**2. The analysis of barriers limiting the adoption of soil rehabilitation practices**

Despite the reported success stories on the demonstration of improved soil rehabilitation practices mainly from the pilot locations, the level and rate of the adoption of the improved technologies still remain low leading to the current condition of land degradation [23]. The reasons for the low uptake of the available improved technologies by farmers who continue to use unsustainable land use practices is not well understood [24]. However serious concerns have been raised among the Government organizations both at national and county levels, research institutions and development partners on how to upscale the site based successful soil rehabilitation strategies to the landscape-level impact of the rehabilitation solutions.

There are no straightforward, definitive answers to the underlying constraints to the increased adoption of the tested and improved soil rehabilitation strategies by the smallholder farmers at landscape level. Numerous, intricate, and interrelated factors appear to hinder the processes hence contributing to the continued resource degradation, particularly land degradation, which threatens agricultural development. Coenen et al. [25] classified the key gaps, bottlenecks, and obstacles probably preventing the successful mainstreaming of rehabilitation measures on smallholder farms as; technological and knowledge, policy and institutional framework and socio-economic and financial.

#### **2.1 Technological and knowledge barriers**

#### *2.1.1 Knowledge gaps on land degradation*

Several years of research has generated adequate knowledge on soil degradation, particularly on the biophysical, chemical and biological processes in relation to their negative impacts on agricultural production [26]. This has provided the impetus to the understanding of land degradation patterns and trends as the baseline for the planning of sustainable soil management on farms. However the measurements of changes in land degradation remains unclear since it is often complicated as it occurs over both time and space. Moreover the estimation of economic losses caused by the destruction of the environment and critical ecosystems has not been fully quantified [27]. The absence of these crucial information on the underlying changes of land degradation and the inherent economic losses from the ecosystems both at the national and local levels has presented a challenge for decision-makers to visualize

and evaluate the severity of the problem to necessitate the political good will required for the rehabilitation initiatives at landscape level.

#### *2.1.2 Inadequate coordination and collaboration between stakeholders*

Management of soil rehabilitation and biodiversity conservation can only be achieved if related conservation interventions are interlinked within target landscapes. However, many interventions for rehabilitating soils and conserving biodiversity in the past were carried out disjointedly by various organizations at the national and county levels. Frequently the activities and priorities for rehabilitation and conservation strategies are not unified, and in some cases, the coordinating bodies do not have sufficient representation and authority, or lack the capacity to operate. In addition, a large number of ministries are still involved in land and natural resource management, often lacking coordination, resulting in overlapping responsibilities [28].

As a result many of the soil improving technologies developed through research and past interventions have remained pivoted in small plots around which they were developed. These practices have not been extrapolated from pilot sites to the broader context, mainly due to weak or inadequate coordination, lack of awareness and low capacity among extension service providers on soil rehabilitation and conservation strategies [14]. Moreover the extension service providers are few and often constrained by inadequate resources to disseminate the improved technologies to the smallholder farmers for adoption to wider areas. The capacity of stakeholders to develop and disseminate soil improving technology is also limited. The linkage between farmers, extension and research is weak and in most cases does not address the specific challenges faced by farmers [14].

The prevalent compartmentalized approach among institutions and stakeholders to addressing land degradation has often masked the visualization of rehabilitation strategies at landscape level thus constraining the effective monitoring of the desired changes both in the long-term nationally and locally. As a result the effects of land degradation and biodiversity loss are not yet captured in the national data [14]. A more comprehensive ecosystem management approach that is more effective in connecting and intersecting the interactions between soil restoration and biodiversity conservation thus facilitating a holistic view of the impacts of rehabilitation strategies at scale would present a viable alternative strategy to rehabilitation and conservation in the region [29].

#### **2.2 Policy and institutional barriers**

#### *2.2.1 Lack of policy harmonization*

Comprehensive set of policies, strategies and action plans to address the issues of land degradation at national and county levels have been developed. Over 100 legal articles that directly regulate Kenya's agriculture industry have been documented. While some of these laws are redundant or in conflict with one another, others cannot be enforced, as is the case in other developing counties, due mainly to the lack of resources, both technical and financial, to tackle the issues of soil rehabilitation [30, 31]. Additionally there exits over 30 semi-autonomous national institutions with a wide range of mandates some of which are overlapping and in some cases contradictory. Overlapping and contradictory mandate result from the fragmentation and duplication of institutional missions and policy frameworks [30]. Users of

*Protection and Rehabilitation of Degraded Soils in Western Kenya: Experiences from Two… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113977*

land resources lack suitable channels for consultation as well as long-term security for crucial resources. This reduces security of tenure and motivation to invest on soil improvements that could raise yields in the long or medium term [32].

