Protection and Rehabilitation of Degraded Soils in Western Kenya: Experiences from Two Decades of Research and Development

Abstract

Over exploitation of soils in Western Kenya has resulted in nutrient depletion and soil erosion leading to low and inadequate food supply and incomes on many smallholder farms. This has been further exacerbated by climate change effects including unpredictable periods of drought and variable rainfall which is less frequent, reduced amounts but more in intensity. Best practices for sustainable land use are well known to farmers and are economically viable. Despite this, they are applied only to a limited extent. Disseminating these practices has been challenging, and quite often, soil protection does not receive the socio-political attention it requires. The responsible institutions often fail to tackle the issue effectively. As a result, farmers lack incentives, such as secure land rights for agricultural enterprises, to ensure that they utilize soil resources in a sustainable way. Smallholder farmers, who are the major agricultural producers, have inadequate know-how to apply soil-friendly farming methods on their farms, or the money for initial investments. This book chapter describes approaches that are being applied, assessed and promoted by the GIZ supported “ProSoil” in Western Kenya to explore the extent of soil degradation for sustainable soil protection and rehabilitation to provide a useful knowledge base to support decision makers in developing adoption strategies for sustainable crop production.

1. Introduction

Land is considered a valuable natural resource around the world and a key factor in production that provides essential agro-ecological services such as food, fodder, energy, and fiber for human life. However, over-exploitation of land for ecosystem services and income generation has resulted in extensive land degradation, persistent degradation of biological productivity and ecological integrity, and loss of human value [1, 2]. More than a fifth of the world’s total land area is already degraded due to years of unsustainable land-use practices, land-use changes, and extreme weather events [3]. In some parts of the world, soil fertility, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and productivity have decreased significantly [4]. Recent studies have indicated that more than half of all fertile soils in the world are now classified as highly degraded, with 25–40 billion tons lost annually [5].

In Sub Saharan Africa (SSA), land degradation is estimated to affect about 67% of the total area of land (16.1 m km²) with varying degrees of severity [6]. The main direct drivers contributing to land degradation in SSA include unsustainable agricultural practices, over-grazing of livestock, over exploitation of forests and woodlands [7]. In addition, a number of waterways in SSA have been subject to significant pressure, particularly in the semi-arid and sub-humid zones where rivers are over-exploited and eutrophication is prevalent [8]. Shiferaw et al. [9] attributed poor land and water management in SSH to the increasing population growth coupled with poor or inadequate incentive structures for local resource managers, climate change and rampart poverty.

In Kenya, recent studies show that 12–15% of the country’s total land area, supporting 27% of its population, is suffering from severe to very severe degradation, with hotspots concentrated in the western and southern regions [10, 11]. Western Kenya is one of the most densely populated and impoverished regions in Kenya, with a population density rising to over 1046 people per KM² in Vihiga County which is above the national Kenyan average of 66 persons per Km² [12]. The region is characterized by low agricultural productivity coupled, with limited off-farm income options and with more than 58% of households living in absolute poverty [13].

In the past, Western Kenya’s traditional land management was based on fallowing unproductive fields in order to restore soil fertility [14]. However, due to the high density of the rural population and land fragmentation, this practice is no longer sustainable. As a result, more people are looking for new land to farm, and they are moving into steep slopes and to other fragile agro ecosystems such as wetlands and adjacent forests all contributing to the increased rates of soil erosion, landslides, soil nutrient loss, soil acidity and physical degradation with the consequences of low productivity in the region [15].

The rate of landscape degradation is increasing at a rapid rate, with soils lost on average 0.5 t ha⁻¹ year⁻¹ in 2017 compared to 0.3 t ha⁻¹ yr.⁻¹ in 1995 [16]. Physical mechanisms of soil degradation prevalent in the region include erosion by water; compaction; hard setting; surface sealing; crusting; and degradation of soil structure [14]. The leading chemical processes include soil nutrient loss; soil organic matter loss; soil acidification; and dominant biotic processes such as pest infestations; changes in vegetation cover and composition (loss of habitat); changes in pollinator population and composition; and changes in soil biota [17, 18].

