Date
31 Mar 2014
It was touted as a wonder crop to improve farmer incomes and aid rural development, but jatropha failed miserably in Kenya.
Scientists have been analysing what led farmers to grow jatropha in the absence of reliable markets for the product and with limited knowledge about its successful cultivation.
“Jatropha is just not viable in Kenya,” says Violet Mogaka, a researcher with the World Agroforestry Centre, and lead author of a study recently published in Energy for Sustainable Development.
“Jatropha should be abandoned in Kenya until improved seed material and locally-adapted knowledge about its cultivation becomes available, and until it becomes economically competitive.”
Jatropha (Jatropha curcas) is indigenous to Central America and produces oil rich seeds that can be processed into biodiesel for use as an energy source. While jatropha has been grown in Kenya for many years, this has been for traditional uses such as medicinal or as fence, windbreak or to mark graves.
Between 2004 and 2005, jatropha was widely promoted in Kenya by NGOs, community based organizations and private investors, especially in arid and semi-arid areas, as a solution for rural development. But allegations that jatropha would increase farmers’ incomes, provide locally available energy, grow well in arid areas, be resistant to pests and not compete with food crops all turned out to be unrealistic.
By 2008 it was clear that jatropha was uneconomical and risky in Kenya, especially when grown in plots rather than hedges.
“There was no effort to establish jatropha’s feasibility before it was introduced or integrate it into the existing economy,” explains Mogaka. “Adoption was not followed-up with extension services or regulated by the government.”
Mogaka and colleagues hope their research will help decision makers, agricultural departments and extension officers in Kenya and other parts of East Africa avoid at least some of the mistakes of the past and develop better biofuel development strategies in the future.
In the early stages of the study, the researchers believed it was better-off farmers who were willing to take the risk to cultivate jatropha, but they discovered that financial capital was not necessarily connected with jatropha adoption.
The scientists then looked in more depth at the role of other capital assets (human, social, natural and physical) in shaping livelihood strategies particularly in relation to the adoption process.
In the study, 278 households in 3 districts where jatropha was actively promoted were interviewed: Bondo in Nyanza Province in the west of Kenya, Kibwezi in Eastern Provence and Kwale on the coast near Mombasa. They recorded information from both farmers who adopted jatropha and those who did not.
Farmers were found to be motivated to grow jatropha on the basis of generating additional on-farm income, diversifying their income basis and improving their own energy supply. Jatropha was also seen as a risk-avoidance strategy in case of crop failure. In Kwale, the situation was a little different because a private company contracted farmers and agreed to a fixed price for their seeds. The company also had an oil press and manufactured modified lamps suitable for jatropha oil.
Those who adopted jatropha, on the word of the promoters, found it to be labor and capital intensive. Yields were extremely low and many farmers were unable to sell what they did harvest or use it for their own energy supply because there was no processing facility nearby. On average, 58 per cent of farmers reported pests and diseases.
Other findings showed that jatropha adopters have significantly more natural and social capital assets than non-adopters. These farmers were more often members of farmer groups and had better access to mobile phones. They tended to have more diversified livelihood activities, owned more livestock and cultivated more land with both food and energy crops than non-adopters.
Most jatropha adopters did so in plots either as monocultures or intercropped with mainly maize, cowpeas and cassava on between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of their land. They did little in the way of managing the trees apart from spreading manure on new plantations. Irrigation, mineral fertilizer, and pest control were rarely used.
“Farmers often used poor quality planting material and inadequate management practices which led to low yields and the spread of pests and diseases,” says Mogaka. “On average they obtained 0.8 tons per hectare each year, which was well below expectations.”
Four out of 5 plantations in each of the studied areas were established on agricultural land formerly used for food crops which is in clear contrast to the intention of cultivating jatropha without competition for food.
“Cultivating jatropha on block plantations even at a very small scale is economically very risky,” concludes Mogaka. “It should really only be grown in hedges which have significantly lower investment risks and do not compete with food crops.”
The study stresses how vital it is to perform an ex ante analysis before introduction of a new plant and bring extension services and regulatory systems into the process of new crop promotion when found to be feasible. Sound research and development are also critical to support locally viable rural development.
Download the journal article:
Mogaka V, Ehrensperger A, Iiyama M, Birtel M, Heim E and Gmuender, S (2014). Understanding the underlying mechanisms of recent Jatropha curcas L. adoption by smallholders in Kenya: : A rural livelihood assessment in Bondo, Kibwezi, and Kwale districts. Energy for Sustainable Development 18: 9-15.
See also: