TECHNOPOLICY BRIEF 14

RESEARCH PRIORITIES FORKENYA’S CUT-FLOWER
INDUSTRY: FARMERS’PERSPECTIVES
Maurice Bolo
Nancy M. Muthoka
Racheal Washisino
Virginia Mwai
Daniel Kisongwo

AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORKPublished by
The African Technology Policy Studies Network
P.O. Box 10081 - 00100, General Post Office,Nairobi, Kenya.

© 2006 African Technology
Policy Studies Network (ATPS)
Printed by
Majestic Printing Works
○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

ISBN:

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

ABOUT THE AFRICAN TECHNOLOGY POLICY STUDIES NETWORKThe African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) is a multi-disciplinary
network of researchers, policy makers, actors in the private sector and otherend-users interested in generating, promoting and strengthening innovative
science and technology policies in Africa. With a regional secretariat in Nairobi,
the network operates through national chapters in 23 African countries, withan expansion plan to cover the entire sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the objectives of the network is to disseminate research results to policy
makers, legislators, the organized private sector, civil society, mass media andfarmers’ groups through publications, dialogue and advocacy. Among its rangeof publications are the Working Paper Series (WPS), Research Paper Series(RPS), Special Paper Series (SPS) and the Technopolicy Briefs.
ATPS is supported by a growing number of donors including the International
Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Carnegie Corporation of New York,the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, the OPEC Fund, Ford Foundation,
Coca-Cola Eastern Africa, the African Development Bank, and the Royal Dutch
Government.

ABOUT THE TECHNICAL CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL
AND RURAL COOPERATION (CTA)
The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) wasestablished in 1983 under the Lome Convention between the ACP (African
Caribbean and Pacific) Group of States and the European Union Member States.
Since 2000, it has operated within the framework of ACP-EC Cotonou Agreement.
CTA’s tasks are to develop and provide services that improve access to
information for agricultural and rural development and to strengthen thecapacity of ACP countries to produce, acquire, exchange and utilise informationin this area. CTA’s programmes are designed to: provide a wide range of
information products and services and enhance awareness to relevant
information sources; promote the integrated use of appropriate communication
channells and intensify contacts and information exchange (particularly intraACP); and develop ACP capacity to generate and manage agricultural
information and to formulate ICM strategies, including those relevant to scienceand technology. CTA’s work incorporates new developments in methodologies
and cross-cutting issues such as gender and social capital.

Acronyms
ACP
ATPS
CTA
EU
HCDA
JKUAT
KARI
MoA
MoU

African Caribbean and Pacific
African Technology Policy Studies Network
Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural
Cooperation
European Union
Horticultural Crops Development Authority
Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture andTechnology
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
Ministry of Agriculture
Memorandum of UnderstandingTable of Contents
1.0

Background1

2.0

The Contribution of Research in the Floriculture
Industry

3

The Case for Demand-led Research in Floriculture
Sub-sector

7

4.0

Farmers’ Key Concerns

95.0

Research Priorities: A Farmers’ Agenda

12

6.0

Other Non-research Concerns

15

7.0

Survey and Comparisons of Farmers’ Priorities
with Current/on-going Research in Kenya

17

Conclusions

20

3.0

8.0

For more information on this series and ATPS, contact:

The Executive Director
The African Technology Policy Studies Network
3rd Floor, The Chancery, Valley Road
P.O. Box 10081 00100 General Post Office
Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: +254-020-2714092/168/498
Fax: +254-020-2714028
Email: info@atpsnet.org
Website: http://www.atpsnet.org

1.0
Background
The Kenyan floriculture sub-sector is the fastest growing in thehorticultural sector contributing Kshs. 18, 719 billion (•207.99
billion1) out of the total horticultural exports of Kshs. 32,590 billion(•362.1 billion) according to Horticultural Crops Development
Authority (HCDA) statistics (2005). In the last decade (1995-2004),
Kenya’s cut flower export earnings grew by more than 300 percent
at a time when the country’s overall export growth stood at 40
percent. Over the same period, the volume of flower exports
increased fifty-fold from 29,373 metric tones in 1995 to 81,217.83
metric tons in 2005 (HCDA, 2005) as illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1: Volumes and values of cut flowers exported from Kenya(1995-2004)
Year

