Irrigation and Drainage Systems (2005) 19: 179–188
C
Springer 2005
Reasons for smallholder farmers discontinuing with low-cost micro-irrigation: A case study from Kenya I.K. KULECHO1 & E.K. WEATHERHEAD2 1 Department
of Bio-mechanical and Environment Engineering, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, P.O. Box 62000-00200 Nairobi, Kenya; E-mail:
[email protected] 2 Institute of Water and Environment, Cranfield University at Silsoe, Bedfordshire, MK45 4DT, UK
Abstract. The low head drip kit (micro-irrigation) was introduced in Kenya in the late 1990s. It consists of water containers, usually a bucket or a drum(s), raised about one metre to gain gravitational head. The number and length of drip lines used vary according to the areas to be irrigated which can be as low as 15 m2 . The general objective of this research was to find out why some smallholder farmers in the study areas discontinued micro-irrigation. The research was carried out in 2002 by a survey using face-to-face informal interviews with continuing adopters and those who had discontinued adoption. The study revealed that the majority of farmers who discontinued using micro-irrigation stopped due to lack of maintenance, irrelevant cultural background, and unreliable water supply. The influence of some factors seemed to vary between areas. Homogeneity analysis (SPSS) results associated farmers who discontinued the adoption of the micro-irrigation kit with above factors as well as farmers’ subsidies for acquisition of the kit, the use of the smaller bucket kit, and farmers who did not traditionally grow food crops. The findings suggest critical factors to be addressed for the continued adoption of smallholder micro-irrigation. Key words: drip, economics, Kenya, kit, micro-irrigation, small-scale/smallholder irrigation, technology adoption, trickle
Introduction Conventional micro-irrigation (drip irrigation) plays a considerable role in the horticultural production in Kenya. Horticulture is a major industry of the country and Kenya is a leading exporter of flowers in Africa. Conventional micro-irrigation was seen as expensive and designed for specialised farming, hence inaccessible to small-scale farmers. Simplification by removing pumps and filtering equipment led to the introduction of a low-cost kit for smallholder farmers in Kenya in 1996. A standard bucket kit consists of a bucket water-container with a head of about 1 m from which two 15 m long drip tapes are attached. It is filled once in the morning and once in the evening. Variations exist with different numbers and sizes of drip lines and containers.
180 Information on micro-irrigation in Africa is scarce (Kay, 2001) and Kenya is no exception. A limited literature on its experience and way forward in Kenya (Kabutha et al., 2000), from local workshops (Winrock, 2000), Ngigi et al., (2000) or in local magazines for promotion (Muganjwa & Radiro, 1997) exists. For the purpose of this study, a discontinued adopter was defined as a farmer who had stopped using the kit continuously for six months up to the time of the interview. However, an adopter was a farmer who had used it continuously for at least six month up to the time of the interview. This study investigates the factors associated with adopters and discontinued adopters of micro-irrigation kit in order to understand its adoption and rejection processes. The first part of this paper deals with factors influencing whether use of the micro-irrigation system is continued or discontinued. The second part deals with the experiences of those farmers who discontinued, focussing on equipment’s operational period (life) and the constraints affecting their decision. This information may be important for project planners and administrators in implementation. Methods This paper draws on a survey of micro-irrigation field experiences in four areas in Western, Central and parts of Eastern Kenya (Table 1). The survey was carried out using a semi structured open ended questionnaire in early 2002, to compare factors associated with adopter and discontinued adopters of the lowcost drip kit irrigation. The questionnaires for both groups sought information on mode of acquisition, type of kit used, economic benefits, cultural practice, water reliability and organisation, and field technical performance. Because of an insufficient number of farmers in each study area, all adopters and all those who had discontinued micro-irrigation found in each study area were interviewed. A total of 35 smallholder farmers, 16 adopters and 19 discontinued adopters who were identified by a local agricultural extension staff, were informally interviewed. Since the data obtained were nominal with several variables, Homogeneity Analysis (H.A) was employed. This is a correspondence statistical method used to analyse and group graphically factors associated with particular outcomes (in this case discontinuation) (Benzecri, 1992, discussed by Micheloud, 1997). It is used to discriminate between two or more variables by quantifying nominal (categorical) values by assigning numerical values to them, not in absolute but in relative terms. This was done by transforming the responses from farmers into vectors, which were used to present the responses along a graphical dimension (axis). A dimension is number of factor (responses
181 Table 1. Profile of study areas. Kiambu
Ngong, Kathian, Karachuonyo
Kajiado, Kitui, Matuu
Zone
Humid
Sub-humid
Semi arid
Rainfall (mm)
Over 1200
800–1200
800–300
Education level
High
Medium
Low
Farming type
Commercial and peasant High
Peasant
Pastoralists
Medium
Low
Roads, water, markets
High
Medium
