African Journal of
Agricultural Research

  • Abbreviation: Afr. J. Agric. Res.
  • Language: English
  • ISSN: 1991-637X
  • DOI: 10.5897/AJAR
  • Start Year: 2006
  • Published Articles: 6638

Full Length Research Paper

Effect of Global-GAP policy on smallholder French beans farmers’ climate change adaptation strategies in Kenya

Peter Shimon Otieno
  • Peter Shimon Otieno
  • Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 29053-00625, Nairobi, Kenya.
  • Google Scholar
Chris Ackello Ogutu
  • Chris Ackello Ogutu
  • Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 29053-00625, Nairobi, Kenya.
  • Google Scholar
John Mburu
  • John Mburu
  • Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 29053-00625, Nairobi, Kenya.
  • Google Scholar
Rose Adhiambo Nyikal
  • Rose Adhiambo Nyikal
  • Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 29053-00625, Nairobi, Kenya.
  • Google Scholar


  •  Received: 12 January 2017
  •  Accepted: 01 February 2017
  •  Published: 23 February 2017

 ABSTRACT

This study analyzed the role of Global-GAP policy, on smallholder French beans farmers’ climate change adaptation strategies in, fruit and vegetables farming. It considered: (1) the prevailing adaptation strategies used by the farmers; (2) regional differences in the farmers’ adaptation strategies; and (3) how Global-GAP policy influence the farmers’ decisions on the use of adaptation strategies. A total of 616 French beans growing households were randomly selected from Central and Eastern regions of Kenya and data collected through semi-structured questionnaire. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and a logistic regression model were used to analyze the data. PCA results showed that, the French beans farmers’ prevailing adaptation strategies were soil conservation, water harvesting, off-farm employment, leasing out of land, changing crop variety, irrigation and livestock rearing. The common study area-wide adaptation strategies to climate change were found to be, soil conservation and leasing out land. The empirical results of the logistical model showed that, Global-GAP policy compliance significantly and positively increased the probability of the farmers to undertake changing crop variety, water harvesting, finding off-farm jobs and soil conservation as adaptation strategies to climate change. The policy implication of this study is that, government and service providers should mainstream such factors as Global-GAP compliance and regional considerations which enhance the probability of adopting adaptation strategies to climate change related projects and programmes in the smallholder fruits and vegetables farming sector.

 

Key words: Global-GAP policy, climate change adaptation, prevailing adaptation strategies, principal component analysis, logistical regression model, smallholder farming.


 INTRODUCTION

With the increasing climate change risks facing small-holder fresh fruit and vegetables farming in Sub  Saharan Africa (SSA), the need for farmers supplying markets in the  developed   countries   to  adopt  suitable  adaptation
 
strategies is becoming more pronounced (FAO, 2013; IPCC, 2001). Climate change is progressively having negative effect on crop yields in SSA (Niang et al., 2014; Kabubo-Mariara and Karanja, 2007). This, coupled with growing environmental consciousness among consumers in European Union (EU) forming the main market for fresh fruit and vegetables, is already presenting real and potential livelihood consequences to smallholder farmers (Macgregor, 2010; Wangler, 2006).
 
About 40% of all fresh fruit and vegetables exports into the EU are produced in SSA and this supports the livelihoods of about 1 million people (Legge et al., 2006; World Bank, 2010a). In East Africa, it supports the livelihood of at least a quarter of million people with the fastest growth being registered in chillies, green peppers and French beans (Edward-Jones et al., 2009). Among the fresh vegetables, Kenya is currently the leading exporter of French beans to the EU and is mostly grown by smallholders (Minot and Ngigi, 2004; Mutuku et al., 2004). French beans accounts about 60% of all vegetables and 21% of horticultural exports in Kenya (Okello et al., 2007). About 90% of French beans are produced in smallholdings, ranging between 0.15 to 2 hectares (Odero et al., 2012).
 
Despite the growing export market demand for French beans, the area under production, volume and value have been declining due to climate related effects. Between 2008 and 2010, the area, volume and value decreased by 37, 39 and 45%, respectively due to prolonged drought experienced in Kenya in the year 2008 to 2009 (HCDA, 2010). This provide an indication that, climate related risks coupled with poor adaptation strategies, might be compounding the livelihood challenges of smallholder French beans farmers in the traditional production areas (Legesse and Drake, 2005; O’Brien et al., 2000). Adoption of suitable adaptation strategies is thus a pre-requisite to supporting majority of smallholder farmers in reducing effects of climate change and changing socioeconomic conditions like, changes in local and export markets (Bryant et al., 2000; Boko et al., 2007; Fussel, 2007).
 
Over the period, most EU countries providing the market for French beans have enforced regulatory mechanisms aimed at addressing climate change’s impacts (Appleton, 2007; MacGregor and Vorley, 2006; Rigby and Brown, 2003). These regulatory measures, coupled with commercial risks have led private buyers in EU to enforce their own private voluntary standards (PVS), pertaining to environmental risks (Bingley, 2008; Jaffee et al., 2005).
 
