C h a p t e r 8Agricultural Enterprise and LandManagement in the Highlands of KenyaFrank Place, Jemimah Njuki, Festus Murithi, and Fridah MugoThis chapter focuses on the management of agricultural land by smallholder
households in the highlands of Kenya. It draws mainly from several recent
studies from the central highland areas near to the south and west of Mt.Kenya and the western highland areas to the north and west of Kisumu, which
were led by the authors. The chapter also draws from a set of studies under the
KAMPAP project.1See the appendix for a description of the key papers used inthis synthesis. The main purpose of this synthesis is to understand constraints and
opportunities for improving agricultural productivity in a sustained manner. The
comparison between the central and western highlands offers considerable insights
because one area consists of relatively dynamic and productive agricultural systems
(central), and the other is relatively stagnant and unproductive (western).The fact that very diverse agricultural and livelihood outcomes emerge fromfairly similar initial physical-climate conditions is not unique to Kenya but occurs
throughout the highlands of east and central Africa. It is hoped that this detailed
synthesis and analysis will help to indicate research, development, and policy steps
that can bring about positive changes in the areas beset by poverty. Specifically, this
chapter attempts to:1. describe agricultural systems in the Kenya highlands including enterprisechoice, investment behavior, and impact on productivity and income,2. identify factors behind different agricultural strategies pursued by households,and3. develop feasible recommendations that can benefit the development of poorcommunities and poor households.The Study Sites
In this study, we focus on the central and western Kenya highlands (see Figure 8.1
in the color insert for a map of the study sites). The reason for this is that they are
similar in terms of rainfall and population density. In both cases, rainfall is ample
(mainly between 1,400 and 1,800 millimeters) and can accommodate two crop-
ping seasons. Population density ranges between 350 and 1,000 persons per square
kilometer in most of the central and western highlands so that average farm sizes
are between 0.5 and 2 hectares. The highland areas lying between the central and
western parts (i.e., those in the Rift Valley Province) are different in that they are
comprised of a disproportionate number of larger commercial farms.Central HighlandsThe central highlands lie between Nairobi and the slopes of Mt Kenya with an alti-
tude ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 meters above sea level. Rainfall is bimodal and
averages from 1,300 to 1,800 millimeters per year. There are two cropping seasons,
with the long rain season starting from mid-March through July and the short rain
season from mid-October through December. Our data are principally from Embu
and Kirinyaga Districts, which are positioned to the south and west of Mt. Kenya.
Most of the area is covered by clay soils except for a small area that is covered by
loam soils. The soils are deep and well drained and are of good fertility. The aver-
age annual maximum temperature is as low as 20°C in the upper portions of thedistricts.The Tea–Dairy Zone is located at higher elevations with precipitation ratesof 1,800 millimeters per year, a very long cropping season, and good yield poten-
tial. The Coffee–Tea Zone at a slightly lower altitude has an average annual rainfall
of 1,400 to 1,800 millimeters with a long cropping season and a medium-length
cropping season. The Main Coffee Zone has a medium and a short to medium crop-
ping season with an average rainfall of 1,200 to 1,500 millimeters. Finally, the
Marginal Coffee Zone is at the lowest altitude of the districts and has a medium to
short and a short cropping season and an annual average rainfall of 1,000 to 1,250
millimeters.Population densities are high throughout the two districts, averaging over 400persons per square kilometer in the more favorable agricultural zones. There is a
high-quality tarmac road cutting through the districts and eventually leading to
Nairobi. There are few other tarmac roads in the districts, however. Most roads are192FRANK PLACE ET AL.dirt and are generally of good quality but, because of their high clay content, can
become problematic during the rainy season. Piped water is not uncommon in the
districts, but telephone and electricity are generally not available in the rural areas.
The trade and marketing sector is quite active and innovative in central Kenya,
encouraging the growth of commercial enterprises. All in all, central Kenya enjoys
a relatively low rate of poverty compared to other provinces, with rural poverty
rates ranging between 30 and 40 percent of the population (Republic of Kenya
1997).Western KenyaSimilarly to central Kenya, there are two cropping seasons in western Kenya: the
long rains from March to July and the short rains from September to November,
with rainfall amounts ranging between 1,500 and 1,900 millimeters per annum.
During the past decade, rainfall in the western Kenya highlands has been very reli-
able, perhaps the most favorable in all of Kenya. The altitude in the main study
areas of Vihiga and Siaya Districts is between 1,400 and 1,700 meters above sea
level. The topography has frequent ridges and valleys with a large area of moder-
ately sloping land. Soils are deep and well drained. The area is considered to be of
medium to high potential for agriculture, but soils are highly degraded from agri-
cultural activities.There is less variation in rainfall among our western Kenya sites than in centralKenya because of the influence of Mt. Kenya near the central Kenya sites. Al-
though a sizable portion of the study area could accommodate tea or coffee as in
central Kenya, these are largely absent from the landscape with the exception of
sites near the single tea factory in Vihiga District. Instead, the predominant pro-
duction system is production of seasonal crops during two seasons each year.Rural population densities in some areas of western Kenya (e.g., Vihiga) arethe highest in all of Kenya (at over 1,000 per square kilometer). Two main ethnic
groups are found in the area, the Luhya (Vihiga) and the Luo (Siaya). There is a
fairly dense road network, but the roads are of poor quality, including tarmac roads
that are in disrepair. Other infrastructure such as telephone lines, water, and elec-
tricity is equally lacking. The potential for accessing markets is high, but actual
commercialization of agriculture is lower in these areas than in nearby districts.