Low
Population density Main source of income Rainfed crops
High
Medium
Low
Arable
Arable and livestock Maize, beans, fruits
Livestock
Overhead
Overhead and surface
Maize and horticultural
Maize and vegetables
High; if irrigation water is developed Mostly primary
Low, availability of water limiting factor
Potential role
Horticultural and floriculture High; but availability of land limiting factor Supplementary
Water quality
Good
Generally saline
Main features
Valleys with steep slopes
Good but saline during drought Undulating
Study areas Climate Social activity
Economic activity Infrastructure development
Agricultural activity
Irrigation
Main methods Irrigated crops
Potential
Topography
Tea, coffee, maize, horticultural Overhead and drip
Limited
Primary
Flat
in this case) values and associated row (x-axis) and column (y-axis) vectors, appropriately scaled and retained in the final graphical representation (Weller & Romney, 1990). Two dimensions were used here (Dim-1 and Dim-2). For example the factors 1 and 7 (Table 2) if graphically represented using the variable scores (vectors) then, the factor (1) “Prolonged seasonal droughts”, will be far away from dimension 1 (X-axis) while factor (7) “Use of a bucket kit” will be closer to this dimension. In this way, a homogeneity map of the factors in Table 2 showing the position/separation of each factor can be obtained.
182 Table 2. Response scores of homogeneity analysis on factors strongly associated with farmers who discontinued adoption of low cost drip kit irrigation. Factor
Prolonged seasonal droughts Buying food as only other source of food Poor irrigation water quality Lack of spares Acquisition of drip kit by subsidies Management and inadequate irrigation water Use of a bucket kit
Variable
Scores
Discussion category
Dimension 1
Dimension 2
0.20
1.70
Water supply
1.08
1.31
Food sources
0.48
1.35
Water supply
0.48
0.77
Technical support service and availability of spares
0.86
0.58
Method of acquisition of drip kit
1.47
0.43
Water supply
0.55
0.41
Size of drip kit used
The Chi-squared statistical test was not used to identify the variables with significant influence upon the adoption. This was because most of the variables were below the sensitivity limit of the chi square test because of the small sample size and the large variation in response types. Therefore the results may, or may not apply to other areas. Results and discussions Factors associated with discontinued adoption Table 2 shows the results of H.A of farmers’ responses of factors associated with discontinuation of micro-irrigation. The importance of these factors appeared to vary between different areas. The first factor is approximately the strongest factor followed by the second in that order as per the following discussion. Water supply Effect of prolonged drought Farmers subjected to prolonged seasonal water problems, unreliable irrigation water over time, or inadequate in terms of volume, were more likely to discontinue the use of the drip kit irrigation than those with reliable irrigation water. These were caused by prolonged droughts and poor management of
183 water supply. In some cases, the water apportionment authorities gave low priority to irrigation, causing shortage of irrigation water. Effect of poor irrigation water quality The irrigation water quality affected irrigation in two ways. First, SSI farmers reported that saline water corroded the metal parts of the drip kit. Secondly, in regions where water was harvested, such as Matuu, physical substances in water caused the clogging leading to discontinuation of drip kit irrigation. This was in spite of advice to filter water when filling the kit container. Those affected by water quality problems were likely to be discontinued adopters. Although this was not a major issue in the study areas, this problem is likely to grow as more farmers use drip kit irrigation. This is despite the fact that they are not supposed to be using low quality irrigation water in the first place. Management and inadequate irrigation water There were several cases where communal water sources such as community dams presented problems. Discussions during the survey revealed that conflict between irrigation and other uses was a major issue affecting the available volume of irrigation water at a given time, as well as lack of commitment to maintain and operate the communal irrigation water supply. However, since the major irrigation water sources were direct rivers and streams, community water supply group organisation for irrigation water use was a problem only in few instances. Food sources The method of food acquisition by the farmer suggest that small-scale irrigation (SSI) farmers who recieved food donations as their main food source were more likely to be adopters than those who had to buy food occasionally or those who depended mostly on animals for food. The latter group tended to use drip irrigation as secondary source of living when the weather was unfavourable for cropping. They were therefore likely to abandon it when the weather improved as explained above. On the hand, farmers who obtained food donations tended to be those from semi arid areas, where the climate required constantly irrigation for food production. Hence drip irrigation was a primary source of food and that is why they were likely to be adopters. Technical support service and availability of spare parts Although discontinued adopters stated that they were satisfied with the support service, their main problem was lack of spare parts due to problems of technical support service. This apparent contradiction seems to stem from the presence
