Small Scale Farmers’Adoptive
Responses to Banana
Biotechnology in Kenya:
Implications for Policy

Margaret Gathoni Karembu

ATPS RESEARCH PAPER No.1

PublishedbytheAfricanTechnologyPolicyStudiesNetwork,P.O.Box10081,
0100GeneralPostOffice,Nairobi,Kenya.

©2002AfricanTechnology PolicyStudiesNetwork (ATPS)

PUBLISHEDBYTHEATPSCOMMUNICATIONSDEPT.

ISBN: 9966-916-06-7

ABOUTTHEAFRICANTECHNOLOGYPOLICYSTUDIESNETWORKTheAfricanTechnologyPolicy StudiesNetwork (ATPS)isamulti-disciplinary networkofresearchers,
policymakers,actorsintheprivatesectorandotherendusersinterestedingenerating,promotingand
strengtheninginnovativescienceandtechnologypoliciesinAfrica.WitharegionalsecretariateinNairobi,
thenetworkoperatesthroughnationalchaptersin17countries,withanexpansionplantocovertheentire
sub-SaharanAfrica.
Oneoftheobjectivesofthenetworkistodisseminateresearchresultstopolicymakers,legislators,theorganizedprivatesector,civilsociety,massmediaandfarmers’groupsthroughpublications,dialogueand
advocacy.AmongitsrangeofpublicationsaretheWorkingPaperSeries(WPS),ResearchPaperSeries(RPS),SpecialPaperSeries(SPS)andtheTechnopolicyBriefs.
Papers publishedundertheRPSarethoseproducedfromthesmallgrantsprocessorfromthe
regionalprojects.Thesepapersaresubjectedtothreeexternalreviewersandareadjudgedtobeof
high academicstandardsbeforepublishing. To encourage ATPSresearcherstopublishunder
RPS,ATPSoffersadditionalhonorariumtoanyresearcherwhosepaperispublishedunderthis
series.
ATPS is supportedbyagrowingnumberofdonorsincludingtheInternationalDevelopment ResearchCentre(IDRC),theCarnegieCorporationofNewYork,theRockefellerFoundation,theWorldBank,the
OPECFund,FordFoundation,Coca-ColaEasternAfrica,theAfricanDevelopmentBank,andtheRoyalDutchGovernment.

Abstract
The study investigates factors that influencetheadoption of biotechnologicalinterventiononbanana
productionamongsmall-scalefarmersinKenyaanddeterminespolicyimplicationsforrapidtechnology
diffusion. ScientistsinKenyafoundthetissueculture(tc)technologyanappropriateintercessionforthe
persistent decline in banana production due to infestation by pests, diseases and environmental
degradation. The common practice by farmers of using infected suckers to propagate bananas had
perpetuatedtheproblemresultinginlowyields,asituationthatthreatened closeto3millionKenyans
whoselivelihoodsdependonbananas. Thesterileoperationalnatureoftcproceduresexcludesfungus,
bacteriaandpestsfromtheproductionsystemresultingintimelyproductionoflargequantitiesofcleanandsuperiorplantingmaterialfromplantletsinsteadofsuckers. Thestudyproceededconcurrentlyandwithina bigger project facilitated by the International Service for the Acquisition ofAgribiotechApplications(ISAAA)andhostedbytheKenyaAgriculturalResearchInstitute(KARI). Toavoidthe“technologypush”
approach so often associated with perceived beneficial but dismally performing innovations, theresearcher worked alongside scientists from these institutions to ensure unbiased representation of
farmers’ perceptions of the appropriateness and suitability of the technology under their (farmer)
conditions. Theresearchdesignwasacasestudyinvolving500farmersinthreemajorbananagrowing
regions: Eastern, Central, and Nyanza provinces of Kenya. Variety preferences, compatibility of thetechnologywithinexistingfarmingsystems,techno-managementpractices,marketabilityoftheproduce,
consumeracceptance,andcosts’implicationswereinvestigated. Ontheoverall,theresultsindicatedthat
tctechnologyfittedwellwithinsmall-scaleagriculture, had wideconsumeracceptanceandprovideda
goodopportunitytotransformbananafarmingfromsubsistencetoacash-basedenterprise. Limitationsto
technologydiffusionincludedthehighcostofplantlets,waterscarcity,inadequatecleanland,insufficient
distribution system for plantlets, unorganized marketing of the banana fruit and lack of a collective
mechanism to modulate the production-distribution-marketing chain. Working to improve access toplantingmaterialthroughprovisionofcreditanddecentralisingdistribution,introducingappropriatewaterharvestingtechniques, linking farmerstomarkets through marketing information centres, introducing
banana value-adding techniques and helping to establish farmer-driven banana associations wererecommended as unprecedented steps towards enhancing agricultural practices using banana
biotechnology. Thepolicychallengeliesinbuildingselectivepartnershipsthatbringinstitutions(public
andprivate)withcomparativeadvantagesinspecificaspectsofthetechnologytransferchaintogivetimely
responsestotechnologydiffusionissuesastheyarise.

Abreviations & Acronyms
AEZ

Agro-ecologicalzone

ATPS

AfricanTechnologyPolicyStudies

GDN

GlobalDevelopmentNetwork

GTL

GeneticTechnologiesLimited

IDRC

InternationalDevelopmentResearchCentre

INIBAPInternationalNetworkfortheImprovementofBananaandPlantain

ISAAA

InternationalServicefortheAcquisitionofAgri-biotechApplications

ITSC

InstituteofTropicalandSub-tropicalCrops

KACE

KenyaAgriculturalCommodityExchange

KARI

KenyaAgriculturalResearchInstitute

MALDM

MinistryofAgriculture,LivestockDevelopmentandMarketing

MOA

MinistryofAgricultureNGO

Non-GovernmentalOrganisation

PRA

ParticipatoryRuralAppraisal

tc

tissueculture

WHO

WorldHealthOrganization

Table Of Contents
Abstract

1

Introduction andBackground4

Literature Review

6

Objectives
Methodology
Field Activities
Results andDiscussions

7
8
10

Characteristics of the Technology

11

Characteristics of the Farming Environment

14

Characteristics of the Farmer making the AdoptionDecision 15
Summary of Lessons Learnt