The districts host a large number of NGOs that are active in agriculture. In terms
of poverty rates, Vihiga and Siaya rank as among the very poorest of the districts
with relatively high agricultural potential, with poverty rates of 58 percent and
62 percent, respectively (Republic of Kenya 1997).Much of the data from western Kenya are derived from studies in 17 villages inSiaya and Vihiga Districts. Some results are from a census of over 1,600 households,LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE HIGHLANDS OF KENYA193whereas others are from smaller subsets of them. The locations are very represen-
tative of most of Vihiga: very small farms and predominance of maize/bean farm-
ing.2Siaya District contains both highland and midland areas, but our sample isderived exclusively from the higher potential highland areas. There have been
numerous studies in these villages, and sampling procedures have differed depending
on the objective of the research. The individual studies are cited in the text so that
more details of the data and households can be found by the reader. In central
Kenya, our samples are drawn mainly from the coffee- and tea-growing areas,
where dairy farming is also common. Two of the studies, however, do include
some households in the lower-potential areas where maize production becomes
more important. Most of the households in these studies were selected at random,
although some have used different stratification methods. Again, these are cited in
the text.Household Resources and Agricultural EnterprisesHousehold ResourcesNuclear households are the main decisionmaking units over farming (in the sense
that sons and their wives form their own household and manage their affairs with-
out much influence of the parents) in both the central and western highlands.3These independent households are becoming increasingly diverse and complex
as a result of the ravaging of HIV/AIDS and the pursuit of alternative livelihood
options because of the small farm sizes. Western Kenya households seem to be
much more affected, as for many years the number of female-headed households
(in which the husband was working off-farm) has been high, around 30 percent of
the population (Wangila, de Wolf, and Rommelse 1999). The mobility of individ-
uals along with the effects of high death rates has led to the observance of many
households headed by widows or composed of nonnuclear members. On the other
hand, monogamous male-headed households are the majority in the central Kenya
sites, as shown by recent studies (Murithi 1998; Njuki 2001).The large outflow of men from households, especially in western Kenya, notonly results in loss of male labor but increases the difficulty for households to make
certain types of decisions regarding farm investment. Mugo (1999) shows that when
husbands are away, there is considerable variation in the extent to which women
are able to make decisions over land management. In terms of labor, men generally
provide important roles in land preparation, cutting of trees, and caring for live-
stock. Women can assume these roles too, but their time is squeezed by other
demands. The presence of two adults also enables households to simultaneously194FRANK PLACE ET AL.practice good husbandry on their own land while earning cash by working off
the farm. With a single adult, there are more serious trade-offs in selecting one
or the other option.In terms of available labor, given the high population densities in the highlandareas, there is a large aggregate pool of local labor. But this does not translate
directly into available labor for agriculture. First, many of the individuals are of
school-going age and have only limited hours during the day to assist on the farm.
Second, many of the educated young adults show relatively little interest in agri-
culture.4Last, agricultural wages must compete with other types of employmentto attract workers. Where wages are attractive, there do not appear to be cases of
observed labor shortages in Kenya, even when demand is high or seasonal. Thus,
the relatively attractive piece rate wages for tea and coffee5harvesting lead to suffi-cient labor supplies in the central highlands. In western Kenya, there appears to
be poor management of farm enterprises despite the presence of high man–land
ratios. The reasons seem to be multiple, including lack of interest in working the
land by the youth, lack of cash on the part of farmers, and low returns to the pre-
dominantly cereal-based production system.The high population densities in both highlands imply that farm sizes willbe small. The average farm size near the slopes of Mt. Kenya is between 1.0 and 2.0
hectares. Murithi (1998) found a mean of 1.9 hectares in the coffee zone. In nearby
districts, a mean of 1.3 hectares was reported by Argwings-Kodhek et al. (1999). In
most areas of the western Kenya highlands,6average farm size is somewhat lower,at between 0.6 and 1.0 hectares (Argwings-Kodhek et al. 1999; de Wolf and Rom-
melse 2000). As in most places in Africa, there is a noticeable variation in holding
size, but there are very few large farms. For example, in the western Kenya sites, the
range in farm sizes within a village is generally from 0.2 to 5 hectares. In both
regions, farms consist mainly of a single parcel of land that is often in a narrow strip
running from the top of a ridge (where the road and house are) down slope, pos-
sibly to a valley bottom. Land is acquired mainly through inheritance, but land
purchases also occur, and tenure is considered to be secure. One difference is that
in central Kenya most farmers hold titles to land, but in western Kenya, many
farmers do not bother to update titles that are often in the name of their father.Although both land and labor are limiting in certain cases, most farmers men-tion lack of cash as the most critical constraint. This stems from lack or irregularity
of income, weaknesses in credit markets, and high demands for expenditures, both
anticipated and unexpected. Expenditure needs are relatively high in Kenya because
of the need to contribute to education and health services through cost sharing. In
addition, unexpected expenditures related to increased numbers of funerals have
stretched capacities of many households. Significant amounts of credit are availableLAND MANAGEMENT IN THE HIGHLANDS OF KENYA195only through membership in coffee or tea cooperatives. Other sources are infor-
mal, for example, through small community-based groups that generally provide
modest resources. Income sources and sizes vary considerably across the highlands
of Kenya, and these are analyzed in more detail in a later section. The net result of
all these factors is that cash flow is often the main focus of management of house-
holds. Cash flow management leads to the foregoing of purchase of inputs, the
hiring out of one’s labor rather than working on one’s land, and the searching for
water and firewood over long distances rather than buying the resources on the
market.Current Agricultural EnterprisesCrops. Data on crop enterprises in western Kenya comes from a 1997 survey of all
households (about 1,600) residing in a pilot area for agroforestry testing. Maize
was the most predominant crop in these 17 villages, with only 10 households not
growing any. Other common crops include local beans, bananas, cassava, sweet
potatoes, kale/cabbages, and napier. Another set of crops, sorghum, tomatoes, and
groundnuts, were grown by fewer than 50 percent of farmers. Sugar cane, which
is the major crop produced purely for income, was grown by 31.2 percent of the
households. Among the crops in Table 8.1, the mean and median number grown
per farm is six.7Despite the large number of crops found on a given household,maize or maize–bean intercrops dominate the area under cultivation. For example,196FRANK PLACE ET AL.Table 8.1 Crop production in western Kenya for 17 villages in Siaya and Vihiga districtsNumberPercentage ofPercentage mainlyof validhouseholdsfor ownPercentage mainlyCropresponsesgrowingconsumptionfor marketMaize1,71499.491.47.9Hybrid maize1,71414.6Local beans1,71496.389.66.7Bananas1,71384.568.915.5Cassava1,71174.570.04.4Sweet potatoes1,71074.271.72.5Kale/cabbages1,71256.542.214.1Sorghum1,71336.835.41.4Tomatoes1,71212.18.63.3Groundnuts1,1525.33.71.1Sugarcane1,14731.223.57.5Woodlots1,69779.857.921.6Napier1,71042.036.75.2French beans1,7012.12.1Tea1,6070.10.1Source: Wangila, de Wolf, and Rommelse (1999).Owuor (1999) found that 66 percent of cultivated area was under maize in the
western highlands.In central Kenya, the major crops on farms are maize, beans, potatoes, veg-etables (kales, tomatoes, spinach, onion, among others), french beans, and yams
among annuals and coffee, macadamia, bananas, avocado, mango, tea, passionfruit,
sugar, miraa,8and papaya among perennials. Njuki and Verdeaux (2001) foundthat farmers were growing an average of six different crops in the coffee and tea
zones of Embu and Kirinyaga. This was more than the average number of crops in
the adjacent lower zones (with lower rainfall and population density). With respect
to the type of crops grown, farmers in the uplands grow crops more for the market
than those in the lowlands. Market-oriented crops include tea, coffee, and horti-
cultural commodities such as tomatoes, kales, cabbages, and fruit. Owuor (1999)
found that a large portion of area was devoted to traditional industrial crops such
as coffee and tea (27 percent) and to horticultural crops (19 percent). On the slopes
of Mt. Kenya, the proportion of area under coffee was similar (26 percent) to that
of maize monocrop or intercrops (28 percent) (Murithi 1998).Thus, it is found that farmers throughout the western and central highlandsproduce a variety of crops, even on small farms, as population pressure intensifies.9Commercialization does not appear to alter the number of crops grown by small-
holder farmers and indeed appears to increase the level of diversity according to
area by reducing the “traditional” high allocation of land to cereals and substituting
an array of market-oriented crops in their place. We shall come back to this point
later in the analytic sections.Livestock. Livestock production in the western Kenya system is mainly basedon a semi-intensive dairy-meat-draft-manure system. This is largely with indige-
nous animals, as only 3 percent of the nation’s dairy animals are found in the Western
Province. On the other hand, the Western Province has 10 percent of the national
indigenous herd. Because of land scarcity, confined grazing on farms or roadsides
is dominant. This makes it relatively easy to collect manure, and indeed, this is the
most widely used crop nutrient source, though in modest amounts (Place et al.