184 of an officer who was part of providing support service for the technology acting as guide for the interviewer. The farmers probably wanted to project a positive image of the service but failed when probed to state if they had any problems with the technology. Although the level of support service appeared good, there were cases where farmers had stopped irrigation for lack of spares suggesting that this was a critical factor. This is consistent with the discussion on causes of incomplete adoption of a new technology by Oliver (1990). During the discussions, it emerged that the main problem for likely adopters was lack of technical support agents or that agents could not fix repairs breakage, leaks, and clogging. For example, a headmaster in central Kajiado had struggled to get the necessary parts from Nairobi for the three broken down bucket kits for six months. He stated that he had been to the district headquarters for help to fix them from the technical support service. However, every time they promised to come they never did. When he asked why during the interview, no satisfactory answer from the very technical officer was given. However, it emerged later that the problem was lack of transport for the technical support staff. Method of acquisition of drip kit Farmers who discontinued were more likely to have received their drip kits through subsidies i.e. cost-sharing, than those buying with cash. This point appears to indicate the importance of the original need and commitment at the point of acquisition. Drip kits bought cash were apparently from farmers whose primary source of arable farming was irrigation, and most of who tended to continue because ostensibly they had limited options. Size of drip kit used The bucket drip kit is associated with farmers who discontinued adoption; reflecting a typical issue raised in the study by SSI farmers, that it was too small, hence apparently not viable. Farmers using larger units, e.g. several drum kits, were less likely to discontinue adoption. This indicates the need for viable unit size. Indeed, from my experience as Kenyan with rural agricultural background, it is rare to find smallholder farmers cultivating such small plot in Kenya as the bucket kit is designed for. During the informal discussions of the survey, it was evident that most SSI farmers eventually wanted to get extra income from drip kit irrigation, including those who were motivated to adopt the bucket kit for subsistence vegetable production (Figure 1). However, farmers were discouraged to continue with irrigation by the route “subsistence vegetable production → increase in vegetable production for sale” (Figure 1) by increasing the size of their
185
Figure 1. Typical motivation for adoption of low-cost low head drip in Kenya.
irrigation units, from (bucket kit) subsistence vegetable production to increased (commercial) vegetable production for sale. This route appeared hampered by the following. – – – –
the small size of the kits; high costs to expand and customise the small kits; unavailable spares or additional kits; and technical management problems.
In addition, those who went in for subsistence farming using the bucket kit tended to be on short-term food shortage crisis management; LCLH drip irrigation was unlikely to be the primary source of food. Operational period and constraints Operational period In general, more micro-irrigation kits had failed (57%) than still operated in the study areas. This was established in the survey selection of informants in which “all” continuing and discontinued micro-irrigation farmers in the study areas were interviewed without particular preference in selection to a particular group. Discontinued adopters were asked when they stopped drip kit irrigation (Figure 2). The majority of the drip kit farmers (78%) stopped irrigation within a period of less than two years.
186
Figure 2. Operational period of drip kit of discontnued adopters.
Such a short operational period of the drip kit was likely to discourage its adoption by potential farmers and increase the number of discontinuing adopters. Constraints of micro-irrigation kit The discontinued adopters were then asked why they discontinued with microirrigation. Table 3 summarises the responses to this question. In order to understand if certain problems were specific to certain regions, the areas covered by the problem have been included by designating them from A to F (Table 1). The main observation in the Table 3 was on the lack of spares (37% response) followed by cultural practice being incompatible with the “laborious” micro-irrigation (21% response). The practice was likely to be a radical change in technology for some cultures not used to arable farming. These were the most frequently cited constraints contributing to about 60% of total response. The former illustrates the weakness of technical support while the latter reflects the cultural background in which the drip kit was introduced. A large part of this study covered pastoral life-style areas mainly in Kajiado. Rogers (1995) states that farmers’ initial experience of a technology is a positive influence in its adoption. However, in this study it was found that farmers who had initial irrigation experience discontinued micro-irrigation. This suggests that other reasons were responsible for this apparent anomaly such as the lack of spares (Table 3). The highest number of farmers who cited lack of spares and repair problem with their drip kit were from all areas except Kajiado reflecting the wide spread nature of the problem. Kajiado had an active NGO promoting the use of drip kit.
