Variety for Security: agricultural and nutritional diversity in Western Kenya

357 views

Published on

Diversified food products are required to achieve dietary diversity, food and nutrition security.

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
357
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Variety for Security: agricultural and nutritional diversity in Western Kenya

  1. 1. Variety for security: A case study of agricultural, nutritional and dietary diversity among smallholder farmers in Western Kenya Mary Kanui PhD Candidate School of Geography & the Environment University of Oxford LCIRAH Seminar, 10th January 2014
  2. 2. Outline 1. 2. 3. 4. Background Objectives Methods Completed research: results 4.1 Market agrobiodiversity (3 points) 4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity (2 points) 5. Upcoming research: overview 5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity 5.2 Gender & dietary diversity 6. Conclusions & recommendations 2
  3. 3. 1. Agrobiodiversity as a path to household food security? • Food security: food availability, access, utilization • Agrobiodiversity: components of biodiversity of relevance to food & agriculture • In Africa, up to 80% of agriculture practised by smallholder farmers • To what extent does agrobiodiversity contribute to food, nutrition & health? 3
  4. 4. 1. Agrobiodiversity-Kenyan context • Species numbers – ~35,000 animal, plant and micro-organism species – 3 sustaining species: maize, wheat, rice (Ekesa, 2009) • High food shortfalls and malnutrition rate – Yet local agrobiodiversity under-utilized as primary food security resource (Frison et al., 2006) • Western Kenya: – High agrobiodiversity – But 50% population below poverty line with high malnutrition and poor health (Abukutsa-Onyango, 2002) 4
  5. 5. 2. Objectives  Food accessibility & market integration  Crop diversity & underlying factors  On-farm nutrient diversity (plant & animals)  On-farm dietary diversity between genders 5
  6. 6. 3. Methods (for completed research) Farm surveys Market surveys • Goals: ABD richness, abundance& usage • Goal: food sources, prices & availability • Time: Sep-Oct & Nov-Dec 2012 • Time: Sep-Oct 2012 • Scope: 7 markets • Scope: 30 farms in 6 villages 6
  7. 7. 3. Study sites 7
  8. 8. 4 Completed research 4.1 Market agrobiodiversity 4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity 8
  9. 9. 4 Completed research 4.1 Market agrobiodiversity 4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity 9
  10. 10. 4.1.1 What is the role of markets in household food access? Food sources in Mumias district Food group Food sources in Vihiga district Farm Market (%) Total Farm Market (%) Family & friends (%) Total (%) Family & friends (%) (%) (%) 39 53 8 100 47 52 1 100 52 23 11 86* 60 9 24 93* 65 25 9 99* 71 22 7 100 33 36 16 85* 47 12 40 99* 76 17 4 97* 81 9 9 99* 13 37 1 51* 28 15 13 56* 75 5 20 100 23 36 17 76* 17 16 0 33* 17 15 11 43* (%) 10
  11. 11. 4.1.2 What are the uses of on-farm produce? On-farm food use in Mumias district Food group On-farm food use in Vihiga district Home consumption Informal market Home consumption Informal market (%) (%) (%) (%) 78 5 17 100 87 77 2 13 92 76 5 15 83 0 73 Formal market (%) Total Formal market (%) Total 0 0 87 67 0 3 70 96 81 1 3 85 12 95 68 1 3 72 9 9 91 77 4 3 84 30 0 25 55 27 0 23 50 0 0 83 83 50 0 0 50 89 0 11 100 33 0 67 100 (%) (%) 11
  12. 12. 4.1.3 What is the extent of smallholder market integration? • Out of the interviewed market traders: – 15%: own production – 10%: primary middlemen – 75%: secondary middlemen 12
  13. 13. 4.1 Market agrobiodiversity: Summary  Smallholders access food from multiple sources  Smallholders produce food for both home consumption and for sale  Smallholders are least involved as sellers in formal markets 13
  14. 14. 4 Completed research 4.1 Market agrobiodiversity 4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity 14
  15. 15. 4 Completed research 4.1 Market agrobiodiversity 4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity 15
  16. 16. 4.2.1 Farm agrobiodiversity: most common plant species Brassica oleracea Vigna unguiculata Zea mays Vegetables Sorghum bicolor Cereals Saccharum officinarum L. Persea americana Sweets Ipomoea batatas Starchy roots Musa sapientum Fruits Capsicum annum Spices Phaseolus vulgaris Pulses Arachis hypogaea 16
  17. 17. 4.2.1 How crop diversity varies: timepoints & agro-ecological zones Summed Dominance Ratio (SDR) between September- October 2012 Cereals Vihiga Starchy roots/ tubers/green bananas Vegetables Fruits Mumias Pulses/nuts/seeds Sweets 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Spices/condiments Summed Dominance Ratio (SDR) between November- December 2012 Cereals Vihiga Starchy roots/tubers/green bananas Vegetables Fruits Mumias Pulses/nuts/seeds 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Sweets Spices/condiments 17
  18. 18. 4.2.2 Factors influencing species richness • Stepwise multiple regression analysis • Positively influenced: – Age of household heads • Negatively influenced: – Migration of either husband or wife Independent variables significant at p<0.05 , with standardized beta coefficient (with non-standardized beta coefficient in brackets) as:1 0.513(0.354), 2 -0.422 (-5.415) 18
  19. 19. 4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity: Summary  Importance of some food groups varies with agro-ecological zones  Species richness is influenced by socioeconomic factors 19
  20. 20. 5 Upcoming research 5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity 5.2 Gender & dietary diversity 20
  21. 21. 5 Upcoming research 5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity 5.2 Gender & dietary diversity 21
  22. 22. 5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity • Species richness explains taxonomic identity, not functional identity • Nutritional functional diversity metrics: – Summarize nutritional diversity of cropping systems • Previous studies: – Presence/absence-based functional diversity metric (Remans et al., 2011, DeClerck et al., 2011) • Gap on abundance-based functional diversity metric – Modified Functional Attribute Diversity (MFAD) metric (Schmera et al., 2009) – To fill gap: available data on crop abundance, livestock diversity and uses, income ranges 22
  23. 23. 5.1 On-farm nutritional diversity: key questions  What nutrients are available and what are missing for smallholders to meet a balanced diet?  Using market price as proxy for food accessibility, how does food accessibility compare to income levels? 23
  24. 24. 5 Upcoming research 5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity 5.2 Gender & dietary diversity 24
  25. 25. 5 Upcoming research 5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity 5.2 Gender & dietary diversity 25
  26. 26. 5.2 Gender and dietary diversity • Households with higher incomes can compensate for reduced onfarm agrobiodiversity.... ....but depends on who controls the income • Subsistence-oriented crops viewed as women’s ‘domestic’ domain • On-farm cultivation of nutritious foods.... .... doesn’t translate to equal food access for all household members 26
  27. 27. 5.2 Gender & dietary diversity: key questions  How does on-farm crop diversity vary between female and male headed households?  Is there a relationship between agricultural and dietary diversity among these households? 27
  28. 28. 6. Conclusions & recommendations • Diversified food products are required to achieve dietary diversity, food and nutrition security. • Smallholder farmers utilize multiple channels to attain household food security. • Different food procurement channels need equal consideration in extension, research and development. 28
  29. 29. Acknowledgements • Supervisors: • Sources of funding: – Tuition funding at Oxford: Rhodes Trust – Project funding at Bioversity (for completed research):GIZ-BMZ • Smallholder farmers & market traders • Local administration & contact persons 29
  30. 30. Thank you mary.kanui@ouce.ox.ac.uk 30

×