Farmers in Yatta district were engaging in various strategies to adapt to climate change (Table 1). Such adaptation strategies included planting drought tolerant crops, charcoal burning, rainwater harvesting and joining community based organizations (CBOs) addressing climate change challenges among others (Table 1). These adaptation strategies were mainly autonomous adaptations where farmers changed their livelihoods in response to changing climate. These kinds of adaptations are based on accumulated knowledge and experiences over the years by the residents.
These results corroborate findings by Boko et al. (2007) who noted that strategies of adaptation already observed in Africa include diversification of livelihood activities, adjustments in farming operations and selling of labour. According to Benedicta et al. (2010), the main adaptation strategies of farmers in Sekyedumase District in Ghana include change in crop types, planting short season varieties, changing planting dates and crop diversification.
According to Sekaleli and Sebusi (2013), some of the farmers’ adaptation strategies in Lesotho include water harvesting technologies, conservation tillage, use of keyhole and trench gardens, agro-forestry and application of traditional medicine to control pests and diseases. Women farmers in Peru take advantage of the knowledge inherited from ancient Peruvian culture. They adapt though postponing planting season when the rains delay, crop rotation, production diversification, production of native crops and migration to look for jobs among others (Abeka et al., 2012).
In china, farmers have implemented their own adaptation strategies, such as changing cropping patterns, increasing investment in irrigation infrastructure, using water saving technologies and planting new crop varieties to increase resistance to climatic shocks (Wang et al., 2010). In the USA farmers adapt to the changing climate by choosing crops resilient to drought and pest risk, plant different crops according to slope, aspect and other highly site-specific conditions. They also apply different practices such as tillage, technological advances including information to manage market risk (Antle, 2009). Farmers in Europe adapt to climate change through infrastructural measures such as on-farm harvesting and storage of rainwater, management measures and technical measures (Iglesias et al., 2007). The main adaptation strategies in Yatta District are discussed below.
Planting drought tolerant crops
The results of this study show that most farmers (76.5%) (Table 1) planted drought tolerant crops such as Sorghum bicolor, Cajanus cajan, Vigna unguiculata, Vigna radiata, Dolichos lablab and Manihot esculentum among others. Chi square results indicated that age had a significant influence on planting drought tolerant crops (X2=9.259, df=3, p<0.05) whereby the elderly farmers are more likely to plant drought tolerant crops. This can be explained by the farming experience gained over the years by the older farmers. Periodical droughts are part of the climate system in Yatta district and due to this the older farmers have learnt to plant drought tolerant crops. Maddison (2006) argued that, if farmers learn gradually about the change in climate they would also learn gradually about the best techniques and adaptation options available. According to Shongwe et al. (2014) in a study in Swaziland, the choice of adaptation strategies by households was significantly influenced by age of household head. The age of the household head represents experience in farming. Experienced farmers perceive climate change better as they are exposed to past and present climatic conditions over their life span and hence the higher chance of planting drought tolerant crops. Additionally, the level of education had a significant influence on planting drought tolerant crops also (X2=12.87, df=3, p<0.05). The higher the farmers’ level of education, they are more likely to plant drought tolerant crops. Knowledge gained through education exposes the farmers to the advantages of drought tolerant crops hence planting them. Looking at the combined factors of education and age, the latter is more significant in Yatta since most of the educated people prefer seeking employment in urban areas to farming.
The characteristics of drought tolerant crops such as withstanding low water and high heat conditions (Borel, 2009) leads to reasonable harvests even with low rainfall. These characteristics lead to reasonable harvests even with low rainfall. The crops offer an alternative to suffering from hunger through seasons due to crop failure.
However, during FGDs farmers observed that planting Sorghum bicolouris unpopular since they have to wake up very early in the morning to drive the birds away. According to the District Crops Production Officer, farmers in this region are faced with perennial famine because they rely on maize and other crops that need plenty of rain. There is need to diversify the varieties of drought tolerant crops they plant in order to alleviate poverty.
