research priorities for kenya’s cut-flower …moa ministry of agriculture mou memorandum of...

TECHNOPOLICY BRIEF 14

Maurice BoloNancy M. MuthokaRacheal WashisinoVirginia MwaiDaniel Kisongwo

RESEARCH PRIORITIES FORKENYA’S CUT-FLOWERINDUSTRY: FARMERS’PERSPECTIVES

AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORK

Published by

The African Technology Policy Studies NetworkP.O. Box 10081 - 00100, General Post Office,

Nairobi, Kenya.

© 2006 African TechnologyPolicy Studies Network (ATPS)

ISBN:

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Printed byMajestic Printing Works

ABOUT THE AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NET-WORKThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multi-disciplinarynetwork of researchers, policy makers, actors in the private sector and otherend-users interested in generating, promoting and strengthening innovativescience and technology policies in Africa. With a regional secretariat in Nairobi,the network operates through national chapters in 23 African countries, withan expansion plan to cover the entire sub-Saharan Africa.

One of the objectives of the network is to disseminate research results to policymakers, legislators, the organized private sector, civil society, mass media andfarmers’ groups through publications, dialogue and advocacy. Among its rangeof publications are the Working Paper Series (WPS), Research Paper Series(RPS), Special Paper Series (SPS) and the Technopolicy Briefs.

ATPS is supported by a growing number of donors including the InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC), the Carnegie Corporation of New York,the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, the OPEC Fund, Ford Foundation,Coca-Cola Eastern Africa, the African Development Bank, and the Royal DutchGovernment.

ABOUT THE TECHNICAL CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURALAND RURAL COOPERATION (CTA)The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) wasestablished in 1983 under the Lome Convention between the ACP (AfricanCaribbean and Pacific) Group of States and the European Union Member States.Since 2000, it has operated within the framework of ACP-EC Cotonou Agreement.

CTA’s tasks are to develop and provide services that improve access toinformation for agricultural and rural development and to strengthen thecapacity of ACP countries to produce, acquire, exchange and utilise informationin this area. CTA’s programmes are designed to: provide a wide range ofinformation products and services and enhance awareness to relevantinformation sources; promote the integrated use of appropriate communicationchannells and intensify contacts and information exchange (particularly intra-ACP); and develop ACP capacity to generate and manage agriculturalinformation and to formulate ICM strategies, including those relevant to scienceand technology. CTA’s work incorporates new developments in methodologiesand cross-cutting issues such as gender and social capital.

Acronyms

ACP African Caribbean and PacificATPS African Technology Policy Studies NetworkCTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural

CooperationEU European UnionHCDA Horticultural Crops Development AuthorityJKUAT Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and

TechnologyKARI Kenya Agricultural Research InstituteMoA Ministry of AgricultureMoU Memorandum of Understanding

1.0 Background 1

2.0 The Contribution of Research in the FloricultureIndustry 3

3.0 The Case for Demand-led Research in FloricultureSub-sector 7

4.0 Farmers’ Key Concerns 9

5.0 Research Priorities: A Farmers’ Agenda 12

6.0 Other Non-research Concerns 15

7.0 Survey and Comparisons of Farmers’ Prioritieswith Current/on-going Research in Kenya 17

8.0 Conclusions 20

Table of Contents

The Executive DirectorThe African Technology Policy Studies Network

3rd Floor, The Chancery, Valley RoadP.O. Box 10081 00100 General Post Office

Nairobi, Kenya

Tel: +254-020-2714092/168/498Fax: +254-020-2714028Email: [email protected]

Website: http://www.atpsnet.org

For more information on this series and ATPS, contact:

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

1

Background

1.0

The Kenyan floriculture sub-sector is the fastest growing in thehorticultural sector contributing Kshs. 18, 719 billion (•207.99billion1) out of the total horticultural exports of Kshs. 32,590 billion(•362.1 billion) according to Horticultural Crops DevelopmentAuthority (HCDA) statistics (2005). In the last decade (1995-2004),Kenya’s cut flower export earnings grew by more than 300 percentat a time when the country’s overall export growth stood at 40percent. Over the same period, the volume of flower exportsincreased fifty-fold from 29,373 metric tones in 1995 to 81,217.83metric tons in 2005 (HCDA, 2005) as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: Volumes and values of cut flowers exported from Kenya(1995-2004)

Year Volume in Value in Value inMetricTonnes Kshs. Million Euros Million

1995 29,373 3,642 40.471996 35,212 4,366 48.511997 35,850 4,888 54.311998 30,220 4,857 53.971999 36,992 7,235 80.392000 38,757 7,166 79.622001 41,396 10,627 118.082002 52,106 14,792 164.362003 60,983 16,496 183.292004 70,666.3 18,720 2082005 81,217.8 22,897 254.41

Source: HCDA Export statistics (all figures rounded to the nearest whole number)

1 All conversions are according to 2006 average exchange rates of Kshs. 90 to the euro

○ ○ ○ ○

2

Technopolicy Brief 14

It is noteworthy that the contribution of small-scale flower growersto these export figures is minimal and on the decline as illustratedin table 2. Recent findings by Fintrac (2005) have shown that theshare of summer flowers in the total flower exports is under atremendous decline (Table 2).

