Socio-economicImpact Assessment of theTissue Culture Banana Industry in Keny

i

Socio-economic Impact Assessment of the

Tissue Culture Banana Industry in Kenya

Dr Shabd S. Acharya and Dr Mary G. Alton Mackey

www.africaharvest.org

TC_banana_for Web.indd 1 8/21/2008 9:29:13 PM

ii Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

This Report was compiled by Dr Shabd S. Acharya and Dr Mary G. Alton Mackey as part of an Africa Harvest Board of Directors-commissioned consultancy.

Dr Shabd S. Acharya Agricultural Economist: B.Sc. (Ag), M.Sc. (Ag), Ph.D. (Agricultural Economics); Former Chairman, Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, Government of India; Former Member, SPMS, Science Council of CGIAR; Former Professor, State Agricultural University; Former Director, Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur (IDSJ) (India); and Currently Honorary Professor, IDSJ (India).

Dr Mary G. Alton Mackey Health, Nutrition, Evaluation and Development Consultant: B.H.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. Currently, President of Alton Mackey and Associates, Toronto, Canada.

Cover: (L) An Africa Harvest farmer shows off TC bananas that weigh 40–45 kg, which is about 2–3 times the weight of non-TC bananas.

(R) Farmers prepare to transport their TC bananas to the market after weighing, grading and packaging them in crates provided by Africa Harvest.

Gikonyo, a TC banana farmer displaying his banana fruit


This Report was compiled by Dr Shabd S. Acharya and Dr Mary G. Alton Mackey as part of an Africa Harvest Board of Directors-commissioned consultancy.

Dr Shabd S. Acharya Agricultural Economist: B.Sc. (Ag), M.Sc. (Ag), Ph.D. (Agricultural Economics); Former Chairman, Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, Government of India; Former Member, SPMS, Science Council of CGIAR; Former Professor, State Agricultural University; Former Director, Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur (IDSJ) (India); and Currently Honorary Professor, IDSJ (India).

Dr Mary G. Alton Mackey Health, Nutrition, Evaluation and Development Consultant: B.H.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. Currently, President of Alton Mackey and Associates, Toronto, Canada.

Cover: (L) An Africa Harvest farmer shows off TC bananas that weigh 40–45 kg, which is about 2–3 times the weight of non-TC bananas.

(R) Farmers prepare to transport their TC bananas to the market after weighing, grading and packaging them in crates provided by Africa Harvest.

Gikonyo, a TC banana farmer displaying his banana fruit

Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International (AHBFI)

Nairobi • Johannesburg • Washington DC

www.africaharvest.org

Socio-economic Impact Assessment of the

Tissue Culture Banana Industry in Kenya

Dr Shabd S. Acharya and Dr Mary G. Alton Mackey


Citation: Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International (AHBFI). Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya; Johannesburg, South Africa; Washington DC, USA. 40 pp. All information in this booklet may be quoted or reproduced, provided the source is properly acknowledged, as cited above.

© 2008 Africa Harvest

ISBN 978-0-620-41753-2

For further information about Africa Harvest or additional copies of this publication, contact Africa Harvest at:

NAIROBI (HQ)3rd Floor, Whitefield Place,School Lane, WestlandsPO Box 642Village Market 00621Nairobi, KenyaTel: + 254 20 444 1113Fax: + 254 20 444 1121Email: [email protected]

JOHANNESBURGFernridge Office Park5 Hunter Street, RandburgPO Box 3655Pinegowrie 2123Gauteng, South AfricaTel: + 27 11 781 4447Fax: + 27 11 886 0152Email: [email protected]

WASHINGTON DCBlake BuildingFarragut Square1025 Connecticut Avenue, NWSuite 1012Washington DC 20036, USATel: +1 202 828 1215Fax: +1 202 857 9799E-mail: [email protected]

Or visit the Africa Harvest website: www.africaharvest.org

Editing and design: BluePencil Infodesign, Hyderabad, India • www.bluepencil.in


ContentsSummary 1

Context 1

Scope and specific objective of the study 2

Overview of banana sector in Kenya 3

Superiority of TC banana 6

Economic and social impact of TC banana projects of Africa Harvest 9The package 9Economic impact 10Social impact 10Gender dimensions of impact 11Technical impact 12

Institutional capacity of Africa Harvest 13 Africa Harvest’s ‘whole value chain’ implementation strategy 14 Up-scaling the adoption of TC bananas 16

Projections of TC banana area and production 19

Demand for TC banana plantlets 20

Projections of TC banana growers 20

Recommendations 21 Government of Kenya 21 Africa Harvest 23 Research 23

Appendices Appendix 1. Terms of Reference 25 Appendix 2. Acronyms 29 Appendix 3. Documents reviewed and references 30 Appendix 4. Persons/institutions contacted/interviewed 33 Appendix 5. Bios of Reviewers 35


1

Context Nearly 80% of Kenya’s population lives in rural areas and depends mainly on the agricultural sector for its livelihood. More than half of the country’s 40 million people live under US$1 per day and are classified as poor and food insecure. Poverty is more pronounced in the rural than in the urban areas, with over 85% of Kenya’s poor living in the rural areas, and mainly engaging in farming activities.

Agricultural growth is therefore critical to Kenya’s overall development, including the achievement of the goals of reducing poverty and malnutrition and of making the country a hunger-free nation. The agri-cultural sector in Kenya directly contributes 26% to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and, in addition, indirectly contrib-utes 27% through linkages with manu-facturing, marketing and service sectors. Further, this sector employs approxi-mately 75% of the Kenyan workforce.

The Kenyan gov-ernment launched a new strategy in 2004, of revitalizing agriculture within ten years1. It is a welcome initiative for achieving the millennium devel-opment goals. The strategy document is comprehensive and encompasses all possible actions for making Kenya’s agricultural sector a vibrant sector of the country’s economy. In the context of tackling the problem of rural poverty, malnutrition and hunger, several ag-ricultural enterprises need careful and concerted attention of planners and development functionar-ies, of which banana cultivation is one of the most important.

In Kenya, banana is an important horticultural crop in terms of its present and potential contribution to food and nutritional security and income enhance-

ment of small landholders. The crop is predominantly grown by small-scale farmers, and the average ba-nana cultivation area is 0.21 hectares, which is near-ly 10% of the total farm area. Besides being a staple food for the rural as well as the urban populations, banana is an important source of income for small-scale subsistence farmers. The continuous availabil-ity of harvestable bunches from a banana stool con-tributes to the year-round food and income security of banana growers. The fruit is nutritious and a rich source of carbohydrates (22%), fiber (7%) minerals (calcium, phosphorus and iron) and vitamins (A, B and C). Banana contributes around 25% of the total calorie intake of Kenya’s consumers.

The crop is susceptible to panama disease, sigatoka virus, weevils and nematodes. Infesta-tion of these pests and diseases, coupled with traditional agro-nomic practices led to decline in banana productivity. Tradi-tional propagation of banana through banana suckers as planting material was instrumental in the spread of pests and diseases, which re-duced banana yields up to even 90%2. Between 1992 and 1994, banana yields in Kenya reportedly declined from an av-erage of 12.8 tonnes to 9.9 tonnes per hectare. As a conse-

quence, the production declined from 986 thousand tonnes in 1992 to 489 thousand tonnes in 1996.

The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), with its experience of using tissue culture (TC) to propagate improved planting material for potato, sugarcane, cas-sava and citrus fruits since the late 1980s, also used it for banana. By the middle of the 1990s, KARI’s Thika centre was convinced of the potential of TC in reversing the decline in and enhancing the banana production. KARI, in partnership with International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), im-

Summary

1. Ministry of Agriculture, 2004 2. Qaim, 1999

[L to R] Africa Harvest CEO Dr Florence Wambugu with Akinwumi Adesina, Interim Vice President, Rockefeller Foundation and Anthony Bugg-Levine, Former Director, TechnoServe


2 Socio-economic impact assessment of the tissue culture banana industry in Kenya

plemented a project titled ‘Banana Biotechnology to Benefit Small Scale Banana Producers in Kenya’, with financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). Phase I of the project, which lasted from 1997 to 1999, evaluated the feasibility and appropriate-ness of the TC technology within the current farming practices of small-scale farmers. The second phase of the project, from 2000 to 2003, covered evolution of a sustainable system of production, distribution and utilization of TC-derived bananas on a pilot scale. The pilot activities in the project demonstrated the suit-ability and adaptability of the TC technology and con-siderably increased the demand for TC plantlets. The Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technol-ogy (JKUAT) and two private companies—Genetic Technologies Limited (GTL) and Aberdare Technologies Limited (ATL) —are currently producing and supplying TC plantlets in the country.

Beginning in 2003, Africa Harvest has been imple-menting two TC banana projects in Kenya’s Central and Eastern provinces, which are both important ba-nana-growing regions. The first project was ‘Devel-oping Pro-poor TC Banana Industry in Kenya’, which was funded by RF. The objective of the project was to remove bottlenecks to project expansion and create long-term sustainability in projects previously fund-ed by RF and IDRC. Africa Harvest and TechnoServe jointly implemented this project. The second project implemented by Africa Harvest was ‘Chura Tissue Culture Banana Project’, funded by DuPont (and its subsidiary, Pioneer Hi-Bred). The objective of this project was to increase crop yields and incomes of banana growers in a densely populated area through TC technology and provide an institutional frame-work to support the production program. Africa Harvest used the ‘whole value chain’ approach while at the same time emphasizing on-farm entrepre-neurship development. The strategic activities were

Value Addition; bottling of banana alchoholic beverages creating new markets for TC bananas

baseline studies, awareness creation, organization of farmers’ groups, technology transfer, training, es-tablishment of plantlet and input distribution sys-tems, establishment of a financing system, access to subsidies, and market development.

Scope and specific objective of the studyThe study’s major objective study was socio-eco-nomic impact assessment of TC banana in Kenya. Specifically, it attempted to chronicle the achieve-ments of various TC banana projects against their objectives; to assess the economical and social im-pact of TC banana cultivation; the lessons learnt from implementation of various TC banana projects, to explore the possible scaling up of TC banana area and production; and to suggest infrastructure and human resource needs for sustaining and accelerat-ing the growth of the banana sector in the country. The study also reviewed the contributions of vari-ous stakeholders and assessed the effectiveness of the ‘whole value chain’ approach adopted by Africa Harvest.

The methodology adopted for the study consisted of a desk review of several documents, reports and research papers; focused group discussions with different stakeholders; field visits to banana farms, hardening nurseries, village and town markets, and supermarkets; discussions with farmers, banana graders, farmers’ group leaders, scientists of KARI, JKUAT, GTL and ATL, district agriculture officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, and Chairman, Horti-culture Crops Development Authority (HCDA). The methodology also involved discussions with Africa Harvest’s CEO, scientists and field staff; this was was supplemented by the information from Africa Harvest and other stakeholders obtained through a specifically prepared questionnaire.


3

Banana is a nutritionally rich fruit. Ripe banana is a good source of vitamin A and contains medium quantities of vitamin B and minerals like phospho-rus, iron and potash. Ripe banana also contains sug-ars—sucrose, fructose and glucose. It is, therefore, an instant energy booster. Banana contains a type of protein called tryptophan, which the body con-verts into serotonin that helps us to relax. Though the protein content of banana is low, it contains an essential amino acid ‘lysine’, which makes banana an excellent complement in maize-based diets. The fruit is rich in potassium yet low in salt, making it suitable to control blood pressure. The high fiber con-tent of banana helps to re-store normal bowel action. Banana neutralizes hyper acidity and reduces irrita-tion by coating the lining of the stomach. Being high in iron, banana stimulates the production of hemoglobin in the blood and thus helps prevent anemia. Compared to the apple, the banana is reported to contain four times the protein, twice as much carbohydrates, thrice the phosphorus and five times as much vitamin A and iron. It is in this context that ‘a banana a day’ is considered as a natural remedy for many human ailments. The rich nutritive value of banana can be judged from its composition.

