encouraging me to pursue this master's degree course at the UFS, ...... Current smallholder timber marketing is therefore feared to be unsustainable and.
UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE
SUSTAINABLE FARM TIMBER FOR SMALLHOLDER CROPPING SYSTEMS
SAMMY CARSAN
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MASTERS IN SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE DEGREE OF THE FACULTY OF NATURAL AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES (CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE)
JANUARY 2007
STUDY LEADER: Dr. ALDO STROEBEL STUDY PROMOTER: Dr. ANTHONY SIMONS
ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was made possible by the support and guidance of many individuals, from the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), University of the Free State (UFS) and the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) all of whom I owe much gratitude to. Firstly my gratitude go to Dr. Anthony Simons (ICRAF) and Professor Izak Groenewald (CSA) for supporting my career development and facilitating my study within my work environment. I am intellectually indebted to my study promoters Dr. Aldo Stroebel, Dr. Tony Simons and Prof. Izak Groenewald for their insights and invaluable advice to the successful completion of my study. MSA lecturers at the UFS are also thanked for their insightful and critical academic modules. I wish to express my profound gratitude, sincere appreciation and indebtedness to many of my colleagues at ICRAF, Dr. Ramni Jamnadass for introducing and encouraging me to pursue this master’s degree course at the UFS, to Jonathan Muriuki, Bernard Muia, Joseph Kirimi, Ann Nyambura, Grace Kaimuri, Valentine Gitonga and Paul for in many ways supporting my entire study. Special thanks to Stella Muasya for facilitating timely budget allocation for my study trips during a very difficult time of financial constraints. My appreciation to the travel office at ICRAF, Mahmouda and Grace for their superb support. From a research stand point, I acknowledge the help of research support unit at ICRAF, for the data management and analysis induction training which further helped sharpen my data management skills. The support by Caleb Orwa and the GIS unit at ICRAF is appreciated for their willingness to share the study area mapping and geo-referencing. Special thanks to Sallyanne Muhoro for facilitating data entry, local contacts and secondary data assemblage. Many thanks to colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture and British American Tobacco for their assistance during field survey logistics; special mention to Andrew Muita, Samuel Nabea, Josephat Kaimenyi, Charles Kariuki and Nzioki for their great help on facilitating farmer interviews. I also wish to thank the many farmers who shared their time, experiences and knowledge during the field survey. My study programme would not have been fruitful without the generous scholarship support from the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture and the Trees and Markets Theme at ICRAF. Great appreciation to CSA secretariat, Mia Kirsten and Sanet Neethling for their readiness to support my administrative matters at the CSA and UFS. Lastly and by no means least, I am greatly indebted to my wife Josy Kathuu and son Eddie for their love and unfailing support during the entire study and write up.
iii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ASAL:
Arid and Semi Arid Lands
BAT:
British American Tobacco
CSA:
Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
DBH:
Diameter at Breast Height
FAO:
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
FD:
Forest Department
FYM:
Farm Yard Manure
ICRAF:
World Agroforestry Centre
INRA:
Integrated Natural Resource Assessment
KEFRI:
Kenya Forestry Research Institute
KFMP:
Kenya Forestry Master Plan
KFWG:
Kenya Forests Working Group
KIFCON:
Kenya Indigenous Forest Conservation Project
KTDA:
Kenya Tea Development Agency
KWS:
Kenya Wildlife Service
LM:
Lower Mid-land
MD:
Man Days
MDG’s:
Millennium Development Goals
MSA:
Masters in Sustainable Agriculture
NGO:
Non-Governmental Organization
NRM:
Natural Resource Management
UFS:
University of the Free State
UM:
Upper Mid-land
UNEP:
United Nations Environment Programme
PRSPS:
Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers
SPSS:
Statistical Package for Social Sciences
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... ii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. vii APPENDICES.....................................................................................................viii SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER ONE....................................................................................................1 1.0
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................1
1.1
BACKGROUND ......................................................................................1
1.2
SMALLHOLDER TIMBER DEMAND IN KENYA ....................................4
1.3
PROBLEM STATEMENT .......................................................................6
1.4
STUDY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................7
1.5
STUDY AREA.........................................................................................8
1.5.1
Agriculture .......................................................................................9
1.5.2
Forests ............................................................................................9
1.5.3
Climate ..........................................................................................10
1.5.4
Coffee and cotton zones................................................................10
1.5.5
Socio- economic status .................................................................11
1.6
SUSTAINABILITY THEMES AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ......12
1.7
STUDY POTENTIAL AND LIMITATIONS.............................................17
1.8
CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................17
CHAPTER TWO .................................................................................................18 2.0
LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................18
2.1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................18
2.2
SMALLHOLDER TIMBER IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES.....................19
2.3
SUSTAINING SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS ..........................................22
2.4
CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................25
v CHAPTER THREE .............................................................................................27 3.0
RESEARCH METHODS.......................................................................27
3.1
RESEARCH APPROACH.....................................................................27
3.2
SAMPLING ...........................................................................................27
3.3.1
Study technique.............................................................................29
3.3.2
Data collection ...............................................................................29
3.3
DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................30
3.4
CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................30
CHAPTER FOUR ...............................................................................................31 4.0
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ..........................................................31
4.1
LAND SIZE ...........................................................................................31
4.2
SMALLHOLDER CROP PRODUCTION...............................................31
4.2.1 Cropping system...................................................................................33 4.3
PRODUCTION INPUTS .......................................................................35
4.3.1 4.5
Gross margin calculations for maize crop......................................36
FARM TIMBER PRODUCTION............................................................40
4.5.1
Timber species on farm .................................................................40
4.5.2
Timber volumes on farm................................................................41
4.5.3
Managing smallholder timber ........................................................44
4.6
MARKETING SMALLHOLDER TIMBER ..............................................45
4.7
SWOT ANALYSIS ON SMALLHOLDER TIMBER ................................47
4.8
CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................48
CHAPTER FIVE..................................................................................................49 5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................49
5.1
CROP PRODUCTION ..........................................................................49
5.2
SMALLHOLDER TIMBER ....................................................................51
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................54 APPENDICES.....................................................................................................59
vi LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Projected wood demand in the high & medium-potential districts (‘000 m3) ........................................................................................................................4 Table 2. Annual rainfall and temperature in the coffee and cotton zones of Meru district .................................................................................................................11 Table 3 Selected cereal crop production volumes in Meru central in year 2003 32 Table 4 Other crop production in tonnes per hectare........................................32 Table 5. Maize Gross Margin per hectare..........................................................37 Table 6 Selected cereal crop gross margins comparisons.................................38 Table 7 Identified crop production limitations and means to improvement.........39 Table 8 Timber species utilized in the coffee and cotton zones of Meru Central41 Table 9 Summary of total timber volumes and stem numbers on farm ..............42 Table 10 Projected wood supply and demand in the high-potential and mediumpotential districts under the master plan scenario (‘000 m3)................................42 Table 11 SWOT analysis on smallholder timber marketing ...............................47
vii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Map of Meru Central District in Kenya ...................................................8 Figure 2 Issues and interventions influencing low smallholder timber value .......15 Figure 3 Smallholder systems conceptual model...............................................16 Figure 4 Smallholder cropping systems against food and cash farming objectives ............................................................................................................................33 Figure 5 Smallholder agricultural crop types and cropping systems ..................34 Figure 6 Timber volumes in the cotton-coffee systems......................................43 Figure 7 Typical farm timber marketing channels in Meru Central .....................46
viii APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Survey Questionnaire......................................................................59 Appendix 2 Major pests and diseases ...............................................................61 Appendix 3 Common tree species on farm: Mount Kenya area.........................62 Appendix 4 Percentage number of trees and species in all zones of Mt. Kenya63 Appendix 5 Meru map........................................................................................64
ix SUMMARY Smallholder agricultural systems often demonstrate a complexity of practices embedded in local and traditional technologies geared to sustaining household incomes and food objectives. Farm timber and mainly subsistence crop production practices were assessed through a broad cross-sectional survey in Meru Central District of Kenya. Secondary data together with findings of a related study were collated to inform smallholder practices against broad sustainability dimensions.
Most smallholder tree and agricultural crop cultivation are based on the assumption that the two are sufficiently mixed to provide household tree product needs, food and income. Crop production in the surveyed area was found to be largely subsistence in nature with mixed systems incorporating crop polyculture on land sizes between one and two hectares on average. Production is strongly hinged on mixed systems even though farmer preference on monocultural cropping was recorded. Overall, food and income objectives define cropping systems on available land. There is a strong reliance on the ‘green revolution’ inputs to boost production even though sometimes only meager resources are available. Soil nutrient depletion is implicated in limiting possible production potential.
Timber tree cultivation along with subsistence crops, even though practiced for several decades is found to be an emerging enterprise for many smallholders. Different smallholder cropping systems were found to support varying levels of timber production. For instance, the cotton zone was found to have more timber volumes than the coffee zone per farm. Farm timber production practices are on the one hand found to experience huge market opportunities and on the other certain peculiar challenges. Poor timber quality occasioned by poor silvicultural practices and poor pricing are key set backs on the practice. Routinely, poor policy support environment is cited as the key bottleneck stifling smallholder timber enterprise growth. Failed plantation forestry seems to give impetus to smallholder timber. This study investigates smallholder timber management
x practices while providing an indicative potential of the resource. Wood production on farm lands and settlement consist of 20% sawn wood 7% pole and 73% fuelwood. Projected supply from farmlands in the medium and high potential zones was poised to rise from 64% in 1995 to over 80% by year 2020.
Future tree cultivation in the medium and high potential coffee zone will however have to justify use of available land, labour and capital against crop enterprises.
1
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION This introductory chapter discusses the background of the study, encapsulates the problem area(s) to be addressed and sets out key objectives to be followed. The study area is evaluated while the broad topic conceptualization is discussed in the context of sustainable farming systems.
1.1 BACKGROUND Timber tree production on small-scale farms is actually a composite asset important to many smallholder farmers. Smallholder timber cultivation is typically practiced along with subsistence crop and livestock production systems. Trees are usually grown together with crops in conventional mixed farming systems and may be planted along farm boundaries, in the cropland, along the contours and sometimes in blocks. Other planting patterns involve trees as hedgerows between crops and in lines providing wind breaks (Holmgren et. al., 1994; Tyndall, 1996). On the steep slopes of the coffee and tea zones, with persistent soil erosion, trees on farm serve an important function in preventing soil erosion where deep sparse roots bind soil together to resist water erosion; whereas in the low lying cotton zone trees twin as boundary markers and windbreaks. Largely, farm grown timber is seen on small farm sizes averaging one hectare. The choice of tree species to plant usually varies with individual farmer tree knowledge, interest and land size but may also depend on other factors such as species compatibility with crops, duration to harvesting and the value of end products (Simons et. al., 2000; Lengkeek et. al., 2005). Overall, trees on farm are appreciated for their role in meeting domestic wood requirements, provision of income and enhancing soil biophysical conditions. Indigenous timber species such as Cordia africana, Milicia excelsa, Newtonia buchananii and Vitex keniensis are further appreciated for their soil improvement roles amongst other functions such as water catchment protection and certain cultural values.
2
The tree and agricultural crop mix on smallholder farms is therefore an interdependent practice which seems to play a key role in securing many smallholder livelihoods (Lengkeek & Carsan, 2004). An example of the crucial links is perhaps depicted by the recent farmer experiences on poor prices on key agricultural crops (such as coffee, cotton, sugarcane) and where farmers turned to trees on farms as the alternative income generating enterprise. Trees on farm serve as a “safety net”, providing not only income but a low-cost source of food, fuel, fodder and housing materials (Holding & Roshetko, 2003; Scher, 2004).
The critical role played by the smallholder timber sub-sector is reinforced by a number of emerging factors in recent years creating new opportunities for smallholder farmers to participate profitably in the tree product and service markets (Opanga, 2001). A number of studies and policy reviews now recognize the economic value of the tree resources on farms and the need to strengthen the sub-sector to attain social-economic objectives such as poverty reduction (Magcale-Macandog et al., 1999). For instance FAO (2005) notes that, local communities now control at least 25% of the developing world’s forests and in forest-scarce countries local farmers are actively growing trees for commercial use. In Kenya, (with now less than two percent forest cover) smallholder timber has gained prominence owing to unsustainable plantation logging and subsequent government ban on the same. Demand for environmental services (e.g. carbon) from trees is further poised to raise the potential market value of timber tree crops owned by farmers. It is now recognized that farmers have a competitive advantage for particular market segments, due to their proximity to local markets, price advantages and perhaps lower tree cultivation costs (Scherr, 2004). However, their inadequate organization capabilities result to individual marketing denying them greater bargaining power and market position. There is need to test workable farmer collective action models to bring real benefits to tree farmers and create incentives to emerging farmer crop enterprises.