Among the PVS, Global-GAP policy has notably gained significance in supporting access to required production management skills and climate change adaptation capacity in Kenya’s French beans farming (Amekawa, 2009; Edward-Jones et al., 2009; Government of Kenya, 2010a; Kariuki, 2014; Liu, 2009). At the national level, the environmental objective of Global-GAP is seen to be consistent with climate action plans, which aims to support initiatives for helping farmers to adopt appropriate climate change adaptation strategies, towards enhancing food security (Government of Kenya, 2010b).
 
Evidence suggest that, although smallholder farmers are likely to be seriously affected by climate change, only a minority of them have taken advantage of adaptation strategies (Fosu-Mensah et al., 2012). Identification of trends that advocates local climate change adaptation strategies and influencing factors are therefore considered vital in guiding farmers’ adaptation decisions (Belliveau et al., 2006; Bryant et al., 2000; Maddison, 2006). A number of factors, among policies and markets, have been identified to define responses of the farmers to climate change shocks (Blengini and Busto, 2009; Bradshaw et al., 2004; Bryant et al., 2000; Nhemachena and Hassan, 2007).
 
While much has been done on farm-level adaptation strategies, very little focus has been given to the link between Global-GAP policy and prevailing climate change adaptation strategies of smallholder French beans producers. This underlies the growing concern that, unless this link is established, it will be difficult to support increased compliance among developing-country smallholder producers and may lead to reduced market access (Minae et al., 2006). A clear understanding of the role of Global-GAP policy on the decision by smallholder French beans farmers to use certain climate change adaptation strategies is therefore essential in, supporting policy makers and industry service providers in designing suitable strategies in smallholder fresh fruit and vegetables farming (Mabe et al., 2012). The question therefore remains: what is the prevailing climate change adaptation strategies used by French beans farmers; are there regional differences in climate change adaptation strategies; does Global-GAP compliance influence the decisions on specific adaptation strategies used by farmers? 


 MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data used in the analysis was collected in Central and Eastern regions of Kenya, which are the leading French beans producing areas in the country. About 90% of the total national French beans output is produced by smallholder farmers in these regions under increasing challenge of climate effects. A higher proportion of French beans farmers in these areas are also complying with Global-GAP policy to enhance their export market access. The integrated farm management practices and technologies promoted under Global-GAP policy in these areas are also assumed to be climate change adaptation related, targeted at reducing vulnerability and improving agricultural production potential (Government of Kenya, 2010b; Amekawa, 2009). The study interviewed a random sample of 616 Global-GAP complying and non-complying farmers using a semi-structured questionnaire.
 
The number of smallholder French beans farmers interviewed from each region  was arrived at using proportionate to size criteria.Multistage sampling was used to select the counties, sub-counties, wards and the villages from which farmers were selected. Systematic random sampling was used to select farmers to be interviewed in each of the selected region. Only household decision maker/spouse was interviewed. Data collected included information on Global-GAP compliance, weather related risks and adaptation strategies applied by farmers. Factor analysis and logistic regression methods were used to analyze data. Descriptive statistics such as mean and percentages were generated using Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS). Factors affecting adoption of adaptation strategies were analyzed using Limdep software.
 
Assessment of prevailing climate change adaptation strategies
 
The study modelled climate change adaptation in smallholder French beans farming on technology adoption theory since adaptation to climate change in agriculture is mostly through, adoption of appropriate technologies (Gbetibouo, 2009). The models were based on farmers’ utility and profit maximizing behaviors. The study identified underlying climate change adaptation strategies, applied by the farmers using factor analysis. This was used to reduce large numbers of observed farmers’ variables to fewer underlying dimensions, viewed as a more authentic measure of that factor (Helena et al., 2000; Sarbu and Pop, 2005).
 
To ensure that all the variability in the observed variables was used, the study applied the principal component analysis (PCA) as the data reduction method during the factor analysis (Lwayo and Obi, 2012). In addition, the study used Likert scale to find out the general clustering of variables for explanatory purposes, under the believe that variable correlation is less than 0.6 (Kim and Mueller, 1987). The principal components were ordered in such a way that, the first component accounted for the largest possible amount of variation in the original variables, the second component accounted for the maximum that was not accounted for by the first and was completely uncorrelated with the first principal component (Rao,1964). The computation of the principal component was as follows: 
 
 
Where PC is the component score, n is the total number of PCs, a is the component loading, X is the measured value of variable, i is the component number and k is the total number of variables. If the number (n) of principal components is greater than 1, then each principal component is a continuous variable or quantity related to, the products of the values of the constituent variables and their respective weightings or component loading (a). The relationship is an additive and hence the value of the principal component can be obtained by, addition of the products as shown in the equation:
 
