This document summarizes research on factors influencing the cultivation of medicinal trees by smallholder farmers in eastern Mount Kenya. The research assessed farmers' and herbalists' knowledge of medicinal species and perceptions of disease burden. It was found that farmers' knowledge of medicinal trees was influenced more by species they already knew than perceived disease importance. While herbalists preferred cultivating rare tree species, farmers in Mbeere were more influenced by seedling availability than markets. Most medicinal tree knowledge was passed down through families rather than herbalists. Although traders preferred obtaining materials from farms, wild harvesting remained prevalent, threatening biodiversity. Overall, the research identified opportunities to increase medicinal tree cultivation through improved seedling access and connecting

1. Medicinal trees in smallholder agroforestry systems: Assessing some factors influencing cultivation by farmers East of Mt. Kenya Jonathan Muriuki Kiura

2. Presentation summary The research problem Research concept and objectives Study area and methods Results and discussions Conclusions and recommendations 2

3. The problem Majority of Africa population is poor and ravaged by treatable diseases but can’t afford modern medicine

4. An example of malaria – quick facts Source: World Malaria Report 2008

5. Who offers treatment in Africa?

6. Traditional medicine, mainly herbal, has been substantially managing African health but is under threat Medicine Plant Knowledge Phyto-medicines rely on two elements, plants(of which over 60% are perennial trees and shrubs) and theknowledgeassociated with their use. Either alone is useless. 6

7. Herbal medicine relying on wild plants collection is not viable because biodiversity in Africa is threatened by agriculture, urbanization etc and forests lost to below 10% in many countries (e.g. 1.7% in Kenya at present) 7 Extent of forest and other wooded land in Eastern Africa compared to Austria by 2005

8. With increasing trade and TM use, medicinal plant resource depletion is abundant and cultivation has been recommended as a possible solution But that is very easy for herbs (annuals) if appropriate germplasm and products markets are accessible. For trees and other long rotation woody perennials that poses a big challenge due to having to wait long and as long as wild resources are available and perceived to be a common good 8

9. 9 Conservation through use under cultivation - What would be the ideal trend of growth in material supply as knowledge of use improves?

11. How does ecology influence use and cultivation of medicinal tree species?10 Main hypothesis The level of medicinal tree cultivation (Mc) is a factor of germplasm availability (g), species ecology (e – climate, soil and competition), local disease burden perception with appropriate knowledge on use of medicinal trees (k), and availability of market for medicinal tree products (m). Mc = f(g, e, k, m, α)

12. Conceptual framework 11 General Conceptual Frame on farmer adoption of an agricultural practice Adapted from FAO (2001)

13. Motivates especially if not extractive harvesting Seedling quality as well as access and cost may demotivate Other Products Timber, food, ethno veterinary, etc Access to inputs Household Consumption Germplasm (g) Self treatment knowledge (k) Smallholder production sub-system Wild sources Medicinal trees (C) Alternatives Clinical Medicine Production Technology Income If alternative perceived better then only this path taken Cultivation ecology (e) Sold to Markets (m) Niche defines quality and interaction with crops (opportunity cost to land and labour Human Capital Demotivates depending on access and abundance Motivation to plant Fig. Conceptual framework showing some factors expected to influence cultivation of medicinal trees by smallholder farmers 12

14. Objectives 13 To collate the perspectives of farmers and herbalists on the factors influencing their preference and cultivation of tree species with medicinal value To assess the influence of local disease burden perception and knowledge of herbal treatment on the efforts by farmers and herbalists to cultivate medicinal trees To explore the contribution of farm grown herbal material to medicinal tree product markets and its effect on medicinal tree cultivation To explore how germplasm access by farmers and on-farm tree nurseries influence medicinal tree cultivation To explore motivational drivers of cultivation and the scope for herbalists’ and traders’ utilization of farm produced medicinal tree products

16. Population density 100-500 persons / sq km

17. Nine agroecological zones (LM5 to LH1)

18. Rainfall – 500 -2600mm;

19. Altitude 500 -2500masl

20. Soils – varying from nitisols to ferrasols

21. Mixed-crop and livestock agric systems

23. Individual interviews - analysis with SPSS

24. 200 farmers

25. 60 herbalists

26. 60 nursery operators

27. 55 market players in 3 cities

28. Species abundance surveys in farms, forests and herbalist gardens - analysis with BiodiversityR

29. Personal observations

30. Triangulations - interview responses tested with empirical measurements15

32. Herbalists’ gardens – 203 total species (trees – 40%, shrubs – 27% and herbs – 33%)

33. 60 species known as medicinal by farmers but not recorded in any farm (22 trees, 26 shrubs and 12 herbs)

34. Do farmers know more species than herbalists?????16

35. Factors influencing cultivation Herbalists knowledge issue was only a species treating many diseases 17

36. Species highly preferred for cultivation 18

38. Farmers in Mbeere influenced by germplasm availability than markets

39. Multiple use of species not very important to influence both farmers and herbalists

40. Cultivation technology rated low – but factors such as appropriate niches and farm sizes important

41. Women farmers rated knowledge, markets and multiple use higher than men

42. Trees on farm correlated loosely with the frequency of species preference

43. Usually one tree per household is enough for self treatment and neighbours can use19

44. Most socio-economically important diseases 20

45. Disease effect management by farmers 21

46. Number of species used in treating important diseases 22

47. Highly ranked species in treatment of most important diseases 23

48. Farmers’ sources of knowledge on use of medicinal plants for disease treatment 24 Most information passed through genealogy and herbalists contribution is low!