3
To ensure increased and continuous benefits from smallholder timber farming especially in the rural settings where they are needed the most, critical resource audits will need to be considered to facilitate market planning. Ideally, the importance of subsistence crop production along farm timber production is now widely appreciated. However, the critical functional balance between the two elements in the different agro-ecosystems is sub-optimally understood along biophysical, social and economic dimensions. Area specific knowledge especially for the different agro-ecological zones is often lacking to inform applicable management practices (Carsan & Holding, 2001). There seem to be an inherent complexity of input-output relationships amongst the different smallholder farmer enterprise mixes, the opportunity cost of alternatives not withstanding. The farming systems are dependent on rainfall and intermittent irrigation where water is sufficient. In addition, enormous pressure is being exerted on the high potential areas by increasing population leading to land subdivisions and fragmentation. The consequence has been cultivation on water catchment areas and in some instances tree over harvesting to pave way for crop cultivation and facilitate land tenure. Because of the marginal and fragile nature of many of the systems where the greatest output for smallholder timber and agricultural crops occur, special attention is needed to maintain and enhance the productive potential of these systems. Small-scale farmers are feared to have removed large quantities of nutrients from their soils without using sufficient amounts of manure or fertilizer to replenish fertility. This has resulted in high annual nutrient depletion rates of 22 kg nitrogen, 2.5 kg phosphorus, and 15 kg potassium per hectare of cultivated land over the past 30 years in 37 African countries – an annual loss equivalent to $4 billion worth of fertilizers (Sanchez, 2002; Garrity, 2004).
The overall sustainability of these smallholder production systems have therefore come under a sharp focus due to the growing intensification pressure further caused by a rapid population growth (UNEP, 2002). The growing wood demand formerly relied on plantation and an indigenous forest resource is particularly calling out for an alternative sustainable supply source. Agricultural farms and
4
especially smallholder farmers known to retain a variety of tree species on farm have the potential to tremendously benefit from tree enterprises on farm. The practice and emerging market is therefore curious to research and resource planning efforts to countries like Kenya with serious wood demand shortfalls.
1.2 SMALLHOLDER TIMBER DEMAND IN KENYA Kenya’s timber market is one of the most lucrative in the Great Lakes region with supplies being sought from neighboring countries and the Congo. Local supply however faces huge shortfalls and the government was forced to zero rate import duties since the year 2001. According to Kenya’s Forestry Master Plan (KFMP), demand for sawn wood was projected to grow from 203,000 m3 in 1990 to 262,800 m3 in 2020. Projected total demand for wood in the high and medium potential districts is poised to rise form 15,084,000 m3 in 1995 to 30,679,000 m3 in the year 2020 (Table 1). Table 1 Projected wood demand in the high & medium-potential districts (‘000 m3) Wood demand
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Firewood
7993
9251
10686
12251
13889
15593
Wood for charcoal
5085
6298
7351
8511
9726
10972
Poles
948
1111
1308
1544
1823
2153
Industrial wood
1058
1209
1378
1543
1709
1961
Total wood demand
15084
17869
20723
23849
27147
30679
Source KFMP, 1994
The role of smallholder timber in supplementing rural households’ huge firewood needs is particularly singled out here. Kenya’s Ministry of Energy (MoE, 2003) identifies firewood as the most common type of energy used in the country with close to 89% of rural and 7% of urban households reporting regular use, giving a national average of 68% of all households. The average annual per capita consumption is approximately 741 kg and 691 kg for rural and urban households,
5
respectively. It is estimated that smallholder agroforestry systems now contribute up to 84% of all biomass fuel needs for rural households. Conversely, wood production on farmlands and settlements consist of 20% sawnwood, seven percent pole and 73% fuel wood.
The only substantial increase in tree planting by the hectarage and wood production by the volume is therefore occurring on farms. In high potential areas, woody biomass already equals that of indigenous forest and commercial forest combined (KFMP, 1994). Since the indigenous forest area is so rapidly shrinking, smallholder timber farming offers certain advantages over plantation and indigenous forest logging in general. Where benefits are perceived, little effort is required to get farmers to invest in tree planting for the steadily growing timber market (Carsan & Holding, 2006). However, timber businesses dependent on smallholder timber producers need to forge closer links so as to secure the future of the emerging sub-sector. Current tree logging practices on farm are noted to be wasteful as the technology and skills utilized by wood processors are not properly sharpened to maximize on log recoveries, which is currently estimated at between 25-30% (Onchieku, 2006).
Current smallholder timber marketing is therefore feared to be unsustainable and will likely precipitate a ‘market failure’ given the recent high timber demand characterized by ‘mining’ of timber trees from farms. Over-harvesting and poor management practices at farm level offer minimal social and economic benefits to farmers in both the short and the long run (Holding et. al., 2002). To cope with the increasing demand to produce more food on the same land, individual farmers are ironically forced to effect drastic changes in a manner threatening the very sustainability of smallholder farming. It is now upon research to develop means of evaluating whether current land management practices will lead towards sustainable smallholder timber production or away from it. Relevant information for better land management will be required to harmonize food production with the often-conflicting interests of economics and the environment
6
(Syers et. al., 1995). Long term environmental and social concerns associated with current outputs need be evaluated to ensure cross-generational equity (Smyth & Dumanski, 1995).
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT For smallholder farmers currently producing a wide range of timber products, there is a risk that timber supply from farms may not be sustainable in the longrun. Over-harvesting of timber trees on farm is rampant and in some instances is depleting farms of tree resources given the prevailing low farmer bargaining power. Of particular concern, are farms in difficult and marginal site conditions such as steep slopes, dry lands, where tree removal will hasten land degradation. Remnant tree species found on farm are also fast getting depleted owing to the difficulties especially on propagation. Interestingly, farmers are often aware of unsustainable tree harvesting practices but are not in a position to enhance tree cultivation practices owing to certain tree farming challenges such as poor access on planting material, competing farm enterprise on limited land size and tree management technical knowledge gaps.
There is therefore a need to support smallholder tree planting initiatives through provision of quality and quantity tree germplasm along relevant management knowledge tailored to emerging and future market opportunities (Garrity, 2004). Current low tree planting trends and over harvesting imbalance is suspect and feared to threaten the continuity of the very tree-crop growing practice that has supported farming households over the years. Tree over harvesting on farm is attributed to a readily available market, poorly defined property rights1 structure, low cost farm trees, low cost logging, poor pricing, inconsistent policy and legislative barriers (Carsan & Holding, 2006). Therefore although the market for smallholder timber exists, overall social, economic and environmental benefits will be lost if current practices are not supported by appropriate interventions. 1
Bundle of entitlements defining the owner’s rights, privileges and limitations for use of a resource
7
Already a bulk of timber trees from farms fetch low prices due to the combination of factors aforementioned. This is exacerbated by poor policy provisions on the wider role of smallholder timber even for poverty mitigation.
It is against this backdrop that this study sought to illuminate on the current status of smallholder timber and subsistence crop production in Meru District, one of the districts with a high agricultural potential in Kenya. The study was inspired by the greater involvement of smallholder farmers in timber tree production against unsustainable indigenous and forest plantations characterized by over logging, bans and planting backlogs. More critically, sustainability of the very farm timber production will be lost in the absence of concerted interventions to ensure cross generational equity, if the current farm timber harvesting practices is anything to go by. The study is further challenged by a diminished role assigned to smallholder tree production in both forestry and agricultural policy frameworks or even national strategies such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP’s). The study takes cognizance of the need to sustain and enhance current smallholder tree-crop production practices while imparting relevant knowledge to inform policy and avert wider consequent losses.
1.4 STUDY OBJECTIVES In order to realize the overall goal of the study, namely to investigate the status of smallholder timber and subsistence crop production in agroforestry systems of Meru Central, several interlinked objectives were identified. These are: 1. To investigate current smallholder tree and crop management practices 2. To determine current levels of production for farm timber and crops 3. To understand levels of smallholder incomes on timber and crops 4. To make recommendations regarding long-term sustainability
8
1.5 STUDY AREA Meru Central is one of the 13 districts in the Eastern Province of Kenya (Figure 1). It lies between latitudes 1o 30’ South and 0o 35’ North and between longitudes 30o20’ and 39o5’ East (Pelley et al., 1985) and covers an area of about 3012 square kilometres, with over 705 square kilometres that has potential for livestock and agricultural farming. The district’s altitude ranges from 5200 m above sea level (Mt. Kenya) to the flat lands of Giaki/Gaitu and lower Nkuene, Igoki and Abogeta of 400 m above sea level. Soils in Meru are moderately to highly fertile with higher fertility generally occurring in the middle altitudes (Jaetzold & Schmidt, 1983).
Figure 1 Map of Meru Central District in Kenya (Source: Lengkeek, 2003)
There is a strong tradition of agroforestry in the district with the planting of diverse trees on farms. Farm biomass inventories reveal regular occurrence of
9 seven cubic metre per hectare, rising up to 17 m3 ha-1, in similar mixed stand agroforestry systems (Njuguna et. al., 1999). Common tree species planted on farm include: Grevillea robusta, Vitex keniensis, Eucalyptus saligna and Cordia africana (Lengkeek & Carsan, 2004).
1.5.1 Agriculture Meru people predominantly practise mixed farming, i.e. crop cultivation and animal husbandry. There are 100 large-scale farms (over 20 ha) and approximately 90,000 small-scale farms. Cash crops produced include coffee, tea, tobacco, cotton, miraa (Catha edulis) and macadamia nuts. Common staple crops grown include maize, beans potatoes, sorghum, pigeon peas, cassava, yams and arrow roots. Oil crops such as sunflower, groundnuts, cotton and soybeans are produced in the marginal coffee zone (MoA, 2005). A variety of horticultural crops such as cabbages, tomatoes, kales and onions are also produced in the coffee zone (UM 2). The first rains (April-May) support these crops and are also useful in supporting the whole year crops such as bananas, mountain pawpaw, avocadoes, passion fruits and mangoes (MoA, 2005).
Dairy production in the coffee zone is by ‘zero grazing system’ where two to three animals are stall-fed in a ‘carry and feed system’. Pasture is grown on farm and animals are not allowed to free range. In the marginal coffee zone farmers graze cattle freely or paddock-feed them. Integration of agroforestry practices remain an inherent part of crop and animal production in these systems. 1.5.2 Forests Gazette forest blocks in the district cover approximately 843 km2 or 30% of the district’s total area. The main timber species in the indigenous forests include: Brachylaena sp., Calodendrum capense, Catha edulis, Cordia africana, Croton macrostachyus, Croton megalocarpus, Ficus thonningii, Hagenia abyssinica, Juniperus procera, Lovoa swynnertonii, Markhamia lutea, Milicia excelsa, Ocotea usambarensis, Olea capensis, Olea europaea ssp. africana, Olea welwitschii,
10
Premna maxima, Prunus africana and Vitex keniensis (KWS, 1999). The plantation forests in Meru cover a total area of 4302 ha comprising Cupressus lusitanica, Pinus patula, Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus species. Native species, Vitex keniensis and Cordia africana have also been planted in designated plantation areas (MoE, 2000). Appendix 4 shows an indicative percentage of all the species around the different zones in the Mount Kenya. Large-scale charcoal production and illegal logging continue to heavily impact on the natural forests. Some of the most targeted species include: Ocotea usambarensis, Juniperus procera, Olea europaea ssp. africana and Hagenia abyssinica (KWS, 1999). 1.5.3 Climate The climate and rainfall in the study area is greatly influenced by Mt. Kenya and the Nyambene Hills. The short rains occur between March and May and the long rains from October to December (Pelley et. al., 1985). Rainfall varies from 2 600 mm annually in the upper highlands of Mt. Kenya to 500 mm in the lower dry parts of the district. Meru District is one of the districts with high agricultural potential in Kenya. Most agro-ecological zones found in Kenya are found here (Pelley et al., 1985). These include: UH1 and UH2 (pyrethrum/dairy zone), UM1 (tea/dairy zone), UM2 (coffee zone), UM3 (marginal coffee zone), LM3 (marginal cotton zone), LM3 and LM4 (sorghum/millet zone) and LM5 (ranching zone) (Appendix 5). Successful and productive rain-fed agriculture is however limited to a comparatively small part of the district but its output is one of the highest in the country (Jaetzold & Schmidt, 1983). 1.5.4 Coffee (UM2) and cotton (LM3) zones The coffee and cotton zone characterize the main agricultural production zones in Meru. Further, they broadly represent the agro ecological zones widely defined by distinct agro-climatic factors. The names of the main zones refer to the potentially leading crop grown here. There are however other crops that can be grown here as well. The generalized agro-ecological zones in Kenya are based on the FAO characterization of 1978. The two zone groups are more
11
appropriately distinguished by temperature and moisture levels experienced. They are also characterized based on the probability to meet the water requirements for the leading crops i.e. the climatic yield potential. The zones are roughly parallel to Braun’s climatic zones of the precipitation/evaporation index. The overall rainfall means show variability of 1500-2400 mm for coffee zone and 1200-1400 mm for the cotton zone. Topography is varied with ranges of 12801680 m for the coffee zone and 910-1280 m for the cotton zone (Table 2). Table 2 Annual rainfall and temperature in the coffee and cotton zones of Meru Agroecological zone
Altitude(m) Mean Temp.(oC)
Mean rainfall (mm)
60% reliability of rainfall
60% reliability of growing period
1st rains (mm)
2nd rains (mm)
1st rains (days)
2nd rains (days)
Coffee zone (UM 2)
1280-1680
20.6-18.2
1500-2400
450-800
450-800
135-155
135-155
Cotton (LM3)
910-1280
22.9-20.6
1200-1400
450-600
450-600
105-115
85-105
zone
Source: Jaetzold & Schmidt (1983)
1.5.5 Socio- economic status Agriculture is the lifeline of 80% of Kenya’s poor who live in rural areas, including farmers, workers and unemployed. Kenya’s agriculture provides up to 70% of all the employment. Consequently, creating jobs and increasing income in the sector is vitally important and if achieved, will have an important direct effect on poverty (GoK, 2000).