Charcoal burning
The study established that 52.9% of the farmers burn charcoal mainly for commercial purposes in order to meet their domestic needs. Chi-square test results showed that knowledge of climate change had a significant influence on charcoal burning (X2=18.405, df=2, p<0.05) whereby the higher the knowledge level, the less likely they are to burn charcoal. The level of education also had a significant influence on charcoal burning (X2=11.207, df=3, p<0.05) in that the less educated the farmersare, the more likely they are to burn charcoal. Education exposes the farmers to the role played by trees in mitigating climate change and as such the more educated the farmers are, the less likely to burn charcoal. As verified by the results, those farmers with a good knowledge about climate change would not cut down trees for charcoal burning. This is because they understand the consequences of cutting down trees on the climate of the area. Indeed Tadesse (2010) observed that knowledge and access to information are essential for effective environmental management and have significant impacts on the economy and the livelihood choices people make.
The farmers pointed out that they use species such as Terminali abrownii (Fresen), Dalbergia melanoxylon (Guill.&Perr), Acacia tortilis (Forssk.), Acacia Senegal (L.) Willd, Melia volkensii, Albizia anthelmintica (Brongn)and Acacia mellifera (Vahl) Benth among others for charcoal making. All these are trees of significant ecological importance in the dry lands. From field observations and farmers’ responses regarding species that used to be common in Yatta area but are now very difficult to find, it was evident that charcoal burning has contributed to the disappearance of some of these species. Species such as Dalbergia melanoxylon and Albizia anthelmintica are quite rare in Yatta district. Indeed Dalbergia melanoxylon is listed in the IUCN Red List (2010) as a near threatened species.
Sand harvesting
The results show that 18.7% (Table 1) of the respondents were involved in sand harvesting as a form of adapting to climate change. Sand is harvested on the farms and in the rivers both seasonal and permanent. Harvesting is also carried out along the road sides and wherever sand is available. It is a business that has attracted many young men in this region. The National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) has tried to regulate this business through issuance of national sand harvesting guidelines (NEMA, 2007). However, this has been without much success in Yatta District mainly due to lack of personnel to enforce the guidelines and also the fact that the government is yet to gazette them. The county government also encourages sand business as a source of revenue. The District Environment Officer concedes that issues of illegal sand harvesters are a serious problem especially in Thika River and in areas around Kamburu and Masinga dams.
Rainwater harvesting
The study reveals that only 20.2% of the respondents were involved in rainwater harvesting both in their homesteads and on farms (Table 1). This is dismal bearing in mind that Yatta is a semi-arid area where droughts are becoming more frequent and rains more erratic and unreliable. According to Ngigi (2009), farmers in Ethiopia and other parts of Kenya have shown high adoption rates for farm ponds and other rainwater harvesting technologies. Indeed rainwater harvesting can offer a partial solution to the issue of climate change. Majority (93.4%) of the respondents attributed their lack of harnessing rainwater to inadequate finances. Among these 20.2% of the respondents harvesting rainwater, majority were using small containers such as drums, buckets and jerry cans. Very few had water tanks. Other homesteads had grass thatched rooftops which are not suitable for rainwater harvesting.
Less than 2% of the respondents practised road runoff water harvesting on the farms. Respondents attributed this deficit to lack of finances to dig retention ditches that are necessary for storing the storm water and allowing a slow seepage into the farm. Road runoff water provides additional environmental flows and additional water for food production and it is possible to double or triple crop yields through this technique (Ibraimo and Munguambe, 2007). Respondent farmers practising this technique reported improved food security in their households. These findings agree with the results of an evaluation of rainwater harvesting techniques conducted in Laikipia District that showed road runoff water utilization for crop production is already improving yields (Kihara, 2002). Responding to water scarcity stress and the threat of declines in crop yields require farm level intervention such as rainwater harvesting and establishing small-scale water reservoirs on farmlands (Osman-Elasha, 2010).
