Farmers today are investing heavily in market-oriented crops. The new cash crops are former subsistence food crops, typically monocropped, with a market objective.
Seemingly, there are two tiers. Tier One is the local market producers with crops such as tomatoes and onions, who have narrowed the farm-to-market pipeline down to a formula.
Tier Two is the export-market producers. They have larger land holdings and heavy capital investment in expertise, technology, boreholes and with hundreds of greenhouses dotting the landscape in places like Isinya (Kajiado County). Crops include horticultural crops such as green beans, sugar snaps and fruit plantations of avocado and papaya among others. Their production process is down to a science, producing enough regularly to earn top dollar from their markets abroad, usually Europe.
In both instances, individuals and private sector players are creating a supportive environment for agriculture from both the production and market side and boosting farmer incomes. Farmers now have control not just of the production process but also of transportation and distribution. Additionally, there is growth of ecosystem players and factors that form an enabling environment including transportation, quality assurance, expertise and best practices, which is a really good thing.
But is the narrow focus on a few crops that do not form the majority of food crops a cause for concern? And given the risky economic and climate situation, are cash crops the best way forward for small-scale farmers? What are the effects on land, soil and water resources?
Redefining Cash Crops
Traditionally, we cultivated for subsistence, only selling the excess or storing it for a rainy day. The traditional production system was built around self-sufficiency with its top priority being to avert famine. However, over time, and especially with the introduction of cash crops in the 1940s and 1950s, there was a shift towards commercial agriculture.
Concepts like Agribusiness and value addition in the Kenyan farming ecosystem have also changed agriculture from subsistence to commercial. Urban development has contributed too, to the rise of peri-urban agriculture for example. Peri-urban agriculture is a type of commercial agriculture supplying vegetables and eggs to urban residents. It is unique in that it is practiced on small holdings, in or near urban areas and supplies items commonly found in urban diets.
Horticultural crops such as tomatoes and onions have increased in value too, seen as an ideal cash crop investment. There are hundreds of acres under irrigation for the cultivation of onions and tomatoes in counties such as Makueni and Kajiado.
The private sector has stepped in to supply irrigation kits, seeds and other inputs required, often sold as a package. Knowledge and best practices accumulated over time are also available and shared or sold to farmers or agronomy consultants who specialize in onion and tomato farming. All these factors have built up an enabling environment to practice agriculture.
The risks- Economy and weather
Commercial-focused agriculture is premised on making enough money for farmers to afford to purchase food items. Where a mix of food and cash crop cultivation is practiced, the degree to which a farmer can consume their food crops and still earn income from the cash crop matters.
Obtaining a good balance is a difficult task and agriculture in Kenya seems to be trapped in extremes – either strict cash crop cultivation or subsistence food crop cultivation. Life at these extremes has created a situation where neither is sufficient to guarantee adequate food availability.
On one hand, cash crops are vulnerable to market conditions (local or global) which have become more unpredictable in recent times. As of now, a farmer cultivating entirely for the market needs to consider the costs of inputs including high transport costs and subtract it from what they make. With dwindling purchasing power, farm produce markets are also feeling the pinch. Are these farmers making enough to earn a living from agriculture?
On the other hand, food crop cultivation is vulnerable to drought and unreliable rainfall patterns. Smallholder farmers may not have the resources required to invest in irrigation and water harvesting if the focus is subsistence only. Land fragmentation also impedes how much smallholder farmers can benefit from their farms.
Compare the above situation to a commercial operation where leased land is preferred. Leased lands come with existing water resources for irrigation and are situated in areas with good transport networks (usually) to cushion farmers from transport and drought risks.
It is some sort of plug-and-play scenario; the operating environment has been set up, and your role is to utilize it and pay for the service. This is worlds apart from what other smallholders have access to on their individually owned lands.
The risks – Resource utilization
We also have to consider the effects of cash crop focus on land, soils, water and environment. Export cash crops in particular utilize land and water in often fragile ecosystems to produce food for other countries. These foreign markets pay better than local markets, understandably.
However, what are the hidden costs and opportunity costs? Does it make sense (economic, geopolitical, foreign exchange, environmental) to export these crops and then end up importing way more (particularly grains)?
The production economy for horticultural crops (high risk, high investment, high returns, and small land holdings) compared to grains such as maize and wheat (all about volumes) are different so this might not be a fair comparison. However, these are still valid questions.
For local market cash crops, sustainable use of leased lands is not accounted for due to the short-term nature of such arrangements. There is pressure to produce and extract at all costs, typically three seasons a year, so no room for good agricultural practices. Such lands exhaust their productive potential after only a few years.
The Dilemma
What is the best scenario for Kenyan farmers? How do they produce enough for their needs and still earn a living from their land? What is the right balance? Should the government worry about food security if farmers are preferring cash crops? Is it possible to account for our domestic needs while hoping to earn foreign exchange as well? What are the costs and benefits?
I do not have the answers to the questions raised here, but this is an issue we should continue exploring.
In the next article, we look at a practical demonstration of this dilemma – Muguka farms of Kajiado and Taita Taveta counties. Does cultivating Muguka (a legal stimulant) affect the cultivation of food crops in these areas? Will it affect food availability/security? What is the motivation for farmers who get high returns from Muguka to continue cultivating food crops?
Thought provoking, well thought out.
Thank you so much for reading Thiong’o
Well, this fells like a dilemma. How does someone forego one practice while choosing the other? Maybe the former practice of selling the surplus is ideal. However, not practical in our times – in my opinion. Now, where is the balance? Where do we pivot?
A wonderfully engaging read!