biotechnology to benefit small-scale banana producers in kenya

BIOTECHNOLOGY TO BENEFIT SMALL-SCALE
BANANA PRODUCERS IN KENYA
Florence Wambugu 1 , Margaret Karembu 2 , Michael Njuguna 1
and
Samuel Wakhusama Wanyangu 1
1 The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), ISAAA
AfriCentre, C/o CIP, P.O. Box 25171 Nairobi, Kenya, Tel: 254-2632054/151, e-mail:
F.Wambugu@cgiar.org
2 Department of Environmental Studies, Kenya University, P.O. Box 43844, Nairobi, Kenya.
Tel: 254-2-810901, e-mail: karembu@hotmail.com
_______________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
This project was conceived in response to the rapid decline in banana (Musa) production experienced in Kenya
over the last two decades. The decline was brought about by: infestation with Panama disease or Fusarium wilt
caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Cubense (FOC); Black and Yellow sigatoka leaf spot caused by
Mycosphaerella fijiensis (Morelet) and Mycosphaerella musicola (Leach) respectively; weevils (Cosmopolites
sordidus) / nematode (Radopholus similis) complexes; and, environmental degradation. The common farmer
practice of using untreated sword suckers aggravated the problem further. The situation threatened food security,
employment and income in banana producing areas. Thus the broad goal of the project was to make available to
small-scale resource-poor farmers clean and improved banana seedlings to alleviate the increasing poverty and
hunger in Kenya. These farmers make up to nearly 80% of the Kenyan population and their agricultural production,
which is mainly subsistence, contributes over 90% of food production in the country. The application of tissue
culture (TC) technology to address these constraints, was therefore an appropriate option to ensure availability of
clean planting material. The specific objectives of the project were to build and upgrade banana TC capacity in
Kenya by (i) systematically introducing the technology to farmers and supporting them with the necessary extension,
(ii) establishing public/private sector links to ensure timely availability of the TC materials, (iii) carrying out a
technology diffusion study to understand and appropriately respond to any issues that may limit adoption of the
technology and (iv) developing a sustainable production-distribution-utilisation system as a means of ensuring food
security and creating jobs. To a large extent, the feasibility and appropriateness of the technology within the farming
system of smallholder farmers was established. However, several issues relating to the eventual large-scale
commercialisation of the technology emerged. The first one was the need to include an Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) package in order to prolong the orchards’ longevity. Secondly, for farmers to reap maximum
benefits, it was found necessary that field management packages to safeguard the health of the plantlets and the
environment be included in the technology transfer package. Thirdly, the cost of plantlets was found to be an
important limiting factor to technology diffusion. As a result, access to credit for orchard establishment was found to
be essential. The project now sees a need to establish a sustainable system of wider evaluation and horizontal
technology transfer through involvement of a broad network of partners with comparative advantage to mobilise
large-scale impact.
Keywords: Banana, biotechnology, benefits, Kenya, poverty alleviation, small-scale farmers, sustainability, tissue
culture
_______________________________________________________________________
GDN Award Competition

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Kenyans obtain most of their food, livelihoods, employment and foreign exchange earnings from
the agricultural sector, even though only 20% of the country’s territory is arable land (CBS, 1996;
Sombrock, et al., 1982). In addition, the population growth rate of over three percent per year
registered in Kenya in recent years has placed an increasing strain on the food production, income
and employment potential of the agricultural sector and its natural resources in the country. As a
result, hunger and poverty levels have been on the increase. Dependence on cash crops, such as
coffee and tea, further restricts the availability of land for food production. At the same time, low
levels of farm inputs and management, inadequate land for crop rotation among smallholder
farmers, who make up to 80% of the population, and lack of disease-free planting materials have
recently resulted to higher pathogen pressure on farming systems than in the past years (Nyangito,
et al., 1986). Pests and pathogens become endemic in the soil while land scarcity limits the
opportunity for rotational production so that many crops are planted into infected soils,
perpetuating the problems. The intensification of agriculture has also implied accelerated depletion
of soil as a natural resource or resulted to reduced productive capacity. All these factors compound
the problems and exacerbate the need for improvements in food productivity in the short term
while maintaining the productivity of the agricultural natural resource-base for future generations.
There are several ways that poverty alleviation can be reduced in Kenya. One of them is to
increase agricultural productivity per unit area of land. Among the agricultural crops that show great
potential for increased production is the banana (Musa). Indeed, the importance of bananas
throughout the world, and in Kenya cannot be over-emphasized. The crop is the world’s third
important starchy staple after cassava and sweet potato (FAO, 1987). Its world production
estimates are placed at 49.63 million ton, of which 6.44 million is grown in Africa, 20.31 million in
Asia, 13.31 million in South America, 1.5 million in Oceania, 7.66 million in Central America and
0.42 million in Europe (INIBAP, 1991; Robinson, 1996). It is mainly consumed domestically, with
an annual per capita consumption of 220-460 Kg, providing more than 25% of the total calories
consumed (INIBAP, 1991). In Kenya, and to a larger extent, the East African region, the crop is
mainly grown and managed by smallholder farmers, predominantly peasant women. Table 1 shows
the average banana production statistics for the provinces of Kenya during the period 1996-1997.
Table 1: Average banana production statistics for the provinces of Kenya (1996-1997)
Province Area (ha) Production (t) Yield (t/ha) Production share
2

