Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics  Research > Food Security Group > Kenya > TAMPA Project
Egerton University
MSU Logo
USAID Logo

Tegemeo Agricultural Policy Research and Analysis (TAPRA) Project, Kenya

Help Topics:  Accessing Documents | Publication Series | Searching

Description of Tegemeo Institute Research Activites


TEGEMEO INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL

POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

1.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The evolution of Egerton from a diploma level agricultural college to a university in 1986 took place at a time when there was growing realization that technology and material resources alone were not sufficient for agricultural or any other form of development. Decades of development initiatives, many of them donor supported, had achieved little. The hypothesis that ?appropriate policy decision making? was the missing element was gaining currency among keen observers of agricultural development. And so, in 1988, a team of agricultural economists from Egerton University, Stanford University and University of Arizona, with funding from USAID, initiated research and analysis in agricultural policy, the Policy Analysis for Agricultural Training (PAAT ) under the Institutional Development for Agricultural Training (IDAT). This work initially focused on documenting the impacts of policy on incentives and efficiency in the agricultural production, processing and marketing system, with particular reference to smallholder agriculture in eight representative districts in Kenya. Policy Analysis Matrix (PAM), a budget-based analytical system was the main methodology employed. A part from the research output, the collaboration between Egerton University academicians and faculty from American universities was aimed at creating an opportunity for capacity building at Egerton. The research output was disseminated widely through seminars, conferences and reports.

A major finding of those early studies was that while cash crops were decisively more profitable than food crops, smallholder farmers insisted on producing food crops, notably maize, for their own subsistence. They were not taking advantage of the profit opportunities availed by cash crops. Further investigation revealed that this was because the farmers did not have confidence that the market would supply food products when needed at affordable prices. At the time, the agricultural marketing scene was heavily regulated and was dominated by a plethora of monopolistic marketing parastatals covering virtually all commodities. Further scrutiny revealed fundamental problems and inefficiencies in those marketing arrangements.

At the end of the PAAT phase in 1990, there was consensus that much had been achieved in revealing the important role of policy but much more remained to be done, particularly in analyzing potential effects of changes in policy on the marketing system. A new phase of policy research and analysis, the Policy Analysis Matrix (PAM) under the Kenya Market Development Programme (KMDP) was initiated with a special focus on the improvement of the marketing system. The same team of collaborators was funded by the USAID to undertake this work. The main thrust of KMDP was improving the efficiency of the marketing system through market reform and upgrading of market infrastructure, particularly rural access roads and market information.

PAM undertook studies to document the benefits of improvement of rural access roads. More significantly, the PAM team undertook studies of whole commodity systems from microeconomic to macroeconomic levels and provided data on the performance of the marketing system. The output of PAM work was widely disseminated through seminars, conferences, conference proceedings and policy briefs which were widely distributed among government, professionals, donors, private sector and other stakeholders. This work provided analytical input into the agricultural market reform debate which is the basis for market liberalization in the agricultural sector. Initially, the PAM team was a lonely voice in the wilderness of market reform. But good quality empirical data and careful analysis drew the attention of even the greatest skeptics to the flaws of the conventional wisdom in the agricultural marketing system. PAM data and reports increasingly were being sought for reference, especially by the agricultural sector public officials, donors and university academics and students.

In 1994 an evaluation of PAM was undertaken. The evaluation recognized its valuable contribution to informing the agricultural policy process. The strength of PAM lay in the empirical basis of the analysis, the impartial reporting and the widespread dissemination of the results. Much more work remained to be done, and the following recommendations were made, among others.

  • The PAM Project should continue beyond 1994 to address issues on agricultural Policy in Kenya
  • The PAM Project should be reconstituted into an institute or centre that deals with policy analysis in agriculture not only in PAM methodology but in other methodologies
  • PAM should develop linkages with KARI and the Extension Service
  • ...continued USAID assistance to Egerton University in the area of policy analysis...would be most desirable and is strongly recommended.

