Discussion

Table 3.3-15: Indicators and the degree of achievement scores (%) comparing the differences between farming systems with standard error margin

Indicator P Organic Conventional

00057_InvolvementImprovingLawsRegulations P<0.05 16.84(±2.0)a 9.44(±1.0)b 00070_CooperationEthicalFinancialInstitutions ns 16.15(±1.7) 18.59(±0.9) 00074_CostsEnvironmentalInvolvementOutsideFarm P<0.05 11.59(±1.4)a 6.37(±0.7)b 00075_CostsSocialInvolvementOutsideFarm P<0.05 34.07(±2.3)a 24.14(±1.2)b 00506_FoodSecurityMeasuresLocCommunities P<0.05 24.33(±1.9)a 17.54(±1.1)b Note: margins showing a letter in the group label are significantly different at the 5% level.

Performance at the sub-theme level (12): Sustainability management plan

The objective of the sub-theme is to ensure that a sustainability plan for the enterprise is developed which provides a holistic view of sustainability and considers synergies and trade-offs between dimensions, including each of the environmental, economic, social and governance dimensions (FAO, 2013, p. 105). Of the six indicators, just one indicator’s mean score had a significant difference (P< 0.05) for organic farms: market challenges (31%), meaning the performance of organic farms was better than for conventional farms under the market challenges indicator (Table 3.3-16). Conventional farms had a better performance score in “guaranteed farm succession for staff” indicator (38%), with a 10%-point difference to organic farms (at 28%). The other indicators were not significantly different for either of the farming systems, meaning organic and conventional farms have roughly the same overall impacts for the other indicators.

Table 3.3-16: Indicators and the degree of achievement scores (%) comparing the differences between farming systems with standard error margin

Indicator P Organic Conventional

00008_VerbalCommitmentSustainability ns 17.58(±1.4) 17.6(±0.8)

00100_MarketChallenges P<0.05 30.85(±1.8)a 26.11(±1.0)b

00124_GuaranteedStaffReplacemetFarmSuccession P<0.05 28.19(±1.7)a 37.93(±0.8)b 00134_KnowledgeClimateChangeProblems ns 36.33(±1.5) 36.68(±0.8) 00136_ClimateChangeAdaptationMeasures ns 31.72(±2.5) 33.28(±1.3) 00750_OralInformationSustainabilityImprovements ns 20.39(±1.1) 18.91(±0.7) Note: margins showing a letter in the group label are significantly different at the 5% level.

the “Environmental Integrity” dimension, the organic interventions had a significantly higher degree of goal achievement scores for 10 of the 14 sub-themes (the sub-themes that were not significantly different are water withdrawal, land degradation, animal freedom from stress, and animal health).

These results suggest that certain organic farm practices (soil quality, crop rotation, animal and plant diversity, water quality, and material and energy use) are more sustainable than conventional ones.

The positive impacts in the environmental integrity dimension are due to changes in the farm management practices, i.e. improvements in soils fertility, mulching and crop rotation (Kamau et al., 2018; Schader et al., 2016). Organic farming standards include the application of good farming practices, use of manure, mulching, and inter-cropping that emphasize improvement in the environment, namely soil health and fertility, and preventive pest and disease management (Kannan et al., 2005).

Within the “Economic Resilience” dimension, 10 of the 14 sub-themes had a significantly higher degree of goal achievement scores in organic interventions as compared to conventional ones. The other four sub-themes – profitability, stability of production, value creation, and local procurement – were not significantly different. The degree of achievement scores for the sub-themes in the “Social Well-being” dimension revealed that 5 of the 16 sub-themes – responsible buyers, rights of suppliers, workplace safety and health provisions, public health, and indigenous knowledge – had a significantly higher degree of goal achievement scores in organic than conventional farms. The subtheme employment relations scored significantly higher for conventional systems than organic interventions, whereas the other sub-themes were not significantly different. In the “Governance”

dimension, 11 of the 14 sub-themes had a significantly higher degree of goal achievement scores in organic farms than in conventional ones. The remaining three sub-themes – mission statement, sustainability management plan, and full cost accounting – were not significantly different.

The results for the environmental integrity, economic resilience, and governance sub-themes suggest that organic farms' performance was better than conventional farms, indicating that some organic practices improve sustainability, e.g. food safety, public health, indigenous knowledge, and civic responsibility had a 6-8% point difference over conventional farms. Though small in their overall coverage, organic initiatives have substantial impacts in the communities or niche areas. Other studies have also shown that organic farms perform better in environmental integrity and economic resilience than conventional ones (Coteur et al., 2016; Marchand et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2019;

Ssebunya et al., 2018).

Performance of organic and conventional farming systems at the county level

In the environmental integrity dimension, the performance at the county level (Annex 6) showed mixed results when comparing the farming systems. Of the organic systems with sub-themes that were significantly different at the county level, meaning more sustainable than conventional farms, Murang’a had five sub-themes (greenhouse gases, water quality, ecosystems, species diversity, and genetic diversity) and Kirinyaga had three sub-themes (genetic diversity, material use, and waste reduction and disposal). In Machakos, none were significantly different. Of the conventional systems with sub-themes that were significantly different at the county level, Kirinyaga had four sub-themes (air quality, ecosystems, species diversity and genetic diversity), Murang’a had three (greenhouse gases, air quality and water quality) and Machakos had two (species diversity and animal freedom from stress). This means that the conventional farming systems were more sustainable than organic ones for these sub-themes in those counties.