(percent)
Central 16,913 169,316 10.0 16.5
Coast 5,743 55,341 9.6 5.4
Eastern 9,669 97,144 10.0 9.5
Nairobi 48 409 8.5 0.0
North Eastern 271 1,522 5.6 0.1
Nyanza 30,234 574,740 19.0 56.1
Rift Valley 2,688 39,781 14.8 3.9
Western 7,800 86,107 11.0 8.5
Total 73,366 1,024,360 14.0 (average) 100.0
Source: MALDM (1996, 1997).
Besides being a source of carbohydrates, essential vitamins and minerals, banana is attractive to
smallholder farmers because it is appropriate for inter-cropping. Production begins within 14
months from planting and may last up to ten years thus bringing reliable family income. Over the
last two decades however, banana production in Kenya and the Eastern Africa region has been on
the decline (MOA, 1994). This decline has been brought about by the infestation with Panama
disease caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Cubense (FOC), Black and Yellow sigatoka caused
by Mycosphaerella fijiensis (Morelet) and Mycosphaerella musicola (Leach) respectively, weevils
(Cosmopolites sordidus)/ nematode (Radopholus similis) complexes and environmental
degradation. As a result, bananas have become increasingly costly (Figure 1) and no longer serve as
a ready supply of highly nutritious food and cash for rural populations, particularly women and
children. The situation threatens food, employment and income security in banana producing areas.
The common farmer practice of using infected sword suckers has continuously perpetuated the
spread of banana diseases and pests, which are estimated to reduce yields by up to 90% (MOA,
1994) thus worsening the food security situation.
3

Figure 1: Average retail prices of banana in major markets in Kenya between 1990-1994
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
1990 1992 1993 1994
Source: Agricultural Statistics Section, Central Bureau of Statistics, 1994
Unavailability to access clean planting materials for banana growers in Kenya and East Africa
constitutes a priority problem since banana contributes to the livelihoods of many as well as the
nutritional needs, employment and income for nearly 20 million people in the region. The
introduction of tissue culture (TC) techniques for banana propagation was thus perceived as having
the potential to help reverse the situation since it would ensure timely availability of clean planting
material. The basis of the technology is the ability of many plant species to regenerate a whole
plant from a shoot tip. It entails using tiny shoot-tips as the starter propagation material, which is
dissected into small pieces. The shoot-tips are then placed in a growth medium (in sterilised flasks)
that contains glucose and other nutrients. A dosage of growth hormones or regulators is added into
the medium. Different hormones are added at different stages to enhance various processes of
growth such as shoot initiation, multiple shoots’ formation and rooting induction at the final stage.
These induce vigour, commonly referred to as "hormonal kick," that brings the parent material to a
juvenile stage, causing remarkable physiological changes that influence the agronomic
characteristics of the emerging plant
These observations have been consistent with other crops such as sugarcane, pyrethrum, trees, and
4

flowers where the TC techniques have been applied. It has also been noted that these physiological
adaptations dilute down in subsequent generations and are not heritable genetic changes. In the
case of the banana, under temperate conditions, the changes take up to about the fourth generation
to revert to the original parent/traditional banana vigour and agronomic characteristics. Under
tropical conditions however, the changes are expected to take a longer period, at least up to the
sixth generation. This implies that the economic window of enhanced production is limited to a
period of four to six years before the plants must be replaced.
In six months, up to 2,000 individual plants (plantlets) can be produced from a single shoot. With
the usual nursery sucker method, only about 10 suckers can be produced from one plant in the
same amount of time. These plantlets are then transplanted into tiny pots and kept in the highly
humid laboratory atmosphere for 10 days to acclimatize and harden to the conditions of the natural
environment. The relative humidity is then decreased gradually, until they are hard enough to be replanted
in the greenhouse in bigger pots. After potting, they are ready for the field in two months,
at which point they are about 30 cm high. The young tissue culture plantlets are extremely tender
and sensitive to water stress, and they require special attention for at least five months if they are to
perform well. Planting out must therefore coincide with the on-set of long rains unless irrigation is
available.
The sterile operational nature of tissue culture procedures excludes fungal, bacteria, and pests from
the production system, which means that sigatoka, Panama disease, weevils, and nematodes cannot
be transmitted through the TC micro-propagation process. However, viruses, such as the banana
bunch top and the episomal form of banana streak virus, are not eliminated by tissue culturing
unless measures are taken to prevent the transmissions from happening (e.g., virus indexing). This
project addressed this issue through an appropriate survey for disease incidences in the country.
It is in the context that TC had the potential to improve banana production amongst smallholder
farms that the overall project on Banana Biotechnology to Benefit Small-scale Banana Growers in
Kenya was conceived. The project intended to build and upgrade banana TC capacity, to expand
the genetic base of banana and the varietal choice for growers by exchanging and introducing
selected superior banana varieties with enhanced pest and disease resistance and higher yield from
reputable breeding programmes in the world, develop a sustainable distribution system of the TC
materials to the smallholder farmers, and commercially evaluate the adaptability of this technology
5

within current farming practices in Kenya. Key concerns were the profitability and sustainability of
producing and using TC materials as a business venture, and its potential impact on hunger and
poverty alleviation in Kenya and neighbouring countries of Tanzania and Uganda.
2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Hypothesis
The working hypothesis of the project was that making improved and clean banana planting
material accessible to resource-poor small-scale banana growers in Kenya, through TC technology
and collaborative sourcing and distribution of TC banana plants, was feasible, cost effective and
beneficial to farmers and the country. To test this hypothesis, a research design was developed
that encompassed:
• Establishing a pilot facility focussing on four benchmark banana growing sites in Kenya and
centred on the reinforcement of existing tissue culture facilities.
• Developing appropriate methods of sourcing starter materials from farmer-preferred varieties
and bringing them to the laboratory for propagation.
• Establishing appropriate links among suitable partners in production, distribution, and marketing
and the benchmark sites, thus creating a self-sustaining system.
• Undertaking field trials to determine the yield potential of local as well as introduced TC
germplasm under optimum and current farmer management conditions in the sites.
2.2 Partnerships in technology development, acquisition, testing and dissemination
From the inception of the project, the lead institution, the International Service for the Acquisition
of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) had a clear vision of the project’s direction. ISAAA identified
the Kenya Agriculture Research Institute (KARI) as a suitable collaborator to host the project based
6