 
Where PC1 is the first principal component, a1k is the regression coefficient for the kth variable that is the eigenvector of the covariance matrix between the variables, and Xk the kth variable. Since key climate change adaptation strategies of the farmers were derived from actual observed data, assumption was made in the study that, there was no difference in adaptation strategies used in the two study regions. Further assumption was made, climate change adaptation measures was an “aggregate of indicators”, then adaptation strategies of French beans smallholder farmers aggregated region-wide reflected factors that speak to the  complex latent measures used by farmers to adapt to climate change in the two regions. For this purpose, data for all farmers’ responses across the region were combined for each region. The farmers gave their responses on the measures adopted for climate change adaptation on the Likert scale of one to three (where 1 = disagree, 2 = unsure/neutral, and 3 = agree).
 
The adaptation strategies tested include twelve items. The 12 items include: changing crop variety, building a water harvesting scheme, planting shaded trees, irrigating more, changing from crop to livestock, increasing number of livestock, reducing the number of livestock, migrating to another area, finding off-farm jobs, leasing their land, buying insurance and investing in soil conservation techniques. These were reduced using PCA while still reflecting a large proportion of the information contained in the original dataset. The data was screened to ensure no outliers and the minimum amount of data for factor analysis was satisfied for each group with a sample size of 307 for the eastern region farmers and 309 for central region farmers. All the variables analysed satisfied several well-recognized criteria for factorability of correlation. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy considered was above the threshold of 0.5 and any value below 0.5 was considered miserable according to Everitt and Hothorn (2011). The Bartlett’s test of sphericity for the two regions was done at 1% level of significance. The varimax rotation which is a form of orthogonal rotation strategy was used since there was no relationship between the components.
 
Assessment of the influence of Global-GAP policy on farmers’ climate change adaptation strategies decisions
 
The study assumed that use of identified adaptation strategies was influenced by socio-economic factors among them Global-GAP policy compliance. Other factors deemed to influence adoption of modelled adaptation strategies which were based on literature review and included respondents' socio-economic and institutional factors (Nhemachena and Hassan, 2007). The dependent variable was binary (1 if farmer used identified adaptation strategies, 0 otherwise). The climate change adaptation strategies function for smallholder French beans farmers was specified as:
 
 
Where: CCA = binary (1 if farmer was using adaptation strategy i, 0 otherwise); G = Gender; FE = Farming experience; E = extension and GGC = Global-GAP Compliance. The estimated model was specified as:
 
 
Where X was a vector of explanatory variables, β was a vector of coefficients and µ was a random variable accounting for unobservable characteristics. Logistic regression model was used to estimate the explanatory variables, influencing the adoption of the identified climate change adaptation strategies by the farmers.
 
Empirical model for determinants of climate change adaptation
 
The dependent variable for the logistic regression equation was, whether a farmer adopted the identified climate change adaptation strategies or not. The explanatory variables for the equations were chosen, based on climate change adaptation literature and data availability. The description and hypothesized signs of the modelled variables are presented in Table 1. 
 


 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Prevailing climate change adaptation strategies of farmers
 
The study results showed that 70% of smallholder French beans farmers interviewed used at least one type of adaptation strategies in response to long term changes in rainfall and temperature. By region, 59% and 79% of farmers interviewed in Central and Eastern regions respectively used at least, one type of adaptation strategies. Factor analysis  was    undertaken    to    understand  the specific prevailing climate change adaptation strategies, used by smallholder French beans farmers to reduce the effects of changes in rainfall and temperature. A total of three and one items were eliminated respectively in Central and Eastern regions because they did not contribute to a simple factor structure and failed to meet a minimum criterion of having a primary factor loading of 0.5 or above. All the extracted components in both regions had an eigen values of above 1. The suggested KMO values in the analysis in the two regions were all above 0.6 and Bartlett’s test of  sphericity, were significant at 1%,
supporting the factorability of correlation matrix.
 
Adaptation strategies to changes in rainfall
 
The study extracted three principal components (PCs) each from responses of farmers in Central and Eastern region on their adaptation strategies, to long term changes in rainfall. The components represented major adaptation strategies used by farmers in the two regions. In Central region, the three extracted PCs contributed about 53% of the variance . Based on the items loadings,the component factor one was named soil conservation, two leasing out land, and three water harvesting strategies (Table 2).
 
 
The proportion of variance accounted for by the component soil conservation was 22%. Farmers were investing in soil conservation techniques to facilitate adaptation to changes in rainfall. They also planted shaded trees, changed crop variety and found off-farm employment, towards addressing effects of changes in rainfall. The second factor leasing out land, explained 17% of the variance. French beans farmers in Central region leased out land, migrated production activity to other areas and changed from crop to livestock as solutions to the recurrent problem of changes in rainfall. The proportion of variance accounted for by the third factor water harvesting was, 13%. Farmers  built  a  water harvesting scheme in Central region to reduce the effects of challenges occasioned by changes in rainfall.
 
