created maps
(Törnqvist & Westholm, 2009.).
To enhance the empirical base of data, semi-structured interviews have been carried out as a
further method for understanding the farmer’s daily life and living conditions, and also to
perceive their relationship with the land and the land use. The interviews are created with the
purpose to increase understanding of the influence the land has on household decisions
together with connected data and maps (Törnqvist & Westholm, 2009.).
This geographical method of both spatial data and GIS to create maps of the landscape, in
combination with household interviews, makes it possible to use several different factors
when environmental land use and landscape changes are being studied. This method gives a
wider spectra and more depth to the study (Törnqvist, Westholm, 2009).
6
2.4 Field study method
In 2006 a group of Swedish students from HDa conducted a field study in Trans Nzoia,
Kenya. The aim was to map, analyze and present elements in the west Kenyan agriculture
landscape and to learn about agroforestry. The result presented in the thesis “Agroforestry. En
studie av VI-skogens arbete i Kitale, Kenya” (Berglund, Bernhard, Fornlöf, Sjöblom,
Svedlund, 2006) and with that as background, a follow-up was conducted in 2010 to analyze
the progress of agroforestry among the same farmers. The follow-up is divided in two
different methods to analyze and explain the progress of agroforestry. This report use
interviews, informants and the political ecology approach as a method, while the other report
use GIS, mapping and physical environment as a method of explanation.
The 2006 field study took place in the area of Trans Nzoia, in the surroundings of Kitale and
included a number of small scale farms in Cherengani, Kiminini and Endebess. The study was
one of the first in the cooperation between HDa and VI AFP in the area and included field
courses, capacity building and research. The study have focused on issues relevant for VI
AFP, local communities and farmers and offered an opportunity for the Swedish students to
learn about methods of landscape changes, agroforestry and to be a part of a mutual exchange
of knowledge.
With handheld computers, the using of GIS-technology and interviews at household level, the
students presented the results in a pilot study. The aim was to examine how agroforestry was
implemented at household level in the area of Trans Nzoia, Kenya. Since the study from 2006
was the first study in the area, it also showed a zero-position in the landscape with both maps
and interviews as a background and it established a baseline for follow-up of the
implementation and also an opportunity to analyze the land use changes and the landscape
changes in the future. The result showed that among nine farms that different scales occur
within the implementation of agroforestry.
With the study and the results from 2006 as a background, a follow-up study was conducted
in November 2010 in the same area and within the same farms, but with a new group of
Swedish students. This time second part of the study, the aim was to use the same methods of
interviews and mapping as in 2006 to examine the landscape changes and the progress of
agroforestry during the last four years.
7
Field officers from VI AFP-Kitale together with two Swedish students from HDa spent
almost three weeks in the field to collect data and perform interviews with the Kenyan
farmers. The field officers and the staff from VI AFP assisted the Swedish students both as
interpreters and also as mapping assistants. To locate the same farmers as in 2006, maps and
the names of the farmers from 2006 were given to the VI AFP field officers in advance, so
that the farms and the people living there could be located.
The interpreter from VI AFP explained the purpose of the visit for the farmer, and introduced
the two Swedish students from HDa and the aim of the study and research follow-up. To
create a comfortable atmosphere and collaboration it was important to allocate some time for
greeting, presentation and conversation and also to ensure that the farmers’ participation was
voluntary. The map from 2006 was given to the farmer and initial information was given
about the field study that was going to take place as a follow-up.
One of the students together with one staff member from VI AFP as interpreter conducted the
interview with a member of the household, and the other student together with one staff from
VI AFP and a member of the household was walking around the farm to create a map, using
handheld computers and GIS. The male student has been creating the map while the female
student has been interviewing one of the farms household members. The staff from VI AFP
was both male and female. The interpreters proved invaluable as they were spoken fluent in
both Swahili and English and also possessed a great deal of knowledge about agroforestry and
the different species on the farms, and became very helpful.
As the study was a follow-up of earlier research, it was necessary to use the same
questionnaire as previously used in 2006. This consisted of semi-structured questions and was
constructed in such a manner as to confirm that the interpreter, the informant and the
researcher had understood both the question and one another correctly. Therefore some
questions were asked twice, but in different ways to verify that the question had been properly
understood. The farmer was informed that interview was an element of a Swedish students
University degree and that the result also would be used by VI AFP as an evaluation of their
work in the area. The farmers were also told that they at any time during the interview could
ask questions to fully understand the purpose of a question and that they also had the right not
to answer. Tape-recording was used to secure that the information wouldn’t get lost, since it
8
can be hard to write while people are speaking. In this report, the informants have been given
other fictitious names to become anonymous.
Even though the same questionnaire is used, every interview is unique as the informant, the
surroundings and the interpreter are particular to the situation. All of the interviews were
performed at the specific farm, giving the researchers an opportunity to get an inside-
perspective on the daily life as a Kenyan small scale farmer and created a casual and relaxed
atmosphere.
3. Theoretical framework
3.1 Development
The environment is necessary for human life and today the world is facing various
sustainability changes. The consumption-based environmental impacts are tied to economic
development, urban population and the structure of international trade and therefore it is also
a social issue. Every society driven by economic expansion is caught up in a conflict with
nature (Jorgenson, Clark, 2009), which make a long-term economic growth dependent on
reasoned management of the ecosystems and the resource bases (Mung’ong’o, 2009).
“Development is a frequently used word in all sorts of contexts. In the area of socio-economic
change, it implies efforts to improve the lives of people around the world” (Potter, 1999).
When development is mention in this report, it’s referring to the definition above, namely the
effort to improve the lives of people. There have been different ideas, definitions, strategies,
theories and ideologies concerning development since the Enlightenment period in the 18th
century. Within the early ideas, development was associated with westernization, modernity
and promoting economic growth. Later on alternative approaches came to include political-,
social, ethnic, cultural, ecological and other factors to the process of development and change
(Potter et al., 1999).
During the colonial era in Africa (1870s- 1960s), the colonial-authorities made considerable
efforts to conserve soils, forest and water supplies and the ideology was often pervaded with
9
disrespect for indigenous methods of land management and racism. The colonial
administration had a desire to change the traditions, the methods, the culture and the religion
of the colonized towards a rational; European model (Blaikie, Brookfield, 1987).
Potter et al. (1999) argues that development should meet the basic needs of the people and at
the same time also needs to be ecologically sensitive and incorporate public participation.
This alternative approach with perspective on development evolved in the mid 1970s. The
principal idea is that basic needs (food, clothing and housing) must be a first priority and this
approach is described as ‘development from below’ or a bottom-up approach. The bottom-up
development argues that (poor) nations should become more reliant on local resources to
increase self-sufficiency and self-reliance among the people (Potter et al., 1999).
Since the 1990s there has been a focus on sustainable development within the bottom-up
approach, stressing the need to preserve ecosystems and the environment to strengthen the
global economy. This approach emphasizes focus on basic needs, human resource
development, local small-scale projects, rural community-based development programs and
self-reliance by sustainability (Potter et al., 1999).
3.2 Political ecology
3.2.1 The concept
In 1985 Piers Blaikie represented an entirely new approach to development studies, using
social-political economic relations to explain and understand land degradation in the book
“The political economy of soil erosion in developing countries”. Two years later together with
Harold Brookfield he presented Land degradation and society (1987) and the theory of
political ecology.
The phrase ‘political ecology’ combines the concerns of ecology and a broadly defined political
economy. Together this encompasses the constantly shifting dialectic between society and land-
based resources, and also within classes and groups within the society itself.
(Blaikie, Brookfield, 1987)
10
Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) argue that when one’s try to understand development and land
degradation it’s important to involve a wider spectrum and combine studies of ecology
together with the present and contemporary society, since they claim that the issue is complex
and dynamic. Also case-study material is crucial to avoid a single hypothesis explanation and
together is provide the complex issue with understanding of the relationship between the land
user, land manage and the land itself.