on the following attributes: KARI had the comparative advantage of having a network of research
centres throughout the country, including the banana growing areas; it had the human resource
capacity to conduct the on-station cultivar evaluations and agronomic studies for varieties that were
not locally grown; and KARI had the necessary infrastructure to offer extension services.
ISAA also identified a collaborator to supply the initial planting materials for both the KARI stations
and the farmers’ fields. Since Kenya did not have sufficient capacity to supply the plantlets, DuRoi
Laboratories, a private company in South Africa with long experience in tissue culture
multiplication was approached. This was important because the project needed to use high quality
materials to make a distinction. A local counterpart private company in Kenya, Genetic
Technologies Limited (GTL), was identified to handle the materials after they arrived from South
Africa. Furthermore, GTL had experience with tissue culture work in other crops.
Technical backstopping was considered crucial to the success of the project. The Institute of
Tropical and Sub-tropical Crops (ITSC), a public institution of South Africa, was identified as
possessing the relevant experience and human resource capacity to perform this task. The John
Innes Centre of UK was identified to conduct virus diagnostics.
ISAAA identified the Rockefeller Foundation and the International Development Research Centre
(IDRC) of Canada to fund the project. In addition, the African Technology Policy Studies (ATPS)
network provided funds for banana technology diffusion research. This was important since past
experiences with new innovations have generally shown that if the needs and interests of end-users
are overlooked, then little adoption of the technology takes place. The Zentrum fur
Entwicklungsforschung (ZEF) Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, Germany
carried out an ex-ante impact assessment study. Table 2 shows a summary of the main activities of
the partners involved and their responsibilities on the project.
7

Table 2: Summary of the main activities, institutions involved and their responsibilities in the Kenyan TC banana project
Objective Institutions Main output Remarks
TC Production
GTL, KARI, DuRoi Laboratories Selection of varieties, TC production, quality control and Enhanced public/private, collaboration, and
(S. Africa)
assurance, training in nursery management
stringent quality control
Strategic/ adaptive research
KARI, ATPS, ISAAA, Farmer
groups.
On-station trials, varietal comparisons, spacing, agronomy,
TC versus suckers comparisons, inter-cropping, training,
demonstrations and technology diffusion
Appropriate infrastructure and policy
framework required
Distribution
KARI, ISAAA, CBOs, Farmer
groups
Distribution mechanism channels – Schools, Churches, onfarm
trials, markets, village leaders and farmers.
Well designed marketing plan, entrepreneurial
skills and willingness to participate
Linkages with farmers (end-users) KARI, ATPS, ISAAA Needs assessment through PRAs, varietal choices, orchard
management, access to TC, on-farm trials
Training, TC/suckers, large and small-scale farms
demonstrations and financing
Participatory approach geared towards
meeting farmer expectations and aspirations.
Marketing/ Selling of products
KARI, ATPS, ISAAA, ZEF
(Germany) and Farmer groups.
Socio-economics: pricing, quality control, distribution and
training.
Market structure establishment, packaging
standards
Expansion (Indirect benefits) Micro-entrepreneurs NGOs Manure business, micro-irrigation, Banana Growers
Association, private investments e.g. banana-related
businesses and export markets
Political and economic stability required,
entrepreneurial skills for identification of
business opportunities
Technical backstopping
ITSC (S. Africa), John Innes
Centre (UK) and DuRoi
Laboratories (S. Africa).
Designing appropriate field management packages;
commercialization strategy, disease diagnostics and training
Public-Public sector collaboration, networking
and experience sharing
NB: Funding was mainly from The Rockefeller Foundation and the IDRC. Key: CBOs = Community Based Organizations, NGOs = Non-Governmental Organizations,
PRAs = Participatory Rural Appraisal.
GDN Award Competition

2.3 Study sites
Four banana-growing regions were identified: Thika in the Central Province, Kisii in the Nyanza
Province, Embu in the Eastern Province, and Mtwapa in the Coast Province. These provinces
adequately represented the major agro-ecological zones (AEZ) of Kenya. They are also the major
banana growing regions in the country.
The KARI research centers locally responsible for these regions were identified as link institutions
to undertake demonstration trials and farm-level monitoring. To enhance the possibility of success,
only the Thika and Kisii KARI centers took part in the first year of the project. Embu and Mtwapa
centers were recruited in the subsequent years. This approach allowed the two centers taking part
in the first year to receive the necessary support to overcome the inevitable “teething” problems.
Table 3 below gives the characteristics of the trial sites within these areas.
Table 3: The characteristics of sites where tissue culture banana trials took place
Site Province AEZ Altitude
(metre)
Rainfall
(mm)
Participating
farmers
NHRC-Thika Central UM 3 1500 900 On-station
Kiharu-Maragwa Central UM 2 1400 1750 14
Gathiga-Kirinyaga Central UM 4 1300 600-950 4
RRC-Kisii Nyanza UM 1 1750 1800 On-station
Kenyenya Nyanza UM 1 1700 1800 2
Suneka Nyanza LM 2 1500 1500 12
RRC-Embu Eastern UM 3 1500 1000-1250 On-station
Embu-Gatituri Eastern UM 2 1450 1000-2000 6
RRC-Mtwapa Coast CL 0-50 > 2000 On-station
Mtwapa Coast CL 0-50 > 2000 1
Key: NHRC = National Horticultural Research Centre, RRC = Regional Research Centre, UM = Upper Midland,
LM = Lower midland, CL = Coastal line
2.4 Performance and demonstration trials
GDN Award Competition