The overall incidence of poverty in Kenya has risen from 52% in 1982 to an estimated 56% in the year 2000. During the same period, rural absolute poverty has increased from about 48% to about 60% with the rural areas and urban informal settlements being more adversely affected. In the arid and semi-arid areas, the poor account for as much as 80% of the population with women and children comprising the majority (PRSP, 2000). Certain occupations, such as subsistence farmers (46% poor) and pastoralists (60% poor) have a higher than
12
average incidence of poverty. Subsistence farmers account for over 50% of the total poor in Kenya (PRSP, 2000). This pattern can be partly attributed to differences in the fertility of land and the affordability of inputs to improve productivity. In terms of income distribution, Kenya ranks highly in its inequitability.
Meru Central district with half a million people has between 40 and 60% of the households estimated to fall below poverty line. Farming is the main economic activity with the average farm size of two hectares (Ministry of Agriculture, 2000a).
Restoring high and sustainable agricultural growth is therefore critical for alleviating poverty. Preservation and sustainable use of natural resources for agriculture need to form the cornerstone of policies that ensure resources are available to improve the quality of life for present and future generations.
1.6
SUSTAINABILITY THEMES AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
‘Smallholder farming’ is a term often not clearly understood as ‘smallholders’ are often defined by their particular farming extent in any one given context. For instance, land hectarage is one parameter often used to distinguish between smallholder and large scale farmers. While hectarage seems a legitimate parameter particularly in large scale capital intensive monocultural systems in the West, it falls short of depicting socio-economic dimensions, characterized by limited inputs, labour intensive polycultural systems in particular difficult environmental circumstances such as experienced in most third world countries. Therefore, a farmer with an expansive hectarage of land and a limited production area in these circumstances will be characterized as a smallholder despite the amount of land controlled. In addition, farmers in the high potential areas characterized by a smaller hectarage but a higher output per unit area are also clustered as smallholders.
13
Smallholder farming systems in this study are therefore more clearly distinguished on the level and type of inputs and outputs for given choices of individual farmer enterprise. Production systems are largely characterized by a dependence on family labour, low capital input and a diversity of small individual farm enterprises. A common feature for this production system depicts an insufficiency of any single farm enterprise to meet household needs on its own. Farmers practicing sharecropping2 and tenant farming3 though limited in the diversity of farming enterprise will often be included in this bracket.
Smallholder timber practiced in these rather complex systems begs the inclusion of different systems dimensions to place its operational definition. This study therefore identifies smallholder timber to involve elements of crop production with selected timber species cultivated as an integral part of the whole smallholder farming system. Therefore smallholder timber is simply defined here as ‘all timber competitively produced and marketed often on a limited proportionate scale to any one given agricultural enterprise or farmland holding’. The choice of a given timber enterprise on farm is selected amongst competing farm enterprises. It may engage many small scale actors on its marketing and product value chain. It’s characteristically practiced on a ‘limited proportionate scale’ (compared to a given forest logging stands) to other agricultural enterprises or even on a free stand on any one given farm land.
Though depicted as a small enterprise in this definition, smallholder timber is found to be a multi-sectoral activity touching both on forestry and agriculture with a sub-optimally defined potential. Adequate qualitative and quantitative description is missing to characterize the complex production practices and resultant value chain functions as conducted by tree nursery operators, small 2
Sharecropping is the working of a piece of land by a tenant in exchange for a portion, usually half, of the crops or the revenue that they bring in for the landowner. 3 Agricultural system in which land owners rent their land to farmers and receive either cash or a share of the product in return.
14
timber businesses, chainsaw operators, timber yard owners, tea factories, local administration, micro finance providers and other smallholder timber marketing facilitators who seem to have very specific issues with regard to farm grown timber (Pasiecznik & Carsan, 2006). A social, technical, economic and environmental analysis of the entire sub-sector seems a useful means to inform interventions (Holding & Roshteko, 2003). More specifically, stakeholder evaluation of certain bottlenecks in smallholder timber and crop farming identifies low income and low produce value as inimitable issues akin to this practice. Key challenges are identified and several possible interventions conceptualized. It’s however imperative that particular intervention scenarios are rigorously examined to continuously scrutinize factors around sustainable smallholder production.
Any one given circumstance is unique and consensus in arriving at optimal solutions may be a hard task requiring sustained inquiry so as to improve farming skills, resource base management and inform policy issues. Conceived interventions should yield multiple benefits across different stakeholders. It is further conceptualized that a number and variety of environmental, economic and social factors will underlay successful smallholder production systems. A mapping of the current issues that directly influence farmer incomes and produce value in the target production systems is presented (Figure 2).
15
Figure 2 Issues and interventions influencing low smallholder timber value
Problem areas informed through this mapping and evaluation are best redressed through multi-sectoral interventions. Possible interventions are therefore identified and proposed for stakeholder evaluation. Careful evaluation of certain structural elements is needed with particular attention hinged on the following: •
Improvements on small holder farming practices should not only concentrate on technological options, but also activities that create awareness on expected and improved returns
•
Need to improve knowledge, farm management skills and optimal use of available resources to include value adding
•
Support for farmer institutions such as marketing associations and networks to redress common constraints while attaining bargaining power
•
Inform important policy aspects, which improve markets and sustains production systems
16
In order to improve on smallholder production systems and enhance livelihoods, an integration of critical multi-sectoral elements is needed in a two way feedback mechanism. Each element is assumed to be functional, interdependent and self driving to attain this collective goal. Figure 3 helps to depict a model representing this association.
Figure 3 Smallholder systems conceptual model
For sustainable production systems to be attained the model integrates different sectoral components in two-way interacting loops and a one way feed to smallholder improvements. Target elements needing attention for integration include smallholder capacity and institutional development, functional markets and marketing systems, responsive policy framework and tailored research and development programmes. The arrows in the model indicate directional feedback and support mechanisms. Stakeholder interest and participation incentives are assumed across the board for the different actors involved.
17
1.7 STUDY POTENTIAL AND LIMITATIONS This study has gathered important data on smallholder practices using a relatively small sample size. Collated data has helped analyze smallholder cropping systems with timber trees as critical component. The study builds on the emerging body of knowledge on smallholder timber marketing and helps draw critical lessons from failed plantation forestry.
Sustainability of smallholder cropping systems was studied through a cross sectional assessment of underlying farming practices through a survey research design. Data collected therefore only provided a ‘snapshot’ of the systems. It is now recognized that the study would have benefited more through a longitudinal study design to monitor and measure the dynamic trends on smallholder practices while gaining a deeper understanding of the underlying socialeconomic indicators. The study was limited in scope as it only evaluated crops and tree enterprises as ‘stand alone enterprises’ on smallholder farms. Though the current trends towards sustainability or away from it were grasped through certain indicators set out, the study may have missed on the multitude of factors influencing integrated systems and often requiring multiple quantitative data measurement through experimentation.
1.8 CONCLUSIONS Sustainable smallholder farming systems will not only require to be informed by economic benefits but also how well the inherent natural resource base is managed. There is need to inform the current smallholder cropping system on certain pathways to grow the value of their enterprises especially through diversification without causing further resource degradation. The challenge is however compounded by an increasing human population on the available resources.
18
CHAPTER TWO 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter takes a critical evaluation of existing literature on smallholder cropping systems with particular emphasis on smallholder timber production experiences cutting across regions and specific countries. Success stories on smallholder timber are depicted while challenges of plantation forestry are highlighted with a view of understanding underlying causes and hopefully draw lessons for smallholder timber. Despite the paucity of literature on smallholder timber practices in particular, emerging experiences highlight certain pathways to its growth and sustainability. Specific factors to grow the sub-sector practices are shown to include technical awareness, enabling policy and market interventions.
2.1 INTRODUCTION It is estimated that between 500 million and one billion smallholder farmers worldwide, grow farm trees or manage remnant forests for subsistence and income (Scherr, 2004). Indeed local communities now control at least 25% of the developing world’s forests and in forest-scarce countries local farmers are actively growing trees for commercial use (FAO, 2003). Agriculture and forestry therefore, can no longer be thought of as mutually exclusive activities, even though national and international statistics are only kept on the differentiated land cover of these systems and the data on the extent of integrated agroforestry systems are not available (Simons & Leakey, 2004). More critically, the integration of crops, livestock and trees within smallholder farming systems is not often clearly understood in terms of optimal outputs and inherent sustainability. Dynamics in smallholder systems with impacts on natural resource use and management can however be illustrated by for instance grazing communities whereby, when rainfall is adequate, smallholders intensify their systems by moving from pure grazing systems to mixed farming systems so as to diversify production and increase income (Stroebel, 2004).
19
A deeper understanding on the role of tree for diverse smallholder systems is nonetheless hampered by poorly accumulated literature. Efforts to audit tree stocks outside forests enlist those of FAO where a global inventory of ‘trees outside forests’ has been initiated. Preliminary results show that in Punjab, India, farm trees account for 85% of the province growing stock while in Sri-Lanka over 70% of industrial wood comes from trees outside forests (FAO, 2001). The ongoing Integrated Natural Resource Assessment (INRA) are expected to give a more holistic and comparative assessment on the different tree resources. International experiences on forestry and agro forestry to meet various objectives be they community or commercial are of varied fortunes and challenges. For instance, many ambitious woodlot projects have failed to meet planned expectations due to management constraints and poor sustainability plans which leave out target communities. A good example is the many woodlots established during the past 55 years in the former homelands of the Eastern Cape of South Africa owing to environmental concerns and which have fallen to poor state due to management issues falling short of providing the anticipated benefits to the target community (Ham & Theron, 2001). The practical management of tree farming within agricultural cropping systems therefore not only requires data collection on the practices but also a good understanding of farmer community experiences on what systems work best and where. Smallholder farming practices are diverse with no single recipe as to the best practices they rather seem to thrive on a combination of experiences with certain degree of trial and error phenomenon.
2.2 SMALLHOLDER TIMBER IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania are some of the world’s regions with the greatest potential for tree domestication to contribute to sustainable development (Simons & Leakey, 2004). In Kenya, it is estimated that the amount of woody biomass material on farm-lands is more than that of indigenous and plantations
20
forests combined (KFMP, 1994). However, the commercial value of farm grown trees has remained unproven owing to huge market incentives in the past to access bulk logs from government plantation and indigenous forests. Faced with serious planting backlogs, illegal logging practices, land and squatter related problems, fire incidences and general poor management, state forest timber logging has recently become threatened and unsustainable (KWS, 1999).
In the neighboring Uganda, deforestation process of approximately 91,000 ha per year has been difficult to slow down, because 70% of Ugandan forests are on private land (FAO, 2001). Natural forests cover 21% of the land area, but most of these forests are highly degraded and have a low production capacity. The remaining timber plantations of less than 8,000 ha are in poor condition because management has been neglected (Ebert, 2004). Owing to the steadily improving political and economic situation, the demand for construction timber and the prices are steadily increasing. The country is in need for suitable, wellinvestigated species for plantations as well as for natural forests and agroforestry systems. A recent study on the silvicultural potential of Maesopsis eminii (Buchholz et. al, 2005) reveals that, the lack of information on site-specific growth potential and management information of native tree species has contributed to low investment in indigenous species for saw log plantations.