Political ecology assumes that there is a shared relationship between the human being, the
society and natures ecosystems, which dynamically interact. The resources of nature are
socially constructed by human desires, needs and practices or by the conditions, means and
forces of production. These resources play a central role in shaping political and social
institutions within a society, and hierarchies, privilege, status and power come into play when
social dynamics shape the use of these resources (Mung’ong’o, 2009).
Bryant (1992) claims that political ecology can be used as an attempt to understand the
political sources, conditions and consequences of environmental change since politics are
implied in almost every eco-social problem.
A political ecology viewpoint requires approaching resource-linked conflicts as historical
processes of nature and of social groups. Mung’ong’on (2009) claims that contemporary
resource-linked conflicts are rooted in the history of mercantilism and colonial capitalism.
Scarcity or lack of resources (mostly of renewable resources) causes conflicts, and resource
abundance (mostly non-renewable resources) also causes conflicts. In both cases societies
have a higher risk of being affected by violent conflicts. Armed conflicts can be motivated by
the control of resources and armed conflicts can also be financed by environmental resources
(Mung’ong’o, 2009).
According to Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) land degradation should by definition be a social
problem as it implies a problem for those who use the land. It becomes a social issue when the
phenomenon is recognized and some sort of action is taken. But as long as this action is
effective and does not cause a conflict of interests, degradation does not become a problem.
However, when any kind of action is taken against degradation, soil erosion becomes a
political-economic issue (Blaikie, 1985).
11
3.2.2 The society and political ecology
Bryant (1992) argues that analyses of environmental change must always be related to state
policies, interstate relations and global capitalism and involve multiplicity of scales, diverse
approaches and conclusions to avoid environmental determinism.
State policies play an essential role in the interaction between humans and the environment, in
suggesting priorities and practices and in structuring social discourse about environmental
change. This gives the state a role both as a developer and a protector of the natural
environment and this phenomenon also creates an inherent and continuing potential for
conflict. Bryant (1992) continues with arguing that the state policies are a struggle over
resources, property rights and authority which often facilitate the interest of powerful
economic elite and implicate both social concern and ecological degradation.
According to Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) the state commonly tends to lend its power to
dominant groups and classes and marginalizes weaker groups through actions as taxes, food
policy, land tenure policy and the allocation of resources. The (state) elite also tend to form a
powerful set of economic interest (Blaikie, 1985).
When living and working in an environment of risk and uncertainty, farmers are unwilling to
embark in new practices which might increase their risk. Innovative behavior involves risk
and uncertainty. Wealthier farmers are better able to bear risks, and so stand to gain more
from its benefits than poorer farmers (Blaikie, Brookfield, 1987). When embracing both
historical and contemporary dynamics of conflict, the method of political ecology illustrates
how those without power fight to protect the environmental foundations of their livelihood
(Bryant, 1992).
In peasant and pastoral groups, family labor is employed and the farm production is primarily
for use rather than for sale, even though the latter may be essential. Blaikie (1985) claims that
the introduction of cash crops reduced food security and made the farmers more vulnerable as
the planting of cash crops is much less soil conserving compared to inter- or multi- cropping.
The consequence of mono-cropping is almost always a loss of nutrients and erosion (Blaikie,
Brookfield, 1987).
12
Africa is one of the most ecologically rich continents in the world, yet it is facing problems of
deforestation, loss of soil fertility, lack of good quality water and loss of biodiversity. To
addressing these issues governments has established various institutions and also formulate
policies to protect and manage the environment (Mung’ong’o, 2009).
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have started as a step to empowering the poor
through community participation and these projects tend to be small-scale and focus on using
local resources and technologies with the participation of the local people. These
organizations are voluntary and independent from the government, which make them political
neutral in states and countries struggling with conflicts and corruption (Potter et al., 1999).
Blaikie and Brookfield (1987) claim that case-study material is crucial in avoiding single
hypothesis explanation of degradation. Instead they suggest that degradation should be
studied with complexity and variety to understand and explain the relationship between the
land user, land management and the land itself.
When one use the political ecology approach, it’s important to understand the different
aspects of the society such as political, economical, social and environmental angles. This
thesis analyses the progress of agroforestry in Trans Nzoia, Kenya, and therefore it’s
important to study the socio-political, economical and geographical backgrounds of the
country. A short background of Kenya will therefore be presented in chapter 4.
4. Kenya
4.1 Geography
Kenya is located in East Africa and lies on the Equator. Mount Kenya (5199 meters above sea
level), the second highest mountain in Africa gave the country its name. There is a large
geographical variety within the country, were one can find both long stretches of coast, a
fertile plateau in the central and western regions, dry savanna in south, tropical rainforest and
steppe and semi-desert in the north. In the western parts lies Lake Victoria, the second largest
freshwater lake in the world. The climate varies from the tropical coast to the dry inland. The
fertile Rift Valley stretches across the country in north-south direction. Kenya offers a wide
13
range of agricultural conditions, from fertile soil and pleasant climate on the high plateau, to
inhospitable places with semi-deserts (www.viskogen.se).
Kenya has a population of about 40 million and is made up of 42 indigenous communities.
The largest are the Kikuyu (22 %), Luhya (14 %), Luo (13 %), Kalenjin (12 %) and Kamba
(11 %).The majority of these groups arrived in the area around 13th and 15th centuries. Kenya
was colonized by Great Britain in 1896 and became independent in 1963 (www.viskogen.se)
4.2 Land use
Kenya is dependent on agriculture and around 70 percent of Kenya’s population live in rural
areas. As defined by the World Bank in 2000, only 7 per cent of the country’s area is high
potential arable land. (Ekbom, Knutsson, Ovuka, 2001) Over half of the total population
experience poverty. Since the 1970s Kenya’s food production has reduced due to the rapidly
increasing population in combination with soil erosion and land degradation (Ekbom,
Knutsson, Ovuka, 2001).
Over 80 percent of the Kenyan population is farmers and most of them are small-scale
farmers, although there are 3000 large-scale farms. Despite the fact that large part of the
population is connected to farming, a lot of them are also dependent on famine relief and the
country are forced to import large amount of provision. The fast growing population and
increasing pressure on agricultural land is causing violent conflicts between communities and
groups (Imbernon, 1999)
During the 1970s and 1980s Kenya increased their food production by using chemical
fertilizers. At the same time hybrid-maize were introduced to small—scale farmers and
together with the subvention of chemical fertilizer from the government this improved the
country’s food production. At the beginning of the 1990s the state discontinued the
subvention of fertilizers and therefore many of the farmers today cannot afford to use the right
amount to increase the soil fertility (Maithya, Kimenye, Mugivane, Ramisch, 2006).
Despite the investment on chemical fertilizers and hybrid-crops the food production in Kenya
has decreased. The fast growing population is forced to intensify their cultivation of the
14
already lacking agricultural land. This puts pressure on the soil in many different ways and as
a result the soil becomes poor and degraded. The small-scale farmers cannot afford the
amount of fertilizers to nourish their land. Without fertilizers or long periods of tread the
production of crops and food for the household is lessen. Furthermore the Kenyan rural family
is large and lives on small plots. The climate changes puts pressure on the small-scale farmers
with drought or heavy rains, which also affect the livestock since the lack of fodder is great
(Kwesiga, Akinnifesi, Mafongoya, McDermott, and Agumya 2003)
4.3 Politics
4.3.1 Colonial heritage
Some key features of the colonial rule in Africa have persisted even after independence and
appear as ethnic fragmentation and competition in a centralized strict bureaucratic system
(Fredriksen, 2010). Some communities were rewarded both economically and politically since
they allied themselves to the colonial powers (Ogachi, 1999). These features of elite-structure,
patronage and ethnic identification can be found throughout the countries’ hierarchy and as
deep as into state institutions. Both the colonial and post-independence state of Kenya have
contributed to the fragmentation of the country and its people, by viewing the people as
members of communities (based on ethnic belonging and social class) instead of citizens of a
society (Fredriksen, 2010).
