i

Horticulture sector appraisal

Potential greenhouse service delivery and adoption among tomato farmers in Kenya Oscar Ingasia Ayuya, Gonne Beekman, Tinka Koster and Christiaan van der Spijk

ii

Horticulture sector issue appraisal

Potential greenhouse service delivery and adoption

among tomato farmers in Kenya

June 2019

3R Kenya Research Report 009

iii

Cite as: Ayuya, Ingasia Oscar; Beekman, Gonne; Koster, Tinka and van der Spijk, Christiaan

2018. Dairy sector issue appraisal: Potential impact of strategies among Kenyan small- and

medium-sized dairy farmers to tackle fodder shortages: An overview. 3R Research Report 009.

3R Kenya Project.

This report can be downloaded for free at https://www.3r-kenya.org/horticulture-

publications/

2018 Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation, part of the Wageningen University and

Research. P.O. Box 88, 6700 AB Wageningen, the Netherlands. T + 31 (0)317 48 68 00, E

info.cdi@wur.nl, www.wur.eu/cdi

The Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation uses a Creative Commons Attribution

3.0 (Netherlands) license for its reports.

The user may copy, distribute and transmit the work and create derivative works. Third-party

material that has been used in the work and to which intellectual property rights apply may

not be used without prior permission of the third party concerned. The user must specify the

name as stated by the author or license holder of the work, but not in such a way as to give the

impression that the work of the user or the way in which the work has been used are being

endorsed. The user may not use this work for commercial purposes.

The Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation accepts no liability for any damage

arising from the use of the results of this research or the application of the recommendations.

Research Report 009

iv

Contents

List of tables and figures...................................................................................................................... v

Preface ................................................................................................................................................... vi

Executive summary .............................................................................................................................. 1

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Overview of the horticulture sector in Kenya .................................................................. 4

1.2 Impact logic and research questions .................................................................................. 5

1.3 Structure of the report .......................................................................................................... 6

2 Methods and sampling .................................................................................................................. 8

2.1 Data collection tools and key indicators ........................................................................... 8

2.2 Sampling procedure ............................................................................................................. 9

3 Barriers and enablers to the uptake of greenhouse technologies .......................................... 13

3.1 Characterization of farmers .............................................................................................. 13

3.2 Characterization of farmers .............................................................................................. 14

3.3 Conditions under which uptake of greenhouse technology is taking place .............. 16

3.3.1 Barriers ............................................................................................................................. 16

3.3.2 Enablers ............................................................................................................................ 17

3.4 Service delivery models provided in combination with greenhouse technology ..... 18

3.4.1 Greenhouse technologies ............................................................................................... 20

3.4.2 Services provided ........................................................................................................... 23

3.4.3 Service providers ............................................................................................................ 25

3.5 Avenues to improving greenhouse adoption ................................................................. 26

4 Post-harvest losses, food safety, yields and market access .................................................... 28

4.1 Pre- and post-harvest losses .............................................................................................. 28

4.2 Productivity among self-financed and donor-funded greenhouse farmers .............. 30

4.3 Food safety .......................................................................................................................... 31

4.4 Yields .................................................................................................................................... 32

4.5 Market access ...................................................................................................................... 33

5 Farmers livelihoods and sustainable markets .......................................................................... 35

5.1 Improved livelihoods ......................................................................................................... 35

5.2 Sustainable markets ........................................................................................................... 36

6 Conclusion and recommendations ............................................................................................ 37

6.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 37

6.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 39

v

List of tables and figures

List of Tables

Table 1: Key indicators ......................................................................................................................... 8 Table 2: Overview of key-informants .............................................................................................. 11 Table 3: Summary of greenhouse design and services provided by greenhouse suppliers .... 18 Table 4: Productivity by mode of greenhouse technology acquisition ....................................... 31 Table 5: Pest control management among open field and greenhouse farmers ........................ 31 Table 6: Farm level revenues and costs of tomato production; greenhouse versus open field (in KES per year) ................................................................................................................................. 35

List of Figures

Figure 1: Gross production value of tomatoes in Kenya, area harvested and yield ................... 4 Figure 2: Impact logic ........................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 3: Data were collected in major tomato producing areas in south-west Kenya. ........... 11 Figure 4: Most data were collected in the rural areas surrounding Nairobi and along the road towards Eldoret .................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 5: Year of greenhouse acquisition ........................................................................................ 14 Figure 6: Type of greenhouses acquired between 2004 and 2017 (in percentage) .................... 14 Figure 7: Greenhouse farmers are generally more highly educated than open field farmers . 15 Figure 8: Greenhouse experience (years) ........................................................................................ 15 Figure 9: Reasons for farmers not to have a greenhouse (n=149) ................................................ 17 Figure 10: Average investment per m2 (KES) ................................................................................ 20 Figure 11: Greenhouse cover material ............................................................................................. 21 Figure 12: Technical specifications per type of greenhouse ......................................................... 22 Figure 13: Greenhouse financing ...................................................................................................... 23 Figure 14: Percentage of farmers receiving services ...................................................................... 24 Figure 15 Topics of extension support and training (n=500) ........................................................ 25 Figure 16: Proportion of farmers mentioning service providers ................................................. 26 Figure 17: Pre- and post-harvest losses as percentage of total production ................................ 29 Figure 18: Reasons for pre-harvest losses (% of farmers) ............................................................. 30 Figure 19: Reasons for post-harvest losses (% of farmers) ............................................................ 30 Figure 20: Advantages of greenhouse farming (% farmers) ......................................................... 32 Figure 21: Total volume of tomato production, sales and consumption .................................... 33 Figure 22: Tomato yield open field and greenhouse (kg/m2) ...................................................... 33 Figure 23: Tomato buyers (%) ........................................................................................................... 34 Figure 24: Types of contract tomato buyers (%) ............................................................................. 34

vi

Preface

This study is one of three sector issue appraisals, focusing at individual producers and actors

in the horticulture supply chains to assess the greenhouse technology service delivery and

adoption of greenhouses in Kenya. This appraisal is part of the wider appraisals aimed at

assessing the corresponding impacts of selected key innovations and interventions in the

aquaculture, dairy and horticulture sectors. The sector appraisals focus on impacts at micro

and supply chain levels in Kenya. The aim of this appraisal is to evaluate the uptake of

greenhouse technology among small and medium sized farmers, and their access to service

and input access modalities.

1

Executive summary

Chapter 1: Introduction

Horticulture is a main sector in Kenya’s agro-food system, with tomato as key crop. However,

yields have been stagnating in recent years. Meanwhile, uptake of greenhouse technologies is

raising due to various demand- and supply-driven reasons. Advanced greenhouse technology

became available for small and medium-scale farmers from 2010, supported by interventions

by the government and non-profit organisations. Greenhouse crop production comes with

various advantages compared to open field production. However, to realise its full potential,

it is essential that greenhouse technology is accompanied with appropriate service and input

support. The aim of this appraisal is to evaluate the uptake of greenhouse technology among

small and medium sized farmers, and their access to service and input access modalities. In

the long run, and supported by the right service delivery modalities, uptake of greenhouse

technologies could contribute to the transition towards a more robust, reliable and resilient

horticulture sector in Kenya.

Following the impact logic, this report aims to answer 3 interrelated research questions:

1. What are barriers and enablers to the uptake of greenhouse technologies and access to

service delivery? (Chapter 3)

a. What type of farmers have greenhouses?

b. What specific service delivery models are being provided in combination with

greenhouse technologies?

2. Is an increased uptake of innovative technologies and service delivery models related

to reduced post-harvest losses, improved food safety, improved yields and improved

market access? (Chapter 4)

3. Are reduced post-harvest losses, improved food safety, improved yields and market

access related to improved livelihoods of farmers and improved sustainability of

domestic and export markets? (Chapter 5)

Chapter 2: Methods and sampling

Information on key indicators was collected using a combination of structured farm-

household interviews and in-depth interviews with stakeholders in the greenhouse

horticulture sector. Apart from key indicators, we also collected information on general

household characteristics. All data were collected in March and April 2018, by a team of 9

trained enumerators. Interviews were conducted in English. The household survey lasted

about 1.5 hours, and the in-depth interviews lasted about 1 hour.

The household survey was conducted among 357 randomly selected small- and medium scale

tomato farmers operating no-tech, low-tech, or medium-tech greenhouses, as well as farmers

only producing open field tomatoes.

2

Apart from greenhouse farmers, open field farmers are included in the sample, as they may

convert to greenhouse farming in the future.

All farmers were selected from Kajiado and Kiambu counties—major tomato growing areas,

with both open field and greenhouse farming modalities.

Respondents for the household survey were selected randomly, using farmer lists provided

by extension officers in each of the 5 subcounties.

Household surveys were complemented with key-informant interviews, using a semi-

structured interview tool.