Nearly 52% of Kenya’s people are poor and food in-secure, and most of them live in the rural areas and derive their livelihoods from crop, livestock, fish and

Overview of banana sector in Kenyaforest products. However, on an average, Kenya’s farmers derive 37% of their income from non-farm ac-tivities, not by choice but by compulsion. Agricultural development in Kenya thus holds the key for reducing poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition. The banana crop has emerged as a major income earner and a food item in almost all the seven rural provinces of Kenya. It is used for cooking, including preparing desserts. It has replaced citrus in the Rift Valley province and cof-fee in the Central province, mainly due to the prob-lems of citrus greening and coffee marketing. There are two types of bananas the dessert and the cooking va-

rieties. Both are grown in Kenya. The cultivars/varieties of banana— are grown in differ-ent provinces/regions of the country (Table 1.0). The most promi-nent dessert varieties commonly grown in Kenya are Gros Michel and Apple Banana. The agronomic practices are the same for both types. The main varie-ties of banana com-monly grown in Kenya are Giant and Cavend-

ish, Bokoboko, Shale, Kisukari, Uganda Green,

Sweet Banana, Gros Michel, Lacatan, Valery, Somali Shuttle, Robust, William Hybrid, Golden Beauty, Pis-ang Paz, Muraru, Grande Naine, and Apple Banana.

Banana cultivation occupies 7.4% of the gross cropped area, but when it comes to the area under fruit cultivation, it occupies 55%. However banana

Table 1.0. Distribution of banana area and production (2004)

Province Area (ha)

Production (tonnes)

Average yield (tonnes per ha)

Area share (%)

Production share (%)

Central 15,520 164,171 10.6 19.0 15.8Coast 7,124 54,237 7.6 8.7 5.2Eastern 9,238 88,442 9.3 11.7 8.5Western 11,753 146,036 12.4 14.4 14.1Nyanza 34,401 532,886 15.5 42.1 51.5Rift Valley 2,861 44,291 15.5 3.5 4.3Nairobi 54 354 6.6 0.1 *N/Eastern 422 5721 13.6 0.5 0.6Total 81,673 1,036,138 12.7 100.0 100.0

Source: Provincial Reports, Ministry of Agriculture 2003/04, quoted in Ministry of Agriculture (2005).

* – Less than 0.05%.

Esther Gachugu, one of the early TC banana adopters explains how, by adopting the “new” banana technology, she has been able to start other income-generating activities on her farm.



acreage and production experienced a major setback in the mid-1990s, mainly due to high incidence of diseases and non-availability of disease-free plant-ing material. The decline was reversed through vari-ous initiatives by KARI, JKUAT, ISAAA, and Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International. Through provision of improved TC Banana planting material, both acreage and production of banana went up (Table 1.1).

The average size of banana holdings in Kenya re-ported in the literature is 0.32 hectares, but our es-timate is that it is 0.21 hectares. There are 388,920 farmers engaged in banana cultivation in Kenya. Of the 81,673 hectares under the crop, 44.5% is with small farm households (0.12 hectares), 39% with medium-scale farmers (average 0.45 hectares) and only 16.5% with large-scale farmers (average 1.98 hectares). Another important fact about banana production is that holdings of less than 0.5 hectares contribute 83.5% of banana production in Kenya (Table 1.2).

Of the total banana produced in Kenya, nearly 60% is the cooking variety. The farmers retain around 24% for family consumption and sell the remain-ing 76%. The average consumption of banana per capita per day is estimated at 300 gm in banana-grower families and 60 gm by the rest of the popula-tion. The consumption of cooking banana in urban households has increased at a rate of 20% per year between 1995 and 2003. The income elasticity of demand for banana is positive (0.75) and high. In the total staple food basket of an average Kenyan (maize, wheat, rice and cooking banana), cooking banana accounts for as much as 11.4%. The demand for banana is price elastic.

Currently, two estimates of the marketed surplus-output (MS-O) ratio for banana in Kenya are avail-able. The MS-O ratio for banana in Kenya is 76%3, thereby indicating that 24% of the banana output is retained by the farmers for family consumption4. According to the Tegemeo Institute Working Paper, the marketed surplus is only 44% of the banana out-

put. This appears to be an underestimation of the MS-O ratio. We have used both the MS-O ratios to estimate per capita consumption among banana-growing families. Considering that the MS-O ratio is 0.76, the marketed surplus of banana is estimated at 790,000 tonnes. The remaining 250,000 tonnes are retained by banana growers for their own fam-ily consumption. Accordingly, the per grower family consumption of banana per year is estimated as 643 kg (assuming that there are 388,920 banana grower families). This estimate implies that banana-growing families consume 1.76 kg bananas per day per fam-ily and 0.3 kg per day per capita (assuming an av-erage family size of 6 members) (Table 1.3). These estimates are plausible and consistent with overall availability and consumption of banana in Kenya.

The marketing system is not only complex but also inefficient (Figure 1.1). In banana marketing, trans-portation is a major cost because it is a bulk com-modity and requires careful handling owing to its perishability (Table 1.4).

The price-spread analysis of banana marketing in Kenya has revealed that the price received by the farmer for his crop is only 36% of the price paid by the consumer. The margin that goes to assemblers,

Table 1.1. Banana: area, production and yield in Kenya (1992−2004)

Year Area (ha) Production(tonnes)

Yield (tonnes per ha)

1992 76,917 985,982 12.81993 79,591 817,508 10.31994 49,575 489,537 9.91995 44,434 445,733 10.01996 45,269 500,627 11.11997 75,131 1,0575,86 14.11998 75,502 1,128,297 14.91999 75,286 1,097,673 14.62000 74,308 1,027,768 13.82001 77,576 1,084,312 14.02002 78,154 1,073,001 13.72003 79,598 1,019,377 12.82004 81,673 1,036,138 12.7

Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Communication dated 14th November 2005 to Africa Harvest (last column computed by authors).

Table 1.2. Structure of banana farming in Kenya

Particulars Small farms Medium farms Large farms Total/OverallRange of banana holding (ha) Less than 0.2 0.2 to 0.5 More than 0.5 –

Average holding (ha) 0.12 0.45 1.98 0.21Share in farm numbers (%) 79.60 18.60 1.80 100.00

Number of banana farms (No.) 309,580 72,340 7,000 388,920Banana area (ha) 37,200 32,595 13,878 83,673

Share in banana area (%) 44.5 39.0 16.5 100.0

3. Qaim, 1999

4. The other estimate is given by Tschirley, Muendo and Weber, 2004


5

wholesalers and retailers together is 24% of the con-sumer price. This implies that 40% is the real cost of marketing (this figure includes 11% physical losses during the marketing chain and 5.4% cost incurred by the farmer in marketing the produce). The real challenge of the entire system is to reduce both the “profit” margins of intermediaries, trim the real cost

of the various marketing functions and “tilt” more benefits to farmers. To achieve this, it would be im-portant to train farmers on how to produce high quality bananas and organize them into marketing groups. Such initiatives have been pioneered by Africa Harvest and represent new thinking in resolv-ing the banana marketing challenge in Kenya.

Credit is essential to improve crop productivity, but 59% of the farmers do not borrow from any agency. A positive feature of Kenya’s credit delivery system is that 90% of the farmers requiring credit could bor-row from one or the other source. Out of 41% of the farmers who took credit, as many as 58.6% borrowed from cooperative banks, 15.2% from parastatals, 13% from traders/input dealers and 12% from relatives or friends. Thus, 75% of the borrowing farmers depended on institutional sources of credit. Owing to the high establishment costs of TC banana plantations, an ef-ficient credit delivery system will be quite critical for up-scaling the TC banana industry in Kenya.

Table 1.3. Marketed surplus and per capita consumption of banana in Kenya

Particulars MS-O ratio (0.44) MS-O ratio (0.76) Total production (000’ tonnes) 1,040 1,040Marketed surplus (000’ tonnes) 458 790Family consumption by banana growers (000’ tonnes) 582 250Per family consumption by banana-growing families (A) if 255,230 families (kg) 2,280 979 (B) if 388,920 families (kg) 1,496 643Per family per day consumption by banana-growing families A (kg) 6.2 2.68 B (kg) 4.1 1.76Per capita per day consumption by banana-growing families A (kg) 1.0 0.4 B (kg) 0.7 0.3

MS-O Ratio = Marketed Surplus–Output Ratio

Table 1.4. Some items of marketing costs of banana (Ksh per bunch)

Items of costs Kisii/Nyeri to Wakulima

Uganda Mbale to Wakulima

Assembling and load-ing at source

2.70 1.00

Transport cost 36.60 25.00Custom fees – 10.00Council fees 7.50 3.50Offering cost at Wakulima

0.60 0.60

Total 47.40 40.10Source: Tschirley, Muendo and Weber (2004)

Figure 1.1. Marketing channels for banana in Kenya.

Farms and assembly markets of Uganda

Rural retailers

Rural consumers

Open-air retail markets

Kiosks/Middleclass green grocers

Urban consumers

High-end green grocers Super markets Hotels, hospitals,

army & schools

Small-scale farmers

Rural assembling markets

Urban wholesale markets

Large-scale farmers



During the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the banana industry in Kenya faced several challenges that re-duced yields, led to widespread loss of banana or-chards and lack of expansion in banana cultivation area. The main hindrance throughout these decades was the lack of healthy planting material5. The con-ventional method of generating planting materials through suckers led to further spread of diseases and pests, and did not allow large scale expansion of area under banana cultivation. The decline in the produc-tion resulted in a steep rise in banana prices, taking the fruit out of reach of common households, and opening import markets for banana from Uganda and Tanzania. There was a reported public outcry on the state of the banana industry in the late 1980s.

Again in the mid 1990s, as already mentioned, the banana industry in Kenya received a major setback and the acreage under cultivation declined sharply from an average of 78,254 hectares during 1992–1993 to 46,426 hectares during 1996. This sharp decline by 41% within a span of 2 years was attrib-uted mainly to: (a) high incidence of pests (banana weevils and nemotodes) and diseases like banana leaf spot (black and yellow sigatoka), and fusarium wilt (Panama disease); (b) traditional practice of us-ing untreated suckers as planting material; and (c) non-availability of disease-free and healthy planting material. The incidence of pests and diseases, poor agronomic and plant husbandry practices, and little or no use of manures and fertilizers made banana cultivation a losing proposition for the farmers. It is in this context that TC banana technology came as a boon for the farmers of Kenya. The initiative to produce TC banana plantlets and supply these to farmers helped in the recovery of the area under banana cultivation in the country. Not only did the acreage go up, the yield too improved, and the re-source-poor, tiny and small-scale farmers improved their income and food security levels.

Superiority of TC banana

Based on the limited information available, Africa Harvest estimates that the current capacity of TC plantlet production in Kenya is 753,000 per year (Table 1.5). Up to the end of 2004, it was estimated that 4.45 million TC plantlets were produced and distributed in Kenya. Taking these estimates further, it is reasonable to assume that during 2005 and 2006, an additional 1.506 million TC banana plant-lets were planted by the farmers. Thus, at the end of 2006, Kenya had around 5.96 million TC banana plants.

5. Kahangi, 1996

Table 1.5. Production and distribution of TC banana plantlets in Kenya

Nurseries/ Organizations

Number of years

Plantlets per year (average)

Total plantlets sup-plied up to 2004

Estimated supply during 2005 and

2006

Cumulative at the end of 2006

JKUAT 8 150,000 1,200,000 300,000 1,500,000GTL 6 500,000 3,000,000 1,000,000 4,000,000KARI Centers – 8,000 34,000 16,000 50,000ATL 4 80,000 165,000 160,000 325,000Others – 15,000 50,000 30,000 80,000Total – 753,000 4,449,100 1,506,000 5,955,000

Source: BTA (2000), Mbogo (2004) and author’s assessment.

Banana harvest; a farmer prepares the banana fruit for transport to the market


7

In the context of banana production in Kenya, TC banana plantlets and associated technology has come as a boon to the banana growers of Kenya. TC banana technology is not just the new planting material but a complete package, indicating a shift from low input−low output banana production to a highly profitable and remunerative production para-digm. TC banana plants grow faster, are free from pests and diseases, are uniform, produce fruits early, and the second crop also matures earlier than sucker plantations.

With the initiatives of KARI, JKUAT and Africa Har-vest, the production of TC plantlets has grown up to 753,000 per year. Four major initiatives that helped the growth of TC banana in Kenya are KARI−ISAAA project on biotechnology to benefit small-scale ba-nana producers; Biotechnology Trust Africa (BTA)–JKUAT initiative on TC banana plantlet production and diffusion of technology; Africa Harvest–Tech-noServe Project on developing pro-poor TC banana industry in Kenya; and Africa Harvest–DuPont Chu-ra Tissue Cultural Banana Project.