Volume in
MetricTonnes

Value inKshs. Million

Value inEuros Million

1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005

29,37335,21235,85030,22036,99238,75741,39652,10660,98370,666.3
81,217.8

3,642
4,366
4,888
4,857
7,235
7,166
10,627
14,792
16,496
18,72022,897

40.47
48.51
54.31
53.97
80.39
79.62
118.08164.36183.29208
254.41

Source: HCDA Export statistics (all figures rounded to the nearest whole number)
1

All conversions are according to 2006 average exchange rates of Kshs. 90 to the euro1

○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Technopolicy Brief 14

It is noteworthy that the contribution of small-scale flower growers
to these export figures is minimal and on the decline as illustrated
in table 2. Recent findings by Fintrac (2005) have shown that theshare of summer flowers in the total flower exports is under atremendous decline (Table 2).
Table 2: Estimated share of summer flowers from total exported
flowers (2000-2003)
Volume (Million Tons)
2001
2002
2003

2000

Value (KES Million)
2001
2002
2003

Year

2000

Total
exports

38756.7

41396

52106.7 60982.9 7165.6 10626.9 14792.3 16495.5% shareof total

13.5

9.2

6.4

5.1

8.6

6.2

4.1

4.8

Source: Fintrac 2005

The Horticultural Crop Development Authority (HCDA) has notedthat there is enormous growth potential in the small-scale flower
growers if appropriate financial and technical assistance as well asa supportive policy can be put in place (Kiptum 2005). Most smallscale farmers are located in Nyandarua, Thika and Kiambu districts
and mostly grow summer flowers such as eryngium, arabicum,
tuberose, mobydick, mollucella, ornis, lilies and agapanthus.

○

2

○

○

○

2.0
The Contribution of Research in the Floriculture
Industry
The overall enormous growth in value, acreage and volume of
Kenya’s cut flower industry has been largely attributed to a robust
private sector involvement and externally-sourced knowledge andtechnologies. Kenya has adequate technical and human capacity
and skills but this has not been adequately utilized by the industry.
A study jointly conducted by the African Technology Policy Studies
Network (ATPS) and the Technical Centre for Agricultural and
Rural Cooperation (CTA) in 20042 found weak linkages/interactions
between the flower farmers and the local research system causing
the floriculture industry to rely on external3 knowledge to solve theindustry’s problems. This over-reliance on external knowledge has
contributed to the under-utilization of indigenous research capacityin Kenya, even though most of the stakeholders interviewed
concurred that Kenya has adequate skilled and well-trained
manpower.
A number of factors explain the weak linkages and consequent
under-utilization of Kenya’s indigenous research capacity. They
include:2

The ATPS/CTA study in 2004 focused on the processes by which actors in the industry
harness science, technology and innovation to bring new knowledge and technologies into
economic use. For further insight see Bolo (2005). “Agricultural, Science, Technology andInnovation Systems: the case of Kenya’s floriculture industry.” CTA, the Netherlands.
3

External knowledge in this case refers to knowledge which is sourced from outside Kenya
and for which Kenya’s flower farmers have to pay heavy consultancy fees and royalties. It
is knowledge generated by the international research as contrasted with the local researchsystem3○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Technopolicy Brief 14

