1 Views expressed in this paper do not represent the official policy of Egerton University or the Government of Kenya.
E.K. Maranga
Egerton University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources,
P. O. Box 536, Njoro, Kenya.
Abstract
Introduction
Nature of available results
Record of utilisation of available results
Constraints in the adoption of new interventions
Future directions for agricultural research - some thoughts on what needs to be done.
References
An overview of the development of range production and management research on Kenya is presented. The status of utilisation of research results in range production and management systems is discussed with special reference to their nature, record of utilisation and constraints in their utilisation. On the basis of the nature of available research results and the factors influencing their utilisation, the paper presents a dossier of future agricultural research needs for the small-scale farmers in the semi-arid and arid areas of
Kenya.
Actual coordinated range research work in Kenya did not start until in the late 1960's. Much of the early range research work was exploratory and rudimentary in nature, focusing on land use surveys, ecological monitoring and applied research on specific problems of range development and productivity. (FAO), 1967 - 1973; Gwynne and Croze, 1975). However, in the course of the period spanning the mid 1970's and early 1980's, emphasis in range research shifted dramatically away from autecological research investigations to embrace gynecological dimensions in response to the utilisation needs of game departments, national parks, irrigation schemes, tourist development organisations and the Range: Management Division. In the last half decade we have witnessed a coupling of autecological and gynecological research approaches in the investigation of range - livestock wildlife feed resources. The need and rationale for integrated approaches to the study of range - livestock wildlife feed resources has been facilitated by the establishment of range research institutions in Kenya with the mandate of prioritising and executing range research programmes with a view to generating innovations for range utilisation and management on a sustained yield basis.
Research institutions with responsibilities in range research and training in Kenya include: Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Moi University, University of Nairobi (College of Agriculture), Egerton University (Faculty of Agriculture), Kenya Rangeland Ecological Monitoring Unit (KREMU) and the International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA-Kenya) all of which undertake inventory and analysis of range resource base and land-use planning in the rangelands.
In an attempt to provide a broad-based scenario of the status of utilisation of research results in Range
Production and Management Systems in Kenya this paper will address aspects relative to;
a) The nature of results available
b) Record of utilisation of available results
c) Limitations in the utilisation of available results
d) Future directions for agricultural research - What needs to be done.
The available results in Range Production and Management Systems in Kenya comprise technical innovations that have occurred mainly from the National Range Research Centre-Kiboko, its regional substations and ocher public range research and teaching institutions. These results could be categorised as follows:
Range Improvement
- Bush management
- Reseeding and overseeding
Range Watershed Management
- Mechanical or physical work on soil or vegetation e.g. contour furrowing and range pitting, water spreading, revegetation etc.
Range Plant Ecology and Management
- primary productivity: quality and quantity of forage- Forage development: evaluation and testing
- Feed preservation and conservation on small-scale farms in semi-arid regions
- Basic autecological and gynecological work: habitat variation, ecological status, phenology, physiological and morphological adaptation to drought, soil - plant - water relations, Defoliation stress in relation to water stress and nutrient relations.
- Ecological monitoring: Development of methodologies related to evaluation of range resources; range inventory and analysis of range resource ecosystem components.
- Grazing management: Plant responses to grazing treatments, season of use, mixed species utilisation, stocking rates and grazing systems.
The record of utilisation of technological innovations in the area of range production in Kenya is perhaps not as impressive as the scope of available technical information tends to suggest. The reasons behind these are many but could be conveniently categorized as being administrative, technical and socio-economic. These aspects will be further developed under constraints in adoption of new interventions. It is instructive to note that the research extension concept in range Production systems in Kenya is at its infancy.
The concept is as old as the Range Management Division which was formally instituted in 1963. The Range Management Division is charged with the responsibility of research extension among other things.
Local Involvement
Land Tenure Problems
Appropriateness of Technology
Cost of inputs
Research Extension Methodology
Social Acceptability of Interventions
Range planning and development research in Kenya has suffered immensely from inadequate local involvement in projects. Aboud (1982) pointed out that the absence of local contribution in the design of projects meant for the benefit of country socio-technical constraints generated by the beneficiaries were responsible for the failure of the projects. Projects designed by outsiders were viewed with suspicion by local people. The recognition of the need for such projects remained nebulous in the minds of the innovators (Child et al, 1984).
Lack of control over land is one of the major problems limiting range livestock production systems. Production systems in Kenya include Commercial Ranching, group ranching and pastoralism. Many range improvement projects have not realised their objectives because land policies are not adequate to deal with the problems of better control of grazing land as is the case with the group ranches in Kenya (Ayuko, 1981). It has been an uphill task for the government to convince individuals to apply available technologies for pasture improvement for collectively grazed cattle or to attempt to improve existing forage base by reducing livestock numbers. Attempts made during the colonial and post-colonial era to sedentarize pastoral peoples have been disappointing because the confinement of large herds in unviable ecological land units resulted in overgrazing, soil erosion and ecological degradation. Sandford (1983) argues that the "tragedy of the commons" analysis makes several unjustified leaps if it leads to the conclusion that private ownership is the answer. He also observes that behavioural models used in the analysis may not be supported by anthropological studies. We now know that some of our pastoral tribes in Kenya have well structured regulations which when adequately enforced result in appropriate levels of control of livestock grazing. The notion that nomadic or transhumant populations must adopt sedentary lifestyles may not be tenable in all situations as our Kenyan experience demonstrates.