As the PAM project was drawing to a close in 1995, Egerton University formally institutionalized the PAM work by establishing the Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development. Tegemeo became the successor to PAM and took over the personnel and other resources previously under PAM. The University also decided to continue with the Nairobi location for Tegemeo in order to facilitate policy research and analysis through interaction with appropriate organizations.

2. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF TEGEMEO

Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development was established for the purpose of research, analysis and outreach on policy in the domain of agriculture, rural development, natural resources and environment. The Institute aims at addressing micro and macroeconomic policy issues bearing on farming, transportation, processing, marketing, and trade of agricultural products and inputs; sustainability of agricultural systems and natural resources as well as the environment; and commercialization, income growth and food security. The current focus is as follows:

Conducting systematic research to identify, characterize and assess production, processing, marketing, trade and policy factors that impact on competitiveness and comparative advantage of major agricultural commodity systems. The major purpose is to identify options for achieving sustained growth of agricultural income and employment.

Conducting research to understand interrelationships between agriculture and other sectors of the economy for the purpose of elucidating complementarities and synergies whose exploitation could contribute to faster and sustainable agricultural and overall growth.

Conducting research to identify, understand and assess food and income access constraints especially for vulnerable groups. The major purpose is to identify options for developing an improved and sustainable food system that assures access to adequate food for all. Access to resources, nutrition status and consumption patterns are important components.

Conducting research to understand how institutions impact on incentives and the behaviour of all the actors in the domains implied in the above objectives. The aim is to identify policy and institutional reforms that have the greatest potential to promote national objectives.

Offering training courses seminars and workshops in the area of agricultural, natural resources and environmental policy analysis and implementation as well as management of agricultural enterprises.

3. STRATEGY

Tegemeo's approach is to combine research, capacity building and outreach. A core staff pursuing mission oriented research will be supplemented by short term appointments of University staff and visiting fellows. The following will be the main features of the Institute's strategy:

Research on issues and policies that impact on agriculture, natural resources, environment and rural development with the aim of generating practical options for addressing contemporary problems.

Building of a data bank of information that could be useful in rural and agricultural policy analysis, formulation and implementation.

Outreach activity to inform on research findings and their implications for policy formulation and decision-making.

Holding of conferences, workshops, seminars, and briefings to communicate research findings and provide a forum for open discussion among researchers and other professionals, university academicians, policy analysts, policy advisors, policy makers and representatives of farmers, manufacturers, traders and other stakeholders.

Publication of the research works in proceedings, working papers, professional journals and popular media to assure wide dissemination.

Supporting the development and strengthening of capacity building for policy research, analysis and outreach. This includes conducting courses.

Collaboration on research and exchange of information with institutions and agencies with similar interests and engaged in similar work.

4. TEGEMEO'S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE

Tegemeo has comparative advantage in empirical agricultural policy research and analysis compared to alternative institutions. Its university academic setting implies a disinterested stance on policy issues where government research units may have vested interests. Relatively balanced and impartial analysis and presentation of results would be expected. Long term research of policy issues is likely to yield higher quality more thorough data and information than short-term consultancies from various firms can be expected to offer. A university institute would have greater permanency and reduced turnover of staff with a longer time horizon. Moreover, Tegemeo can build a cumulative database on agriculture which would require relatively low cost updating or augmentation to respond to short and long term policy questions. Further, research results from Tegemeo's work would be readily available to all interested parties ranging from University faculty and students to farmers and farmer organizations. Tegemeo also will continue to provide capacity building opportunities in policy research and analysis to Egerton University and other organizations with which it has or will continue to have linkages. The experience accumulated so far will be used to best advantage.