Nutrient mining is widespread on many smallholder farms in western Kenya, due to continuous cultivation, insufficient nutrient supplementation in relation to plant requirements, and high levels of land erosion, leaching, and removal of crop residue from the fields [19]. Fertile land that used to yield 2–4 t ha⁻¹ cereal grains has become degraded, with cereal crop yields falling to less than one t ha⁻¹ [20]. Although Western Kenya has good climatic conditions and high agricultural potential, the yields of the staple food crops; maize and beans have remained low, with an average of 1 ton of grain per hectare (1 t ha⁻¹) for maize and 2–5 t h⁻¹ for beans with optimal land management [1, 21]. Approximately 20 kg of NPK, 4 kg and 20.3 kg of S are extracted from the soil every season, without replacement, for every ton of corn grain produced [22].

Given the above scenario, further land degradation through poor land management should be avoided and, where degradation is already taking place, concerted action should be taken to stop and reverse it. This would help to accelerate the process towards a land degradation neutral future and the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (AFSD). The work reported in this chapter was largely based on “conservation and rehabilitation of degraded soils in western Kenya – ProSoil”.

2. The analysis of barriers limiting the adoption of soil rehabilitation practices

Despite the reported success stories on the demonstration of improved soil rehabilitation practices mainly from the pilot locations, the level and rate of the adoption of the improved technologies still remain low leading to the current condition of land degradation [23]. The reasons for the low uptake of the available improved technologies by farmers who continue to use unsustainable land use practices is not well understood [24]. However serious concerns have been raised among the Government organizations both at national and county levels, research institutions and development partners on how to upscale the site based successful soil rehabilitation strategies to the landscape-level impact of the rehabilitation solutions.

There are no straightforward, definitive answers to the underlying constraints to the increased adoption of the tested and improved soil rehabilitation strategies by the smallholder farmers at landscape level. Numerous, intricate, and interrelated factors appear to hinder the processes hence contributing to the continued resource degradation, particularly land degradation, which threatens agricultural development. Coenen et al. [25] classified the key gaps, bottlenecks, and obstacles probably preventing the successful mainstreaming of rehabilitation measures on smallholder farms as; technological and knowledge, policy and institutional framework and socio-economic and financial.

2.1 Technological and knowledge barriers

2.1.1 Knowledge gaps on land degradation

Several years of research has generated adequate knowledge on soil degradation, particularly on the biophysical, chemical and biological processes in relation to their negative impacts on agricultural production [26]. This has provided the impetus to the understanding of land degradation patterns and trends as the baseline for the planning of sustainable soil management on farms. However the measurements of changes in land degradation remains unclear since it is often complicated as it occurs over both time and space. Moreover the estimation of economic losses caused by the destruction of the environment and critical ecosystems has not been fully quantified [27]. The absence of these crucial information on the underlying changes of land degradation and the inherent economic losses from the ecosystems both at the national and local levels has presented a challenge for decision-makers to visualize and evaluate the severity of the problem to necessitate the political good will required for the rehabilitation initiatives at landscape level.

2.1.2 Inadequate coordination and collaboration between stakeholders

Management of soil rehabilitation and biodiversity conservation can only be achieved if related conservation interventions are interlinked within target landscapes. However, many interventions for rehabilitating soils and conserving biodiversity in the past were carried out disjointedly by various organizations at the national and county levels. Frequently the activities and priorities for rehabilitation and conservation strategies are not unified, and in some cases, the coordinating bodies do not have sufficient representation and authority, or lack the capacity to operate. In addition, a large number of ministries are still involved in land and natural resource management, often lacking coordination, resulting in overlapping responsibilities [28].

As a result many of the soil improving technologies developed through research and past interventions have remained pivoted in small plots around which they were developed. These practices have not been extrapolated from pilot sites to the broader context, mainly due to weak or inadequate coordination, lack of awareness and low capacity among extension service providers on soil rehabilitation and conservation strategies [14]. Moreover the extension service providers are few and often constrained by inadequate resources to disseminate the improved technologies to the smallholder farmers for adoption to wider areas. The capacity of stakeholders to develop and disseminate soil improving technology is also limited. The linkage between farmers, extension and research is weak and in most cases does not address the specific challenges faced by farmers [14].