The nature of available range research results often do not translate easily into extension messages that can readily be adopted by the clients. Sometimes, the rationale underlying the implementation of range improvement or grazing schemes remain unappreciated by a majority of the clients. For instance the requirements for the maintenance of certain grazing pressure and adherence to a grazing calendar associated with conventional grazing systems in contrast to the traditional wet-dry season grazing cycles are beyond the comprehension of pastoralists.
A considerable proportion of range research in Kenya is conventional research carried out under controlled conditions of an experimental farm.
Many technological innovations recommended by research stations are costly in terms of inputs and associated management operations which tend to run beyond the financial capability of the average pastoralist/farmer. However, the government provides subsidies relative to certain inputs (e.g. breeding stock) and extends credit facilities through the Agricultural Finance Corporation to enterprising innovators.
The range extension service in Kenya utilises "baraza" (group meetings) as the recipient group of range production innovations rather than a select group of clients actually involved in range-livestock production. It is assumed that of relevant extension innovations, packages will be received and adopted by more advantaged innovators from whom the less advantaged innovators would learn (Aboud, 1982). Our experience in Kenya has shown that this may not necessarily happen. If it does happen at all, it is a very slow process indeed.
The concept of training and visits although plausible in principle has been faced with many constraints in range extension programmes in Kenya (Towett, 1986). Some of the problems have included inadequate infrastructural facilities constraining mobility, personnel resources, lack of equipment and administrative constraints (e.g. Range Management Division in Kenya falls under the Ministry of Agriculture administratively and not directly under the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology).
Traditional range - livestock production systems in Kenya and indeed in many parts of Africa are substantially geared towards servicing subsistence needs. Other auxiliary livestock utilities include social status and prestige. These service functions have no inherent self driving inertia. Moreover, these systems are not managed as business operations of opportunities for improvement. This is particularly the case even today with our pastoral sector in Kenya mainly being managed as business operations and therefore remain unattractive and uncompetitive in terms of opportunities for improvement. This is particularly the case even today with our pastoral sector in Kenya mainly being managed by pastoral groups which include among others Maasai, Samburu, Turkana and Rendille. Complicated social and cultural organisations centred around livestock grazing and management have evolved among these pastoral groups.
Our experience with the Kenyan situation is that these traditional systems are not easily tractable to adopt interventions arising from research based on experimental research stations. This lack in the reception and adoption of new interventions calls for serious attention to multiple - use land management systems and for utilising the wealth of local knowledge, and indigenous plant and animal genetic material. Exotic species have been introduced, tested for a short time, and suggested for adoption only to have these species dramatically affected by periodic drought, parasitic infestation, adverse social acceptability or disease.
- It is important that research meant to address the real needs of range production clients be carried out under actual field conditions and not under idealised controlled conditions of an experimental farm.
- There is need to understand historical and co-adaptive dimensions of savanna ecosystems in order to be in a position to shed light on the functioning of these systems and help to shape their future development.
- It is apparent from a review of existing research work on Kenyan Rangelands that a fair amount of technical innovations are available. However, there is need to place these interventions within the broader social context in order to enhance their social acceptability and implementation.
- We require studies of traditional resource management and production systems as a basis for identifying constraints and prioritizing research and ensuring that new interventions are relevant to the concerns and needs of Africa's small-scale farmers.
- It is apparent from the present review that serious consideration needs to be given to our research extension linkages with a view to strengthening them. New technological innovations are of no use if they cannot be disseminated and at the same time meet the needs of the intended consumers.
Aboud, A.A. 1982. Range management extension services on pastoral societies in Kenya. MS Thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Ayuko, L.J. 1981. organisation, structures and ranches in Kenya. Pastoral network paper 116. Overseas Development Institute, London.
Child, R.D., Heady, H.F., Hickey, W.C., Peterson, R.A. and Pieper, R.D. 1984. Arid and semi-arid lands. Sustainable use and management in development in developing countries. AID/NPS Natural Resources Expanded Information Base Project, Division of International Affairs, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 20240
F.A.O. (Food and Agriculture Organisation) various years 1967 1973. Rangeland surveys in Kenya. A series of 13 reports covering a total of 174,000 km2 of the country. F.A.O, Rome
Gwynne, M.D. and Croze, H. 1975. East African habitat monitoring practice; A review of methods of applications. In proceedings of the seminar on evaluation and mapping of tropical Africa rangelands. Bamako Mali 3-8 March 1975.
National Range Research Centre, Kiboko. 1973 - 1985. Annual reports.
Sandford, S. 1983. Management of pastoral development in the Third World. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 316 pp.
Towett, N.C. 1986. Range management in Kenya, 1945 1985. In: R. Hansen, B. Wole and D. Child (eds). Range Development and Research in Kenya. Proceedings of a conference held at A.R.C. (Agricultural Research Centre), Egerton University. Njoro, 474 pp.