In Eastern region, three components representing major prevailing climate change adaptation strategies were, extracted from the farmers’ responses. These contributed about 55% of the variance. Based on the items loadings, the component factor one was named leasing out of land, two changing crop variety, and three soil conservation strategies (Table 3). 
 
 
Principal component one, leasing out of land, explained 26% of the variance. Under this strategy farmers were respectively leasing out their land, migrating production activity to other areas, changing crop variety and increasing number of livestock to cope with the adverse effects. Principal component two, changing of crop variety  contributed  18% of the variance.Through this strategy, farmers were changing crop variety by reducing the number of livestock and building water harvesting scheme, to cope with the effect of changes in rainfall. The proportion of the variance explained by principal component three has soil conservation of 11%. The specific items that improved this factor were respectively planting shaded trees and finding off-farm jobs for income.
 
The study results showed that, soil conservation and leasing out of land were the common climate change adaptation strategies applied by smallholder French beans farmers in both Central and Eastern regions to cope with the effects of changes in rainfall. While water harvesting was more common in central, change of crop variety was more common in Eastern region, as an adaptation strategy to cope with changes in rainfall.  
 
Adaptation strategies to changes in temperature
 
Regarding responses to changes in temperature, three principal components were extracted in Central and four Eastern regions. These components represented the major adaptation strategies to changes in temperature used by smallholder farmers in the two regions. The extracted principal components in Central region contributed 46% of the variance. Based on the items loadings, the component factor one was named off-farm employment, two water harvesting and leasing out land strategies (Table 4).
 
 
The proportion of variance accounted for by the component off-farm jobs was 22%. French beans farmers in Central region sought off-farm jobs, reduced the number of livestock, planted shaded trees and invested in soil conservation techniques towards coping with the effects of changes in temperature. The second factor water harvesting, contributed 13% of the variances. Under this strategy, farmers built water harvesting schemes, changed crop variety and increased number of livestock kept. The third factor leasing out of land, explained 11% of the variance. Through this strategy farmers leased out their land, migrated production activity to other areas and changed from crop to livestock activity.
 
In Eastern region, four principal components extracted from the farmers’ responses explained 61% of the variation. These components were summarized as soil conservation, irrigation, leasing out land, and livestock rearing (Table 5). The proportion of variance accounted by factor, one soil conservation was 23%. Through soil conservation strategy, farmers invested in soil conservation techniques, planted shaded trees, reduced the number of livestock and found off-farm jobs to cope with the effects of changes in temperature. The second factor irrigation contributed 15% of the variation. The farmers irrigated more changed crop variety and built water harvesting scheme to address the effects of changes in temperature on their French beans production activity. The third factor leasing out land explained 13% of the variation. Under this strategy farmers leased out their land and migrate their production activity to other areas. The fourth factor livestock rearing contributed 10% of the variation. Under this strategy, farmers increased the number of livestock and changed from crop to livestock as means of coping with the effects of changes in temperature in Eastern region. 
 
 
The study results revealed that the common climate change  adaptation  strategies  used in the two regions in response to changes in temperature was leasing out land. While off-farm employment and water harvesting strategies were common in central region, soil conservation, irrigation and livestock rearing were common strategies to farmers in Eastern region. The distinct feature revealed by these results was that, smallholder French beans farmers’ intention with the prevailing adaptation strategies seems to be in line with those found by other studies. As highlighted by Chiotti et al. (1997) and de Loë et al. (1999), these farmers change crop varieties to the ones that are recommended for higher drought or heat tolerance to increase farm efficiency in circumstances of changing temperature and moisture stress. They also change from crop production to livestock rearing that may tolerate increased changes in climatic conditions (Delcourt and Van kooten, 1995). These farmers seem to undertake soil conservation practices as an adaptation strategy in order to conserve moisture and nutrients (Hucq et al., 2000). Implementing irrigation practices and water harvesting are aimed at, enhancing the production under climate related changes to ensure continued economic benefits (Klassen and Gilpen, 1998). Looking for off-farm employment and leasing out land are employed by farmers to diversify income sources to reduce vulnerability to climate related income loss (de Loe et al., 1999). These strategies should therefore be considered by stakeholders in efforts to enhance adaptation to both changes in rainfall and temperature in the study area.
 
Factors influencing farmers’ adaptation strategies
 
The study analyzed   the   influence  of  socio-economic factors such as Global-GAP policy compliance on the identified climate change adaptation strategies. The results of the maximum likelihood-binary logit estimates for factors influencing adoption of the identified adaptation strategies are presented in Table 6.
 