The prevalent compartmentalized approach among institutions and stakeholders to addressing land degradation has often masked the visualization of rehabilitation strategies at landscape level thus constraining the effective monitoring of the desired changes both in the long-term nationally and locally. As a result the effects of land degradation and biodiversity loss are not yet captured in the national data [14]. A more comprehensive ecosystem management approach that is more effective in connecting and intersecting the interactions between soil restoration and biodiversity conservation thus facilitating a holistic view of the impacts of rehabilitation strategies at scale would present a viable alternative strategy to rehabilitation and conservation in the region [29].

2.2 Policy and institutional barriers

2.2.1 Lack of policy harmonization

Comprehensive set of policies, strategies and action plans to address the issues of land degradation at national and county levels have been developed. Over 100 legal articles that directly regulate Kenya’s agriculture industry have been documented. While some of these laws are redundant or in conflict with one another, others cannot be enforced, as is the case in other developing counties, due mainly to the lack of resources, both technical and financial, to tackle the issues of soil rehabilitation [30, 31]. Additionally there exits over 30 semi-autonomous national institutions with a wide range of mandates some of which are overlapping and in some cases contradictory. Overlapping and contradictory mandate result from the fragmentation and duplication of institutional missions and policy frameworks [30]. Users of land resources lack suitable channels for consultation as well as long-term security for crucial resources. This reduces security of tenure and motivation to invest on soil improvements that could raise yields in the long or medium term [32].

2.3 Socio-economic and financial barriers

2.3.1 The subsistence nature of production

Most smallholder farmers in developing countries including Kenya practice subsistence agriculture whereby crops are mainly grown to meet the needs of themselves and their families [33]. Reasons for this situation are many, however the major limitation for the smallholder farmers to invest in the enhancement of soils for increased and sustained production is attributed to poverty [14]. The smallholders are often forced to utilize short-term coping mechanisms in resource use rather than long-term investments in land and other sustainable resource practices. The constant demand on local resources brought on by the rapid population growth with little or no conservation strategies has accelerated the rate of vegetation loss and hence increased degradation [34].

Turning small-scale farming into a business case is the vision of many researchers and development partners, however, there are challenges that keep small-scale farmers from realizing this vision. Improving the profitability of sustainable production requires an incentive to make investments and use management practices that support land productivity rather than resource extraction (for short-term profits) or abandonment if the returns do not make business sense [14].

2.3.2 Inappropriate incentive structure, in particular land tenure arrangements

The slow pace of issuing land title deeds by the Kenya Government that would guarantee security of tenure has had a negative impact on land resources management. Land resource users often do not have sufficient long-term security for the resources on which they depend, nor do they have adequate consultation mechanisms. This limits their sense of ownership over the resource and their interest in investing in soil rehabilitation measures that will lead to increased yields in the medium or long term [35, 36]. As a result, the continued poor land use practices coupled with the lack of incentives to invest in soil rehabilitation practices has led to the current status of poor soil health which by extension has deprived the smallholder farmers from reaping the benefits of sustainable incomes and profit from soil resources.

2.3.3 Lack of value chain approach in production

Most smallholder farmers are not linked to any structured value chain. Their ability to increase productivity is constrained by supply chain inefficiencies due to low crop yields, limited quality storage capacity, which lead to high post-harvest losses; weak market linkages; poor safety standards; and lack of consumer trust in the quality of agricultural produce [37]. Moreover the smallholder farmers are largely confined to informal financial mechanisms and simple tools, such as local savings and loan groups, to meet their relatively basic financial service needs. Credit facilities to support smallholder initial investments are scarce and when available they are not effectively applied to attract private sector involvement [38]. In addition, little or no credit will normally be granted to individuals for the management of common resources, as compared to communities. Smallholder farmers also face disadvantages due to small plots, low levels of capital investments, a lack of bargaining power, and poor connections to the international market [39, 40].

2.3.4 Gender inequalities

Women in Kenya, as in most parts of Africa, make up 70% of all agricultural workers; 90% of hoeing and weeding work; 60% of all harvesting and marketing work; 80% of food preservation work; transport from farm to stores (80%), 90% of domestic labor for water and firewood; and nearly 100% of the food preparation work of households; however, they have little influence on decision making on the farm. Some gender-specific barriers to female farmers’ productivity growth are insecurity in terms of limited access to land and other resources, low educational attainment, limited resources to purchase inputs, social limitations in meeting extension agents, and access to other sources of information. In addition, women face challenges in obtaining permits, grants, other services, and incidental work that directly benefit them [41].