On-farm and on-station TC evaluation trials were carried out under the supervision of KARI. TC
banana plantlet cultivars of Chinese Cavendish, Gold Finger, Valery, Grandnain and Dwarf
Cavendish were tested. Comparison of performance was made between TC bananas versus
conventional suckers, TC bananas versus first generation suckers and TC bananas versus first
generation suckers. The overall objectives were to evaluate: performance of TC banana plantlets in
different AEZs; performance and farmer acceptability of different banana cultivars in farmers'
fields; performance and other characteristics of introduced/new banana cultivars; and, to develop
reference points for comparing performance on farmers' fields. Other objectives were to find if
there were any advantages in terms of yield, early maturity of crop and any other superior
attributes of using TC plants as opposed to the conventional suckers and to find out if the first
generation suckers from TC carried over the vigour potential the TC plants had initially.
Routine agronomic practices for banana were applied throughout the studies that were designed in
Randomised Complete Blocks with 3 replications.
2.5 Independent socio-economic and impact study
With support from ZEF, the project undertook a socio-economic and ex-ante impact study of the
TC banana technology. Data used in the analyses was based on a number factors. Amongst these
were:
• Banana production statistics
• Regional aspects of banana production
• Correlation matrix for different characteristics of banana farms
• Characteristics of banana farm types
• Banana plantation establishment cost by farm type
• Recurrent annual cost of banana production by farm type
• Average banana cost and income figures by farm type
• Banana plantation establishment cost without and with TC technology
• Recurrent annual cost of banana production without and with the use of TC technology
• Average banana cost and income figures without and with the use of TC technology
• Technology-induced changes in cost and income figures under different price assumptions
for TC plants (percent)
10

• Estimated technology adoption rates under different price assumptions for TC plants
(percent)
• Benefits and distribution effects of the technology for different scenarios.
Qaim, (1999) details the analyses carried out to establish the ex-ante impact of the TC banana.
2.6 Technology diffusion studies
This was carried out by means of a survey in the study areas. Data was collected on variety
preferences and social acceptance, compatibility of TC banana with the existing farming practices,
the potential impact of the cost of TC plantlets on the diffusion of TC technology, gender issues
with regard to the technology, marketing of bananas and techno-managemental practices.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Results of performance trials
The performances of the demonstration trials were excellent. On average, small-scale farmers
harvested bananas with a bunch weight of more than 40kg compared to the usual average of 15-
30Kg (MOA, 1994). The trials also created enormous interest among small-scale farmers,
especially in the project areas. As a result, the demand for tissue culture planting materials has
increased tremendously. To facilitate the acquisition of these materials, KARI and ISAAA
collaborated to identify a church group and several key farmers in different areas to establish
nurseries and distribution points. Farmers in project areas can now access clean TC planting
materials through these nurseries. The role of the project was to help in the establishment of the
nurseries, distribution points, and the link between the TC source and the nurseries. This strategy
was meant to ensure the sustainability of the project after the funding period came to an end.
3.2 Results of an independently conducted socio-economic impact study
An independent socio-economic impact study demonstrated that the average per acre incomes for
small, medium, and large-scale farms could rise by 156, 145, and 106 % respectively (Qaim,
1999). This was in complete contrast to the traditional belief that small-scale farmers cannot benefit
from modern biotechnological applications. The study also demonstrated both the high profitability
11

of the incremental investments required for the technology package and the general suitability of
TC for all farm types. In addition, the study has shown that using the TC technology would
considerably increase the net return on labour for all producer groups, an important criterion given
the relative labour scarcity in the individual farm household.
From the same study, it is evident that the TC technology is likely to bring about substantial
aggregate growth in the welfare of the Kenyan banana sector, regardless of the underlying
assumptions of the cost for in vitro plants. A recent survey conducted in Central Kenya, one of the
field trial zones, has reported that some farmers are willing to pay as much as US$3 per plantlet!
This is obviously a result of the demonstrated relative advantages and economic promise associated
with the adoption of the TC technology. The projected average annual change in the total
economic surplus ranged from US$ 8 to12 million dollars (Qaim, 1999).
Other interesting features, often neglected in producer-oriented evaluations of farm technology, are
the advantages for food consumers. The impact assessment study showed that productivity gains
could cause banana prices to decline. This would improve the real income situation of purchasers
and thus their welfare. The study has revealed that consumers would capture between 40 and 55
percent of the total economic surplus gains.
3.3 Results of the technology diffusion study.
3.3.1 Variety preference and social acceptance
Results obtained showed that the varieties initially supplied by the project to farmers were not
preferred and they became indifferent to the technology. One such unpopular variety is the Dwarf
Cavendish. The study showed that farmers preferred their own varieties, hence the project focus
changed to transform the farmers’ orchards from traditional to TC materials. The bunch size of
the improved traditional banana varieties was much bigger.
3.3.2 Compatibility of TC technology with existing farming practices
Farmers did not report any problems with their cropping system and thus the improved TC banana
did not seem to affect other crops in the inter-cropped farms.
12