Chapter 3: Barriers and enablers to uptake of greenhouse technologies and access to service

delivery models

The average household size of tomato farmers is four to five members, ranging between 1 and

9 person households. Majority of tomato farmers had received formal education (secondary

school level and above). Low- and medium-tech farmers are more experienced farmers than

no-tech farmers.

Nearly all tomato farmers have access to electricity (either solar or the national grid), and

mobile phone and mobile banking. Internet access varies across the groups.

According to key stakeholders, there are three main barriers to the uptake of greenhouse

technologies. 1) lack of initial investment capital (51%); 2)a lack of knowledge on adequate

greenhouse farming practices. 3) consumers in local markets perceive greenhouse tomatoes as

unsafe due to high quantities of chemical pesticides used in the greenhouse. The main driver

for greenhouse production is off-season production, enabling the farmers to get higher prices

for their produce.

Greenhouse design and services provided vary greatly. Regarding greenhouse design,

average investment per m2 varies significantly across the different types of greenhouse

technology used. Sizes of greenhouse do not differ across groups, but materials do. Both

plastic/polythene and nets were used as cover materials in all three groups. Almost all

greenhouses have ventilation openings and irrigation systems, electricity use.

With regards to services and inputs provided; extension services or training are often included

in package, but inputs less often. The majority of farmers financed their greenhouses

themselves. The vast majority of greenhouse owners did receive some form of services from

the greenhouse supplier.

The service most often offered by greenhouse providers is greenhouse installation. Training

usually included a combination of topics.

3

About 23.3% of the farmers (mostly among medium and low-tech greenhouse farmers)

received production inputs for free as part of the package when purchasing greenhouses.

Farmers deemed services provided as less effective than the service providers themselves.

Most services are provided by the government, greenhouse providers, research institutions

and private extension services providers.

To enhance greenhouse adoption, more and better extension and training for farmers is

needed, combined with better greenhouse design.

Chapter 4: Post-harvest losses, food safety, yields and market access

In the open field, farmers experience considerable pre-harvest losses. Post-harvest losses are

much smaller compared to pre-harvest losses. Greenhouse farming limits pre-harvest losses

compared to open field production, which are caused by pest and diseases incidence. The main

reasons for post-harvest losses for all tomato farmers are poor quality of produce and grading.

Among farmers operating a medium-tech greenhouse, production per m2 is higher among

those farmers who self-financed their greenhouse, compared to farmers who received the

greenhouse from donors.

Chapter 5: Farmers livelihoods and sustainable markets

Chapter 5 answers research question 3, relating eventual changes in post-harvest losses,

improved food safety, improved yields and market access to livelihood status of farmers, and

discusses how this could contribute to sustainability of domestic and export markets.

Chapter 6: Conclusions and recommendations

Based on the results from the analysis, five key observations have been formulated:

1. Providing greenhouses at free costs is not recommended, but access to finance should

be improved;

2. Greenhouse providers should aim for tailored greenhouse technologies;

3. Greenhouse providers and public as well as private extension service providers should

provide tailored and ongoing extension service contracts to greenhouse farmers, so

that greenhouse farmers receive regular training—not only at the moment of

installation of the greenhouse;

4. Input providers and service providers should invest in appropriate pest control

measures, and especially in alternative pest control;

5. The Kenyan government should invest in building trust in greenhouse products

among consumers on the local markets.

4

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview of the horticulture sector in Kenya

Horticulture is one of the main sectors in Kenya’s agro-food system, with tomato as key crop.

However, yields have been stagnating in recent years.

Horticulture is one of the main sectors in Kenya’s domestic agri-food system, and tomato is

(after cabbage) the major vegetable being produced in Kenya. However, since 2006, the area

of tomato production has remained constant whereas tomato yields as well as value of tomato

production fluctuated quite dramatically (see Error! Reference source not found., FAOSTAT

2018). The occurrence of Tuta absoluta (tomato leafminer) in 2014 in Kenya has probably

contributed to the stagnation of tomato yields (IPPC 2014).

Greenhouse crop production comes with various advantages compared to open field

production.

The controlled conditions under which greenhouse vegetables are produced, have various

potential advantages. It is expected that greenhouse production can lead to reduced post-

harvest losses, improved quality of produce, higher yields and more stable production.

To realise the potential benefits of greenhouse farming, it is essential that greenhouse

technology is accompanied with appropriate service and input support.

Greenhouse technology has been widely available for small- and medium-scale farmers since

2010. However, greenhouse production comes with risk. Therefore, good crop management

practices are essential. Pests and soil-borne diseases can spread quickly in the greenhouse, and

temperatures can skyrocket, especially in the hot Kenyan lowlands. For this reason,

Note: Data retrieved from FAOSTAT (2018)

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Gross Production Value (constant 2004-2006 1000 I$)

Area harvested (ha)

Yield (hg/ha)

Figure 1: Gross production value of tomatoes in Kenya, area harvested and yield

5

greenhouse technology delivery needs to be accompanied with service and input support to

(prospective) greenhouse farmers, to realize the potential benefits of greenhouse farming. If

greenhouse production is managed well and farmers have timely access to necessary inputs

and support services, the benefits obtained can surpass those of open field production. In the

longer run, this could lead to more continuity of supply on domestic and export markets, as

well as to improved livelihoods for small and medium sized farmers. Eventually, greenhouse

technology delivery accompanied with service and input support would contribute to a more

robust, reliable and resilient horticulture sector in Kenya through covered domestic

production. Hence, this report provides an appraisal of greenhouse technology and service

delivery and adoption among tomato farmers in Kenya.

1.2 Impact logic and research questions

In the long run, and supported by the right service delivery modalities, uptake of greenhouse

technologies could contribute to the transition towards a more robust, reliable and resilient

horticulture sector in Kenya.

Increased uptake of greenhouse technologies could contribute to the transition towards a more

robust, reliable and resilient horticulture sector in Kenya. Figure 2 outlines the intervention

logic of the role that increased uptake of greenhouse technologies combined with appropriate

service delivery packages could play in. This impact logic pathway shows the links between

the activities, outputs, outcomes and potential impact of the interventions to be studied in the

horticulture sector appraisal. The arrows are graphical depictions of underlying assumptions

between different steps in the impact logic. These assumptions will be tested in the current

appraisal.

The impact logic is summarized as follows:

1. Increasing demand for greenhouse produced crops, combined with increased uptake

of inputs, financial incentives, and an enabling environment for agri-business

initiatives will support the demand for and supply of appropriate greenhouse

technologies, combined with appropriate service delivery bundles;

2. If more farmers get access to appropriate greenhouse technologies with the right

service delivery, this will contribute to reduced losses and improved quality, as well

as to improved yields and production stability throughout the year;

3. Reduced losses and improved quality will contribute to better market access for small

and medium scale farmers, and improved yields and production stability will

contribute to higher incomes for these farmers;

4. In the long run, better market access for small and medium scale farmers will

contribute to improved sustainability of domestic and export markets; while improved

incomes will contribute to improvements in livelihoods for farm households.

6

Following the impact logic, this report aims to answer 3 interrelated research questions:

1. What are barriers and enablers to the uptake of greenhouse technologies and access to

service delivery? (Chapter 3)

a. What type of farmers have greenhouses?

b. What specific service delivery models are being provided in combination with

greenhouse technologies?

2. Is an increased uptake of innovative technologies and service delivery models related

to reduced post-harvest losses, improved food safety, improved yields and improved

market access? (Chapter 4)

3. Are reduced post-harvest losses, improved food safety, improved yields and market

access related to improved livelihoods of farmers and improved sustainability of

domestic and export markets? (Chapter 5)

1.3 Structure of the report

The remainder of this report is structured as follows. Chapter 2 outlines the research methods

used. Chapter 3 seeks to answer the first research question: what are barriers and enablers to

uptake of greenhouse technologies and access to service delivery models? The chapter

classifies farmer characteristics per type of greenhouse technology (open field, no-tech, low-

tech, and medium-tech), and describes the service delivery models related to each of these

greenhouse technologies. Chapter 4 answers research question 2, by relating uptake of

greenhouse technologies and use of service delivery to reduced post-harvest losses, improved

food safety, improved yields and improved market access. Chapter 5 answers research

question 3, relating eventual changes in post-harvest losses, improved food safety, improved

yields and market access to livelihood status of farmers, and discusses how this could

contribute to sustainability of domestic and export markets. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes and

provides recommendations.