During the colonial period, Rift Valley was the main location for British and South African
settlers, and was called the White Highlands. During the 1920s, landless Africans, mostly
Kikuyu, had voluntary moved, or been forced to move from the overpopulated Central
Province and became squatters and farm laborers at white-owned farms in the Rift Valley.
The Kikuyu became mixed and competed with groups of Maasai and Kalenjin. When the
white-owned land was redistributed to African peasants in the 1960s, the process was
sponsored by the ex-colonial state and the newly independent state and contributed to tensions
and rival among the different groups claiming land (Fredriksen, 2010).
When Kenya became independent in 1963, the new government was largely formed from the
two major ethnic groups; the Luo and the Kikuyu, who together comprised the greater part of
the overall population. Furthermore, the two communities constituted a sort of elite
15
population that was more educated, urbanized and political mobilized and left the rest of
Kenya’s population marginalized, increasingly the ethnic tensions among the people. The
minority ethnicities formed a political party called Kenya African Democratic Union (KADU)
as a response to the Luo-Kikuyu alliance party; Kenya African National Union (KANU)
(Ogachi, 1999).
Ekbom, Knutsson and Ovuka (2001) claim that corruption is a common feature within the
society of Kenya and that the phenomenon threatens the economy and social structure of the
country. Because of the political system, ethnic conflicts and tension and hierarchy of classes
and groups, Kenya has evolved into a divided society. Corruption, drained public resources,
mistrusts among the people and ethnic tension hinder all kinds of effective cooperation and
therefore also put sustainable development at risk (Ekbom, Knutsson, Ovuka, 2001).
4.3.2 Political reform
A reform of multi-party political system was introduced in Kenya in early December 1991
through domestic and international pressure on KANU, who so far had declared KANU as the
only legalized party (Frame, 2007) According to Ogachi (1999), the political pluralism of
multi-party selections that occurred in 1991 was a factor that changed the socio-economic
structure of Kenya’s society. The new political reform created ethnic tension and violence to
undermine different parties and communities. Clashes in 1992 killed over 2000 people and
left over 20, 000 people homeless. In 1993 tribal clashes continued in Rift Valley and by
November the same year, at least 1500 people was killed (Frame, 2007).
Ogachi (1999) claim that ethnic clashes have occurred and are still occurring in Kenya. The
latest erupted in 2007 and cost over 1500 people their lives. When Kenya conducted the
fourth elections of multiparty system in December 2007, a large political crisis brought the
country back to violence and ethnic tension. The opposition, civil society, domestic and
international observers questioned the official declared victory of President Mwai Kibaki.
Kibaki and the ruling Party of National Unity (PNU) had support from Kikuyu, Embu and
Meru-communities, while the Luo and Kalenjin communities voted for Raila Odinga and
Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) (Harneit-Sievers, Peters, 2008).
16
According to Fredriksen (2010) the political alliance of Luo and Kalenjin parties encouraged
activities such as violent demonstrations, shortly after the official announcement of the
victory of President Kibaki and PNU. As a response to the destroyed lives and property,
supporters of PNU and their allied struck back and the violent escalated. Harneit-Sievers and
Peters (2008) report that social injustice, mistrust and long standing conflicts over land was
the source behind riot that effected Rift Valley, Nyanza Province the most. On February 28th,
2008, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan managed to negotiate between Kibaki and
Odinga and created a coalition government with Kibaki as President and Odinga as Prime
minister.
5. Agroforestry
Agroforestry is a collective name for land-use systems and practices in which woody perennials are deliberately integrated with crops and/or animals on the same land management unit. The integration can be either in a spatial mixture or in a temporal sequence. There are normally both ecological and economic interactions between woody and non-woody components in agroforestry. (www.viskogen.se)
Agroforestry has been found to be a useful method for small scale farmers in developing
countries. The method can prevent soil erosion and land degradation and improve the soil
fertility therefore by contributing to a sustainable future for the small scale farmer
(www.viskogen.se).
In many places in Africa struggle concerns that longer periods of tread (20-30 years) no
longer is possible and at the same time a tread period of only 10 years is not enough to
recover the soil and its fertility. One method to contribute the soil nutrition is the use of
certain tree- and crop-spices that return high content of nitrogen and humus substance. There
trees also produce wood for different purpose such as building material and fuel, which in
turn also improve the economy for the farmer. The trees also provide fodder for animals,
shadow and nutrition to the soil (Imbernon, 1999).
Cultivating in terraces and planting of grass-strip i two of many different land improvement
techniques that are being used to control the negative process of erosion and leached soils.
17
Okoba and De Graaff (2004) mean that the farmers in developing countries are aware of the
problem with inadequate land. But their often weak economical situation stops them to invest
in different techniques and crops and instead they are forced to cultivate in a use short-term
way that need less of a chance.
To achieve a successful agroforestry system, Kwesiga claims that the technique always must
people on their conditions and desire. It is also of importance to offer technical information,
micro loans and credit-system and to improve the possibility to sell the abundance. Most
important is that the (Okaba, Graaff, 2004)
6. VI Agroforestry Programme
The VI Agroforestry Programme (VI AFP) is a Swedish based, non-political/governmental,
non-religious and non-profit organization, supported by private voluntary donors and annual
allotments from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and the
Swedish Cooperative movement. (www.viskogen)
The VI AFP started in 1983 in the area of West Pokot, Kenya to stop the desertification and
soil erosion in East Africa and to make the area around Lake Victoria green. The program of
planting trees expanded to the area of Trans Nzoia, Kitale in 1986. From tree planting, the
program and concept developed further to promote different agroforestry techniques in
combination with planting trees. Different projects spread around Lake Victoria and VI AFP
established programs in Uganda in 1992, Tanzania 1994 and in Rwanda 2004
(www.viskogen.se).
The overall aim of the program is to improve the livelihood of small-scale farmers through the
practice of agroforestry and education in sustainable agriculture through different practices.
VI AFP work at a household level to create an ecological and sustainability environment;
increase the food and nutritional security, increase fuel-wood availability and to increase the
household income (www.viskogen.se).
18
According to VI AFP, the trees provide the farmer with fuel-wood, timber, medicine, shadow,
fodder and building material. Fruit and the leaves can be used as fertilizers to improve the
soil. The trees contribute to making the family self-sufficient and at the best- create economic
buffers that secure school fees and health care (www.viskogen.se).
7. Case study from 2006, implementation of agroforestry, Trans Nzoia
In 2006 a group of Swedish students from HDa conducted a field study in Trans Nzoia,
Kenya. A total of 9 farms in the areas of Cherenagny, Endebess and Kiminini were mapped,
analyzed and presented in the thesis. The result showed that the level of implementation of
agroforestry and the different techniques among the farmers varied.
The farmer’s private economy affects the level of implementation, but at the same time, the
implementation affects the economy. With higher economic input the economic gain is
higher. The thesis shows that farmers adopt the planting of trees for several reasons; fuel-
wood, fodder, wind breakers, building material, to prevent soil erosion and to improve the soil
fertility.
There are several different explanations to the extended variation of the agroforestry
implementation. One possible factor is the farmers’ economical situation which determines
where the household money is invested. Another possible factor discussed in the thesis, is the
access to education and knowledge about the agroforestry concept and the different methods
and benefits from the method.
8. 2010 Case study, Kenya
8.1 Endebess 1.
Maya is alone with her two youngest children (age three and eighteen months) when the
interview is conducted. She seems shy and speaks in a low voice when she tells us that the
19
rest of the six children are at school (age sixteen to six) and will be home for lunch and that
her husband Peter is out herding the animals a few kilometers further away on the slopes.