Giz ProSoil has focused on addressing some of these challenges in the intervention process by taking a holistic and integrated approach to have the greatest impact in preventing land and ecosystem degradation, while enhancing soil conservation and restoration.

3. Pro soil stakeholder mapping and analysis

The many stakeholders who were engaged in the project’s implementation were identified during the ProSoil preparation phase and are shown in Table 1. However, these stakeholders, had a range of abilities, interests and in some cases, rivalries. While the majority of them were involved in activities related to soil rehabilitation and ecosystem management, their approaches were often fragmented and uncoordinated. In order to establish a shared vision and strategy for the execution and up scaling of soil rehabilitation in Western Kenya, the ProSoil made an effort to bring these stakeholders together. The following categories were used to broadly group the identified parties and institutions.

No.	Stakeholder	Interest	Capacities
			Strengths	Limitation
1	Local farmers	secure livelihoods; Increased income; Security of tenure	land owners; local knowledge; labour force; Existing Community based organizations	High poverty levels; Limited technical knowledge; Limited incentives for soil rehabilitation
2	Women and Youth	Food security; Gainful income from labour	Labour force; Experience; Existing Organized groups	Empowerment to make decisions; Lack of direct income; Suppressive culture and traditions, inadequate skills and knowledge, limited capacities, low literacy among women, attitude and perception
3	National and County governments	Legislation, Capacity development, Resource mobilization, Food security; Economic growth; Sustainable development	County government; Devolution of agricultural sector; Financial resources; Political will	Limited human resource; Policy and institutional gaps; Limited knowledge management; Lack of comprehensive land use plan
4	KALRO	To contribute to increased productivity, commercialization and competitiveness of the agricultural sector through generation and promotion of knowledge, information and technologies that respond to client’s demands and opportunities.	Human resource; Research infrastructure; Knowledge management	limited capacity to research on modern technologies; Weak linkages between research, farmers/communities and extension
5	WRMA	To effectively regulate and manage water resources in collaboration with stakeholders for sustainable development	Constitutional mandate on water resource management	Conflicting and overlapping roles and responsibilities with regulatory bodies; Poor or lack of hydrological data quality for effective water resources planning and protection
6	KEFRI	To conduct research and provide information and technologies for sustainable development of forest and allied natural resources.	Human resource; Research infrastructure; Knowledge management	Weak linkages between research and extension; Limited awareness about KEFRI mandate
7	Local NGOs	Support to rural development; Advocacy of community rights; Resource mobilization	Community mobilization; Project management; Lobby and advocacy	Limited resources; Many NGOS with no coordination mechanism, Many CBOs with limited capacity
9	Private sector	Increased business opportunities in soil rehabilitation initiatives; Public private partnerships	Business oriented; Financial resources; Market linkages	Limited information of soil rehabilitation practices that could generate business

Table 1.

Stakeholder analysis.

3.1 Local communities

With a specific focus on women and youth groups, this group represents smallholder farmers and other small producer groups. The project involved Water Resource Users Associations (WRUAs) and constituted community-based self-help groups. This category was an essential project constituent, participating throughout the whole project lifecycle and being represented in all significant decision-making processes. Their main goal is to enhance household income and ensure food security, but they are constrained by the available resources and technology advancements.

3.2 County governments

The agriculture sector has been fully devolved to the county governments under the new constitutional dispensation, therefore any initiative in the sector requires their approval. Additionally, the established County Agricultural and Environmental Committees, which are in charge of managing all countywide environmental conservation-related concerns. It is the responsibility of county governments to enact and uphold legislation that encourage soil rehabilitation. They are also a major source of co-funding because to their continuous initiatives in the agricultural and resource sectors, making them crucial project stakeholders. The county governments have a vested interest in supporting sustainable economic growth and ensuring the livelihoods of their residents. However, the human and intuitive capacities of county governments to carry out their duty are limited [42].

3.3 The national government institutions

The National Government, through the Statutory and Regulatory Authorities, in particular the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), and the Water Resource Management Authority (WRMA), were key stakeholders based on their mandates in the sustainable management of the environment and natural resources.