2002a). Livestock production in the area is based on local cattle and poultry, with
few sheep, goats, or pigs, as shown in Table 8.2. The livestock population is notably
small in the area, most likely because of livestock diseases, lack of veterinary services,
and shortage of browse caused by land scarcity. Herd sizes are also difficult to in-
crease or maintain because of cultural obligations such as funerals.A large majority of households own cattle in the central highlands, as manyas 90 percent in some areas. Among the farmers who own cattle, the average num-
ber held is 2.3 per household (Murithi 1998), nearly all being improved breeds orLAND MANAGEMENT IN THE HIGHLANDS OF KENYA197crossbreeds. All but about 6 percent are managed in zero grazing units (Murithi
1998). Cattle are raised mainly for milk production, with manure being the second
most important reason. Farmers in the midlands have the highest number of goats:
1.06 compared to 0.92 in the uplands (the tea zone). Improved dairy goat breeds
are increasing in number over recent years, spurred on by the Dairy Goat Associa-
tion of Kenya. As is common throughout the highlands, central Kenya farmers keep
a large number of poultry, and there are more cases of commercial enterprises than
in western Kenya.Tree growing. Western Kenya is characterized by three types of tree-growingpractices. The first is the management of small private woodlots by farmers. As
shown in Table 8.1, 80 percent of Siaya and Vihiga highland farmers had a wood-
lot on their farm. The woodlots consist overwhelmingly of Eucalyptus spp., which
are popular with farmers because of their fast growth, straight trunks, and coppic-
ing ability (regrowth from the stump). Eucalyptus trees are considered to be best
for poles, but their use for fuelwood is also growing (as other species become rarer).
In addition to eucalyptus woodlots, other timber trees such as cypress and Mark-
hamia are grown on boundaries or near homesteads. The other common trees are
tropical fruit species such as papaya, mango, and avocado. These are also found
on most farms near homes, but are few in number, one or two per household.
On average, farmers in Vihiga District had about 160 trees on their farms (Mugo
1999).In central Kenya, the dominant tree on the landscape is Grevillea robusta,which was found to be grown by 86 to 94 percent of households on their bound-
aries (indeed, it is used to demarcate boundaries) (Mugo 1999; Njuki 2001). On
average, there are fewer trees per farm in central Kenya, mainly because of the
lack of woodlots as a result of the strong competition with other profitable enter-
prises. The average reported by Mugo (1999) for Kirinyaga was about 130 per198FRANK PLACE ET AL.Table 8.2 Livestock numbers in highland households of Siaya and Vihiga Districts, western KenyaPercentageAverage herd/flockAverage herd/flockof farmssizesize (householdsLivestock typeFarmsAnimalswith animals(all households)with animals)Improved cows1,7021784.30.112.41Local cattle1,7032,05153.31.202.26Sheep and goats1,70377116.90.452.68Pigs1,69980.30.011.60Poultry1,6427,73872.34.716.52Source: Wangila, de Wolf, and Rommelse (1999).household, and Njuki (2001) found about 90 trees for wood on farms in the same
farming zone.Apart from Grevillea, fruit and nut trees are also common and have been re-ported on about 64 percent of farms. Among these, macadamia trees are the most
well known and provide a good income. Macadamia was first introduced in the
1970s on a very small scale, and later they became more and more popular as an
alternative cash crop. The traditional varieties were replaced by the grafted, shorter
maturing, and more productive varieties as the market for macadamia grew. Avo-
cado is also common in the central highlands, as are mango, papaya, and guava.
Fodder trees are increasing in popularity because of the relatively large proportion
of dairy farmers in central Kenya. In one area studied, Murithi (1998) showed that
about 20 percent of dairy farmers had planted some type of fodder tree.Agricultural InvestmentIn traditional agricultural development models, at low levels of population density
and rudimentary access to markets, households would produce a wide variety of
foods for subsistence needs. As markets developed, households would specialize
into fewer commodities, generating surpluses in some, and obtain desired con-
sumption baskets through market exchanges. In the central Kenyan highlands, this
model has not followed to form (see above on the lack of specialization). First, the
degree of specialization for the subsistence-oriented households in the highlands
is more than might be predicted because maize is the primary staple food, domi-
nating dietary intake. For instance, Rommelse (2001a) found that over 73 percent
of energy consumed by households in Vihiga and Siaya comes from maize alone.
Thus, a subsistence-oriented household will devote much of its land to maize with
small amounts for complementary vegetables.As population pressure intensified and farm sizes fell, there were essentiallyfour options for households: (1) increase landholdings through purchases, (2) inten-
sify production and increase yields from maize or other existing staples, (3) substi-
tute into new agricultural enterprises, or (4) diversify livelihood strategies off farm.