At the end of 2006, Kenya had around 5.96 mil-lion TC banana plants, occupying 5.22% of the total banana cultivation area of 82,000 hectares in the country. This trend is likely to continue in the fu-ture. The average yield of TC banana at 12.85 tonnes per acre is 2.2 times the average yield of non-TC ba-nana plantations. Though the establishment cost of TC banana plantation is considerably higher than

Tissue culture banana plantlets ready for sale at a hardening nursery in Muranga, Kenya

Table 1.6. Comparative costs and returns from non-TC banana and TC banana plantations (1998)(Ksh per acre)

Particulars Small-scale (0.37)

Medium-scale (0.41)

Large-scale (0.22)

Weighted average (1.00)

(A) Non-TC banana Establishment cost (Ksh) 8,596 10,262 15,059 10,786Recurring annual costs (Ksh) 4,791 5,839 7,990 5,924Cost annuity (Ksh) 5,996 7,248 9,992 7,388Average yield (tonnes/ha) 4.35 5.62 7.57 5.58*Income annuity (Ksh) 23,774 29,312 38,002 29,174Net income per year (Ksh) 17,778 22,064 28,010 21,786Return per labor day (Ksh) 929 904 858 903Unit cost (Ksh per tonne) 1,313 1292 1,357 1,314(B) TC banana Establishment cost (Ksh) 44,439 46,309 50,335 46,503Recurring annual costs (Ksh) 8,049 9,777 12,665 9,773Cost annuity (Ksh) 13,815 15,774 19,159 15,794Average yield (tonnes/ha) 10.89 13.03 1,4.61 12.59*Income annuity (Ksh) 60,853 71,744 78,388 69,176Net income per year (Ksh) 47,038 55,970 59,229 53,382Return per labor day (Ksh) 1,251 1,271 1,211 1,250Unit cost (Ksh per tonne) 1,206 1,175 1,280 1,210

Source: Qaim (1999), Tables 8–10, pp. 16–17.

that of non-TC banana plantation, the net income from TC banana is 145% higher than that of non-TC banana. It is clearly evident that from all angles—yield, cash income, net income, labor income and unit cost of pro-duction—TC banana technology is superior to non-TC technology. The profitability of TC banana plantation is also higher than most of the competing crops (See Tables 1.6, 1.7 and 1.8).



Table 1.7. Costs and returns for TC banana plantation under an alternative price scenario(Ksh per acre)

Particulars

Scenario 1 [as given by Mbogoh et. al. (2004)] Scenario (our calculations)

First year Subsequent year up to 5th year First year Subsequent year up

to 5th yearEstablishment cost (Ksh) 66,200 – 66,200 –Annual operational cost (Ksh) 31,900 31,900 31,900 31,900Total cost (Ksh) 98,100 31,900 98,100 31,900Yield (tonnes) 10.78 23.76 11.48 15.03Price per tonne (Ksh) 14,205 14,205 11,000 11,000Gross income (Ksh) 153,130 337,510 126,280 165,330Net income to the farmer (Ksh) 55,030 305,610 28,180 133,430Net income to the farmer for his labor input (Ksh)

135,130 325,710 108,280 153,530

Table 1.8. Costs and returns from alternative crops in Kenya(Ksh per acre)

Crop Cost Return Net returnCabbage 49,800 200 bags × 1000 = 200,000 150,200Tomato 39,760 8 tonnes × 15,000 = 120,000 80,240Kale 35,220 150 bags × 400 = 60,000 24,800Spinach 37,800 200 bags × 400 = 80,000 42,200Irish Potato 61,960 70 bags × 1000 = 70,000 8,040Beans 20,800 8 bags × 3000 = 24,000 3,200Maize 30,000 25 bags × 1200 =30,000 –Lettuce 40,770 300 bags × 400 =120,000 79,230Cauliflower 36,660 150 bags × 2250 = 337,500 300,840

Source: Mbogoh et. al. (2004)

Africa Harvest Chairman, Dr. Kanayo Nwanze (holding TC banana plantlets) explains to Gisele D’Almeida, an Africa Harvest Director, why TC banana are superior to non-TC ones during a visit to a lab


9

The package Africa Harvest has adopted a ‘whole value chain’ ap-proach in its TC banana projects. The implementa-tion of this approach is split into five stages: (a) awareness creation, (b) seedling availability and affordability, (c) production and orchard management, (d) post-harvest handling and treatment, and (e) marketing and consumer acceptance.

The ‘whole value chain’ development involved: (a) transferring TC banana technology from South

Africa (using both public and private sectors) to Kenya;

(b) producing and making available TC plantlets in Kenya to meet expanding demand;

(c) enhancing affordability by developing a micro-finance revolving fund scheme;

(d) creating a system for distribution of TC plantlets; (e) training for orchard management and provision

of extension services; (f) training on post-harvest management and

handling; (g) developing a marketing system in line with con-

sumer preferences; and (h) empowering farmers through promotion of ba-

nana growers’ associations.

Economic and social impact of TC banana projects of Africa Harvest

The Africa Harvest initiatives and projects concen-trated on producing disease-free planting material; technology transfer to farmers; arranging for supply of needed inputs for adoption of TC banana technol-ogy; farmer training in agronomic and post-harvest management practices and evolving an efficient and farmer-friendly system of disposal of marketed surplus of TC banana products. Through its two projects, Africa Harvest reorganized five old farm-er groups and started new groups in Maragua (13) and Kandara (28) and Chura (145). It mobilized and trained 8,000 farmers and persuaded them to plant 533,000 TC banana plantlets on their farms. The trained groups established seven satellite nurser-ies. Demonstration plots of TC banana were started on 163 fields, and a large number of farmers were made aware of the benefits of planting TC banana and how to care for the orchards. The farmers were also trained in post-harvest management of bunch-es and marketing. At least 140 farmer-trainers were equipped with skills to advise and support other farmers. To support marketing activities, two mod-els were created: first, a marketing company with farmers as shareholders—Tissue Culture Banana Enterprises Limited (TCBEL)—was set up; second, farmers were organized into marketing groups by setting up collection centers and establishing tie-ups with potential buyers and traders, based on the TechnoServe model. In addition, Africa Harvest

Esther Gachugu, an early TC banana adopter, receiving agronomic advice from Wangari Kiragu, Africa Harvest



established networks of farmers groups with other development partners, including public and private sector organizations. It also used the mass media to widely communicate the advantages of TC banana farming as demonstrated in selected project areas. The entire package of initiatives reveals considerable economic and social impact at the household, com-munity and macro levels.

Economic impactBanana occupies a distinctive place in Kenya’s na-tional as well as household economy. It occupies only 7.44% of the gross cropped area, but its share in total fruit area of Kenya is quite substantial at 55%. Nutritionally, banana is superior to many oth-er fruits. In several provinces of Kenya, a large pro-portion of the farmers grow and consume bananas as one of the staple foods. Nearly 83.5% of the total banana output comes from small-scale farmers owning up to 0.5 hectares of land. Banana-growing families consume, on an average, 300 gm banana per capita per day as against 60 gm by rest of the population. Apart from its nutritional values, banana is a reliable and regular source of cash income to around 300,000 rural families. Therefore, the importance of this crop in tackling the problems of poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition in Kenya is immense and does not need further justification.

To highlight the economic gains:(i) TC banana helped the banana industry in re-

covering from the setback it faced during the mid-1990s. The area under banana cultiva-tion that had gone down to 46,426 hectares by 1996, but went up to 79,808 hectares by 2004 and was predicted to increase to around 82,000 hectares during 2006. It is not that all this additional area came under TC banana but the entire campaign of TC banana through the four major initiatives, provided a ray of hope for the banana growers. Increase in banana cultivation areas to the magnitude of 35,574 hectares (82,000 minus 46,426) within 10 years resulted in an additional net income of Ksh 5508 million accruing to 300,000 banana growers.

(ii) The direct economic impact of TC banana can be assessed by the area under TC ba-nana, which is estimated at 4288 hectares

(5.22% of total banana area), and difference in the net income accruing to TC and non-TC banana growers (Ksh 224,526 per hec-tare). Thus, TC banana growers earned an additional income of around Ksh 963 million (by adopting TC banana in place of non-TC banana).

(iii) Thus, the direct and indirect economic impact of TC banana program in terms of earnings can be placed at Ksh 6471 million.

(iv) The additional income from TC banana has increased access to food for small-scale farm families, which has considerably helped in im-proving the food security, nutritional levels and economic status of the rural poor in Kenya.

(v) Further, banana has provided cash income se-curity to the poor farmers because it provides

almost continuous in-come flow throughout the year, even under low input regimes. This apart, banana suckers and leaves are used as animal feed, especially during the dry seasons when no other source of fodder is available. (vi) Apart from the additional income that accrued to TC banana-growing families, intro-duction of TC banana and consequent revival of the banana economy had a multiplier eco-

nomic impact on the rest of Kenya’s econo-my by providing employment and economic/business opportunities to village assemblers, wholesalers, urban retailers, transporters, laborers in wholesale markets, manufacturers of packaging materials and agricultural labor households.

(vii) Increased production of banana also positive-ly impacted consumers by way of lower real prices.

(viii) The overall economic impact of TC banana has been that all sections of Kenya’s popu-lation have been benefited and the economic benefits derived by small-scale resource poor farmers have been substantially more than the benefits accruing to other sections.

Social impactThe social impact of the TC banana project has also been substantial. At the household level:(i) A TC banana plantation is an important ad-

ditional asset for the family.

Victoria Ndirangu, Africa Harvest, teaching farm management to a banana farmers group in Maragua district.


11

(ii) Increase in banana production at the farm level has increased food security.

(iii) Generally, families who had adopted TC ba-nanas do not require food assistance during periods of food scarcity or prolonged drought.

(iv) Malnutrition among members of the house-hold has also reduced owing to the additional income leading to dietary diversity. (Purchase of other foods is an important use of the in-come generated.)

(v) The adoption of TC banana has led to the economic empowerment of women because generally income from banana is controlled by women.

(vi) More cash income has allowed the household to improve other quality of life indicators by way of payment of secondary school fees for the children, improved housing, and diversifi-cation of income.

(vii) Decision-making and dynamics within the fam-ily have changed with the increased income.

(viii) While monetization of bananas could have the effect of lowering household consump-tion, selling by grade always results in some bananas not being purchased. Thus, there are is no evidence of decreased household consumption. In fact, the indications are that increased banana production has led to increased consumption at the household level.

At the community level:(i) The formation of cohesive farmer groups has

empowered the groups to address not only ag-ronomic issues and concerns but community concerns also.

(ii) It has provided an entry point for other devel-opment activities.

(iii) The farmer groups have also been effective in addressing anti-social behavior within the community.

(iv) The requirement of the group’s support to ac-cess to credit has increased the member’s ac-countability to the community.

(v) The ‘collective voice’ for community improve-ment has always been important and the for-mation of groups has influenced the commu-nity development fund expenditure.

Gender dimensions of impact• Improved banana production is contributing to

household welfare, especially of women and children because average access and control of income from banana sales showed higher con-trol by women.

• Projected additional income to the family after adoption of TC banana cultivation reflects an in-crease in disposable income for the family.

• A substantial proportion of the income from sale of bananas goes toward purchase of other food items by women.

Victoria Ndirangu, Africa Harvest, demonstrating planting of TC banana plantlets to farmers in Chura Village, Kiambu district.



• Banana has improved the nutrition value of household diets and thereby improved general health and productivity of the households, and this includes women and girls.

• Many households have been able to raise school fees from the sales of bananas, increasing the possibility of educating the girl-child.

• Families have been able to construct good houses from the sale of bananas. Often, given the control that women have over banana incomes, home improvements will start with a modern kitchen, benefiting the entire family.

• Families have acquired assets from sale of banan-as, e.g. mobile phones, bicycles and consumer durables for the family. This further improved the quality of life for the women, children and entire family.

• The overall membership of men to women in TC banana project groups is approximately in the ratio of 1:1. However, when marketing is the major emphasis there is an increase in male participation and control over banana

production (70 M/30 F) at the expense of women.

Technical impact Apart from economic and social impact, TC banana technology has also shown some technical impacts:(i) The availability of large quantities of clean and

superior planting material has enabled farmers participating in the project to reclaim their old banana orchards.