17

Summary of Policy ImplicationsfromtheStudy

18

Conclusion
Recognition
References

20
20
21

Introduction & Background

Whetherinnovationsinbiotechnologycanofferrelevantsolutionstoproblemsofsmall-scalefarmersin
developingcountrieshasbeenasubjectofdebateforawhile. Ofconcernduringthelastdecadehasbeen
thesearchformodelsandspecificconditionstooptimizethebenefitsofthesetechnologiesforthepoor.
Thedebatehas arisenoutofwideacknowledgement fromresearchers of a well-developed system oflearning by traditional societies guided by cultural values, practices and perceptions upon which
innovationsareselectivelyadopted(Thrupp,1989). Oduol(1994)quotingastudybyApterin1965argues
that no matter how attractive the innovation may be societies never abandon their culture andenvironmentalorientationstofullyembraceanewpractice. Theprocessismorecomplexinthetransferof
technologytopoorcommunitieswhereachangeofculturalpracticeisinvolved,forexample,thetransferof
tissueculturetechnologyonbananasthatformsthethesisofthispaper.
Tissue culture(tc)isaformofbiotechnologythatreferstotheproductionofplantsfromverysmallplantparts,tissuesorcellsgrownasepticallyunderlaboratoryconditionswheretheenvironmentandnutrition
arerigidlycontrolled(HartmanandKester,1983). Thereareseveraltctechniquesbroadlyclassifiedintwo
categories:• ClassIinvolvestheregenerationofnewplantsfromexistingvegetativestructureortissue.
• Class II refers to reproduction of seedlings by excision andcultureof existing reproductive
structure.
Thebasisofthetechnologyliesontheabilityofmanyplantspeciestoregenerateawholeplantfroma
shoottip. Itentailsusingtinyshoot-tipsasthestarterpropagationmaterialthatisplacedinagrowthmedia
toenhancevariousprocessesofgrowth,suchasshootinitiation,formationofmultipleshootsandrooting
inductionatthefinalstage. Theseactivitiesinducevigour,commonlyreferredtoas“hormonalkick,”thatbringstheparentmaterialtoajuvenilestagecausingremarkablephysiologicalchangesthatinfluencethe
agronomic characteristics of the emerging plant. These physiological adaptations become dilute insubsequent generations andarenotinheritablegeneticchanges. Tissue culture,therefore,does not
involvegeneticmodification.
Thewideuseanddistributionofinfectedplantingmaterialcausedtheacutedeclineinbananaproduction
inKenya. Neighbour-to-neighbourpropagationofbananasuckersledtoasynergisticincreaseinbanana
pestsanddiseases.Thisultimatelycontributedtolowaverageyieldsoflessthan10tonsperhectare
comparedtopotentialyieldsofupto60tonsperhectare. Environmentaldegradation,lowlevelsoffarm
inputsandpoorfarmingpracticesaggravatedtheproblem.
1

ATPSRESEARCHPAPERNo.1

Theprocessoftissueculturingbananasplantlets

Juvenilepottedtcbananaplantlets

Thesefactors,coupledwiththefactthatthebananahasonlyrecentlybeenrecognizedasaprioritycropin
theKenyanagriculturalresearchsystembecauseofthepoorperformanceofmajorcashcrops,suchas
teaandcoffee,havecreatedashortageofthefruitinthelocalmarket.Wambuguetal.(2000)assertthat
bananashavebecomeincreasinglycostlyandnolongerserveasareadysupplyofhighlynutritiousfoodand cash for the Kenyanpopulation, particularlywomenandchildren. In1990,forexample,1kiloof
bananacostKshs.5.00;in1995thesamewasKshs.15;andin2000itwasKshs.30(CentralBureauof
Statisticsannualreports,1990-2000). Thesituationthreatensfood,employmentandincomesecurityin
bananaproducingareasandcouldaffectcloseto3millionKenyanswhoselivelihooddependsonbanana
production.
Inanefforttorespondtotheaboveproblemandin consultation with farmers, the project“Biotechnology to Benefit Small-Scale Banana
Producers in Kenya” was initiated in1997.The
introduction of tissue culture techniques forbananapropagation was recognizedashaving
the greatest potential to help reverse thesituation.Keyconcernsweretheprofitabilityand
sustainability of producing and using
biotechnology as a business venture, and its
potential impact on hunger and poverty
alleviationinKenyaandneighbouringcountries
ofTanzaniaandUganda.

Familythathasnowtaken
uptcbananafarming

2

Literature Review

Pastexperienceswithnewagriculturalinnovationsshowthatfarmersdonotalwaysadoptaninnovation
becauseofhighyieldsoreconomicreturns(Carr,1989).Studiesonvariousprogramshavedisapproved
thenotionbyscientists that “advantageous”technologieswillfindtheirwayintothemarketplaceand
diffuserapidlybecauseoftheobviousbenefitstopotentialadopters(BwisaandGachuhi1999).TheWorld
HealthOrganization(WHO)inanattempttoeradicateandmanageworldepidemicslikemalariainthe
1970s,overlooked the social dynamicsofcommunity-basedapproachesand theireffortsprovedfutile(WHO,1978).Elsewhere,theeconomicevaluationofanintroducedalgalproteinbiotechnologyinMexico
by Babu (1991) confirmed that although the biotechnology product offered the cheapest source ofessentialvitaminsandproteins,itsadoptioninindividualhouseholdswaslow. Anacceptanceanalysis
showedthatthiswaspartlyduetothefishytasteofthealgaeleadingtoslowadjustmentsbyhouseholds.
In Nigeria, Madukwe (1994) investigated factors related to the adoption of improved farm practices
specificallytheyamMinisetttechnologyandidentifiedfarmerethnography,natureofthefarm,perceived
attractivenessoftheinnovationandcharacteristicsoftheinnovatorsasimportantfactorsintheadoptionof
technology.InKenya,theredcowpeaprojectisanexampleofatechnologythatwasnotsuccessfulwith
self-diffusion.Despitethesuperiorityanddroughtresistancequalitiesofthepea,ithadalowconsumer
acceptancebecauseoftheextendedcookingtimeandtheblood- red colour ofthebroth(Ministryof
Agriculturereports,undated).
In other communities, economic returns and high yields do not always imply that an innovation is
acceptable. Pala (1980)andOduolandKarugu(1993)indicatedthat the decision toallocateandusetechnologicalinnovationsismadealonggenderlinesandislargelyskewedtowardsmalebenefits. Thus
diffusionofagriculturaltechnologiesaimedatimprovingfoodcropsconceivedas“women’scrops”,suchasbananas,beans,roots,andtuberscouldsufferfromstereotypedtechnologicaltrends.
Agriculturalbiotechnologyisoftenassumedtoholdgreatpotentialsforthesmall-scalefarmingsectorin
developing countries. However, lack of an analytical frame-work with which specific biotechnology
productscanbequantitativelyevaluatedbasedonex-postdatahasmadeeconomic impactassessment
impossible.
It is against this backgroundthatAfricanTechnology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) incorporated atechnologydiffusionstudyintoanon-goingnationalproject,titled“Biotechnologytobenefitsmall-scale
3