5. LINKAGES WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS

Tegemeo has endeavored to maintain the old PAM relationships while seeking new ones. Many issues of policy on agricultural development, food security and trade in agricultural products have regional and even international ramifications. Linkages enable researchers to pool ideas and experiences and to compare, exchange and pool research results and to draw more robust and meaningful conclusions at lower costs than would otherwise be possible. The traditional one year rotational attachment of Egerton Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness faculty to Tegemeo will continue. Tegemeo researchers are collaborating with the University of Arizona Department of Agricultural Economics faculty in Policy Analysis for Participatory Poverty Alleviation (PAPPA) Project funded by the Ford Foundation. Michigan State University (MSU) is collaborating with Tegemeo researchers in the Tegemeo Agricultural Monitoring and Policy Analysis (TAMPA) Project, a four-year research and outreach project under USAID funding. There is limited work in progress on Sustainable Agriculture - Policies that Work (PTW) project which is a project of International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED) of London in collaboration with Tegemeo Institute. The SA/PTW Project is receiving some funding from Department of International Development (DFID) OF THE United Kingdom. Tegemeo also has undertaken some analytical work for the Agricultural Sector Investment Project (ASIP) of the Ministry of Agriculture and there is hope that this relationship could continue in future. Tegemeo is in touch with the Economic Development Institute (EDI) of the World Bank for possible collaboration in training programmes. Indeed, Tegemeo researchers have participated as resource personnel in some EDI courses. The institute will continue to seek useful linkages as resources permit. Regionally, Tegemeo has a working relationship with the eastern and Central Africa Programme for Agricultural Policy Analysis (ECAPAPA) and Tegemeo staff are members of the Eastern and Southern Africa Association of Agricultural Economists.

6. THE RESEARCH PROGRAMME

Kenya's agriculture is going through a major transformation as pervasive public control and involvement in production, processing and marketing gives way to liberalization. Liberalization, backed by much research, policy analysis and dialogue, has been accepted and now is irreversible. As farmers and other stakeholders assume increasing responsibility for their own economic destiny, they require a supportive and enabling policy environment that allows them to exploit emerging economic opportunities. Policy formulation which has and will continue to be the role of government in a liberalized environment is becoming more complex and dependent not only on quality data and analysis, but also on increased informed interaction between policy makers and other stakeholders.

The policy process has and will continue to be well served by research that monitors evolving changes at the household, commodity sub-sector, sectoral and macroeconomic levels. The incentives created by liberalization, the newly emerging opportunities, policy and non-policy constraints to profitable economic activity all form important areas of research to support the transformation of Kenya's agricultural sector. Tegemeo Institute envisions a major role in research, analysis and dialogue aimed at enhancing the contribution of agriculture to Kenya's economic growth. The institute currently is involved in the following research programme.

6.1 TEGEMEO AGRICULTURAL MONITORING AND POLICY ANALYSIS (TAMPA) Project.

This project is in collaboration with Michigan State University and is funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The project is a continuation of a similar project with MSU and KARI which ended in December 1998. It has numerous research themes.

6.1.1 Monitoring Changes and Development in the Agricultural Sector

Many changes continue to take place in the agricultural sector at the same time as data collection and compilation activity by public sector agencies has markedly reduced. This means that planning for the sector is likely to be undertaken without the benefit of a much needed adequate database. Through periodic farmer surveys, Tegemeo is providing some of the information that is lacking.

Using household sampling techniques, Tegemeo will be able to compute and update a database that can inform a large variety of policy questions including e.g.

The composition of, and sources of growth in, agricultural GDP.

The link between off-farm income and on-farm productivity,

The characteristics of more productive farmers,

The impact of government investment in infrastructure, extension etc.,

The impact of trade policy and agricultural performance on the welfare of rural households

6.1.2 Input and Output Market Reform

Tegemeo coontinues to pursue the market reform agenda to identify the extent to which liberalization has been achieved in the various agricultural sub-sectors. This should help define what still remains on the reform agenda. Post-reform constraints and the overall impact of the liberalization process on the competitiveness and efficiency of Kenyan agriculture also is subject to study. Tegemeo proposes to:

Identify and analyze the extent to which agricultural input markets have been liberalized, and identify potential gains from further participation by the private sector.