a. Organizational cultures and proceduresOver time, organizations develop certain habits and practices that
determine how they relate to other actors within the system andrespond to ‘new shocks.’ The weak linkages between the local
research system and the flower growers is characteristic of the private– public institutions dichotomy. The large flower growers (whodominate flower business) are private companies who are interested
in keeping trade secrets to ensure their survival and competitivenessin the market. On the other hand, the local research system consists
mostly of public institutions, such as, Kenya Agricultural ResearchInstitute (KARI) and the universities whose mandate includes service
to the nation and are obligated to disseminate any information thatwould help improve the livelihoods of the general populace. The
public research system therefore considers such information,knowledge and technologies as public goods. This divergent
approach to information and knowledge acquisition, sharing anduse undermines a close interaction and sharing of knowledge andinformation between the industry and the public research
institutions.
Moreover, the slow, bureaucratic procedures in the public research
institutes undermine their ability to respond to urgent farmers’
requests. During the interviews, farmers narrated their experienceswith public research institutions whereby it took up to four months
to get results from local laboratories, whereas if they sent samples
to laboratories abroad, it would take them about two working days
to get results by email. Farmers’ needs (such as disease outbreaks)
are usually urgent and require immediate solutions. The delays fromthe local public research system forces farmers to seek solutions frominternational research establishments.
b. Attitudes and perceptions
More often, research priorities in public institutions are set by thescientific community with little attempt to involve the beneficiaries
in priortiy setting. This tendency has led to research institutions

○

4

○

○

○

Research Priorities for Kenya’s Cut-flower Industry: Farmers’ Perspectives

being isolated from the immediate needs of society. This approach
is often motivated by the assumption that the scientists andresearchers know what the farmers want. As such, research often
ignores farmers’ perceptions hence the outcome often does notsatisfy farmers’ needs. It is noteworthy that KARI has begun
involving stakeholders and intended beneficiaries in setting the
research agenda for the institute and has involved other stakeholders
in priority setting since mid 1990s.
Farmers in their daily activities experiment and continuously
innovate, sometimes accidentally. Unfortunately, scientists/
researchers fail to notice these innovations and when they do, theyquestion the scientific basis of farmer’s innovations. While thescientific rigour should not be compromised, it is important thatthe research community appreciate that the farmer innovations
provide solutions to their (farmers’) immediate problems. The
research community should consider how to optimize/add value
to and improve the farmer innovations using approved scientificmethods. Flower farmers on the other hand are seldom willing todisclose their innovations to scientists and researchers for fear of
losing the innovations. Farmers also view researchers as better versedin theory while inexperienced and lacking in the practical skills of
flower growing. These attitudes and lack of trust/confidence hinder
the smooth collaboration between the farmers and the researchers/scientists.
c. Weak operational capacity of public institutions
Though Kenya has the requisite technical and human capacity toserve the floriculture industry, they are not adequately financed torespond effectively to the farmers’ needs. This has been attributed
to lack of funds and operating facilities. During the interviews, itemerged that KARI-THIKA had introduced some flower varieties(such as mobydick, lilies, gerbera, gladiolus amongst others) which
had been tested in parts of Nairobi, Eastern and Central provinces.
These varieties proved popular with the small-scale farmers but the○

5○ ○ ○

Technopolicy Brief 14

farmers lacked the capacity to continually produce these flowers
and tended to rely heavily on KARI-THIKA to support theirenterprises through provision of seeds. KARI-THIKA helped smallscale farmers import seeds for lilies but the farmers were unable tocontinue after the KARI-THIKA support ceased while the Centerhas been able to supply seeds for certain flower varieties such asarabicum and gladiolus. The Center has taken to signing memorandaof understanding (MoU) with large-scale flower farmers for service
provision in which the large-scale farmers meet part of the costs ofthe services rendered.