ATPSRESEARCHPAPERNo.1

BananaproductsinKenya”.Thestudyanalyzestheimpactoftissueculture(tc)technologyintheKenyan
bananasector.
TheoveralltissuecultureprojectwassponsoredbytheRockefellerFoundation,USA,theInternational
Development Research Center, (IDRC) Canada, andtheAfrican Technology Policy Studies Network(ATPS). It was facilitated by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications(ISAAA)andhostedbytheKenyaAgriculturalResearchInstitute(KARI).Itwasconceivedasaresponse
toapronounceddeclineinbananaproductioninKenyaoverthelasttwodecades.Theprojectaimedat
providingresource-challengedsmall-scalefarmerswithpathogenfreebananaplantingmaterialsthroughtissue culture techniques. Through this technique, large numbers of healthy banana plantlets areproducedinthelaboratoryinacomparativelyshorttime. Thisreducesandultimatelyeliminatespestanddiseaseproblems for banana growers, offering a conducive environmentforintroducingofnewand
superiorgermplasm.
Undertemperateplantationconditions,thephysiologicalchangesthatoccurfromthetctechnologytake
uptoabout thefourthgenerationtoreverttotheoriginalparent/traditionalbananavigourandagronomic
characteristics(Robinson,1994).Undersmallholderfarmingintropicalconditions,however, theperiod
thatittakesforchangestooccurarenotyetknownbutisexpectedtobelonger.Thisimpliesthatthe
economic window of enhanced production using thetcmaterialisenormoussinceevenundernormal
traditional systems,farmersusinginferiorplantingmaterialskeeptheirorchardsforalongtimebefore
replacingtheplants(Nguthi,pers.com.1997).
Insixmonths,upto2,000individualplantletscanbeproducedfromasingleshoot. Withthenormalsucker
methodofpropagatingbananas, onlyabout10suckerscanbeproducedfromoneplantinthesame
period. These plantlets are then transplanted into tiny pots and kept in a highly humid laboratory
atmosphere for 10daystoacclimatizeandhardentotheconditionsofthenaturalenvironment. Afterpotting,theyarereadyforthefieldintwomonths,atabout30cmhigh. Thesterileoperationalnatureof
tissuecultureproceduresexcludesfungi,bacteria,andpestsfromtheproductionsystemmeaningthat
diseases, such as thePanama disease caused by Fusariumoxysporum f.sp. Cubense (FOC), andweevils (Cosmopolites sordidus)/nematode complexes (Radopholus similis ) cannot be transmitted
throughthetcmicro-propagation. However,viruses,suchasthebananabunchytopandtheepisomal
formofbananastreakvirusarenoteliminatedthroughtcunlessmeasures,suchasvirusindexingare
takentopreventdiseasetransmissions.
Tissue cultureisafairlysimpletechnologycomparedtootherformsofbiotechnology, suchasgenetic
engineering. However,theyoungtcplantletsareextremelytenderandsensitivetowaterstress. They
require special management during the first five months ofestablishmenttoperformwellinthefield.
Planting should,therefore,coincidewiththeon-setoflongrainsunlessirrigationisavailable.Regularsupplyofwaterandmanureareessentialtomaintainthevigour.
Sincetherewasnodatafrompreviousstudiesontheperformanceoftcbananasinfarmers’fieldswhen
thetechnologybreakthroughwas madepublic, this diffusion study was commissioned to assess the
adoptiveresponsesandrecommendstrategiestoaddressissuesthatwouldpreventlarge-scaleadoption
ofthetechnology.
4

SmallScaleFarmers’AdoptiveResponsetoBananaBiotechnologyinKenya

Objectives
Thegeneralobjectiveofthediffusionstudywastoinvestigatefactorsthatinfluencetheadoptionofthe
newlyintroducedtissueculturetechnologyonbananasamongfarmersanddeterminepolicyimplications
forrapidtechnologydiffusionwithinthepredominantsmall-scaleagriculturalsystemsinKenya.
Thespecificobjectiveswere:• Toestablishwhetherthetctechnologywasrespondingtobananapriorityconstraintsamongfarmers(appropriatenessofthetechnology).
• Todeterminethemostpreferredbananavarietiesamongfarmers.
• Todescribeacceptabilityoftcbananasamongfarmersandconsumers.
• Toidentifyfarmers’perceptionsoftheproductionandmanagementconstraintsoftcderivedbananas.
• Toexaminefactorsrelatedtothetechnologythatcouldlimitdiffusion.
• Tosuggestpolicyinterventionandtheoptimalconditionsunderwhichagri-biotechproducts’transfer
occursamongresource-challengedfarmers.

5

Methodology

Thestudyusedparticipatoryapproachestoresearchwhereextensivefieldandmarketsurveys,interviews
and focusgroupdiscussionswereconductedtocollectdata.Thesemethodsweremostappropriatefor
this kind of study since they allowed freeexpression of opinion and experiences, making it easy todeterminetheacceptabilityandperceptionsoffarmerstowardsthetctechnology.Themethodsalsosuited
themostlysemi-illiteratetargetgroup.Threemajorbanana-growingregions:Central,EasternandNyanza
provinceswereselectedforthestudy(table1).Theresearcherworkedcloselywithateamofscientists
fromKARIandprivateenterprisesthatpropagatedthetcbananasandsetupthevariouson-farmandonstationdemonstrationsinthestudysites.

Table1:Averagebananaproductionstatisticsfortheprovincesof
Kenya (1996-1997)
Province (Percent)*Central
Coast*Eastern
Nairobi
NorthEastern*Nyanza
RiftValley
Western
Total

Area(ha)Production(t)Yield(t/ha)

Productionshare

16,913
5,743
9,669
48
271
30,2342,688
7,800

169,316
55,341
97,144
409
1,522
574,740
39,781
86,107

10.0
9.6
10.0
8.5
5.6
19.0
14.8
11.0

16.5
5.4
9.5
0.0
0.1
56.1
3.9
8.5

73,366

1,024,360

14.0 (average)

100.0

Source: MALDM(1996,1997). *Studysites

6

ATPSRESEARCHPAPERNo.1

Informal questionnairesthatalsoservedasinterviewschedules,observationsheetsandParticipatory
RuralAppraisals(PRAs)werethekeyinstrumentsusedindatacollection.ThePRAswereusedtosolicit
information on bananapriority constraints, variety preferences in different zones, perceptions of thetechnology,genderissuesandinunderstandinggroupdynamicsasanappropriatemethodfortechnology
transfer.Theinterviewscheduleselucidateddataonmanagementpracticesand/orconstraints,true-totypnessofthetcbananas,forexample,size,colour,taste,amongothers.Dataonthesuitabilityofthetc
banana within the existing environmental and socio-economic conditions, for example, inputs,
accessibilityandplacementofbananaagainstothercropsinthefieldwasalsoexplained. Duringvisitsto
farmsandmarkets,observationsheetsreinforcedthelattertwoinstrumentsandwereusedtorecord
informationontheappropriatenessoftheinnovationwithinthefarmingsystemsandthesuitabilityofthetechnologytoalleviatehungerandpoverty.Visitstomarketswerealsousedtocollectdataonconsumer
acceptance,marketabilityoftheproductandinunderstandingimportantissuesinbananamarketing.
For mostpartofthefieldwork,datafromfarmers’fieldswascollectedfromindividualfarmersorgroups
during meetings. Specificissuesfromgroupdiscussions (PRAs) were investigated inseveral farms.
Because of fluctuations in attendance during group meetings, qualitative data analysis was more
appropriate forthebetterpart ofthereportandfigureswerebased on group consensus. Where theresearcherwasabletocapturenumbers,frequencieswerecomputedandreported.

FieldActivities
ThePRAshelpedtoascertainwhether thetechnologywouldachievethefollowing:• respondtoprioritybananaproductionconstraints• identifypreferredcultivars• gaugefarmers’viewsofthetechnology

APRAinMaragua,CentralProvince,oneofthestudysites.

7

SmallScaleFarmers’AdoptiveResponsetoBananaBiotechnologyinKenya•

suggestinterventionmeasures

Market studieshelpedtoidentifyconsumervariety preferencestoensurethatfarmers wouldgrowthe
desiredbananasandfortheresearchertounderstandthemarketingofbananas.
Farm visits helped to assess how well thefarmers accepted thetechnology, their perceptions ofthetechnology and management practices. The visits also shed light on the anticipated constraints totechnology diffusion based on the characteristics of the technology, the farmers and the farming
environment.
Ineacharea,agriculturalextensionofficersguidedtheresearcherstolocationswheretheycouldconduct
thePRAs.Theyalsoadvisedonmethodstocapturetherelevantaudience.Consequently,marketdaysandothersocialfunctionsinthestudyareas,suchaschurchgatherings,welfaregroupmeetingsandschools
wereusedtopublicizethestudy.