Maya spares some time for us, first showing the farm and then bringing chairs from the small
house made of clay and manure. We sit down outside to conduct the interview. She tells me
that the family is originally from Matonbay Central and they moved to the area in 2001 and
bought the piece of land on the slopes of Endebess. The farm with homestead is about two
acres and they also own a piece of land about 1 km from the homestead where they grow
maize for selling. The land will be divided between their five sons, according to the tradition
she says.
As an investment they have bought a small piece of land with a house in the town of Endebess
that they rent out to get some cash income. They both work as farmers, but as an extra income
Maya produce tablecloths and sells to the neighbors. The farm also sells some milk now and
then, and when it’s possible their abundance of maize, beans, potatoes, eggs and meat to the
neighbors. Maya tells me that when a friend is in need, they give away what they can spare.
Since 2006 the farm has made some investments, such as the small plot with the house for
rent out and also invested in two cows and a store for maize. Maya says that the house in
Endebess is not big, but it gives them some extra income that provides for the children’s
school fees. The biggest expense for the household economy is farm input and the school fees
for the children. When I ask her what kind of input she answers “the farm always cost us
money and needs different kinds of input, all the time”. In addition they need to buy products
to cover their basic needs such as salt, sugar, oil and other household supply.
When Maya is asked to mention the five most important crops on the farm she names maize,
beans, finger millet, sweet potatoes and local vegetables. She also mentions trees and explain
that they are very important to the farm as the trees provide them with fuel, but at the same
time, she says that they have very few trees since animals from the neighbors have destroyed
the ones they had and now only a few remain.
Maya uses an open fire for cooking which requires a large amount of fuel, wood and charcoal.
She tells me that the family needs to walk about four kilometers and spend about three- four
hours a day collecting fire wood outside the farm. They collect water from a local river about
20
0, 5 kilometer away, using the donkey. She says that the lack of water nearby is a problem
that affects them in different ways. For example she says that it’s impossible to start a tree
nursery without access to water.
Today the family own four cows, one bull, one donkey, three calves and fifteen chickens that
produce milk, eggs and meat both for the household and for selling. The animals are kept at
the farm with free range and the chickens are kept in cages during the night. The manure is
used as fertilizers together with crop residue and chemical fertilizers to improve the soil
fertility.
There are some minor problems with soil erosion on the farm according to Jacqueline, but
since they created some terraces in 2001 most of the top soil remain on the plot, even during
the rain. They also use trash lines of maize to control erosion.
When asked about agroforestry and if she knows anything about the concept she answers “ I
know that trees are very important” and then she describes how the trees can be used in many
different ways such as for medicine, fuel, timber, building material, fences and fodder for the
animals. Even though Maya says that their economical situation is better compared to 2006,
she is concerned about the lack of fuel wood and timber and describes how the collection of
wood for the household is hard and time consuming.
8.2 Endebess 2
When we arrive at the farm looking for the owner David, we find his son Steve and his wife
Maria taking care of the farm as David and his wife Juliet are in Uganda at the moment. Steve
was the informant in the study from 2006 and says that he remembers the Swedish students.
He smiles when we hand over the map from 2006 and describe the purpose for our visit this
time. Steve says that he is pleased that we have returned and that there has been some
progress at the farm. He appears proud when showing us the irrigation system that he has
constructed this year to improve the tomato crops. Steve and I sit down in the shadow of a big
tree together with the interpreter from VI AFP to conduct the interview.
Today there are six people living on the farm. David and his wife Juliet, their son Steve with
wife Maria and their two daughters, age three and one. The whole family works on the farm
21
together and Steve says that both David and he work at some kind of veterinarian in the area.
Steve also makes some money as a photographer and works on other farms.
David is originally from Uganda and has a second wife and family there. In 1984 he bought a
plot of four acres in Endebess for his wife Juliet, and another plot in Uganda for the second
wife, giving them each a piece of land to care for and to keep them apart. Now and then he
travels to Uganda to visit and take care of the family. David’s family in Kenya consists of
nine children, and six in Uganda. Since Steve is the last born son of Juliet, he will inherit the
farm. So far he has been given one acre and has built a house on his plot.
When Steve is asked to mention the five most important crops on the farm he names maize,
beans, bananas, tomatoes and local vegetables. He also says that the farm mostly produces
enough oranges, tomatoes, bananas, milk, timber and meat to sell at the market and to
neighbors. They also exchange products with neighbors when needed and he says that the
sometimes give away food and products to people in need. Like a lot of other farmers, they
need to buy products such as salt, sugar, oil, rice and other household supplies.
The biggest expenses are school fees and buying food and household supplies. Cash is needed
to pay for the school fees and Steve describes how nine children and grandchildren cost a lot
of money. Since 2006 the farm has invested in a new house, a store, more crop diversity and a
few animals. Steve says that producing more crops for selling would increase their cash
income and that they also need to invest time and money in farm input. In an attempt to
improve the tomato crops, a ditch or narrow canal is spaded from the stream above the farm,
and down into the tomato field. The stream supplies the farm with water during the year.
Today the family owns four cows, three bulls, one ox, six sheep, ten chickens, three dogs and
one cat. All of the animals are free range and semi stalled. They are fed with fodder and maize
from the farm. The manure is used as fertilizer together with crop residue and some chemical
fertilizers.
Although an open fire is used for cooking the farm is completely self-sufficient in fuel wood.
Dried out maize stocks and crop waste are also used as fuel. Steve seems proud when he
describes the different trees and how they are used and when I ask why they plant trees he
answers; “they provide us with fuel, timber, building material and help to prevent soil
22
erosion. That is why it is very important to make sure we have trees all the time and to re-
plant trees that have been taken down”. Steve describes how he considers the trees important
for their economy and that he know about the neighbors struggle to find fuel every day.
Even though he describes how they use agroforestry practice (diverse cropping, terraces, trash
lines and planting trees) to improve the farm, they struggled a lot during the drought in 2006
and 2007. The overall situation at the farm since 2006 is described as much better as they are
self-sufficient in many ways.
8.3 Endebess 4
Anna welcomes me with a big hug, kisses and calls me her daughter. She is seventy years old
and still she is beautiful and gives me the impression of an iron lady. She wants to hold my
hand during the interview and tells me that this meeting is a blessing, that she is blessed that
we chosen to return to her farm and she remind me again that I’m her daughter and its might
seem ridiculous, but I can really feel her care and concern.
Anna and her husband Aaron live on the farm together with their children and grandchildren,
a total of eleven people. Anna is one of Aaron’s four wives and she was given the land of four
acres from Aaron in 1982. Today 1, 5 acres of the land has been divided to their son Jacob
and his wife Lucia. When I sit down to conduct the interview with Anna, she thinks that Lucia
should be participating since she also is part of the farm. Lucia joins the interview.
When I ask if they can mention the five most important crops on the farm, they name maize,
beans, sweet potatoes, tomatoes and bananas. These crops are used both for their own need
and for selling in the market and to neighbors. When friends or neighbors are in need, they
give what they can spare, knowing that the help will return when needed.
Farming is the only income to the household and they sometimes work on other farms to
collect cash. Anna and Lucia describe how farm input such as fertilizers and seeds are one of
the most expensive costs for the household, and at the same time the farm is their only source
of income. A mixture of manure, crop residue and chemical fertilizers is used to improve the
soil. I ask what they would need to invest in to increase their income and they agree that they
need another plot to produce more crops for selling.
23
Since 2006 there has been a lot of progress on the farm says Anna and points at the donkey to
give me an example. She tells me that they rent out the donkey as a carriage animal or use it
for collecting fire wood for selling. She also says that they today use the technique of more
crop diversity and try to control erosion by using terraces and trash lines of maize waste.
Today they have one cow, five sheep, seven chickens, two dogs and one donkey on the farm
and all the animals are free range and fed with fodder from the farm.