The first option is possible in the highlands, but finding additional land in close
proximity to existing landholdings is not simple, and moreover, the poorest house-
holds would not afford the selling prices for land. Thus, it is a very limited option
viable only for a minority of households.The second option has been available for many years through the use ofimproved seed varieties and fertilizer, but high costs and lack of credit have
limited the use of this option. More recent organic nutrient management systems
have also been developed and disseminated in many highland areas. A major limi-
tation of these components of the second option is that even with an increase inLAND MANAGEMENT IN THE HIGHLANDS OF KENYA199yields, households with farms of 1 hectare or less will struggle to produce enough
maize. Moreover, the low value of maize per hectare means that its exchange value
for other needed items (e.g., medicines, schooling) is very low. This option has
been emphasized primarily by Rift Valley farmers who still retain relatively large
farms (this is the prime maize-growing belt of Kenya with many medium-scale
farmers).The third option of diversifying into higher-value agricultural enterprises is astrategy pursued by many farmers in the central highlands of Kenya. It is a strategy
that requires good access to markets and the ability to produce a range of higher-
value crops at a profit. As shown in the following section, Njuki and Verdeaux
(2001) show that central Kenya farmers have adopted many new enterprises over
recent decades.The fourth option of diversifying out of agriculture is one that is pursued tosome degree in almost all rural areas of Kenya. Argwings-Kodhek et al. (1999)
report that nonfarm income is important in all regions. The nature and level vary
across districts, and there is evidence that higher absolute levels of nonfarm income
are positively associated with higher absolute levels of farm income. Thus, option 4
may be complementary with options 2 and 3.All four options may be mutually reinforcing. Which one is likely to drive theother and under what circumstances is an important but generally unexplored area
of analysis. Investments in education have clearly helped reduce poverty rates
among households later formed by the recipients (Republic of Kenya 1997). There
are examples of agriculture-led and non-agriculture-led poverty reduction from
both regions. In the past, it could be argued that commercialization of agriculture
was a major driving factor in poverty reduction in central Kenya. Now, there are
increasing examples of retired or retrenched urban workers investing their savings
or pensions in agriculture. Which option is best appears to be partly driven by loca-
tional factors (e.g., climate, market access) but also by household-level factors because
there remains significant heterogeneity in resources and capabilities among house-
holds (see Jayne et al. 2003b for the inequality of landholdings in Kenya). We shall
now explore some of the agriculture-based opportunities in more detail, including
the extent to which they are accessible to the different regions and different house-
holds within each.New crops or crop mixes. One of the strategies farmers have used to cope withreduced land sizes and changes in livelihoods has been crop diversification. In the
central highlands, Njuki and Verdeaux (2001) found that farmers were growing
between six and seven crops because of reduction in land size, loss of market for old
crops, and opening of new markets for new crops. Area under annual crops can200FRANK PLACE ET AL.be altered seasonally, but some of the important cash crops are perennials, and their
area changes more slowly. Currently, there is little current investment in coffee
because of a decline in coffee prices and mismanagement of the coffee cooperatives.
Coffee output has thus fallen dramatically, but the area under coffee much less so.
There is relatively high investment in tea in the upper lands and horticultural
crops.A recent study has documented the changing patterns of agricultural enter-prises in the central highlands (Njuki and Verdeaux 2001). Table 8.3 presents a
summary of the major changes in crop production in Embu, comparing the cur-
rent situation to that at the time of independence (1963). Tea and potatoes were
introduced at the time of independence. A large number of trees were introduced
during the 1970s. A few crops, climbing beans, sweet potatoes, and passion fruit
have all been introduced since the 1980s. Two of the most important crops, coffee
and maize, had been cultivated in both periods, though there were strict marketing
limitations facing African coffee producers prior to independence. This diversifica-
tion into higher-value crops at the same time as average farm size is shrinking serves
as a cushion against risky markets and testifies to a recognition by farmers that
farming is a business and not just as a way of life.There is much less known about changes in crop mix in the western highlandareas. The response to market opportunities appears to be more uneven than in theLAND MANAGEMENT IN THE HIGHLANDS OF KENYA201Table 8.3 Changes in crop cultivation before and after independence on the southern slopes ofMt. KenyaCultivated beforeCultivated now butTime ofType of crop1963 but not nownot before 1963introductionLegumesPigeon peasClimbing beans1992–93NjabiCowpeasGreen gramsGrainsMilletBaby cornSorghumRoot cropsIrish potatoes1963Sweet potatoes2000Stem and fruit cropsBananas1970sMangoes1960sAvocado1970sTree tomato1970sPassion fruits1980sPawpaws1970sCrops exclusively for saleTea1963Macadamia1970sSource: Njuki and Verdeaux (2001).central highlands. This may be because of its poorer access to the Nairobi processor
and consumer markets, and therefore farmers face keener competition for the smaller
regional market. For instance, informal market surveys have found that much of
the vegetables found in Siaya markets come not from nearby farmers but from
farmers in Nandi or Uasin Gishu Districts (more commercialized districts located
along the western edge of the Rift Valley) (Rommelse 2001b). In areas where
farmers are not well linked into market opportunities, there has been little incen-
tive to alter production patterns. Within villages in Vihiga and Siaya, there do not
appear to be strong differences in crop mix across households of different size or
households at different stages of life cycle. That is, there are no apparent patterns
of diversification or specialization emerging.What drives the process of diversification, and which households can jointhe process? The chronology of agricultural development in the central highlands
suggests that government investment in tea and coffee marketing and processing
enabled a large number of households to establish these commercial crops. With
these founding commercial enterprises, huge investments in improved dairy ani-
mals occurred, and with them additional horticultural crops and heavy input
use. In the western highlands, there was no similar successful government invest-
ment (though some attempts failed). Yet, similar patterns of diversification into
dairy and other commercial enterprises are found in the few areas where tea has
been promoted. With recent troubles in the cooperative sector (tea excluded),
more recent investments in diversification may have been funded from nonfarm
sources. However, studies of farm and nonfarm interactions are lacking for rural
Kenya.Livestock types and inputs. At independence in the Mt. Kenya highlands, mostpeople kept large numbers of livestock, cattle, sheep, goats, and poultry. The cattle
were originally zebu and were grazed in paddocks. In the 1980s, there was intro-
duction of crossbred and exotic cattle and a shift from paddock grazing to zero
grazing. This was accompanied by a reduction in the number of cattle that farmers
kept. The reduction of livestock numbers is best illustrated by the livestock num-
bers held by different generations of households (Table 8.4). Njuki and Verdeaux
(2001) traced the number of cattle through three generations of households. The
oldest generation had the highest number of cattle at the time of study and also had
the highest number of cattle ever held. Moreover, all generations now have fewer
livestock than they once had.The lower numbers among the current generation have three main reasons.The exotic breeds were high producing and input intensive. In some cases, desired
output levels could be achieved with fewer animals, and in other cases, high feed202FRANK PLACE ET AL.costs limited the number of exotic cattle that farmers could keep. The second rea-
son is the reduction in farm size and lack of area for producing feed. Last, increased
labor spent on nonfarm activities will tend to reduce agricultural investment across
the board. The pattern for goats is somewhat different. Though current herds are
smaller than those once held by households, today sizes are similar for different-aged
households. Goats are becoming popular among the young in good part because
new high-quality dairy goats are being promoted by NGOs using schemes that
require little cash. Discussions with farmers also indicate that investment in goats
may partly compensate for an inability to establish a dairy cattle system.Nonetheless, the numbers of improved dairy animals held by smallholderfarmers is impressive. It is estimated that there are slightly more than 2.5 million
dairy cattle on 600,000 smallholder dairy farms in Kenya, the most in all of Sub-
Saharan Africa (Peeler and Omore 1997). Central Province, with 27 percent of the
stock, is home to the second largest number of improved dairy animals in Kenya.