 
The results suggest that Global-GAP compliance significantly promotes adoption of changing crop variety, water harvesting and soil conservation as adaptation strategies to climate change. It also tends to be associated with off-farm employment among complying farmers as an adaptation strategy to climate change. The Global-GAP policy complying French beans farmers have a probability of 3.743, 4.174, 8.949 and 2.720, respectively of adopting changing crop variety, water harvesting, off-farm employment and soil conservation as adaptation strategies to climate change, compared to those who do not comply. This conclusion is drawn based on the positive sign of the marginal effect and the significant level of compliance with, Global-GAP.  The results show that, the effect of Global-GAP policy compliance was higher on adoption of off-farm employment, as an adaptation strategy to climate change. As observed by Okello et al. (2007), this implies that the requirements for adapting to other strategies like changing of crop variety, irrigating more and soil conservation under Global-GAP policy requires more capital which the farmer may not be having and hence, they tend to seek this from off-farm employment. 
 
Perception of reduced rainfall among farmers, have a strong positive influence on their adoption of increased irrigation as an adaptation strategy to climate change. This means that as suggested by Hassan and Nhemachena (2008), the drier it gets the higher the demand for more irrigation,among French beans farmers. On   the  other
 
hand, farmers who perceive increase in rainfall tend to adopt off-farm employment and soil conservation as adaptation strategies to, climate change in the study area. Similarly, the study results indicate that perception of increased temperature among French beans farmers positively and significantly influence the adoption of water harvesting, irrigation and soil conservation as adaptation strategies to climate change. This implies that, perception of increased temperature tends to trigger the fear of losing the crop and the expected benefits and hence, most farmers adopt increased irrigation, water harvesting and soil conservation to sustain crop water requirement and to minimize moisture loss.
 
The study results suggest that farmers with large plot sizes tend to adopt increased irrigation as an adaptation strategy to climate change. This could be linked to the fact that as the size of investment increases most farmers tend to internalize the risks posed by climate change and hence adopt increased irrigation strategy, to ensure that the produce and returns are not lost. The study further suggests that farmers with smaller families tend to adopt increased irrigation as an adaptation strategy to climate change. This was contrary to the expectation that, increased irrigation requires more labour supply from the household members. This could be explained by the fact that   French     beans     production    is    becoming   more specialized due to the costs involved and more smallholder farmers would rather hire experienced casuals to irrigate their farms at the times of need. This is further confirmed by the study results that showed that, farmers with larger household sizes tend to adopt off-farm employment and soil conservation as adaptation strategies. While off-farm employment promotes households’ income diversification, the more the members engaged in it the better adoption of soil conservation, as adaptation strategy is quite labour demanding and hence farmers with larger household sizes are advantaged.
 
Better access to extension seems to have a strong positive influence on the probability of adopting changing crop variety, off-farm employment and soil conservation as adaptation strategies to climate change. This means that through extension services farmers may be obtaining information on income sources diversification and the need to manage well the soils improved production and productivity. On the other hand, long distances to the market tend to significantly improve adoption of increased irrigation as an adaptation strategy to climate change. This was contrary to the expectation and could be explained by the fact that water is critical in the production of French beans and most water sources which are streams are far away from the market. Hence despite the need for proximity,  market  farmers  will  still  go nearer to the water sources to undertake production of French beans.
 
Farmers with access to weather information tend to adopt off-farm employment and soil conservation as climate change adaptation strategies. This implies that based on availed weather information, these farmers are able to assess the risks and hence opt to adopt off-farm employment, in order to diversify the income sources. They also opt to conserve soil, to preserve the soil moisture for increased production in the face of changes in climate and weather variability. On the other hand, farmers without access to weather information are more likely not to adopt increased irrigation as climate change adaptation strategy. This is contrary to the expectation.
 
Farmers, who have access to credit, tend to adopt soil conservation in farms more than those who do not have access to credit. As expected, access to credit increased the likelihood of adaptation of irrigation as an adaptation strategy. As reported by Gbetibouo (2009) and O’Brien et al. (2000) in Tanzania, despite numerous adaptation options that farmers are aware of and willing to apply, access to credit is crucial in adaptation of soil conservation strategies.
 
The more experienced French beans farmers are, more likely to adopt off-farm employment as an adaptation strategy to climate change. This implies that experience enables the farmer to assess and adopt off-farm employment for improved income diversification, in the face of climate change. Experienced farmers have an increased likelihood of adopting off-farm employment, as an adaptation strategy. These results confirm the findings of Nhemachena and Hassan (2007) in a similar study of adaptation in the Southern Africa region. Experienced farmers have high skills in farming techniques and management and are more likely to spread risk when faced with climate variability.
 
