A Case for Sustainable Markets: Machakos, Kenya

Introduction

A prevailing debate in many studies of development is the Malthusian approach, which asserts the detrimental impact of population growth on the environment, against Boserupian: the idea that population growth creates enough technological innovation to sustain itself.

The case of the Machakos District supports the latter; it went from degradation to sustainability despite dramatic population growth. Established as the first administrative centre for the British colony (before the creation of Nairobi, around 50km away) Machakos is an area of hilly, semi-arid terrain. In 1930, with a population of 250,000, it was near barren: a combination of droughts, intensive livestock grazing, shifting cultivation and removal of woodland had heavily eroded the topsoil and depleted vital nutrients. Machakos was seen as far in excess of the land’s carrying capacity, and was condemned to a terminal decline in crop yields.

  

Then, see Machakos 60 years later: the population has risen to 1.5million and despite land expansion population density has increased dramatically. At the same time, agricultural output has increased from 0.4 tons per capita (1932) to 1.2 (1987) and from 10 to 110 tons per km². Food sufficiency and living standards have improved. This has also been achieved despite a tricky climate of frequent, unpredictable droughts and topographically variable rainfall that is distributed bimodally in December-January and March-April.

How did Machakos achieve its success?

Conservation projects began in the 1930s, and in the 1940s terracing was made compulsory by the colonial government. However, the combination of enforced community work and the unknown effects of terracing demotivated many of the local people. Following independence, a new soil and water conservation campaign was launched in the 1970s. Its uptake was greater; likely due to concern about low crops yields and food security in an uncertain future. The project received multilateral support from local government, the Ministry of Agriculture and a donor agency (Swedish International Development Agency). The primary focus was the building of bench terraces, formed by throwing land from a ditch up-slope. Once several of these embankments are formed, the land between is left to level off. Bench terraces conserve soil, prevent further erosion and increase soil moisture by essentially keeping the water in place between each embankment. They also avoid wasting land, as the waterlogged ditches can be used for fruit trees and the sloping banks for fodder crops. While low maintenance in the long term, bench terraces require substantial labour mobilisation for the initial set up. In Machakos, mwethya groups provided this: community work parties that focused their efforts on private farms in turn. Thus, the project looked beyond individual households and sourced motivation from the community’s common aim of higher yields. It is important to note that the majority of mwethya workers are women, as the men are often engaged in off-farm work.

Machakos also provides other examples of so-called ‘indigenous’ agricultural techniques that are resilient, sustainable and adapted to the variability of the climate. Mortimore et al. cite the example of a single farm, belonging to former waiter Mr. Musyoki, which used the following techniques alongside bench terraces:

• Cut-off drains with bananas planted in the pits
• Diversion of roadside run-off for crop use
•  Conservation tillage (leaving the previous year’s crop residue on the fields)
•  Mixed cropping
•  Live fencing (e.g. hedges) for windbreak
•  Supplemental irrigation from pond storage
• Mulching for fertilizer
• Grafting of trees e.g. for resilience

Livestock was also important in conservation. Machakos went from common land subject to shifting cultivation, to private and enclosed plots. This limited farmers’ abilities to freely graze their animals. Several adaptions developed, such as the use of crop residues as fodder, planting suitable grasses on seriously degraded land, and a switch to stationary stall-feeding. This kind of dynamism and flexibility is integral to successful and sustainable conservation and intensification.

Conclusion

Up to now, I have focused on the actual techniques used on the farms, but to conclude I would like to look at the wider enabling context. Market principles, and the literal markets, facilitated and promoted change in Machakos. Trading in the local open-air market, and the proximity to the larger markets of Nairobi, allowed households to buy and sell depending on their specific demands. Income was diversified; from regular income provided by meat and milk to off-farm work. Alongside subsistence agriculture, cash crops (mainly coffee) were grown, and the cash invested into tools and infrastructure. Mutually beneficial connections were made between markets; for example canning factories provided credit, incentives and knowledge to fruit and vegetable farmers. Circular migration was also important, as the external labour market employed people and returned them with education and new ideas. In the case of Machakos, market engagement echoed the flexibility and responsiveness necessary for farming in a variable climate. 

An obvious caveat to this success story of modern development is the applicability of these techniques to other contexts. Machakos’ success relative to the rest of sub-Saharan Africa was due, in part, to its proximity to Nairobi, a conservation system (terracing) that had been established (albeit not accepted) for a long time, and already-present labour groups in the mwethya. Also, the poorest household may not feel the benefits of Machakos-style projects, for example female-headed households that cannot afford to release the labour. Furthermore, while Machakos was touted as a success story in the 90s, it is hard to find research on its present state. Further population growth is likely, due to a youthful age structure despite typical family size decreasing. Michael Mortimore, a leading researcher into the area, predicted more intensification: new and repaired roads, electrification of houses and workshops, and greater diversification in labour and incomes. Looking at local news stories and government mandates indicates that Machakos is now aiming for international investment. Hopefully this will proceed without compromising the evident success of linking small-scale practices with each other, and with wider markets. Machakos embodies the general principles that connecting farming systems to individual household economies is effective to improve food security and water conservation. It also reiterates the importance of including women in agricultural development: ensuring their participation in planning, gearing education towards them, and empowering them to lobby for what they need. At the simplest level, supporting and intensifying what is already there.

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Looking after our land...the national soil and water conservation project -  Machakos District. FAO Corporate Document Repository. Accessed 24/10/16 from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5301e/x5301e06.htm#1.%20the%20national%20soil%20and%20water%20conservation%20project%20%20%20mackakos%20district

Government of Machakos. Department of Water and Irrigation. Accessed 24/10/16 from: http://www.machakosgovernment.com/GovernmentDepartmentsMachakos.aspx?DptID=5

Mortimore M & Tiffen M, 1992. Environment, population growth and productivity in Kenya: a case study of Machakos District. Development Policy Review. 10(4): 359-87. 

Mortimore M, Tiffen M & Gichuki F, 1993. Sustainable growth in Machakos. ILEIA Newsletter. 9(4): 6-10.

Mortimore M, Tiffen M & Gichuki F, 1994. More People, Less Erosion: Environmental Recovery in Kenya. Wiley, Chichester. 

Mutinda M, 2016. Light of hope for Machakos citrus farmers. HiviSasa. Accessed 24/10/16 from: http://www.hivisasa.com/machakos/agriculture/158864

Zaal F & Oostendoorp RH, 2002. Explaining a miracle: Intensification and the transition towards sustainable small-scale agriculture in drylands Machakos and Kitui Districts, Kenya. World Development. 30(7): 1271-87.