In Ethiopia, estimates of the potential benefits from the sustainable harvest of Eucalyptus poles from household managed woodlots in Tigray suggest an annual average return of approximately 370 EB (US$ 98) per capita in 1998 (Jagger & Pender, 2003). Similarly, in Uganda, farm grown Eucalyptus grandis and Pinus caribaea is preferred to meet household needs of fuelwood, poles and timber for building due to its fast growth and coppicing characteristics. Investment in tree planting is therefore emerging as a potential economic ativity in the low potential areas and particularly in areas with relatively good market access.
21
In Cameroon, nearly 75% of the population lives in rural areas, 95% of which are agricultural smallholders. The country’s strategy for rural development as articulated in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, tackling rural poverty involves improving smallholders’ livelihoods. Tree crops are identified as an important source of employment and revenue for smallholders in Cameroon and are also some of the most important traded commodities (World Bank, 2002). Tree crops, as opposed to other cash crops, present significant opportunities in terms of economic growth and poverty reduction in rural areas, because they can be part of integrated sustainable farming systems carried out at the village level (targeting directly the poorest groups of the population).
Elsewhere, an upland community’s census conducted in the Philippines in 1989 revealed that 77% of households relied on upland farming which is dominated by cash crop usually grown in mixtures with fruits and forest trees (Damasa et. al., 1999). Fast tree growth in high potential and medium potential areas makes tree growing a feasible agricultural land use option. In addition, favourable market conditions have induced small-scale farmers to grow trees for the market. Fast growing trees such as Gmelina arborea, Acacia mangium and Paraserianthes falcataria are planted with annual crops on farms and fallow lands (Bertomeu, 2004; Roshteko et. al., 2004).
In several regions of Argentina, agroforestry systems which originated with the European colonization are currently being adopted to meet local needs. The Province of Misiones, in the Northeast of Argentina has an area of about 30,000 km2, less than one percent of the total country. However, it produces over 75% of the country’s timber (Eibl et. al., 2000).
Globally, wood demand was forecast to amount to three billion cubic metres in 2005, similar to the total removals recorded for 1990 and averaging 0.69 percent of the total growing stock. While Asia reported a decrease in wood removals in recent years, Africa reported a steady increase. It is estimated that nearly half of
22
the removed wood was wood fuels. Informally or illegally removed wood, especially wood fuel, is not usually recorded, so the actual amount of wood removals is undoubtedly higher (FAO, 2005).
As wood demand increases around the world, management of the natural resource base in a sustainable and integrated approach is essential to achieve sustainable tree production on farms. In this regard, it is necessary to implement strategies aimed at protecting different types of production systems and to achieve integrated management of environmental resources such as soils and tree genetic resources. Unsustainable tree production often characterized by over-harvesting of trees, have raised concerns over the optimal farm productivity per unit land over vast farmer production systems. Sustainable farming practices that involve crop diversification to the extent of timber tree crops therefore need to be adequately informed (Kindt, 2002; Lengkeek, 2003).
2.3 SUSTAINING SMALLHOLDER SYSTEMS In discussing opportunities to redress the priority goal of reducing poverty and hunger problems stipulated in the Millennium Development Goals through agriculture, the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development, observes that 60% of the rural populations in Africa live in areas of good agricultural potential and poor market access, while only 23% live in areas of good agricultural potential and good market access. The remaining 18% live in the most difficult environment with poor agricultural potential (GDPRD, 2005). To ensure sustainability of small holder tree-crop systems that largely support a steadily increasing rural population, strategies to increase production capacity of existing land area without diminishing its regenerative capacity are needed. Mercado et. al. (2003) points out that in the context of timber based hedgerows the tree is an important economic component of the system. The timber yield and its by-products for example fuel wood largely influences total system productivity. Trees share the resource base (light, water and nutrients) with the crops. The
23
right choices of tree species and silviculture practices are required so that trees don’t out-compete food crops. Muchiri et. al. (2001) estimates a mean annual volume increment of eight to 18 m3 ha-1 for Grevillea robusta in agroforestry systems in ten year period. However, with maximum competition diameter at breast height (dbh) growth is reduced by 29% while mean annual height is reduced by nine percent.
By and large it’s instructive from the sustainability criterion that at a minimum, future generations should be left no worse off than current generations in resource exploitation. Sustainable smallholder tree production offer an opportunity to ensure broad based benefits are realized particularly in the rural settings where the practice is common. Scherr (2004) observes that local producers may be more familiar with local product and processing preferences, composed of particular tree species mix and spatial pattern capable of producing multiple streams of income. It is now widely recognized that farm trees can in addition, increase agricultural productivity when grown as windbreaks, fodder banks, live fences, or nurse trees for perennial cash crops.
Clear lessons on failed forest plantation logging, help caution unsustainable pathways on smallholder timber development.
For instance, for many years
Kenya relied on plantation and indigenous forests for all the timber requirements. Timber production soon became unsustainable resulting to logging bans. The sub-sector is now challenged by poor planning resulting in planting backlogs, logging malpractices, frequent fire outbreaks and little investment on the sector. Over logging of Cuppressus lusistanica and Pinus patula facilitated by government subsidies gave local timber businesses a competitive edge but was not sustainable in the long-run resulting in a ban imposition. Experiences in other countries such as Malaysia, report that a 35,000 hectares plantation stand of Acacia mangium established between 1985 and 1987 was not sufficient to cover a loan repayment while several thousands hectares of Gmelina aborea planted in Sabah in 1980 for round wood had no market. The wood was sold at price
24
covering cost of harvesting and transportation only (Bertomeu, 2004). While in Thailand, annual production of Tectona grandis (Teak), an important timber species in the Asia-Pacific fell by approximately 87% between 1971 and 1985 due to poor plantation management (Roshteko et. al., 2004).
The collapse of natural forest logging in the 1980’s in the Philippines resulted in a huge shortage of timber. Fast growing trees and shrub species are currently being grown as part of a wide variety of land use systems including tree fallows, woodlots, tree plantations, agroforestry systems, isolated/scattered tree plantings and shrub secondary forest areas (Damasa et. al., 1999). In Ethiopia, questions have been asked over smallholder farmer emphasis on cereal production around the Tigray highlands despite low returns (Jagger et. al., 2003). Whether to shift production to include woodlot management for greater income generation opportunities
and
a
positive
impact
on
biodiversity
preservation
and
environmental sustainability are emerging research questions.
As farmlands timber emerges to absorb losses in forests, woodlands and bush lands, Kenya’s experiences provide a useful learning point. Kenya’s Forestry Master Plan (1994) estimate that 40% of the woody biomass found outside forest is actually from planted trees. The total volume of trees planted by farmers equal that of closed canopy indigenous and plantation forests combined. It is estimated that farmlands and settlements on average contain on average about nine cubic metres of woody biomass, increasing at an annual rate of about 0.5 m3/ha (KFMP, 1994).
Sound management of the existing natural resource base is now a pre-requisite for sustainable tree-crop production on farms. In this regard, it is imperative to implement strategies aimed at enhancing different types of production systems to achieve optimal management of environmental resources such as soils and treecrop genetic resources (Lengkeek, 2003). Unsustainable production practices
25
characterized by tree over-harvesting have raised concerns over the optimal farm productivity per unit land over the complex farmer production systems.
Ideally, increased smallholder production for competitive commodities beckons sustainable farming practices. However, farming practices need not be promoted on the assumption of a uniform rural population. Smallholder rural farmers are often a heterogeneous group with very different socio-economic conditions. Subsistence oriented farmers, whose main objective is food security and risk reduction, have been found to shun fast growing tree species due to competition with food crops (Magcale-Macandog et.al., 1999; Mercado, 2003). In the larger central highlands of Kenya, it’s reported that on a per hectare basis, a row of Grevillea reduces maize yields by about five percent. However, maize and beans field with a row of Grevillea on the boundary is slightly more profitable than maize and beans alone (Tyndall, 1996).
Tree-crop planting has the potential to mitigate impacts of deforestation hinged on socio-economic and environmental consequences. The practice is expected to increase farm productivity, reduce need to clear more forest, help conserve soil of cropped land, diversify farm income and provide products that would otherwise be obtained from forests (Bertomeu, 2004). However secure land tenure along well-defined property rights structures and accessible markets are a pre-condition for long-term investments on the land (Carsan & Holding, 2006).
2.4 CONCLUSIONS Most information on smallholder timber was found to be site specific and scattered on different scale, sectors and institutions. Lessons on unsustainable plantation forestry are similar and can be cross fertilized. The existing body of knowledge for smallholder timber practices however needs to be strengthened through more research to help a deeper understanding. Though most literature dwells on promoting tree planting as one of the solutions to counter the problems
26
of deforestation, economic and social impacts are not clearly delineated to inform and facilitate policy planning. Clear strategies on tree products marketing leading to sustainable tree enterprises remain curious to practitioners. Quantitative evaluation of farm tree resources is particularly limited and fragmented on case studies with curious methodologies. Nonetheless, the impacts of failed plantation forestry practices and the critical role played by farm timber to generate income are clear and seem well reconciled.
27
CHAPTER THREE 3.0 RESEARCH METHODS This chapter provides insights into how the study was conducted. It highlights the research design, methods of data collection, sampling and means to drawing key findings and conclusions.
3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH Rural smallholder agricultural systems often demonstrate a complexity of practices embedded in local and traditional technologies. To gain a good understanding of the systems, broad data gathering techniques therefore seemed pertinent. Accordingly, this study encompassed both qualitative and quantitative research approaches to realize the objectives. To assess and inform the status of smallholder timber and subsistence crop production in the target area, a combination of explorative and descriptive designs were used to integrate the findings. Due to the geographical expansiveness of the study area and the many smallholder farmers deemed homogeneous in terms of production practices, a cross-sectional survey was conducted in two key smallholder production systems (the cotton and coffee zones) delineated as problem areas requiring
production
sustainability
assessments.
The
survey
instrument
(Appendix 1) utilized sought to assess key issues on choices of tree-crops enterprise by smallholders, and kinds of input-output management strategies currently practiced for both crops and timber production in the distinct production systems.
3.2 SAMPLING Given the large geographical coverage of the study area a representative sample frame was required to draw a reliable sample (University of Reading, 2000). There is however no readily available lists of farmers at the location level from which to draw samples. Several alternative sampling frames were therefore
28
investigated for aptness. These included list of farmers from local administrative leaders, records of land ownership from the Ministry of Lands and Settlement, the Ministry of Agriculture’s catchment groups and lists of farmers from local farmer institutions (coffee and tobacco cooperatives). The latter was used to draw a simple random sample as it was deemed most updated and representative. A total of 18 farmers were randomly selected for household interviews and 31 farms considered as units of analysis from a previous related biomass study.
Target farmers for interviews were purposively drawn from two key agro ecological zones within Meru Central District. The two zones are distinct agroecological zones (coffee and cotton/tobacco zones), delineated as representing the problem statement. The cotton zone was divided into the upper zone (Mitunguu area) and the lower zone (Giaki area). The two zones were further stratified into three sub-locations each: Nkuu njumu, Mitunguu and Maraa (Mitunguu) and Runyuone, Kathwene and Mbajone (Giaki).
Nkuu njumu and Maraa sub-locations and Runyuone and Mbajone sub-locations in Mitunguu and Giaki respectively were purposively selected to provide sample farmers for interviews. The four locations were desired as the available sample frame representing over 80% of all the households present. The relative homogeneity of the farming practices in the target locations further guided the location selection and eventual size of target sample. A simple random of eight farmers was drawn from each sub-location with a view of interviewing at least five farmers in each of the four sub-locations. The bigger random sample selection catered for failed interviews due to relocations, deaths or other factors deemed to cause a particular interview to fail.
A total of 18 farmers were
successfully interviewed within the four sub locations.
For the coffee zone, two large subdivisions were again used; the main coffee zone and the marginal coffee zone. Two sub-locations were purposively selected
29
as representative of each guided by local knowledge on climatic factors and production factors. The local coffee factories which maintains local contacts of over 75% of farmers in the target zone was used to draw a simple random sample for the four selected sub-locations. A total of 16 farmers representative of the four sub-locations were considered from a previous related study.