The study results revealed that, whereas soil con-servation and leasing out of land are common adaptation strategies to changes in rainfall and temperature, there are also region-specific strategies, which defines French beans farmers’ response to climate change risks. This implies that to support development of more efficient and effective climate change adaptation strategies in the fruit and vegetables farming, research should appreciate regional or sub-regional diversity in farmers’ responses. This validates the findings of Smithers and Smit (1997) and Smit and Skinner (2002) that, adaptation in agriculture is defined by various spatial scales including plant, plot, farm, region and nation. The findings further implied that, there are differences in level of complexity and requirements to adopt the various strategies used in each region. For instance, while water harvesting, soil conservation, change of crop variety are more strategic adaptation strategies to changes in rainfall and temperature and require longer-term, others like looking for off-farm jobs are a bit tactical and requires shorter-term to adopt. This  corroborate  the  findings  of  Smit  et al. (1996), that short-term adaptation strategies might include, adjustments made within a season like looking for off-farm jobs and irrigation while longer-term adaptation strategies might involve structural changes in the management that would apply in subsequent seasons like water harvesting, taking up livestock rearing, and soil conservation. This further implies that, resource endowment and capacities should be some of the key considerations in identifying climate change adaptation strategies in other to promote among smallholder French beans farmers, in each specific region. 
 
In addition, the results revealed that food safety and environmental policies enforced by private sector players such as Global-GAP standards, plays an important role in enhancing adoption of climate change adaptation strategies in smallholder fresh fruit and vegetables farming. As suggested by Smit and Skinner (2002), it is therefore important for the policy makers and stakeholders to evaluate and recognize the specific roles played by such private policies, with respect to adaptation in order to enhance adoption of response strategies. This is validated by Bryant et al. (2000) and Bryant (1994)’s assertion that, farmers make adaptation decisions in the context of prevailing policy, economic conditions, financial systems, and social norms. Hence other significant variables identified by this study as, influencing farmers’ decisions on adaptation of specific strategies like region, extension, weather information, plot size, market and credit access, reduction in rainfall and increase in temperature should also be considered by the policy-makers and stakeholders in the measures designed, to enhance adoption of climate change adaptation strategies in fruit and vegetables farming. 


 CONCLUSIONS

The study analyzed the French beans producing farmers prevailing climate change adaptation strategies and the factors affecting their adoption in Central and Eastern regions of Kenya using factor analysis and binary logit regression model. The adaptation strategies of the farmers identified, using factor analysis include soil conservation, water harvesting, off-farm employment, leasing out of land, changing crop variety, irrigation and livestock rearing. The common study area-wide adaptation strategies to climate change were found to be soil conservation and leasing out land.
 
The empirical results of the logistical regression model showed that, Global-GAP policy compliance significantly and positively increased the probability of the farmers to undertake changing crop variety, water harvesting, finding off-farm jobs and soil conservation as adaptation strategies to climate change. Other identified factors like access to extension, region of the farmer, access to credit,  access  to  weather  information,  distance  to  the market, household size, plot size, and perception on reduction in rainfall and increase in temperature, should be included in climate change adaptation strategies promotion, to enhance adoption of adaptation strategies. The policy implication of this study is that, the government and service providers should mainstream such factors as Global-GAP compliance and regional considerations among other factors, which enhance the probability of adopting adaptation strategies to climate change related projects and programmes in the smallholder fruits and vegetables farming sector.
 
However, the study did not investigate the effect of area-wide prevailing adaptation strategies on the French beans productivity performance among farmers due to lack of information. There is need for further research to probe for example the effect of leasing out of land activities of smallholder French beans farmers which the study found to be common prevailing adaptation strategy on productivity performance. Future research should endeavor to investigate this further, the economic status of farmers who have leased out land, since leasing out of land is hypothetically seen to diminish the area under French beans especially, if the land is converted to totally different activities.


 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.



 REFERENCES

Amekawa Y (2009). Reflections on the Growing Influence of Good Agricultural Practices in the Global South. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. Springer-business media. B.V. 
Crossref

 

Appleton AE (2007). Supermarket Labels and the TBT Agreement: "Mind the Gap" Business Law Brief. 

View

 
 

Belliveau S, Bradshaw B, Smit B, Reid S, Ramsey D, Tarleton M, Sawyer B (2006). Farm-level adaptation to multiple risks: Climate change and other concerns. Canada: University of Guelph. Occasional paper No. 27.

 
 

Bingley E (2008). Measuring and Accrediting the Carbon Footprint of Export Horticultural Produce from Kenya: Industry Attitudes and Capacity. 

 
 

Blengini GA, Busto M (2009). The life cycle of rice: LCA of alternative agri-food chain management systems in Vercelli (Italy). J. Environ. Manage. 90:1512-1522.
Crossref

 
 

Boko M, Niang I, Nyong A, Vogel C, Githeko AM, Medany B, Osmanelasha R, Yanda P (2007). in: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson C (eds). Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.