3.4 Institutions for national and international research

The main local partner with extensive expertise research was the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) that participate in agricultural-related research and development in the region in partnership with; Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology (MMUST), Maseno University, and Jaramogi Oginga Odinga University, as well as the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI). The problem has been getting the knowledge and technologies that these institutions have generated to the local small-scale farmers. There are important lessons to be learned from the research investments made by a several research collaborators including the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), World Agro-forestry Centre (ICRAF), Vi-Agroforestry and the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).

3.5 Non-government entities

A number of regional NGOS and CBOs are active in the project area and concentrate on a variety of interests. Based on their technical capabilities and shown success in community mobilization, training, and advocacy, the active local NGOs and CBOs working in the area were chosen and included in project execution.

3.6 Commercial sector

The project supported Public Private Partnership (PPP) activities to aid small producer groups in accessing inputs, processing their products, and marketing. As a result, local artisans who fabricate conservation Agriculture (CA) tools and equipment through Agriculture Technology Development Centers (ATDCs) were able to develop their entrepreneurial abilities, which will help to increase the sustainability of the project activities. Through the PPPs, the business sector was also given the option to provide input into the process as necessary and to take part in supporting the project operations (Table 1).

4. Intervention strategy as a paradigm shift (alternative)

The alternate strategies used by GIZ ProSoil to solve the problems posed by soil degradation and rehabilitation in Western Kenya are described in this section. The ideas are by no means novel, but they were creatively used to approach related issues in a fresh way.

4.1 An integrated approach to multi-stakeholder participation

The GIZ ProSoil used an integrated multi-stakeholder participation approach in conjunction with appropriate rehabilitation techniques to address the severe soil deterioration in Western Kenya. This strategy is increasingly being recognized as a key framework for solving intricate and connected agricultural and environmental problems. It brings together various stakeholders who often have competing interests but share a same landscape and offers creative ways to advance agriculture, enhance rural livelihoods, and coordinate across sectors.

How to move from successful but often fragmented and localized soil rehabilitation initiatives to entire landscapes that are fully integrated into sector and county development plans and budgets for sustainability was key challenge that GIZ ProSoil is tried to address. The goal of the intervention is to transfer knowledge gained from pilot sites of discrete programs to larger production areas and to improve coordination, bringing soil rehabilitation towards a more productive approach. The overall intervention strategy is anchored on four pillars: (1) Capacity building of stakeholders to embrace and adopt landscape targeted soil rehabilitation strategies, (2) Strengthening farmer links to structured agricultural input and output markets; (3) Supporting enabling policy environment stakeholders and institutional involvement and (4) Support to Knowledge Communication Practices.

4.2 Capacity building of farmer groups in soil rehabilitation practices

An initial capacity needs assessment (CAN) for a cross section of stakeholders including farmer groups, extension service providers, and input providers was conducted to identify vital capacity gaps that needed to be filled to support the project’s successful implementation. In order to reach more farmers in a wider context, the initiative employed tried-and-true methods of agricultural extension and training, such as demonstrations, field days, agricultural fairs, and farmer-to-farmer extension. The project, in particular, engaged in trainer training i.e. community resources persons (CRPs), frontline agricultural extension officers and lead farmers.

Common soil rehabilitation measures focused on Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) among others; maize-bean intercropping, push-pull technology, agroforestry, conservation agriculture (Figure 1), soil and water conservation measures, good agronomic practices and crop-animal combinations with positive results. ISFM is a comprehensive approach to the study of soil fertility that includes the full range of determinants and consequences; biological, physical, chemical, social, economic and political, land degradation. The strategic use of fertilizers as well as organic sources of nutrients to ensure efficient fertilizer use and crop productivity at the farm level are the fundamental principles of ISFM [43].

Figure 1.

Mucuna cover crop (velvet bean). Source: Daniel GIZ ProSoil.

The project adopted participatory learning methods which incorporate experiential learning to help farmers learn about current issues in an informal setting within their own environment. Learning focused on organized groups of farmers and supported by trained lead farmers and frontline extension workers.

The project also supported research and extension service providers to build capacity to better serve farmers. In particular, the project trained frontline agricultural extension officers, including lead farmers, and equipped them with training manuals on soil improvement practices and other related training materials.