Anna and Lucia point to the stream about 100 meters away and tell me that it provides the
farm with water for washing, drinking, cooking and for the animals. Since the women cook
over an open fire a lot of fuel is required. Crop waste, dried out maize stocks and fire wood is
needed and the all the women and children of the household spend about eight hours per week
to collect firewood from the forest. Using the donkey, they manage to collect and transport
enough even to sell.
Anna explains that she is worried about the wood supply from the nearby forest, since the
reduction of trees is visible. Therefore she says that they must plant trees on the farm during
the next rain season. When I ask if anyone knows about agroforestry she says no, but Lucia
tells me that she knows that farmers who adopt agroforestry have improved their farms and
their income.
Before I leave, I ask the women about their overall situation, whether it is better or worse
compare to 2006, they discourage. Anna claims that their situation is worse but Lucia answers
that the farm producing has increased and that Anna’s answer may depend on the fact that
there are more people to feed now than four years ago.
8.4 Cherengani 2
After only a few minutes of introduction about whom we are and our purpose with the visit,
William immediately starts to show us the farm and the new house. “They even had torn down
the outhouse toilet! Look, nothing left! Why the toilet?” He becomes upset when he talks
about the violence that forced him to leave his home and live in a camp. As a heavy rain
starts, the interview takes place in the car. William is thoughtful and seems to think before he
answers my questions.
24
William is originally from Kiisi but moved to Cherengany in 1983 and bought the land of one
acre. Today he lives alone on the farm, apart from the farm boy helping him. He has nine
children that need his support. In 2010 he invested in a further plot, for cultivating beans. He
says that the plot is small, only 100x50 meters and that the beans are for selling at the market.
When I ask William to name the five most important crops he mentions maize, beans,
pumpkin, beetroot and local vegetables. All of these crops and napia grass are also used to sell
on the nearby market. Carrots, beans, pumpkin and beetroot are sometimes given to friends
and neighbors but he never exchanges products. He also says that he seldom buys food, only
salt and some household supplies such as oil and soap. “You don’t even buy sugar?” No, I
never eat sugar; I eat mostly products from my farm”. He gives me the impression of being a
simple but determined person.
William’s only source of income is the farming and therefore he wishes to buy a small shop at
the market to sell his crops and pay the children’s school fees. Since 2006 he has started to
grow beetroot, carrots, planted some fruit trees and created a small kitchen garden with
vegetables. He has also invested in three dairy cows (one he sold this year) and some trees.
Today he own two cows, ten chickens and two cats. There are three paddocks on the farm
where he keeps the cows and feeds them with fodder and napia grass from the farm. The
manure is used together with crop waste and chemical fertilizers to improve the soil fertility.
He says that he doesn’t have any problems with soil erosion since he uses different methods
to control the soil such as terraces, napia grass and trash lines.
The farms’ water supply comes from a local well and he also collects rainwater in a tank that
was given to him as compensation for his time in the camp. The food is cooked by means of
improved stove and sometimes he uses a gasoline stove. Dried out maize stocks, crop waste,
paraffin and firewood are used as fuel and he says that since he is completely self-sufficient in
firewood the cost are low. He uses seedlings from the farm and tells me that since the trees are
important for the economy they are replaced immediately when cut down.
William is straightforward when he describes the violent and unsafe time that followed the
elections in 2007. He was forced from his home, his animals were stolen and people destroyed
his property and took his belongings. He stayed in a camp between 2007- 2008. In the end of
2008 he could return to his farm and start over again. As compensation the government of
25
Japan gave him two new houses with a tin roof and a water tank. Overall William says that
the future is positive and that the help from VI AFP before, during and after the time in camp
has improved the farm.
8.5 Cherengani 3
Edith is a widow living on the farm together with her three children (age nine to nineteen) and
an employee. In 1994 she moved together with her husband from Kisii as her father bought
and gave them the 1, 5 acre plot. She tells me that her only son according to the culture and
tradition will inherit the farm in the future. Her daughters will get married and move in
together with their husband and his family. We sit down outside in the shade of a tree and she
gives me a fruit from a tree standing in the centre of the compound. When I tell her that’s the
best guava I’ve ever eaten, she bursts into smile and gives me another.
I ask her to mention the five most important crops on the farm and she hesitates and ask if
products from trees are included; “any crops that are most important for the farm, including
fruits?” Then she name maize, beans, avocado, bananas and millet. All of these crops are used
both for the household needs, and also for selling at market and to neighbors. She also
mentions that she sells timber and milk and gives away some vegetables to people in need.
As the interview continues Edith explains that her family seldom buys food, instead they try
to use the products of the farm or exchange products with neighbors. Products like salt, sugar,
oil and household supplies which they cannot produce are bought at the market or from
neighbors.
Being alone with three children to support, Edith explains that she is dependent on the farm
and its profitability and therefore she says that she needs to invest further into different farm
input. “I would like to grow tomatoes and other crops that can return cash”. Farm input and
schools fees are the biggest expenses she explains.
When I ask Edith if the farm has improved since 2006 she says that they now use crop
diversity to secure the food supply. She has also built a store for maize and invested in a dairy
cow. Since Edith and her family were forced away for the farm in the tumult of the elections
26
in December 2007, the Japanese Government compensated her with a new tin roofed house
and a water tank. When I ask if there is anything else that she has invested in she says that
they recently built two beehives and that she hopes they will produce honey in the future.
Today the farm has three cows, one bull, twenty chickens, three cats and two beehives. The
cows and the bull are standing in the paddocks of the farm, fed with leaves, napia grass, maize
and fodder. The animals produce eggs, milk and meat and hopefully honey in the future.
During the time in the camp Edith says that she was trained into using compost as fertilizer
and that she tries to avoid using too much manure since she noticed how the soil was
destroyed and vermin attacked the crops as a result of the over fertilization.
The farm is self-sufficient in firewood and fodder for the animals. When I ask Edith the
reason why she plants trees she answer; “the trees are used both for fruit, firewood and
timber. They also control soil erosion and provide the household with cash” She takes the
seedlings from the farm and has her own tree nursery. She describes several benefits from
agroforestry and says that the farm practices the concept when using intercropping and crop
diversity, planting trees and controlling erosion. During the heavy rain the farm had some
problems with water that jammed up in some parts of the fields, but she plans to plant
sugarcane as an effective method to control the water.
Even though the family spent almost a year in camp, forced out of their own home, Edith says
that she feels secure now with the new government and that the overall situation today is
much better than in 2006. When I ask if she feels secure enough to invest in the farm she
answers with a smile “of course…”
8.6 Cherengani 4
In 2006 Sarah and her husband Kevin lived at the farm in Cherengani. During our visit we
found out that the family had moved out during the violence in the end of 2007. They never
returned to the farm. Instead her sister-in-law Ruth, Ruth’s husband Josh and their son and
daughter moved in at the end of 2008. We find Ruth in the village school where she works as
a teacher. Since Ruth speaks English fluently the interview is conducted between the two of
us, with no interpreter needed. At first we sit down inside the new house, given as
27
compensation from the Japanese Government, but we are interrupting by hundreds of wasps
buzzing around us, so we take refuge outside in the shade.
Since this farm is part of a family land bought in 1978, both Kevin and Josh posse’s parts of
the land, divided between them both in 2009. Ruth and her husband had just moved into a
house on the farm together with Sarah’s family before the violence begun in end of December
2007. The both families spent three months in camp, and returned to a completely destroyed
farm with all of the crops and animals stolen. Sarah and her family felt insecure and decided
to move to Kibomet and only return to harvest the piece of land when needed. Ruth says that
she think they will never return again. Together they also have about three acres of land a few
kilometers away, where they grow maize and beans.