(ii) TC banana technology has resulted in substan-tial reduction in losses from pests and diseases.

(iii) Additional productivity per unit of time ac-crued owing to the early fruiting and maturing period of TC banana when compared with that for the traditional banana.

(iv) Bigger bunch weights of TC banana, compared with that of traditional banana also added to the productivity of land.

(v) TC banana production results in easy coordi-nation of marketing due to more uniform and simultaneous production of large quantities of bananas.


13

The ‘whole value chain’ strategy developed and per-fected by Africa Harvest has led to a model for intro-ducing new technologies for resource-poor small-scale farmers. The ‘whole value chain’ model links entrepre-neurs and companies operating throughout the value chain, from the provision of seeds (plantlets) to the production in farmers’ fields and all the way to the final marketing when consumers purchase a finished prod-uct. The TC banana project methodology can also be adapted and applied to other vegetatively propagated crops, such as pineapple and cassava.

Africa Harvest’s staff have gained experience from previous engagements in public sector agricultural research institutions, large multinational corpora-tions and local private sector companies. Based on these experiences, Africa Harvest has critical in-sights on how to manage private/public sector re-lationships. This is in ensuring availability of quality or improved germplasm and seeds for agricultural production in order to stimulate growth for rural community development. The expertise and experi-ence that has been gained by the staff while working in these projects, is important in ensuring success in the implementation of projects and programs that are linked to the markets.

Africa Harvest has been a strong advocate for crea-tive partnerships with NGOs, local and international private sector organizations working to facilitate the acceptance of new technologies and building African human capacity and infrastructure. The TC banana initiatives of Africa Harvest have:

(a) Strengthened the capacities of farmer organiza-tions to participate more actively in the genera-tion and dissemination of agricultural technolo-gies, in particular, through more proactive part-nering with the research and extension systems; on-farm experiences have identified additional research questions that need to be answered.

(b) Improved the efficiency, accountability, and sus-tainability of the national agricultural technol-ogy generation and advisory systems, including strengthening their linkages with regional and international institutions; the banana project implementation has formed partnerships and linkages with national, regional and internation-al institutions.

(c) Promoted the development of efficient market chains for the delivery of agricultural technolo-gies and inputs.

(d) Strengthened the capacity of government to deliver extension functions through capacity building and support.

(e) Supported the development, at the regional level, of effective organizations (networks) of produc-ers/technology users, research institutions, tech-nology suppliers and policy makers, to facilitate efficient technology transfer across countries; the plan for a virus indexing facility will greatly enhance TC banana scale up and out.

Africa Harvest’s TC Banana Program has been iden-tified by the New Partnership for Africa’s Develop-ment (NEPAD) as one of the model projects that

Institutional capacity of Africa Harvest

Africa Harvest CEO Dr Florence Wambugu (second left) with Dr Paul Schickler, Vice President, DuPont (left) touring a TC banana plantation in Chura Village, Kiambu district



need to be scaled up regionally. NEPAD plans to un-dertake this upscale through its Comprehensive Af-rica Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP) implemented by the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) as one FARA’s Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa (DONATA) projects. Other DONATA projects include the New Rice for Africa (NERICA) and cassava projects. Africa Harvest has been selected as the lead organization to help facilitate dissemination of TC banana tech-nology in Africa.

Africa Harvest is also providing technical support to INTERFACE (an NGO with a mission to improve competitiveness of African agribusiness enterprises in 14 West African countries). Africa Harvest’s con-tribution is to demonstrate the benefits of TC ba-nana farming in Senegal and the Sahel region. Africa Harvest is also partnering with other organizations in an East African Regional Virus Indexing Project.

Africa Harvest’s ‘whole value chain’ im-plementation strategy The ‘whole value chain’ approach developed by Af-rica Harvest has been quite effective in several ways, some of which are enumerated here. (i) The value chain has been very effective in aware-

ness creation as reflected in the following: Through Farmers Field Schools (FFS) the • farmers were trained in land preparation methods, the correct way of planting TC Bananas, weeding, de-suckering, harvesting and post-harvest handling techniques. They were involved in the project planning • and were aware of the project period. They were also involved in the regular moni-• toring and evaluation of the project. Through exchange visits and market visits, • farmers were made aware of the markets for their products. Packaging of information in the form of guide-• lines to farmers and brochures on uses of ba-nanas has helped the value chain approach in empowering farmers through information on production, marketing and processing.

Figure 1.2: Effectiveness of ‘whole value chain’ approach

(ii) The value chain has also been effective in group formation and management. This has been done through:

Working with already formed groups and • using the groups to replicate their activities in the neighboring regions, i.e. the demon-stration effect. Capacity building of groups by helping them • to draw up constitutions, call for regular meetings and training them on group dy-namics. This has enhanced cohesion and management of the groups. Groups have also been trained to form • committees among themselves, includ-ing marketing, production, processing and dispute-resolution committees, which have strengthened the value chain.

(iii) The value chain has been quite successful in helping farmers acquire planting materials.

The planting materials have been sourced • from private laboratories like GTL and ATL, and from public institutions like JKUAT, KA-RI-Thika and KARI-Kakamega. The private laboratories (GTL and ATL) have • the capacity to produce large quantities of planting materials as compared with the public institutions.

(iv) The value chain could achieve only limited suc-cess in ensuring affordability of the planting materials, except subsidizing the purchase of plantlets. However, there have been concerted efforts aimed at reducing the cost by:

Setting up of hardening nurseries in the pro-• duction areas to reduce the cost of trans-porting an already hardened plant as it is normally bulky and expensive to transport. Consulting the producers on possible ways • of reducing the cost per plantlet. Working with micro-credit institutions so • that the farmers can get loans in kind and repay from the proceeds of the crop.

(v) The value chain has addressed private producer’s issues in that now there is at least one private TC banana production unit in Kenya—GTL.

Awareness crea-tion & baseline surveys

Seedling availability & affordability

Growing & orchard management

Post-Harvest handling & treatment

Marketing & consumer acceptance


15

(vi) The value chain has addressed the issue of com-munity nurseries by:

Training nursery operators in the project • areas. Entrepreneurs who were willing to invest • were appraised, evaluated and trained by KARI scientists on establishment and man-agement of nurseries. Those who have been trained are to be used as Training of Trainers (TOT) agents to train others at the commu-nity level.

(vii) The value chain has not been successful in se-curing subsidies for farmers because there is no banana policy in place. However there is a stake-holders’ process of preparing a policy paper that would suggest to the government to consider offering subsidies to banana farmers and on the inputs so as to reduce the cost of plantlets to the farmers.

(viii) The value chain has been successful in dealing with the micro-credit component in the banana project, where micro-finance institutions like K-Rep Bank have been partners in implementing the project.

(ix) Training on good agronomic practices from planting to harvesting is an area where the value chain has been very successful.

(x) The value chain adequately addressed post-har-vest handling issues. Farmers have been trained on banana handling after harvesting to ensure that they remain clean.

(xi) The value chain has addressed the marketing is-sue effectively as is evident from the following:

Banana farmers have been linked to the • Highridge Banana Growers and Marketing Association (HBGMA). The farmers have also been linked to Kenya • Gatsby Trust (KGT), which does market re-search and informs the farmers on the pric-ing and market trends. KGT also helps to negotiate with buyers on • behalf of farmers and facilitate signing of contracts. A farmers shareholding company (TCBEL) • has been established. Marketing and collection centers have been • created.

As has been discussed above, owing to the adoption of the ‘whole value chain’ approach in the project in-tervention areas of Africa Harvest, the demand for TC banana plantlets has been increasing rapidly. The ap-proach is very appropriate and its effectiveness has been amply demonstrated by the output and out-come of the projects implemented by Africa Harvest. TC bananas yield better quality and quantity fruit than traditional

varieties



The ‘whole value chain’ approach requires consider-able institutional and physical infrastructure, in the absence of which the rate of adoption of TC banana and replacement of traditional/non-TC banana can-not be accelerated. The efforts to upscale the TC ba-nana movement will need all the components of the approach to be in place for achieving desired levels of success.

Up-scaling the adoption of TC bananasBased on the implementation experience and achievements in the two provinces, there are sev-eral issues that emerge, which need to be considered while planning for a nationwide up-scaling of the TC banana program. Some of these are discussed here.

LENGTH OF THE PROJECT CyCLE(i) The short project cycle of 3 years did not allow

enough time for group formation, technology transfer, sustained change in agronomic prac-tices and follow-up. It resulted in the following:

Many groups (21–25%) could not mature • into strong cohesive groups. Some farmers who joined the groups later • in the project cycle could get only limited experience with the management of their orchards. Farmer trainers also could get only limited • experience in helping other farmers and identifying problems or in training new groups because of the short time span after their training till the completion of the cur-rent project.

SUSTAINABILITy(i) Sustainability components that were built into

the project include capacity building of Minis-try of Agriculture extension staff; developing groups through a comprehensive group forma-tion and training process (time-consuming but recognized as key to long-term sustainability of gains made during the project); training farmers to act as farmer-trainers; establishment of hard-ening nurseries; linkage with supply sources; development of entrepreneurial skills among the nursery managers; and formation of partnerships with other agencies. In addition, the access to market has been a fundamental component of the sustainability strategy. All these dimensions need to be built into the up-scaling program.

SUBSIDIES(iii) Subsidies to resource-poor farmers were impor-

tant to allow them to purchase the improved TC banana plantlets. The revolving fund and the savings plan that each group has established has been an important avenue for farmers to access a loan either from the group or from K-

REP. Keeping in view the high cost of TC banana plantation cultivation, provision for a revolving fund or access to credit facilities should be an essential component of up-scaling efforts.

RESEARCH(iv) In the initial project (Rockefeller/IDRC), ripen-

ing abnormalities were observed in TC banana harvests from a farm in Bahati Maragua in 1998. KARI investigated these abnormalities and found that there was a very severe deficiency of potassium (K) in the soil. Banana is an impor-tant source of potassium and it is an important element in banana nutrition. Field observations in the project area and subsequent soil analysis indicated that potassium deficiency in the soil is a significant constraint for some farmers. How-ever, the magnitude of the problem is unknown. As TC bananas are a high-yielding variety, soil fertility over the life of the plantation is quite important and a complete mapping—of potas-sium availability in the soil—should be under-taken before introducing TC banana in any new area.

(v) KARI has set up several demonstration plots of TC banana in various regions of the coun-try. While first-harvest information is available, there are no reports of ongoing longitudinal analysis of the impact of TC banana introduc-tion at the demonstration sites over the life of the plantation. There is a need for long-term re-search on the different varieties of TC bananas in the different agro-ecological zones, including on soil fertility status.

(vi) Farmers adopt TC agronomic practices to various degrees. Therefore, a program of on-farm research on TC banana plantations adopting different farm practices should be launched, which would pro-vide valuable information for project implement-ers and for extension service personnel.

INCREASED TC vARIETALS(vii) As identified in the baseline survey, cooking va-

rieties are desired by many farmers in both Cen-tral and Eastern provinces. Cooking varieties are recognized as an important part of the dietary intake in western Kenya. Currently, commer-cial laboratories carry the traditional Cavendish dessert types of bananas. Both KARI and JKUAT have indicated that they have produced some TC cooking varieties either for evaluation or on a special request. Cooking varieties that are certi-fied as disease-free are not available in commer-cial quantities in Kenya. TC cooking varieties of bananas are available in Uganda, but the lack of a virus-indexing facility in the East African re-gion makes it unwise to import TC bananas from the region. Africa Harvest sourced cooking va-


17

rieties from the International Plant Genetic Re-sources Institute–International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain (IPGRI-INBAP) gene bank in Lenven, Belgium, through the High Veldt TC Laboratory in South Africa. It has taken time to develop these varieties and produce the plantlets in large numbers. The lack of a virus-indexing facility in the East African region is a constraint to scaling-up and scaling-out of TC banana technology.

REGULATIONS, STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES(viii)Strict quality control standards and quality as-

surance management is essential to limit the somachromal variations that can occur in TC. The commercially acceptable level is less than 2%. For farmers, obtaining mutant planting ma-terial is a significant financial loss even if the planting material is replaced. There is a need for putting in place regulations, standards, guide-lines and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that TC laboratories producing plantlets for sale meet the commercially acceptable standard of less than 2% somachromal variation (mutants).