○

6

○

○

○

3.0
The Case for Demand-led Research in
Floriculture Sub-sector
The above findings underscore the need to improve the interface
between and among scientists, researchers, farmers, policy makers
and service providers and build the capacity of industry stakeholders
to conduct demand-led research. There is also the need for greater
recognition of the value of farmers’ experimentation and innovation.
In response to that need, a multi-stakeholder team comprising the
Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), the Kenya Agricultural ResearchInstitute (KARI), the Horticultural Crops Development Authority(HCDA) and Karen Roses Ltd (representing farmers) under theleadership of ATPS and with financial support from CTA embarked
on a national case study whose main purpose was to accord farmers
and other research consumers greater involvement in setting the
research agenda for the industry. The team held consultative
meetings with farmers (with special emphasis on the small-scale
farmers) and other stakeholders in order to foster closer collaboration
between the local research system and the flower industry.
The specific objectives of these consultations were:• To facilitate the development and implementation ofdemand-led research programmes• To bring relevant issues to the attention of policymakers• To build capacity of stakeholders in participatory research
priority setting• To facilitate closer dialogue between the research community
and the beneficiaries and consumers of research outputs

7○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Technopolicy Brief 14

These consultations realized two key outcomes namely:• Farmers came up with a prioritized list of research topics
that would address both the short-term and long-term
needs of the industry• Farmers and other stakeholders drew up a list ofrecommendations that would require policy
interventions/action in order to strengthen the industry.
This policy brief summarizes the results of consultative meetings
with farmers and other stakeholders in Thika, Limuru and Naivasha
held between March and June 2006. It also highlights some nonresearch policy recommendations suggested by the farmers during
these consultations.

○

8

○

○

○

4.0
Farmers’ Key Concerns
During the consultative meetings, farmers raised a number of key
issues undermining their ability to attain optimum productivity.
These issues are summarized below:
a. Harnessing Farmers’ Innovations
Farmers continuously innovate but the innovations need to be‘perfected’ and scaled up. When farmers are innovating, the process
of experimentation and innovation is seen as part of the daily routine
and activities. Farmers narrated how in the course of their daily
activities, they discovered a lot of bio-control agents in the farms
that were useful in controlling various pests and emphasized that
this knowledge needed to be harnessed through continuousinteractions between the farmers and researchers at the farm level.
They called for a liaison officer who would pick up these innovations
and use research methods to scale up the innovations, improve themethodologies and come up with scientifically tested products.
Farmers suggested that KARI (and other research institutions)should work closely with farmers and engage itself in the isolation,
documentation and replication of these local technologies in pest
management.
Farmers applauded the efforts of the input suppliers who had theirrepresentatives stationed in the growing areas. These representatives
visited and interacted with farmers in their farms, helped identify
farmers’ problems and provided solutions. Research institutions areencouraged to emulate this example to allow researchers interact
more closely with farmers to enable them pick up, modify theinnovations, monitor progress and give feedback to farmers.
Moreover, the farmers’ experiences form a crucial body of tacit
9○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Technopolicy Brief 14

knowledge that can be harnessed to form the basis of new researchin the industry.
b. Development of indigenous flowers for commercialization
Farmers noted that there was over-reliance on imported varieties
such as roses, carnations, lilies, alstromeria amongst others for which
farmers have to pay royalties. They noted that Kenya is rich inbiological diversity and research should be conducted on Kenya’s
flora to identify and develop indigenous flower varieties forcommercialization. The KARI case of mobydick is an example of
how local research could be targeted to harness the country’s
biodiversity. It also emerged that farmers have been trying todomesticate some wild flowers such as papyrus (Cyperus papyrusL) on their own and called upon the researchers to support theirefforts to introduce new flowers in the market.
Closely related with the need to develop indigenous flowers, farmers
also strongly recommended the breeding of new flowers that could
be “branded Kenyan.” The farmers raised concern that even though
Kenya is the largest exporter of cut flowers in Africa andcommanded a huge share of the EU market, the country had notbred its own flowers and still relied heavily on growing imported
varieties.
c. Exploitation of small-scale exporters by middlemen
Small-scale flower farmers and exporters have difficulties accessing
the international export market due to stringent phyto-sanitary
standards, high freight costs, lack of knowledge of these markets
amongst other constraints. This has created room for middlemen
who enter into loose agreements with farmers to buy their flowers
or help them access the export markets. Farmers narrated numerous
challenges they faced with these unregulated middlemen including
low buying prices and failure to honour agreements (failing to collectproduce) leading to huge losses by the farmers. The farmers stressed
the need to form cooperatives to help them improve their bargaining

