Advertisement

Food Security

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 271–284 | Cite as

Agroforestry extension and dietary diversity – an analysis of the importance of fruit and vegetable consumption in West Pokot, Kenya

  • Göran BostedtEmail author
  • Agneta Hörnell
  • Gert Nyberg
Original Paper

Abstract

Worldwide, the challenges of nomadic, pastoralist systems are causing their slow but steady disappearance in favour of sedentary agropastoralism. This paper draws upon an existing household data set from a survey collected and organized by the Swedish non-governmental organization (NGO) Vi Agroforestry, directed at a livestock-based, agro-pastoralist area in West Pokot County, western Kenya. The study focuses on the question of food diversity and malnutrition and the role of agroforestry extension services, i.e. knowledge spread, transfer and development. Our basic hypothesis is that certain fruit and vegetable related food groups are under-consumed in West Pokot, especially in the dryland areas. The results of the study shows that agroforestry, combined with advice through extension efforts can imply a transition path for pastoralists which involves improved dietary diversity, especially concerning food groups that include roots, tubers, fruits and leafy vegetables. From the results certain restrictions that hinder this transition become clear. An important but often overlooked factor is lack of information and knowledge as a determinant of household behavior in developing countries. NGOs such as Vi Agroforestry can play an important role in overcoming this restriction by providing extension services. Developing countries in general are not information-rich environments, a fact that is especially the case for poor citizens living in rural areas. The paper illustrates that careful attention to the information and knowledge available to households is necessary when designing development cooperation.

Keywords

Agroforestry Dietary diversity Pastoralism Vi Agroforestry West Pokot 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Vi Agroforestry Kenya, for making the data from the 2007 survey in West Pokot available, and to Isabel Joy Awino Ochieng and Vera Karmebäck for entering the data in Excel format. We are also grateful to SLU Global, for funding the inspirational November 2013 trip to Kenya, which gave the impetus for this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study and were told that results would only be presented at group level.