GENDER ISSUES IN PROGRAM PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION(ix) The respondents in baseline surveys reported

that bananas were an important income source for women. In Maragua, women controlled the income from bananas in 89% of the households and jointly controlled it in 5% of the households.

In Meru, they controlled the income in 57% of the households and jointly controlled it in 32%. As banana moves from the ‘subsistence’ crop category to the commercial one, it is essential to consider the gender dynamics. In the initial groups established to promote and support the introduction of bananas among small farmers, 56% of the members were women. However, in the project implemented with TechnoServe that had a marketing promotional thrust, only 30% of the members in the new groups were women. Reports indicate that in some instances where marketing is done through the group, even though the woman is the member of the group, a male member from her family has ap-proached the treasurer for the money accruing from the sale of bananas. Since men and women often have different priorities when it comes to spending, erosion of income for women from a traditional important source may have a nega-tive effect on the family’s standard of living.

In the peri-urban project in Chura implement-ed by Africa Harvest, 66% of the farmers were women.

(x) In the TechnoServe project, only 4 of the 26 farmers who were trained as farmer trainers were women. In the peri-urban project implemented by Africa Harvest, 47 out of the 105 farmers trained were women. Though it is true that male farmers may have more disposable time, it is im-portant to monitor the impact of male farmer

A broker grading and negotiating fruit prices with a small scale banana farmer



trainers on women farmers. Again, when oppor-tunities arose for farmer-to-farmer exchange and to attend field days, less than 25% of those who attended were women in Managua, Kandara and Meru. In fact, for the farmer-to-farmer exchang-es for the Kandara farmers, 100% of the partici-pants were male. Of the nurseries that were set up, women farmers set up 50% and male farm-ers the other 50%. Of the 20 demonstrations supported by FarmChem with Pioneer Hybrid Maize, only three were conducted by women farmers, while the remaining were conducted by male farmers. Of the 106 maize demonstrations in Chura, women farmers conducted 58.

Gender issues in program planning and implemen-tation will need to be carefully considered to en-sure wider impact on food security and poverty al-leviation at the household level. In scaling-up and scaling-out of the program, it will be important to devise strategies that empower women, and miti-gate against loss of an important income source. There may be a need to provide additional support for women (who have family responsibilities) to fully participate in learning opportunities.

AvAILABILITy OF CLEAN TC PLANTING MATERIAL(xi) Availability of timely, pest- and disease-free TC

banana planting material is an ongoing issue. It was noted by farmers in the baseline study that the demand is greater than the supply. Farmers in Meru had paid one of the labs an ad-vance for TC plantlets, but were put on a wait-ing list. Africa Harvest, in the first year of the Chura project, had placed an order for 40,000 plantlets (with Kenyan suppliers) but only 6,000 were procured. Both private and public laboratories are important sources of planting material but cannot meet the demand. KARI produces limited numbers of TC plantlets, as do

two private laboratories. GTL has a laboratory in Nairobi, while ATL imports certified, disease-free plantlets from South Africa. In scaling-up and scaling-out, there is an increased need for expanding the ability to produce TC plantlets. There is also a need to produce TC banana va-rietals that farmers want to grow. These need to be produced by public or not-for-profit labo-ratories. An opportunity exists for the private sector to also upscale their production by intro-ducing new TC varietals. In this context, Africa Harvest should engage a TC laboratory to do the groundwork to be able to assist in the de-velopment of desired varietals, and to increase the supply of both cooking and dessert TC ba-nana plantlets.

POvERTy ALLEvIATION AND COMMUNITy COHESIvENESS (xii) On the one hand, Africa Harvest has been inclu-

sive in its promotion of TC banana as an impor-tant food security crop. It supports the adop-tion of TC bananas by households that do not have the means to pay for the planting material and that do not produce enough to be a supplier of bananas for a larger market. Africa Harvest builds cohesion in the group that has had the impact of assisting communities in becoming not only ‘development ready’ but in addressing community needs. It has used a strong com-munity development approach. TechnoServe, on the other hand, with its focus on marketing, has seen farmers groups only as marketing targets, and therefore, does not have multiple objec-tives. These two approaches may not be totally compatible; Africa Harvest’s approach ensures that all farmers have a “stake”, while the Tech-noServe approach focuses on groups that have marketable bananas, thereby marginalizes the very poor in the community.


19

Medium-term projections show the feasibility of increasing the area under banana plantations to 86,183 hectares by 2011, and 90,580 hectares by 2016. The targets for the increase in area un-der TC banana should be 12,927 hectares by 2011 and 36,232 hectares by 2016, which make up 15% and 40% of the total banana cultivation area in the country. The average yield of TC banana is projected to increase to 34.0 tonnes per hectare by 2011 and to 35.78 tonnes per hectare by 2016. As regards the

Projections of TC banana area and production

average yield of non-TC banana, it is expected to go up to 12.75 tonnes by 2011 and 13.40 tonnes per hectare by 2016. Considering these projections, the production of banana in the country is likely to be 1.37 million tonnes in 2011, of which around 32% will be contributed by TC banana. During 2016, the total banana production is anticipated to become 2.12 million tones, of which 64% will be contrib-uted by TC banana (See Table 1.9).

Table 1.9. Projections of TC Banana Area and Production for 2016

Particulars 2004 (actual)

2006 (anticipated)

2011 (projected)

2016 (projected)Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Area (hectares) Total 81,673 82,000 86,183 90,580 90,580TC 3,201 4,288 12,927 22,645 36,232Non-TC 78,472 77,712 73,256 67,935 54,348Percentage share of TC to non-TC 3.92 5.22 15.0 25.0 40.0Yield (tonnes per ha) Total 1,2.70 ND 15.94 19.00 22.35TC 31.75 ND 34.04 35.78 35.78Non-TC 11.90 ND 12.75 13.40 13.40Production (tonnes) Total 1,036,138 ND 1,374,049 1,720,567 2,024,644TC 101,632 ND 440,035 810,238 1,296,381Non-TC 934,506 ND 934,014 910,329 728,263Percentage share of TC 9.81 ND 32.0 47.1 64.0Compound growth rate (% per year from 2004)

– – 4.1 4.3 5.7

ND – Not Done Scenario 1: 25% of total banana area under TC banana Scenario 2: 40% of total banana area under TC banana

Small scale farmers receive TC banana plantlets at a distribution center in Chura village, Kiambu district



The cultivation area projections made in the preced-ing section will require a system to produce, harden and sell TC banana plantlets on a much larger scale. The area under TC banana is projected to increase from 4,288 hectares in 2006 to 12,927 hectares in 2011 and to 22,645 hectares and 36,232 hectares during 2016 under Scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. These projections imply an additional TC banana area of 8,639 hectares by 2011 and a further addi-tion of 9,718 hectares (Scenario 1) or 23,305 hec-tares (Scenario 2) by 2016.

Considering an average planting density of 1500 plants per hectare, the demand for TC plantlets will be around 12.96 million plantlets up to 2011 or around 2.59 million plantlets per year. This is more than three times the current capacity of TC plantlet production in Kenya.

For Scenario 1 in 2016, the demand for plantlets would be even higher. The total demand for plant-lets as per area expansion between 2011 and 2016 under Scenario 1 will be 14.58 million or around 2.92 plantlets per year. Meeting this slightly high-er level of demand should not be a great challenge in view of the beneficial impact this will have on poor people. Besides, the infrastructure that will be created for meeting the demand for the period 2006 — 11 will be able to cater this additional demand. However, the demand for TC plantlets under Scenario 2 would be 34.96 million (23,305 × 1,500) plantlets for 5 years or around 7 million plantlets per year. It may be mentioned here that the demand for TC banana plantlets will be even more than that projected here because some of the existing TC banana plantations would need re-placement beyond 2011. The plantlet production and hardening facilities would need to be scaled-up considerably during the period 2011–2016 for realizing the projections under Scenario 2.

Demand for TC banana plantlets

Projections of TC banana growers

Major changes in land policies and redistribution of land are not expected during the next 10 years. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that average ba-nana holding size will remain the same as it is now. Our analysis in section 2.5 revealed an average ba-nana holding size of 0.21 hectares (315 plants). Us-ing this average, the number of TC banana growers, which was only around 20,419 during 2006, is likely to go up to 61,557 by 2011 and to 172,533 by 2016 (Scenario 2). Considering an average household size of six members, about 1.04 million rural people of Kenya would be benefited in case these projections are realized. Further, given the potential of TC ba-nana cultivation in lifting these households above the poverty line, transforming the lives of more than one million rural poor will be a great achievement for Kenya’s policy makers and development practition-ers. However, realizing the expansion of TC banana projected here, will need a solid package of efforts outlined in the subsequent sections.

Small scale farmers receiving delivery of banana plantlets from Africa Harvest

Farmers are expanding and converting their farms to grow more bananas


21

Recommendations Government of Kenya With a view to realizing the projections of banana production, considerable up-scaling of infrastruc-ture, both physical and institutional, will be needed. Apart from the infrastructure, the entire program will need to be taken up in a ‘mission mode’ approach for achieving the objectives in the shortest possible timeframe by dovetailing the activities of different relevant stakeholders. The main recommendations in this regard are as follows: (i) With the objective of lifting one million rural

poor out of the poverty trap, the Government of Kenya should constitute a Kenya Banana Mission (KBM) with a membership of (say) 10 members, to be headed by a renowned bio-technologist, preferably from outside the gov-ernment system. The KBM’s secretariat should be located in the Ministry of Agriculture, with a National Director as its Chief Executive Of-ficer. The Minister of Agriculture should be the patron of KBM.

(ii) KBM should constitute five task forces—Task Force on TC Banana Research, Task Force on Transfer of Technology of TC Banana, Task Force on Input Supply for TC Banana Technol-ogy Adoption, Task Force on Marketing Sys-tem for TC Banana, and Task Force on Policy for TC Banana.

(iii) TC plantlet production capacity should be in-creased to around 3 million per year between now and 2011, and to 7 million per year be-tween 2011 and 2016.

(iv) A separate unit for TC banana should be es-tablished at KARI.

(v) To take up banana production under a mis-sion mode approach: (a) TC banana should be included as an exclusive mandate of district and divisional level extension service staff of Ministry of Agriculture, with specified targets; (b) Africa Harvest should be encouraged, with necessary financial support, to establish a TC banana unit at the district level in important potential areas to enable Africa Harvest to upscale the TC banana industry in the coun-try; and (c) around 2000 farmer groups, with 50 members each, should be organized as TC Banana Growers Groups and be provided the necessary functional support for establishing demonstration plots, hardening nurseries, in-put stocking depots and revolving funds.

(vi) Around 200 TC banana hardening nurser-ies and 400 fertilizer and chemical depots should be established to be managed by farm-ers groups; and all the 2000 farmers’ groups should be provided with a revolving fund and

Africa Harvest consultants outside TCBEL offices in Chura, Kiambu district



be linked, through a savings bank, to either the cooperative or commercial bank.

(vii) Around 400 baseline marketing centers, 40 di-visional level marketing centers, and 8 district level centers for marketing TC banana should be established under either a cooperative or a company framework, and these should be organically linked to a terminal market-level institution. Each center should be provided with the necessary physical and institutional infrastructure, which could include platforms, weighting balances, storage space, pack hose, cold store, refrigerated vans and transport ve-hicles, apart form managerial services.

(viii) For up-scaling the plantation of TC banana, a subsidy of at least Ksh 50 per plantlet should be provided by the government at least for the next five years.

(ix) As the destruction of wilt-infected plants is in public interest, the government should subsi-dize the cost of the TC plantlet as a replace-ment of the infected plant and make it avail-able free of cost to the farmers.

(x) Investments need to be made in rural ap-proach/connecting roads, setting up of plant-let hardening nurseries, input supply depots, marketing/collection centers, and cold/refrig-erated stores to attract investors, including farmers, traders, transporters and cold chain operators, to this industry.

(xi) KBM should specify grade standards for TC and non-TC banana fruits and all parameters of grades should be widely publicized for sell-

ers to put labels of certification at the time of sale.

(xii) The credit policy should be made farmer friendly. The Central Bank of Kenya should issue guidelines to other banks about the maximum rate of interest that can be charged to farmers or farmers’ organizations. Further, credit should be liberally available to market functionaries involved in transport, storage and trade in bananas.