○

10
○

○

○

Research Priorities for Kenya’s Cut-flower Industry: Farmers’ Perspectives

positions and urged the government to facilitate the formation ofthese cooperative societies. The small-scale farmers further
recommended that they be facilitated to negotiate legally binding
contracts with the middlemen and ensure they were not exploitedwhen entering into such agreements.
d. Lack of research information
The farmers decried the lack of easily accessible information onvarious flower growing aspects including; knowledge on flower
varieties per ecological zones, production technologies andmarketing. This lack of information partly explains why farmers
turn to international companies for solutions. The farmers strongly
recommended the establishment of a Floriculture Center with
branches in the major growing areas to act as a one-stop shop where
farmers could find information on all the flower growing aspects.
The farmers further suggested that this Center should be designed
in a manner that woud allow farmers to display their innovations
and share their knowledge and information with other farmers aswell as scientists and researchers. In addition, the farmers
recommended that brochures containing research findings be madeavailable and in local languages.

○

11
○ ○ ○

5.0
Research Priorities: A Farmer’s Agenda
For any research activity to be useful, it must be sensitive to local
needs and priorities as well as allow ownership of its agenda by theintended beneficiaries. In the case of floriculture research, farmers
and exporters are the key stakeholders and their views should help
inform research decisions. During the consultative meetings in the
major growing areas (Thika, Limuru and Naivasha) farmers
identified and prioritized their research needs. They also suggested
solutions to some of the challenges facing the industry. Table
1(opposite page) shows the areas identified and the steps the farmers
have suggested for the research community as well as thepolicymakers.

12○ ○ ○ ○ ○○- Exploitation by middlemen/brokers- Lack of awareness of international trade
agreements- Lack of information on market trends/
requirements- Inability to meet market standards/regulations- Branding and brand identity (need to develop
marketing ‘slogans’ for Kenyan products)

Marketing- Farmers over-reliance on same flower
varieties since the early 1990s- The potential of local biodiversity is not
being fully harnessed/exploited- Kenya over- reliance on imported varieties
yet the country is a key exporter of flowers

Development ofnew/ indigenous
varieties- Lack of post-harvest handling knowledge- High post harvest losses- Lack of adequate, accessible facilities andcapacity- Farmers lack knowledge and adequate
information on alternative bio-control
methods for pest control

Pests and
Diseases

Post harvest
handling

Problem Description

Problem Area

- Training of farmers on post harvest handling techniques and practices- Conduct research on alternative, affordable cooling, packing andstorage methods- Conduct research on enhancing the post harvest quality of different
flower types- Enhance capacity of farmers to sign/enter into binding contracts withmiddlemen- Educate farmers on relevant international trade agreements such as
the Lome IV Convention, Economic Partnerships Agreements (EPA’s)and WTO) and their implications- Organize regular forums to sensitize farmers on market trends,
requirements and standards- Research on changing market trends, preferences and requirements

Research should focus on identification and testing of different flora forpotential use- Development of indigenous varieties for commercialization; collectlocal germplasm, improve them and test in overseas markets.
- Harness indigenous knowledge on wild flowers within local
communities, document and test them
- Breeders should be supported to come up with new varieties and geta “Kenyan brand”- More research on available, affordable, effective bio-control methods- Training on relevant pest control methodologies and optionsof pest control.