Analyze the competitiveness and efficiency to key commodities

Identify legal and regulatory issues that limit agricultural input and output markets

Identify and quantify the liberalization of agricultural production, processing and marketing on private sector incentives.

Examine interventions in the generation, delivery, and dissemination of agricultural technologies that could enhance agricultural sector productivity and competitiveness.

The project will identify and suggest the complementarity between private and public sectors to ensure that government plays its rightful role in supporting agricultural development by ensuring an enabling environment in which the farmers, processors, traders and input suppliers face the type of incentives necessary to ensure competitiveness and enhanced agricultural productivity.

6.1.3 Policy Dialogue and Advocacy

The debate on the agricultural policy issues of the day needs to include all stakeholders and not just government, donors and academics. To date, civil society - agricultural professionals, producers, marketing agents, consumers and even legislators - have had no forum through which to be party to the debate on the issues affecting the agricultural sector. Much of the time interested actors are not even aware that important issues affecting their livelihood are being discussed, and so end up playing no role in the formulation of policies that affect them directly.

Tegemeo intends to diversify its activities from pure policy analysis to include a more outreach oriented policy advocacy and dialogue promotion role. Tegemeo can play a significant role in broadening debate on issues bearing on the agricultural sector. Using the extensive database from past and future studies, and given the Institute's standing as disinterested honest supplier of information on the sector, Tegemeo is in a unique position to raise the level of debate on issues affecting Kenyan agriculture. All the dialogue and advocacy activities would be based on, and informed by research undertaken by the Tegemeo team, either in the past, or as part of the current project. A number of specific initiatives and tools will be employed. Examples are:

Policy debate fora where a small group of interested stakeholders as individuals or organizations, public or private, meet and express their views on a given issue in an open forum. Tegemeo could, for example, make some preliminary report of findings, or a summary of the issues -- based on research -- to facilitate the discussion. The institute already has done this for several sectors and the team feels that there is a big demand and high pay off for this type of service.

Issue oriented research, possibly at the request of some stakeholder(s) leading up to one policy debate, and/or as an input into a future one. Quick response to urgent topical issues will be given as need arises.

Agricultural issue seminars in specific rural areas. This is be an innovative way of giving back to rural communities and groups of stakeholders, information they provide to us. Tegemeo can turn local farm budget information, marketing cost data etc. into issue oriented discussions between farmers, traders and the public sector. Such fora would help to develop common views of current issues in agricultural development. Examples may be a forum on the cost of maize production held in Eldoret, e.g. attended by farmers and other stakeholders from various areas, a soil test and fertilizer use seminar where farmers, researchers and retailers learn and share experiences, etc. These would be innovative ways of involving farmers and other stakeholders in charting the course of their own development

6.1.4 Food Security for Vulnerable Groups

Initially, focus will be on food security for pastoral communities. Later the study will be extended to other vulnerable groups such as the rural poor, the landless, and others suffering other forms of disadvantage. For the population of much of Kenya, food security is intimately linked to pastoral farming --the production of meat and other livestock products. But a number of factors constrain pastoral production in vast areas of the country. These include frequent droughts, persistent lack of water, pasture, and disease control and veterinary services. Insecure land tenure, poor marketing infrastructure - roads, stock routes, and holding grounds - and banditry further complicate the food security situation of Kenya?s pastoral communities. A deteriorating natural resource base, and poor access to education and health care mean that the situation could deteriorate still further.

Government, donors and NGO's have tended to concentrate on the provision of relief food and the promotion of sedentary crop production as a means of addressing the food security and food emergency need of these communities. These do not appear to be either feasible or desirable solutions as they fail to recognize the central role livestock play in meeting the communities' needs. Tegemeo aims to help identify appropriate interventions that would enhance the food and income security of pastoral communities.