(xiii) Government should provide a transport sub-sidy of, say 50% of the transport cost, to ei-ther the nursery managers or farmers’ groups on the basis of actual numbers of plantlets transported.

(xiv) The Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS) is reportedly responsible for the in-spection of imported plantlets at the entry points and locally produced plantlets at the nurseries. It needs to scale-up its activities to TC banana for plantlet quality assurance and certification. Regulations, standards, guide-lines and enforcement mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that TC plantlets produced by public or private laboratories meet the acceptable standards of less than 2% somachromal variation (mutants). A virus-indexing facility should also be put in place in the country.

(xv) It is reported that banana is slowly replac-ing cassava as the second staple food (after maize) of Kenyans. While there is a policy of guaranteed price for maize-growing farm-

Banana fruit being packed for transport to be taken to market


23

ers, it is advisable to look for options to move to a regime of indirect price support for banana growers. The Task Force on Policy or KBM may look for options in this regard based on the experience of other developing countries.

(xvi) KHCDA should be actively involved in KBM to work out the guidelines for registration of plantlet producers and hardening nurseries.

(vii) The management of the fruit and vegetable markets, including that of banana, should under the Ministry of Agriculture.

(xviii) Kenya’s agricultural statistical system should recognize banana as a priority crop and pub-lish regular statistical information on this crop.

(xix) Another major policy decision that may be critical for up-scaling the TC banana industry in Kenya is to bring in Africa Harvest as the National Nodal Agency for Kenya (Tissue Cultural) Banana Mission.

(xx) While KBM shall function as a supervisory autonomous authority under the Ministry of Agriculture, a National Nodal Agency for implementation and coordination of various programs/components of KBM shall be neces-sary. Africa Harvest with its expertise and long experience can and should function as the Na-tional Nodal Agency for Banana Mission. Cur-rently, Africa Harvest has three highly skilled and experienced officers, who should be re-tained during the next phase of the program.

Africa Harvest (xxi) Africa Harvest should engage in policy

advocacy.

(xxii) Sustainability components should be built into all up-scaling programs. The up-scaling of the TC banana development programs re-quires replication of activities nationwide, and would call for considerable additional manpower.

(xxiii) The three field officers who were involved in Africa Harvest’s two TC projects during 2004–2006 should be included in the up-scaling program so that the program benefits from their experience.

(xxiv) At the Africa Harvest’s central office level, one project leader/director, along with sen-ior field officers (one for each province), five dedicated vehicles for field work and neces-sary secretarial support for management and documentation should be provided.

(xxv) At the provincial level, at least one Regional Coordinator for each province, infrastructure

for a provincial-level marketing centre and transport and other management support system would be needed.

(xxvi) At the district level, three field officers, mo-torcycles for each field staff, a model TC ba-nana orchard and other infrastructure would be quite critical and should be provided.

(xxvii) For scaling-up work at the divisional and lo-cation levels, transport and material support to the Ministry of Agriculture’s extension staff, along with technological backstopping by Africa Harvest/KARI/JKUAT should be ensured.

(xxviii) Apart from the manpower and infrastructur-al support, Africa Harvest would also need funds for training, subsidies, farmer field visits and several other activities connected with the implementation of the program.

(xxix) It should also have a TC laboratory and green house for production and hardening of TC banana plantlets. There is an expressed need for increased availability of clean cooking and dessert varieties.

(xxx) The project cycle for a crop like banana should not be less than five years.

(xxxi) All the components of a ‘whole value chain’, as successfully demonstrated in the earlier projects, should be built into the program.

(xxxii) A gender equity strategy is needed to ensure that women who have been growing banan-as gain access to the benefits of technology. Care must be taken to minimize the loss of income for women as bananas move from being a food crop to a commodity crop.

(xxxiii) Complete soil fertility status of the select-ed area for TC banana program should be mapped out for devising appropriate nutri-ent-management recommendations.

Research (xxxiv) Africa Harvest should be a strong advocate

for research that has been identified as im-portant, to improve TC banana production by small-scale resource-poor farmers.

(xxxv) On-farm research on TC banana plantations with different orchard management practices used by the farmers should be launched as part of the scaling-up program.

(xxxvi) A long-term research program on the per-formance of different dessert and cooking varieties of TC bananas under different agro-climatic conditions, including soil fertility status, should be initiated.


25

APPENDIX IEXHIBIT A

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR AN ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE TISSUE CULTURE (TC) BANANA INDUSTRy IN KENyA

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Banana is an important food crop in Kenya providing up to 25% of the calories. In addition to its impor-tance as a food crop, sales from banana production provide an important contribution to the family in-come of small-scale farmers. Banana production in Kenya is basically a small-scale farm activity with a national average of 0.32 hectares (0.8 acres) of ba-nanas per farm. In recent years, banana production has been declining. Crop infestations with pests and diseases, particularly the Panama disease, sigatoka virus, weevils and nematode complexes, and envi-ronmental degradation have been major causes of the decline. Through traditional cultural practices in banana production, farmers have unknowingly transmitted most of the banana pests and diseases through the use of banana suckers as planting mate-rial. The spread of pests and diseases through this practice can reduce banana yields up to 90%.

I) EFFECT OF TC INTRODUCTION IN KENyA (PRE AND POST-1996)

According to Kenya’s Ministry of Agriculture data on banana production in Kenya, yields declined by over 5% in the five years leading to 1996 when the International Service for the Acquisition of Agribio-technology Applications (ISAAA) managed the TC Banana project, commenced with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation and the International Devel-opment Research Center (IDRC). Banana yields fell from a high of over 14 tons per hectare in the early 1990s to 10 tons per hectare in 1994. Between 1992 and 1996, annual banana production declined sharp-ly by 550,000 tons from 1 million tons to 450,000 tons before recovering to 1.1 million tons in 1998. Thereafter, production stabilized at around 1 million tons annually. The decline in yield has been attrib-uted to the rapid spread of diseases like sigatoka.

Scientists at the Kenya Agriculture Research Insti-tute (KARI) began using tissue culture to propagate improved planting materials in the late 1980’s be-ginning with pyrethrum and Irish potatoes, and then gradually expanding to sugar cane, cassava, banana and citrus fruits. In 1996, the Thika Centre became aware of the potential for enhancing banana produc-tion using tissue culture, and this laid the founda-tion for KARI, in partnership with the ISAAA, to implement a project titled “Banana biotechnology to benefit small scale banana producers in Kenya”.

The project commenced with funding assistance from the Rockefeller Foundation and IDRC. Phase 1 (1997–1999) of the project evaluated the feasibil-ity and appropriateness of the technology within the current farming practices of small-scale farmers. Phase 2 (2000–2003) ensured a sustainable system of large scale production, distribution and utilization of tissue-culture derived bananas. The pilot activi-ties demonstrated the suitability and adaptability of the technology and drastically raised the demand for the TC plantlets. Currently, the major commercial producers of TC banana plantlets are Genetic Tech-nologies Limited (GTL), Aberdare Technologies Ltd. (ATL) and Jomo Kenyatta University.

Africa Harvest has implemented two TC banana projects in central and eastern provinces of Kenya: “Developing pro-poor TC banana industry in Kenya” and the “Chura tissue culture banana project”. The first project funded by the Rockefeller Foundation commenced in 2003, and is designed to remove bot-tlenecks to project expansion and create long-term sustainability in the previous project funded by the Foundation and IDRC. This project is jointly imple-mented by Africa Harvest and Technoserve. The Chura tissue culture banana project funded by Du-Pont is designed to increase the yields of bananas and incomes of farmers in a densely populated area. Africa Harvest is using a ‘whole value chain ap-proach coupled with entrepreneurship development. This approach consists of awareness creation, base-line studies, farmer group organization, technology transfer and training, establishing a distribution sys-tem, establishing a financing system, and access to subsidies and market development.

II) ROCKEFELLER AND DUPONT-FUNDED PROJECT BRIEFS1. Highlights of the Rockefeller-funded project im-

plemented in the central and eastern provinces of Kenya.

The current Tissue Culture banana project, • “Developing pro-poor TC-banana industry in Kenya” that commenced in 2003 and is ending in 2006 was designed to remove bottlenecks to project expansion and cre-ate long-term sustainability in the previous project funded by the Rockefeller Founda-tion and IDRC between 1997 and 2002. The project, through a workshop attended by key project staff of Africa Harvest, Tech-



noserve and the Rockefeller Foundation identified factors that cause market failures. These factors included limited market infor-mation, access to markets, poor fruit qual-ity, poor packaging, and inadequate ripening skills. To date, a total of 1600 farmers have been mobilized into groups with an adop-tion of over 84,000 banana plantlets cover-ing 56 hectares.

2. The following are the highlights of the Chura project since its inception:

The project was implemented in Kiambu • District located in central Kenya.Formation of functional farmer groups as • project entry points.Training of farmers on the management of • TC banana technology.A baseline study for generation of bench-• mark data that will be useful in project im-plementation, monitoring, and evaluation.Successful application of good orchard man-• agement skills by farmers.The number of farmers who planted TC ba-• nanas increased by 208% from 1,000 in De-cember, 2004 to 3,626 in December, 2005. The total number of TC bananas planted • also rose sharply by 288% from 42,000 (26 ha) in December, 2004 to 177,373 (112 ha) in December, 2005. First Harvest celebrations in August 2005• Formation of the TeeCee Banana Enterprises • Limited (TCBEL), a 51% farmer-owned mar-keting company.

PURPOSE OF THIS STUDy

In light of the above history and Africa Harvest’s close association with the TC banana sector, Africa Harvest wishes to engage the services of an exter-nal consultant who will work closely with its rel-evant staff to evaluate the socio-economic effects of TC bananas, ten years after their introduction in Kenya.

SCOPE AND FOCUS

The Consultant will:• Assess progress made towards the achievement

of results at the outcome, output, and impact levels.

• Assess the effectiveness of the ‘whole value chain’ approach.

• Assess the degree to which the results contrib-ute to Africa Harvest’s vision of fighting hun-ger, malnutrition and poverty, and its mission to

help the poor achieve food security, economic well-being, and sustainable rural development.

• Conduct an economic impact assessment.• Assess how the initiatives have impacted wom-

en as compared with men. • Identify lessons learned, constraints, and pro-

vide recommendations.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIvES (1) To chronicle the achievements of the various TC

banana projects against project objectives and prior projections.

(2) To document specific case studies on the socio-economic effect of growing TC bananas at indi-vidual farmer and community levels.

(3) To document trends in the development of TC technical expertise and related infrastructure expertise over the last 10 years.

(4) To come up with recommendations on financial, personnel and infrastructure needed to sustain current growth rate in TC banana technology uptake, and to implement possible future TC projects, especially the proposed nationwide roll-out plan.

(5) To identify the need for policy initiatives, regu-latory and enforcement requirements, and re-search and development needs, and questions to be answered that have been informed by the implementation of the TC banana projects.

EvALUATION qUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED1. What has been the contribution of the major

stakeholders who include:(i) Donors – Rockefeller Foundation, DuPont (ii) Seedling producers – DuRoi, Aberdare Tech-

nologies Limited, Genetic Technologies Lim-ited, KARI, Jomo Kenyatta University

(iii) Project implementers – KARI, ISAAA, Africa Harvest, Biotechnology Trust Africa, Minis-try of Agriculture

(iv) Farmers – Reviewers to base their analysis on previous national surveys

2. How effective has the ‘whole value chain’ ap-proach been?(i) Awareness creation, baseline survey and

group formation and management(ii) Availability and affordability of planting

material(iii) Private producers, community nurseries,

subsidies, microfinance issues(iv) Training on and adoption of good agronomic

practices from planting to harvesting(v) Appropriate post-harvest handling practices


27

(vi) Effective marketing – Kenya Agricultural Commodity Exchange, Banana Grower’s As-sociation, TeeCeeBEL

3. What lessons can be learnt about the project planning and implementation processes, level of funding, and monitoring, and evaluation tools?

4. What has been the effect of subsidies and ‘re-volving fund’ on adoption by farmers and on communities?

5. To provide both qualitative and quantitative sex disaggregated data on the impact on farm-ers and communities of participation in the TC banana initiatives (income, quality of life indi-cators, empowerment, household food security [income generation/ income saving]).