3.3.3 Cost of plantlets
Despite the fact that under traditional farming practice, farmers usually obtained free swords from
their neighbours to plant, it was encouraging to note that with the demonstrated superiority of TC
banana, they were willing to pay for the TC plantlets whose cost ranged from one to two US$. The
main constraint for farmers to obtain the TC plantlets was found to be a convenient supply.
3.3.4 Gender issues in TC banana technology
An interesting observation from the field study was that despite banana being a predominantly
woman’s crop, there were divisions as to which varieties could be marketed by which gender. In
Kisii for instance, the women mainly marketed apple banana, which is small and does not fetch
much money. Men on the other hand marketed the cooking type (Ekeganda Grade and Ng’ombe),
which is much bigger and fetches more money on the market. The banana TC attracted more men
although there did not seem to be much competition for land as had been envisaged. It was
encouraging to note that men were supportive of the technology and as household heads who make
decisions on what is to be planted, this aspect did not affect the adoption of the technology.
3.2.5 Marketing
Due to increased production, there definitely existed a market problem and middle traders were
increasingly exploiting farmers. Current market studies are addressing this problem. Meanwhile,
farmers have been encouraged to form marketing associations that could regulate the prices and
also develop proper marketing plans and storage facilities to enable them benefit from the realised
yields. The formation of a Banana Growers Association is in the progress.
3.2.6 Techno-managemental practices
The study showed that the TC plantlets required more labour and other inputs such as water and
manure. De-suckering was rarely carried out and the tendency was to find very many suckers
under one stool. A standard hands-on information package on management is therefore needed
since different entrepreneurs were selling suckers and no information was given to the buyers. The
13

farmers strongly opposed the use of fertiliser as they believed that synthetic fertiliser could affect
the quality of bananas by making them soggy and tasteless. The information package should give
options since in any case organic manure is readily available. A few farmers from Kisii initially
complained about labour requirements but this was overcome by the demonstrated high yields
realised by the technology. Meanwhile, lack of water remains the single most constraint important
that could limit TC banana technology diffusion.
3.3 Opportunities created by the TC banana technology
The project has many opportunities that have immense potential of impacting all the stakeholders
across the board if well defined and properly managed. The opportunities have been identified and
the bottlenecks associated with each one discussed and therein bringing out the researchable
elements from which bottlenecks will be minimised and opportunities optimised.
3.3.1 Benefits to the farmers
The technology package has brought many benefits to farmers. The most important is the
availability of improved, disease free planting materials. This way, the farmers can now be able to
replace their degraded orchards with superior material which is early maturing (12-16 months
compared to the conventional banana of 2-3 years), bigger bunch weights of more than 30 kg and a
higher annual yield per same unit of land, (40-60 tonnes per hectare have been observed). This is a
very significant achievement given the very small farm sizes (1-2 acres) with a majority of the
farmers. The uniformity and more simultaneous plantation development of the TC plantlets further
promises easier marketing and co-ordination of the whole production process. Another very
important advantage is the ease at which superior new germplasm can be introduced and
disseminated through the various institutional partners of comparative advantage the project has
brought on board.
The project provides very unique opportunities to both small and large-scale farmers in the country
in that it will ensure that TC banana planting materials will be available to banana farmers. This is
a noteworthy development because for many years, clean banana planting material had remained a
major constraint to banana production. These will not only supply the local germplasm but will
also include improved introduced banana which are both high yielding and some resistant to
14

Fusarium and Sigatoka disease. In addition, local germplasm, which for a long time has been
discarded as unproductive due to the perennial disease and pest infestation, will be cleaned and
reinstated to the farming system. With some research, there could also be opportunities for invitro
conservation of local divers of germplasm in TC laboratories which otherwise could be lost in
the field impacting biodiversity.
3.3.2 Benefits to TC production laboratories
The outcome of the project are two private and three public laboratories that are currently involved
in the TC banana production. Prior to the implementation of the project, there was only one public
laboratory at the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT). This is a
clear indication that there is potential business opportunities for increased plantlet production in
each of the existing TC laboratories and for new laboratories to emerge especially as more banana
growers get to know of the new technologies. The ultimate outcome of the increase in the
laboratories and their capacity will be increased entrepreneurial activities and income to both rural
and urban households. The TC laboratories also have opportunities to link with international
sources of improved TC banana germplasm and introduce new varieties in the countries. There
are opportunities for in-vitro conservation of local and introduced germplasm.
3.3.3 Opportunities for the distributors
The use of tissue culture has brought new opportunities for companies involved in distribution of
TC banana planting materials. Experience based on the project so far indicates that nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), community-based organizations (CBOs), banana farmers and
farmer groups are currently involved in the TC planting material distribution. It is envisaged that
more players will join the distribution work, as more opportunities become available.
3.3.4 Opportunity for fruit vendors and retailers
Fruit vendors will have an opportunity to trade with wide range of products, which will increase the
choice for their customers. Tissue culture banana harvest is fairly predictable and plants can be
planted to coincide with a specific season. The supply of the high quality TC banana fruit to the
market place at predictable harvests due to uniformity will ensure steady income to the traders
15