In both zones, key local informants, extension staff from the Ministry of Agriculture and private institutions were used to provide logistical support to reach the randomly selected farmers for interviews. Appointments and consent for interviews was sought from prospective interviewees with the purpose and benefits of the study explained prior to the actual interview.
3.3 DATA COLLECTION 3.3.1 Study technique Several survey techniques were combined to conduct farmer and farming systems assessments in the respective cotton and coffee zones. Individual farmer interviews, farm walks, focus group discussions and key informant interviews (local administration, forest and agricultural department staff) and local managers in the private sector with a direct interest in farm wood e.g. British American Tobacco (BAT) and coffee factories were used to ascertain current farmer timber and crops production practices. A previous case study on related work was integrated to collate and build on the new data collected. Compatible secondary data was identified to help triangulate key study findings. 3.3.2 Data collection The survey was conducted between August and September 2006 in Meru Central district. The interview tool consisted of a structured questionnaire with closed and open-ended questions. The questionnaire tool was triangulated to cross-check accuracy of responses provided. Further, a checklist of points for probing on particular issues was used to introduce a greater degree of interaction
30
on the part of the interviewee and especially to guide the open ended questions. Observation schedules were used to enumerate timber tree species on the farms and features of interest on individual farming practices. Data from a related case study in the target area was ascertained and elements of interest identified and used in support of the study objectives. Particular data on agricultural crops management was collated from the recent Ministry of Agriculture resource management guidelines on the district (MoA, 2005).
3.3 DATA ANALYSIS Collected data on crop cultivation, inputs management together with timber tree species produced on farm was analyzed using simple descriptive statistics such as means, frequency counts and percentages. Collected data was entered into Excel and analysis executed using Excel and SPSS statistical package (SPSS, 2000). Qualitative data was coded to facilitate certain quantitative interpretations.
3.4 CONCLUSIONS Smallholder farming practices are unique and sometimes practices are nested in existing indigenous knowledge making their understanding a complex issue. There is the need to exercise flexibility in data collection and collation while engaging multiple data collection instruments and techniques. However certain smallholder practices are homogeneous and can be tackled with even a small sample size. Finally, with often poor formal record keeping practices in most rural settings, quantitative data collection including sampling exercises can be challenging, time consuming and requiring participatory approaches to aid in interpretation.
31
CHAPTER FOUR 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Most smallholder tree and agricultural crops cultivation are based on the assumption that the two are sufficiently mixed to provide household tree product needs, food and income. The underlying inherent cropping system is often overlooked in supporting the tree and crops production objectives. This section therefore attempts to delineate the potential of current cultivation practices and evaluates underlying factors pertinent to their sustainability from collected data. Insights on the separate crop and timber practices are delineated to understand their operations in terms of inputs, outputs, management and marketing.
4.1 LAND SIZE The average land size holding for the sampled farms was in the indicative mean range of between one to two and half hectares. Minimum farm holding of less than a hectare (0.2 ha) was found in the coffee zone while the maximum holding of 11 hectares was found in the cotton zone. Mean farm holding in the cotton zone is between one to three hectares. There was only one case of land below one hectare, found in the cotton zone, indicating the generally larger farm holdings in the zone. The largest farm holding encountered in the coffee zone was two and half hectares which also was the only farm above two hectares. The intensiveness of cultivation and land sub-division is probably depicted by the small land holding of less than one hectare per household.
4.2 SMALLHOLDER CROP PRODUCTION Crop production in the surveyed area was found to be largely subsistence with mixed systems incorporating crop polyculture4. Cereal crop production is particularly significant in the surveyed area. Table 3 gives estimates of key cereal 4
Polyculture distinguishes ‘all of the multiple cropping situations from monoculture [cropping] and indicates that an area is being used for more than one crop at a time’.
32
crops production in hectarage and volumes in the district. Maize and beans form the major staple crops cultivated per hectare. Overall, even through large coverage areas are recorded with maize actual production is meager on a per hectare basis. Indeed beans production is more than that of maize on a per hectare calculation. Cash crops such as coffee, tea and wheat are important in the district with large agricultural area coverage.
Table 3 Selected cereal crop production volumes in Meru Central in year 2003 Crop Maize
Area in (Ha) 39970
Production (Tons) 483
Sorghum Beans Cowpeas Pigeon peas Dolicos
2670 39900 1490 1510 1320
27.5 179 8.8 9.1 8.7
Wheat Tea Coffee Grams
5490 4700 18650 640
110 44000 10426 3 Source: MoA, 2005
Other crops (Table 4) such as Irish potatoes, bananas and vegetables such as cabbages and tomatoes are important food crops and are emerging high income earners in the district. The variety of all the crops produced in the district is indicative of the potential for higher production perhaps through use of high yield varieties seed, farmyard manure, better crop husbandry and better crop marketing arrangements. Table 4 Other crops production in tonnes per hectare Crop
Area in (Ha)
Production (Tons)
Banana
960
18
Cabbages
453
14
Irish potato
15730
1438
Tomatoes
460
12
French beans
456
5 Source: MoA, 2005
33
4.2.1 Cropping system Food and income objectives define cropping systems on available land. Farmer food objectives are met through mixed cropping systems while income objectives are best achieved through monocultural systems. Indicative collated data show that the combined objectives on food and cash seem best realized through monocultural and mixed cropping systems. Intercropping systems are marginally useful for subsistence food needs (Figure 4). Though the benefits on intercropping would seem important, farmer crop production seem driven by both household food and income needs.
140 food cash food/cash
crop incident counts
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 monoculture
intercropping
mixed cropping
cropping systems
Figure 4 Smallholder cropping systems against food and cash farming objectives
There seem to be a growing farmer preference on monocultural cropping in the survey area. Production is however strongly hinged on mixed systems even though the maintenance of current levels remains curious. Benefits of mixed cropping systems are clear and seem well accepted. Mixed cropping systems even appear to replace intercropping which are shown to be minimal. The benefits of monocultural and the mixed systems practices, on the biophysical
34
parameters of the land are however not clear and remain curious to overall sustainability questions.
Certain cereal crop mixes such as maize, beans, pigeon peas, sorghum and ground nuts are utilized in the different cropping systems to attain the aforementioned farming objectives. The systems however remain subsistence characterized by maize and beans production for household food and cash needs. Mixed cropping is preferred for all cultivated crops with monoculture systems preferred for maize, beans and tobacco. Mixed cropping and intercropping systems are recorded as important for maize, beans, sorghum and pigeon peas (Figure 5).
120
Intercropping Mixed cropping
cropping system count
100
Monoculture
80
60
40
20
crops
To ba cc o
Su nf lo we r
So rg hu m
pe as eo n
Pi g
M ai ze
C ow pe as G re en gr am G ro un dn ut
be an s
Bl a
ck
Be an s
Ba na na
0
Figure 5 Smallholder agricultural crop types and cropping systems
The significance of the maize and bean crop is demonstrated by it’s cultivation in all the cropping systems unlike other crops on farm. Crops such as cowpeas, sorghum and pigeon peas regarded as ‘traditional’ crops seem to be cultivated as ‘filler’ crops for the main staple crops. Their importance is nonetheless
35
identified along food provision goals as overall production volumes remain minimal for trade. Surprisingly, these ‘traditional’ crops are more demanded and usually fetch higher local market prices than maize and beans. Maize is particularly preferred as the staple food as it was reported to be easily prepared meal in multiple forms such as grain, greens and flour.
Overall, farmer crop production systems appear pegged on risk reducing strategies where avenues for producing continuous household streams of benefits are strived for. There seem to be an entrenched practice of mixed cropping system particularly for farmers with less than one hectare of land. For farmers with larger farm sizes mono-cropping is practiced to some extent. To smooth income over time, crops with low correlations in yield, price, cost or net return are planted. Yields and prices are reported to vary unpredictably while a dependence on the seasonality cropping encourages cultivation of multiple crops. Differences in incidences of irrigation practices, soil conditions and general farm management are likely to explain some of the differences in cropping patterns and achieved yields.
4.3 PRODUCTION INPUTS Cultivation of smallholder agricultural crops in the surveyed area is rain-fed on the short and long rains incidences. Crop yields are pegged on certain levels of inputs including: fertilizer, planting seeds, pesticides and labour for weeding, planting and produce harvesting. Though soils are relatively rich, farmer perception is that adequate harvests are only realized with adequate fertilizer provision. Prices of fertilizer, pesticides, and seeds were however reported to be constraining leading to less than required application per farm holding. Fertilizer was identified as the most important input limiting production. Interviewed farmers report that fertilizer use is limited or not used at all. However, cash crops farmers for instance for tobacco, benefit from a loan facility on fertilizer provided by local tobacco buying companies. Farmers in turn use provided fertilizer to
36
produce their subsistence food crops. Local trade and exchanges with farmers not enjoying the facility was reported to be common.
An interesting crop rotation practice was noted with some of the farmers producing tobacco. Immediately after the tobacco crop, a maize crop is followed on the same planting hole to take advantage of the previous season fertilizer application. Pest and disease is also managed through similar means where pesticides provided on a loan scheme are utilized to manage food crops pest and diseases. As for planting seeds, traditional seeds are used and in other instances hybrid seeds are purchased. Seeds for planting were however reported to be of varying quality depressing yields. Some farmers were however observed to be unaware that use of seeds from their hybrid crop harvest for planting depresses yields.
A ranking of all the inputs requirements reveal that labour for weeding, planting and harvesting were the most limiting factors for optimal production. There is a reliance of family labour for most farm work with division of labour suffering gender imbalances. The cost of fertilizer and pesticides are the next most important factors. Isolated cases of poor crop production skills and soil erosion management were observed on several farms visited. 4.3.1 Gross margin calculations for maize crop Maize was the commonest subsistence crop produced by all farmers in the surveyed area. Farmer investment appear tailored to the maize crop as a priority. The crop’s output to meet both food and income objectives is therefore critical. An assessment of this output on a per hectare basis is hereby considered using gross margin5 tabulation on the incomes, variable costs, and fixed cost within three hypothetical management systems. Table 5 shows characteristic variable cost and resultant net margin for a hectare of maize crop in the surveyed area under three variable inputs. Management level III gives far more economic 5
Gross margin is the value of enterprise output less the variable costs attributable to the enterprise.
37
benefits due to economies of scale realized by producing more maize bags while management level I provides the farmer with the least economic benefits for a maize enterprise. Table 5 Maize Gross Margin per hectare I
Management level* Pure stand one season Output (bag)/income Variable Costs Seed (hybrid) Fertilizer 20:20:0 (50 kg) Fertilizer (CAN, 50kg) FYM (lorry) Insecticides* Total Variable Costs (TVC) (KES/Ha) Gross Margin (KES/Ha) Allocatable Fixed Costs Land preparation (ploughing, harrowing) Planting (MD*) Manual weeding (MD) Top dressing (CAN) (MD) Spraying Buldock (MD) Harvesting (MD) Shelling (MD) Dusting (MD) Bagging ganny bag (no) Total Fixed Costs Net Margin (KES/Ha)
Price/unit (Kes) 1200
190 1750 1350 1600 400
Qty 20
Value (Kes) 24000
15 2 2
2850 3500 2700
1
400
II Value Qty (Kes) 25 30000
20
3800
20
3800
1 2 1
1350 3200 400
1 2.5 1.5
1350 4000 600
9450 14550
2000 100 120 100 100 100 160 100 100
1 5 20 3 3 5 5 6 10
2000 500 2400 300 300 500 800 600 1000 8400 6150
Qty 30
III Value (Kes) 36000
8750 21250
1 6 20 5 3 5 6 10 15
2000 600 2400 500 300 500 960 1000 1500 9760 11490
9750 26250
1 6 20 10 3 3 10 10 20
2000 600 2400 1000 300 300 1600 1000 2000 11200 15050
*MD: man days, Brands of insecticides used include: Lanet/othin/bestox *Management level: different levels of inputs and costing are shown as I, II & III
Tabulation of the gross margin calculation presented here is however based on certain assumptions such as: maize crop production is done on a pure stand basis with all the inputs used purposefully for maize crop production; fertilizer and farm yard manure is assumed to be alternately used in the three management levels; the split of costs when shared inputs such as insecticides and top dressing chemicals are used within farmer crop enterprises in the mixed cropping are not factored either. Inputs costing were particularly difficult given the poor
38
record keeping practices by farmers. For instance family labour, livestock manure and slurry were regarded as an internal cost to the farmer given the difficult circumstance to estimate the real costs for these inputs.