49. Who speaks about importance of medicinal tree cultivation to farmers? 25

50. So knowledge of medicinal tree species varies with socio-demographic categories 26 Number of species known increased with age, district harshness, and use but decreased with education level attained by respondent Key: Gender -1(Female), 2 (Male); Age in years – 1 (<25), 2 (25-35), 3 (35-45), 4 (55-65), 5 (>65); Level of education attained – 1 (not schooled), 2 (primary level), 3 (village polytechnic), 4 (secondary), 5 (post secondary); District – 1 (Embu), 2 (Mbeere), 3 (Meru Central); First responseto ailment - 1 (find a medicinal plant), 2 (buy an over the counter drug), 3(consult a medical clinic or hospital), 4 (consult a herbalist)

51. Does farmer’s knowledge influence cultivation 27

53. Medicinal trees play role in household health

54. Herbalists use more of wild species while farmers use agroforestry species more

55. Farmers learn about medicinal trees from relatives and cultivation mainly own initiative

56. The medicinal species present in farms influenced more by the species known little by the perception of the socioeconomic importance of diseases28

57. Medicinal plant markets and cultivation of medicinal trees 29 Final products Herbal clinics Pre-processors

58. Sources of herbal materials in markets The numbers show the average per trader for each parameter; n=55 30

59. Traders’ preference for source of medicinal plant materials 31

61. Most of indigenous tree species were traded collected from the wild – threats

62. Two thirds of traders who purchased materials preferred farm sourced materials – mostly in the final products category

63. Getting materials at little or no costs contributes to more wild collection – distance may discourage but not tested in this studySummary on trade

64. Focus on tree seedling sources 33 Herbalists with nurseries (numbers are % n = 60)

65. Presence of highly preferred species in nurseries 34

66. Sources of medicinal trees in farms 35

68. Demand for medicinal species lower than timber and higher than fruits and fodder in Meru; lower than fruits and fodder in Mbeere and fruits in Embu

69. Demand for medicinal seedlings higher than supply in nurseries – but not all species

70. Need investment in diversifying germplasm in both private and herbalist nurseries36

72. Age/size distributions

74. Key species abundance

75. Age/size class distributions relating to regeneration method

76. Niche in the farm

78. Species abundance survey results 39

79. General abundance of species in surveyed farms, forests and herbalists’ gardens 40

81. Herbalists in Embu and Meru plant more – response to scarcity

82. Not much difference in abundance in smallholder farms in the three districts but smallholders generally plant less20 Species richness Smallholder farms Mbeere Embu Meru 20 Sites

83. 30 top species Renyi profiles 42 Mbeere Embu Meru H-alpha H-alpha H-alpha Forests and districts Herbalists and districts Farms and districts 25 Mbeere Embu Meru Species richness H-alpha H-alpha Forests and distance RP Forests and distance SAC Combined >5 km from village <5 km from village

85. More lower size classes in farms than forests

88. There were more lower age and size classes in herbalist gardens hence diversity may increase in future

89. Herbalists planted more in areas where diversity was less in forests

90. There were no specific niches that mimicked forests that herbalists preferred to plant medicinal trees

91. More herbalists and traders preferred medicinal trees sourced from forests but not necessarily farm niches that mimicked forest situations

92. Upto 67% of the current traders and herbalists can switch preference to farm grown herbal material if forest trees were not very accessible45

93. General conclusions Farmers maintain medicinal tree species on farms for household health insurance – only one tree is enough per household The more trees known the more conserved Herbalists not engaged in conservation advocacy and young and educated farmers least informed Herbalists cultivation is increasing as a response to scarcity – good entry to ensure diversity in farms Trade in medicinal trees’ products is growing and could stimulate cultivation Strategies needed to support nurseries in dry areas as current abundance will disappear fast Empirical measurements supported survey responses 46

94. Recommendations - actions Involve herbalists and tree nursery operators in extension on medicinal trees information Further development of markets and link to farmers Policy incentives to promote cultivation and discourage wild collection Germplasm conservation and production linking herbalists and nursery operators Policies to develop arid areas as future sources of medicinal tree material Further research on influence of various cultivation approaches on medicinal tree active component concentration 47

96. Markets needs (MIS)

97. High quality germplasm sources

99. Croton macrostachyus

100. Croton megalocarpus

101. Oleaeuropaeasspafricana

102. Psidiumguajava

103. Osyrislanceolata

104. Plectranthusbarbatus

105. Erythrinaabyssinica

106. Rhamnusprinoides

109. Prof. Christian Vogl

110. Profs. From IFE : Gratzer, Hager and others

111. ICRAF senior staff: Drs. T. Simons, S. Franzel, R. Jamnadass

112. OEAD

113. ICRAF administration and GRP1 colleagues

114. Fellow students and IFS staff

115. My family (Esther, Grace, Victor)

116. Extended family and friends