from their banana trade than is the case at the moment.
3.3.4 Opportunity in processing of the final product
Opportunities exist in the post harvest utilization of the banana fruit, which result in major
economic gain to all the stakeholders in the banana industry. Banana processed production are
viable business opportunities that have been exploited in most countries for many years. However
this has not been applied locally due to lack of sufficient good quality fruits. Further to that, the
local banana supply fluctuates with the season of the year rendering the formal market economy
unviable. The TC banana holds promising opportunities of filling this void by providing both the
desired varieties and a consistent supply for processing. Other post-harvest utilization innovations
will be developed, as the fruits become available.
3.3.5 Opportunity for transport Providers
Like in any other product, it is important that banana reach the market at the right time. For the
banana to reach the market and thus the final consumers, transport providers will be involved at
different levels. Transport will be provided by the different means that are available in different
social economic set-ups and therefore increasing income-generating opportunities for the local
participating communities.
3.3.6 Opportunity for IDRC/KARI/ISAAA
Food insecurity remains a major threat to most rural communities in Kenya and other African
countries. The TC banana project holds the promise of alleviating hunger by increasing food
production and reducing poverty for TC banana farmers in a large proportion of small-scale
households. It thus provides an opportunity for IDRC, KARI and ISAAA to fulfil the responsibility
they are charged with to impact on hunger and poverty reduction in rural and urban communities.
3.4 Bottlenecks encountered during the TC banana technology dissemination
Several bottlenecks have been identified that may impede the development of a sustainable system:
Some of these are:
16

• Quality control: A system of quality control needs to be put in place to ensure all materials
going through the local laboratories meet the phytosanitary requirement. This will be crucial,
especially as more private entrepreneurs get interested in this business line. Quality control
needs to ensure that somaclonal variants are reduced in the field to an acceptable level of not
more than 2%.
• Lack of research and technology to cope with trouble shooting: About 80% of bananas are
produced and eaten locally and hence the need to produce and increase the local varieties.
Initially, the Kenyan TC laboratories currently involved in the tissue culture production lacked
the expertise and technology to initiate and propagate local genotypes. The problem however,
was resolved through collaboration with the national Agricultural Research Organization
(NARO) of Uganda where an on-going Rockefeller Foundation funded project had been
working on this problem and had made a breakthrough. It is proposed that the public TC
laboratories in Kenya, such as KARI and the Universities, should take lead in some relevant
research and development on technology development for local varieties not yet developed.
This would then encourage large-scale private sector intervention as need arises.
• Lack of diagnostic facilities: The entire East and Central Africa region does not have diagnostic
facilities for virus indexing to ensure that the materials being multiplied in the country are virusfree.
This is an impediment in trans-boarder transfer of materials that have proved to have
potential in production and resistance to diseases, and which could have a major impact in
other countries. Luckily, a survey for viral diseases incidence in Kenya in 1997 from a UK
expert, Dr. Roger Hull, which was facilitated by ISAAA, indicated that Kenya had no visible
viral disease incidences, such as those of Banana Streak Virus (BSV) and Bunchy top that exist
in Uganda. With TC material however, there are higher chances of BSV expressing itself.
Further, since cross boarder movement of materials, especially along Western and Nyanza
Provinces which boarder Uganda, is expected to increase, it is important that additional surveys
are carried out to facilitate the development of a virus-diagnostic kit for regional use. This will,
however, require separate funding
• Price harmonisation: The current five TC laboratories in Kenya are pricing their planting
materials differently. It has been observed that two of these laboratories, which are private,
17

are charging more for their plantlets because they need to make profit to remain in business
while the public laboratories are charging prices that are commercially unsustainable because
they get subsidies from the government and donors. Since farmers will tend to go for the
lowest prices in the market, this can be a major barrier to adoption because the public
laboratories can only supply small quantities that cannot bring the desired impact in the country
due to low production capacity. Additional studies would be needed to establish the costeffectiveness
of running subsidised nurseries and how policy could facilitate their development.
This would increase competition and thus lower the prices of the TC materials.
• Lack of information on the market: It is quite evident that middlemen have been able to exploit
small-scale farmers because the latter lack relevant information about the markets. This gap
needs to be filled. A viable option being explored is the linking up of the farmers through their
Banana Growers Association to existing institutions that are helping rural communities to set up
commodity information tele-centres. One example of such an institution is ACDI/VOCA, which
has been helping the farmers to set up commodity centres in strategic areas. The project will
explore modalities of improving linkages with such institutions for cost-effectiveness in setting
up such information structures for the TC banana producers.
• Poor linkages between farmers and tissue culture laboratories: Linkages between these key
players are obviously missing and research is needed to learn how to establish them. Farmers
also need to be organised into groups to benefit from the economies of scale in the purchase of
the TC materials and also to increase their bargaining power in selling their produce.
Clearly, these bottlenecks need to be alleviated if successful and sustainable commercialisation of
the technology is expected beyond project support period. This would also ensure that the
participating groups reap the potential benefits anticipated from the TC technology. Some of these
bottlenecks require research to establish the specific elements to be addressed while others call for
direct intervention. It is proposed that a second phase of the project should focus on alleviating the
identified bottlenecks and constraints around the whole process from production through
distribution and utilisation.
4.0 DISCUSSION
18