 
 

Bradshaw B, Dolan H, Smit B (2004). Farm-Level Adaptation to Climatic Variability and Change: Crop Diversification in the Canadian Prairies. Clim. Change 67:119-141.
Crossref

 
 

Bryant CR (1994). Approaches to the Study of Agricultural Adaptation to Clim. Change at the Farm Level. Montréal, Université de Montréal.

 
 

Bryant RC, Smit B, Brklacich M, Johnston RT, Smithers J, Chiotti Q, Singh B (2000). Adaptation in Canadian agriculture to climatic variability and change. Clim. Change 45 p.
Crossref

 
 

Chiotti Q, Johnston TRR, Smit B, Ebel B (1997). Agricultural response to climate change: A preliminary investigation of farm-level adaptation in southern Alberta. In Ilbery B, Chiotti Q, Rickard T (eds.), Agricultural Restructuring and Sustainability: A geographical perspective, Wallingford, CAB International pp. 167-183.

 
 

de Loë R, Kreutzwiser R, Mararu L (1999). Climate Change and the Canadian Water Sector: Impacts and adaptation, Guelph, Natural Resources Canada.

 
 

Delcourt D, Van Kooten GC (1995). How resilient is grain production to climatic change? Sustainable agriculture in a dryland cropping region of western Canada. J. Sustain. Agric. 5(3):37-57.
Crossref

 
 

Edwards-Jones J, Plassmann GK, York EH, Hounsome B, Jones DL, Mila I, Canals L (2009). Vulnerability of exporting nations to the development of a carbon label in the United Kingdom. Environ. Sci. Policy 12:479-490.
Crossref

 
 

Everitt B, Hothorn T (2011). An introduction to applied Multivariate analysis with R. New York: Springer.
Crossref

 
 

FAO (2013). Climate Smart Agriculture Sourcebook. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 2013.

 
 

Fosu-Mensah BY, Vlek PL, MacCarthy DS (2012). Farmers perception and adaptation to climate change: a case study of Sekyedumase district in Ghana. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 14(4):495-505.
Crossref

 
 

Fussel HM (2007). Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. Sustain. Sci. 2 (2):265-275.
Crossref

 
 

Gbetibouo GA (2009). Understanding Farmers' Perceptions and Adaptations to Climate Change and Variability. The Case of the Limpopo Basin, South Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00849. February 2009.

 
 

Government of Kenya (2010a). National Climate Change Response Strategy: Executive Brief, Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources, Government of Kenya (GoK), Nairobi, Kenya, 2010.

 
 

Government of Kenya (2010b). The national climate change action plan, Ministry of Environment and natural resources. Government Printer. Nairobi.

 
 

Hassan R, Nhemachena C (2008). Determinants of African farmers' strategies for adapting to climate change. Multinomial choice analysis. Afr. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2(1):83-104.

 
 

HCDA (2010). Horticultural Crops Development Authority, Annual validated report, 2010, Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya. Government printer.

 
 

Helena B, Pardo R, Vega M, Barrado E, Ferna’ndez JM, Ferna´ ndez L (2000). Temporal evolution of groundwater composition in an alluvial aquifer (Pisuerga river, Spain) by principal component analysis. Wat. Res. 34:807-816.
Crossref

 
 

Hucq A, Kowalshi J, Gutek L, Gray R (2000). Achieving understanding in agricultural GHG emission reduction. In Scott D, Jones B, Audrey J, Gibson R, Key P, Mortsch L, Warriner K (eds.). Climate Change Communication: Proceedings of an international conference, Kitchener-Waterloo, Canada, Environment Canada pp. F3.9–F3.17.

 
 

IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Third assessment Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

 
 

Jaffee S, van der Meer K, Henson S, de Haan C, Sewadeh M, Ignacio L, Lamb J, Lisazo MB (2005). Food-safety and agricultural health standards: challenges and opportunities for developing countries export. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

 
 

Kabubo-Mariara J, Karanja FK (2007). The economic impact of climate change on Kenyan crop agriculture: A Ricardian approach. Glob. Planet. Change 57:319-330.
Crossref

 
 

Kariuki IM (2014). Transition to Certification Schemes and Implications for Market Access: GlobalGAP Perspectives in Kenya. Agric. Sci. 5:1100-1111.
Crossref

 
 

Kim J, Mueller C (1987). Factor analysis. Statistical methods and practical issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

 
 

Klassen S, Gilpen J (1998). Alberta irrigation in the old and new millennium. Can. Water Res. J. 24(1):61-70.
Crossref

 
 

Legesse B, Drake L (2005). Determinants of smallholder farmers' perceptions of risk in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia. J. Risk Res. 8(5):383-416.
Crossref

 
 

Legge A, Orchard J, Graffham A, Greenhalgh P, Kleih U (2006). The production of Fresh Produce in Africa for Export to the United Kingdom: mapping different value chains. Natural Resource Institute. Funded by the United Kingdom department for International Development.