7

TH

E P

RO

TEC

TED

HO

RT

IC

ULT

UR

E S

EC

TO

R I

N K

EN

YA

IS

MO

RE

RO

BU

ST

, R

ELIA

BLE

AN

D R

ES

ILIE

NT

Impro

ved s

usta

inability o

f dom

estic a

nd e

xport

hort

iculture

mark

ets

Impro

ved liv

elihoods for

sm

all a

nd m

ediu

m s

ized

farm

ers

Impro

ved m

ark

et

access

Impro

ved incom

e

Reduced losses

Impro

ved q

uality

Impro

ved y

ield

More

sta

ble

pro

duction

Appro

priate

gre

enhouse d

esig

ns fit for

purp

ose c

om

bin

ed w

ith a

ppro

priate

serv

ice d

elivery

models

Dem

and for

pro

ducts

pro

duced in g

reenhouses

Incre

ased u

pta

ke o

f in

puts

(incl. im

pro

ved s

eeds)

Fin

ancia

l re

asons

Enabling e

nvironm

ent

(e.g

.

govern

ment support

ing

mark

et

inclu

sio

n in a

susta

inable

way)

Figure 2: Impact logic

8

2 Methods and sampling

2.1 Data collection tools and key indicators

Information on key indicators was collected using a combination of structured farm-

household interviews and in-depth interviews with stakeholders in the greenhouse

horticulture sector.

To answer the 3 main research questions, we used a structured farm-household survey with

small- and medium scale farmers, followed by in-depth interviews with stakeholders in the

greenhouse horticulture sector, including greenhouse producers, extension officers and a seed

company. In-depth interviews were used to triangulate and validate results found in the

household surveys, and specifically addressed key barriers and enables in greenhouse

technology and service provision. Table 1 gives an overview of key indicators related to each

of the 4 research questions.

Table 1: Key indicators

Research question Key indicators Household

survey

In-depth

interviews

Chapter

1: What are barriers and

enablers to the uptake of

greenhouse technologies

and access to service

delivery?

Year of greenhouse

acquisition

Type of greenhouses

acquired

Average investment per

m2

Sizes & materials

Ventilation, irrigation,

electricity

3

1a: What type of farmers

have greenhouses?

Household size

Education level

Greenhouse experience

(years)

Access to electricity,

mobile phone, mobile

banking, internet

3

1b: What specific service

delivery models are being

provided in combination

with greenhouse

technologies?

Mode of financing

Types of services

provided

Effectivity of services

Service providers

3

9

2: Is an increased uptake

of innovative technologies

and service delivery

models related to reduced

post-harvest losses,

improved food safety,

improved yields and

improved market access?

Size of pre- and post-

harvest losses

Main reasons for pre-

and post-harvest losses

Productivity (in kg per

m2)

Length of season

(months)

Pest control strategies

Production outlets

Contract farming

4

3: Are reduced post-

harvest losses, improved

food safety, improved

yields and market access

related to improved

livelihoods of farmers and

improved sustainability of

domestic and export

markets?

Revenues and costs of

tomato production

Market outlets

5

Apart from key indicators, we also collected information on general household characteristics.

In addition to the key indicators listed here, the household survey also addressed general

household characteristics. These include amongst others, composition of the household,

education level, household assets, income sources, savings and investments. This allowed us

(1) to characterize farmers involved in greenhouse horticulture, compared to farmers who are

not, and (2) to control for these household-specific characteristics in the statistical analyses.

All data were collected in March and April 2018, by a team of 9 trained enumerators.

Interviews were conducted in English. The household survey lasted about 1.5 hours, and the

in-depth interviews lasted about 1 hour.

2.2 Sampling procedure

The household survey was conducted among 357 randomly selected small- and medium scale

tomato farmers operating no-tech, low-tech, or medium-tech greenhouses, as well as farmers

only producing open field tomatoes.

Household survey data were collected among 357 randomly selected tomato farmers. Four

categories of farmers were sampled: farmers with greenhouses (from the 5 major greenhouse

10

providers in the area; and farmers without greenhouses. The 4 farmer groups are colour-

indicated in the maps in Figure 3 and Figure 4:

1. 100 farmers with no-tech greenhouses (yellow)

Self-made greenhouses with a frame made of wood or poles, polythene paper with side manual

vents or no vents. Some no-tech greenhouses have an entry porch but the majority does not.

2. 97 farmers with low-tech greenhouses (orange)

Greenhouses with a metal frame, doom shaped, shorter, with side vents, and sometimes with

entry porch. For example: the Amiran farmers kit

3. 60 farmers with medium-tech greenhouses (red)

Greenhouses with a metal frame, longer in height/high tunnels, with an entry porch, with side

and/or roof vents and cover made of plastic polythene cover. For example: Hortipro greenhouses

4. 100 farmers without greenhouse, producing open field tomatoes (green)

Apart from greenhouse farmers, open field farmers are included in the sample, as they may

convert to greenhouse farming in the future.

Open field tomato farmers are included in the analysis as open field tomato farmers are

potential greenhouse users, too. Their perspectives on greenhouse farming give insight in the

reasons for (not) choosing for greenhouse farming, and the likelihood that open field tomato

farmers will adopt greenhouse technologies in the near future.

All farmers were selected from Kajiado, Kiambu and Nakuru counties—major tomato

growing areas, with both open field and greenhouse farming modalities.

2 sub-counties in Kajiado, 3 sub-counties in Kiambu, and 4 sub-counties in Nakuru county

were purposively chosen. In these sub-counties, both open field tomato farmers and

greenhouse tomato farmers are present, which allows for comparison between both

production modes.

Respondents for the household survey were selected randomly, using farmer lists provided

by extension officers in each of the 5 subcounties.

Individual farmers in categories 1, 2 and 4 were selected randomly, using farmer lists

generated by extension officers in the 5 sub-counties. Only individual farmers were selected;

institutions or farmer groups were not included in the sample. Medium-tech farmers (category

3) were selected from Kajiado and Kiambu counties using snowball sampling techniques, since

lists with farmers names were not disclosed by SNV – the NGO that funded the distribution

of medium-tech greenhouses.

Household surveys were complemented with key-informant interviews, using a semi-

structured interview tool.

To complement and triangulate the data collected in the farmer household surveys, a variety

of key-informants were selected, based on their level of involvement in the horticulture sector.

11

The selection was guided by expert opinions. Representatives from 5 low-tech and medium-

tech greenhouse producing companies were interviewed: Amiran, HortiPro, Vintage Greens,

Illuminium Greenhouses and Wonderprise Greenhouses. These producers reflect major

players on the Kenyan greenhouse market, as well as local greenhouse companies. Other

relevant actors in the greenhouse tomato value chain that were interviewed were farmers, a

seed company, brokers, and a tomato processor. Other stakeholders that were interviewed are

extension officers, one model greenhouse farmer, a Hort-Impact project officer, a

representative from the county government and a greenhouse researcher.

Table 2: Overview of key-informants

Stakeholder type # interviews

Greenhouse producer 5

Extension officer 2

Seed company 1

Model farm 1

Farmers 2

Brokers 2

SNV 1

County government 1

Tomato processor 1

Greenhouse researcher 1

Total 17

In-depth interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview tool. The tool included

a set of general questions for all interviewees, and a set of specific questions for each type of

interviewee (the interview tool is available as separate annex).

Figure 3: Data were collected in major tomato producing areas in south-west Kenya.

12

Figure 4: Most data were collected in the rural areas surrounding Nairobi and along the road towards

Eldoret

Note: Green = open field (no greenhouse); yellow = self-made; orange = low-tech; red =

medium-tech

13

3 Barriers and enablers to the uptake of

greenhouse technologies

This chapter answers the first research question: what are barriers and enablers to uptake of

greenhouse technologies and access to service delivery models? The chapter starts by giving

an overview of uptake of greenhouse technologies. Then, it classifies farmer characteristics per

type of greenhouse technology (open field, no-tech, low-tech, and medium-tech), and

describes the service delivery models related to each of these greenhouse technologies.

3.1 Characterization of farmers

Uptake of greenhouse technologies is increasing due to various demand- and supply-driven

reasons.

In recent years, the uptake of greenhouse technologies has been increasing steeply. This is

illustrated by the data collected among the farmers sampled for this study in south-west Kenya

(in Nakuru, Kajiado and Kiambu districts). Figure 5 shows that the acquisition of greenhouses

among farmers in the study-sample grew exponentially from 2011. Reasons for the steep

increase include increasing demand for greenhouse-produced products by a growing group

of middle-class consumers (demanding regulated quality and year-round availability of

vegetables), possibility for producers earning higher incomes, combined with new

opportunities for agri-enterprises and an improving enabling environment for greenhouse

technologies (including necessary training for farmers).

Advanced greenhouse technology became available for small and medium-scale farmers in

2010, supported by interventions by the government and non-profit organisations.

In the study area, in 2004, greenhouses first introduced were the low-tech ones. Upon this

introduction, farmers who could not afford the greenhouses began using the no-tech (wooden)

ones until the introduction of the medium-tech greenhouses in 2010. This new market entrant

induced competition in the market, coupled with aggressive campaigns by the agriculture

departments. This contributed to an increasing market trend in the adoption of greenhouse

technology in subsequent years (see Figure 5).