4.3 Strengthening linkages of farmers with agricultural input and output markets

Smaller production groups’ better access to input and output markets will depend on how well organized and informed they are about the dynamics of the value chain. To this end, ProSoil has strengthened production groups through continuous capacity building in group dynamics, governance, and organizational/leadership skills. The project also created strong links and partnerships with buyers and streamlines consolidation at collection centers with groups. In addition, a stakeholder forum including buyers, farmers, agricultural agents, local entrepreneurs and other actors in the value chain was established to facilitate sharing of market information and integrated production and marketing. For the input market, the project connected groups of trained farmers with agricultural agents working in western Kenya.

4.4 Supporting policy development and institutional frameworks at the local level

Barrier analysis by ProSoil identified a number of policy and institutional barriers that hinder the scaling up of soil rehabilitation activities. These policy barriers include fragmented and overlapping institutional mandates as well as limited incentives for smallholder farmers to invest in soil rehabilitation activities.

To overcome these obstacles, the project considered a number of related policies and how the county governments could create a harmonized framework. The findings and recommendations of the policy review were used to develop national agricultural land management policy in collaboration with national governments. County governments, both executive and legislative, have been sensitized to domesticate national policies at county-level as framework for carrying out soil rehabilitation activities. To date, the counties that have domesticated the national agriculture soil management policy are now at different levels of implementation.

4.5 Knowledge management and communication

Despite a fairly complete knowledge and technology base on soil rehabilitation activities, the information is scattered across different institutions and in different formats so it is not easily accessible. The varying successes of soil rehabilitation measures tested at different demonstration sites by different parties, even within the same area, have not been fully documented or shared. The base scenario would see a continuation of this approach with less synergies and additions and thus result in duplicate efforts.

Knowledge management is a process that involves more than just the creation and exchange of data or information; it also calls for mechanisms that foster change in the perceptions of the individuals involved and the co-creation of new knowledge with the involvement of numerous people and organizations. Maintaining a “repository” of both technical and local knowledge is part of knowledge management. It calls for efficient and sustainable methods of gaining knowledge [44].

The project supported knowledge management for soil rehabilitation through a number of strategies. Firstly, the project documented past and ongoing best practices in soil rehabilitation and related research conducted in the area with the aim of harnessing knowledge in a ‘reservoir. Information is stored both manually and electronically in formats that are easy to retrieve and share. Additionally, the project developed awareness materials, including posters, brochures, and conference materials. ProSoil has built stakeholder and knowledge management capacity and helped county government’s sensitive to the need to develop a central repository for all land conservation and restoration stakeholders.

In addition, the project developed a transition strategy to ensure that project information and progress reports are disseminated to key stakeholders. The project works with a wide range of stakeholders at the county, national and global levels. Therefore, a good communication strategy is needed to ensure that all stakeholders are informed about the progress of the project in real time [45]. Communication strategy is a two-way channel for announcements and feedback from stakeholders. It also involves the use of multimedia, including local radio stations and audio-visual documentaries. Information has been disseminated locally, nationally and internationally through various channels including peer reviewed scientific journal papers, conferences and seminars’ literature.

4.6 E-extension

Due to weak extension services delivery by government as a result of constrained human and financial resources the project adopted alternative extension service delivery approaches.

4.6.1 Integrated electronic extension method

The project has promoted and supported the use of relevant ICT tools like mobile phones, which are suitable for farmers and traders to have real-time access to information and markets for their produce. The promoted tools include; the KALRO GAPs APP, which provides real time good agronomic practices for common agricultural value chains, Plant Clinics developed in collaboration with CABI and KALRO to provide insitu recommendations on pest and disease management for various crops value chains. Additionally, the project promoted SMS and USSD and mobile services for disseminating agricultural information including weather to rural farmers. This promotion was done in partnership with mobile phone service providers such as SAFARICOM and Airtel.