The banana TC project was conceived in response to the rapid decline in banana production
brought about by the infestation of Panama diseases, sigatoka, weevils/nematode complexes and
general environmental degradation that had been identified and documented during the last two
decades. Most of the banana pests and diseases are transmitted through suckers from infected
parent plants and from one farm to another, a common practice among small-scale farmers. By
using this practice, banana yields can be reduced by up to 90% when compared with the use of
clean, disease-and-insect-free planting materials such as that obtained from tissue culture.
An important component of the project design was a monitoring, evaluation and documentation
mechanism to assist in the assessment of the feasibility and cost effectiveness of the banana TC
development process as a commercial venture and in the drawing of policy recommendations for
potential scaling-up. Other planned activities included the intensification of growing tissue culture
materials throughout the country, and the exchange of superior germplasm regionally and globally.
In the international agricultural biotechnology debate however, fear has often been articulated that
technological developments might neglect or even discriminate against the poor in developing
countries. Prior to the implementation of this project, little empirical evidence has been available to
support or disprove this argument. An impact assessment of the current project has concluded that
the TC technology is likely to bring about considerable aggregate welfare growth in the Kenyan
banana sector (Qaim, 1999). Potential yield and income gains for the poorest farmers are even
higher than those for the relatively richer and larger farms (Qaim, 1999). The banana TC project
has opened up avenues for quick introduction of such biotechnologies that are most promising,
especially for resource-poor farmers.
KARI was involved in data collection from both on-farm and on-station trials. It was also involved
in managing and supervising all the activities in these trials. ISAAA closely monitored all the project
activities to ensure focus. In this model, the on-station trials were run concurrently with the onfarm
trials. This is because most of the cultivars used had previously been evaluated by South
Africa and were being grown in their farmers’ fields. Drawing from the South African experience, it
was possible to evaluate the cultivars directly in the farm fields of Kenya. The farmers for these
initial on-farm trials were identified through Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs) that were
conducted in the project areas. Farmers were selected who were willing to own the project and
19

provide labour and farm yard manure. Access to water was also a critical factor because tissue
culture banana plantlets are very sensitive to water stress.
The successful performance of the trials created enormous interest among farmers within and out
of the project areas. This has continued and a large number of farmers have expressed great desire
in transforming their orchards with the TC materials. This has posed an enormous challenge to the
project team. For one, the materials are at a cost yet most of the farmers are resource-poor and
are not able to purchase enough quantity to break even, with many of them affording only a few
(5-10 plants), too little to make a large impact on poverty alleviation. Secondly, unlike suckers, the
TC materials require added care and improved management in terms of inputs (especially water)
during the first five months of establishment implying that the technology package must be
inclusive of techno-management information and education. But perhaps, the major limiting factor
as observed from adoption trends is the higher price of TC plants which are costing between 0.8-
1.2$ unlike in the conventional method where suckers are given free or at a minimum cost of about
0.3$ (but of course infected!).
Many a times, agricultural researchers are sometimes criticised for over looking the needs and
interests of farmers in technology transfer programmes. This has led in many instances to the
production of technologies, which do not appeal to the farmers. In some instances, the technologies
do not fit into the production systems and this is a loss of considerable time, money and
momentum.
Past experiences have demonstrated that farmers may adopt a certain component of a technology
package, while refusing another component or adopting it at a later stage according to subjective
profitability and risk considerations. For instance, a substantial number of banana growers could
decide to buy TC plantlets without exactly following the recommendations for regular de-suckering
or for the amount of manure and fertiliser to apply. Of course such individual modifications of the
package would influence the yield levels obtained. Indeed, given the traditional banana cultivation
practices in the country, it would be quite unrealistic to assume a sudden and complete adoption of
all recommended components by the growers. Possible adoption constraints could impact
negatively on the entrepreneurial groups interested in engaging into such enterprises. This project
tried to circumvent the above problem by conducting ex-ante impact as well as technology
diffusion studies alongside the main technology dissemination process. It is during this process that
pertinent issues such as the need for a credit scheme were identified.
20

An ex-ante socio-economic survey conducted in the rural banana growing areas in Kenya revealed
that the cost of the plantlets is indeed a critical variable in determining the technology effects at the
farm level and that there is a high demand for credit (Qaim, 1998). Yet the majority of rural
communities have no access to any credit and even when surplus cash is available, especially
during the harvest season, it remains outside the formal financial system. This market failure limits
the growth of rural agricultural enterprises, which contributes to widespread unemployment and
underemployment, perpetuating the poverty cycle. This scenario has contributed to escalating rates
of rural to urban migration, with the serious consequences this has entailed. It is the conviction of
this project that the poverty cycle can be broken through appropriate links and arrangements with
credit providers. Research is therefore needed to determine the strategic options to improve the
welfare benefit share of participating groups e.g. provision of credit, co-operative marketing,
information dissemination and the best cost-effective ways of implementing such options.
The technology diffusion studies showed that the cost of plantlets could drastically limit diffusion.
On realising this, ISAAA explored, together with the farmers, on possible options for accessing the
materials. One method that the farmers came up with was through provision of credit to purchase
the initial planting material. Problems however arise because most micro-finance institutions require
collateral, which the small-scale farmers do not have. Again, during the field trials, it was
established that the feasible minimum range of a commercial unit that farmers aspiring for credit
could maintain, putting into consideration important variables such as inputs, management, cost of
TC plant and land preparation was about 80 plants. At this threshold, a potential return of US$ 230
is expected, fair enough for the farmer to repay the credit within the first harvest cycle (about 15
months). The plants would also cover at least an eighth of an acre, which is actually the land that
majority farmers are able to free for bananas. Unfortunately, this requires an initial investment of
about US$ 200, which is beyond reach of the resource poor farmers. It is therefore proposed that
the minimum number of plants that would qualify for micro-credit and at the same time produce
profits for the farmers should be 80 plants. The second challenge is how to manage the credit
scheme.
In an effort to address micro-credit provision, ISAAA has proposed and initiated (on a pilot scale)
a lending model for small farmers, which is based on the Grameen Group Approach. This model
relies on “Peer-group monitoring” which reduces lending risks. It also overcomes the three major
constraints that prevent formal financial institutions from offering credit to the poor where the
21