14

Figure 5: Year of greenhouse acquisition

Figure 6: Type of greenhouses acquired between 2004 and 2017 (in percentage)

3.2 Characterization of farmers

The average household size of tomato farmers is four to five members, ranging between 1 and

9 person households.

The median household size is four members; implying that most tomato farmers have a low

dependency ratio. This is the case for all four farmer groups (different types of greenhouse

technology). Household size is an indication of household labour availability since greenhouse

farming is labour intensive.

Majority of tomato farmers had received formal education (secondary school level and above).

The farmers with greenhouses had a higher education level than farmers under open field

production system. Farmers with medium-tech greenhouses were less highly educated than

farmers with no-tech or low-tech greenhouses. This could be explained by the fact that the

majority of farmers using medium level technology were given full or partial financial support

in acquiring the greenhouse. These farmers were targeted by the county and national

0

5

10

15

20

25

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

Nu

mb

er o

f g

reen

ho

uses

acq

uir

ed

Year of greenhouse acquisition

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2004 2006 2007 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Typ

e o

f g

reen

ho

use (

%)

Year

No-tech Low-tech Medium-tech

15

government as well as non-governmental organisations, who were specifically targeting

individuals who were disadvantaged in society.

Notes: Chi Square test statistics: Chi=33.74; p=0.00

Low- and medium-tech farmers are more experienced than no-tech farmers.

The average experience of current no-tech greenhouse farmers is three years while that of low-

tech and medium-tech farmers is four years. However, there are some farmers that use the

same technology for over eight years while some farmers have evolved from one technology

to the other. There is a statistically significant evolution in the greenhouse farming evidenced

by the results in Kenya at 1% level. A Markov matrix can be determined from the study where

approximately 13.6% of the farmers with no-tech greenhouses shifted to low-tech while 3.4%

shifted to medium-tech. Further, approximately 5% of farmers starting with low-tech shifted

to medium-tech greenhouses. It is worth noting that the transition matrix is not yet the

equilibrium of the market and further monitoring is needed to determine the market

equilibrium.

Figure 8: Greenhouse experience (years)

Nearly all tomato farmers have access to electricity (either solar or the national grid), and

mobile phone and mobile banking. Internet access varies across the groups.

0

1

2

3

4

5

No-tech (n=97) Low-tech (n=100) Medium-tech(n=60)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

open field (n=100)

no-tech (n=97)

low-tech (n=100)

medium-tech (n=60)

None, or pre-school Primary stds 1 to 6

Primary standard 7 Primary std 8, or secondary form 1-3

Secondary form 4 College or higher

Figure 7: Greenhouse farmers are generally more highly educated than open field farmers

16

Farmers using low-technology greenhouses have the highest access (99%) while those in pure

open field production have the lowest access (90%). Among the greenhouse farmers, medium-

tech farmers have the lowest access to electricity. This is likely due to pro-poor targeting by

the government and nongovernmental organisations in the sector. Internet access also varies

significantly across all groups: no-tech greenhouse farmers have the highest access to internet.

We have no ready explanation for this difference. Nearly all tomato farmers in all groups have

access to steady mobile network and to mobile banking such as Mpesa, Airtel Money, as well

as cash.

3.3 Conditions for uptake of greenhouse technology

3.3.1 Barriers

According to key stakeholders, there are three main barriers to uptake of greenhouse

technologies: the costs of purchasing a greenhouse, limited knowledge on greenhouse farming

practices and limited demand for greenhouse vegetables.

A 8 by 15 metres greenhouse (the smallest available size) can cost as much as up to KES

266,000, or about USD 2,650. Without adequate payment options, such as loans or purchasing

on credit, this investment proves to be a major barrier. Credit facilities for greenhouse

producers are absent, and getting a loan from a bank requires some form of collateral, after

which banks apply high interest rates (10% in 2018).1 In addition, income seasonality can make

it difficult for farmers to repay their loans in time.

The major reason farmers don’t own greenhouses is the lack of initial investment capital (51%).

In the household survey, farmers also report lack of capital as the main reason for them not to

have a greenhouse. Solving the capital problem, for example by offering better credit facilities,

would hence be a great step towards greenhouse farming. Farmers are also constrained by

lack of trust in market demand for greenhouse products by consumers, as well as their own

risk aversion. Risk averse farmers will not invest in the technology.

1 Source: https://tradingeconomics.com/kenya/interest-rate. Accessed: 26 March 2019.

17

There is a lack of knowledge on adequate greenhouse farming practices.

Greenhouse farming requires specific knowledge on dealing with increased temperatures,

pesticide and fertilizer use, and marketing. Farmers that lack this knowledge are unable to

achieve the expected yields and profits of farming in a greenhouse. For example, high

temperatures outside lead to even higher temperatures inside the greenhouse and without

proper farming practices such as ventilating or misting, this can lead to crop failure.

Consumers in local markets perceive greenhouse tomatoes as unsafe due to high quantities of

chemical pesticides used in the greenhouse.

Marketing is different for greenhouse products than for open field products. There is a smaller

market for greenhouse products, as they cannot be sold on the local market. Instead, the farmer

has to look for high-end buyers. As long as this perception remains, there will be a limited

market for greenhouse tomatoes, which is a barrier to the uptake of greenhouse technology.

3.3.2 Enablers

The main enabler for greenhouse production is off-season production, enabling the farmers to

receive higher prices for their produce.

During the rainy months, the heavy Kenyan rainfall can destroy vulnerable crops grown

outside—like tomatoes. During these months, greenhouse production is a viable production

option. In spite of the high investment costs, medium-scale farmers that haved adopted

greenhouse technology, are able to achieve higher profits. With sufficient knowledge and

experience, much higher yields can be achieved compared to open field production. Payback

to investments is even possible within the first cropping season, given that the greenhouse is

managed properly.

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

4%

5%

7%

7%

13%

51%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Yields will not increase

Insufficient knowledge of farming

Crops are not protected against weather

No access to credit

Insufficient space

Does not know where to get a greenhouse

Inadequate water

Doesn't like greenhouses

Crops are not protected against air pests

The investment is too risky

No demand for greenhouse products

Cannot afford a greenhouse

Figure 9: Reasons for farmers not to have a greenhouse (n=149)

18

3.4 Service delivery models provided in combination with greenhouse

technology

Greenhouse technology is provided in combination with service delivery models. This section

shows an overview of greenhouse design and services, then provides more insights in the

technologies used by the farmers in the sample, the services delivered to them and the service

providers.

Greenhouse design and services provided vary greatly by type of greenhouse.

The key design and services provided by greenhouse providers are summarized in

Table 3: Summary of greenhouse design and services provided by greenhouse suppliers

. All five greenhouse suppliers interviewed deliver greenhouse packages that include a metal

structure, a polythene cover and drip irrigation system. Technical aspects like a water storage

tank, a crop support system and an entry porch are included by most. All packages include

installation of the greenhouse (or supervision over the installation process, while the farmer

arranges for casual labour). Costs per square meter can range from KES 1,250 to KES 2,450. It

is not quite clear what these price differences are based on, as some of the most expensive low-

tech greenhouses have less additional options than less expensive ones. The extent of

additional options does not seem to determine the price. Only one greenhouse producer

provided an insurance scheme to the farmers at KES 3,000 for a 3 year insurance plan.

Table 3: Summary of greenhouse design and services provided by greenhouse suppliers

Green house type providers

No tech greenhouses Low-tech greenhouse

providers

Medium-tech greenhouses

Design: Self-made

greenhouses with a frame

made of wood or poles that

are locally available,

polythene paper with side

manual vents or no vents. The

greenhouse covers are

sometimes second hand.

Some no-tech greenhouses

have an entry porch. Can be

customised to various sizes.

Water tanks is optional.

Design: Greenhouses

with a metal frame, doom

shaped, shorter, with side

vents, and some with

entry porch. Relies

mainly on imported

materials. Comes in

different sizes and

includes water tanks.

Mostly pre-packaged and

hence cannot be

modified.

Design: Greenhouses with a

metal frame, fibre reinforced

galvanized wire rope system,

longer in height/high tunnels,

with an entry porch, with

side and/or roof vents and

cover made of plastic

polythene cover of relatively

high quality. Some have

options for gutter systems

and automated vents and

irrigation system.

19

Relies heavily on imported

materials. Some come with

construction manuals.

Come in different sizes and

not pre-packaged hence can

be modified.