Table 2: Estimated share of summer flowers from total exportedflowers (2000-2003)

Volume (Million Tons) Value (KES Million)Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2000 2001 2002 2003

Total 38756.7 41396 52106.7 60982.9 7165.6 10626.9 14792.3 16495.5exports

% share 13.5 9.2 6.4 5.1 8.6 6.2 4.1 4.8

of total

Source: Fintrac 2005

The Horticultural Crop Development Authority (HCDA) has notedthat there is enormous growth potential in the small-scale flowergrowers if appropriate financial and technical assistance as well asa supportive policy can be put in place (Kiptum 2005). Most small-scale farmers are located in Nyandarua, Thika and Kiambu districtsand mostly grow summer flowers such as eryngium, arabicum,tuberose, mobydick, mollucella, ornis, lilies and agapanthus.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

3

The Contribution of Research in the FloricultureIndustry

2.0

The overall enormous growth in value, acreage and volume ofKenya’s cut flower industry has been largely attributed to a robustprivate sector involvement and externally-sourced knowledge andtechnologies. Kenya has adequate technical and human capacityand skills but this has not been adequately utilized by the industry.A study jointly conducted by the African Technology Policy StudiesNetwork (ATPS) and the Technical Centre for Agricultural andRural Cooperation (CTA) in 20042 found weak linkages/interactionsbetween the flower farmers and the local research system causingthe floriculture industry to rely on external3 knowledge to solve theindustry’s problems. This over-reliance on external knowledge hascontributed to the under-utilization of indigenous research capacityin Kenya, even though most of the stakeholders interviewedconcurred that Kenya has adequate skilled and well-trainedmanpower.

A number of factors explain the weak linkages and consequentunder-utilization of Kenya’s indigenous research capacity. Theyinclude:

2 The ATPS/CTA study in 2004 focused on the processes by which actors in the industryharness science, technology and innovation to bring new knowledge and technologies intoeconomic use. For further insight see Bolo (2005). “Agricultural, Science, Technology andInnovation Systems: the case of Kenya’s floriculture industry.” CTA, the Netherlands.3 External knowledge in this case refers to knowledge which is sourced from outside Kenyaand for which Kenya’s flower farmers have to pay heavy consultancy fees and royalties. Itis knowledge generated by the international research as contrasted with the local researchsystem

○ ○ ○ ○

4


a. Organizational cultures and proceduresOver time, organizations develop certain habits and practices thatdetermine how they relate to other actors within the system andrespond to ‘new shocks.’ The weak linkages between the localresearch system and the flower growers is characteristic of the private– public institutions dichotomy. The large flower growers (whodominate flower business) are private companies who are interestedin keeping trade secrets to ensure their survival and competitivenessin the market. On the other hand, the local research system consistsmostly of public institutions, such as, Kenya Agricultural ResearchInstitute (KARI) and the universities whose mandate includes serviceto the nation and are obligated to disseminate any information thatwould help improve the livelihoods of the general populace. Thepublic research system therefore considers such information,knowledge and technologies as public goods. This divergentapproach to information and knowledge acquisition, sharing anduse undermines a close interaction and sharing of knowledge andinformation between the industry and the public researchinstitutions.

Moreover, the slow, bureaucratic procedures in the public researchinstitutes undermine their ability to respond to urgent farmers’requests. During the interviews, farmers narrated their experienceswith public research institutions whereby it took up to four monthsto get results from local laboratories, whereas if they sent samplesto laboratories abroad, it would take them about two working daysto get results by email. Farmers’ needs (such as disease outbreaks)are usually urgent and require immediate solutions. The delays fromthe local public research system forces farmers to seek solutions frominternational research establishments.

b. Attitudes and perceptionsMore often, research priorities in public institutions are set by thescientific community with little attempt to involve the beneficiariesin priortiy setting. This tendency has led to research institutions

○ ○ ○ ○

5

Research Priorities for Kenya’s Cut-flower Industry: Farmers’ Perspectives

being isolated from the immediate needs of society. This approachis often motivated by the assumption that the scientists andresearchers know what the farmers want. As such, research oftenignores farmers’ perceptions hence the outcome often does notsatisfy farmers’ needs. It is noteworthy that KARI has beguninvolving stakeholders and intended beneficiaries in setting theresearch agenda for the institute and has involved other stakeholdersin priority setting since mid 1990s.