8

Results & Discussions

Thestudyidentifiedthefollowingfactors,inorderofpriority,asmajorconstraintstobananaproduction:• pests(moles,weevils,nematodes)• diseases(Panamadisease,cigar-endrot,Sigatoka)• lackofcleanplantingmaterial• exploitationbymiddlemenduetopoororganizationinmarketing• lackofextensionservices• inadequatemanureandotherinputs,especiallywater• poorinfrastructureoftenresultinginheavypostharvestlosses
Allfarmersacrossthestudysitesreportedpests,diseasesandlackofuninfestedplantingmaterialasthe
most pressing problems. These reports concur with what the researchersidentifiedearlier. Farmers
reportedlytriedtocontrolpestsanddiseasesthroughcroprotationandbuyingsuckersfromgovernment
prisonsdepartments,expectingfairlycleanplantingmaterialbuttheyweredisappointed. Theresearchers
used thisopportunitytoexplainthetctechnologyindetail. Theyalsoshowedthefarmerssamplesof
plantletstheycarriedduringthePRAsandthey(farmers)readilyacceptedtotestthetechnology.
Themostpopularbananavarietiesrankedinorderofrelativeimportancewere:• GrosMitchel,(AAA)–rankedfirstinCentralProvince• Israel,(AAA)–rankedfirstinEasternProvince• Muraru,(AA)• UgandaGreen(EAAAA)–rankedfirstinNyanzaProvince• Applebanana
Importantcharacteristicsthatinfluencedtherankingofcultivarswere:• abilitytoattracthighpricesinthemarket• consumeracceptanceandpreference• longshelf-life• culturalattachment(e.g. Muraru inEasternandCentralprovinces)• preferenceformultipurposevarieties,forexample,cooking,dessertandfodder

9

ATPSRESEARCHPAPERNo.1

Varietyselectioncriteriavarieddependingonwhetherthecropwasgrownforsubsistenceorcommercial
purposes.Forinstance,wherebananasweregrownforcash,thebunchsizeandmarketprice,determinedbydemandandsupply,werethemostimportantfactors.InKisiiDistrict,wherethecookingvarietyismost
commonly grownandusedalotbythelocalcommunityasfood,initialintroductionoftctechnology
received some resistance since the introduced varieties were the dessert Cavendish. One farmer
complainedsaying, “a childcangohungrywhenthosebananasareavailablebecausetheycannotbe
cooked”(Joseph,pers.Com).

How Appropriate was the tc Banana Technology in Small-Scale
Agriculture?
Theacceptabilityandappropriatenessofthetctechnology wasgaugedagainstthecharacteristicofthreemainfactors,namely:• technology• farmingenvironment• thefarmermakingtheadoptiondecision

CharacteristicsoftheTechnology
Characteristics of a technology that can encourage or discourage adoption include its complexity,
profitability, risks involved in adoption, compatibility with other technologies or farmer practices anddivisibility(Rogers1983;Morrisetal,1999).
In thestudy,afewfarmers(15%)reportedhavingheardoftctechnologyonbananasbutdidnotknow
wheretogetthematerials.OthersconfessedtohavingboughtonetofiveplantletsfromtheJomoKenyatta
Universityof Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT) but the materials had “reverted”backtotraditional
bananas. Otherssaidtheyhadattempted,withoutsuccess,togettheplantingmaterialsfromJKUATandhadbeenplacedonalongwaitinglistgeneratedfromtheinitialpublicannouncementsbytheuniversityto
supplyplantlets. Follow-upvisitstospecificfarmersindicatedtheydidnotknowhowtomanageplantlets
thusexplainingthepoorperformanceoftheinitialtcmaterialspurchased.Theinterestofthosewhohad
waited forlongtogetmaterialshadwaned.InsomepartsofKisiiDistrictinNyanzaProvince,several
farmersmisconceivedtheplantletstobeflowersandwerenotwillingtotryoutthetechnology.
Oncethenational project by KARI/ISAAAonfieldevaluation commenced with the settingofon-farmdemonstrationsandsystematictrainingontechnologymanagement,theexcellentperformanceofthetc
bananasgeneratedhighdemandfromfarmersregardlessofeducationand/orage. Nearlyalltcbanana
farmersinterviewed, withinandwithouttheprojectarea,hadsomebasiceducationwith30%having
reachedsecondaryschool,54%withprimaryschool education,11%withpost-secondaryandonly5%
withnoformaleducation. Thefarmers’agebracketrangedfrom18toover60yearsold.Theoldestfarmer
encounteredwithtcbananaswas80yearsold. Thisledtotheconclusionthatthetcbananatechnologyis
notcomplextosmall-scalefarmersandfitswellwithintheirfarmingsystem.
Theseobservations,however,yieldedtwoimportantlessonsontechnologydiffusion:• Educationandfamiliarizationwiththetechnologytoend-usersthroughon-farmdemonstrationsiskey
todiffusion.
10

SmallScaleFarmers’AdoptiveResponsetoBananaBiotechnologyinKenya•

Disseminatingagoodtechnologywithoutproperinformationonmanagementcouldcreatea
wrongimpressionofcomplexity,negativelyinfluencingdiffusion.

Availabilityof the product, onceend-usersaresensitizedisanotherimportant lesson. Initially, the tc
bananaswereonlyavailableinthepublic domain (JKUAT) thatwasnotable,atthetime,toproduce
adequate materialstomeetthedemandcreatedthroughmediaannouncements. Involving theprivate
sector,liketheGeneticTechnologiesLimited(GTL),aprivatetissueculturelaboratoryinNairobi,offered
timelyresponse to farmersneeds. TheprivatelaboratorylaterteamedupwithKARItoformapublicprivate partnership contributing significantly to successful diffusion that is an appropriate policy
recommendation. Accessingmaterialstothewidertargetgroupswhoarescatteredalloverthecountry,
however,isstillamajorchallengesinceadistributionsystemfortheplantletsisyettobeestablished.
Farmers,naturally,areinterestedintechnologiesthatgivehigherreturnstoscarcefactorsofproduction,suchaslabour,cash,landandcapital. Profitabilityofbananaswasdetermined, interalia , by thebunch
sizeandthenumberofbunchesharvestedatatime. Fieldobservationsindicatedthatthetechnologyhad
madeitpossibleforfarmersto:• access superior clean planting material that mature early (12-16 months compared to theconventionalbananaof2-3years)• harvestbiggerbunchweights,(30-45kgcomparedtothe10-15kgfromconventionalmaterial)• attainhigher annual yieldperunitofland(40-60tonsperhectareagainst10-20tonspreviously
realizedwithconventionalmaterial)
Moreover, two additional attributes: uniformity in orchard establishment and simultaneous plantation
developmentthatarenotpossiblewithtraditionallygrownbananasappearedtohavestrengthenedthe
caseforthetechnologyamongfarmers.
It was, however,observed thatthecostofplantlets,aboutoneandahalfdollars($1.5),andthehighrequirementsforwaterandmanurewerelimitingfactorstothediffusionprocess.Manyfarmers,therefore,

Uniformityinfruitingfortcbananasencouragescommercialmarketingwithpotentialtotransformbananagrowing
frommerelysubsistencetocash-basedenterprise,anappropriatepovertyreductionstrategy.