There are many accompanying investments that follow the improvement of cattle
breeds. Some of the recent investments among central Kenya dairy farmers are in
feeding regimens. Murithi (1998) found that among dairy farmers, 98 percent had
planted napier grass, 18 percent had fodder trees, and 16 percent had planted high-
quality pastures.In western Kenya, as indicated in Table 8.2, one striking difference from the cen-tral highlands is the lack of investment in higher-grade cattle and accompanying
investments in zero grazing. Very few households have such animals in the sample
from Vihiga and Siaya. On the other hand, there is quite a significant investment
in napier grass (Table 8.1). Some is used to feed local cows, but some is produced
for sale by households without cattle. For instance, 7.4 percent of poor farmers
were found to produce napier for the market as compared to only 2.5 percent of
the nonpoor. There appears to be a reduction in livestock numbers across genera-
tions, similar to the results from the central highlands. The youngest household
heads (below the age of 30) had on average 0.87 head of local cattle. Those betweenLAND MANAGEMENT IN THE HIGHLANDS OF KENYA203Table 8.4 Difference in livestock numbers among farmer generations in Embu DistrictNumberLargest number ofNumberLargest number ofGenerationof cowscows ever heldof goatsgoats ever heldGeneration 11.4010.191.20 21.13Generation 20.612.640.547.88Generation 30.331.001.333.33F value5.68811.1843.2251.183Significance level0.0040.00010.430.315Source: Njuki and Verdeaux (2001).40 and 50 had 1.09 head, and those above 60 had 1.49 head on average. The dif-
ference is highly significant, and the number of goats follows the same pattern.Land investments and inputs. There is evidence to suggest that farmers in thecentral highlands make significantly more investments in soil management than
their counterparts in the western highlands. First, Owuor (1999) found that fertil-
izer use intensity was highest in the central highlands (106.0 kg/acre). Fertilizer use
on the higher-value crops was 194 kg/acre as compared to 58 kg/acre on the lower-
value crops, so the mix of crops plays a key role in overall fertilizer rates. However,
farmers apply nutrient inputs on most of the crops. Table 8.5 shows that a high
proportion (75 to 92 percent) of farmers apply fertilizer on maize, potato, and cof-
fee, and over half of farmers applied manure to all their crops (except for beans,
which are normally not fertilized because of their nitrogen-fixing capability).
Indeed, farmers placed the purchase of inputs among their top four expenditure
categories in over 80 percent of cases in central Kenya, and about 30 percent of
farmers felt that input investments ranked first or second (Murithi 1998).In the western Kenya highlands, the amount of investment in land is muchmore varied across different sites, with our Vihiga and Siaya sites exhibiting little
investment. Only about 20 percent of 1,636 households use fertilizer on a regular
basis (Place et al. 2002a), and the amounts used per hectare are calculated to be
about one-fifth (28 kg/acre) of those in the central highlands (Owuor 1999). There
is somewhat more concentration on higher-value crops (40 kg/acre) as compared
to 17 kg/acre for cereals. This low investment level is clearly linked to the relatively
low use of industrial crops, horticultural crops, and high-yielding varieties of maize.
Only 15 percent of 1,636 households reported the use of hybrids in 1997. Rom-
melse (2001a) found that the median annual expenditure on farm inputs (crops and
livestock together) in western Kenya was about $15. On the other hand, organic
nutrient input systems are currently being tested by a large number of households
in western Kenya in good part because of a high concentration of NGOs in the204FRANK PLACE ET AL.Table 8.5 Nutrient investments on major crops in the central highlandsPercentage ofPercentage of farmersPercentage of farmersCropfarmers growingwho apply fertilizerwho apply manureCoffee997489Macadamia873860Bananas591156Maize899257Beans822717Potatoes699069Source: Murithi (1998).region. Over 70 percent use animal manure, and about 40 percent use composting
methods in Siaya and Vihiga. New agroforestry techniques for soil fertility man-
agement are also being tested by a good number of households (10 to 30 percent)
where they have been introduced.Comparing across the regions, Owuor (1999) reports that average fertilizeramounts per acre for the upper quartile of farmers in western Kenya is below the
mean level of the lower half of farmers in central Kenya. These differences in nutri-
ent investments are perceived by farmers to have had long-term effects on the soils
as well. A study by Migot-Adholla, Place, and Oluoch-Kosura (1990) found that
farmers in the central highlands overwhelmingly perceived their soils to be of
higher quality than when they acquired the land (positive changes were reported by
around 90 percent of farmers). The exact reverse was found among farmers in the
western highlands. Thus, there is strong evidence of vicious poverty–environmental
cycles at work in some regions while virtuous cycles exist in others.Labor. One recent detailed study of labor has been undertaken in the centralhighlands. Njuki (2001) collected labor data by gender and by major crop during
1998, and some results are summarized in Table 8.6. Two major conclusions are
evident:1. Men and women both invest more labor in cash crops than in food crops.2. Women invest more labor than do men in both food crops and cash crops.The only activity where men contribute more labor than women is livestock raising.
But even in this case, women’s labor contribution nearly equals that of men. These
results demonstrate the clear priority that households place on cash crops over food
crops. Moreover, the idea that men are interested in commercial crops and women
are interested in subsistence crops is dispelled by the fact that the ratio of female to
male labor is similar for both types of crops. Because women often manage farms,
either on a temporary basis when the husband is away, or because of death or divorce
of a husband, the fact that women are active in the higher-value crops is very positive.Driving Factors Underpinning Agricultural InvestmentMacro and Meso FactorsIn this section we highlight the major factors that could explain the remarkable dif-
ferences in agricultural development between the western and central highlands.LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE HIGHLANDS OF KENYA205The key factors are highly linked to government policy and public investment. As
a proximate factor, commercialization seems to be the most important. Through-
out the previous discussion, the influence of markets and higher-value enterprises
in central Kenya has been paramount. How did this occur? One obvious reason
for relatively higher commercialization in central versus western Kenya is its prox-
imity to Nairobi, where virtually all major agricultural processing firms are located.