Farmers in their daily activities experiment and continuouslyinnovate, sometimes accidentally. Unfortunately, scientists/researchers fail to notice these innovations and when they do, theyquestion the scientific basis of farmer’s innovations. While thescientific rigour should not be compromised, it is important thatthe research community appreciate that the farmer innovationsprovide solutions to their (farmers’) immediate problems. Theresearch community should consider how to optimize/add valueto and improve the farmer innovations using approved scientificmethods. Flower farmers on the other hand are seldom willing todisclose their innovations to scientists and researchers for fear oflosing the innovations. Farmers also view researchers as better versedin theory while inexperienced and lacking in the practical skills offlower growing. These attitudes and lack of trust/confidence hinderthe smooth collaboration between the farmers and the researchers/scientists.

c. Weak operational capacity of public institutionsThough Kenya has the requisite technical and human capacity toserve the floriculture industry, they are not adequately financed torespond effectively to the farmers’ needs. This has been attributedto lack of funds and operating facilities. During the interviews, itemerged that KARI-THIKA had introduced some flower varieties(such as mobydick, lilies, gerbera, gladiolus amongst others) whichhad been tested in parts of Nairobi, Eastern and Central provinces.These varieties proved popular with the small-scale farmers but the

○ ○ ○ ○

6


farmers lacked the capacity to continually produce these flowersand tended to rely heavily on KARI-THIKA to support theirenterprises through provision of seeds. KARI-THIKA helped small-scale farmers import seeds for lilies but the farmers were unable tocontinue after the KARI-THIKA support ceased while the Centerhas been able to supply seeds for certain flower varieties such asarabicum and gladiolus. The Center has taken to signing memorandaof understanding (MoU) with large-scale flower farmers for serviceprovision in which the large-scale farmers meet part of the costs ofthe services rendered.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

7

3.0

The Case for Demand-led Research inFloriculture Sub-sector

The above findings underscore the need to improve the interfacebetween and among scientists, researchers, farmers, policy makersand service providers and build the capacity of industry stakeholdersto conduct demand-led research. There is also the need for greaterrecognition of the value of farmers’ experimentation and innovation.

In response to that need, a multi-stakeholder team comprising theMinistry of Agriculture (MoA), the Kenya Agricultural ResearchInstitute (KARI), the Horticultural Crops Development Authority(HCDA) and Karen Roses Ltd (representing farmers) under theleadership of ATPS and with financial support from CTA embarkedon a national case study whose main purpose was to accord farmersand other research consumers greater involvement in setting theresearch agenda for the industry. The team held consultativemeetings with farmers (with special emphasis on the small-scalefarmers) and other stakeholders in order to foster closer collaborationbetween the local research system and the flower industry.

The specific objectives of these consultations were:• To facilitate the development and implementation of

demand-led research programmes• To bring relevant issues to the attention of policymakers• To build capacity of stakeholders in participatory research

priority setting• To facilitate closer dialogue between the research community

and the beneficiaries and consumers of research outputs

○ ○ ○ ○

8


These consultations realized two key outcomes namely:• Farmers came up with a prioritized list of research topics

that would address both the short-term and long-termneeds of the industry

• Farmers and other stakeholders drew up a list ofrecommendations that would require policyinterventions/action in order to strengthen the industry.

This policy brief summarizes the results of consultative meetingswith farmers and other stakeholders in Thika, Limuru and Naivashaheld between March and June 2006. It also highlights some non-research policy recommendations suggested by the farmers duringthese consultations.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

9

4.0

Farmers’ Key Concerns

During the consultative meetings, farmers raised a number of keyissues undermining their ability to attain optimum productivity.These issues are summarized below:

a. Harnessing Farmers’ InnovationsFarmers continuously innovate but the innovations need to be‘perfected’ and scaled up. When farmers are innovating, the processof experimentation and innovation is seen as part of the daily routineand activities. Farmers narrated how in the course of their dailyactivities, they discovered a lot of bio-control agents in the farmsthat were useful in controlling various pests and emphasized thatthis knowledge needed to be harnessed through continuousinteractions between the farmers and researchers at the farm level.They called for a liaison officer who would pick up these innovationsand use research methods to scale up the innovations, improve themethodologies and come up with scientifically tested products.Farmers suggested that KARI (and other research institutions)should work closely with farmers and engage itself in the isolation,documentation and replication of these local technologies in pestmanagement.