Ruth works as a teacher in the village and Josh is an engineer working for Kenya Power in
Kitale. Today the family depends mostly on their salary and not on the farming output. When
I ask if she can mention the five most important crops she names maize, beans, avocado,
bananas and millet. The family sells all of these crops and also gives away ten per cent to
church and some crops to friends. Since they no longer keep any animals they are forced to
buy milk, eggs and meat, plus other household supplies. The biggest expense is school fees
and the fact that “farm input costs more than the output”. Ruth is straightforward when she
says that she has become skeptical to farming; the price of selling the crops is not paying well
since the fertilizers are expensive, and without animals, no manure. She says that she is
thinking of stop the farming of maize and beans and instead investing in poultry and dairy
production.
When I ask about the future she answers that they are afraid and uncertain of investing in the
farming, since they have seen everything taken away before and left with nothing. When they
returned to the farm in 2008 terraces of napia grass, trees and the sugarcane were destroyed
which contributed to some soil erosion down the slopes. Some of the trees have been taken
down by Ruth as timber for their new house and she have replaced some of them with
avocado, a choice made when she heard that an avocado factory might establish in the area.
Ruth describes a quite negative and sad picture of their life at the farm and she says that it’s a
daily struggle and that they are uncertain if they should stay. The overall situation today
compared to 2006 is much worse. Although Ruth is aware of the benefits of agroforestry, she
doesn’t know it the input is worth it right now, today. “Maybe in the future. “
28
8.7 Kiminini 2
We were not sure if Betty would be located since it was uncertain that she would be alive,
considering her age of 78. It was an old woman who opened the door and invited me to her
new house, built by her sons as a gift, and we sit down in a wooden bench to conduct the
interview. She presents herself as Betty. It’s a little confusing when trying to understand how
many people live on the farm. At first she says three grandchildren, and at the same time she
says that they are twenty four people living together, divided into three different farms. Betty
is the first wife and her late husband has a second wife living nearby. The husband brought
his two wives to Kiminini in 1963 to buy a total of 21 acres of land and divide between them
and the sons. Betty and the other wife got 1 acre each, and the three sons of Betty were given
three acres each, the rest of the land was divided between the sons of the second wife. Today
Betty has retired from the farming life and now she is taken care of and being supported by
the sons and grandchildren.
Apart from the farm output, Betty is being supported and provided for by her three sons since
she is too old to work. Instead she cooks and sells the crops on the market. But her age is
troubling her and she tells me that she just got back from hospital she starts to feel old and
weak and is losing her eyesight.
I try to ask her to mention the five most important crops on the farm and she answers
“bananas”. After some time she names maize, bananas, lemon, avocado and sweet potato.
Since the market is close by she can easily sell the products such as fruit but she would prefer
a small market stall so that she could sit down. She says that she also used to sell timber and
firewood but now there is no trees left on her own plot, since the new house was built. The
families need to buy the basic need of food and household supplies. The biggest expenses
during the year are school fees and chemical fertilizers.
In 2009 a new house was built for Betty and she explains how that’s the reason why the plot is
now lacking trees. Despite this fact, the farm is self sufficient in firewood and timber. Her
sons are taking care of the farm and they use manure, compost and chemical fertilizers to
increase the soil fertility. A few years ago she gave away her animals as she became weaker.
The children collect water from the farm’s own well and they also collect rainwater in a huge
tank.
29
0
1
2
3
4
Much worse
Worse No change Better Much better
Num
ber
of fa
rmer
s
Present situation
Economic situation
Crop production
Fruit availability
Food supply
Amount of livestock
After cutting down some of the sesbania sesbania in the field, problems with soil erosion
occurred and therefore Betty says that they must replace the tree row to control and prevent
erosion. According to the VI AFP staff Betty was one of the most active women in the
agroforestry program in Kiminini. She smiles and explains for me the benefits of agroforestry
and planting of trees; windbreakers, fruits, timber, preventing erosion, medical cure, shade
and crop diversity. She says that the overall situation today is better than in 2006 and she
specific wants to tell me that agroforestry has help the family and improved the farm and their
household economy.
8.9 Farmers’ perception of their situation in 2010 in comparison to 2006
As presented in the interviews and also in the diagram below, the majority of the farmers
considered their overall situation in 2010 compared to 2006, as better or much better. The
economic situation, the crop production and the food supply are consider much better or better
then in 2006. Five of the farmers also claim that the fruit availability is better or much better
and only one farmer mention that there has been no change.
These factors are connected and interdependent, as one of them increase so does the others.
The economic situation depends heavily on the crop production since it is used both for
household needs and for selling. Reduced crop production also reduces the households overall
margin and put the farm and the household at risk.
Figure 1. The farmers’ perception of changes in economic situation, crop production, fruit availability, food supply and amount of livestock between 2006 and 2010.
30
7 6
4 3 3 3 3
2 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Farm
ers
Crop
Of 7 farmers
One of the farmers claimed that their economic situation was worse and referred to the
political violence in 2007 as explanation, while the second farmer claimed that climate
changes effected the crop production and as a result, also the economic situation.
Although the method of agroforestry can improve the farm, it requires both investments from
an economical point and also the time to implement. Some of the farmers refer to the climate
change when describing the decrease crop production. Lack of water due to long stretches of
drought, or long and heavy periods of rain, results in unpredictable climate and pressure on
the small scale farmer and the agriculture land. The reduced crop production also interrelates
with the household food supply. The households produced similar crops and all of the
informants describe how they are dependent on the crops both for household use and for
selling. The households also regularly give away crops to neighbors and friends in need.
Without trees, soil erosion occurs and makes the soil less productive which in turn reduces the
crop production and the economic situation. Farms with trees and crop diversity experience
fewer problems with soil erosion and lack of fertile soil. These farms are also better able to
bear risks, and so stand to gain more from its benefits than farmers without trees and with
mono-cropping.
Figure 2. Total number of farmers who named each crop as one of the five most important food or cash crop on their farm.
31
0
1
2
3
4
Much worse Worse No change Better Much better
Num
ber
of fa
rmer
s
Present situation
Soil erosion problem
Soil fertility
Timber availability
Fuelwood avaialbility
The farmers experience less problems with soil erosion in comparison to 2006, but at the
same time they also claim that the timber and fuel wood availability has not progress since
2006. A lot of people compete for the same resources and farmers who plant trees
experienced a better fuel wood availability.
It becomes noticeable that the majority of the farmers in different ways were affected by the
political violence in 2007. The riots and the unstable situation had impacts on farm economy,
the amount of live hood and the farm production in general. Although most of the farmers
interviewed were positive about the future. Despite that most of them having returned to their
farms and started over again, there were people too afraid to return to their homes, still not
trusting the new government. Some of the farmers lived in camps for up to a year before they
could return home to a farm that was destroyed and pillaged. Since they lack capital it takes a
lot of time to rebuild the farms and to invest in different kinds of crops and trees. One family
of the farmers abandoned their farm in 2007 and has still not returned; instead another relative
has taken over the farm.
Figure 3. The farmers’ perception of the changes in soil erosion, soil fertility and availability of fuel and timber between 2006 and 2010.
32
9. Analysis
I will not lie and say that this follow-up was an easy task; conducting interviews in a language
I didn’t understand and in a country with different social codes. But I became surprised over
the open-hearted people and their willingness to be a part of this study. As described in the
chapter “consideration in field” my lack of Swahili forced me to rely on the interpreters
translations. Two of the interviews were conducted in English and those also gave me the
most information and understanding. There were times when I felt that the informant answer
in a way that he or she thought was expected and wanted, even though I’ve tried to create a
comfortable atmosphere. This thesis is my translation of the farmers’ answers, in my aim to
understand the dynamic relationship between the environment and the society in Kenya.