Services provided

Greenhouse construction

Irrigation system

No production inputs

given

Very limited and

unauthoritative extension

provision

No linkage to loan

facilities and rely on self-

financing

No credit on greenhouses

& greenhouse must be

paid in cash

No linkage of farmers to

the market

No insurance

Services provided

Greenhouse

installation

Irrigation system

installation with the

minimum package

lacking pumps

1st season production

inputs provided from

the same company

(seeds, fertilizers,

agro-chemicals)

Extension provided in

the 1st crop season

with no schedule of

visits

Very minimal

arrangements for loan

with financial

institutions

Production inputs

Lower package lacks

personal protective

equipment

No linkage of farmers

to the market

No insurance

Services provided

Greenhouse installation

Irrigation systems

1st season production

inputs provided (seeds,

fertilizers, agro-

chemicals) but arranged

from a different

company

Very minimal

arrangements for credit

with financial

institutions

Production manuals for

selected crops provided

at a cost

Greenhouse provider’s

agronomist gives

extension services for

first production seasons

mostly by pass by

approach. For those

promoted by

government,

government extension

providers offer the

service.

Customised package of

services with price

differentials

Even with credit, all

greenhouses must be

paid in cash fully

20

Some link farmers to the

market

Some are linked with

extension officers of

companies that provide

alternative pest control

measures

No insurance

3.4.1 Greenhouse technologies

Average investment per m2 varies significantly across the different types of greenhouse

technology used.

The average investment value in greenhouse farming is KES 883 per square meter. Farmers

without any greenhouse technology invest an average of KES 547 per square meter while those

with low- and medium-technology invested an average of KES 1,055 and 1,133 per square

meter respectively. Note that the difference between low and medium-tech greenhouses (KES

78) is not statistically significant. Since the introduction of medium-technology greenhouses,

investment cost for greenhouses decreased, which could be attributed to competition in the

market.

Figure 10: Average investment per m2 (KES)

Sizes of greenhouse do not differ across groups, but materials do. Greenhouses are 784 square

meters on average; and sizes do not differ across groups. As expected, most greenhouses with

no technology were classified as those made of wood while the low and medium-tech

structures were made of metal (aluminium). However, it’s worth noting that there were a few

farmers using a combination of wood and metal. That is, the pillars could be metal or wood

while the top arch is a different material or they may have reinforced the existing structures

with a combination of the two materials.

547

1,055

1,133

883

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

No-tech (n=97) Low-tech(n=100)

Medium-tech(n=60)

Total (n=257)

21

Both plastic/polythene and nets were used as cover materials in all three groups. The majority

of the cover material was polythene or a combination with nets. The cover varied significantly

across all groups. There were a few low-tech greenhouses made of purely nets. Otherwise the

majority of low and medium-tech greenhouses were made by a combination of nets and

polythene while the no-tech were mostly made of polythene alone.

Figure 11: Greenhouse cover material

Pearson chi2(4) = 13.45 Pr = 0.01

Almost all greenhouses have ventilation openings and irrigation systems, fewer use electricity.

The most common system was the roll-up ventilation among a few other designs. Further,

majority of farmers did not use electricity in the greenhouses. The few that did use electricity

mostly pumped water for irrigation with a few using it for lighting in the low and medium-

tech structures. Finally, the majority of farmers had drip irrigation kits installed in the

greenhouses. However, about 2% of the farmers did not have a pre-installed irrigation system.

The specifications did not vary significantly across the groups.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

no-tech (n=97)

low-tech (n=100)

medium-tech (n=60)

plastic / polythene nets plastic / polythene and nets

22

Figure 12: Technical specifications per type of greenhouse

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Ventilation Electricity use Irrigation system

No-tech (n=97) Low-tech (n=100) Medium-tech (n=60)

23

3.4.2 Services provided

Extension services or training often included in package, contrary to inputs.

Most greenhouse producers included extension services or trainings in their package; one

instead linked the farmer to a private or governmental extension worker. However, there was

a general feeling among stakeholders in terms of the efficiency and effectiveness of extension

service. Production inputs like seeds, fertilizers and pesticides for the first production season

are not commonly included in the packages that are available. Among medium scale

greenhouse providers, the inputs are provided by third party companies and is costed in the

greenhouse pricing. Only 2 out of the 5 greenhouse producers interviewed include inputs in

their service delivery models.

The majority of farmers financed their greenhouses themselves. shows that virtually all no-

tech greenhouse farmers self-financed their greenhouse. In contrast, 37% of medium-tech

greenhouse farmers received their greenhouse for free—through NGOs and the county and

national governments. Among low-tech greenhouse farmers, 13% received their greenhouse

for free; through past donations or through individual donors including the churches. Finally,

10% of low-tech greenhouse farmers inherited their greenhouse. Among low-tech greenhouse

farmers, 6% of the farmers acquired the greenhouse through cost sharing. This is in line with

the information from interviewed greenhouse producers, most of which reported they do not

offer credit services. However, some partner with banks. These banks offer loans to farmers at

interest rates of up to 12% per year for the duration of 24 months. Other payment methods

include a split payment before, during and after installation. In most cases however, farmers

have to pay for the greenhouses at once in cash.

Note: Pearson chi2(8) = 47.65 Pr = 0.00

97%

79%

60%

1%

13%

37%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

no-tech (n=97)

low-tech (n=100)

medium-tech (n=60)

Self-financed Received for free Cost sharing Leased

Figure 13: Greenhouse financing

24

The vast majority of greenhouse owners did receive some form of services from the

greenhouse supplier. Greenhouse suppliers viewed that the additional services they gave the

farmers would offer a value preposition to the technology and hence increase the demand for

their products as well as remain competitive. However, there are large differences between

the groups (Figure 14). 44% of no-tech greenhouse owners never received any services as most

self-made greenhouse are made by the farmer with assistance from the local; whereas only 5%

of low and medium-tech greenhouse owners report they never received services from the

greenhouse provider. Farmers no-tech greenhouses bought different parts of a greenhouse

from different suppliers and assembled it themselves or hired an expert to assemble the

structure. This might be because of capital limitation; they buy what they can at different

intervals and assemble them on completion of gathering the necessary materials. On the other

hand most of those using some technologies were privileged to have the supplier install the

structure and the irrigation kits.

The service most often offered by greenhouse providers is greenhouse installation. The most

common service by the greenhouse providers to farmers, was greenhouse installation

(reported by 30% of the farmers), followed by installation of irrigation systems (reported by

26% of medium-tech greenhouse owners, by 23% of low-tech greenhouse owners, and 16% of

no-tech greenhouse owners. Only 12% of all farmers report that they received initial training

on greenhouses (only 15% among medium-tech farmers, and 7% among no-tech greenhouse

farmers). Hence, the greenhouse provider is in many cases involved in installation of

greenhouse structures, but does not follow up with additional training.

Figure 14: Percentage of farmers receiving services

Training usually included a combination of topics. Farmers who received training were taught

mostly on crop production in the greenhouse; irrigation and water management; greenhouse

management and maintenance; crop protection; and soil fertility management in the

greenhouses, as shown in Figure 15. Most received was a combination of these training topics.

It is also worth noting that overall, only 4% of farmers trained were taught about financial and

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

no-tech (n=97)

low-tech (n=100)

medium-tech (n=60)

no services given greenhouse installation

irrigation installation production inputs

seller runs the greenhouse extension / training

credit facilities protective equipment

seedling tray

25

marketing management which may be critical for farmers in future. The results also revealed

that the average training period was five days which might be ideal for farmers.

Figure 15 Topics of extension support and training (n=500)

About 23.3% of the farmers (mostly among low- and medium-tech greenhouse farmers)

received production inputs for free as part of the package when purchasing greenhouses. The

most common inputs farmers received is a combination of seeds, fertilizer, pesticides and

herbicides. The rest have to purchase inputs from the nearest agro-dealer shops. The inputs

were received as part of the initial investment package for farmers. Farmers do not seem to

receive information on alternative, non-chemical pest control methods.

Farmers evaluate provided services as less effective than do service providers themselves. The

information reported by service providers differs from the information reported by farmers.

While the greenhouse providers think that the extra service packages is a value preposition on

the part of the farmer, farmers see that the support (particularly extension support) is not as

effective as it was envisaged in the package.

3.4.3 Service providers

Most services are provided by the government, greenhouse providers, research institutions

and private extension services providers. The majority of medium-tech farmers received

extension services from the government followed by input providers and greenhouse

providers. The strong government involvement is explained by the fact that the medium level

technology was recently introduced through a collaboration project between the greenhouse

providers and the county governments. The project components involved training farmers on

greenhouse farming and following up on their production. This was mostly done in farmer

groups. Low-tech farmers also mostly accessed extension services from the government. Other

important providers of extension services are research institutions and private extension

Greenhouse management

and maintenance,

72.73

Crop production in greenhouse,

86.36Irrigation and water

management in greenhouse,

72.73

Soil fertility management in

greenhouse, 39.39

Crop protection, 54.55

Financial management

and marketing, 13.64

26

service providers. Especially among medium-tech greenhouse farmers the reliance on private

agro-chemical and seed suppliers is relatively high (25%). The results reveal a disconnect

between greenhouse providers and the extension provision with a big proportion of farmers

relying on services from private companies such as agrochemical dealers and input providers

who may be guided by self-interest to sell their products. Farmers producing tomatoes without

any greenhouse technology accessed extension equally from the government, private

extension providers and agro-chemical dealers.