Farmers’ Suggested Solution

Table 1: Farmers’ research and training priorities
Research Priorities for Kenya’s Cut-flower Industry: Farmers’ Perspectives

13
○ ○ ○

Inputs

Information
Dissemination- Poor skills in fertilizer and technology
applications- Water catchment areas getting destroyed due
to bad farming methods- Farmers do not know which fertilizers to use
and when to apply them
- High input costs, such as, seed andinorganic fertilizers- Inadequate clean planting material
techniques, protection of catchments areas andchemical use; irrigation equipment and methods- Farmers are not exposed to research findings- Lack of information on flower varieties suitablefor different agro-ecological zones- lack of
updates on the new innovations in products
and farming techniques- Inaccessibility to information in rural areas- Lack of domestic market for flowers○- Research on and train farmers on efficient fertilizer use, water harvesting- Mass production of clean planting materials e.g. through tissue
culture and certified seeds- Improve access to affordable and reliable soil pH analysis and pest
analysis advisory centers- Development of indigenous materials into pesticides- Develop biological methods/plant extracts to reduce the excessive
pesticide use- Research on water use efficiency for different flower types- Disseminate research findings widely through non-technical brochures
and in local languages- Set up a floriculture center with branches in major growing areas- Set up information desks in the major growing areas- Hold regular meetings/interactions between researchers and farmers- Tap, document and disseminate farmers’ discoveries andindigenous knowledge- Increase farmers’ access to ICTs to enable them obtain market
information through the internet- Develop a Kenyan brand/slogan for Kenyan flowers- Conduct research to quantify the local demand/market and develop it
for local varieties

Technopolicy Brief 14

14

○

○

○

6.0
Other Non-research Concerns
There are other non-research concerns of flower farmers which cameup strongly during the consultations. They relate to government
policies affecting floriculture, input prices and supplies and the needs
for infrastructural development. Table 2 (next page) summarizes
these concerns and the farmers’ recommendations.

15○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○

16

○

○

○

- Few/lack of cooling facilities forsmall-scale farmers- High cargo/freight and handling charges- High electricity costs- Poor road and rail network- Lack of farmer-friendly products financing/credit institutions- High interest rates on loans fromcommercial banks

Financing /Credit facilities- Government is aloof to small-scale
farmer problems- High costs of production/inputs- High taxation (flower farmers are exposed
to multiple of taxes)- Strong shilling affects exports/instability ofpricesGovernment
supportInfrastructure

Problem Description

Problem Area

Table 2: Farmers’ non-research concerns- Farmers should be facilitated to form savings and credit cooperatives(saccos) to offer soft loans to them
- Banks should have innovative products tailored to the needs of theindustry- Create conducive environment for investment in freight services- Local Authorities to maintain all feeder roads- Cooling facilities to be established at farm collection points to prevent
quality deterioration- Harness solar energy for use as alternative source of heating duringcold nights, or source of energy- Government to set up an audit system for farmers and certify those who
attain these standards- Government to set up and enforce quality standards- Harmonize and reduce taxation on flowers- Government to formulate a market-driven curriculum in educational
institutions to support the industry- Government to formulate policies and frameworks to facilitate e-commerce- Government should facilitate small-scale farmers to attend local andinternational exhibitions and trade fares- Government should support manufacturers to produce cheaper local
fertilizers- The Central Bank of Kenya should regulate the appreciation of theshilling against major currencies to stem losses

Suggested Solution

Technopolicy Brief 14

7.0
Survey and Comparisons of Farmers’ Priorities
with Current/On-going Research in Kenya
It is noteworthy that KARI has begun involving stakeholders andintended beneficiaries in setting the institute’s research agenda. KARI
conducted its first priority setting workshop in 1996 and more
recently in 2005. This workshop identified key constraints affecting
smallholder flower farmers as inadequate supply of clean planting
material, obsolete flower varieties, lack of appropriate production
technology and poor post-harvest handling.
The institute then embarked on research to address these constraints
structured along the following themes: production (cropmanagement, crop protection and post harvest handling) andvarietal development.
In crop production, technologies for various flower crops (gladiolus,
arabicum, ornis, erygium, lilies and gerbera) were developed anddisseminated to more than 2000 flower farmers throughdemonstrations, field days, field schools and training in Central andEastern provinces in Kenya. Thirty seven (37) varieties of lilies(Oriental, Eastern and Asiatic) were introduced from Europe andevaluated. Out of these, ten (10) varieties have been recommended
for commercialization. A further twenty two (22) varieties of gerbera
were introduced and their performance tested both on-station andon-farm and six (6) varieties were released for commercialization.
Nine (9) varieties of gladiolus were introduced and evaluated andsix (6) varieties released for commercialization.
Research in crop management technologies has concentrated ondetermination of spacing and nutrition requirements for a variety
17○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Technopolicy Brief 14