11

ATPSRESEARCHPAPERNo.1

were notabletoestablishviablecommercialunitsasearlierdeterminedbyan exante socio-economic
studybyQaim(1999)tobeaminimumof80plants.Theaveragenumberofplantsforcloseto75%ofthe
farmerswas20. Itwasnotuntilapilotmicro-creditwasintroducedinCentralProvincethatfarmerswere
abletoexpandtheirorchardstoanaverageof40plants.
Thoughfarmersappreciatedtheopportunitycreatedbythetctechnologyforbulk-marketing,theywere
pessimistic on profitability because of what they disgustedly explained as, “a chain of numerous
exploitative middlemenandwomen.” The poorstateofinfrastructurewasanotherconcernandfarmers
reportedheavy losseswhiletransportingbananastourbanmarkets where theyhopedtofetchbetter
prices.
These findingsrevealedseveral aspects forpolicy considerations onresource-challenged farmersto
benefitfrominnovations. First,istheavailabilityofessentialinputstodeploythetechnologysuccessfully.
Inthiscase,providingmicro-creditstimulatedthediffusionprocessandpolicymakersshouldconsideritas
animportantfactorintechnologytransfer.Secondismarketing. Forperishablecommodities,suchas
bananas,linkstomarketsbyprovidingmarketinginformationisessential,whileadditionaltechnologyforadding valuetotheproducts,forexample,processingbananaintojam,winesandcrispsareimportantvalue.Otherwise,theprofitabilityoftheprojectfromaresearcher’spointof viewmaybedisastrousfor
resource-challengedfarmerswithbulkharveststheycannotdisposeof. Closeproximitytourbanmarkets,
suchasNairobiisanadvantagetofarmersinCentralProvince.Fortheotherregions,thelocalcounty
councils, through appropriate government policies, could be assisted to streamline the marketing o fbananas,forexample,bysettingupcoldstoragefacilities.
Farmersalsoweightherisksinvolvedinadoptinganewtechnology. Theymaybeconvincedthatthenew
technology works, but theywillbeuncertainhowitwillperformin theirownfarms. Inthisstudy,theuncertaintywasallayedbysettingupfarmer-managedtcbananademonstrationtrialsinalltheproject
areas. Participatingandnon-participatingfarmerswerethusconvincedthat thetcbananatechnology
workedprovidedtheymanagedthebananasasdemonstratedbytheresearchers.
Performanceduringunusualclimaticstress,forexample,shortageofwaterisanotherriskthatcanleadto
theabandoningofatechnology.Thisriskisrealbecausetcbananashaveahighaffinityforwaterandonly
7%ofthefarmershadreliablewatersourcesfromboreholesandstreamsnearby.Underunfavourable
climaticconditions,especiallydrought,itisriskytoadopttcbananas.Droughthadalreadyforcedsome
would-beadopterstowaituntilthesituationimproved. Inallthesurveyedareas,farmerscitedwaterasa
limitingfactortotechnologyuptake.
In CentralProvince,farmers,especiallythosewhoboughtthetcbananaplantletsinanticipationofthe
long-rainsinApril-Mayweredisappointedwhentherainsfailed.Theyhadtodrawwaterfromriverstosave
thetcplantletsfromdying. Thistaskwastediousandimpracticalforfarmerswithmanymatsoftcbananas
unlessalternativewaterprovisiontechniquesareintroduced. Toavertsuchacrisis,farmersarebeing
encouragedandtrainedonsimpletechniquesofharvestingrainwater.Ahighlysuccessfulmethodinone
ofthedrierpartsoftheRiftValleyProvinceisharvestingsurface-runoff.Theprojectteamhasalreadyinitiatedlinkswiththefarmers’groupsintheseregionstobenefitfromthetechnique.
Newtechnologiesalsostandabetterchanceofbeingadoptediftheyarecompatiblewiththecurrent
farmingpractices. The tc banana technologyinvolvedachangeofpracticefromthetraditionalsucker
12

SmallScaleFarmers’AdoptiveResponsetoBananaBiotechnologyinKenya

methodwherethesuckersareobtainedfreecomparedtotheuseofplantlets,whichwerebought.Thetc
plantletsalsorequiredahighlevelofmanagementthanthefarmerswereusedto.Nonetheless,apartfrom
in Nyanza Province where a few farmers complained about the management requirements, thetechnologywascompatiblewiththecurrentfarmingpracticeswithamanagementimprovementbonusto
traditionalorchards.
Further,thetcbananas,justlikethosefromconventionalsuckers,werecomplementarywiththekeepingof
animals. Farmers fedbananastovertothe animals andobtained manure forthefarminreturn.The
pseudostemsfromwell-managedtcbananaswerefarmuchbiggerthanthosefromconventionalsuckers
and farmersreportedthis as anadvantagesincethey provided more feedtoanimals.Farmersalso
appreciatedthatsomechangesinbananamanagementpracticesrequiredfortcbananagrowingwere
beneficial.
Anotheradvantageoftcbananatechnologyisitsdivisibility.Althoughtcplantletsareexpensive,farmers
couldbuyafewplantsfortestingorbuyafeweveryseasonandgraduallyreplace the conventional
bananas. Thismethod,accordingtofarmers,reducedrisksofadoptingthetechnologybyallowingthemto
tryitgraduallyandonasmallarea.Consideringtheshrinkingfarmsizesperfamilycausedbypopulationpressures,thisfactorcannotbeoveremphasized.

CharacteristicsoftheFarmingEnvironment
Theenvironment inwhich farmers operate, suchasagro-climatic conditions;thenatureofprevailingcropping systems; thedegree of commercialisationofthecroppingenterprise and the availability ofphysicalinputsalsoaffectdiffusion.Theagro-climaticconditions,asadeterminantoftechnologyadoption
canbeunderstoodinthesensethattheycaninfluencetheperformanceofatechnology.Althoughbananas
cangrowinmostagro-ecologicalzonesinKenyatheresearcherscarefullyselectedzonesmostsuitable

Left:Awell-managedbananaorchard.
Below:On-farmtrainingoftcbananaorchard.