Figure 16: Proportion of farmers mentioning service providers

3.5 Avenues to improving greenhouse adoption

To enhance greenhouse adoption, more and better extension and training for farmers is

needed, combined with better greenhouse design.

Greenhouse adoption can be enhanced with more and better extension and training services

for farmers, better greenhouse designs to increase yields from current greenhouse farmers,

showing the potential of the technology. To achieve this, extension workers and other

informants indicate demonstration sites and learning from- and visiting other greenhouse

farmers is key. Farmers also require information before purchasing to enhance performance.

Basic information like why use a greenhouse, specifications for a better performing

greenhouse depending on the region, management of the greenhouse and pests and diseases

are critical. Therefore, greenhouse technology being knowledge intensive, requires an effective

extension support systems before and after greenhouse acquisition Moreover, a better design,

enabling the greenhouse to cope with the environmental circumstances in which it is placed,

is necessary. The one fit all type of greenhouse package limits the performance of greenhouses

and thus discourages farmers from the uptake of the greenhouses. Greenhouse design and

management limits productivity among farmers. Mainly attributed to information

asymmetry/inadequate information. This should be combined with more attention for the type

of greenhouses sold to farmers. For example, a farmer that wants to place a greenhouse in a

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

open field (n=49)

no-tech (n=6)

low-tech (n=11)

medium-tech (n=7)

total (n=73)

Farmer organization Research institutions/university

Government extension service providers Private extension service provider

Input providers Greenhouse provider

Agro-chemical and seed supplier NGO

Other farmers agricultural shows

27

high-temperature area should not be advised to buy a tunnel greenhouse without proper

ventilation. It seems greenhouse providers poorly inform buyers on the type of greenhouse

that best meets their farming conditions. Finally, high investment costs should be addressed,

as this remains a major barrier in greenhouse uptake. Increasing access to loans or getting

greenhouse producers to sell their greenhouses on credit could be avenues to lower this

barrier.2 Developing a financing model linked with linkage to high value output markets

would provide a sustainable way to enhance uptake.

2 Surprisingly, only one key-informant mentioned there should be more focus on creating a better system of capital facilitation for farmers.

28

4 Post-harvest losses, food safety, yields and

market access

This chapter answers research question 2, asking whether an increased uptake of innovative

technologies and service delivery models is related to reduced post-harvest losses, improved

food safety, improved yields and improved market access. The chapter sets out by describing

these four topics—post-harvest losses, food safety, yields and market access—before

proceeding to relating them to uptake of greenhouse technologies and use of service delivery.

4.1 Pre- and post-harvest losses

In the open field, farmers experience considerable pre-harvest losses, whereas post-harvest

losses are much smaller.

Open field tomato farmers incurred much higher pre-harvest losses than post-harvest losses.

Especially farmers who operate greenhouses and grow open field tomatoes as well, incur high

pre-harvest losses in the open field. Possibly, open field losses of these farmers are relatively

high, as these farmers mainly focus on greenhouse production. Figure 17 shows that the

sample of farmers producing open field tomatoes only, lose nearly 10% of their tomato

production before harvest, compared to a pre-harvest loss of 19, 20 and 28% for open field

tomato production among farmers operating self-made, low-tech and medium-tech

greenhouse. The difference between the four groups is statistically significant at the 1% level.

Post-harvest losses in the open field are much lower, at about 5% of total production. The

proportion of open field post-harvest losses does not differ significantly between the four

groups of tomato farmers.

Greenhouse farming limits pre-harvest losses compared to open field production.

Pre-harvest losses are much lower in greenhouses, compared to open field, varying between 5

and 8% of total production. Differences in pre-harvest losses between greenhouse types are

not statistically significant. Post-harvest losses in greenhouses vary between 3 and 5% (no

statistically significant differences). This indicates that greenhouse technologies are

particularly effective in reducing pre-harvest losses, whereas post-harvest losses are similar

for open field and greenhouse-produced tomatoes.

29

Figure 17: Pre- and post-harvest losses as percentage of total production

Both among open field and greenhouse farmers, pre-harvest losses are incurred mainly due to

infestation of pest and diseases.

The main reason for pre-harvest losses for both greenhouse farmers and open field farmers is

infestation of pest and diseases (75% among greenhouse farmers and 47% among open field

farmers, see Figure 18). In addition, open field farmers incurred pre-harvest losses due to

extreme weather conditions (39%), which is (obviously) much less common among

greenhouse farmers (7%).

The main reasons for post-harvest losses for all tomato farmers are poor quality of produce

and grading.

The main reasons for post-harvest losses according to both open field and greenhouse farmers

are poor quality of produce (32 and 38%) and losses due to grading (20 and 28%). Poor quality

refers to produce that does not meet market requirements, whereas grading refers to buyers

that pick high quality produce and leave the rest. Note that quality might be perceived

differently by open field farmers and greenhouse farmers: greenhouse farmers may have

higher expectations of quality, and may therefore also down-grade the quality of their

tomatoes faster than open field farmers. A third reason for post-harvest losses for open field

tomatoes is extreme weather conditions (19%), which is—again—much less common for

tomatoes produced in greenhouses (3%). Both for tomatoes produced in open field and

greenhouses, lack of market (12 and 9%) and poor crop management (9 and 12%) are important

reasons for post-harvest losses as well (see Figure 19).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Pre-harvestlosses in open

field***

Post-harvestlosses in open

fieldns

Pre-harvestlosses in

greenhousens

Post-harvestlosses in

greenhousens

Losses a

s s

hare

of to

tal pro

duction

open field self-made low tech medium tech

30

Figure 18: Reasons for pre-harvest losses (% of farmers)

Figure 19: Reasons for post-harvest losses (% of farmers)

4.2 Productivity among self-financed and donor-funded greenhouse

farmers

Among farmers operating a medium-tech greenhouse, production per m2 is higher among

those farmers who self-financed their greenhouse, compared to farmers who received the

greenhouse from donors.

The productivity and level of postharvest losses by mode of greenhouse acquisition is

provided in Table 4. The self-financed low-tech greenhouse farmers have a similar average

tomato output per square meter of as compared to the donor-funded farmers. However, self-

financed medium-tech greenhouse farmers had a higher tomato output than donor-funded

farmers (difference is statistically significant at 10% level). This implied self-financed

greenhouses had better performance in terms of productivity compared to the farmers who

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Infestation of pests and diseases

Extreme weather conditions

Damages

Delay in harvesting

Inadequate pest control

Inadequate water

Drying up

Lack of market

%

Open field Greenhouse

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Extreme weather conditions

Lack of market

Lack of means of transportation

Poor road network making market…

Grading

Poor crop management

Poor quality of tomatoes

Delay in harvesting

Disease infestation

Inadequate market

%

Openfield Greenhouse

31

received for free. This could be attributed to poor targeting of the medium-tech greenhouses.

That is, some of the farmers targeted in the programme might not have satisfied all conditions

necessary to farm in a greenhouse such as adequate motivation/self-drive to succeed in

greenhouse farming and training necessary to use the greenhouse.

The results from the household survey, as well as from the key-stakeholders interviews,

indicate that free provision of medium-tech greenhouses does not stimulate demand for

greenhouse technology. The main reason mentioned for poor performance of medium-tech

greenhouses, is poor targeting of the technology.

Table 4: Productivity by mode of greenhouse technology acquisition

Received for free Self-financed Sig.

Low-tech (production in kg per m2) 23.9 18.8 ns

Medium-tech (Production in kg per m2) 8.8 15.6 *

4.3 Food safety

The average spraying frequency in a season varied significantly across all the groups at 5%

level. The no-tech farmers sprayed an average of 22 times while that of open fields was 15

times in a period of one growing season. Because of the microclimate created in greenhouses,

pest control is applied more often than in the open field. In all tomato production systems,

greenhouse and open field, days between spraying and harvesting is approximately six days.

Table 5: Pest control management among open field and greenhouse farmers

Open field no-tech low-tech medium-tech Sig

# sprays

in a 4 month season

14.8 21.7 19.3 19.0 **

Pre-harvest interval (# days) 6.1 5.3 5.6 4.2 ns

Non-chemical pest-control measures are used widely; only a small minority of farmers

exclusively use chemical pest control measures.