Farmers applauded the efforts of the input suppliers who had theirrepresentatives stationed in the growing areas. These representativesvisited and interacted with farmers in their farms, helped identifyfarmers’ problems and provided solutions. Research institutions areencouraged to emulate this example to allow researchers interactmore closely with farmers to enable them pick up, modify theinnovations, monitor progress and give feedback to farmers.Moreover, the farmers’ experiences form a crucial body of tacit

○ ○ ○ ○

10


knowledge that can be harnessed to form the basis of new researchin the industry.

b. Development of indigenous flowers for commercializationFarmers noted that there was over-reliance on imported varietiessuch as roses, carnations, lilies, alstromeria amongst others for whichfarmers have to pay royalties. They noted that Kenya is rich inbiological diversity and research should be conducted on Kenya’sflora to identify and develop indigenous flower varieties forcommercialization. The KARI case of mobydick is an example ofhow local research could be targeted to harness the country’sbiodiversity. It also emerged that farmers have been trying todomesticate some wild flowers such as papyrus (Cyperus papyrusL) on their own and called upon the researchers to support theirefforts to introduce new flowers in the market.

Closely related with the need to develop indigenous flowers, farmersalso strongly recommended the breeding of new flowers that couldbe “branded Kenyan.” The farmers raised concern that even thoughKenya is the largest exporter of cut flowers in Africa andcommanded a huge share of the EU market, the country had notbred its own flowers and still relied heavily on growing importedvarieties.

c. Exploitation of small-scale exporters by middlemenSmall-scale flower farmers and exporters have difficulties accessingthe international export market due to stringent phyto-sanitarystandards, high freight costs, lack of knowledge of these marketsamongst other constraints. This has created room for middlemenwho enter into loose agreements with farmers to buy their flowersor help them access the export markets. Farmers narrated numerouschallenges they faced with these unregulated middlemen includinglow buying prices and failure to honour agreements (failing to collectproduce) leading to huge losses by the farmers. The farmers stressedthe need to form cooperatives to help them improve their bargaining

○ ○ ○ ○

11


positions and urged the government to facilitate the formation ofthese cooperative societies. The small-scale farmers furtherrecommended that they be facilitated to negotiate legally bindingcontracts with the middlemen and ensure they were not exploitedwhen entering into such agreements.

d. Lack of research informationThe farmers decried the lack of easily accessible information onvarious flower growing aspects including; knowledge on flowervarieties per ecological zones, production technologies andmarketing. This lack of information partly explains why farmersturn to international companies for solutions. The farmers stronglyrecommended the establishment of a Floriculture Center withbranches in the major growing areas to act as a one-stop shop wherefarmers could find information on all the flower growing aspects.The farmers further suggested that this Center should be designedin a manner that woud allow farmers to display their innovationsand share their knowledge and information with other farmers aswell as scientists and researchers. In addition, the farmersrecommended that brochures containing research findings be madeavailable and in local languages.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

12

Research Priorities: A Farmer’s Agenda

5.0

For any research activity to be useful, it must be sensitive to localneeds and priorities as well as allow ownership of its agenda by theintended beneficiaries. In the case of floriculture research, farmersand exporters are the key stakeholders and their views should helpinform research decisions. During the consultative meetings in themajor growing areas (Thika, Limuru and Naivasha) farmersidentified and prioritized their research needs. They also suggestedsolutions to some of the challenges facing the industry. Table1(opposite page) shows the areas identified and the steps the farmershave suggested for the research community as well as thepolicymakers.

○ ○ ○ ○

13


Pro

ble

m A

rea

Pro

ble

m D

escr

ipti

on

Far

mer

s’ S

ug

ges

ted

So

luti

on

Pes

ts a

nd

- Far

mer

s la

ck k

now

ledg

e an

d ad

equa

te- M

ore

rese

arch

on

avai

labl

e, a

fford

able

, effe

ctiv

e bi

o-co

ntro

l met

hods

Dis

ease

s in

form

atio

n on

alte

rnat

ive

bio-

cont

rol

- T

rain

ing

on re

leva

nt p

est c

ontr

ol m

etho

dolo

gies

and

opt

ions

met

hods

for

pest

con

trol

of p

est c

ontr

ol.

Dev

elo

pm

ent o

f-

Far

mer

s ov

er-r

elia

nce

on s

ame

flow

erR

esea

rch

shou

ld fo

cus

on id

entif

icat

ion

and

test

ing

of d

iffer

ent f

lora

for

new

/ in

dig

eno

us

varie

ties

sinc

e th

e ea

rly 1

990s

pote

ntia

l use

vari

etie

s- T

he p

oten

tial o

f loc

al b

iodi

vers

ity is

not

- D

evel

opm

ent o

f ind

igen

ous

varie

ties

for c

omm

erci

aliz

atio

n; c

olle

ct

bein

g fu

lly h

arne

ssed

/exp

loite

dlo

cal g

erm

plas

m, i

mpr

ove

them

and

test

in o

vers

eas

mar

kets

.