of flowers, while major insect pests and diseases have also been
identified and documented. Integrated pest management (IPM)
options for the control of soft rot disease in flowers was developed
as was a tissue culture propagation protocol for lilies.
Floriculture research in Kenyan Universities:
Floriculture research is being done in various Kenyan Universities
including: the University of Nairobi, Egerton University, Moi
University, Maseno University, Jomo Kenyatta University ofAgriculture and Technology and Kenya Methodist University.
A brief survey on current and on-going research work at theuniversities revealed that some of the research projects carried out
in various universities include:• Effect of neem and aloe extracts on powdery mildew on roe
plants (Egerton University)• Effect of gibberellic acid, shade and vernalization on
productivity of Ranunculus asiaticus (Persian buttercup)
grown in the Kenyan Highlands (Egerton University)• Intercropping roses and spider plant to control spider mites
on rose plants (Thesis; Egerton University)• Survival of propagated roses (Rosa hybrida) as affected byage and storage periods of cut-wood (Maseno University)• The effectiveness of glyphosates as an inhibitor of tropic
responses in cut roses (Maseno University)• In vitro culture on lilies-Project (JKUAT)• Control of Erwinia Soft Rot in Zantadeschia (JKUAT)• Calla Lily in vitro culture for Hatabor Rainbow Bloom –Limuru (JKUAT)• Evaluation of different propagation media and techniques
for ornamental crops (Moi University)• Domestication of indigenous plants for use as ornamental
crops for both small- and large-scale farmers (Moi University)

○

18
○

○

○

Research Priorities for Kenya’s Cut-flower Industry: Farmers’ Perspectives• In vitro propagation and gene manipulation or ornamental•

crops (Moi University)
Proposed research: The use of medicinal plant extracts asbiopesticides (Kenya Methodist University)

○

19
○ ○ ○

8.0
Conclusions
a. Policies
The government should target/harness the latent potential of smallscale flower farmers/exporters through well packaged policy
incentives. Kenyan small-scale farmers face a different set ofchallenges from the large scale farmers and the “one-size-fits-all”
policies for the industry may not be the most effective ways of
promoting the industry. Whereas large-scale producers/exporters
have overcome most of the production constraints and are focusing
more on marketing/markets, the small-scale farmers have a widearray of problems that can be better tackled through policies focusedand targeted at their special needs.
b. Research
A comparison between the farmers’ research needs vis-à-vis the ongoing and current research reveals that the public research systems
emphasize more on crop production and pests and diseases while
the farmers’ agenda is much broader. A quick scan through theresearch in public research institutions showed that:i. Kenyan small-scale farmers yearn for a product/variety
branded “Kenyan” and have been attempting todomesticate wild flowers. Besides, the farmers holdvaluable indigenous knowledge on the pesticidal effects ofsome flowers and trees. Biological control methods are also
discovered continuously through the farmers’ interaction
with nature. The government and research community
should tap and develop this knowledge. In so doing, theymust ensure that the “holders of this knowledge”- thefarmers - are adequately recognized and compensated.