Other adaptation strategies
Other adaptation strategies devised by farmers in Yatta district included greenhouse farming (1%), apiculture (19.8%), hunting (15%), irrigation agriculture (13.2%), joining CBOs addressing climate change challenges (20.6%), fishing (3.1%) and migration to other places in search of casual labour (7.6%) (Table 1). Those who had joined CBOs consisted of 22% of all male respondents and 17.8% of all female respondents. During FGDs, respondents also reported that they are nowadays doing family planning, rationing food in their homes, forming self-help groups, establishing kitchen gardens, storing fodder and turning to goat milk as ways of adapting to climate change. Chi-square test revealed significant relationship existed between joining CBOs and planting drought resistant crops (X2=23.88, df=1, p<0.05). Significantly more of those farmers who had joined CBOs (95.0%) were planting drought resistant crops as compared to 71.8% of those who had not joined CBOs.However, membership in CBOs had no significant effect on rain water harvesting.
Environmental impacts of adaptation strategies employed by farmers
To counter the effects of climate change, farmers adopted various strategies ranging from changes in livelihood to new farming strategies. These changes in agricultural management practices and livelihoods by the farmers in response to changes in climate often result into positive or negative effects to the land and ecosystems. The respondents were aware of both negative and positive environmental impacts of their adaptation strategies. It was quite evident that some adaptation strategies had serious adverse impacts on both social and biophysical domains of the environment. More so the future of agriculture is put at risk by some of these strategies. The impacts range from biophysical, social to economic impacts (Table 2).
Environmental impacts of sand harvesting
The findings showed that sand harvesting is one of the adaptation strategies with serious negative impacts on both social and biophysical domains. Many social problems were associated with sand harvesting activities. Issues of early pregnancies (38.5%), children dropping out of school (65.9%), prostitution (82.4%), drug and alcohol abuse (93.4%) and insecurity (98.9%), sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS (38.5%) and divorce (16.5%) among others were reported (Table 2).
In Manaja area, this strategy has put future agricultural production at risk since farms have been converted into sand mining fields. As observed during transect walks in the area, many farms have been dug up destroying most of the land that can be cultivated for growing crops. Some farms have been dug beyond two meters deep leaving behind derelict land (Figure 2). This further exacerbates the food security situation in Yatta District.
Sand harvesting has destroyed vegetation including cash crops such as mangoes and even encroached homesteads (Figure 2). Respondents observed that instream sand harvesting has led to drying of rivers further complicating the issue of water scarcity in Yatta area. In Kithyoko Location, respondents noted that sand harvesting has increased their average walking distance to fetch domestic water to three kilometres one way. Rivers like Mukengesya, Iyuuma, Inyanzaa and Kamanguli have dried up due to excessive and uncontrolled sand harvesting. However, economically the adaptation had positive impacts as a source of livelihood through the provision of employment opportunities.
In other areas such as India, fifteen adverse consequences of sand mining have been identified. They include depletion of groundwater; lesser availability of water for industrial, agricultural and drinking purposes; destruction of agricultural land; loss of employment to farm workers; threat to livelihoods; human rights violations and damage to roads and bridges (Saviour, 2012).
Environmental impacts of charcoal burning
The environmental impacts associated with charcoal burning in the study included air pollution (40.1%), low rainfall (2.7%), soil erosion and degradation (72.8%), deforestation (43.2%), biodiversity loss (3.1%), health problems (52.1%) and source of livelihood (46.7%). Some of the tree species preferred for charcoal burning by the respondents have become very rare in the area. Indeed the Environment Officer confirmed that charcoal burning has seriously affected tree species such as A. senegal, D. melanoxylon and A. tortilis.
Elsewhere, charcoal burning has been reported to result into loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, recurrent droughts, migration to urban centers, decline of wildlife, scarcity of woody resource and watershed degradation (MoPD&E& CLHE, 2004). Charcoal burning also negatively affects the environment through the emission of high levels of carbon dioxide, which is one of the major greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming and climate change (Wario and Bowa, 2011).
Environmental impacts of planting drought tolerant crops
Planting drought tolerant crops was reported by the respondents to have both positive and negative environmental impacts. These included alternative source of food (72.0%), soil structure protection (1.9%), improvement of harvest stability (80.6%), loss of income (73.1%) and interference with the following season’s planting (2.2%). The respondent farmers observed that, even though they mostly focus on growing marketable crops like maize, they also grow some drought tolerant crops such as Sorghum bicolor, C cajan, V. unguiculata, V. radiata, Dolichos lablab and M. esculentum for their household consumption (Figure 3). These drought tolerant crops provide an alternative source of food in seasons where maize fail and improve harvest stability.