#### **2.3 Socio-economic and financial barriers**

#### *2.3.1 The subsistence nature of production*

Most smallholder farmers in developing countries including Kenya practice subsistence agriculture whereby crops are mainly grown to meet the needs of themselves and their families [33]*.* Reasons for this situation are many, however the major limitation for the smallholder farmers to invest in the enhancement of soils for increased and sustained production is attributed to poverty [14]. The smallholders are often forced to utilize short-term coping mechanisms in resource use rather than long-term investments in land and other sustainable resource practices. The constant demand on local resources brought on by the rapid population growth with little or no conservation strategies has accelerated the rate of vegetation loss and hence increased degradation [34].

Turning small-scale farming into a business case is the vision of many researchers and development partners, however, there are challenges that keep small-scale farmers from realizing this vision. Improving the profitability of sustainable production requires an incentive to make investments and use management practices that support land productivity rather than resource extraction (for short-term profits) or abandonment if the returns do not make business sense [14].

#### *2.3.2 Inappropriate incentive structure, in particular land tenure arrangements*

The slow pace of issuing land title deeds by the Kenya Government that would guarantee security of tenure has had a negative impact on land resources management. Land resource users often do not have sufficient long-term security for the resources on which they depend, nor do they have adequate consultation mechanisms. This limits their sense of ownership over the resource and their interest in investing in soil rehabilitation measures that will lead to increased yields in the medium or long term [35, 36]. As a result, the continued poor land use practices coupled with the lack of incentives to invest in soil rehabilitation practices has led to the current status of poor soil health which by extension has deprived the smallholder farmers from reaping the benefits of sustainable incomes and profit from soil resources.

#### *2.3.3 Lack of value chain approach in production*

Most smallholder farmers are not linked to any structured value chain. Their ability to increase productivity is constrained by supply chain inefficiencies due to low crop yields, limited quality storage capacity, which lead to high post-harvest losses; weak market linkages; poor safety standards; and lack of consumer trust in the quality of agricultural produce [37]. Moreover the smallholder farmers are largely confined to informal financial mechanisms and simple tools, such as local savings and loan groups, to meet their relatively basic financial service needs. Credit facilities to support smallholder initial investments are scarce and when available they are not effectively applied to attract private sector involvement [38]. In addition, little or no credit will normally be granted to individuals for the management of common

resources, as compared to communities. Smallholder farmers also face disadvantages due to small plots, low levels of capital investments, a lack of bargaining power, and poor connections to the international market [39, 40].

#### *2.3.4 Gender inequalities*

Women in Kenya, as in most parts of Africa, make up 70% of all agricultural workers; 90% of hoeing and weeding work; 60% of all harvesting and marketing work; 80% of food preservation work; transport from farm to stores (80%), 90% of domestic labor for water and firewood; and nearly 100% of the food preparation work of households; however, they have little influence on decision making on the farm. Some gender-specific barriers to female farmers' productivity growth are insecurity in terms of limited access to land and other resources, low educational attainment, limited resources to purchase inputs, social limitations in meeting extension agents, and access to other sources of information. In addition, women face challenges in obtaining permits, grants, other services, and incidental work that directly benefit them [41].

Giz ProSoil has focused on addressing some of these challenges in the intervention process by taking a holistic and integrated approach to have the greatest impact in preventing land and ecosystem degradation, while enhancing soil conservation and restoration.

### **3. Pro soil stakeholder mapping and analysis**

The many stakeholders who were engaged in the project's implementation were identified during the ProSoil preparation phase and are shown in **Table 1**. However, these stakeholders, had a range of abilities, interests and in some cases, rivalries. While the majority of them were involved in activities related to soil rehabilitation and ecosystem management, their approaches were often fragmented and uncoordinated. In order to establish a shared vision and strategy for the execution and up scaling of soil rehabilitation in Western Kenya, the ProSoil made an effort to bring these stakeholders together. The following categories were used to broadly group the identified parties and institutions.

#### **3.1 Local communities**

With a specific focus on women and youth groups, this group represents smallholder farmers and other small producer groups. The project involved Water Resource Users Associations (WRUAs) and constituted community-based self-help groups. This category was an essential project constituent, participating throughout the whole project lifecycle and being represented in all significant decisionmaking processes. Their main goal is to enhance household income and ensure food security, but they are constrained by the available resources and technology advancements.

#### **3.2 County governments**

The agriculture sector has been fully devolved to the county governments under the new constitutional dispensation, therefore any initiative in the sector requires


*Protection and Rehabilitation of Degraded Soils in Western Kenya: Experiences from Two… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.113977*


**Table 1.**

*Stakeholder analysis.*

their approval. Additionally, the established County Agricultural and Environmental Committees, which are in charge of managing all countywide environmental conservation-related concerns. It is the responsibility of county governments to enact and uphold legislation that encourage soil rehabilitation. They are also a major source of co-funding because to their continuous initiatives in the agricultural and resource sectors, making them crucial project stakeholders. The county governments have a vested interest in supporting sustainable economic growth and ensuring the livelihoods of their residents. However, the human and intuitive capacities of county governments to carry out their duty are limited [42].