Also of great importance was government investment in tea and coffee factories
in central Kenya. Because these had ready international markets, there was a steady
inflow of income into the rural areas. Moreover, the tea and coffee associations
provided credit to farmers, which helped to maintain high productivity levels. As
global competition in these commodities has heightened, liberalization and the
reduction of transaction costs may prove to be important in the future. Liberaliza-
tion was certainly the most important policy change for the dairy industry. The
role of culture is not clear, but there is more dynamism of individuals and groups
in the central Kenya highlands (Place et al. 2002b). Whether this is inherent in cul-
ture or built from earlier successes is not clear. Last, it may also be useful to high-
light the factors that are not important because of their similarity in both sites:
rainfall, extension, and land tenure. In the following paragraphs we provide some
illustrated examples of these factors.There is a strong relationship between commercial orientation and agriculturaldevelopment. Owuor (1999) shows that throughout all regions of Kenya there is a
strong link among the proportion of crops marketed, the crop mix, and the value
of crop production. For example, in central Kenya, the upper quartile of house-
holds according to value of crop production sells on average 63 percent of crops.
On the other hand, the lower half of households sell only 38 percent of crops. The206FRANK PLACE ET AL.Table 8.6 Allocation of labor by major crop in Kirinyaga and Embu DistictsPercentage of allWomen’s labor as alabor allocated topercentage of total laborthe activity/enterprisefor each activity/enterpriseActivity/enterprise(column percentage)(row percentage)Food crops13.870.2Maize4.468.8Cash crops49.967.6Coffee30.361.0Tea19.677.8Livestock10.647.6Other resource management3.896.5Domestic21.992.1Source: Njuki (2001).favorable crop mix has pronounced effects (direct and indirect through incentives
for investment in other areas) on crop income. Households apply much greater
concentrations of fertilizer and other nutrients on their higher-value crops. The
end result is that households with higher-value crops earn significantly more than
do households with lower-value crops.Expansion of market opportunities in Kenya has been strong throughout thedairy sector. With the relinquishing of control of purchasing and processing by a
monopoly parastatal in the early 1990s, there was a mushrooming of private firms
in the dairy sector. These firms innovated a range of new products and brands of
cheese, yogurt, butter, and ice cream. Added to this was the already strong demand
for milk by nearby rural consumers (consumers of fresh milk and milk-based tea).
At lower levels of the chain, a variety of buyers for milk emerged, including the
large dairy producers cum processors. By 1998, Murithi (1998) found that small-
holders were utilizing a range of outlets for their milk, including local trading cen-
ters, their farms, neighbors, the government parastatal, and dairy cooperatives.Complementing the influence of markets for outputs has been the availabilityof credit for farmers in the central highlands. This is one success of the government-
supported cooperative sectors in coffee and tea. Murithi (1998) found that 76.8
percent of households in Embu had received credit through their membership in
coffee cooperative societies. A further 23.2 percent received credit from the Agri-
cultural Finance Corporation. These outlets are largely unavailable to smallholders in
the western highlands, and there are no other major sources that might fill this gap.Household FactorsIn this section we highlight the roles that household factors have in farmer invest-
ment patterns. In central Kenya, there are certainly differences in agricultural prac-
tices among households. However, these differences are not so apparent in the types
of enterprises adopted, as evidenced in Table 8.5, but rather in the management of
and investment in these enterprises. Unfortunately, the factors that explain differ-
ences in such investments are not well studied in the region. Therefore, this section
draws on detailed microstudies from western Kenya.Household wealth is positively associated with the presence of many of theinvestments discussed above. Using a wealth indicator driven by criteria identified
by villagers, we classified households in Vihiga and Siaya into groups of “very poor,”
“poor,” or “nonpoor.” The nonpoor households have:• larger farms (2.5 acres compared to 1.4 acres for the very poor),• more cattle (1.7 compared to 0.6 for the very poor),LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE HIGHLANDS OF KENYA207• a higher proportion cultivating high-value crops (67.1 percent compared to 51.9 percent of the very poor growing kale; 13.2 percent compared to
8.1 percent of the very poor growing tomatoes),• a higher proportion growing hybrid maize (25.2 percent compared to 6.8 percent for the very poor), and• a higher proportion using fertilizer (33.6 percent compared to 8.3 percent forthe very poor).In terms of overall expenditure on agricultural inputs, one study found thatthe nonpoor spent approximately $100 per year, whereas the very poor spent only
$5 (Rommelse 2001a). However, Place et al. (2002a) found that poor households
do invest in labor or land-using practices such as manuring, composting, and agro-
forestry techniques for soil improvement at rates similar to those of the nonpoor.
For instance, the very poor had improved fallows on about 11 percent of their
maize area as compared to 10 percent for the nonpoor.In terms of the influence of gender of household head, the following relation-ships were found in western Kenya:• Women grow slightly fewer crops than men (5.7 compared to 6.2 for men).• Women are less likely to grow high-value crops than men (31.0 percent grownapier compared to 48.0 percent for men; 11.4 percent grow hybrid maize
compared to 16.9 percent for men; 6.4 percent grow tomatoes compared to
14.4 percent for men).• Women have similar land sizes as men.• Women have similar numbers of local cows, goats, and poultry as men.• Women are slightly less likely to use chemical fertilizer than men (17.4 percentcompared to 22.6 percent for men).Descriptive analyses found that farm size and education also feature in differ-ences across households. The causal relationships are not determinate, but farm size
in these areas is relatively fixed, with inheritance passing ownership of more than
90 percent of all land area. Farm size is positively correlated with cattle ownership,
use of hybrid maize, and use of chemical fertilizer. But it is not linked to whether208FRANK PLACE ET AL.cash crops are grown. Farm size is also positively associated with education level,
and education appears to be similarly critical in use of chemical fertilizer (e.g.,
fertilizer is used by 33 percent of those with secondary education and 11 percent
of those with no education), use of hybrid maize, and the number of local cows
owned. Education is also strongly linked to obtaining important off-farm income,
and it is likely that the complementarities among education, agricultural assets,
and off-farm income are key to household investment in western Kenya, if not
throughout rural Kenya.Effects of Investment and Land Management Choiceson Income and PovertyThe purpose of this section is to assess the extent to which the abovementioned dif-
ferences in agricultural investment translate into significant differences in income
and poverty reduction. The first piece of evidence reported is a comparison of gross
margins for different agricultural enterprises in central Kenya. Njuki (2001) mea-
sured outputs, inputs, and labor for 40 farmers during the 1998 growing season,
and an analysis is presented in Table 8.7. In terms of gross margins (excluding own
labor), it is clear that in the late 1990s coffee and tea were far superior to food
crops such as maize, potato, and beans. Gross margins per hectare were between
two and eight times those for the food crops. Returns from livestock farming were
also relatively high. So shifts in relative enterprise mix can have a large influence
on agricultural revenue. As demonstrated above, many households recognize these
profitable opportunities and devote a high proportion of labor to them. However,
households do not specialize in the highest expected return activities for several rea-
sons. The key reason is economic risk both of finding markets for outputs and of
obtaining a favorable price. Imperfect factor markets, especially for credit, hamper
farmers’ ability to access the necessary resources for the high input–high output
farming systems.The implications of this microanalysis are confirmed in a national study byOwuor (1999). In that study, a comparison is made between percentage area under
cereals, industrial crops (coffee, tea, sugar), and horticultural crops and the percent
of crop revenue that each contributes. Table 8.8 shows the results not only for the
central and western highlands but for several other agricultural zones in Kenya. In
most zones, the contribution of industrial and horticultural revenue to total crop
revenue greatly exceeds the share of land under these crops. This is very evident in
the central highlands, where the share of land area under industrial and horticul-
tural crops is 46.2 percent, but their share of revenue is a staggering 71.1 percent.