A comparison of gross margins across several subsistence cereal crops produced in the surveyed area provides a good comparison on economic yields on farmer investment (Table 6). Per hectare production volumes are estimated on a per acre basis due to the small scale production of these crops in the often mixed cropping systems. However, in comparison to the dominant maize crop their gross margin earnings are of high value. Ground nuts, green grams, and pigeon peas are particularly produced on a low scale but provide high value return per farm holding. The food objectives are even greater given the nutritional value of these crops. Table 6 Selected cereal crop gross margins comparisons Crop Beans Maize Cowpeas Pigeon peas Groundnuts Green grams
Gross margin/Ha. 7286 15603 18375 10150 45500 30504
Approx. no. of bags (90 Kg) 10 40 15 17.5 15 38
Price (KES) 2300 1200 1800 3000 4000 3000
Source: Adapted from MoA, 2005
Management expertise and crop-specific experience are assumed to determine yields realized. However per unit costs are likely to fall with more acreage, labor use and general management efficiency. Overall, even though gross margin does not measure profit, it shows the contribution of an enterprise to fixed costs, interest and capital expenditure. 4.4
CROP PRODUCTION LIMITATIONS
Several farmer constraints and suggested improvement solutions were provided to inform current production levels. Table 7 summarizes responses gathered from all the interviews. Resource constraints such as for fertilizer, pesticides and
39
planting seeds are showed to cause farmers to use limited quantities of the same or none at all depressing yields. Access to capital for inputs like fertilizer was the commonest constraint identified from almost all the interviews.
As most of the system is rainfall dependent, provision of irrigation water services by the government was requested in about 70% of the interviews. Expensive fertilizer was by far the most limiting factor after poor rains. High cost of pesticides and ineffective pesticides were also mentioned as limiting (Appendix 2 lists some of the major pest and diseases experienced in the district). Others include poor quality seeds and varieties, mixed cropping practices which reduced yield per individual crop enterprise, poor farm tending practices and soil erosion which is sometime accompanied by flooding. Table 7 Identified crop production limitations and means to improvement Identified Limitations 1. Inadequate pesticide use 2. Limited capital 3. Limited farm size 4. Mixed cropping
Suggested Improvements Control pest and diseases Provide access to capital Reclaim idle or fallow land Line spacing yields more Practice monocultures on maize and beans
Plant maize after tobacco crop Provide access to capital Proper tending Training awareness Provide quality seeds 6. Poor seeds Improve seed quality and varieties 7. Poor timing on planting, weeding Correct operations timing 8. Rainfall shortage Provide irrigation water 9. Soil erosion Build terraces Provide more fertilizer Build terraces though expensive 10. Expensive fertilizer Provide access to capital Reduce fertilizer prices 5. Pests & diseases
11. Labour constraints
Provide access to capital
It is interesting to note the challenges highlighted by farmers were blamed on external causes beyond the control of most smallholders. Solutions also seem to be expected from external sources and a high expectation on government
40
interventions. It is suspected that current reduced agricultural extension services support are negatively impacting on smallholder practices hence affecting production. 4.5 FARM TIMBER PRODUCTION Timber tree cultivation along subsistence crops even though practiced for the last many years, was found to be an emerging enterprise in many of the farms visited. Trees produced on farm in the past were only revered for their household services such as firewood and domestic wood provision. Lately, there is an emerging farmer interest to undertake tree planting as a competitive farm enterprise like other crop enterprises. The practice is on the one hand found to experience certain huge market opportunities and on the other certain peculiar challenges. Failed plantations forestry seems to give impetus to tree planting on farm. While a poor policy support environment is cited as the key bottleneck stifling smallholder timber enterprise growth. This study takes an audit of smallholder timber management while providing an indicative potential of the resource. 4.5.1 Timber species on farm A rapid analysis on the kinds of tree species utilized for timber and firewood showed abundance of species richness though poorer on per farm coverage. At least 17 tree species were identified on farms in both the cotton and coffee systems for timber amongst other uses. Grevillea robusta is the most cultivated timber species in both the coffee and cotton zones comprising a bulk of about 43% of all the species found on any given farm. Table 8 gives a percentage value of other timber species found on the farm in both the coffee and cotton systems. The average for species such as Cassia siamea, Milletia dura and Combretum molle is skewed as they were only found in greater abundance in the cotton zone. Vitex keniensis was more abundant in the coffee zone. Important timber species found in both systems include: Eucalyptus spp., Cordia africana, Trichillia emetica and fruit species Persea americana and Mangifera indica.
41
Table 8 Timber species utilized in the coffee and cotton zones of Meru Central Tree Species
Number and percentage of trees per farm Cotton zone Percentage (%) Coffee zone
Grevillea robusta Militia dura Cassia siamea Persea americana Juniperus procera Combretum molle Cordia africana Croton macrostachyus Eucalyptus spp. Mangifera indica Trichilia emetica Acasia. abyssinica Azanrza garckeana Ficus sp. Markhamia lutea Vitex keniensis
89
12
3 1 20 4 8
3 9
200 40 31 22 20 16 15 12 4 4 3 3 3 3 2
43.5 12.6 9.8 4.6 6.3 5.1 2.8 2.6 3.8 1.1 1.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 2.8
More specifically, the cotton zone is found to contain a much larger diversity of timber species on a per hectare basis than the coffee system. This is probably attributed to several factors such as a more extensive farm holding, less intensity of cropping patterns and a higher abundance of remnant natural vegetation on farms. The coffee system on the other hand faces a much higher number of competing crop enterprises on a very limited amount of land. Choice of enterprise to be retained is therefore competitive and must yield a relatively good economic return. Smallholder timber trees with a long gestation period are therefore rigorously screened against temporal and spatial parameters within an individual farmer circumstance. Appendix 3 provides a listing of the commonest tree species found on farm in this region. 4.5.2 Timber volumes on farm In a related component timber biomass survey for 31 smallholder farms indicative volumes are provided. The farms occupied an area of 58 hectares and yielded a total wood volume of 1900 m3 within the range of 43-80 m3. The minimum total
42
volume per farm recorded was two cubic metres, while the maximum volume recorded per farm was 181 m3. Mean volume per hectare in the coffee zone is between 33-50 m3 while the minimum and maximum recorded volume per hectare was ten and 150 m3 respectively. These volumes are contributed by approximately 135-212 stems per farm and 105-158 stems /ha respectively in the two zones (Table 9). Table 9 Summary of total timber volumes and stem numbers on farm Mean volume (m3) and stem number
Total volume (m3) and stem number
Mean vol. range farm-1
Total volume on farm
1900
Total no. stems on farm
5400
Total vol. by the hectarage
1330
Total stems by hectarage
4070
43-80 -1
Mean stems range farm -1
Mean vol. range Ha
135-212 33-50
-1
Mean stems range Ha
105-158
n= 31 farms, range means expressed at 90% confidence level
According to the Kenya Forest Master Plan, farmlands timber has emerged to absorb losses in forests, woodlands and bush lands. Projected wood supply from farmlands in the high and medium potential zones was projected to increase from 64% in 1995 to over 80% in the year 2020 (Table 10). Table 10 Projected wood supply and demand in the high-potential and mediumpotential districts under the master plan scenario (‘000 m3) Sustainable wood supply
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Indigenous forests
1942
1916
1909
1909
1909
1909
Forest plantations
2149
2600
2402
2840
3245
3815
Farms and settlements
7437
10386
13375
16421
19479
22553
Sub-Total
11528
14902
17686
21170
24633
28277
64
70
76
78
79
80
Wood from clearings & substitutes
1648
1917
2118
2430
2754
3086
Total wood supply
13176
16819
19804
23600
27387
31363
Wood demand
15084
18024
21041
24294
27786
31527
Wood surplus/deficit
-1908
-1205
-1237
-694
-399
-161
Farms as % of the sub-total
Source: KFMP, 1994
43
Deficits were envisaged to accumulate in year 2005 and steadily decline by year 2020 as more trees growing are undertaken on farms. Projected total demand for wood in the high and medium potential districts was poised to rise from 15,084,000 m3 in 1995 to 30,679,000 m3 in the year 2020 (KFMP, 1994).
A closer analysis of the coffee and cotton production systems reveals curious disparities in amounts of wood volume and type of species supported by each system. Trees planted on farm were classified along four different key functional uses namely timber, fuelwood, fruits and others. The ‘timber’ category emerged as the most widely produced category in both systems. The cotton zone is revealed to produce a much larger volume of wood (832 m3) than the coffee system (432 m3) proportionately (Figure 6). These however overlap when firewood volume is considered as species could be used simultaneously for both purposes.
No. of Stems-Vol.(m3) Cofee_Cotton Zone
2500
2000
1916
No. of stems_cotton
Vol. (m3)_cotton
No. of stems_coffee Vol. (m3)_coffee
1500 1116 1025 1000
863
438
432
500
367
274
238
180 33
86
112
40
23
41
0 Timber
Fuelw ood
Fruit tree
Others
Use category
Figure 6 Timber volumes in the cotton-coffee systems
The much larger smallholder timber volume production in the cotton zone is attributed probably to the larger farm holdings usually over two hectares
44
compared to the lesser holdings in the coffee zone usually below one hectare attributed to rampant land subdivision. 1.5.3 Managing smallholder timber Smallholder farmers in Meru produce a sizeable amount of Grevillea robusta on farm. It is estimated that up to 200 stems of Grevillea of size 30 dbh are available per hectare in the cotton zone (Oginasako et. al., 2006). However, standing volumes are of different quality due to use of traditional and sometimes deficient silvicultural methods such as pruning and pollarding. Trees are therefore poorly managed for timber production. Inadequate technical support from extension services is attributed to this situation. Planting material often obtained from other farmers’ nurseries, community nurseries and institutions nurseries such as forest departments is of dubious quality. Tree growing is often practiced on mixed planting systems with agricultural crops in the high potential zones of the district.
In the medium potential zone such as the cotton zone with relatively larger agricultural land and crop polycultures, tree planting is mostly done on farms external boundaries, on single line planting, or block planting. From the farm species assessments, there appears to be an over-reliance on Grevillea for most timber related household and market requirements. There are however other potential timber species that have not been utilized adequately to meet the expanding wood demand. Fast growing timber species such as Eucalyptus sp., Casuarina equisetifolia, Maesopsis eminii have not been cultivated adequately to grow the farm timber portfolio. Many rural farmers have the competitive advantage of available land, labour and tree planting culture to maximize tree production on farm. However, despite the emerging evidence of farm tree potential as a feasible agricultural land use option, secure land tenure sufficed as a pre-condition for long-term investments such as smallholder timber which is a long gestation enterprise.
45
4.6 MARKETING SMALLHOLDER TIMBER Farm sourced timber can in many aspects be regarded as an emerging subsector with peculiar marketing bottlenecks. The product however has a formidable growth potential if managed in an orderly manner and receives necessary institutional support. Already farm grown timber supports the wood industry with different timber products with the wood demand expected to increase further with the rapid population growth. Smallholder timber is a relatively new market compared to plantation logging, it is largely unproven and there are many speculations on how it will function, how fast it will grow and how big it will get.
Though there is a growing demand, farmer marketing challenges are suspected to yield poor economic returns for many smallholders with limited value chain power and a marginalized market position. Further the opportunity cost on the limited land may be too high given the low prices for farm grown timber. Anunrealistically high sales volumes of timber are calculated just to break-even, let alone make profit. The marketing process therefore urgently needs a profitable solution. Little information is available on the opportunity costs and the profitability of certain tree-crop combinations particularly on small-scale farms characteristic of the region under study. Use of household labour and resources is often not factored in the production process hiding the real costs of the enterprise. The enterprise is further too dependent on intermediaries for its economic functionality; farmers are not able to access profitable markets directly or wield any channel power. Their eventual margins remain minimal risking the profitability and sustainability of the whole enterprise.
For farm grown timber, quality and pricing are likely to be the critical basis for competition. For farmers hoping to reap bigger margins, quality of timber bole has to be ensured through proper tree tending practices. Figure 7 shows a typical farm timber value chain in Meru Central district.
46
Figure 7 Typical farm timber marketing channels in Meru Central
The survey established that firewood sourced from farms find their way to the market through a ‘zero supply channel’ (Figure 7). There are no middlemen or stages between small-scale producer and users. In this scenario, there is no transfer of ownership of the material other than between the farmer and end user. The farmer is in direct contact with the customer and is therefore more informed of customer behavior, pricing and expected product demand. In the one and two level supply channels, transfer of product ownership may occur with participating intermediaries in the chains. The specific features of the collaboration are depicted in Figure 7. Timber chains tend to be complex with customers sometimes owning all the stages of the chain, especially for the high value furniture and construction consumers.