Drought tolerant crops such as S. bicolor, C. cajan, V. unguiculata, V. radiata, and Dolichos lablab among others lend greater resilience to agricultural production under water stress conditions and may also reduce a farm’s water requirements (FAO, 2012; CGIAR, 2012). Early maturing varieties of these crops such as V. radiata have proved especially useful for helping dry land communities get through the “hungry season”- period before harvest when the previous year’s grain supplies have been exhausted. The successful harvests that farmers have had after sowing the drought tolerant crops suggest that food security could be better achieved if more farmers grew adapted crops which survive dry spells and erratic rainfall (ICRISAT, 2011).
The major negative impact reported by the respondents was loss of income since these drought tolerant crops are not in high demand in the market. This was found to be a major drawback to the acceptance of these drought tolerant crops. To improve on this the government supported by World Bank is running an Orphaned Crops Programme to sensitize the farmers in Yatta district to increase the acreage of these traditional high value crops (MoA, 2007). Other private organizations such as Kenya Breweries are promoting planting of Sorghum through distribution of free seeds and offering market. Another negative impact reported was that the tap roots of cow peas left behind after harvesting were affecting next season’s planting. The respondents observed that as soon as the rain fell, these tap roots sprout and spread fast interfering with the germination of planted seeds.
Environmental impacts of greenhouse farming
Greenhouse farming was found to be undertaken by very few respondents in the study area basically due to the capital outlay involved. Several environmental impacts were associated with greenhouse farming. These included improved harvests (100%), controlled plant diseases and pests (80%), improved export market (40%), efficient water utilization (80%) and altered aesthetics of the land (20%). It was evident that the five respondents with greenhouses were economically better off than the rest. Crops grown in the greenhouses included vegetables such as tomatoes, onions and flowers for export.
Greenhouse farming is a very effective way to deal with the increasing rainfall unreliability in Yatta area since it is practised all year round and the water saving achieved by greenhouse production is impressive (Boulard et al., 2011). Four out of the five farmers with greenhouses reported efficient water utilization as a positive impact (Table 2). Greenhouse farming has the potential to feed the population and also generate income thus improving their economic status. The farmer just has to know when to plant and harvest his crops for maximum gains. The altered aesthetics of the land can be compensated by planting more trees in the area.
Greenhouse crops fetch higher remunerative prices due to their quality as a result of better controlled plant diseases and pest (Table 2). On the other hand, studies conducted in India indicated that the socio-economic impacts of the greenhouse farming are enormous (Government of India, 2009). However, according to Boulard et al. (2013), greenhouse farming can also have negative impacts such as ecotoxicology or human toxicology impacts.
Environmental impacts of joining CBOs addressing climate change challenges
Joining CBOs provided a forum for the farmers to interact and share adaptation knowledge and skills (65%). These communities based organizations helped farmers in acquiring some technical and scientific knowledge pertaining to climate change (12%). Respondents also reported gaining skills and knowledge of environmental conservation (9%) such as controlling water run-off and ultimately adjusting to climate change. Examples of these CBOs are the Water Resource Users Associations formed by the farmers in an attempt to conserve the water resources. Farmers in these groups engage in activities like tree planting and digging bench terraces. Others run community tree nurseries. Since these organizations have a core function of addressing themselves to the challenges of climate change, their environmental impacts were generally positive.
Environmental impacts of rainwater harvesting
The environmental impacts associated with rainwater harvesting in the study included availability of clean water (91.8%), improved yields (30.6%), better sanitation at home (75.6%) and availability of time to do other house chores (91.8%). Harvested rainwater provides clean water supply to the households at close proximity whereas harvested runoff water improves yield (Kihara, 2002). In a case study of rainwater harvesting for domestic, livestock, environmental and agricultural use in Kusa, Kenya, Orodi et al. (2005) found the impacts to be immediately noticed on the improved health of the residents and time saved. There was assured supply of domestic water at the homesteads and improved yields (Ibid).