Only 6.5% of greenhouse farmers and 9% of open field farmers use only chemical pest control.

Farmers who have adopted alternative methods of pest control use varying strategies. The

most common are good agricultural practices, including manual weeding, crop rotation,

intercropping, planting insect and disease resistant varieties, mulching, and pruning.

Biological measures are rarely used

Biological measures are rarely used. Biological measures include traps, predators, pathogens,

parasites, bio-insecticides, bio-herbicides, bio-stimulants growth hormones and scarecrows.

Although traps are common, other biological measures are rarely used. Most farmers admitted

32

to not knowing the existence of these techniques. This implies that informing farmers through

creating awareness on these techniques would be a step towards increasing their adoption.

Few farmers use traditional pest control methods such as smoking, ash and concoctions of ash

and pepper or rabbit urine to control pest. It was not always apparent if farmers provided all

information regards pest control products used. There is a likelihood that farmers used more

harmful pest control products. This implies that there is need to sensitize farmers on integrated

pest management as well as good quality assurance in the production system. Although it is

difficult to enforce a legislation on harmful pest control methods, market incentives such as

inspection and certification, and purchase of quality product at a premium may be useful in

this regard.

4.4 Yields

The majority of sampled greenhouse farmers report they use greenhouses because they give

higher yields (27%). Other main reasons included better protection against pest and diseases

(22%), higher off-season production (17%) and better protection against weather influences

(14%).

The total average output in the open field as well as the overall consumption outputs varied

significantly across all the groups at 5% level (see Figure 21). However, to be able to compare

between production systems, yield (in kg/m2) must be assessed. Figure 22 shows that

greenhouse tomato yields are considerable higher than yield of tomatoes produced in the open

Higher yields, 27.4

Higher quality, 7.4

Off-season production, 17.4

Buyer requires crops from

greenhouse, 0.4

Less water is needed,

7.6Less pesticides are needed, 1.4

Better protection against weather influences , 14.0

Better protection against pest and air

borne diseases, 22.4

Greenhouses speeds up growth, 0.6

Employment creation and poverty

alleviation, 0.8

Intensive farming on small land, 0.6

Figure 20: Advantages of greenhouse farming (% farmers)

33

field. Where open field farmers have a yield of about 2.5 kg per square meter, farmers

operating no-tech and medium-tech greenhouses have a yield of 15 kg per square meter. Yield

in low-tech greenhouses is even higher, at 19 kg per square meter.

It may be surprising that yields in medium-tech greenhouses are lower than yields in low-tech

greenhouses. The main reason for this is that a considerable share of medium-tech greenhouse

farmers received their greenhouses for free. These farmers are characterised by lower yields

than farmers who self-financed their greenhouses—most probably because the donation

programmes did not target the most entrepreneurial or motivated farmers (also see Table 4).

Figure 21: Total volume of tomato production, sales and consumption

Figure 22: Tomato yield open field and greenhouse (kg/m2)

4.5 Market access

High-end market channels, including supermarkets and purchasing agents for wholesalers,

mainly buy tomatoes produced in greenhouses rather than open field tomatoes.

Most of tomato farmers sell their produce to at least two outlets. The majority sell their

products through retailers. Other major outlets are individual consumers, family, friends and

neighbours. High value markets are less prevalent to farmers. Those farmers who did sell to

high value markets—including supermarkets, institutional buyers, processing companies and

purchasing agents for wholesalers—mostly sold greenhouse tomato. This could be due to

specific quality requirement, or to the fact that high-end market channels demand large

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Open field No-tech Low-tech Medium-tech

Total production (kg)

Sale (kg)

Consumption (kg)

0

5

10

15

20

Open field No-tech Low-tech Medium-tech

Yield open field (kg/m2) Yield greenhouse (kg/m2)

34

volumes of tomatoes. Further, there are few farmers with their own outlets: either a stall in the

city market or they produce directly for hotels. Brokers are also a prevalent outlet, especially

for open field tomatoes (see Figure 24).

Figure 23: Tomato buyers (%)

Most farmers do not have formal contracts with tomato buyers.

The majority of farmers did not have a formal contract with buyers. However, of the few who

had contracts—either written or oral—mostly sold to retailers. Most farmers selling to

institutions had contracts as well as those using high value channels such as supermarkets,

processing companies and wholesalers (see Figure 24).

0 20 40 60 80 100

Purchasing agents for wholesalers

Retailers

Supermarket

Processing companies

Brokers

Individual consumers

Family and friends/neighbours

Institutions

None

Own outlet

Percent of farmers

To

mato

bu

yers

Open Field Green House

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Greenhouse

Open field

Purchasing agents for wholesalersRetailersSupermarketProcessing companiesBrokersIndividual consumersFamily and friends/neighboursInstitutionsNone

Figure 24: Types of contract tomato buyers (%)

35

5 Farmers livelihoods and sustainable markets

This chapter answers research question 3, relating eventual changes in post-harvest losses,

improved food safety, improved yields and market access to livelihood status of farmers, and

discusses how this could contribute to sustainability of domestic and export markets

5.1 Improved livelihoods

Total average cost of production for open field tomato production varies significantly across

the 4 groups. Pure open field farmers had a higher cost of production as compared to farmers

who combine open field farming and greenhouse farming, since less of their land is devoted

to open field production compared to pure open field farmers. On the other hand, costs of

greenhouse production did not vary significantly across the groups.

Results also show that average total revenue from sales of all tomatoes vary significantly

across the groups. Farmers without any greenhouse technology had the highest farm revenue

while farmers practicing pure open field productions had the lowest farm revenue – which is

directly related to higher yields among greenhouse farmers—both total yield per farm, as well

as average yield per m2 (see Figure 21). Despite of high production costs of greenhouse

farming compared to open field farming, total farm margins (revenue from sales minus costs

of production) are also higher among greenhouse farmers compared to pure open field

farmers. Hence, the higher total production costs of greenhouse farming, is by and far

compensated by their higher yields.

The margin of tomato farmers for pure open field farmers is KES 180,000 per year (USD 1,782),

compared to KES 437,000 (USD 4,326) for no-tech greenhouse farmers, KES 227,000 (USD

2,247) for low-tech greenhouse farmers, and KES 339,000 (USD 3,356) for medium-tech

greenhouse farmers.

Table 6: Farm level revenues and costs of tomato production; greenhouse versus open field (in KES per

year)

In KES 1,000 per year Open

field

No

tech

Low

tech

Medium-

tech Sig.

Total tomato production cost open

field 68.2 8.3 21.8 37.1 ***

Total tomato production cost GH n.a. 225.7 147.8 156.1 ns

Tomato revenue (GH+open field) 248.0 671.0 396.7 532.5 **

Tomato margins (GH+open field) 179.7 436.9 227.0 339.3 ns

GH tomato revenue n.a. 661.2 358.4 415.2 ns

GH tomato margin n.a. 435.4 210.5 259.1 ns

Open field tomato revenue 248.0 74.0 110.3 621.3 **

Open field tomato margin 179.7 6.7 15.4 398.8 **

36

5.2 Sustainable markets

According to key-respondents, high-end buyers including supermarkets, exporting

companies and hotels and hospitals are the main buyers of greenhouse tomatoes, as they

prefer the stable production and quality. When exported, most tomatoes are shipped to the

Middle-East. Key-informants expressed that most Kenyan consumers buy their vegetables on

local markets. They mention that consumers prefer tomatoes that are produced in the open

field for various reasons. Consumers are worried about food safety: they believe greenhouse

tomatoes are produced with high quantities of chemical pesticides and are genetically

modified. Consumers are also worried about food quality: they think that greenhouse

tomatoes have a shorter shelf life and are watery. In short, according to key-informants,

consumers in Kenya’s local markets prefer tomatoes that are produced outside, while

institutions and companies prefer greenhouse tomatoes.

To change consumers’ perception of greenhouse tomatoes, key-respondents indicated that

Kenyans need to be informed on the facts of greenhouse products. Tangible evidence is needed

to convince consumers about the safety of greenhouse products. Media information is not

always accurate and correct and should therefore be regulated to ensure correct information

is shown. The national government can play a role in this. When used properly, the media can

be used to change consumer perception on greenhouse tomatoes by informing them about the

facts around greenhouse production.

Horticulture clearly remains the main sector for Kenya’s agri-food production but its

development is critically depending on the availability of labour. The MAGNET model

predicts that due to the overall development of the economy, labour (both skilled and

unskilled labour) will be demanded more and hence wages increase.3 This could make the

relatively labour intensive horticultural production less competitive on the longer run (under

the assumption that everything else remains equal).

3 See: Helming, John, Marie Louise Rau, Gonne Beekman (2018). Exploring the development of the horticulture and dairy sector in Kenya - macro-economic future. Application of a general equilibrium model MAGNET to capture economic interlinkages. 3R Kenya Project Issue Brief XXX

37

6 Conclusion and recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

Horticulture is a main sector in Kenya’s agro-food system, with tomato as key crop.