187 Table 3. Reasons for discontinuing smallholder low cost micro-irrigation. Summary of question
Respondent
Participants location
Responses (%)
Is your drip irrigation kit working? No
19
A, B, C, D, E, F
Yes Total
16 35
A, B, C, D, E
If you stopped drip kit irrigation, Why did you stop? 7 A, B, E
Lack of spares of spares and or repairs Farmers not used to arable farming (laborious) LCLH drip kit size too small for farmers needs or incompatible Unreliable water supply Lack of market for produce Lack of security Total
54 46 100 37
4
B, F
21
3
D, E
16
2 2 1 19
A F D
11 11 5 100
∗ Participants
from: A, Karachuonyo areas; B, Kajiado area; C, Kathiani areas; D, Kitui areas; E, Matuu areas; F, Kiambu areas.
Most farmers who described themselves as not used to arable farming and hence found drip kit irrigation laborious, were from central Kajiado reflecting the pastoral life style of the participants in this region. This lifestyle was also reflected in the problem of damage usually from both wild and domestic animals. A notable constraint reported was the lack of ability to install the drip kit. This appeared to be due to lack of “understanding knowledge”, as described by Rogers (1995), but during the discussion it emerged that the real reason was that some farmers found later that the small-bucket kit was too small to meet their irrigation needs. For example, a farmer in Kitui who had not installed her kit drip kit for over a year showed us where she had intended to install her kit. The plot was next to a watercourse where she practised irrigation by splash/aspersion irrigation. Water did not seem to be a problem in terms of availability over time and the labour required for fetching; the main relative advantages considered for the micro-irrigation technology. Hence, it seemed that there was no major gain in relative advantage by installing the new technology. Besides, the drip kit would have been able to irrigate only a small fraction of what she was already irrigating, implying that it was incompatible with her existing irrigation plot size. Although farmers could extend their kits, they probably found this too expensive. Indeed, it is expensive if worked per given area. This could explain why she had not installed the kit. Similar examples were cited during the study.
188 There appeared to be a market problem in areas where irrigation was relatively more mature. This was demonstrated by the fact that the highest number of farmers (11%) who reported having market problems with their produce was from the areas of central Kajiado, Kiambu, and Isinya Kajiado. Conclusions This research revealed that the following factors were likely to discourage the continued adoption of micro-irrigation in Kenya: • Farmers who bought arable food as only other source rather than growing other supplementary food sources on their farms. This appears to be cultural factor reflecting an apparent complexity of the new technology to some social group. • Acquiring the micro-irrigation kit through subsidies rather than buying cash. • The use of smaller bucket kits rather than the lager micro-irrigation drum kits. • The use of unreliable water supply and poor irrigation water quality. • Lack of effective technical support services. • Although the lack of market for farm produce appeared a minor problem, it is likely to grow if more farmers take up the new technology unless this factor is well planned for in advance. References Benzcri, J.P. 1992. Correspondence Analysis Handbook, Marcel Dekker, New York. Kabutha, C., Blank, H. & Koppen, B. 2000. Drip irrigation for smallholder farmers in Kenya: Experience and way forward. Sixth International Micro-Irrigation Congress: MicroIrrigation Technology for Developing Agriculture, South Africa. Kay, M. 2001. Smallholder Irrigation Technology: Prospects for Sub-Saharan Africa. Intermediate Programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage, FAO Rome. Micheloud, F.X. 1997. Correspondence analysis. http://www.micheloud.com/FXM/CORE/E (accessed 20/9/04). Muganjwa, P.N. & Radiro, M.P. 1997. KARI transferring drip irrigation technology to smallscale farmers. The Farmer, September/October, Nairobi. Ngigi, S.N., Thome, D.W., Waweru, W. & Blank, H.G. 2000. Technical Evaluation of Low Head Drip Irrigation Technologies in Kenya. University of Nairobi and International Water Management Institute, Nairobi. Oliver, G. 1990. Marketing Today. 3rd edn., Prentice-Hall International Ltd, UK. Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovation. 4th edn., Free Press, New York. Weller, S. & Romney, K.A. 1990. Metric Scaling- Correspondence Analysis. SAGE, London. Winrock. 2000. Proceedings of the Low-Head Drip Irrigation Review Workshop at the National Agricultural Research Laboratories, Nairobi, February 17–18, Winrock International.