- Ken

ya o

ver-

relia

nce

on im

port

ed v

arie

ties

- H

arne

ss in

dige

nous

kno

wle

dge

on w

ild fl

ower

s w

ithin

loc

al

yet

the

coun

try

is a

key

exp

orte

r of f

low

ers

com

mun

ities

, doc

umen

t and

test

them

- B

reed

ers

shou

ld b

e su

ppor

ted

to c

ome

up w

ith n

ew v

arie

ties

and

get

a “K

enya

n b

ran

d”

Po

st h

arve

st- L

ack

of p

ost-

harv

est h

andl

ing

know

ledg

e- T

rain

ing

of fa

rmer

s on

pos

t har

vest

han

dlin

g te

chni

ques

and

pra

ctic

es

han

dli

ng

- Hig

h po

st h

arve

st lo

sses

- Con

duct

rese

arch

on

alte

rnat

ive,

affo

rdab

le c

oolin

g, p

acki

ng a

nd

- Lac

k of

ade

quat

e, a

cces

sibl

e fa

cilit

ies

and

stor

age

met

hods

-

capa

city

- Con

duct

rese

arch

on

enha

ncin

g th

e po

st h

arve

st q

ualit

y of

diff

eren

t

flow

er ty

pes

Mar

keti

ng

- Exp

loita

tion

by m

iddl

emen

/bro

kers

- Enh

ance

cap

acity

of f

arm

ers

to s

ign/

ente

r int

o bi

ndin

g co

ntra

cts

with

- Lac

k of

aw

aren

ess

of in

tern

atio

nal t

rade

mid

dlem

en

agre

emen

ts- E

duca

te fa

rmer

s on

rele

vant

inte

rnat

iona

l tra

de a

gree

men

ts s

uch

as

- Lac

k of

info

rmat

ion

on m

arke

t tre

nds/

the

Lom

e IV

Con

vent

ion,

Eco

nom

ic P

artn

ersh

ips

Agr

eem

ents

(EP

A’s)

requ

irem

ents

and

WT

O) a

nd th

eir i

mpl

icat

ions

- Ina

bilit

y to

mee

t mar

ket s

tand

ards

/reg

ulat

ions

- Org

aniz

e re

gula

r for

ums

to s

ensi

tize

farm

ers

on m

arke

t tre

nds,

- Bra

ndin

g an

d br

and

iden

tity

(nee

d to

dev

elop

requ

irem

ents

and

sta

ndar

ds

mar

ketin

g ‘s

loga

ns’ f

or K

enya

n pr

oduc

ts)

- Res

earc

h on

cha

ngin

g m

arke

t tre

nds,

pre

fere

nces

and

requ

irem

ents

Ta

ble

1:

Far

mer

s’ r

esea

rch

an

d t

rain

ing

pri

ori

ties

○ ○ ○ ○

14


- Lac

k of

dom

estic

mar

ket f

or fl

ower

s- I

ncre

ase

farm

ers’

acc

ess

to IC

Ts to

ena

ble

them

obt

ain

mar

ket

info

rmat

ion

thro

ugh

the

inte

rnet

- D

evel

op a

Ken

yan

bran

d/sl

ogan

for K

enya

n flo

wer

s

- Con

duct

rese

arch

to q

uant

ify th

e lo

cal d

eman

d/m

arke

t and

dev

elop

it

for

loca

l var

ietie

s

Info

rmat

ion

- Far

mer

s ar

e no

t exp

osed

to re

sear

ch fi

ndin

gs- D

isse

min

ate

rese

arch

find

ings

wid

ely

thro

ugh

non-

tech

nica

l bro

chur

es

Dis

sem

inat

ion

- Lac

k of

info

rmat

ion

on fl

ower

var

ietie

s su

itabl

ean

d in

loca

l lan

guag

es

for d

iffer

ent a

gro-

ecol

ogic

al z

ones

- lac

k of

- Set

up

a flo

ricul

ture

cen

ter w

ith b

ranc

hes

in m

ajor

gro

win

g ar

eas

upda

tes

on th

e ne

w in

nova

tions

in p

rodu

cts

- Set

up

info

rmat

ion

desk

s in

the

maj

or g

row

ing

area

s

and

farm

ing

tech

niqu

es- H

old

regu

lar m

eetin

gs/in

tera

ctio

ns b

etw

een

rese

arch

ers

and

farm

ers

- Ina

cces

sibi

lity

to in

form

atio

n in

rura

l are

as- T

ap, d

ocum

ent a

nd d

isse

min

ate

farm

ers’