6.1.5 Commercialization Study

The food security policy thrust so far has been geared towards self-sufficiency in food production. For the mainly heavily populated high potential agro-ecological zones, the policy has been to promote the production of the high value traditional cash crops such as coffee, tea, sugar cane, and horticulture. Under this strategy, incomes earned from the production of the traditional cash crops are used to purchase food in the market. But the impacts of promoting cash crops on smallholder welfare has been contested often is being argued that it leads to poverty and food insecurity.

Studies have been demonstrated that there are potential synergies between cash crop investment and food crop production. Cash crop production in some regions of on Kenya was found to have significant and positive impacts on food crop fertilizer use and productivity. In others, this relationship was negative. The effects of cash cropping on food production thus cannot be over-generalized. Synergies between food and cash crop are crop specific and depend on the institutional set up for each crop. Understanding the kind of relationship, and how particular cash crop and food crop production schemes are organized and the specific institutional arrangement linking farmers and the marketing firms is a critical in defining the synergies.

The objectives of this study, therefore, are to:

identify the components of cash crop production that have either positive or negative

effects on crop inputs use and productivity and in which regions such relationships exists.

identify the organization and institutional set up of the cash crop production schemes and their effects on small-holder access to inputs, extension advice, market outlets, price levels and price risks. Factors influencing both the marketing firms and farmers remain in the organizational set up will also be identified. identify cost-effective strategies likely to replicate and incorporate into commercialization studies in other regions, which could have high payoff in terms of increasing agricultural productivity and food security.

The study is expected to lead to the identification of policy ingredients that could be replicated and incorporated into food production strategies in other regions where they are non existent. More comprehensive information on the interactions may help in defining strategies that could increase both the cash and food crop production among small-holder households

6.1.6 Maize Marketing Study

The structure and behavior of the evolving liberalized grain-marketing systems has changed as new marketing arrangements have emerged. The study aims to examine private sector's response to maize market reform, identify key barriers Constraining new marketing investments, assess competitiveness at key stages of the system, and the effects of reform on marketing margins (e.g., difference between producer and wholesale prices in market processing costs, identify the general effects on farmer production incentives and consumer food security.

identify the role of government in effectively promoting the development of the evolving market-oriented food systems?

The study will identify strategies that could enhance the response by the private. It will also suggest the complimentary roles between government and the private sector that could facilitate rather than impede the private sector's ability to respond to liberalization.

6.1.7. Seed Study

The seed industry has been liberalized since 1996. Prior to this, the seed industry suffered from inappropriate institutional set-up in seed development, multiplication and distribution that occasionally resulted in the production of poor quality seeds. Most farmers preferred to plant their own seeds because they claim that there is no difference between the certified seeds and the seed saved from previous harvests. Poor seed distribution systems also have resulted in non-availability of preferred seeds. The producers thus plant what is available rather than their preferred varieties specific to their respective agro-ecological zones. Kenya also lacked the recognition of the Plant Breed Breeders' Rights, thus impeding international plant breeders from availing high quality patented planting materials, as they are unable to check unauthorized multiplication of these materials. This denied the small-scale farmers' access to high quality flower planting materials.

The policy change on seed production and marketing announced in May 1996 implied the following:

Upon registering the existing varieties, KARI and other public research institutions would make available the foundation seeds to all the registered seed companies without discrimination.

Plant Breeder's Rights Regulation would be recognized in order to encourage individual breeders and private companies to invest in the development of new varieties.

Kenya would initiate the process of joining the Union of Protection Of new Varieties (UPOV).

Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services (KEPHIS) would replace the NSQCS in seed control inspection and certification.

In response to these policy changes, several seed companies have been licensed to operate in Kenya. The policy change also divorced the seed quality control from KARI through the formation of KEPHIS under the Ministry of Agriculture. The seed companies have introduced various seed varieties in the market. They also have been involved in promotional activities in the various farming areas. The institutional set up in seed production, distribution and marketing thus has changed.