In a study conducted by Aroka (2010) in Mwingi, Kenya the time spent for collecting water was found to have decreased while the general health of the community is thought to have improved as a result of water harvesting. Rainwater harvesting schemes have also made more water available closer to communities, meaning less time and energy spent on gathering water from distant and possibly unsafe water sources (Aroka, 2010). According to Malesu et al. (2006), water harvesting in Lare Division, Kenya has improved access to clean water and consequently improved health status of the local community. It has also increased agribusiness activities in the area that include the production and sale of livestock and farm products. Women are spending more time on their farms and are seeing their incomes from farming rise as their water-related workload decreases. There is also increased crop diversity resulting in improved food security and better nutrition in the area (Ibid).
In Yatta District, rainwater harvesting may not provide relief to the farmers since the low rainfall during droughts is unlikely to be sufficient for rainwater storage. Furthermore, climate change may exacerbate this problem in future. However, this notwithstanding, in areas where women walk for about six kilometres daily to fetch water for domestic use and spend some time queuing at the water points, rainwater harvesting can have some socio-economic benefits.
Limitations to adaptation strategies
It emerged from the study that Yatta small-scale farmers faced a host of challenges that limited their capacity to devise effective adaptation strategies. As shown in Table 3, the farmers in Yatta District experienced challenges such as financial constraints (93.4%), lack of relevant skills (74.5%), lack of scientific and technical knowledge (71.6%), lack of information (67.9%) and lack of infrastructure and inputs (61.7%) among others.
During the FGDs, it also emerged that finances are critical to rain water harvesting and adaptation to climate change in general. The farmers observed that, even with basic skills and knowledge of adaptation, they are just helpless due to poverty. This is clearly demonstrated by the words of one middle aged farmer from Eendei sub-location that;
“We just let the rain go because we do not have finances. We have the basic skills of knowing what to do but we do not apply those skills because we cannot harvest water. We know that we are supposed to have big tanks for storage and we also know about kitchen gardens and how to maintain them. However majority of us have no finances and we just let the water go to waste. Poverty has crept in because of the recurrent droughts. We don’t have tanks. Also some of us don’t have donkeys to fetch water for kitchen gardens. We know what needs to be done but have no resources to do so.”
Lack of scientific and technical knowledge among the farmers can be attributed to the wide-ranging low levels of education in the district whereas lack of information can be attributed to the poor infrastructure in the district: there are no farmers’ training facilities in the district and the road network is generally sparse and most of the rural population is not well connected (Republic of Kenya, 2009).
Reliance on relief food could be a limitation to adaptation in the sense that it can lead to the dependency syndrome. In a research study conducted by Harvey and Lind (2005) in Kenya and Ethiopia, a significant percentage of people interviewed (45%) reported that relief assistance has made some people lazy. Men in one remote village complained of an ‘eat and wait’ attitude among some community members. The existence of such views in remote communities suggests the power of the dependency syndrome argument where relief undermines initiative (Harvey and Lind, 2005).
The findings of this study corroborate an earlier research by Bryan et al. (2011), whose Kenyan study results revealed that lack of money or access to credit (63%) was a significant barrier to adaptation. Other findings by Bryan et al. (2011) corroborate the outcomes of this research, that lack of access to water (26%), in the case of irrigation and lack of money/credit (55%), lack of access to land (6%) and water (20%), lack of inputs (10%) and lack of information (5%) in the case of agroforestry, are significant impediments to adaptation to climate change.
These findings also corroborate the results of a study conducted by Gbetibouo (2009) in the Limpopo River Basin, South Africa where more than 53 percent of farmers cited lack of access to credit, poverty and lack of savings as the main barriers to adaptation. However, according to Gbetibouo (2009), few farmers designated lack of information or knowledge of appropriate adaptation measures as barriers to adaptations. On the other hand, lack of knowledge on climate change is considered by Nzeadibe et al. (2011) to be one of the major constraints to climate change adaptation by farmers in the Niger Delta.