dis

cove

ries

and

indi

geno

us k

now

ledg

e

Inp

uts

- Poo

r ski

lls in

fert

ilize

r and

tech

nolo

gy- R

esea

rch

on a

nd tr

ain

farm

ers

on e

ffici

ent f

ertil

izer

use

, wat

er h

arve

stin

g

appl

icat

ions

- Mas

s pr

oduc

tion

of c

lean

pla

ntin

g m

ater

ials

e.g

. thr

ough

tiss

ue

- Wat

er c

atch

men

t are

as g

ettin

g de

stro

yed

due

cultu

re a

nd c

ertif

ied

seed

s

to b

ad fa

rmin

g m

etho

ds- I

mpr

ove

acce

ss to

affo

rdab

le a

nd re

liabl

e so

il pH

ana

lysi

s an

d pe

st

- Far

mer

s do

not

kno

w w

hich

fert

ilize

rs to

use

anal

ysis

adv

isor

y ce

nter

s

and

whe

n to

app

ly th

em- D

evel

opm

ent o

f ind

igen

ous

mat

eria

ls in

to p

estic

ides

- H

igh

inpu

t cos

ts, s

uch

as, s

eed

and

- Dev

elop

bio

logi

cal m

etho

ds/p

lant

ext

ract

s to

redu

ce th

e ex

cess

ive

inor

gani

c fe

rtili

zers

pest

icid

e us

e

- Ina

dequ

ate

clea

n pl

antin

g m

ater

ial

- R

esea

rch

on w

ater

use

effi

cien

cy fo

r diff

eren

t flo

wer

type

s

tech

niqu

es, p

rote

ctio

n of

cat

chm

ents

are

as a

nd

chem

ical

use

; irr

igat

ion

equi

pmen

t and

met

hods

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

15

6.0

Other Non-research Concerns

There are other non-research concerns of flower farmers which cameup strongly during the consultations. They relate to governmentpolicies affecting floriculture, input prices and supplies and the needsfor infrastructural development. Table 2 (next page) summarizesthese concerns and the farmers’ recommendations.

○ ○ ○ ○

16


Pro

ble

m A

rea

Pro

ble

m D

escr

ipti

on

Su

gg

este

d S

olu

tio

n

Go

vern

men

t- G

over

nmen

t is

aloo

f to

smal

l-sca

le- G

over

nmen

t to

set u

p an

aud

it sy

stem

for f

arm

ers

and

cert

ify th

ose

who

sup

po

rtfa

rmer

pro

blem

sat

tain

thes

e st

anda

rds

- Hig

h co

sts

of p

rodu

ctio

n/in

puts

- Gov

ernm

ent t

o se

t up

and

enfo

rce

qual

ity s

tand

ards

- Hig

h ta

xatio

n (f

low

er fa

rmer

s ar

e ex

pose

d- H

arm

oniz

e an

d re

duce

taxa

tion

on fl

ower

s

to m

ultip

le o

f tax

es)