Agroforestry is a combination of different land use systems and methods, used together to
prevent soil erosion and land degradation and to improve the soil fertility and the overall
situation of the agriculture life. Agroforestry seeks to interact between the ecological and
economic interest of the farmer to create a sustainable development from both an ecological-,
social- and economical perspective. But the concept is not a single method that can be used
unequivocal, instead the thesis shows that the implementation consist of several different
techniques and crops, accommodated to each farm.
The most important when implementation on agroforestry is to use the “bottom-up” approach
and to meet the farmer at the right level and investigate the desire and expectations of each
individual farmer. When poor nations become more reliant on local resources through self-
sufficiently among the people poverty reduces. VI AFP uses this approach when working in
East Africa to prevent land degradation. The program works on household levels with
different methods and education. The VI AFP educates farmers of planting trees, as a method
to increase the food and nutritional security, increase fuel-wood availability and to increase
the household income. One of the areas where VI AFP operates is Trans Nzoia and the area of
Kitale. It become visible in the thesis that farmers who have adapted the technique of planting
trees are almost completely self-sufficient in fuel wood and therefore also has increase their
household income and suffers less from climate changes for example.
As several of the farmers in the interviews describe, the cost of chemical fertilizers is high and
still the soil often lack nutrients. When the Kenyan government stopped the subvention of
33
chemical fertilizers in the 1990s, other methods of fertilizing the soil was needed.
Agroforestry push for an ecological agriculture and therefore the term include a lot of
different sustainable techniques to improve the farming life. Inter-cropping and crop diversity
is promoted as a security in times with drastic climate changes. But the investment in different
crops is a chance and a risk for small-scale farmers, therefore education is of high importance
in VI AFP. One of the farmers describes how they were educated in the using of compost,
during their time in camp and how they now use the method at the farm. Farms that have
adopted inter-cropping and crop diversity experienced more security in their food supply.
One of the difficulties with agroforestry is that when so many different techniques are
available, what to choose? And since every farm and family living on the farm has different
requires and expectations, one needs to be brave enough to try. People who are living and
working in an uncertain and hesitant environment are sometimes unwilling to try on new
practices that might improve or increase the productivity. Wealthier farmers are better able to
bear risks, and so stand to gain more from its benefits than poorer farmers. This is one of the
problem facing agroforestry organizations around the world, this is also the reason that makes
farmers practicing agroforestry suitable as ambassadors for their neighbors’, to picture
growing among ordinary people. It is also important that the implementation of agroforestry is
supported on the political level. Even though there are several agroforestry programs in
Kenya, the country also suffers from corruption, leaving people in rural areas skeptical to the
states secret motive and therefore the NGO´s are important since they are political neutral.
There is also of great importance that the people feel safe in their homes and doesn’t fear
clashes or the threat of being haunted from their homes.
By using the political ecology approach one tries to understand the dynamic relationship
between the environment and the society, using social, economical and ecological factors. The
idea is that environmental resources are constructed by human desires and causes need, greed
and conflicts. The resources play a central role in shaping the society and also play a crucial
part in the constructing of hierarchies within groups and people. The environmental resources
and the lack of agricultural land are affecting the people in Kenya and have caused several
violent conflict and clashes in centuries within ethic communities, groups and classes. The
last violent conflict erupted in 2007 and affected many Kenyan farmers and their socio-
economic situation negative.
34
A political ecology viewpoint requires approaching resource-linked conflicts as historical
processes of nature and social groups. In Kenya the colonial heritage and the ethnic
communities had and still have a major impact of the agriculture life and development.
Violent tension among the different ethnic communities can be traced back to the colonial era
and the demand for agriculture land among social groups and classes can be found through the
history in the country. The demand and shortage for fertile agricultural land is visible in East
Africa and Kenya is no exception.
The state policies play an essential role when suggesting priorities and practice concerning
resources of the environment. If and when the state lends its power to dominant groups to
create state elite and form powerful set of economic interest, tension occurs among the
people. This has been the case in Kenya were over half of the total population experience poverty
and when dominant groups during the colonial era and after the independence have
constructed a powerful state elite, causing tension among classes and groups in a county with
more than forty different ethnical communities. These features of elite-structure, patronage
and ethnic identification could be found all the way through Kenya’s hierarchy and as deep as
into state institutions.
When Kenya became independent in 1963 the two major ethnic groups; the Luo and the
Kikuyu together constituted a sort of elite population. The tension between different ethnic
communities goes back to the colonial period and still today causes violent conflicts when
groups and classes claim the land. The tension and violence continued and when a political
reform system was introduced in the early 1990s, people had hope for peace. But instead the
new political reform created ethnic tension and violence to undermine different parties and
communities and thousands of people were killed and homeless, driven away from their
property and land. As late as in the 2007 elections another conflict emerged and more than
1500 people were killed and at least 350 000 people evicted from their homes in Rift Valley
(Kitale), Nyanza Province and Nairobi. Interviews of farmers confirm how several of them
abandoned and escaped their homes in fear of their lives. One of them has still not returned.
Corruption, mistrust of the state government and ethnic tension is devastating for s sustainable
environmental development according to several authors. When people are living in an
environment of risk and uncertainty, they also become unwilling to use long term practices
and the sustainable development are at risk. Farmers not knowing when to leave the land in
35
breakout and when to be able to return, they don’t invest in the land. Instead they use short
term techniques to get as much out of the land in a short period of time, causing erosion and
degradation.
I claim, like several of the authors’ that the concept of agroforestry can result in an ecological
and human sustainable development, but that stable structure of society is essential for the
success. The implementation of agroforestry within small scale farmers in Trans Nzoia would
possible improves even more with an incorrupt and trustworthy government. By using the
political ecology approach when one tries to understand the agricultural life in Trans Nzoia,
the complex relationship between the land users, land manage and the land itself are
explained. In the area several different ethnic communities has lived side by side in a
mixture, since the colonial period. The pressure on the land, erosion problem, lack of
resources and corruption within society is factors that affect people who strive to survive.
Therefore it’s essential that the people can trust their government and feel secure in order to
invest in their future.
The farmers of Kenya are facing problems of deforestation, loss of soil fertility, lack of good
quality water and loss of biodiversity. The majority of the farmers considered their overall
situation in 2010 compared to 2006, as better or much better. It became visible that farmers
who were self-sufficient in trees for timber, firewood and fodder experienced their situation in
a much more positive way than farms that had to collect firewood outside the homestead.
More than half of the farmers’ interviewed, answer that their economical situation was better
or much better today compared to 2006. They also had improved their food supply and crop
production.
The introduction of cash crops in Africa reduced the food security and make the farmers more
sensitive as cash crops is much less soil conserving compared to inter- or multi- cropping.
Farmers who adopt intercropping or crop diversity is more likely to resist agricultural crisis
such as drought or heavy rain. Planting of trees and the technique of crop diversity can be
seen as one of the winning methods of agroforestry. The farmers, who had a lot of trees, also
experienced a better economic situation, due to those who had no trees or very few. Some of
the farmers referred to the climate change to describe the loss of crop production. Lack of
water with long stretches of drought, or long and heavy rain, results in unpredictable climate
and pressure on the small scale farmer and the agriculture land.
36
The political elections in December 2007 triggered raids and ethnic violence and the series of
consequences was shown at several farms in the conducted area. At one farm the owner had
decided not to move back, fearing for their lives. Stolen livestock stole crops and destroyed
farms faced the people who returned after months in camps. In the area of The White
Highlands, several different ethnic communities have lived side by side in a mixture, since the
colonial period. I believe that although the ethnic belonging may be important for a person,
the outside world and the people of Kenya need to recognize themselves as citizen and
members of the Kenyan society, together as ONE people instead of communities fighting
against each other.
The new government has a long and hard work trying to win back the society and the peoples
trust, but I believe that this is crucial for the agricultural life in Kenya. When people
experience stability, one can start to invest in long term system and thereby also become
independent and self-sufficient. When a country becomes self-sufficient and independent the
people can overcome poverty. Since there is a lack of access to fertile agricultural land and a
fast growing population, the Kenyan people need to invest in sustainable systems. I believe
with this report as background, that agroforestry is one of several methods for a sustainable
human and agricultural development, but stable social, economical and political structure is
crucial for the implementation and the progress.