20○ ○ ○ ○ ○Research Priorities for Kenya’s Cut-flower Industry: Farmers’ Perspectives

ii. Research on inputs seems narrowly focused on seeds andplant media. It should be recognized that issues such as
fertilizer combinations and efficiency, water use efficiency;
equipment/methods, soil pH analysis amongst others
constitute inputs to the farmers and research should begeared towards improving them too.
c. Markets
There’s little focus on market research for the industry. Indeed,even the local/domestic market for flowers is not quantified eventhough a survey conducted by KARI in 2004 estimated it to beapproximately Kshs. 300 million annually. In the same year, HCDA
estimated that small-scale farmers exported flowers worth Kshs.
500 million accounting for 3 per cent of total flower exports.
It is imperative that the small-scale farmers are linked to markets(both domestic and export) in order to thrive. Indeed, a recent study
by Muthoka (2006) has concluded that, “small-holder summer
flower production can only be profitable if the farmer is able to get
access to relevant information that will assist in making the decisions
on what to produce and when to produce”. Information on market
trends demands, tastes and preferences, transactional costs andprices should be easily available and updated.
Market access is closely related to phyto-sanitary compliance andproper (pre- and post-harvest) handling of flowers. As yet, there isminimal emphasis on post-harvest handling and training for thesmall-scale farmers. This constitutes an opportunity for the researchand training institutions.

○

21
○ ○ ○

References
Bolo, M. (2005). “Agricultural, science, technology and innovation
systems: the case of Kenya’s floriculture industry.” CTA, theNetherlands.
Kiptum, B.K. (2005). Building export markets for Kenyan flowers:
challenges and opportunities facing small scale flower growers in
Kenya. Paper presented at the ATPS/CTA national
dissemination and exhibition workshop on the flower industry
in Kenya on March 31, 2005 in Nairobi.
Muthoka, N.M. and Muriithi, A.N. (2006). Smallholder summer Flower
production in Kenya: A myth or a prospect? Paper presented atthe 27th International Horticultural Congress (IHC), Seoul Korea
13th -19th August 2006. Submitted to ACTA Horticulturae.
Research priorities at KARI Thika, 2005: Report of the prioritization
workshop held at KARI-Thika on December 6th - 8th, 2005. KARITHIKA, Kenya, edited by A. Muriuki, N.M. Muthoka, B.W.
Ndungu, J. Kibaki, A.M. Ndegwa, G.W. Mbugua, J.K. Gitonga,
B.K. Chege, and C.N. Waturu.

22○ ○ ○ ○ ○

ATPS Technopolicy Briefs Series
Who Benefits from the New International Intellectual Property Rights Regime?
And What Should Africa Do? by Ha-Joon Chang(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 1)
How Can We Constitutionalize Innovation, Technology and Intellectual
Property in Kenya ? by Bernard Sihanya(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 2)What Can Biotechnology Do For Africa? How Can The Associated Risks And
Uncertainties Be Managed? by Norman Clark(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 3)
Who Needs Technology Policy? by Ha-Joon Chang(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 4)
Keeping Hunger at Bay: Genetic Engineering and Food Security in sub-SaharanAfrica by John Mugabe(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 5)
Science in a Globalizing World: Implications for Africa by Awele
Maduemezia(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 6)
How can Science and Technology in Africa be Formulated and Implemented?
by Osita Ogbu
(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 7)
How can Science and Technology Policy Aid Nigeria’s Reconstruction? by
Osita Ogbu
(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 8)
Can Africa Develop without Science and Technology by Osita Ogbu
(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 9)
How can Innovation Systems and Innovative Clusters be used to Develop
Africa? by Osita Ogbu
(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 10)
What Danger Lies in the WTO-NAMA Negotiations for Africa? by Ha-Joon
Chang(ATPS Technopolicy Brief 12)

Maurice Bolo is a Research Officer and the Project Coordinator with the African
Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS).
Nancy Muthoka is a Research Officer with Kenya Agricultural Research Institute(KARI-THIKA).
Racheal Washisino is the Depot Manager (Limuru), Horticultural Crops
Development Authority (HCDA).
Virginia Mwai is the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture(MoA).
Daniel Kisongwo is the Farm Manager, Karen Roses Ltd.