- Gov

ernm

ent t

o fo

rmul

ate

a m

arke

t-dr

iven

cur

ricul

um in

edu

catio

nal

- Str

ong

shill

ing

affe

cts

expo

rts/

inst

abili

ty o

fin

stitu

tions

to s

uppo

rt th

e in

dust

ry

pric

es- G

over

nmen

t to

form

ulat

e po

licie

s an

d fra

mew

orks

to fa

cilit

ate

e-co

mm

erce

- Gov

ernm

ent s

houl

d fa

cilit

ate

smal

l-sca

le fa

rmer

s to

atte

nd lo

cal a

nd

inte

rnat

iona

l exh

ibiti

ons

and

trad

e fa

res

- Gov

ernm

ent s

houl

d su

ppor

t man

ufac

ture

rs to

pro

duce

che

aper

loca

l

ferti

lizer

s

- The

Cen

tral

Ban

k of

Ken

ya s

houl

d re

gula

te th

e ap

prec

iatio

n of

the

shill

ing

agai

nst m

ajor

cur

renc

ies

to s

tem

loss

es

Infr

astr

uct

ure

- Few

/lack

of

cool

ing

faci

litie

s fo

r- C

reat

e co

nduc

ive

envi

ronm

ent f

or in

vest

men

t in

frei

ght s

ervi

ces

smal

l-sca

le fa

rmer

s- L

ocal

Aut

horit

ies

to m

aint

ain

all f

eede

r roa

ds

- Hig

h ca

rgo/

frei

ght a

nd h

andl

ing

char

ges

- Coo

ling

faci

litie

s to

be

esta

blis

hed

at fa

rm c

olle

ctio

n po

ints

to p

reve

nt

- Hig

h el

ectr

icity

cos

tsqu

ality

det

erio

ratio

n

- Poo

r roa

d an

d ra

il ne

twor

k- H

arne

ss s

olar

ene

rgy

for u

se a

s al

tern

ativ

e so

urce

of h

eatin

g du

ring

cold

nig

hts,

or s

ourc

e of

ene

rgy

Fin

anci

ng

/- L

ack

of f

arm

er-f

riend

ly p

rodu

cts

fina

ncin

g/- F

arm

ers

shou

ld b

e fa

cilit

ated

to fo

rm s

avin

gs a

nd c

redi

t coo

pera

tives

Cre

dit

faci

litie

scr

edit

inst

itutio

ns(s

acco

s) to

offe

r sof

t loa

ns to

them

- Hig

h in

tere

st ra

tes

on lo

ans

from

- B

anks

sho

uld

have

inno

vativ

e pr

oduc

ts ta

ilore

d to

the

need

s of

the

com

mer

cial

ban

ksin

dust

ry

Ta

ble

2:

Fa

rmer

s’ n

on

-res

earc

h c

on

cern

s

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

17

7.0

Survey and Comparisons of Farmers’ Prioritieswith Current/On-going Research in Kenya

It is noteworthy that KARI has begun involving stakeholders andintended beneficiaries in setting the institute’s research agenda. KARIconducted its first priority setting workshop in 1996 and morerecently in 2005. This workshop identified key constraints affectingsmallholder flower farmers as inadequate supply of clean plantingmaterial, obsolete flower varieties, lack of appropriate productiontechnology and poor post-harvest handling.

The institute then embarked on research to address these constraintsstructured along the following themes: production (cropmanagement, crop protection and post harvest handling) andvarietal development.

In crop production, technologies for various flower crops (gladiolus,arabicum, ornis, erygium, lilies and gerbera) were developed anddisseminated to more than 2000 flower farmers throughdemonstrations, field days, field schools and training in Central andEastern provinces in Kenya. Thirty seven (37) varieties of lilies(Oriental, Eastern and Asiatic) were introduced from Europe andevaluated. Out of these, ten (10) varieties have been recommendedfor commercialization. A further twenty two (22) varieties of gerberawere introduced and their performance tested both on-station andon-farm and six (6) varieties were released for commercialization.Nine (9) varieties of gladiolus were introduced and evaluated andsix (6) varieties released for commercialization.

Research in crop management technologies has concentrated ondetermination of spacing and nutrition requirements for a variety

○ ○ ○ ○

18


of flowers, while major insect pests and diseases have also beenidentified and documented. Integrated pest management (IPM)options for the control of soft rot disease in flowers was developedas was a tissue culture propagation protocol for lilies.

Floriculture research in Kenyan Universities:Floriculture research is being done in various Kenyan Universitiesincluding: the University of Nairobi, Egerton University, MoiUniversity, Maseno University, Jomo Kenyatta University ofAgriculture and Technology and Kenya Methodist University.

A brief survey on current and on-going research work at theuniversities revealed that some of the research projects carried outin various universities include:

• Effect of neem and aloe extracts on powdery mildew on roeplants (Egerton University)

• Effect of gibberellic acid, shade and vernalization onproductivity of Ranunculus asiaticus (Persian buttercup)grown in the Kenyan Highlands (Egerton University)

• Intercropping roses and spider plant to control spider miteson rose plants (Thesis; Egerton University)

• Survival of propagated roses (Rosa hybrida) as affected byage and storage periods of cut-wood (Maseno University)

• The effectiveness of glyphosates as an inhibitor of tropicresponses in cut roses (Maseno University)

• In vitro culture on lilies-Project (JKUAT)

• Control of Erwinia Soft Rot in Zantadeschia (JKUAT)

• Calla Lily in vitro culture for Hatabor Rainbow Bloom –Limuru (JKUAT)

• Evaluation of different propagation media and techniquesfor ornamental crops (Moi University)

• Domestication of indigenous plants for use as ornamentalcrops for both small- and large-scale farmers (Moi University)

○ ○ ○ ○

19


• In vitro propagation and gene manipulation or ornamentalcrops (Moi University)

• Proposed research: The use of medicinal plant extracts asbiopesticides (Kenya Methodist University)

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

20

8.0

Conclusions

a. PoliciesThe government should target/harness the latent potential of small-scale flower farmers/exporters through well packaged policyincentives. Kenyan small-scale farmers face a different set ofchallenges from the large scale farmers and the “one-size-fits-all”policies for the industry may not be the most effective ways ofpromoting the industry. Whereas large-scale producers/exportershave overcome most of the production constraints and are focusingmore on marketing/markets, the small-scale farmers have a widearray of problems that can be better tackled through policies focusedand targeted at their special needs.

b. ResearchA comparison between the farmers’ research needs vis-à-vis the on-going and current research reveals that the public research systemsemphasize more on crop production and pests and diseases whilethe farmers’ agenda is much broader. A quick scan through theresearch in public research institutions showed that:

i. Kenyan small-scale farmers yearn for a product/varietybranded “Kenyan” and have been attempting todomesticate wild flowers. Besides, the farmers holdvaluable indigenous knowledge on the pesticidal effects ofsome flowers and trees. Biological control methods are alsodiscovered continuously through the farmers’ interactionwith nature. The government and research communityshould tap and develop this knowledge. In so doing, theymust ensure that the “holders of this knowledge”- thefarmers - are adequately recognized and compensated.