The objectives of this study thus are be to:

  • assess the current status of the liberalization of seed development, multiplication, distribution and inspection.
  • examine private sector's response to seed market reform,
  • identify key barriers constraining new seed marketing investments,
  • examine farmer's response to the liberalization of seed market and impacts to production
  • identify the general effects on farmer production incentives.
  • identify the role of government in effectively promoting the development of the evolving an efficient seed market

The study will identify strategies that could enhance the response by the private in seed marketing. It also will suggest the complementary roles between government, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector that could facilitate rather than impede efficient development, multiplication and distribution of seed.

6.1.8A Study of the Pyrethrum Industry in Kenya

The motivation behind this study is the current low and declining production of pyrethrum in Kenya (from an annual production of 17,710 tonnes of dry flowers in 1992/93 to about 7,000 tonnes in the 1997/98 season) despite favorable prices in the international market (Economic Review, 1998). The major aim is to study the production and marketing of pyrethrum in Kenya with a view to determining the possible reasons for decline. More specifically, the study aims at establishing the following:

Profitability and competitiveness of the pyrethrum enterprise among other competing enterprises across the major producing regions.

Farm-level constraints e.g. the availability and cost of planting material, labour, credit and information flow.

The institutional arrangement in the pyrethrum industry i.e. the institutions involved, their roles and how do they enhance or hamper the production and marketing of pyrethrum in Kenya.

Entry and exit from pyrethrum production and causes. The place of pyrethrum in the farming system and household economy.

Possibilities and implications of liberalizing pyrethrum marketing in Kenya as indicated in the current National Development Plan (1997-2001). Costs and benefits of alternative approaches to liberalization and implications for incentive structure and pyrethrum production.

Existence and the level of the domestic market for pyrethrum and pyrethrum products and by-products.

The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) through the Pyrethrum Board of Kenya (PBK) is responsible for production promoting production and marketing of pyrethrum. Information on the causes of the declining production will be useful in designing a strategy to increase the production of pyrethrum.

The study also may be useful to the MOA as it introduces legislation to remove the Pyrethrum Board's marketing monopoly as stipulated in the current Development Plan.

Preliminary Findings indicate that:

pyrethrum is facing stiff competition from horticulture and dairy. This is especially so in Kisii District where, with the current low yields and prices, pyrethrum does not seem to be profitable and cannot compete well with the alternative enterprises.

In some areas, lack of proper and adequate planting material could be a constraint to increased production.

The marketing of the dry flowers from the farmers to the board and the payment system back to the farmer could also be acting as a disincentive to increased production.

6.1.9 Livestock Marketing Study

The key question motivating this study is: how can the functioning of the livestock marketing sector be improved in order that producer and trader incomes are raised, and consumer prices are lowered? The following more specific questions ensue from this general question:

How well are the basic livestock marketing activities (i.e., assembly, transportation, pricing, etc.) in Kenya understood?

Can marketing costs at various stages of the marketing system be reduced? For example, can institutional and/or technological innovations that reduce marketing costs be identified/developed within the Kenyan livestock marketing context?

How does the lack of a grading and/or standardization system affect livestock marketing? Would there be any added value or benefit to developing grading and standardization systems?

How can adequate and consistent market information and supervision be provided across the country?

How can farmers be stimulated to play a more active role in commercial meat production?

Contributions of this study include shedding light on:

The role of the Livestock Marketing Division?

Previous Role: As in the case of the NCPB, the livestock marketing division was initially established as a buyer of the last resort. The aim of the unit was to: (a) provide livestock producers mainly in arid and semi-arid areas of the country with a sure market in times of drought and extended dry seasons, and (b) provide producers an alternative outlet in times of depressed prices by offering to purchase animals at a higher price than the market price. This initiative was not a profit making venture, but rather a government intervention aimed at mitigating the traditional livestock, and thereby income, losses that plagued the ASAL regions during extended dry seasons and drought periods. These roles were altered in 1984 when price controls in the livestock sector were removed.

