2.3 Theoretical Framework
The KACPs overall aim is to progressively reduce poverty levels of small-scale farmers in Western Kenya. This aim consequently set the basis of this study’s core objective; to assess the socio-economic impacts of KACP on the livelihoods of small-scale farmers in Bungoma County.
Following KACP’s specific objectives i.e. i) boosting farmers’ yields and enhancing their food security by promoting SALMs, ii) linking them to profitable agricultural markets and iii) generating carbon credits from SALMs implementation, the study built on the four theoretical approaches (see section 2.1) in order to sufficiently address its main objectives (see section 1.5.2). For objective 1&2, SLA framework, good agronomy (GA), and adoption theories were employed. They informed the study on farmers’ present agricultural circumstances and contexts, values and norms and adoption patterns within which Western Kenya small-scale poor farmers’
livelihoods had been impacted on by KACP. For objective 3, the concept of Payment for Ecosystem Services was employed to determine the level of understanding of carbon sequestration in agricultural soils and its subsequent carbon financing and marketing concept by the small-scale farmers in Western Kenya.
2.3.1 Smallholder Farmers’ Agronomic Norms and Values
Mapping out the present livelihoods adaptation strategies of farmers in the KACP area required the study to illuminate on livelihood strategies, based on the socio-cultural norms and values, within which poor farmers in Western Kenya carry out their adaptation processes. In the practice of smallholder farming production, there is a widely held belief that traditional technologies and institutions are to blame for low productivity and food insecurity like in sub-Saharan Africa region for example (Muzari et al. 2012). Smallholder farmers have been portrayed as ‘very rigid, unable and unwilling’ in their ways to respond to new ideas or opportunities (Innis, 1997 as cited by Muzari et al.). However, other researches have denounced these claims in support of the relevance of indigenous systems in sustainable agricultural production. They suggest that smallholders using traditional technologies are often more efficient in their use of scarce production resources compared to large-scale farmers who utilize modern agricultural technologies (Muzari et al. 2012).
24
Limitations to increased agricultural production in smallholder agriculture globally stems from a myriad number of factors. From lack of small-scale irrigation facilities, pests and diseases, post-harvest losses to limited extension and advisory services and inaccessibility to good seeds and fertilizers due to high prices (Muzari et al. 2012). These writers assert that smallholder agricultural production is constrained by poverty, declining soil fertility, higher fertilizer costs, poor crop and fertilizer management and inadequate pest and disease control. Further, they are usually cash poor, if not resource poor in all respects and are often located in ecological niches that are disadvantageously unique in more ways than one (Muzari et al. 2012). Just as it is in the case of KACP as a project in Western Kenya, its location targeted poor small-scale farmers who are situated in areas where rainfall is relatively low and unreliable and soils infertile or their fertility have gradually been decreased in the past decade.
Taking KACP as an institution of governance regarding SALMs implementation and the poor small-scale farmers as receivers of a new technology to foster adaptation, culture plays a pivotal role in integration of these two entities. Culture is seen as a common framework of meaning and values from which action such as SALM implementation arises; a form of human-nature relation cofounded on social construction of meaning. Here, a co-construction of society-nature relation emerges where farmers interact with other farmers and extension workers within environmentally related practices and particular socio-agronomic contexts (Vedeld & Krogh 2003). So, within the social institution of good agronomy in small-scale farmers in Western Kenya vis-à-vis KACP’s SALM implementation by ViA, the issue of good governance and dimension of powers emanate (see section 2.1.1). Within power relations, there will always be a tension in the society between rulers and the ruled as Vedeld and Krogh (2003) put it. For the case of KACP, the remunerative and normative dimensions of power seem to be the ones guiding the farmers’ compliance to SALMs practices. On one hand, remunerative power triggers cognitive response where the acceptance SALM practices implementation by farmers is deemed beneficial and will pay off if one adopts them (Vedeld & Krogh 2003). On the other hand, the normative power dimension triggers normative or strategic responses where farmers adopt SALM practices from consensus or negotiated agreements based on shared values and norms.
This may reflect a predisposition means to reach desired livelihood goals relative to other groups in the society (Vedeld & Krogh 2003).