○ ○ ○ ○

21


ii. Research on inputs seems narrowly focused on seeds andplant media. It should be recognized that issues such asfertilizer combinations and efficiency, water use efficiency;equipment/methods, soil pH analysis amongst othersconstitute inputs to the farmers and research should begeared towards improving them too.

c. MarketsThere’s little focus on market research for the industry. Indeed,even the local/domestic market for flowers is not quantified eventhough a survey conducted by KARI in 2004 estimated it to beapproximately Kshs. 300 million annually. In the same year, HCDAestimated that small-scale farmers exported flowers worth Kshs.500 million accounting for 3 per cent of total flower exports.

It is imperative that the small-scale farmers are linked to markets(both domestic and export) in order to thrive. Indeed, a recent studyby Muthoka (2006) has concluded that, “small-holder summerflower production can only be profitable if the farmer is able to getaccess to relevant information that will assist in making the decisionson what to produce and when to produce”. Information on markettrends demands, tastes and preferences, transactional costs andprices should be easily available and updated.

Market access is closely related to phyto-sanitary compliance andproper (pre- and post-harvest) handling of flowers. As yet, there isminimal emphasis on post-harvest handling and training for thesmall-scale farmers. This constitutes an opportunity for the researchand training institutions.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

22

Bolo, M. (2005). “Agricultural, science, technology and innovationsystems: the case of Kenya’s floriculture industry.” CTA, theNetherlands.

Kiptum, B.K. (2005). Building export markets for Kenyan flowers:challenges and opportunities facing small scale flower growers inKenya. Paper presented at the ATPS/CTA nationaldissemination and exhibition workshop on the flower industryin Kenya on March 31, 2005 in Nairobi.

Muthoka, N.M. and Muriithi, A.N. (2006). Smallholder summer Flowerproduction in Kenya: A myth or a prospect? Paper presented atthe 27th International Horticultural Congress (IHC), Seoul Korea13th -19th August 2006. Submitted to ACTA Horticulturae.

Research priorities at KARI Thika, 2005: Report of the prioritizationworkshop held at KARI-Thika on December 6th - 8th, 2005. KARI-THIKA, Kenya, edited by A. Muriuki, N.M. Muthoka, B.W.Ndungu, J. Kibaki, A.M. Ndegwa, G.W. Mbugua, J.K. Gitonga,B.K. Chege, and C.N. Waturu.

References

ATPS Technopolicy Briefs Series

Who Benefits from the New International Intellectual Property Rights Regime?And What Should Africa Do? by Ha-Joon Chang(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 1)

How Can We Constitutionalize Innovation, Technology and IntellectualProperty in Kenya ? by Bernard Sihanya(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 2)

What Can Biotechnology Do For Africa? How Can The Associated Risks AndUncertainties Be Managed? by Norman Clark(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 3)

Who Needs Technology Policy? by Ha-Joon Chang(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 4)

Keeping Hunger at Bay: Genetic Engineering and Food Security in sub-SaharanAfrica by John Mugabe(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 5)

Science in a Globalizing World: Implications for Africa by AweleMaduemezia(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 6)

How can Science and Technology in Africa be Formulated and Implemented?by Osita Ogbu(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 7)

How can Science and Technology Policy Aid Nigeria’s Reconstruction? byOsita Ogbu(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 8)

Can Africa Develop without Science and Technology by Osita Ogbu(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 9)

How can Innovation Systems and Innovative Clusters be used to DevelopAfrica? by Osita Ogbu(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 10)

What Danger Lies in the WTO-NAMA Negotiations for Africa? by Ha-JoonChang(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 12)

Maurice Bolo is a Research Officer and the Project Coordinator with the AfricanTechnology Policy Studies Network (ATPS).

Nancy Muthoka is a Research Officer with Kenya Agricultural Research Institute(KARI-THIKA).

Racheal Washisino is the Depot Manager (Limuru), Horticultural CropsDevelopment Authority (HCDA).

Virginia Mwai is the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture(MoA).

Daniel Kisongwo is the Farm Manager, Karen Roses Ltd.

research priorities for kenya’s cut-flower …moa ministry of agriculture mou memorandum of...

Documents