New Role: In the recent past, the role of the Livestock Marketing Division has for the most part been ambiguous and cosmetic following the liberalization of the livestock marketing sector in 1987, coupled with problems associated with inadequate financial resources. From what we were able to establish following a familiarization tour of selected districts in the country, the division does not appear to be playing an active role in livestock markets except for scattered few, for example, Isiolo Town Market where government agents visit the market regularly to collect data on prices and numbers of animals brought to the market for trading purposes. Further, although the division is responsible for the management of holding grounds across the country, it has been unable to fulfil this obligation because of financial constraints and insecurity concerns.

Should the Livestock Marketing Division rethink it's role?

In the current era of market liberalisation, and increased community and private sector involvement in rural development, the most significant contribution the LMD could make towards the improvement of livestock marketing in the country is in the development of a viable market information system; and subsequently in co-ordinating the collection, compilation and dissemination of adequate, complete and reliable market information.

Preliminary findings suggest the following constraints in livestock marketing:

Ineffective disease control mechanisms which have serious implications with regards to public health concerns and the breakdown of critical institutions and regulatory mechanisms within the sector.

Lack of a reliable market information system that is accessible to producers, traders and consumers concerning price trends, trading patterns and new developments in the livestock industry.

There are very serious inefficiencies associated with the transportation of animals from secondary to terminal markets for two main reasons: (a) because of extremely poor road conditions and thereby high truck maintenance costs and (b) where no backhaul exists because the secondary market is inconveniently situated, for example the Email to Nairobi channel.

The collapse of the Kenya Meat Commission and the termination of the LMD off-take intervention has deprived livestock producers from ASAL areas of dependable outlets for their stock which are usually of poor to average quality.

6.1.10 Horticultural Industry Study

The horticultural industry experienced fast growth during the seventies and eighties. In the nineties however, the industry has been faced with several problems which demand immediate attention:

There still exist huge un-exploited capacities to increase the current quantity and variety supplied. However, the demand in our principle markets is not growing as fast if at all.

There is increased competition from other producing countries which are able to deliver at lower costs.

There are eminent changes in the preferential treatment enjoyed by Kenya and other ACP countries with regard to entry into European market.

There's increased concern by consumers on chemical residues in the products, workers welfare and in the conservation of the environment.

All these changes pose a great threat to the competitiveness of Kenyan produce and also to the survival of many horticultural enterprises. Costly adjustments have been inevitable as the various players embark on policies and strategic programmes that would give them a competitive edge.

The Questions will be addressed by the study:

How is the horticultural export sector currently structured and conducting it's business? How is this affecting it's performance?

How are both large and small farms and firms co-existing? How are they adjusting and performing in the prevailing environment?

To what extent are various stakeholders involved in the current re-structuring? How has their involvement or lack of it impacted on performance?

What is considered by stakeholders as the most desirable status quo?

Value of Information Generated

By highlighting the performance of the sector under the various production and marketing arrangements to be found, the study also will highlight the critical factors which determine success of horticultural enterprises under different circumstances. Beneficiaries and losers of the current system will be identified. These findings may be used in designing strategies for stimulating production and promoting marketing of horticultural products.

Progress

Preliminary observations indicate that:

Exporters of horticultural crops are facing stiff competition from other exporting countries and in order to remain in the market, they have put in place various policies and strategies.

The private sector is calling for more involvement by the public sector and are now quite clear in the areas that each party should be playing.

6.1.11 Cost of Maize Production

Cost of maize production in several regions of the country will be estimated. This will form the basis of determining at what level maize prices need to be to ensure viability of maize production.

6.1.12 Regional Food Security

Food security in much of this region has often been looked at as an issue best handled at the national level. However increasing regional co-operation and enhanced security in the region has allowed important opportunities for the food security needs of national populations to be addressed -- at less cost to government treasuries and to consumers -- if food security is looked at on a regional basis. Tegemeo intends to be involved in the identification of policies that can enhance intra-regional trade in food products, and of opportunities provided by enhanced regional co-operation. This is a logical extension of Tegemeo's extensive work looking at policies to enhance national food markets.