47
4.7 SWOT ANALYSIS ON SMALLHOLDER TIMBER SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threat) is a useful tool for auditing the overall strategic position of a smallholder timber business and its environment. Strengths and weaknesses are internal factors, while opportunities and threats are external factors impacting on the business. A broad synthesis of the factors impacting on smallholder timber marketing is highlighted in the SWOT analysis in Table 11.
Table 11 SWOT analysis on smallholder timber marketing Strengths
Weaknesses
Consumer preference for sustainable grown timber Logging bans in natural forests and plantations Large woody biomass on farm Farmers willing to invest in timber tree planting Limited initial investment Easy local market access
Poor tree valuation techniques & tree management Lack of capital Poor germplasm access Poor farm planning, small scale operations Poor infrastructural network in the rural areas Poor market access, market intelligence systems
Opportunities
Threats
Policy change in favor of farm forestry 1% per capita increase in wood demand Microfinance facilities Available research support from: ICRAF, KEFRI Increased capabilities through farmer group formation
Unfavorable legal provisions Over harvesting practices pest and diseases due to inferior germplasm Government regulations on tree felling Land sub-division.
From the SWOT analysis, smallholder timber marketing is revealed to be a multisectoral activity with many challenges requiring pursuit through many alternative and complementary approaches. Though detailed description has often been missing to characterize production practices, many players in the sub-sector including tree nursery operators, small timber businesses, chainsaw operators, timber yard owners, tea factories local administration, micro finance providers and other marketing facilitators all seem to have pertinent roles to play. A social, technical, economic and environmental analysis of the entire smallholder timber practice appears to be a useful means to inform interventions.
48
4.8 CONCLUSIONS From the results and discussions it is indicative that smallholder crops and timber have complimentary roles to play in realizing food and income objectives for practicing households. Both enterprises however have very specific requirements necessary in order to yield sustainable benefits. Multi-sectoral interventions are indeed required to realize these benefits.
49
CHAPTER FIVE 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study concludes on certain sustainability dimensions influencing smallholder crop and timber production practices. More so, specific recommendations for improvement are integrated to help inform subsequent follow-up interventions. 5.1 CROP PRODUCTION Smallholder farmers have certain strengths to produce food and generate income through a mix of different farm enterprises. Though agricultural crops have been over-relied on as means to provide food and income, trees produced on farm have recently emerged as an important asset to complement the seasonal crop household benefits. Smallholder farmers, thought too dependent on natural resources for food production, seem to practice certain innovative production practices that encompass sustainability. These include mixed cropping systems, diversified cropping portfolios and maximum use of sometimes meager resources at their disposal. However, incidences of poor practices leading to land degradation are observed in the study. There is an emerging trend for monocropping on farms larger that one hectare accompanied by limited knowledge on the drawbacks of the practice especially on soil nutrient depletion. There is an emerging farmer dependence on synthetic inputs such as pesticides and inorganic fertilizers to facilitate production while the use of cultural practices to enhance soil nutrition is ignored. Mulching practices and use of farm yard manure is particularly limited as many small-scale farmers opt for the ‘green revolution’ production means. Animal manure produced on farm is poorly stored, usually in the open, leading to nutrients leaching and quality degradation.
The environmental consequences of synthetic inputs seem poorly sensitized as the study recorded an increased demand of the same. Soil degradation in the formerly fertile soils of Meru Central are noted through indicators such as depressed yields and rampant soil erosion occurring in many of the farms.
50
Construction of soil conservation structures such as terraces are shunned due to their intense labour and capital requirements. Current smallholder economic practices only appear to satisfy subsistence needs with many farmers only managing break even outputs. A more comprehensive study is however required to delineate all the input and output factors on smallholder farming. The study encountered difficulties particularly in calculating hidden farmer costs during production. An interesting observation on the inputs is the tendency by most smallholders to use below par inputs citing capital constraints when fertilizing soils or when controlling pest and diseases. The drawback of this low input and ‘saving’ strategies is less outputs and increased inputs requirements for future enhanced production. Though maize farming is by far the largest enterprise on farm it’s not necessarily the most benefiting economically. Traditional crops farming though practiced to a less comparative extent show the potential to provide more nutritional food and income benefits to smallholders.
Ideally, smallholders have the potential to use a variety of farming strategies to enhance their food and income levels through awareness on sustainable practices such as agroforestry, mixed cropping systems and use of integrated pest management. Use of soil conservation practices to improve soil nutrition quality such as minimum tillage, application of animal manure, cover cropping, mulching and composting could be utilized to boost current practices.
Certain high value crops such as ground nuts, pigeon peas and soybean if incorporated in the mixed cropping systems have the potential to improve soil quality as they are leguminous. They also bring bigger incomes as they fetch high prices at the local market with unmet demand. Furthermore, these crops also require less water and tolerate drought and short rain incidences better than maize crop which is widely grown and often fetching low prices due to surpluses.
51
5.2 SMALLHOLDER TIMBER This study cumulates evidence on the role of farm timber to supplement farmer agricultural crops cultivation objectives of household incomes and food needs. Though tree cultivation on farm is an old practice, there are several challenges to grow the practice into an enterprise. Farmers are shown to be poorly equipped with the necessary marketing skills, capital, policy support and market networks to effectively develop the enterprise. The study however shows farmers could tremendously
influence
their
smallholder
timber
value
chain
through
improvements on farm timber quality through better management and pricing.
Current farm timber marketing is suspect as farm timber fetches low prices and the opportunity cost on the land and labour against high value agricultural crops is not clear. In Meru central there is an over-reliance on few fast growing exotic species namely, Grevillea robusta for trade. Management and tree ownership on farm is also poorly defined. Harvesting is poorly planned and over-harvesting characterizes selling opportunities. The trend is unsustainable as tree gestation period is long even though new planting is taking place. Intergenerational equity is taken to be lost with the current practice. Stocks of wood shown here to have the potential to rival forestry supplies need to be more comprehensively assessed to determine what volumes will maximize benefits for both producers and consumers. This study shows farmers are unable to estimate the quantities of wood and value of products. There is inadequate knowledge on tree species choices for high quality timber production.
Some cropping systems such those of the lower parts of Meru central district often incorporating mixed cropping and mono-cropping systems are shown to offer a greater potential to produce farm timber on a per hectare basis. Future efforts to enhance production need to be targeted to these zones as they are also experiencing more harvesting and are more marginal in terms of biophysical production factors. Future tree cultivation on the high potential and intensive coffee zone will however more likely have to justify use of available land, labour
52
and capital, against crop enterprises. The environmental impacts of the emerging trends remain open to research.
A key finding from the study is that a tree on farm is an important asset to many rural dwellers even though they lack necessary capital and legal means to exploit them. There is however a tendency to undertake tree planting exercises in response to market signals. It is evident that farmers are willing and able to plant a wide variety of tree species, when their direct benefits are clear. In this regard, there is an over-reliance on Grevillea robusta and other exotics such as Eucalyptus
to
respond
to
market
demands
for
firewood
and
timber.
Diversification of fast-growing species would enhance farmers’ product options. Farmers’ tree planting activities are however limited by lack of coordination on germplasm supply, leading to poor diversity and quantity available at farm level.
Some recommended means for farmer outputs improvements involve: •
Farmers could source elite planting material and increase their planting quantities. Clonal planting material (e.g. Eucalyptus from South Africa done by Mondi) is fast growing and will provide returns within a shorter period compared to seedlings.
•
Correct management practices e.g. thinning and pruning could also be used to improve timber quality.
•
Farmers could also fetch more income by selling primary processed timber than the current practice of selling whole standing trees. This could be done through small investments on machinery or even through more inexpensive ways like hiring existing mobile benchers and chainsaw millers.
•
Capital to undertake the associated farm level operations could be sourced through micro-finance facilities which provide softer lending terms tailored to individual circumstances. Farmer groups could benefit from collective bargaining power and group collateral.
53 •
Farmers could also explore opportunities to sell wood directly to urban consumers (combine both backward and forward integration) and eliminate the cost of selling through middlemen. Contractual arrangements could be sought with established saw millers to supply farm timber.
54
REFERENCES Bertomeu, M. 2004. Smallholder Timber production on sloping lands in The Philippines: A systems approach. World Agroforestry Centre. South East Asia Regional programme. Betser, L. Mugwe, J. and Muriuki, J. 2000. On-farm production and marketing of high-value tree products in the central highlands of Kenya. In: Temu A.B., Lund G., Malimbwi R.E., Kowero G.S., Klein K. and Malende Y. (eds), Offforest Tree Resources of Africa, The African Academy of Sciences: 226–240. Buchholz, T. Tennigkeit, T. and Weinreich, A. 2005. Indicators and Tools for Restoration and Sustainable Management of Forests in East Africa Maesopsis eminii - a production model. I-TOO working paper No. 27 Carsan, S. and Holding, C. 2006. Growing farm timber: practices, markets and policies. The meru timber marketing pilot programme case studies and reviews. World Agroforestry Centre. Carsan, S. & Holding, C. (ed). 2001. Proceedings of the Second Meru Timber Marketing Stakeholders Workshop, Nairobi. Meru timber marketing programme:FAN/MoARD/ICRAF. (http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/pdf/ICRAF/TimberReport.pdf) Damasa, B. Magcale-Macandog, Menz, K. Rocamora, PM. 1999. Smallholder timber production and marketing: the case of Gmelina arborea in Claveria, Northern Mindanao, Philippines. International Tree Crops Journal, Vol. 10: 61-78. Ebert, SJ. 2004. Silvicultural potential of Milicia excelsa. I-TOO working paper No. 18 Albert-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg Waldbau-Institut Freiburg, Germany. Eibl, B. Fernandez, RA. Kozarik, JC. Lup, A. Montagnini, F. & Nozzi, D. 2000. Agroforestry systems with Ilex paraguariensis (American holly or yerba mate) and native timber trees on small farms in Misiones, Argentina. Agroforestry Systems 48: 1–8. FAO, 1998. FRA 2000 Terms and definitions. Forest resources assessments programme working paper No. 1. Rome Italy. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. FAO, 2005. Global Forest Resources Assessment. ISSN 0258-6150 Garrity, DP. 2004. Agroforestry and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Agroforestry Systems 61: 5–17.
55
Global Donor Platform for Rural development (GDPRD), 2005. The role of agriculture and rural development in achieving the Millennium Development Goals- a joint donor narrative. Secretariat of the global donor platform for rural development, Bonn, Germany: 50. Government of Kenya (GOK), 2000. Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 2000 – 2003. Report prepared by the Government of Kenya. Ham, C. and Theron, T. 2001. Community forestry resources: a case study of selected woodlot in Eastern Cape province. South African Forestry Journal, No. 191: 65-74. Holding, C. Mwaura, M. Muchai, D. and Carsan, S. 2002. Farm sourced timber: the changing structure of the timber industry in Kenya. Linking research, extension and advocacy to address farmers needs, Agricultural Research and extension (AgREN) ODI Newsletter. Holding, C. and Roshetko, J. 2003. Farm-level timber production: orienting farmers towards the market. Unasylva 212: 48-62. Holmgren, P. Masakha, EJ. & Sjoholm, H. 1994. Not all African land is being degraded: a recent survey of trees on farms in Kenya reveals rapidly increasing forest resources. Ambio 23(7): 390-395. Jaetzold, R. and Schmidt, H. 1983. Farm management handbook of Kenya (Vol. II), Central Kenya, Ministry of Agriculture, Nairobi. Jagger, P. Pender, J. and Gebremedhin, B. 2003. Woodlot devolution in northern Ethiopia: opportunities for empowerment, smallholder income diversification, and sustainable land management. EPPTD discussion paper No. 107, International Food Policy Research Institute, N.W. Washington, D.C. U.S.A. Kenya Forestry Master Plan (KFMP), 1994. Development Programmes, Ministry of Environment and Natural resources, Nairobi: 123-149. Kindt R. 2002. Methodology for tree species diversification planning for African ecosystems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ghent, 327 pp. KWS, 1999. Aerial survey of the destruction of Mt. Kenya, Imenti and Ngare Ndare forest reserves. Report prepared by Kenya Wildlife Service: 26. Lengkeek, AG. 2003. Diversity Makes a Difference, Farmers Managing Inter and Intra Specific Tree Species Diversity in Meru Kenya. PhD Thesis, WUR.