 
 

Liu P (2009). Private standards in international trade: Issues, opportunities and long-term prospects, in: Sarris A, Morrison J (Eds.). The evolving structure of world agricultural trade: implications for trade policy and trade agreements. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Trade and Markets Division, Rome.

 
 

Lwayo MK, Obi A (2012). Risk perceptions and management strategies by smallholder farmers in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa. Int. J. Agric. Manage. 1(3):28-39.

 
 

Mabe FN, Sarpong DB, Osei-Asare Y (2012). Adaptive Capacities of Farmers to Climate Change Adaptation Strategies and their Effects on Rice Production in the Northern Region of Ghana. Russ. J. Agric. Socio-Econ. Sci. 1(11):9-17.

 
 

Macgregor J (2010). Carbon Concerns: How Standards and Labelling Initiatives Must Not Limit Agricultural Trade from Developing Countries, ICTSD–IPC Platform on Climate Change, Agriculture and Trade, Issue Brief No.3, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland and International Food & Agricultural Trade Policy Council, Washington DC, USA.

 
 

MacGregor J, Vorley B (2006). Fair Miles? Weighing environmental and social impacts of Fresh produce exports from Sub Saharan Africa to the UK (summary) Fresh insights No. 9 IIED.

 
 

Maddison D (2006). The perception of and adaptation to climate change in Africa. CEEPA. Discussion Paper No.10. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: University of Pretoria.

 
 

Minae S, Casey S, Poisot AS, Santacoloma P, Termine P (2006). Capacity Building and Awareness-Raising on SARD and GAP to Contribute to Food Safety and Quality and Integrated Natural Resources Management in Kenya and Uganda. FAO Mission Report.

 
 

Minot N, Ngigi N (2004). Are Horticultural Exports a Replicable Success Story? Evidence from Kenya and Côte d'Ivoire. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 120. MTID Discussion Paper No. 73.

 
 

Mutuku M, Tschirley D, Weber MT (2004). Improving Kenya's Domestic Horticultural Production and Marketing Systems: Current Competitiveness, Forces of Change, and Challenges for the future Volume II: Horticultural Marketing. Working Papers 202671, Egerton University, Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development.

 
 

Nhemachena C, Hassan R (2007). Micro-level analysis of farmers' adaptation to climate change in SouthernAfrica. IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00714. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.

 
 

Niang I, Ruppel OC, Abdrabo MA, Essel A, Lennard C, Padgham J (2014). Africa. pp. 1199-1265 in Barros VR, Field CB, Dokken DJ, Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Bilir TE, Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel ES, Levy AN, MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL, eds. Climate change (2014). Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY.

 
 

O'Brien KL, Sygna LO, Naess R, Kingam K, Hochobeb B (2000). Is information enough? User responses to seasonal climate forecasts in Southern Africa. Report 2000:3, Center for International climate and Environmental Research (CICERO) Oslo.

 
 

Odero DO, Mburu J, Ogutu CA, Nderitu JH (2012). Competitiveness of smallholder snap beans production in Kirinyaga County, Kenya. Int. Rev. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2(1):49-65.

 
 

Okello J, Narrod C, Roy D (2007). Food Safety Requirements in African Green Bean Exports and Their Impact on Small Farmers. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00737. IFPRI, Washington D.C.

 
 

Rao CR (1964). The use and interpretation of principal component analysis in applied research. Indian J. Stat. 26(4):329-358.

 
 

Rigby D, Brown S (2003). Organic Food and Global Trade: Is the marketing Delivering agricultural sustainability? Centre for Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Manchester University. ESEE Frontiers Conference, Feb 2003

 
 

Sarbu C, Pop HF (2005). Principal component analysis versus fuzzy principal component analysis. A case study: the quality of Danube water (1985 – 1996). Talanta 65:1215–1220.
Crossref

 
 

Smit B, McNabb D, Smithers J (1996). Agricultural adaptation to climatic variation. Clim. Change 33:7–29.
Crossref

 
 

Smit B, Skinner MW (2002). Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology. Mitigation Adapt. Strateg Glob. Change 7:85-114.
Crossref

 
 

Smithers J, Smit B (1997). Agricultural system response to environmental stress. In Ilbery B, Chiotti Q, Rickard T (eds.), Agricultural Restructuring and Sustainability: A geographical perspective, Wallingford, CAB International, pp. 167-183.

 
 

Wangler ZL (2006). Sub-Saharan African horticultural exports to the UK and climate change: a literature review. Fresh Insights No.2, IIED. Funded by the UK Department for International Development.

 
 

World Bank (2010a). Smallholder farmers' involvement in commercial horticulture. Kenya's perspective. Video conference on high value horticulture for Eastern & Southern Africa. Nairobi: The World Bank.

 
 

World Bank (2010b). Kenya Economic update. Retrieved April 29, 2011. 

View

 

 




          */?>