Thus, the central highlands have not only diversified into higher-value crops but have
selected very profitable ones. On the contrary, though there is some diversificationLAND MANAGEMENT IN THE HIGHLANDS OF KENYA209in the western highlands (28.0 percent of land under noncereal crops), these par-
ticular industrial and horticultural crops (e.g., sugar cane, cabbage) are not pro-
viding an incremental gain in revenue. The figure for average labor productivity
summarizes this well. The productivity level in the central highlands is 3.5 times
that in the western highlands, reflecting differences in crop mix, technical efficiency
in crop production, and relative prices of inputs and outputs.Do these differences in agricultural productivity translate into differences inhousehold incomes? Argwings-Kodhek et al. (1999) show clearly that crop and live-
stock income play vital roles in total rural household income. It appears that farm
and nonfarm income sources are complementary, providing investment funds for
each other or at least secure bases that enable farmers to take risks in other ventures.
In the central highlands, average total household income was estimated at $2,819.
Of this, 39 percent or $1,099 came from crops, 24 percent from livestock, and
37 percent from nonfarm sources. Households in the western highlands earned 32
percent of income from crops, 29 percent from livestock, and 39 percent from
nonfarm sources, which do not differ significantly from the pattern in the central
highlands. However, total income for western highland households averaged only
$1,014 (36 percent of the figure for the central highlands). Adjusting for farm size
differences, central highland farmers earn 2.5 times the amount of crop income
per person as western highland farmers. Similarly, livestock and nonfarm income
are multiples of those earned by western highland households. In addition, average
earnings for agricultural wage labor and nearly all other nonfarm occupations are
higher in the central highlands than in the western highlands (Argwings-Kodhek
et al. 1999). It seems that the high agricultural incomes from the central highlands
play a significant role in stimulating the wider local economy.So in aggregate, the investment in new enterprises and in intensifying crop,livestock, and tree production systems have led to significantly greater incomes for210FRANK PLACE ET AL.Table 8.7 Seasonal gross margin for farm enterprises in central KenyaIndicatorCoffeeTeaMaizeBeansPotatoLivestockOutput value (per farm)258272323135135Output value (per hectare)9471,0356552137—Input costs (per farm)22481441043Input costs (per hectare)8118128739—Hired labor costs (per farm)1225613—Hired labor costs (per hectare)46971221——Gross margin (per farm)22319913142592Gross margin (per hectare)819757252498Source: Njuki (2001).central Kenyan farmers compared to their counterparts in other regions. In western
Kenya, enterprise diversification has not yet been as extensive or profitable as in
central Kenya. Consequently, intensification of production is lagging too, and low
agricultural incomes are the norm. These general results mask important intra-
regional differences between households, however. Jayne et al. (2003b) find that
despite regional disparities, there exists substantial variation in household incomes
within regions, districts, and villages. In line with the meso- and microanalyses in
previous chapters, this shows that although getting the market economy right is an
important antipoverty intervention, it by no means guarantees that all households
can be uplifted. Special attention is still required for those households unable to seize
opportunities in the agricultural or nonagricultural sectors.Summary and Ways Forward
This synthesis began by demonstrating the significant gap in poverty levels between
the relatively poor western highlands and the relatively better off central highlands
of Kenya. It further tried to show the extent to which historical and current agri-
cultural practices have influenced this divergence. Finally, policies and investments
that have underpinned positive changes in the agricultural sector have been noted.
A brief summary of this is shown in Table 8.9. In this section, we summarize those
analyses and offer suggestions as to how agriculture could become more productive
in the poverty hot spots.In the Kenyan highlands, market development of higher-value agriculturalenterprises is a strategy that has paid off for a large number of smallholder farmers.
To reinforce the point that in the relatively market-oriented highlands of Kenya,LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE HIGHLANDS OF KENYA211Table 8.8 Contribution of different crop types to revenue generationHigh-potentialCentralWesternWesternWesternCropmaizehighlandstransitionalhighlandslowlandsShare of land (percent)Cereals93.153.751.072.084.1Industrial3.626.943.416.614.3Horticulture3.319.35.511.41.6Share of revenue (percent)Cereals84.728.936.871.458.9Industrial7.245.751.024.134.7Horticulture8.125.412.24.26.4Land productivity (ksh/acre)18828914611090Labor productivity (ksh/adult)2572621427460Source: Owuor (1999).food security is mainly about income generation (and not producing one’s own
food), Table 8.10 provides some data on sources of food consumed from western
Kenya. The first striking fact is that households demand and consume a wide range
of food products, and it is infeasible for households to produce all of these at suf-
ficient levels. Second, it is easily seen that households are relying on market pur-
chases, at least at times during the year, for most of the items, including maize.