25
2.3.2 Differential Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies
In the determination of the consequences of SALMs adoption on the livelihoods of groups of farmers in the KACP area, the study had to comprehend the relationship between smallholder farmer’s livelihood strategies and their perception on new agricultural technologies. As such, the research sought to understand farmers’ success and failures in adopting certain SALMs and consequently adapt or mal-adapt to a changing climate. According to Muzari et al. (2012), the factors affecting technology adoption are assets, income, institutions, vulnerability, awareness, labour and innovativeness by smallholder farmers. They claim that technologies that require few assets have a lower risk and are less expensive hence have a higher chance of being adopted by smallholder farmers.
According to Pannell et al’ (2006), adoption of agricultural technologies depends on a range of social, cultural and economic factors, as well as on the characteristics of the innovation itself.
Adoption occurs when a farmer perceives that the new technology will enhance the achievement of their personal economic, social and environmental goals (Pannell et al. 2006). In the case of KACP, SALMs are more likely to be adopted when they have a high relative advantage (particularly in economic terms) and it is readily trialable (easy to test and learn about before adoption). Consequently, non-adoption of SALM practices occurs when there is failure in the provision of a relative advantage or they are difficult for farmers to implement. Relative advantage refers to the degree to which a technology is perceived as being better than the idea or practice it supersedes (Pannell et al. 2006). It depends on a farmer’s unique set of goals and the biophysical, economic and social context where the technology is to be employed. It is also deemed, as Pannell et al’ (2006) assert, as the decisive factor which determines the ultimate level of adoption of most technologies. Trialability refers to the characteristics of the technology itself that determine how easily or not a farmer can learn about its performance and running (Pannell et al. 2006). In the course of trialing a technology such as SALM, information is gained on the uncertainty about the relative advantage of employing it.
26
2.3.3 Payment for Ecosystem Services and Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Soils In the evaluation of the understanding of carbon financing and marketing concept by the groups of farmers in KACP area, the study explored the concept of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES). Redford et al’ (2009) argue that PES is ‘a way of framing conservation imperatives’ to convince humans of the value of the natural world. Ecosystems services (ES) are essential to human survival and well-being e.g. forests supply climate regulation, erosion control and aesthetic beauty; wetlands offer protection from storms and floods and grasslands supply habitat and genetic resources (Kemkes et al. 2010). They are functionally considered provisioning, regulating, supporting, cultural, spiritual and recreational (see section 2.1.4) According to Chesterman and Hope (2014), PES creates an innovative option to reward communities (either through payments, compensation or exchange between a willing buyer and a willing seller) for ecosystems services or land-use that sustains such service.
The theoretical underpinnings of PES emanate from the neoclassical environmental economic externality framework, in which market failures are considered the root cause of environmental degradation (Van Hecken & Bastiaensen 2010). As such, most economic outputs are in the form of market goods and most ecosystem services are non-market goods, hence, the market system systematically favors conversion over conservation (Kemkes et al. 2010). However, this market system of conversion rather that conservation encourages rapid degradation of natural capitals such as forests, land and wetlands. It is in line with this that the study took KACP as one way of limiting conversion and embracing conservation of agricultural soils as a natural capital resource to foster adaptation to climate change. This way, KACP may be seen as a PES scheme that compensates land users for environmental services a given land use(s) e.g. SALMs provide (Pagiola et al. 2004).
Based on KACP, PES concept as a conservation approach targeted poor smallholder farmers in Western Kenya so as to motivate them to protect their farmlands against degradation from a changing climate. This was done through the introduction of SALMs as a way of sequestering carbon, improving their agricultural output, attaining food security and diversifying their incomes through agribusiness and carbon credits sale. Carbon credits sale in this case were in the form of an opportunity cost cover (incentives) for adoption of more environmentally sound land-use; the exchange of SALMs implementation services by the farmers with direct payments.
27
Paying land users who adopt recommended practices like SALMs for the biodiversity and carbon sequestration services they generate can tip the balance towards adoption (Pagiola et al. 2004).
Generally, PES could provide an income buffer and a source of income diversification and thus aid poor and vulnerable communities in increasing their resilience to environmental shocks socially and economically in a changing climate. So, poverty alleviation is usually not the main objective of PES schemes like KACP but it is increasingly recognized as an important positive side-effect of the environmental market paradigm (Van Hecken & Bastiaensen 2010).
28