13

ATPSRESEARCHPAPERNo.1

forbananagrowing.Theprolongeddroughtthatwasunusualandtheabsenceofirrigationinmostfarms
weretheonlyproblemsencountered.
Thestudyestablishedthatthetcplantletsrequiredextraresourcesandhighleveltechno-management
practicesespeciallyinpreparingholes, de-suckering,watering,applying manureand,tosomeextent,
fertilizer. Information packages on management were necessary becauseasthetechnologyuptake
increased,moreentrepreneurscameintodistributeplantlets.Chancesofreapingmaximumbenefitsfrom
thetctechnologywithoutpropermanagementwereslim.
Abouthalf(48%)ofthefarmersinterviewed,especiallyinCentralandEasternprovinces,opposedtheuse
offertilizerbecauseofthebeliefthatsyntheticfertilizermadethebananasoggyandtastelessaffecting
quality. Theresearcherstestedforalterationofthequalitiesallegedbutfoundnoevidencealthoughthe
period of applicationof the fertilizer mattered. Farmerswereadvisedonfertilizeruseandsubsequent
properapplicationsenhancedyields. However,oldhabitsdiehardandanappropriatestrategywouldbe
togivefarmerstheoptionofusingartific ialfertilizersororganicmanuresincethelatterwouldbecheaperand more environment-friendly than the former.Severallocalinitiativesfromgrassroots organizations,suchasWanguInvestmentsandtheKenyaInstituteof Organic Farming,operatingintheprojectsites
havebeentrainingfarmersonmakingcompostmanureforthebananas.
Althoughmostofthefarmsvisitedinitiallyhadbananaintercrop,agoodnumber(32%)hadabandoned
intercroppingtcbananaswhentheyrealizedthattheygetbetterreturnswhenthebananawasgrownasa
monocrop.

CharacteristicsoftheFarmerMakingtheAdoptionDecision
Athirdsetoffactorsdocumented inliterature(Madukwe1994;Oduol1996;Morrisetal1999)asimportantto technologydiffusionprocessarefarmers’personalcircumstances,includingage,wealth,education,
genderandgroupmembership.Thesefactorswereassessedagainsttheirpotentialinfluenceondiffusion
ofthetcbananatechnology.
Ninetyfivepercent(95%)ofthefarmerswerecategorizedasliterate.Thefarmers’agebracketranged
fromeighteentooversixtyyears.Theoldestfarmerencounteredwithtcbananaswas80yearsold.The
average income wasaboutKshs.4,800acrossthethreesiteswithCentralProvince recordinghigher
incomes(over40%recordedearningsintheKshs.5,000range). KisiiDistricthadthelowestrecorded
incomeswith45%reportingearningsintherangeofaboutKshs.2,000.Thisfigureissupportedbythe
Kenyan Government Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) published in September 2001 citing
Nyanzaastheprovincewiththehighestproportionofpeoplelivingbelowthepovertyline,definedasjust
KShs.1,239(US$15.6)permonth(PRSPReport2001).
Theobservedwiderangeinwealthbetweentheverylowandtheveryhighwithinthetargetsmallholder
wasfoundtohaveanaffectonthediffusion.Farmerswithhigherincomes(22%)hadadvantagesnotonly
intheeaseofmakingcontactswithresearchersandothersourcesoftechnicalinformationbutalsoaccesstoinputs,mainlywaterandmanure.Thesefarmersalsohadfewerdifficultiesinraisingcashtopurchase
theplantletsandtheycouldalsohiretransporttodeliverthefruittourbanmarkets.Tissueculturebanana
technologyisthuslikelytobemorebeneficialtotheverypooronlyifinstitutionalmechanismsareputin
placetoavailadditionalresources.Themajorlimitingfactorstoadoptingtctechnologyforbananatodate
isthehighcostofplantlets,inadequateinputsandlackofmarketinginformation.
14

SmallScaleFarmers’AdoptiveResponsetoBananaBiotechnologyinKenya

Althoughitwasnotpossibleforthisstudytocorrelateincomewithadoption(annualincomeestimatesamong majority small farmers who rarely keep farm records was difficult to compute), farmers withrelativelylargerfarmsandhigherincomesseemedtohavelessproblemsinadoptingthetechnology. In
thestudysites,thispercentagewassmallsince80%ofthefarmershadanaveragefarmsizeofonly1.5
hectares. Asreportedearlier,nearlyallthefarmersinterviewedhadsomeformaleducation(95%)butthis
didnotseemtoaffecttechnologydiffusion.
Agewasanimportantfactorindiffusion,withmorefarmers(62%)above40yearsofagecomparedto32%
ofthosebelowthisageadoptingthetechnology.Youngertcfarmerswereuncertainwhethertheywould
inherit the piece of land theywerefarmingandsotheypreferredtogrowshort-termcropslikebeans,vegetables,andgroundnuts. Onthecontrary,farmersabove40yearsoldownedthelandinwhichthey
farmedwhilethoseabove60yearswereretireesseekingalternativesourcesofincomeandtheyfoundthe
tc bananas appropriate. Bananas being a perennial crop, land tenure as, a matter of policy, affects
technologyuptakeandshouldbeconsidered.
Mostlyfarmerswhobelongedtofarmergroupshadadoptedtctechnology.ThiswasprevalentinCentral
Provincewherefarmerswhobelongedtoinformal“merry-go-round”groupshadbeenencouragedtoform
banana-farminggroups withanaverage of 40 members. Diffusion was slow inEastern and Nyanza
provinces where the technologywas introduced toindividualfarmers. In Central Province, there weremorethan400farmerswithtcbananaswhileinEasternandNyanza,thefigurewashardly200farmers.
Therefore,ifatechnologywereintroduced to individual farmershopingthatotherswouldtakeupfrom
thoseindividuals,itwouldtakefarmuchlongertodiffuse.Groupapproachseemstobemoreeffectiveintransferringtechnologiesespeciallywhereeducationandtrainingcontribute.
Farmers’groupshavebeenamajorsourceofthesuccessofthetcbananatechnologytransfer.KARIand
ISAAA helped at least eight farmers’ groups to access a revolving micro-credit fund through theirregisteredwelfareassociationstofinanceacquisitionoftcplantlets.ThemodifiedGrameenModelofloan
repayment adopted for groupshaskeptthemicro-creditfundsolvent.Thesegroupsofferagoodentry
point fortrainingfarmers on tc banana management practices and other farmenterprisesfrom otherdevelopmentpartners.Thegroupshavealsostrengthenedthesocio-economicfabricoftheparticipating
communitiesbysharingideasandexperiencesondevelopment.
Since gender has been widely acknowledged as important in technology uptake,thediffusion study
investigatedthegenderdimension in tc banana uptake. An interesting observation was that despitebananabeingapredominantlywoman’scrop,menqui cklyrealizedtheopportunityandmoreofthem
startedattendingthegroupmeetings. Atthebeginning,theproportionofwomentomeninthemeetings
wastwo-to-one. Bythefirstharvest,thishadbeenequalledtohalf-half.Thereweredivisionsonvarieties
thatcouldbemarketedbygender. InKisiiforinstance,womenmainlymarketedapplebananathatissmall
and fetches little money,while menmarketedthecookingtype(EkegandaandNg’ombegrades)thatis
muchbiggerandfetchesmoremoneyinthemarket.
Withthetcbananaassuringbiggersizedbananaandwiththeintroductionsofothervarieties,womennow
haveequalopportunitiesasthementomarkethighvaluebananas.Themenhavealsobeenattractedto
thetechnologyandtherearenoconflictsoverland-useasfearedearlier.Themensupportthetechnology
and as household heads who makedecisions onwhatistobeplanted,thisisaboosttotechnology
adoption.Adopting thetechnologyhasnarrowedthegendergapthrougheconomicempowermentand
thereismoremoneyforthefamilyregardlessofthesource.
15