Rommelse (2001a) found that about 70 percent of household expenditures in the
western highlands were for food. It is therefore clear that household food security
would benefit significantly from enhanced income sources, whether from agricul-
tural or nonagricultural sources.Clearly, there are many examples of successful intensification from the centralhighlands. For this region, a key foundation has been either coffee or tea, both
export crops with a ready buyer and supplier of inputs on credit. With these pillars
in place, other commercial-oriented enterprises such as dairy, macadamia, pyre-
thrum, vegetables, and fruit trees were easy to accommodate.This type of development pathway has escaped the majority of the westernhighlands. One factor has been the lack of parallel development of infrastructure
for processing coffee and tea and to service high-quality animals. Proximity to
Nairobi cannot be discounted as a factor. The end result is that much of western
Kenya has focused on the development strategy of diversifying into off-farm activ-
ities. For the poor, this often means seeking jobs as agricultural laborers or relocat-
ing to Nairobi to work in the low-paying informal sector. These nonfarm strategies
have yet to pay off for the majority of rural households.Most households have invested considerable funds and foregone labor in theeducation of their children. Not only is this done on moral grounds, but it is
expected to provide economic and social rewards to parents. In prior decades,212FRANK PLACE ET AL.Table 8.9 Summary of comparative analysisIndicatorCentral KenyaWestern KenyaPoverty ratesLowHighAgricultural incomesHighLowNature of agricultural enterprisesDiverse, commercial enterprisesDiverse, staple crops, local livestock breedsincluding perennials andhigh-grade dairyLevel of investmentModerately high fertilizer useVery littleAvailability of creditMainly through cooperativesNo significant sourcesSoil fertility managementGood, fertility improvingPoor, fertility decliningPublic investment in agricultureTea, coffee, and dairy sectors withCotton and sugar mainly with mixed successgenerally favorable resultsPrivate sector investment in agricultureDairy marketing, contract farmingContract farming tried but not successfuleducating children to high levels was a poverty-alleviation strategy with a relatively
high probability of success, even if after a long payback period. But now, education
is only a necessary but not sufficient condition for a successful livelihood because
job growth is poor if at all positive, and there are increasing numbers of educated
job seekers. Furthermore, the costs of education at secondary levels and beyond are
enormous. Thus, even this strategy requires the generation of funds for school fees.
Where can funds for this or other large investments come from?In central Kenya, it is clear that many households are able to generate signifi-cant sums of cash with which to meet such investments. It is thus more critical to
explore possible ways to generate investment capital in the western highlands. WeLAND MANAGEMENT IN THE HIGHLANDS OF KENYA213Table 8.10 Percentage of food consumption fromown-farm production in Siaya and
VihigaPercentage ofconsumption fromown production(range two visits)Food itemLuhyaLuoMaize19–4659–66Kales38–5671–75Banana, cooking83–8788–96Sweet potato65–6884Beans53–6661–86Cowpea leaves83–9676–92Milk24–3124–27Mango44–7887Beef00Avocado65–7964–81Banana, ripe51–5676–85Cabbage0–23–7Chicken51–7897–98Pawpaw66–7889–94Egg64–6585–97Rice00Cassava0–3353–75Millet20–388Irish potato01–11Pumpkin leaves51–5568–88Groundnut28–3621–40Sorghum41–5920–66Tomato1111Source: Rommelse (2001a).cannot explore all the potential nonfarm opportunities in this chapter, so we offer
a few immediate prospects within agriculture. In the Siaya-Vihiga food production
area, the 10 most commonly sold items are: (1) vegetables, (2) chickens, (3) fruits,
(4) poles and timber, (5) milk, (6) maize, (7) fuelwood, (8) beans, (9) eggs, and
(10) cattle and goats (Rommelse 2001a). Of these, some are feasible for households
with little cash. These would include short-term enterprises such as certain types of
vegetables (e.g., kales, but not tomatoes) and chickens (starting on a small scale).
Longer-term investments in trees for fruits, poles and timber, and fuelwood are also
feasible in terms of requiring little cash (but require land and the ability to bear
lengthy payback periods). But even these small investments may be difficult for the
poorest households. There are several “first steps” that households could take to
generate small sums of cash without having to invest cash. These include better
husbandry practices with existing crops including an expansion in the use of organic
nutrients. Thes major question is whether these incremental gains can be used to
fuel further investment in agriculture because the competition for cash from differ-
ent consumption needs is acute. Many integrated interventions would be required
for rapid and widespread improvements in agricultural productivity to take place in
poverty hot spots. In a place like western Kenya, with good potential for commer-
cial production but small farms, increasing credit opportunities will be essential.Appendix: Description of Key Studies SynthesizedAuthorTopics coveredGeographic area coveredMurithi (1998)Farming system description, especially dairyCentral Kenya100 hhsMugo (1999)Female and male decisionmaking and tree plantingCentral and western Kenya200 hhsWangila, de Wolf, andDescription of farming practicesWestern KenyaRommelse (1999)1600 hhsOwuor (1999)Farm enterprises, inputs use, and productivityAll of Kenya1500 hhsArgwings-Kodhek et al. (1999)Farming systems and incomeAll of Kenya1500 hhsNjuki (2001)Female and male labor allocation, enterprise profitabilityCentral Kenya200 hhsNjuki and Verdeaux (2001)Historical change in farming systemsCentral KenyaFocus groupsRommelse (2001a)Farm investment, consumption and expenditureWestern Kenya120 hhsPlace et al. (2002)Soil managementWestern Kenya1600 hhsNote: All studies reflect data collected in the period 1995–2000.214FRANK PLACE ET AL.NotesThe authors thank John Pender, Isaac Minde, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments.1. The Kenya Agricultural Marketing and Policy Analysis Project of Tegemeo Institute, KenyaAgricultural Research Institute, and Michigan State University.2. There is one tea factory in the north of the district, and the immediate surrounding area ismore prosperous than elsewhere. Our data do not include these households.3. Two corollaries to this are (1) the influence of seniority among Luo men living together ona single compound and (2) cases where land given to sons has not been officially confirmed as per-
manent by the father.4. Young males in the Siaya and Vihiga are often maligned by local leaders as being lazy if notdelinquent (Wangila 2000).5. For coffee, this may have changed during the downturn in coffee prices in the early 2000s.
6. Including the high-rainfall areas of Kakamega, Vihiga, and Siaya. Exceptions are formerresettlement areas (e.g., in Kakamega) and the drier areas to the west (Busia, Bungoma).7. This may underestimate the true diversity because yams, tobacco, millet, onions, cow peas,groundnuts, finger millet, coffee, sisal, sesame, and soybeans are also grown in the area.8. A woody species grown as a bush whose main product is a stimulant that is sold in Somaliaand the Middle East.9. The high potential maize zone spanning the edges of the Rift Valley is an exception wherebycereals account for 93 percent of cultivated area on more medium- or large-scale farms (Owuor 1999).LAND MANAGEMENT IN THE HIGHLANDS OF KENYA215

filetype:pdf
file time: 2006-11-09
file size:110744
Click Here To Download...