In the economic resilience dimension, the performance at the county level were in favor of organic farms. Of the organic farms where sub-themes were significantly different at the county level, Kirinyaga had six sub-themes (internal investment, long-range investment, profitability, the stability of the market, risk management, and product information), Murang’a had three sub-themes (risk management, food safety, and product information) and Machakos had three sub-themes (community investment, profitability, and stability of market). For these sub-themes in those counties, organic farming was more sustainable than conventional farming. Conventional systems where sub-themes were significantly different, meaning more sustainable, included: Kirinyaga with one sub-theme (long-range investments), Murang’a with four sub-themes (community investment, the stability of the market, risk management, and food quality), and Machakos with one sub-theme (profitability).

The results of the performance at the county level were mixed in the social well-being dimension.

Organic interventions were more sustainable than conventional farming, i.e. sub-themes were significantly different, in Kirinyaga for six sub-themes (responsible buyers, rights of suppliers, non-discrimination, gender equity, support to vulnerable people and public health), in Murang’a for two sub-themes (workplace safety and health provisions, and public health), and in Machakos for two

gender equity, support to vulnerable people, and indigenous knowledge), and one in Machakos (non-discrimination).

In the governance dimension, the results for the performance at the county level were also mixed.

Organic farms were more sustainable than conventional farms for the following counties and sub-themes: in Kirinyaga six sub-themes (mission statement, holistic audits, transparency, legitimacy,

‘remedy, restoration and prevention’, and full cost accounting), Murang’a one sub-theme (legitimacy), and Machakos three sub-themes (holistic audits, responsibility, and sustainability management plan). Conventional systems were more sustainable than organic farms for four sub-themes in Kirinyaga (holistic audits, responsibility, grievance procedures, and civic responsibility), four in Murang’a (due diligence, responsibility, legitimacy, and civic responsibility) and one in Machakos (responsibility).

Performance of organic farming: Selected sub-themes at the indicator level

The 12 sub-themes selected for further analysis at the indicator level were water withdrawal, ecosystem diversity, and soil quality (environmental integrity), stability of supplies, stability of the market, food safety (economic resilience), capacity development, indigenous knowledge, and public health (social well-being), and holistic audits, civic responsibility and sustainability management plan (governance). Of the 209 indicators related to the 12 sub-themes analyzed, a total of 88 indicators were significant: 64 of these were higher and significantly different for organic farming, while 24 were lower and significant different for organic farms.

Farming practices that have an impact on the sustainability of the farming systems

In the results from the performance of organic and conventional farming systems at the sub-theme level, at the county level and for selected sub-themes at the indicator level, a number of farming practices are shown to clearly have an impact on the sustainability of each farming system.

The use of compost in farming activities: On the use of compost (Figure 3.4-2), the farmers were asked whether they apply compost to their fields. In the sustainability assessment, the use of compost has impacts on the sub-themes soil quality, land degradation, air quality, energy use, greenhouse gasses, species diversity, water quality and waste reduction and disposal. The results in Figure 3.4-1 show that a relatively low share of farms prepared and applied compost in all the field sites. The possible reasons could be that compost is a labour intensive practice, or that the farmers lack

knowledge in compost making. This is important to understand, because according to Te Pas & Rees (2014), in organic farming the input types (compost, cover crop, crop residue, manure and other organic inputs) incorporated into the farming activities are directly related to yield levels, i.e. 113%

higher yields can be obtained in organic farms as compared to conventional systems.

Figure 3.4-1: Share of farms applying compost per case study

Pesticide persistence in water: For this indicator, it was found that organic farms did not use any while many conventional farms reported use of water persistent pesticides such organochlorines and organophosphates. (Figure 3.4-2). The active substances of these pesticides are those considered to be very persistent in water (half-life > 60 days). This indicator has impacts on water quality and species diversity.

Diversification of products and value addition: The average number of crops grown on farms was eight to eighteen. Farmers, at times, plant many crops to spread the risk of crop failure but as a result, do not fully utilize recommended practices to reap the full benefits of each crop. Farmers sell most of the farm produce in the raw state thus, only get low prices. Yet with value addition, they could earn twice or more for the same crop.

Markets, market information and channels: Farmers sell their farm produce at farm-gate prices determined by the buyer. Most sell individually, yet with group or cooperate sales, the prices would be better due to economics of scale and negotiation ability of corporates. Exploring alternative markets such as niche markets for rare and unique crops, or institutional markets such as learning institutions and hospitals, could be an alternative. Another area is market intelligence to get current market prices and locations for the commodities. Few farmers know where and how to get this information, thus they rely on what the buyer offers.

The regulatory and institutional framework that supports organic farming: An enabling environment is where organic farming can flourish when farmers adhere to the rules governing the sector. Organic policy documents and organic standards like EAOPS 2007 are available to guide the sector. Identifying sector actors and holding joint stakeholders' meetings with the inclusion of government and NGOs is important in driving measures to enhance the organic sector. In Kenya, the Kenya Organic Agriculture Network promotes the organic sector, yet only a few agricultural staff at the county level know farmers who practice organic farming.

In improving farming practices, it is important to also enhance the capacity of farmers to adopt better farming practices.

Capacity building initiatives for both organic and conventional farmers: Training on good agricultural practices as well as in areas of environmental protection (conservation measures and safe use of pesticides) were considered when interviewing farmers. The training modes used, whether farmer field schools, training of trainers or farm visits, should focus on the best and effective methods of delivery for farmers to adopt improved farming practices. For example, farmers were asked if they received any training related to the use of plant protection products (Figure 3.4-3). This has impacts on the sub-themes quality of life and capacity development. Organic farms in Murang’a 40%, Machakos 8%, and conventional farms in Kirinyaga 20%, Murang’a 12%, Machakos 10%,

had received some training on the use of plant protection products. In Kirinyaga the organic farmers reported that they had not received any training on plant protection.

Figure 3.4-3: Training in the use of plant protection products