ATPSRESEARCHPAPERNo.1

SummaryofLessonsLearnt
•
•
•
•
•

•

•
•

•
•
•

Educationandfamiliarizationwithtechnologytoend-usersthroughon-farmdemonstrationiskeyto
diffusion.
Diffusionisdirectlylinkedtoendusers’impressionabouttheeaseoftheprocessandthetechnology,
itsacquisitionandavailability.
Theprivatesector,forexample,theGeneticsTechnologiesLtd.(GTL)isbetterplacedtooffertimely
response to farmers’ needs as decisions can be madefaster compared to public institutions,forexample,JKUATthatmustadheretoinstitutionalproceduresbeforedelivering.
Farmersarenaturally interestedintechnologiesthatmaximize productivity,thatis,givinghigher
returnstoscarcefactorsofproduction,suchaslabour,cash,land,timeandcapitalwithoutimpacting
negativelyontheirculturalpracticesfromtheon-set.
Newdemands,forexample,costofplantletsatUS$1.5andhighrequirementsforwaterandmanure
forthebananatcarelimitingfactorstothediffusionprocessandtheimplementingorganizationhasto
availtheessentialinputsorbringinnewpartnerstodeploythetechnologysuccessfully.Micro-credit,
therefore,wouldstimulatediffusion.
Thehighyieldsresultingfromtctechnologydemandsanewmarketingapproach,especiallytargeting
urbanmarkets.Farmers,therefore,mustbeinductedintobasicmarketingtechniques,forexample,
costing, pricing, transportation andtheeliminationofmiddlemen.The implementingorganization
shouldincorporatemarketingaspectaspartofthepackageandwherepossible,offerassistancein
thesame,besidesthetraining.
Farmers will not risk adopting a new technology until they are convinced that it will perform
successfullyintheirownfarms.Thisfearisonlyallayedbysettingfarmermanageddemonstration
trialswithintheirlocality,toprovidehands-onexperienceswiththeinnovation.
New technologies stand a better chanceofadoptioniftheyarecompatible with currentfarming
practices, forexample, tcbananatechnology involvedthepurchaseofplantletsthusslowingthe
adoption process. Other aspects, likeusingstocks to feed thefarmers’animalsencouraged theadoptionofthetctechnologygiventheenvisagedincreaseincropandlivestockproduction.
Technologies that allowgradualadoptionalongsidetraditionalmethodsstandhigherchancesof
successbecausethefarmersdo notfeelover-exposed.
The farming environment, especially the agro-climatic condition determines the adoption of atechnologysinceclimatecaninfluenceperformance.
Diffusion of technologyisalsodeterminedbythecharacteristicsof thefarmers,forexample,age,
education, wealth, gender and group membership. The more educated, wealthier and exposed
farmersreadilyadoptnewtechnologiesbecausetheyhavestop-gapsanddonogettrappedwiththefeelingoflosingeverything.Menaremoreeasilyabsorbedinprojectsthatshowobviouseconomic
benefitsandalsobecauseculturally,theycontrolthelandandheadhomes.

SummaryofPolicyImplicationsfromtheStudy!

•

Forbetterresultsthemainpolicychallengewillbetoestablishefficientbiotechnologydistribution
channels inKenya. This involves improving community-basedinitiative for the retailing o f t h e t cbananaplantsandrelatedextensionservices. Thisproject-studyhasdemonstratedthatthepotential
gainsofappropriatebiotechnologycanbegreatestforthesmall-scalefarmers.
The promising potentials of tc bananas need to be translated into action by making the newtechnologyaccessibletoallKenyanfarmers.
16

SmallScaleFarmers’AdoptiveResponsetoBananaBiotechnologyinKenya

•
•
•
•

•

•

•

•
•
•

Publicresearchanddevelopment(R&D)fundsshouldbemadeavailabletodevelopbiotechnology
thatexplicitlytacklestheneedofresource–poorproducersindevelopingcountries.
Theactualimpactofbiotechnologyisnotonlyaquestionoftechnologybutalsohingesonanefficientinstitutionalframework.Thesuccessfuluseofbiotechnologypresupposesextensivecapacitybuilding
inthenationalsystemofagricultureresearchandtechnologydiffusion.
Internationalcollaborativebiotechnologyprojectsachievecomparativelyquicksuccessinthetarget
countries. Theassociatedaccumulationofknowledge,experienceandself-confidencepavewayfor
broaderfuturebiotechnologyinnovation.
Theprivatesectorhas a primary roleinthenorthtosouthbiotechnologytransfer,especially themultinational biotech companies. R&D partnerships should be strengthened between the public
institution and the beneficiaries to enable the poor participate in the international biotechnology
revolution.
Involvingtheprivatesectorfromthestartsignifiesnotonlyareliablesupply,butalsotheestablishment
ofalong-termcommercialinfrastructure.Thisrequiresinputdistributionandextensionservicestobe
partandparcelofthetechnologicalinnovationframeworks,andalsoincorporationandimprovement
ofinfrastructureinthelong-termthatwouldgobeyondthecurrentproject.
Thereisarequirementforeconomicinceptivesthroughlowtozerointerestsschemeslikemicro-credit(orsmallbusinessloans)topoorfarmersandtaxexemptionsforagriculturalinputsforinvestorsasa
projectionagainstcheapimportsintheliberalizedmarket. Experiencehasshownthatiftheneedsor
fearsoftheendorsersareover-looked,then littleadoptionofnewtechnologytakesplace.
Partnership: Fromthetcexperience,anassemble,atthelocallevel,ofamultidisciplinaryteamfrom
several institutionswithdiversebackgroundsincludingbiologicalscientists,socio-economists,andprivate andpublicinstitutionswasamajorstrengthoftheprojectaseachgrouporteambroughtin
their expertise and experience and also worked with the project to improve and acquire newexperienceandknowledgefromandthrougheachother.
Establishing strong links and networking with end user, for example, including feedback andinteractionwiththelaboratoriesareessentialforsuccessfulcommercializationandultimateadoption
ofthetechnology.
Useofhighqualitymaterialsfromtheonsetisnecessarytoensurefavourableearlyreactionfromthe
endusers(e.g.farmers)whoseattitudewouldsubstantiallyeffectsubsequentadoptionrates.
Thenewtechnologymustbemarketledandaddvaluetoagriculturalproduce,forexample,design
howandwhattodowiththeincreasedproduction,establishnewmarketsordiversifyintovalueadding byintroducingnewby-products. Thenewtechnologymustgobeyondtheharveststageto
post-harvestutilizationtobenefittheenduser(orfarmersinthisinstance).