56
Lengkeek, AG. & Carsan, S. 2004. The process of a participatory tree domestication project in Meru, Kenya. Development in Practice, Vol. 14 No. 3. Lengkeek, AG. Kindt, R. Maesen, LJG. Simons, AJ. and Oijen, DCC. 2005. Tree density and germplasm source in agroforestry ecosystems of Meru, Mount Kenya. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 52: 709–721. Magcale-Macandog, DB. Menz, K. Rocamora, PM. Predo, CD. 1999. Smallholder timber production and marketing: the case of Gmelina arborea in Claveria, Northern Mindanao, Philippines. International Tree Crops Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1:61-78. Mercado, AR. Cadisch, G. Pailagao, C. Arcinal, G. Loma, L. Pagalan, E. 2003. Potential of timber based hedgerow intercropping systems as smallholder agroforestry option on sloping acid upland soils. Paper presented during the First National Agroforestry Congress held at LSU Baybay, Leyte on Nov. 19-20. Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), 2000a. Timber marketing in Igoki and Ntakira locations of Meru central district Kenya. Compiled by CT Mariene for DALEO Meru central. PRA . report Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Meru central, Kenya, 34 pp. Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), 2000b. Meru Central District vital information. Internal note by Mary Mwaura District. Soil Conservation Officer. Ministry of Agriculture District Agricultural Office, Meru, Kenya, 3 pp. Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), 2005. Meru Central District, resource management guidelines. District agricultural office, Meru. Ministry of Energy (MoE), 2003. Task force report: Energy sector development strategy, Nairobi (http://www.energy.go.ke/renewable.php) Njuguna, PM. Holding, CA. and Munyasya, 1999. On farm woody biomass surveys (1993 and 1998): a case study from Nakuru and Nyandarua Districts in Kenya. In: A.B. Temu, G Lund, RE. Malimbwi, GS. Kowero, K . Kleinn, Y. Malende, I. Kone, (Eds) 2000. Off-forest tree resources of Africa. Proceedings of a workshop held at Arusha Tanzania. The African Academy of Sciences (AAS) Oginosako, Z. Simitu, P. Orwa, C. and Mathenge, S. 2006. Are they competing or compensating on farm? Status of indigenous and exotic tree species in a wide agro-ecological zone of Eastern and Central Kenya, surrounding Mount Kenya. ICRAF Working paper No. 16. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre.
57
Onchieku, JM. 2006. Challenges of small-scale sawmilling industry in Kenya. Paper presented to workshop on Chainsaw milling Technology and emerging innovations: Kaguru Training Centre, Nkubu, Meru on the 6-7 February. Opanga, P. 2001. Grevillea timber market chains rapid assessment in Meru. A meru timber marketing pilot project activity report. Pasiecznik, N.M and Carsan, S. 2006. Turning Trees to Timber, A chainsaw demonstration/training course report (http://chainsaw.gwork.org) Pelley, D. Avidor, H. Kraus, M. Shoresh, D. and Krayn, G. 1985. Planning project for the Meru District, Kenya. In: Smith S. (ed.), Integrated Rural Development Foundation, Settlement Study Centre Rehovot, Israel: 11– 28. PRSP, 2001. Meru Central district PRSP. Consultation report 2001-2004. Ministry of Finance and Planning. (www.treasury.go.ke/prsp) Roshetko, JM. Mulawarman, & Purnomosidhi, P. 2004. Gmelina arborea – a viable species for smallholdertree farming in Indonesia? New Forest 28: 207–215. Scherr, SJ. 2004. Building opportunities for small-farm agroforestry to supply domestic wood markets in developing countries. Agroforestry Systems 61: 357–370, 2004. Sanchez, PA. 2002. Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science 295: 2019–2020. Simons, AJ. and Leakey, RRB. 2004. Tree domestication in tropical agroforestry Agroforestry Systems 61: 167–181 Simons, AJ., Jaenicke, H., Tchoundjeu, Z., Dawson, I., Kindt, R., Oginosako, Z., Lengkeek, A., and DeGrande, A. 2000. The future of trees is on farms: Tree domestication in Africa. In: Forests and Society: The role of research. XXI IUFRO World Congress, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: 752-760. Smyth, AJ. & Dumanski, J. 1995. A framework for evaluating sustainable land management. Canadian Journal of Soil science 75: 401-406. SPSS, 2000. SPSS for Windows Version 9. Standard Version.
58
Stroebel, A. 2004. Socio-economic complexities of smallholder resource-poor ruminant livestock production systems in Sub-saharan Africa. PHD Thesis, University of the Free State: 204 Syers, J.K., Hamblin, A & Pushparajah, E., 1995. Indicators and thresholds for the evaluation of sustainable land management. Canadian Journal of Soil science 75 : 423-428. The University of Reading (UoR). 2000. Some basic ideas of sampling. Statistical Services Centre, The University of Reading, UK. Tyndall, B. 1996. The socioeconomic of Grevillea robusta within the coffee landuse system of Kenya, Agroforestry Research Networks for Africa (Afrena), Report No.109. UNEP (United Nations Environmntal Programme) 2002. Global Environmental Outlook 3. London: Earthscan, 63-72. World Bank, 2002. Re-Investing in Smallholder Agriculture in Cameroon: Tree Crops and Sustainable Diversification Opportunities. Brief Note.
59
APPENDICES Appendix 1 Survey Questionnaire Interview No: __________ Interviewer: ____________ Date: _________________ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Farmer/ Respondents name: ___________________________________________ Division:________________Location:___________________Village:_________ GPS: _____________________________________________________________ Farm size: _________________________________________________________ Agro ecological zone (AEZ): __________________________________________
6. Please list types of crops cultivated and traded on your farm: Main crops Type of Land Cropping Amount of production (variety) farming size/cr systems during: cultivated : cash op (MS, PC, crop, ICAF/AS, Short Long food, other) rains rains other Mar/Apr Oct/Nov
Amount traded/ consumption/yea r consu traded med
Observations
Cropping System: Mixed system (MS), Monocultures (MC), Polycultures (PC), Intercropping (IC), agroforestry/alley cropping (AF), other
7. What are the key inputs and management levels for the main crop enterprises on your farm? Main Crop Types & Qty of inputs used (e.g. manure, fertilizer, seeds, pesticide, (variety) labour) Observations Short Rains (Mar/April) Long Rain (Oct/Dec) Price/unit Type Qty Type Qty Fertilizer fertilizer manure
manure
seeds
seeds
pesticides
pesticides
Labour:
Labour:
Weeding
Planting
Planting
Weeding
harvesting
harvesting
60
8.
What factors limit production of each enterprise?
9.
What do you think is needed for improved levels of production?
10. Who are the key buyers for your farm produce? How is supply organized? 11. What are the problems faced during marketing farm produce? 12. In your opinion, how can some of the challenges be resolved? 13. Which timber tree species are cultivated and traded on farms? List kinds of Planting Quanti Number of Pricin Amount timber species systems ties trees planned g for own planted on your line, block, Onfor sale use farm mixed farm (timber, niches firewood)
14. What are the current management practices for timber trees on farm? List main Amount Source Any Type of How many timber planted/ye of fertilizing on management & years species ar planting planting? If how often? before planted on material yes, what (pruning, harvesting the farm? amount/year? thinning for pollarding timber? other)
15. Is extra labour required timber tree tending on farm? 16. Who are the key buyers? How is supply organized? 17. How are tree quantities for sale and pricing determined? 18. What are the problems faced during marketing of farm timber? 19. In your opinion, how can some of the challenges be resolved?
Constraints on trading timber
Observations/Const raints on cultivation
61
Appendix 2 Major pests and diseases Pest Crops Affected Control Stalkborer Bollworms Beanfly
aphids
Maize, sorghum, millet Cereals, cotton, pulses Drybean, Dolicos Frenchbean, cowpeas Pulses, Cereals Tree crops
Use of buldock granules, use of insecticides (karate, Brigade) Simicidin, pyrethroids, fetrothion Treat seeds with Gaucho. Use of systemic insecticides e.g dimethoate followed by buldock, karate Use of insecticides: Marshall EC, Folimat, Karate, Fastac Achook (organic), Pyerin Use of insecticides pyrethroids
loopers
Pulses, cereals
Thrips
Coffee
Potato tuber moth Sweet potato weevil Army worms
Potato tubers
Use of insecticides: Pyrethroids, Sumithion super, Fenitrothion, Lebycid, Fastac, pyerin Timely harvesting
Sweet potato
insecticides
Cereals, pastures
Use of insecticides such as Fenitrothion
Large grain borer Leaf miner
maize
Super grain dust, actelic super
Peas & coffee
Trigard, evisect, lebacid, fastac
mangoes
Lebacid, Karate, dimethoate
Kales, Cabbages
Use of insecticides brigade, karate, fastac karate, fastac, decis Thuricide, dipel, 2x, fastac, pyerin,
Mango weevil Diamond back moth Whiteflies Caterpillars Cutworms Rust anthracnose Fusarium wilt Bacteria wilt
Pulses Pulses, tomatoes, kales Pulses Coffee pulses, cereals, tree crops Beans, mangoes, banana Coffee, banana, passion Solanacea family
Blight
Potatoes, tomatoes
Mosaic virus
Potatoe, cassava. Beans, pepper Pulses,flowers
Powdery mildew Root rot
Flowers, brassica family
Dotron plus Marshall ST Gaucho dressers for vector, Kocide, DM 45, folicur Copper based fungicides
Remarks Pest common in all areas Prevalent in the lower zones of the district In all areas under beans
All areas
All areas Very persistent especially during dry spell Prevalent especially during dry spell Farmers have difficulties in control Prevalent in the lower (dry zones) Maize areas All stages in peas. Dry periods in coffee Spray before flower onset Farmers have difficulties in control Prevalent in dry areas Prevalent in dry areas
In all maize growing areas Prominent during dry spells
Sanitary practices Filed hygiene, seed selection Preventive fungicides (maconzeb) Curative fungicides (acrobat, ridomil) Use tolerant varieties: Tigoni & Asante Crop rotation Use insecticides to kill vector.
A threat in potatoes production Tolerant high yielding varieties are becoming popular
Thiovit Sanitary practices
Crop rotation is useful
62
Appendix 3 Common tree species on farm: Mount Kenya area Encountered species, number of occurrences and average total trees on farm (Oginosako et. al., 2006) Botanical name Places where species was encountered & Average trees number on farm per species # % rank Average trees number per farm Grevillea robusta Persea Americana Musa sapientum Eucalyptus saligna Cupressus lusitanica Mangifera indica Croton megalocarpus Carica papaya Citrus sinensis Eriobotrya japonica Macadamia tetraphylla Citrus limon Commiphora eminii Cordia Africana Jacaranda mimosifolia Psidium guajava Schinus molle Acacia mearnsii Croton macrostachyus Senna siamea Vitex keniensis Azadirachta indica Bridelia micrantha Terminalia brownii Casuarina cunninghamiana Juniperous procera Acacia xanthophloea Melia volkensii Acacia tortilis Acrocarpus fraxinifolius Markhamia lutea Tamarindus indica Annona cherimola Erythrina abyssinica Acacia nilotica Ficus natalensis Ficus sycomorus Prunus Africana Kigelia Africana Olea Africana Pinus patula Senna spectabilis Berchemia discolor
183 105 103 100 89 82 74 57 37 36 35 27 27 27 27 27 24 19 18 16 16 15 15 13 12 12 11 11 10 10 10 9 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 5
13.2 7.6 7.5 7.2 6.4 5.9 5.4 4.1 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 12 12 12 17 18 19 20 20 22 22 24 24 24 27 27 29 29 29 29 33 33 35 35 35 35 39 39 39 39 39
70 8 110 56 30 10 31 53 18 9 12 3 45 9 13 7 9 89 13 88 13 4 9 23 21 22 27 7 25 2 14 9 7 2 77 17 8 5 2 4 25 54 5
63
Leucaena leucocephala Balanites aegyptiaca Commiphora Africana Eucalyptus saligna Podocarpus falcatus Sapium ellipticum Spathodea campanulata Acacia polyacantha Calliandra calothyrsus Milicia excelsa Milletia dura Piliostigma thonningii Terminalia mentally Trichilia emetica Zyzigium guinesis Acockanthera chemperi Albizia gummifera Catha edulis Celtis mildbraedii Croton dichogamous Cussonia holstii Ehretia cymosa Euclea divinorum Fagara microphylla Ficus benjamina Rawsonia lucida Sesbania sesban
5 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
39 45 46 46 46 46 46 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51
30 4 9 18 4 25 5 4 7 2 49 11 2 9 4 4 3 46 5 1 7 6 3 1 1 4 5
Source: Oginasako et.al 2006
Appendix 4 Percentage number of trees and species in all zones of Mt. Kenya
64
Appendix 5 Meru map Main Agro-ecological zones (Oginasako et.al., 2006)