6.1.13 Legislative Agenda

The reform process in the agricultural sector has made substantial progress since the beginning of the 1990s. The same cannot be said of the supporting legislation. An examination of some of the outstanding legislative agenda and how it may be affecting further developments in the sector will undertaken.

6.2 Policy Analysis for Participatory Poverty Alleviation (PAPPA)

This research project is funded by the Ford Foundation

Policy Analysis for Participatory Poverty Alleviation (PAPPA) is a research project that seeks approaches to poverty alleviation through sustainable development. This calls for full participation, identification with and ownership of the development initiative by the beneficiaries. Tegemeo researchers are collaborating with researchers in the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) Programme of Egerton University.

The work entails combining participatory approaches with economic analysis in assessing economic status, ranked problems that constrain improvement in welfare, coping strategies, and development prospects and potential for a selected community. The researchers involve the community in information gathering and analysis. This information is influenced by and, in turn, contributes to household survey instrument for collection of quantitative household socioeconomic data. Farm enterprise data are collected and used in enterprise budgets.

Analysis of all the data yield indicators of community and household socioeconomic status. Simulations of potential changes on initial (baseline) conditions suggest desirable changes. A community action plan (CAP) is prepared. This is a blue print for a community's development which may be incorporated in the local development plan (locational, divisional or district). The CAP is discussed at a seminar in which all stakeholders participate to ensure feasibility, support and linkage between the community and development agents.

6.3 Policies That Work for Sustainable Agriculture

This is a collaborative research project between Tegemeo Institute, Egerton University, Kenya and the International Institute for Environment the Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods Program of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London. It is funded by the United Kingdom Department for Development (DFID) for Eastern Africa.

The overall aim of the project is to improve the understanding, formulation and implementation of policies and policy processes that support the spread of forms of sustainable agriculture and rural regeneration that alleviate poverty, increase food production and access to entitlements, conserve natural resources, and stimulate strong rural social enterprises.

There is increasing evidence to suggest that some aspects of Kenyan agriculture could be pro-sustainability and pro-people. It not only contributes to greater agricultural production, but also to environmental regeneration and rural economic development. Despite some emerging success stories, however, most of these cases remain isolated islands of sustainability. A fundamental challenge for this project is therefore to understand why most examples of effective, efficient and equitable agriculture and resource management remain localized successes. What prevents most of them from increasing in their scale and scope? And in the few cases where sustainable practices, processes and technologies do spread beyond the local-level, what factors supported their diffusion, adaptation and adoption?

In order to answer these questions, the study divided the Policies That Work research into three main phases.

Phase one of the study involves case studies of islands in different farming systems in Kenya, from small-scale systems in food deficit areas to large-scale systems in food-surplus regions.

The case studies are complemented by a broad national survey of key public and private actors regarding their opinions, activities, impacts and visions of sustainable agriculture in Kenya.

Phase three involves charting out a political economic history of policy and institutional change in Kenya from the pre-independence period to the present day. This study will provide insights into the pivotal policy milestones that have had a major impact on food and agriculture activities in the country and trace the trajectory of agricultural transformation over a 50-year period.

The results from this study are expected to inform the policy makers on the factors that have influenced sustainable agriculture in Kenya. It will also assist in the process of formulating Policy Alternatives and Institutions that could support sustainable agriculture.


The TEGEMEO Agricultural Monitoring and Policy Analysis Project is a joint collaboration between Egerton Univesity and Michigan State University, with funding from USAID/Kenya.
The Food Security project is a cooperative agreement between the US Agency for International Development, Global Bureau, Economic Growth Center, Office of Agriculture and Food Security and MSU Department of Agricultural Economics.

You may contact the Director of TEGEMEO, Mr. James Nyoro, at our project office in Nairobi or to reach the co-principal investigators for the TAMPA project at Michigan State University, write to Professors T.S. Jayne, Dave Tschirley or Eric Crawford