Research design and approach

With the aim of understanding the perceptions of farmers in regard to the sustainability assessment improvement measures, potential challenges, strategies, and responsibilities for the implementation the study utilized the following research design (Table 4.3-1).

Table 4.3-1: Research design and approach used in farmer perception study Methodology Involved stakeholders/sources Targeted focus Extensive Literature

review

internet and bibliographic search and review of projects reports, peer reviewed publications

 To gather secondary data that has been used as baseline for this study

Stakeholder meeting Public organizations, NGOs, Private institutions and researchers

 Data verifications

 Draw-up key message areas

 To capture perspectives of possible improvement pathways Farmer feedback

workshops

farmers extension agents  Give farmer reports and

presentation of interpretation of what is contained in the report

Insights on possible intervention measures

In-depth meetings farmers extension agents facilitators

 challenges/ constraints identifications

 improvement measures

 mechanisms for implementation We carried out this study between July to October 2019 in three counties, each with different agro-ecological, climatic, and farming characteristics (see Chapter 1). A stakeholder meeting was first held to verify and validate the data and results from the farm-level sustainability assessments and to select key messages to be discussed during the farmer feedback workshops. Secondly, farmers were invited for feedback workshops (three workshops per county; a total of nine), where they received reports about their farms. The farm reports contained a) information about the productivity and profitability of all the crop and livestock activities a farmer practiced, the inputs and operations necessary to conduct those activities, and the outputs and sales resulting from these activities; and b) as the last section of the report, the sustainability assessment of the results for the farm. Thirdly, nine in-depth farmer discussion meetings were held (three per county) to identify and discuss the measures recommended to improve agricultural sustainability on their farms and the constraints to their implementation.

Stakeholder meeting

A one-day stakeholder meeting was held at the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) in Thika to verify and validate the data and results collected in the farm sustainability assessments. The location, 45 km from Nairobi, was selected because of its centrality to the three study counties. A total of 30 (including 13 female) stakeholders took part, representing the following organizations: MoAL&F (representatives from the three counties), NGOs, the Limbua group, OACK, KOAN, the Participatory Ecological Land Use Management (PELUM) Kenya, Hivos East Africa, International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), FiBL, organic training institutions like KIOF, International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), and the implementing team from KALRO. Other participants included the site managers from each SMART-Farm Tool auditor team (who had assisted the SMART-Farm Tool assessment in the field).

stakeholders and discussed. The stakeholders validated the outcomes, gave recommendations for engaging farmers and listed areas of interest for discussion with farmers. Some of the key points to guide discussions with farmers in the feedback meetings were drawn-up (Table 4.3-2). The discussion focused on sustainability gaps, i.e. the unacceptable (0 to 20%) or limited (21 to 40%) outcomes for each county in the four sustainability dimensions.

Table 4.3-2: List of key areas for farmer discussion for each sustainability dimension.

Environmental Integrity

Economic Resilience

Social well-being Governance Ecosystem

Water withdrawal Soil Quality

Stability of markets Profitability

Investments Food safety

Capacity development Workplace and safety &

health Provision Public Health

Full Cost accounting Holistic audit

Transparency

Note: See Annex 10 and 11 for a detailed description

Farmer feedback workshops

The second stage was the farmer feedback workshops. Nine were held in total: three one day-long meetings in each county. A total of 578 farmers (including 312 females) participated in the workshops (Table 4.3-3). A program for the farmer feedback workshop was prepared beforehand (see Annex 11). The content of the farm report and how to read it was explained to the farmers.

Question and answer sessions were encouraged to improve farmer understanding of the reports.

Table 4.3-3: Participating farmers who attended the farmer feedback workshops

County Number of

workshops

Participants

%

Female

%

Male

%

Murang’a 3 72.3 75.0 67.6

Kirinyaga 3 65.9 89.1 59.0

Machakos 3 64.9 76.9 51.4

Total 9 67.7 78.0 58.6

Note: Expressed as % of the farmers whose data was analyzed in the sustainability assessment

The farmers provided feedback on the farm report and sustainability outcomes in the four dimensions (environmental integrity, economic resilience, social well-being, and governance). The feedback by farmers was on measures they were likely to take to improve sustainability on their farms with respect to the given sub-themes. For example, to reduce water withdrawal, farmers would embrace better irrigation technologies, plant more trees to attract rains and reduce run-off, or take-up water

harvesting techniques. This process assisted the review and refining of the questions for the in-depth farmer discussions (see Annex 10 and 11)

Farmer feedback workshops in Murang’a and Kirinyaga

Farmer feedback workshop in Machakos In-depth farmer discussions

Focus group discussions or interviews are interactions that encourage members to express their opinions and to discuss them with one another (Hennink, 2014; Potter et al., 2004). They generate a considerable quantity of data in a relatively short period from a significant number of people, and allow for the recording and analysis of the reactions of different group members (Bloor et al., 2012;

Krueger et al., 2015; Schensul & LeCompte, 2013). Focus group discussions have been used to collect information on farmer perceptions of various agricultural practices (Agidew & Singh, 2019;

Jha et al., 2020; Patidar & Patidar, 2015; Prihtanti, 2016; Soire et al., 2016; Wartenberg et al., 2018).

The in-depth farmer discussion workshops took place one and a half months after the farmer

five hours, with about 30 farmers in each group. A total of nine in-depth discussion groups, three per county, were held with an overall total of 270 farmers.

Table 4.3-4: participants to the in-depth farmer discussion groups in the three counties

County Organic Conventional Total Female Male

Machakos 15 75 90 42 48

Kirinyaga 30 60 90 27 63

Murang’a 34 56 90 49 41

Total 79 191 270 118 152

A representative number of farmers were selected to represent the other farmers. The 270 farmers were shortlisted from the 578 farmers who had participated in the farmer feedback workshops with the assistance of the project site managers from each of the counties. The in-depth discussions were used to follow-up on the actions that farmers had said they would take to improve on sustainability gaps. In particular, the support and incentives required for them to adopt the measures and the strategies. The discussions were facilitated by a team that included the lead researcher, a representative of the MoAL&F, and a representative of an organic institute where applicable. The outcome of each discussion was documented on a flipchart, an audio recorder and by a meeting secretary who took notes (Annex12). Existing secondary information from the ProEcoAfrica project about the socioeconomic and farm characteristics of the participants, such as age, gender, education level, farm size, marital status, membership of a farmer organization, number of household members, soil quality rating, bank savings account, off-farm income, and farming experience, was recorded.

The information was used as descriptive statistics to understand the participants involved in each in-depth discussion.

In-depth farmer discussion meetings in Kirinyaga County and Murang’a counties

MoAL&F representative addressing farmers in Machakos County after a discussion session