4.6.2 Video expansion model

The ProSoil took advantage of the existing E-Extension platforms and promoted the use of E-Extension to youth, women and male farmers to enhance extension service delivery. It also improved the existing E-Extension platforms linking it to farmers in the region. E-Extension information is delivered to farmers in the local languages through easy-to-use downloadable extension videos that show new farming methods on their smartphones. E-Extension enables users to engage in personal and informal virtual communications and networks via social networking sites. In addition to social use, it has also been used to disseminate agricultural extension and consulting information and feedback. With the rise in smartphone availability, there has been an increase in the use of social media such as Facebook, Twitter, Skype, You Tube and WhatsApp.

4.6.3 Multimedia extension

Multimedia extension model was used to create awareness among stakeholders in Western Kenya. A number of radio and TV stations including West FM, Nyota, Citizen TV (Shamba Shape up), Mulemebe, and Nam Lolwe FM partnered with the project in the dissemination and awareness creation of sustainable soil rehabilitation practices.

4.7 Towards increased mechanization for smallholder farmers

Different tillage and soil conservation technologies were introduced sequentially to farmers, first on a small trial scale and then on a larger scale over larger plots of land. This step-by-step and innovative approach is considered more suitable for farmers’ understanding and subsequent adoption and modification of tools and equipment. Farmers tested the tools on small plots of land before using them on larger plots. After observing the results, the engineers modified the tools to be more suitable and friendly to the farmer’s situation. Three types of tillage systems are practiced in western Kenya: no-till or minimal tillage, row tillage and cover tillage. Row tillage works well on fairly flat but poorly drained soil, while mulch is done on soil with a high capacity to retain waste. Tillage includes all the physical, mechanical, chemical or biological activities performed to prepare the seedbed for seed germination, germination and seed formation, root development and plant growth.

Chaka Jembe (Figure 2) is a hand-hoe used for tillage on a smaller scale while an animal-drawn tiller is used on a larger scale. The load-bearing weight of the Jab planter has been reduced from 9 kg to 6 kg to be lighter and more suitable for female users. The length of the weeder’s shallow handle has been increased from 1 m to 1.4 m to reduce stress, especially for women. Hand tillers are used to smash hard pans into the ground.

Figure 2.

Chaka Jembe. Source: GIZ ProSoil.

Soil acidity is a major problem in western Kenya, due to monoculture, especially in the sugarcane region, coupled with the excessive use of chemical fertilizers. The recommended solution is agricultural liming, but this method of application is neither safe nor effective. As a result, the project introduced a more efficient and safer manual lime spreader.

The benefit from using these technologies is that farmers prepare their land in a timely manner as they do not have to depend on cow plow owners who are often overwhelmed with demand for services during peak times. Timely implementation of field activities such as tillage and other field activities helps households mitigate the challenges of climate change such as variations in rainfall. Crop residue and cover crop management has been maximized, resulting in no tillage to conserve soil temperature, water, fertility and leaching capacity, etc.

5. Lessons learnt

5.1 Farmer call centre E-extension model

After promoting mobile phone, video calls, radio voice, TV with a lot of success the project felt the need to have farmer call centers alongside the others to provide extension services where, operators answer farmers’ questions at a central location, advice and support smallholder farmers over the phone, using voice and voice call-back to farmers.

5.2 Knowledge management platforms

There were many digital platforms for knowledge management that were operational such as the Ministry websites, County digital platforms, Big Data Systems domiciled at KALRO, Kenya Integrated Agricultural Marketing Information System (KIAMIS), Livestock Marketing Information System (LMIS), Kenya Agricultural Observatory Platform (KAOP) and Cooperative Management Information System (CMIS).

Sustainability was a key ingredient to long term success in the use of ICTs and appropriate models were put in place to enable the platforms to be used from inception to widespread adoption. There is need for improving access to ICTs particularly internet and computers and creating awareness on use of platforms such as YouTube, Twitter and Farmer Call Centers in accessing agricultural information among farmers.

The availability of CA tools and equipment would accelerate the rate of adoption and sustain their production. Unlike the farmers in the West area, the farmers in the East, Central and Rift Valley areas required more tools. The project trained local artisans to create CA tools in partnership with ATDCs to improve accessibility and affordability. The demand for AC tools and devices has been triggered by increasing awareness. Longer project lead time and improved adoption awareness.

Youth participation in agriculture is minimal and can revolutionize agricultural production as they have greater potential to access and apply modern technologies as they are more open to new ideas, new technologies and practices compared to adult farmers.