10. Conclusion
The aim of the case study was to examine the progress of agroforestry among small-scale
farmers in Trans Nzoia, Kenya and use the political ecology approach as a method to explain
the result.
- What is the farmers’ perception of their situation in 2010 in comparison to 2006 in
terms the economic situation, the crop production and the food supply?
37
The majority of the farmers considered their overall situation in 2010 compared to 2006, as
better or much better. The economic situation, the crop production and the food supply are
consider much better or better then in 2006.
Five of seven farmers evaluated their economic situation in 2010 as much better or better, one
claimed that the situation was worse while one farmer said that there was no change. Five
farmers claimed that their crop production had increased and was better or much better than in
2006 and two households experienced their crop production worse. One of the farmers that
claimed that their economic situation was worse refers to the political violence in 2007 as
explanation, while the second farmer claimed that climate changes effected the crop
production. The household food supply had increased to better or much better among five
households and only one household experienced the food supply worse, and one claimed that
there was no change.
Several of the farmers explained that they where self-sufficiency in fuel wood and timber and
that fact had increased their economic situation since they could sell some wood and get cash.
The trees also prevented the soil erosion and increased the soil fertility which in turn affected
the crop production positive.
- Is the political ecology approach applicable for the case-study analysis of
agroforestry progress between 2006 and 2010 in Trans Nzoia?
Agroforestry seeks to interact between the ecological and economic interest of the farmer to
create a sustainable development from both an ecological-, social- and economical
perspective. By using the political ecology approach one tries to understand the dynamic
relationship between the environment and the society, using social, economical and ecological
factors. Both the method of agroforestry and the political ecology claims use the bottom-up
approach is needed for evaluation, understanding and development. They also claim that one
needs to include different perspectives to fully understand the complexity and dynamic
relationship between human and the environment.
38
A political ecology viewpoint requires approaching resource-linked conflicts as historical
processes of nature and social groups. The theory claims that both historical and
contemporary dynamics of conflict is crucial to study when one try to understand the
environmental situation. As seen in the case of Kenya and Trans Nzoia, the ethnic tension
among groups’ affects the agricultural life negative and creates insecurity. In the area several
different ethnic communities has lived side by side in a mixture, since the colonial period.
I claim that the political ecology is an applicable and a useful approach to analyze the
progress of agroforestry since it can explain and create an understanding for the relationship
between the land user, land manage and the land itself in the specific study area. It includes
different perspectives and explanations to the conducted follow-up.
- What importance has stable structure (social, economy and politic) for a sustainable
development in a human and ecological perspective?
The political elections in December 2007 triggered raids and ethnic violence and the series of
consequences was shown at several farms in the conducted area. One farmer decided not to
move back, fearing for their lives. Stolen livestock, stolen crops and destroyed farms faced the
people who returned after months in camps.
The pressure on the land, erosion problem, lack of resources and corruption within the society
is factors that affect people who strive to survive. Long term land investments are put at risk
since farmers are unwilling to invest without security. There is also of great importance that
the people feel safe in their homes and doesn’t fear clashes or the threat of being haunted from
their homes.
Corruption, mistrust of the state government and ethnic tension is devastating for s sustainable
environmental development according to several authors. When people are living in an
environment of risk and uncertainty, they also become unwilling to use long term practices
and the sustainable development are at risk. Farmers not knowing when to leave the land in
breakout and when to be able to return, they don’t invest in the land. Instead they use short
term techniques to get as much out of the land in a short period of time, causing erosion and
degradation.
39
I claim that the concept of agroforestry can result in an ecological and human sustainable
development, but that stable structure of society is essential for the success. The
implementation of agroforestry within small scale farmers in Trans Nzoia would possible
improves even more with an incorrupt and trustworthy government.
40
11. Reference list
Literature
Berglund, F., Bernhard, R., Fornlöf, M., Sjöblom, A., Svedlund, S. (2006) Agroforestry. En studie av VI-skogens arbete i Kitale, Kenya. Högskolan Dalarna
Blaikie,P. (1985). The political Economy of Soil Erosion in Developing Countries. Longman group limited. London.
Blaikie, P., Brookfield, H. (1987). Land degradation and society. Methuen & CO. Ltd. London
Desai, V., Potter, R. (2006). Doing Development Research. Sage publications. London.
Frame, I. (2007) Africa south of the Sahara. Ed.37, 2008. Routledge. London.
Limb, M., Dwyer, C. (2001) Qualitative methodologies for geographers: issues and debates.
Arnold. London
Potter, R., Binns, T,.Elliot, J, & Smith, D. (1999). Geographies of Development. Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Singapore.
Articles
Bryant, R. (1992). Political ecology. An emerging research agenda in Third-World studies.
Political geography. Vol.11, No. 1. Pp 12-36.
Ekbom, A., Knutsson, P., Ovuka,M. (2001). Is sustainable development based on agriculture
attainable in Kenya? A multidisciplinary case study of Murang’a district. Land degradation &
Development. No.12, pp. 435-447.
Fredriksen, B. (2010). Mungiki, vernacular organizations and political society in Kenya.
Development and change.vol.41, No.6, pp. 1065-1089.
Harneit-Sievers, A., Peters, R. (2008). Kenya’s 2007 general election and its aftershocks.
Africa spectrum 43. No.1, pp. 133-144
Imbernon, J. (1999). Pattern and development of land-use changes in the Kenyan highlands
since the 1950´s. Agriculture, Ecosystems &Environment. Vol.76. pp.67-73
41
Jorgenson, A., Clark, B. (2011). Societies consuming nature: a panel study of the ecological
footprints of nations, 1960-2003. Social science research. No.40, pp. 226-244
Kwesiga, F., Akinnifesi, F.K., Mafongoya, P.L., McDermott, M.H., Agumya, A. (2003).
Agroforestry research and development in southern Africa during the 1990s: Review and
challenges ahead. Agroforestry Systems.Vol.59 no.3.pp 173-186
Maithya, J.M., Kimenye, L.N., Mugivane F.I., Ramisch, J.J. (2006). Profitability of agro-
forestry based soil fertility management technologies: The case of small holder food
production in Western Kenya. Nutr cycl agroecosys. Vol.76. pp 355-367
Mung’ong’o, C.G. (2009) Political ecology: a synthesis search for relevance to today’s
ecosystems conservation and development. Institute of Resource Assessment, University of
Dar es Salaam.
Ogachi, O. (1999). Economic reform, political liberalization and economic ethnic conflict in
Kenya. Afrique et développement. Vol. XXIV, pp.83-107.
Okoba, B.O., De Graaff, J. (2004). Farmers knowledge and perception of soil erosion and
conservation measures in the central highlands, Kenya. Land degradation & development.
Vol.16. no.5. Pp.475-487
Tamubula, I., Sinden, J.A. (1999). Sustainability and economic efficiency of agroforestry
systems in Embu District, Kenya: An application of environmental modeling. Environmental
modeling and software. Vol.15.no.1 pp.13-21.
Törnqvist, A., Westholm, E. (2009) Landscape analysis in the VI Agroforestry Programme,
Lake Victoria basin. An integrated approach: GIS based field mapping and interviews.
Arbetsrapport
42
Electronic sources
Swedish cooperative center
www.sccportal.org/home.aspx
http://www.sccportal.org/Vi-Agroforestry-Programme.aspx 2010-12-01
VI-Skogen
www.viskogen.se
http://www.viskogen.se/Om-oss/Programförklaring.aspx 2010-12-01
http://www.viskogen.se/På-plats/Våra-länder/Kenya.aspx 2010-12-01