17

Conclusion

The projectbroughtaboutnewexperiencesofgrowinghealthybananasundertropicalconditionsasa
commercialinitiative.ItprovidedarareopportunityforKARItoworkwithindustriesandotherstakeholders
topromotethedeliveryofbiotechnologyapplicationtoresource-poorfarmers.Emphasisoncollaboration
betweenscientists,extensionandsocialworkerscreatedmechanismsandchannelsforpartnershipsandsynergythroughouttheresearch,developmentanddistribution.
TheacquiredtccapacityandestablishedbiotechnologydisseminationchannelsinKenyawillfacilitatethe
futuretransferofmoresophisticatedinnovationsassoonastheybecomeavailable. ThetechnologicalandinstitutionalexperiencesgainedinKenyawillalsoproducetechnologicalspillovertootherEastAfricancountries.
The business environment created by theproject is conducive to thedevelopment of anindigenous
biotechnologysectorthatholdspromiseasoneofthemostpowerfultoolsavailable,but hasnotbeen
exploited to reducepovertyandhunger,especiallyintheThirdWorld.Theprojectalsodemonstratesa
viableoptiontofeedintheKenyaPovertyReduction Strategyandfitswellwithinresolutionsoftherecently
concludedWorldSummitonSustainableDevelopment(August26th–September4 2002)th

Recognition
In December 2000,thenationalprojectwithinwhich theAfricanTechnology StudiesNetwork (ATPS)
sponsoredstudywasconductedwontheFirstResearchMedalintheGlobalDevelopmentNetwork(GDN)
AwardforScienceandTechnologyforDevelopment.Outof500applicantsfrom94countries,fivefinalists
were selected to present their submissions. The GDN medals and awards are sponsored by theGovernmentofJapanandtheWorldBankandbuilduponot herGDNactivities, suchastheRegional
ResearchCompetitionandtheGlobalResearchProject.Theseactivitiespromoteknowledgecreationandcapacity building in developing countries. Such a prestigious international recognition is a source o fmotivation and an important lesson ofthepower of multidisciplinary approaches towards deploying
technologiesmeantforresource-challengedfarmers.

18

References
Babu,S.C.(1991)
BiotechnologyforRuralNutritionin,FoodPolicy,
Butterworth-HeinemannLtd.
Carr,S.(1989)
TechnologyforSmall-scaleFarmersinsubSaharanAfrica ,WorldBankTechnicalpaperNumber109,WashingtonD.C.
CentralBureauofStatisticsAnnualReports (1990-2000)
Unpublished.
HartmanH.T.andKesterD.E.(1993)
Techniquesof invitro Micropropagation
In:Plant:Propagation,PrinciplesandPractices
Prentice-Hall,Inc.EngelwoodCliffs,NewJersey.
KARI(1997)
BiotechnologytoBenefitSmall-ScaleBananaProducersinKenya.
ProjectProposal
Nairobi,Kenya.
KarembuM.G.(1998)
Small-scaleFarmersAdoptiveResponsestoBananaBiotechnologyinKenya(UnpublishedProgressreport),Nairobi.
KenyaPovertyReductionStrategyPaper2000
Unpublished.
Kungu,J.N,M.Karembu,F.NNguthi,andL.Njuguna(2000).EvaluationReportoftheProject“BiotechnologytoBenefit Small-scaleBananaProducersinKenya”(Unpublished)
Madukwe,M.C.(1994)
ObstaclestotheAdoptionofYamMinisettTechnologybySmallscaleFarmers
inSouthEasternNigeria,Agrosearch,
Vol.1(1)
MALDM(1996,1997).
ProvincialAnnualReports.Minist ry ofAgriculture,LivestockDevelopmentandMarketing
Nairobi,Kenya.
1MOA(1994).
AnnualReports-Kirinyaga,KisiiandMurang’aDistricts
MinistryofAgriculture.Nairobi,Kenya.
Morris,M.L,R.TrippandA.A.Dankyl(1999).
AdoptionandImpactsofImprovedMaizeProductionTechnology
AcasestudyofGhanaGrainsDevelopmentProject.
EconomicsProgramPaper99-01.
Mexico,D.F.CIMMYT

NguthiF.(1999)
TissueCultureBananaSeedlings.
HorticulturalNews,theOfficialJournalofHCDANo.18:7-8.
NguthiF.N(1997)
PersonalCommunicationwhileCollectingLiteraturefortheStudy
OdoulW.(1996)
AdaptiveResponsestoModernAgriculturalTechnology:
AcaseStudyofKituiFarmersintheSemi-aridRegionsofEasternKenya.
ATPSUnpublishedReport.
QAIM,M.(1999)
AssessingtheImpactofBananaBiotechnologyinKenya.
ISAAABriefsNo.10.ISAAA:Ithaca,NY.
RobinsonJC.(1994).
GeneralRecommendationsforManagingTissueCultureBananaPlantsintheField
ITSCInformationBulletinNo.257:1-5.
RobinsonJC.(1996).
BananasandPlantains
CABInternationalPublication117-120,Wallingford,UK.
Rogers,E(1983)
DiffusionofInnovationsrd
3 EditionLondon:TheFreePress
ThruppA.(1989).
LegitimisingLocalKnowledge:EmpowermentforThirdWorldPeople
InWarren,Metal.(eds)IndigenousKnowledgeSystems:
ImplicationsforAgricultureandInternationalDevelopment.
StudiesinTechnologyandSocialChangeNo.11IowaUniversity
WambuguF,M,M.GKarembu,F.NNguthi,S.WWakhusamaandNjugunaM(2000)
BiotechnologytoBenefitSmall-scaleBananaProducersinKenya
PaperpresentedattheGDNConference,Tokyo(WonFirstplaceMedal)
WHO(1978).
PrimaryHealthCareReportoftheInternationalConferenceonPrimaryHealthCare
HealthforAllseries1.Geneva

African Technology
Policy Studies
NetworkAcknowledgment
ThisstudywasmadepossiblethroughthecollaborativeeffortsofmanypersonsandinstitutionswhomI
wishtoacknowledge.Firstly,myheartfeltthanksareduetoProfessorLynnMytelka,forlinkingmeupwith
the Director of ISAAAAfriCenter, Dr. Florence Wambugu and to ISAAAAfricenter for the anchorage
throughouttheprojectperiod.Secondly,myappreciationtotheAfricanTechnologyPolicyStudiesNetwork(ATPS)forthefinancialsupporttocarryoutthisstudy. I workedverycloselyandcordiallywithpersonsin
thefollowinginstitutions: KARI,ISAAA,DuRoi,ITSC,GTL,ZEF,ATPSandthevariousNGOs.Myspecial
gratitudetotheresearcherswhokindlyaccommodatedmysocialscienceinputs,inparticularDr.JohnS.
Wafula,MrsFaithNguthi,MrsMargaretOnyango,MrJoelMutsiya,MrJ.Muthamia,MrFrancisMuniuall
fromKARI,MrsLucyNjugunafromBeamBusinessConsultants,Dr.ZaagDeBeerfromITSC,DrMatin
QaimfromZEF,Dr.FlorenceWambuguandMichaelNjugunaofISAAA.SincerethanksareduetoIDRC,
CanadaandtheRockefellerFoundationofUSAforjointlyprovidingfinancialsupporttotheoverallnational
projectwithoutwhichthistechnologydiffusionstudywouldhavebeenjustanother“post-mortem”. Lastly
andinaveryspecialway,Iwouldliketoacknowledgetheparticipatingfarmers.Itwastheirenthusiasmand
hardwork,aboveeverything,thatmadetheoverallprojectsucharesoundingsuccess.

MargaretGathoniKarembuisaLecturerattheKenyattaUniversity,Nairobi,Kenya.

FormoreinformationonthisseriesandATPS,contact:
TheExecutive Director
TheAfrican Technology Policy StudiesNetwork
3rd,Floor, The Chancery,
Valley Road
POBox10081,00100
GeneralPostOffice
Nairobi,Kenya
Tel: 254-2-2714168/092/498
Fax: 254-2-2714028
Email: info@atpsnet.org
Website:http://www.atpsnet.org