6. What has been the effect of different marketing strategies and initiatives?

7. Case studies from both the Rockefeller- and DuPont-funded projects – information needed includes level of empowerment, sustainability of change, rate of crop enterprise substitution with bananas, effect of revolving fund (subsidy), and the level of effective poverty alleviation.

i) Impact at family level Case studies on resource poor and resource rich

farmers ii) Impact at community level Case study – ‘A transformed community’

PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED IN CONDUCT-ING THE EvALUATION• The Consultant is expected to act in a transpar-

ent manner, frequently updating Africa Harvest on progress.

• The evaluation will primarily be a retrospec-tive study involving human participants, which might require possible scrutiny of their private lives. The Consultant is therefore expected to conform to set ethics and standards of public research, and especially of public health and environmental impact research, which demand treatment of the participants with dignity, and upholding of the principle of informed consent before, during and after the study.

BROAD OUTLINES ON STUDy METHODOLOGy• The Consultant will be expected to define and

describe the method of study, timelines and milestones to be used. In addition he or she will be expected to conform to rigorous scientific protocols that will result ina document that will be useful to policymakers, agricultural extension department, institutions of higher learning, and research institutes in the field of agriculture.

• The Consultant will submit the evaluation pro-tocols to Africa Harvest for approval before he or she commences the study.

• The Consultant will ensure confidentiality of all data collected during the study up to its submis-sion as well as final reports to Africa Harvest.

• The Consultant will have access to any relevant documents generated and owned by Africa Har-vest to assist him or her in the study.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE vARI-OUS PERSONNEL TO BE INvOLvED IN THE STUDy• Africa Harvest is the sponsor of the study and

the Consultant will deal directly with Africa Harvest throughout the whole process from consultant selection, negotiations for compen-sation, conduct of the survey, and submission of the final report.

• The Consultant, in collaboration with Africa Harvest, will be expected to assemble a team that will be involved in preliminary research, data collection, logistical arrangements, travel and accommodation arrangements, and access-ing any material that will be required to make the study successful.

• It will be the responsibility of the Consult-ant to ensure that he or she fulfils what is ex-pected of him or her as defined in the expected outcomes.

EXPECTED OUTCOMES AND REPORTING REqUIREMENTS• Raw data, both numerical and narrative, which

may have been collected in the course of the evaluation to be submitted in electronic format.

• Any data collection media, e.g. audio and video tapes, data sheets, that contain collected data and that are paid for by Africa Harvest.

• Draft written report detailing findings of the evaluation to be submitted to Africa Harvest for approval.

• Final report which, in addition, must contain recommendations on future actions submitted to Africa Harvest. The Consultant will deliver one printed and bound copy of the report and an electronic copy in both Microsoft Word and PDF formats.

• Oral presentation on findings of the evaluation to Africa Harvest staff.

• The Consultant will submit to Africa Harvest, a separate document that clearly describes the research instruments used. The document will contain questionnaires, research protocols



or methodology, and proposed approaches to analysis, financial accounting, and timeline of achieved milestones.

USER AND USES OF THE EvALUATION• The results of the study will be used by Africa

Harvest as a resource to improve the design and implementation of similar projects in the future.

• The evaluation report will also serve as a re-source for deciding how to conduct similar eval-uations in the future.

• The final report will also be made available to public bodies like institutions of higher learning, research institutes and the Government of Ken-ya ministries. It is expected that the document will contribute towards formulation of various policies in the agricultural sector.

PROPOSED WORK PLAN1. Draft evaluation work plan: A draft evalua-

tion work plan to be submitted within 2 weeks of the signing of the contract.

2. Evaluation work plan: The Consultant will produce a final evaluation work plan within one week of receiving comments from Africa Harvest on the draft work plan.

3. Draft evaluation report : The Consultant will submit a draft evaluation report for review by Africa Harvest within 2 weeks of returning from field mission. Since an oral presentation may not be feasible, a PowerPoint presentation of the findings of the evaluation may be requested at this time.

4. Evaluation report: The Consultant will submit a final evaluation report.within 2 weeks of re-ceiving Africa harvest’s comments on the draft report.

5. Research instruments and raw data sets: The Consultant will submit to Africa Harvest a separate document that clearly describes the fi-nal research instruments used: questionnaires, focus and key informant interview guides, re-search protocols, and methodology and meth-ods of analysis. In addition, raw data sets are to be submitted.


29

APPENDIX IIAcronyms

AHBFI Africa Harvest Biotech Foundation International

ATL Aberdare Technologies Limited

BTA Biotechnology Trust Africa

CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme

DONATA Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa

FARA Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa

FFS Farmers Field Schools

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GMM Gross Marketing Margin

GTL Genetic Technologies Limited

HBGMA Highridge Banana Growers and Marketing Association

HCDA Horticulture Crops Development Authority

IDRC International Development Research Centre

INIBAP International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain

IPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources Institute

ISAAA International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications

JKUAT Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology

KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute

KBM Kenya Banana Mission

KEPHIS Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service

KGT Kenya Gatsby Trust

MS-O Marketed Surplus-Output

NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NERICA New Rice for Africa

RF Rockefeller Foundation

TC Tissue Culture

TCBEL Tissue Culture Banana Enterprises Limited



APPENDIX IIIDocuments reviewed and References

Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2002). Rural Community Development Us-ing Biotechnology Improved Bananas and Trees, Report on Baseline Survey submitted to Ford Foundation, Nairobi, November, pp. 1–142.

Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2003a). Helping Cura Village in Kenya Fight Hunger and Poverty by setting up a TC Banana Project, A Project Proposal Submitted to DuPont, August, pp. 1–13.

Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2003b). Developing a Pro-Poor Tissue Culture Banana Industry in Kenya, A Final Rockefeller Funded Proposal, Submitted to Rockefeller Foundation, pp. 14–44.

Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2004a). An Interim Report of Chura Farmer Profiles, pp. 1–25.

Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2004b). The Chura Community TC Banana Project Baseline Survey Results, August, pp. 1–34.

Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2004c). Annual Report December 2004, Africa Harvest/DuPont-Pioneer Tissue Culture Banana Chura Community Project, December, pp. 1–27.

Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2005a). The Chura Community Tissue Culture Banana Project Report, DuPont/Africa Harvest Chura Project, November, pp. 1–39.

Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2005b). The Chura Community Tissue Culture Banana Project, Annual Report 2005, AHBFI, pp. 1–49.

Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2006a). Africa Harvest’s Five-Year Strategic Plan 2006-1010, AHBFI, pp. 1–44.

Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2006b). Developing a Pro-Poor TC Banana Industry in Kenya, Final Three Year (June 2003–May 2006) Progress and Financial Report, Submitted to Rocke feller Foundation, Nairobi, AHBFI, June, pp. 1–39.

Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International (AHBFI) (2006c). The Chura Community Tissue Culture Banana Project, Final Three Year Progress and Financial Report 2004–2006, December, pp. 1–52.

Argwings-Kodhek G., T.S. Jayne, G. Nyambane, T. Awuor and T. Yamano. How Can Micro-Level Household Information Make a Difference for Agricultural Policy Making?, A paper presented as a part of the Kenya Agricultural Marketing and Policy Analysis Project, TIAPD-Egerton University, KARI and Michigan State University.

Biotechnology Trust Africa (BTA) (2001). Guidelines for Tissue Culture Banana Cultivation, Nairobi, pp. 1–6. Biotechnology Trust Africa (BTA)(2002), Annual Report 1998–2000, Nairobi, pp. 1–87. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) (2005). Science for Agricultural Develop-

ment: Changing Contexts and New Opportunities, Science Council, CGIAR, Rome, pp. 1–54. Dijkstra, T. (1999). Horticultural Marketing in Kenya: Why Potato Farmers Need Collecting Wholesalers, in

H. Laurens van der Laan, H.T. Dijkstra and Aad van Tilburg (eds), Agricultural Marketing in Tropical Africa, Contributions from Netherlands, African Studies Centre, Research Series 15/1999.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (1994). Special Program for Food Security (SPFS) in Low Income Food Deficit Countries, Rome Italy.

Kahangi, E.M (1996). Biotechnology to Benefit Small-Scale Banana Producers in Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology.

Kahangi, E.M. (1999). RAPD Profiling of Some Banana (Musa Sp.) Varieties Selected by Small Scale Farmers in Kenya, in Wesonga et al, Proceedings of Second Horticultural Seminar on Sustainable Horticultural Production in the Tropics, JKUAT, August 6–9.

Kahangi, E. (2002). Banana Tissue Culture Project Implemented by Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Report of Biotechnology Trust Africa for 1998–2000, Nairobi.

Kahangi, E.M.(2003). Deployment of Micro Propagation and Clean Planting Materials, in African Agricultural Technology Foundation Report of Small Group Meeting on Improved Production of Bananas and Plantains in Sub-Saharan Africa, Kampala (Uganda), August 22.


31

Karembu, M.G. (1999). Small Scale Farmers’ Adoptive Responses to Banana Biotechnology in Kenya: Implications for Policy, Agricultural Technology Policy Studies (ATPS), Final Report (Unpublished).

Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) (2003). NHRC (National Horticulture Research Centre) Annual Report 2003, Thika.

Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) (2005), A Strategic Plan for the Period 2005–15, June, pp. 1–40. Mathenge M. and D. Tschirley (2006). Seasonal Analysis of Selected Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Prices at Wholesale

Level in Key Urban Markets of Kenya, TIAPD-Egerton University, Working Paper No. 22, May, pp. 1–21. Mbogoh S.G., F.M. Wambugu, and S. Wakhusama (2002). Socio-Economic Impact of Biotechnology Applications:

Some Lessons from the Pilot Tissue-Culture (TC) Banana Production Promotion Project in Kenya, 1997–2002, A Paper for XXV IAAE Conference (Durban, South Africa), October, pp. 1–14.

Mbogoh S., F. Wambugu and C. Gichuki (2004). Socio-Economic Characterization of Existing and Potential Tissue Culture Banana Producers and the Economics of T-C Banana Production in Kenya, AHBFI, June, pp. 1–116.

Ministry of Agriculture (2004). Strategy for Revitalizing Agriculture, 2004–2014, Republic of Kenya, pp. 1–116.

Ministry of Agriculture (2005). Strategic Plan 2005–2009, Republic of Kenya, pp. 1–81. Ministry of Finance and Planning (2000), Welfare Monitoring Survey III, Second Report on Poverty in Kenya, Vol.

I, Incidence and Depth of Poverty, Government of Kenya. Ministry of Local Authorities (1999a). Study Update on the Construction and Management of the New Nairobi

Wholesale Market, Main and Final Report, Volume I, Prepared by JBG/AFC, Republic of Kenya, September, pp. 1–137.

Ministry of Local Authorities (1999b). Study Update on the Construction and Management of the New Nairobi Wholesale Market, Volume II, Annexes, Final Draft, Republic of Kenya, June.

Muendo K.M. and D. Tschirley (2004a). Improving Kenya’s Domestic Horticulture Production and Marketing Sys-tem: Horticultural Production, Volume I, TIAPD-Egerton University, Working Paper No. 08/A, pp. 1–42.

Muendo K.M. and D. Tschirley (2004b). Improving Kenya’s Domestic Horticulture Production and Marketing System: Current Competitiveness, Focus of Change and Challenges for the Future: Horticultural Research and Input Sector Regulation in Kenya and Tanzania, Volume III, TIAPD-Egerton University, Working Paper No. 08/C, pp. 1–24.

Muyanga M., T.S. Jayne, G. Argwings-Kodhek and J. Ariga (2004/05). Staple Food Consumption Patterns in Urban Kenya: Trends and Policy Implications, TIAPD- Egerton University, Nairobi, Working Paper No. 16, pp. 1–23.

Pender, J., F. Place and S. Ehui (Ed) (2006). Strategies for Sustainable Land Management in the East African High-lands, IFPRI, ICRAF, ILRI and the World Bank.

Qaim, M. (1999a). Assessing the Impact of Banana Biotechnology in Kenya, ZEF, ISAAA, Briefs No. 10, ISAAA, Ithaca, NY, pp. 1–38.

Qaim, M. (1999b). A Socioeconomic Outlook on Tissue Culture Technology in Kenyan Banana Production, Bio-technology and Development Monitor, No. 4, pp. 18–22.

Research International Limited (Social and Public Research Division) and TechnoServe, Kenya (2006). From Producer to Retailer: Identifying Constraints in the Kenya Banana Market Chain, A Report, RI/5146, Febru-ary, pp. 1–109.

Rosegrant M.W., M.S. Paisner, S. Meijer and J. Witcover (2001). Global Food Projections To 2020: Emerging Trends and Alternative Futures, International Food Policy Research Institute, 2020 Vision, Washington.

Smale M., S. Edmeades and H. De Groote (2006). Promising Crop Biotechnologies for Smallholder Farmers in East Africa: Bananas and Maize, Ed., Briefs, June, pp. 19–26.

Super Sorghum (2006). Africa Biofortified Sorghum Project: Sowing Seeds for a Harvest of Hope, www.supersor-ghum.org, pp. 1–8.

TechnoServe (2003). A Rapid Study of Banana Markets and Producer Groups’ Diagnostic in Central Kenya, De-cember, pp. 1–35.

TechnoServe (2004). A Rapid Study of Banana Markets and Producer Groups’ Diagnostic in Central Kenya, Final Report, Nairobi, March, pp. 1–35.

TechnoServe (2005). Developing a Pro-Poor Tissue Culture Banana Industry in Kenya – Production to Market Pipeline and Banana Industry Model, May, pp. 1–13.



TechnoServe (2006). Smallholder Banana Farmers from Maragua and Muranga Districts of Central Kenya, Wel-fare Monitoring Survey, Draft Report by Setpro Consult, February, pp. 1–95.

Tee Cee Banana Enterprises Limited (Tee Cee BEL) (2006a). Company Profile and Business Plan, Revised, Sep-tember, pp. 1–15.

Tee Cee Banana Enterprises Limited (Tee Cee BEL) (2006b). The Concept of Commoditising the Banana Fruit, Revised Draft, September, pp. 1–6.

Tschirley D., K.M. Muendo and M.T. Weber (2004). Improving Kenya’s Domestic Horticultural Production and Marketing System: Horticultural Marketing, Volume II, TIAPD-Egerton University, Working Paper No. 08/B, pp. 1–48.

Wambugu F. (2006). Modifying Africa: How Biotechnology Can Benefit the Poor and Hungry – A Case Study from Kenya, II Edition, AHBFI, United States Division, www.modifyingafrica.org, pp. 1–78.

Wambugu F.M. and R.M. Kiome (2001). The Benefits of Biotechnology for Small-Scale Banana Producers in Kenya, ISAAA Briefs No. 22, ISAAA, Ithaca, NY, pp. 1–34.

Wambugu, Florence, M. Karembu, M. Njuguna and S.W. Wanyangu. Biotechnology to Benefit Small-scale Ba-nana Producers in Kenya, Global Development Network, www.gdnet.org/pdf/909_Wambugu.pdf.


33

APPENDIX IvPersons/Institutions contacted/interviewed for the study

I. GOvERNMENT OFFICIALS (INCLUDING KARI, JKUAT AND HCDA) (B)

Ms Isabella G. Nkonge, District Agricultural Officer, Kiambu District, Kiambu.

Ms Taresia W. Karanja, District Horticulture Officer, Kiambu District, Kiambu.

Ms Lucy K. Murithi, Agriculture Officer, Kikuyu Division, District Kiambu.

Mr Douglas Ndung’u, Crops Officer, Muncipality Division, Kiambu, District Kiambu.

Mr Andrew K. Thuo, Crops Officer, Githunguri Division, District Kiambu.

Dr L. Turoop, Head, Tissue Culture Laboratory and Department of Horticulture, JK University of Agriculture and Technology, Nairobi.

Dr V. Kiragwa, Scientist, Horticulture Marketing, KARI, Nairobi.

Dr J.G. Muthamia, Horticulturist, KARI-EMBU Centre, Embu.

Agronomist, KARI-EMBU Centre, Embu.

Horticulturist, Research Centre of KARI, Kakamega.

Dr (Mrs) Momiah Waiganjo, Deputy Centre Director and Head, Crop Protection, KARI, Thika.

Dr Benjamin Chege, PHT Scientist, KARI, Thika.

Dr Jesca Njeri Mbaka, Plant Pathologist, KARI, Thika.

Ms Beth Ndungu, Socio-Economist, KARI, Thika.

Dr Francis Kori, Head of Horticulture, KARI, Thika.

Dr Joseph Kibe, Chairman, Horticulture Crops Development Authority, Republic of Kenya.

II. OTHER ORGANIzATIONS

Mr Paul Muchemi, Managing Director, ATL, Thika.

Ms Pauline Maina, Manager, Extension Program, Wangu Investment.

Mr Robert Mathu, Director (Board), Tee Cee Banana Enterprises Limited, Wangige, District – Kiambu.

Mr Dedan Kamtu, Quality Control Manager, Tee Cee BEL.

Mr Steven Sagina, Incharge, Nursery Management, Tee Cee BEL.

Ms Violet Wainaina, Assistant (Marketing), Tee Cee BEL.

Dr Kinkori, Genetics Technologies International Limited, Nairobi.

Dr Erastus Kibugu, Head of Horticulture (Kenya and Uganda) TechnoServe, Nairobi.

Dr Steve Harris, Market Linkages Specialist (UK-Based), TechnoServe, Nairobi.

Dr Henry Kinyua, Senior Business Advisor – Horticulture, TechnoServe, Nairobi.

Mr Georges Mugambi, Marketing Manager, Organic Solutions Limited, Nairobi.

Mr J.M. Wekundah, Executive Director, Biotechnology Trust Africa, Nairobi.

Mr Tetsuya Yoshimura, EM Research Organization (Japan), Partner with Organic Solutions Limited, Nairobi.

Mr Hannington Odame, Executive Director, Centre for African Bio-entrepreneurship, Nairobi.



III. FARMERS/FARM WOMEN (B)

Mrs Esther Gachugu, Farmer and Leader of Karindundu Farmers’ Group, Village Maragi, District Muranga.

Ms Frashia, Lady Farmer, Village Maragi, District Muranga.

Mr Robert Njuguna, Farmer, Wangige, District Kiambu.

Mr George Machara, Chairman, Farmers’ Group, Chura Village (Chura Main Group – Enemies of Hunger).

Mr Simon Munguo, Secretary, Farmers’ Group, Chura Village.

Mr Benjamin, Chairman, Gakinduri Farmers’ Group, Chura Village.

Mr James K. Kungu, Farmer and Trainer of farmers.

Mr John M. Muthame, Farmer.

Mr Edward Wakaba, Chairman, Farmers’ Group.

Ms Alice Kunoba, Lady Farmer, Chura.

Ms Lucy Manchau , Lady Farmer, Chura.

Ms Nari Mongi, Lady Farmer, Chura.

Mr Catherine Njeri, Treasurer, Ngararia Umojo SHG, District Maragua.

Mr John Mwaniki Sitan, Secretary, Rumangaga SHG, District Maragua.

Mr David Karanja Mwangi, Chairman, Ngararia Umojo SHG, District Maragua.

Ms Julius Njoroge, Vice Chair, Farmers’ SH Group, Ngararia Umojo.

Mr James Muiruri Mburu, Chairman, Saba Saba SHG, District Maragua.

Mr Duncan Kimani Munene, Farmer, Kamahula Group, District Maragua.

Mr Edward Kimuhu, Secretary, Kamahula SHG, District Maragua.

Mr Antony Mwangi, Chairman, Punda Milia Murika Banana Growers’ Group, District Maragua.

Mr Patick Kabaria, Grader and Farmer, Punda Milia Murika Group, District Maragua.

Mr Francis Mburu, Treasurer, Kamahula Group, District Maragua.

Mr Felister Mathoni, Secretary, Ngararia Umojo SHG.

Mr Wilson Muiruri Njuguna, Vice Chairman, Githunguri Self-Help Group, District Maragua.

Dr Joseph Kibe, Chairman, Horticulture Crops’ Development Authority, Republic of Kenya.

Ms Njoki Wainaina, Entrepreneur, Kiburi Food Processor, District Thika.

Iv. AFRICAN HARvEST BIOTECHNOLOGy FOUNDATION INTERNATIONAL (B)

Dr (Mrs) Florence Wambugu, CEO.

Dr Michael Njuguna, Director, Finance, Administration and Business Development, Acting Deputy CEO.

Dr Joseph Kibe, Director, Treasurer and Member of Board of Management.

Dr Mwamburi Mcharo, Program Leader.

Ms Victoria Ndungu, Team Leader, Field Team.

Mr James Kiragu, Field Officer, AHBFI and Manager, TeeCee BEL.

Ms Wangari Mbuthia, Field Officer.

Ms Jane Ndiritu, Field Officer.

Ms Naomi Kimani, Intern, IT Department.

Ms Merita Mukami Machaki, Intern, TC Banana.


35

APPENDIX vBIOS OF REvIEWERS

Shabd S. Acharya

Dr. Shabd Swaroop Acharya is presently (2008) Honorary Professor, Institute of Devel-opment Studies, Jaipur, India. He was earlier its Director for more than 7 years.

Dr. Acharya has contributed immensely to the field of agricultural economics and agricultural policies in developing countries of Asia. Apart from reorienting the agri-cultural price policies in India, he effectively demonstrated that even in a liberalized economic environment, price support for farmers and some degree of market interven-tion for agriculture would be extremely important.

Dr. Acharya laid a solid foundation of agricultural economics teaching and research at the Rajasthan Agricultural University. He was awarded Professorial Chair of National

Fellow by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, worked as Project Director (IRD) in the Special Schemes Organization of the Government of Rajasthan and earlier, as Agricultural Extension Officer. He has been con-sultant to FAO; UNDP; ILO and the World Bank; Leader of FAO Mission on Agricultural Policies for East Timor and member of UNDP Mission on agricultural development and poverty reduction in East Timor. He has been a member of Scientific Panel of Science Council of CGIAR from 2004 to 2006.

He has written extensively in the area of agricultural economics, development and policy. He has, to his credit, 11 books; and several chapters, research monographs and reports, and research papers and articles. In recog-nition of his contributions in agricultural and rural development, he has been conferred several awards and honours at the national and international levels.

Mary Alton Mackey

Dr. Mary Alton Mackey is an international consultant in food and nutrition and a pro-fessional dietician providing educational and consultant services in foods, clinical and normal nutrition and food service management in Canada and internationally. She has been a faculty member at McGill University, worked with Memorial University in New-foundland, with the Ontario Ministry of Health and internationally with Makerere Uni-versity in Kampala and with the Ugandan government, the Government of Pakistan’s Ministry of Health, the Government of Kuwait’s Ministry of Health, UNICEF in Pakistan and for CIDA in Bangladesh as well as with the private sector in Zambia. She has also conducted evaluations of international health and nutrition interventions and has been a consultant with the World Health Organization.

Dr. Alton Mackey has been actively following the development of food biotechnology since 1993. She has served as the Chair of the Food Committee for the Consumers Association of Canada. Dr. Alton Mackey continues to be active with the Consumer Interest Alliance Inc. and has conducted several consumer research projects. She is a member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Council for Food and Nutrition and is a frequent speaker on food biotechnology, both to professional groups and organizations, as well as to consumers. She has led a round table at the pre-conference workshop on Food Security at the World Congress International Federation of Home Economics in Ghana. She was a guest speaker at the Dieticians of Canada meeting on Biotechnology and Heart Health – Opportunities and Challenges.

Dr. Alton Mackey continues to be active internationally in the area of food security.


Zipporah Muchai shows off her TC banana fruit that is almost ready for harvest


37

NAIROBI (HQ)3rd Floor, Whitefield Place,School Lane, WestlandsPO Box 642Village Market 00621Nairobi, KenyaTel: + 254 20 444 1113Fax: + 254 20 444 1121Email: [email protected]

JOHANNESBURGFernridge Office Park5 Hunter Street, RandburgPO Box 3655Pinegowrie 2123Gauteng, South AfricaTel: + 27 11 781 4447Fax: + 27 11 886 0152Email: [email protected]

WASHINGTON DCBlake BuildingFarragut Square1025 Connecticut Avenue, NWSuite 1012Washington DC 20036, USATel: +1 202 828 1215Fax: +1 202 857 9799E-mail: [email protected]

www.a f r i cahar ves t .o rgwww.a f r i cahar ves t .o rg

ISBN 978-0-620-41753-2


Socio-economicImpact Assessment of theTissue Culture Banana Industry in Keny

Documents

Transcript of Socio-economicImpact Assessment of theTissue Culture Banana Industry in Keny