Farmers knowledge and perception on SALMs and carbon revenue

Farmers’ understanding of carbon financing and marketing appear limited to an extent that the study repeatedly had to elaborate on its third objective to ‘set the pace’ for meaningful dialogues when conducting the survey and during facilitation of the focus group discussions. When asked what they knew about the agricultural carbon market, many reported that they did not really understand it or gave out very simple and basic explanatory responses. On one hand, a majority of the respondents who thought they had an idea of what carbon sequestration was would associate it with agroforestry and composting practices. One said; “Planting of trees harvests the

‘bad air’ (carbon) from the atmosphere and puts it in the ground”. Another said; “The more we

107

plant trees, the better the environment becomes and the rains come”. Yet another one said;

“Burning of plant residues produces ‘bad air’ and planting of trees cleans it up”. From a researcher’s point of view, it is possible to infer that these basic ideas of what carbon sequestration pertains to stems from ViA’s extension services through KACP, which have over the years attempted to simplify environmental knowledge and education to farmers. With regard to SALMs, agroforestry and composting stood out as good examples for KACP to try and educate or explain, to the lowly educated Western Kenyan farmers, the ecological functioning of trees and decomposition processes in the carbon cycle. On the other hand, many farmers closely linked the amount of ‘bonus’ they achieved to SALMs. They would associate KACPs carbon monitoring and verification processes, such as the assessment of acreage, total number of trees and tree species, types of crops and use of fertilizers, to their understanding of agricultural carbon market. One said; “The more trees someone plants, the more bonus the group gets”.

Others reported that KACP discouraged them from cutting trees and instead encouraged tree planting practice that do not affect the development of their crops (woody nitrogen-fixing perennial species) as well as organic farming. This way, the study established that KACP farmers were lacking a broader understanding of the interrelationship between soil carbon emissions, SALMs implementation and global climate change, but that they could appreciate the practical economic value of carbon sequestration through tree planting.

Pertaining to carbon revenue, it is reported that at the onset, KACP clarified in many preliminary project processes of community entry that the carbon revenue was not meant to be the key motivation behind SALM promotion. This was reaffirmed by one of the KACP staff who said,

“Bonus is very little money and that will not help a farmer…it is something very small to appreciate and that is it…’_pers. Comm. (Zonal Officer Sirisia and Malakisi focal areas). He also reported a widespread misperception at the onset that WB was going to give out ‘bonus’

leading to a high expectation by the farmers that is yet to be met, as far as carbon revenue is concerned. KACP however clearly denounced it to all partner farmer groups while insisting that the focus should be on productivity from the land areas they own with strong emphasis on SALM intensification. The clarification of carbon revenue as only a co-benefit to farmers and not the chief motivation of the project is said to have made them conscious and aware of the main goals of SALM implementation by KACP.

108

i) Livelihoods improvement and food security attainment through achievement of higher farm yields and consequently accruing higher incomes.

ii) Promoting soil carbon sequestration that enables the farmers to accrue carbon revenue.

Therefore, KACP field officers and community facilitators endeavored to make all farmers understand that they needed to work extra hard to implement SALMs in order to benefit from both productivity increase and carbon revenue.

From the key informants’ interviews, the study gathered that farmer groups received the first tranche⁶ of carbon revenue in 2011 and were expecting the second tranche earlier this year.

There was a delay of payment to the farmers (who were expecting the carbon revenue earlier between 2013 and 2014) attributed to drawbacks in carbon accounting between KACPs internal and external monitoring and verification protocols and processes (as elaborated more in section 4.3.4 below). From the study findings, the annual mean carbon revenue for a farmer group was Kshs. 3193 (USD33) which translates to a very marginal amount per farmer per year (only Kshs.

216{USD2}), considering that a farmer group consisted of an average number of 15 members.

This carbon revenue amount compared to the annual income per farmer per year of Kshs.

129954.98 (USD1327) is thus extremely peripheral as an incentive for SALMs adoption. This view was repeatedly expressed in the focus group discussions where many respondents reported great disappointments as per their initial ‘bonus’ expectations despite KACPs objective clarifications at the project’s onset. However, many of them at the same time confirmed that KACP had attempted to ‘clear the air’ during most of their engagements with farmer groups that the carbon revenue was ‘just a bonus’ and a motivation to appreciate their efforts of implementing SALMs. They reported considerable contentment with the increases in farm yields and consequently income increases that had enabled them to achieve significantly diversified livelihoods.

6 A portion of the total carbon revenue payment to be paid to farmers by KACP at completion of project

109

4.3.2 What farmers ‘ought to know’ and understand about SALMs, KACP and carbon