Although tomato is a key crop in Kenya’s horticulture sector, since 2006, the area of tomato

production has remained constant whereas tomato yields as well as value of tomato

production fluctuated quite dramatically.

Greenhouse production has high potential for further commercialisation of the horticulture

sector.

Advanced greenhouse technology became available for small- and medium-scale farmers

from 2010, supported by interventions by the government and non-profit organisations. The

controlled conditions under which greenhouse vegetables are produced, have various

potential advantages. It is expected that greenhouse production can lead to reduced post-

harvest losses, improved quality of produce, higher yields and more stable production. If

greenhouse production is managed well and farmers have timely access to necessary inputs

and support services, then the benefits can contribute to improved market access (as quality

increases) and incomes, compared to open field production. In the longer run, this could lead

to more continuity of supply on domestic and export markets, as well as to improved

livelihoods for small- and medium-sized farmers. Eventually, greenhouse technology delivery

accompanied with service and input support would contribute to a more robust, reliable and

resilient horticulture sector in Kenya through stable domestic production.

Good crop management practice accompanied with appropriate service delivery is key.

Despite of the potential of greenhouse production, it comes with risk, too. Good crop

management practices are thus essential. To realise the potential benefits of greenhouse

farming, it is essential that greenhouse technology is accompanied with appropriate service

models and input support.

This study aimed to answer a set of three interrelated research questions, testing how

greenhouse technology could contribute to improved yields and incomes among small- and

medium-scale tomato farmers in Kenya.

1. What are enablers and barriers to the uptake of greenhouse technologies and access to

service delivery?

a. What type of farmers have greenhouses?

b. What specific service delivery models are being provided in combination with

greenhouse technologies?

38

2. Is an increased uptake of innovative technologies and service delivery models related

to reduced post-harvest losses, improved food safety, improved yields and improved

market access?

3. Are reduced post-harvest losses, improved food safety, improved yields and market

access related to improved livelihoods of farmers and improved sustainability of

domestic and export markets?

Three main enablers for uptake of greenhouse technology: higher yields, off-season

production, and increasing demand from a growing middle class.

Higher yields

The majority of sampled greenhouse farmers reported they use greenhouses because they give

higher yields. This is accompanied by the protection greenhouse technologies generates

against pest and diseases. Indeed, survey data indicate that tomato yields in greenhouses are

higher than yields for open field production. Apart from higher yields, the analysis also

showed that especially pre-harvest losses were smaller for greenhouse farming systems

compared to open field farming systems.

Off-season production

The most important reason for farmers to choose for greenhouse technology is the possibility

to produce also in the off-season. During the rainy months, the heavy Kenyan rainfall can

destruct vulnerable crops grown outside—like tomatoes. During these months, greenhouse

production is the only crop production option.

Increasing demand from middle-class consumers

The high-end market channels increasingly demand a stable production of tomatoes, in all

seasons. This includes supermarkets and purchasing agents for wholesalers, fuelled by a

growing group of middle-class consumers.

Lack of access to finance is one of the main barriers to the uptake of greenhouse technologies.

Other barriers are lack of specialized knowledge and lack of consumer trust in greenhouse

produced products.

Lack of access to finance

The majority of farmers financed their greenhouses themselves. But for many farmers this

investment is the main barrier to start with greenhouse technology, as they lack the initial

investment capital.

However, it needs to be noted that own investment of farmers can have a positive effect on the

productivity. Findings show that self-financed farmers operating a medium-tech greenhouse

had on average higher productivity levels then those who received their greenhouse from a

39

donor. This indicates that the provision of greenhouses by donors, at no cost, is not always

targeted at the most successful or entrepreneurial farmers.

Lack of knowledge

Greenhouse farming requires specific knowledge on dealing with increased temperatures,

pesticide and fertilizer use, and on marketing of greenhouse products. When this knowledge

is lacking, it hinders the production process. There are currently trainings given to farmers,

but this is not yet enough.

Consumer distrust

Consumers in local markets perceive greenhouse tomatoes as unsafe due to high quantities of

chemical pesticides used in the greenhouse. Therefore, there is a smaller market for

greenhouse products, as they can hardly be sold on the local market. Instead, the farmer has

to look for high-end buyers. As long as this perception remains, there will be a limited market

for greenhouse tomatoes, which is a barrier to the uptake of greenhouse technology.

6.2 Recommendations

Based on the results of this study, five key recommendations are formulated:

Do not provide greenhouses at no costs, but access to finance should be improved.

Results from this study suggest that farmers who self-financed their greenhouse, in particular

medium-tech greenhouses, had higher performance in terms of productivity per unit area.

This could be as a result of intrinsic commitment to the farming process. This suggests that the

future of enhancing medium-technology is by facilitating farmers to acquire their own

greenhouses in a demand driven approach. Further, donation of greenhouses to stimulate

demand may be a disservice if not properly targeted as these results to poor performance and

thus farmers may not realise the economic benefits leading to abandonment of greenhouse

technology or inefficient utilisation. Hence, to help farmers to overcome the barrier of lacking

the investment capital, it might help to give financial support.

Greenhouse providers should provide tailored greenhouse technologies.

There is not one greenhouse package that fits every farmer’s needs. Hence, to encourage

farmers to make their investment there should be more attention for type of greenhouses sold

to farmers.

Currently, it seems greenhouse providers poorly inform buyers on the type of greenhouse that

best meets their farming conditions. This is crucial however, to make the greenhouse

technologies meet the needs of the farmers. Well designed and customised greenhouses based

on agro ecological zones will lead to better performance of the greenhouse and thus attract

more farmers to purchase greenhouse technologies and reduce dis-adoption. Key feature

40

search as height, shape, greenhouse materials, ventilation and location with strong emphasis

on affordability or/and financing models should be taken care of when selling greenhouses to

farmers.

Greenhouse providers and public as well as private extension service providers should

provide tailored and continuing extension support to greenhouse farmers.

For the greenhouse sector to thrive and expand and to support commercialization among

farmers, there is need for a more effective extension service model that supports farmers to

achieve desired results. At the same time, extension services need to be sustained over time,

and should not be a one-time event at the installation of the greenhouse system. Private

extension providers have started penetrating the greenhouse market, whereas quality

regulation of their services is lacking. Hence, there is a business opportunity for well-

established greenhouse providers and public or private extension providers to support the

farmers by offering reliable, high-quality extension service contracts.

Input providers and service providers should invest in appropriate pest control measures, and

especially in alternative pest control.

Pest and disease management is a key challenge in greenhouse tomato production. This has

led to disadoption of greenhouse technologies by farmers. Effective solutions to control

pests—including Tuta absoluta and whiteflies—is important in enhancing effectiveness of

greenhouse technology. This calls for appropriate pest control measures, including alternative

pest control. Currently, the use of alternative pest control measures is limited. However,

regular pest control measures come with risks for food safety and health. Therefore, it is

recommended for the private sector to invest in promoting the uptake of alternative pest

control methods that are effective in controlling and managing pest and diseases, as well as in

quality seeds that are disease and pest resistant.

The Kenyan government should invest in building trust in greenhouse products among

consumers on the local market.

Since many consumers on the local market distrust crops being produced in greenhouses,

there is a huge potential market when trust in greenhouse products can be enhanced. Hence,

this will both create a market to sell more tomatoes, but also encourage more farmers to make

the step towards greenhouse farming technologies.

41

Centre for Development Innovation

Wageningen UR

P.O. Box 88

6700 AB Wageningen

The Netherlands

T +31 (0)317 48 68 00

www.wageningenUR.nl/cdi

Workshop Report 009

ISSN 0000-0000

The Centre for Development Innovation works on processes of innovation

and change in the areas of food and nutrition security, adaptive agriculture,

sustainable markets, ecosystem governance, and conflict, disaster and

reconstruction. It is an interdisciplinary and internationally focused unit of

Wageningen UR within the Social Sciences Group. Our work fosters

collaboration between citizens, governments, businesses, NGOs, and the

scientific community. Our worldwide network of partners and clients links

with us to help facilitate innovation, create capacities for change and broker

knowledge.

The mission of Wageningen UR (University & Research centre) is ‘To explore

the potential of nature to improve the quality of life’. Within Wageningen

UR, nine specialised research institutes of the DLO Foundation have joined

forces with Wageningen University to help answer the most important

questions in the domain of healthy food and living environment. With

approximately 30 locations, 6,000 members of staff and 9,000 students,

Wageningen UR is one of the leading organisations in its domain worldwide.

The integral approach to problems and the cooperation between the various

disciplines are at the heart of the unique Wageningen Approach.