References

  1. ACF-USA, (2012). Integrated nutrition, food security and retrospective mortality survey – West Pokot county, Kenya. New York, USA: Action Contre la Faim-USA. Resource document: http://acf-retrofit-dev.devcollaborative.com/publication/2012/05/integrated-nutrition-food-security-and-retrospective-mortality-survey-west-pokot, Accessed March 19, 2015.
  2. Angassa, A., & Oba, G. (2008). Herder perceptions on impacts of range enclosures, crop farming, fire ban and bush encroachment on the rangelands of Borana, southern Ethiopia. Human Ecology, 36(2), 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angassa, A., & Oba, G. (2010). Effects of grazing pressure, age of enclosures and seasonality on bush cover dynamics and vegetation composition in southern Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments, 74(1), 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyene, F. (2009). Exploring incentives for rangeland enclosures among pastoral and agropastoral households in eastern Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change, 19, 494–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beyene, F. (2010). Locating the adverse effects of rangeland enclosure among herders in eastern Ethiopia. Land Use Policy, 27, 480–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biesalski, H. K. (2013). Conference report, first international conference on hidden hunger, Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany March 6–9, 2013. Food Security, 5, 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bliss, C. I. (1934). The method of probits. Science, 79(2037), 38–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Catley, A., Kind, J., & Scoones, I. (2013). Pastoralism and development in Africa. Dynamic change at the margins. New York, USA: Routhledge.Google Scholar
  9. Davidon, W. C. (1991). Variable metric method for minimization. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 1, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. FAO (2008). Expert consultation on nutrition indicators for biodiversity. 1. Food Composition. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.Google Scholar
  11. Garrity, D. P. (2004). Agroforestry and the achievement of the millennium development goals. Agroforestry Systems, 61-62(1–3), 5–17.Google Scholar
  12. Gichero, P., Nabwile Makokha, S., Le Chen, Gachimbi, L. & Wamuongo, J. (2012). Land subdivision and degradation in Narok, Kenya. In McNeil, D., Nesheim, I. & Brouwer, F. (Eds.), Land use policies for sustainable development. Exploring integrated assessment approaches. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Greiner, C., Alvarez, M., & Becker, M. (2013). From cattle to corn: attributes of emerging farmer systems of former pastoral nomads in East Pokot, Kenya. Society and Natural Resources, 26(12), 1478–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Herrero, M., & Thornton, P. (2013). Livestock and global change: emerging issues for sustainable food systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 110, 52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jaenicke, H., & Virchow, D. (2013). Entry points into a nutrition-sensitive agriculture. Food Security, 5, 679–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jalan, J., & Somanathan, E. (2008). The importance of being informed: experimental evidence on demand for environmental quality. Journal of Development Economics, 87(1), 14–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keding, G. B., Schneider, K., & Jordan, I. (2013). Production and processing of foods as core aspects of nutrition-sensitive agriculture and sustainable diets. Food Security, 5, 825–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kitalyi A, Musili A, Suazo J. & Ogutu F. (2002). Enclosures to protect and conserve. For better livelihood of the West Pokot community. Technical Pamphlet No. 2. Nairobi, Kenya: Regional Land Management Unit (RELMA), SIDA.Google Scholar
  20. Lesorogol, C. K. (2003). Transforming institutions among pastoralists: inequality and land privatization. American Anthropologist, 105(3), 531–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Makokha, M., Odera, H., Maritim, H. K., Okalebo, J. R., & Iruria, D. M. (1999). Farmers’ perceptions and adoption of soil management technologies in western Kenya. African Crop Science Journal, 7(4), 549–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McDermott, J. J., Staal, S. J., Freeman, H. A., Herrero, M., & Van de Steeg, J. A. (2010). Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics. Livestock Science, 130(1–3), 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McFadden, D. (1974). The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics, 3, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mekuria, W., Veldkamp, E., Corre, M. D., & Haile, M. (2011). Restoration of ecosystem carbon stocks following exclosure establishment in communal grazing lands in Tigray, Ethiopia. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 75(1), 246–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Molua, E. L. (2005). The economics of tropical agroforestry systems: the case of agroforestry farms in Cameroon. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(2), 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moritz, M. (2012). Pastoral intensification in West Africa: implications for sustainability. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 18, 418–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mortimore, M., Anderson, S., Cotula, L., Davies, J., Faccer, K., Hesse, C., et al. (2009). Dryland opportunities: a new paradigm for people, ecosystems and development. In Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, London, UK: IIED, and Nairobi. Kenya: UNDP/DDC.Google Scholar
  28. Napier, A., & Desta, S. (2011). Review of pastoral rangeland enclosures in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Tufts University Africa Regional Office.Google Scholar
  29. NDMA 2014. National Drought Management Authority West Pokot County. Drought monthly bullentin for July 2014. Available at: http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/West_Pokot-July-2014.pdf.
  30. Neely, C., Bunning, S., & Wilkes, A. (Eds.) (2009). Review of evidence on drylands pastoral systems and climate change – implications and opportunities for mitigation and adaptation. Land and water. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome: Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  31. Nyberg, G., Knutsson, P., Ostwald, M., Öborn I., Wredle, E., Otieno, D.J., Mureithi, S., Mwangi, P., Said, M.Y., Jirström, M., Grönvall, A., Wernersson, J., Svanlund S., Saxer, L., Geutjes, L., Karmebäck, V., Wairore, J.N., Wambui, R., De Leeuw, J. & Malmer; A. (2015). Enclosures; transforming land, livestock and livelihoods in drylands. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, In press.Google Scholar
  32. Opiyo, F. E. O., Ekaya, W. N., Nyariki, D. M., & Mureithi, S. M. (2011). Seedbed preparation influence on morphometric characteristics of perennial grasses of a semi-arid rangeland in Kenya. African Journal of Plant Sciences, 5(8), 460–468.Google Scholar
  33. Pommer Jensen L., Picozzi K., da Costa Monteiro de Almeida, O., de Jesus de Costa, M., Spyckerelle, L., & Erskine, W. (2014). Social relationships impact adoption of agricultural technologies: the case of food crop varieties in Timor-Leste. Food Security, 6, 397–409.Google Scholar
  34. Somanathan, E. (2010). Effects of information on environmental quality in developing countries. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 4(2), 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sumberg, J. and Thomson, J. (2013). Revolution Reconsidered: Evolving Perspectives on Livestock Production and Consumption. STEPS Working Paper 52, Brighton: STEPS Centre.Google Scholar
  36. Thornton, P. K. (2010). Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, B, Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2853–2867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. UN Environment Management Group (2011). Global drylands: A UN system-wide response. New York, USA: United Nations. Resource document: http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/Publications/Global_Drylands_Full_Report.pdf, Accessed March 19, 2015.
  38. Verdoodt, A., Mureithi, S. M., Ye, L., & Van Ranst, E. (2009). Chronosequence analysis of two enclosure management strategies in degraded rangeland of semi-arid Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 129(1–3), 332–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vi Agroforestry (2007). West Pokot progressive survey report 2007. Lonah Mukoya, L., Kephas, O., Mwaniki, J. & Njuguna, W. (Eds.), Kitale, Kenya: Vi Agroforestry.Google Scholar
  40. Wairore, J. N., Murethi, S. M., Wasonga, O. V., & Nyberg, G. (2015). Benefits derived from rehabilitating a degraded semi-arid rangeland in private enclosures in West Pokot County, Kenya. Land Degradation and Develoment. doi: 10.1002/ldr.2440.Google Scholar
  41. WHO (2010). Indicators for assessing infant and young child feeding practices. part 2: measurement. pp 64–77; Annex 4. Washington D.C., USA: World Health Organisation.Google Scholar
  42. Woodhouse, P. (2003). African enclosures: a default mode of development. World Development, 31(10), 1705–1720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. World Bank (2013). Improving nutrition through multisectoral approaches. Washington D.C., USA: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  44. World Food Programme (2012). Executive board first regular session Rome, 13–15 February 2012. Projects for executive board approval. Agenda item 8. WFP/EB.1/2012/8/2. Rome, Italy: World Food Programme.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and International Society for Plant Pathology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest EconomicsSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Umeå School of Business and Economics, Umeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Department of Food and NutritionUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  4. 4.Department of Forest Ecology and ManagementSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations