Staying Informed About Agricultural Issues In Kenya

This study conducted in Kenya defined farmers as the roughly two-thirds of our survey respondents (2009 national survey in Kenya conducted by AudienceScapes) who said that either crop farming or livestock farming (or both) contributed substantially to their household's income. [1]  These individuals were then asked how they stay informed about various agricultural topics—both “practical” topics such as fertilizer use and pest control, and “business” topics such as market prices, legal questions and agricultural loans and credits.

In general, the data point to a need to bolster efforts to get more business-related information into the hands of the Kenyan farmers, which is the focus of the case study in this section.

Sources of Farming Information: Key Factors

Limited role of new media

Proponents of using new media to reach farmers should be aware that SMS services and the internet did not register as a source of either practical or business information on any topic for more than 1 percent of farmers surveyed. The bulk of their practical information comes via radio, word-of-mouth sources (specifically, friends, family and other farmers), and agricultural extension agents (Charts 1 and 2). Media other than radio were not among the top sources of practical farming information, though nearly  one-fifth of respondents mentioned getting information about weather from TV.

Chart 1
  

Chart 2
 

This is not to imply that the use of cell phone- and SMS-based services for farmers is ineffective; on the contrary, a number of such services are showing excellent results in a variety of practical applications. For example, the nonprofit organization Pride Africa uses mobile technology in its DrumNet project to facilitate commodity and capital transactions between groups of smallholder producers of sunflower oil, input suppliers, banks and a major oil buyer.  However, the data suggest that such services are starting from a very low user base and a broad lack of familiarity with the concept; other potential conduits for the delivery and sharing of agricultural information may be more effective in the near term and should not be given short shrift in the drive to use newer ICTs.

Clear regional differences

In addition, the data indicate stark regional differences in the way crop farmers from different regions of Kenya currently obtain essential practical information. For example, Chart 3 shows radio as the top source for fertilizer information across the country, but radio's impact and the mix of other top sources for fertilizer information also vary substantially by region. Though small sample sizes generate a larger margin of error, the variations nevertheless point to a need to tailor crop farming communication for specific target audiences.

Chart 3
            

Crop vs. livestock information

Meanwhile, practical information about livestock farming appears to travel through somewhat different channels than information about crops, with veterinarians and NGOs playing more prominent roles for livestock, while “other farmers in the community” take a relative back seat (Chart 4).

Chart 4
       

Gaps in farm business information

Business information seems to be less readily available than practical information in general, though farmers appear to be exposed to more content about markets and prices than about financial (credits and subsidies) and legal issues (Chart 5).

Many development organizations are understandably eager to provide farmers with more timely and higher-quality information about the business side of farming. Aid donors, NGOs and government officials acknowledge that bolstering farmers’ knowledge of trends in agricultural markets, farm supply prices, financing options and legal issues (particularly land and other property ownership rights) potentially gives them a leg up in commercializing their products and earning a decent living.

Chart 5

The key question is how best to share this information to support farmers' productivity and profitability. As mentioned above, services based on mobile phones hold promise but are not yet very widespread; more significantly, they do not yet seem to be a widely trusted source for business information (as discussed here). Once again, radio and other sources come to the fore.

Above all, development partners are under pressure to ensure that any business information or solution provided is capable of attracting farmers’ interest—especially if they are not necessarily looking for such information or not aware that they might benefit from it. Indeed, when asked whether they were satisfied with existing information about business aspects of agriculture, many said they could not judge because they receive no information about these topics (Chart 6). Development groups thus face the dual challenge of making information available and making it crystal clear why they are making it available and how it might benefit them, even though the farmers may not perceive a need for it.

Chart 6
                

One possible strategy for communicating more successfully about business issues could be to team up with veterinarians and government agricultural extension agents who are already engaged with farmers at the practical level and who generally command farmers' respect (see Trusted Sources About Farming Issues below). If those experts were trained and equipped to provide more (or more relevant) information on these topics alongside their practical advice, or to point farmers toward reliable sources, they might have a positive impact on the business side.

Trusted Sources About Farming Issues

Good information is generally not valued if it is not delivered from a trusted source. Table 1 shows survey respondents’ levels of trust in various sources of agricultural information, with radio achieving high marks across the board and trust in other sources largely correlating to each source's degree of prominence as a provider of agricultural information (see Charts 1 to 5 above).

Chart 1
             

The trust data were parsed to show differences between rural and urban farmers, since a good number of those who self-identified as farmers actually lived in urban areas. Chart 7 indicates that messages to rural populations about farming issues are likely to be delivered most credibly via radio, trusted networks of farmers, local agricultural extension agents and local farmers’ organizations.

On the contrary, TV, print media, the internet, SMS services, and posters and billboards appear to be weaker information conduits when viewed through the trust lens—perhaps because rural residents are less familiar with these sources than they are with other sources as potential providers of agricultural information.

Chart 7
              

The relatively low levels of expressed trust in SMS services stand out in the chart, though they may understate trust in such information, given that the majority of respondents answered “don’t know” to this particular trust question (implying that most respondents do not yet have enough knowledge of such services to offer an opinion).

This subject merits attention in follow-up surveys of Kenya to determine if the ongoing expansion of the number of SMS-based information services increases both awareness of and trust in this method of development communication. Mobile phones already are widely available among all Kenyans; even among farmers, many said they get general news via SMS (in fact the numbers for this are similar to those for the whole population: 24 percent of crop farmers said they get news or information via SMS at least once a week, though most of the activity is likely an extension of word-of-mouth communication, as far fewer said they received SMS from mobile operators or other sources).

Click Below to Access a Different Development Topic

[1] About 40 percent of all respondents said that crop farming made a substantial contribution to their household income and that they own or raise animals as a source of income. Another fourth of all respondents said only one activity made a substantial contribution (12 percent for livestock and 15 percent for crops), and a third said they were not involved in agriculture in either way.