Production resource (land, livestock, and labour) availability and accessibility

Total land availability in terms of upland and wetland areas available for farming varied among sites, but most of the common indicators of land availability per farm did not vary. Farm size, cultivated area, and upland per capita did not differ among sites, except wetland field size that varied significantly (P < 0.001) between wetland types (Figure 1). Farm size of wetland farmers ranged between 0.03 ha to 20.7 ha and averaged 1.87 ha.

Across sites, 55% of the farms (n = 184) had less than 2.0 ha, and only 4% (n

= 10) had above 5.0 ha (Figure 1 A). The largest farms (49.5 ha) were export-oriented horticultural ones that were adjacent to Rumuruti floodplain where farmers abstracted irrigation water from the wetland. Geomorphological differences between floodplains and inland valleys translated in wide variability in associated field sizes. Farmers had small fields on average (0.35 ha; SD = 0.4) in inland valleys than in floodplains (1.17 ha; SD = 1.5) across sites (Figure 1 B).The contribution of wetland area in household farming land (or

‘wetland field: farm size ratio’) varied significantly (P < 0.001) among sites, following the patterns observed in wetland field size, with the highest ratio observed in Rumuruti floodplain in semi-arid highlands (0.93). Sites with inland valleys shared the same ratio at 0.2 (Figure 1 C).

Total number of livestock owned and species diversity varied significantly (P <

0.001) among sites, their associated environments, and wetland types. For example, sites in the semi-arid and sub-humid areas were endowed with large herd size, which consisted mainly of non-dairy cattle and small ruminants, with the largest size observed in semi-arid areas (9.78 TLU per farm for Laikipia West), indicating the role of floodplain wetland in livestock management. In contrast, sites in humid environments with inland valleys were less endowed in

C ha pte r 3

livestock but had most of the dairy cattle, with the highest average observed in humid highland areas in Nyeri North (1.43 TLU per farm) (Figure1 D).

Household average size, family dependency, and labour available varied significantly (P < 0.001) among sites; however, age of household head did not differ between them, indicating wide variability within each individual site. For most sites, patterns observed in the age of the household head were opposite to those observed in the average of household size. The oldest farmers (average = 54 years) were found at the humid highland site, where the smallest household size was also observed (average = 5 persons). The humid midland site had averaged the highest household size at 9.4 persons and the highest dependency ratio of 2.9. Family labour seemed to have been affected by age of household head and the rate of education of the country. The largest average of family labour was observed in sub-humid lowland area (3.1 persons) and the smallest observed in humid highlands (1.0 person). Land per capita, which is an indicator for measuring land availability, did not differed significantly among sites but varied with the wetland type and thus, the corresponding population density. Sites with inland valley averaged the smallest ratio at 0.28 ha person^-1, indicating the land shortages in the highlands with high population density, while the site in the lowlands averaged the largest ratio at 0.45 ha person^-1. But, land: labour ratio varied widely within sites and differed significantly (P < 0.001) across these (Figure 1 E). Large ratios indicate labour limitation, whereas small ratios indicate land imitation.

Family dependents: size ratio varied significantly (P < 0.001) among sites and was higher in Tanzania (e.g. 3.0 for Lushoto) than in Kenya (e.g. 0.4 for Nyeri North), reflecting the number of months each adult feeds and indicating the families in expansion.

Land tenure system differed between and within countries, shaping the mode of land acquisition in the wetland. Land on upland was privately (freehold or leasehold) owned in Central Kenya, where every farm had a title deed, resulting in inheritance ownership. In Laikipia district, trust land tenure system was observed in addition to the private ownership. Wetlands were legally owned by government in Kenya, but at the humid highland site, farmers extended their farm to the valley stream, making wetland private ownership illegal. Across Tanzanian study sites, traditional land tenure systems prevailed.

Farmers initially accessed land through the village chief, which thereafter became a family’s private property but without title deed. In all sites,

C ha pt er 3

inheritance, allocation, rent-in, and purchase were observed in land tenure systems of wetland with their distributions varying among them. Allocation was high at the site in the semi-arid highland where migrants or squatters (80%, n

= 70) could temporally access land in the floodplain through the local government authority for small-scale farming (Figure 1 F). Half of fields surveyed in Karatina valley were inherited by male and female farmers.

Purchase competed highly with inheritance (up to 46 versus 42%) in Malinda and Lukozi wetlands which can be explained by the income generation character attached to these areas. Unlike in Kenya, farmer’s gender was a contributor towards land ownership in these areas.

The percentage of households that had some off- or non-farm income varied among sites and between countries (Figure 1 G). In all sites, 52% of households had some off- or non-farm income, where only 5 and 14% had permanent employment in Tanzania and in Kenya, respectively. Off/non-farm income sources ranged from remittances by members of the extended family living in cities through petty trading or food aid to employment outside the farm. In most households in all sites, cases with family members engaged in non-farm activities were few, explaining their reliance on temporally off-farm income generation alternatives. Farmers also sold their labour locally to other (wealthier) farmers to generate cash, particularly in the semi-arid area where 30% of the households had at least one member who temporally does casual work in neighbouring horticultural farms.

C ha pte r 3

0.0

Land acquisition in wetland ( % of households)

Allocation Rent Inheritance Purchase

C ha pt er 3

Figure 1: Land, land availability, mode of acquisition, livestock, labour, family size and socio-economic indicators. (A): Frequency distribution of farm sizes per class, considering possible classes: less than 0.5; between 0.5 and 1; between 1 and 2;

between 2 and 5, between 5 and 25 and above 40 ha. Outliers indicate 2 farmers who practice large scale commercial farming on adjacent upland, using wetland as source of irrigation water; (B) land resource for wetland farmers (n = 273) per district : Area owned (average farm and wetland field sizes); (C) land availability per resource type:

wetland/upland field: farm size ratios (average). Bars show standard error of differences (SEDs) for different factors: (a) wetland field, (b) upland field; (D) livestock ownership and types per site (average). Bars show SEDs for different factors: (d) total livestock which include small and large ruminants, (e) non-dairy cattle, and (f): dairy-cattle; (E) land : labour ratios (average) per site; and (F and G) Mode of land acquisition in wetland and off-income availability per site: percentage of households. TLU: tropical livestock units. Dashed dotted lines separate sites with floodplain from those with inland valley wetland type.

Figure 1 continued ...

C ha pte r 3

3.1 Characterisation of household’s production systems and farm