functions of screening, monitoring and enforcing of repayment are transferred from the bank agents
to group members. The model replaces recurrent lending transaction costs by replacing a multitude
of small loans to individuals with a larger group loan. Another important advantage that the group
lending brings to members, and which is very relevant to the banana program, is the information,
education and monitoring that members-get at the community level compared with individual
contracts between a bank and borrower.
Under the proposed micro-credit scheme, banana farmers join together in friendship groups of
about 30-50 members and managing the whole process through elected leaders, with ISAAA
playing a facilitative role. They are expected to repay the loan at 20% simple interest rate after
harvesting the first crop. In order to promote group cohesion, members contribute a minimum
agreed amount of money on a monthly basis, but the group is ultimately responsible for the
repayment in case of individual defaults. The leaders of the groups are responsible of screening
potential borrowers and enforcing payment as well as communicating any field performance issues
to the facilitating institution. The program is based on a revolving fund rationale where money
given out is repaid and lent out to new farmers. The outcome of a preliminary introduction of the
micro-credit scheme in the late 1999 has been overwhelming with a planting material demand for
this season alone and in only four areas that the project has been operating (which is less than 50%
of the banana growing region in the country) being more than 100,000 plants. This demand poses
an even bigger challenge for ISAAA since the adoption is spreading fast throughout the country.
Consequently, the project sees a need to establish a sustainable system of wider evaluation and
horizontal technology transfer through the involvement of a broad network of partners to mobilize
large-scale commercialization. This forms the focus of the proposed project (see attachment).
5.0 CONCLUSION
This project successfully brought on board a variety of partners that played different but key roles.
The initial field research was important in helping to understand the optimal conditions under which
the technology would diffuse within the existing farm realities of inter-cropping, cultural values
(social acceptance, gender issues), and environmental orientations (land and water use patterns). It
was agreed that ISAAA would help to identify and engage partners that would participate according
to their comparative advantage in the different roles as expected from the collaborating institutions.
22

Adjustments were made to the implementation procedure and also to the activities to be executed
as the partners were engaged.
The model used for TC banana technology transfer in Kenya is worth replicating in a similar socioeconomic
environment. It is a unique model, which has not been applied before in this region, and
the success that has been attained so far is incredible to say the least. In a span of less than three
years, small-scale farmers are already reaping the benefits of the biotechnology application. A
substantial number of farmers in and out of the project areas are now able to easily access TC
banana planting materials within a radius of less than five kilometres. This is no mean achievement
given that three years before the start of the project, there was very limited TC banana research
work in Kenya. The country could also not supply any planting materials to the farmers. The most
interesting aspect of this model is the powerful synergy produced through the comparative
advantages of the different collaborators, drawn from both the public and private sectors. Nine
collaborators worked on the project, each one playing their strategic role without conflicting with
the other partners.
This project brought about new experiences of growing health banana plantlets under tropical
conditions as a commercial initiative, which is overall lacking from the public sector. It provided a
rare opportunity for KARI, a public funded research institution, to work with industry to promote
the delivery of advanced biotechnology applications to resource-poor smallholder farmers. The
farmers also had an opportunity o test a new innovation and learn with the scientists in their own
field. The emphasis placed on collaboration between scientists and extension created mechanisms
and channels for partnerships throughout the research, development and distribution. This is in
accordance with government policies put in place following the World Bank (WB) and International
Monetary Fund (IMF) initiated Strategic Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) that have seen a decline
in resources to government extension services. The business environment created by the project is
conducive for the development of an indigenous biotechnology sector which holds promise as one
of the most powerful tools available, but which has not been fully exploited as an intervention
method, to help reduce poverty and hunger especially in the third world.
6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
23

ISAAA wishes to thank all the institutions involved in this project. Their collaboration was
instrumental to the achievements of the project. The institute also wishes to sincerely acknowledge
the scientists who took part in the project. In particular ISAAA wishes to recognize the inputs of
Dr. J. S. Wafula, Mrs, M. Onyango, Mrs. F. Nguthi, Mr. J. Mutisya, Mr. J. Muthamia, Mr. F.
Muniu and Dr. Zaag De Beer. Last but not least, ISAAA wishes to acknowledge the farmers who
participated to made the project a success.
7.0 REFERENCES
CBS, (1996). Welfare Monitoring Survey II. 1994. Basic Report. Central Bureau of Statistics, Ministry
of Planning and National Development. 341 pp.
FAO, (1987). Agricultural Production Yearbook. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
INIBAP, (1991). Regional Network for Eastern Africa. INIBAP, Montpellier, France.
MOA, (1994). Annual Reports - Kirinyaga, Kisii and Murang'a Districts. Ministry of Agriculture,
Government of Kenya, Nairobi.
Nyangito, H.Z.C., Oganda, H.T.K. and Jami, J. (1986). Banana production and marketing improvement
programme. District survey report and project proposal. Proceedings of the Regional Advisory
Committee Meeting. Kampala, Uganda.
Robinson, J.C. (1996). Bananas and plantains. CAB International Publication. 238 pp.
Sombrock, W.C., Vraun, H.M.H., Vander Pouw, E.J. (1982). Exploratory soil map and agro-climatic zone
map of Kenya. Report B5A, National Agricultural Research Laboratories, Soil Survey Unit, Nairobi,
Kenya 56 pp.
Qaim, M (1998). Transgenic Virus Resistant Potatoes in Mexico: Potential Socioeconomic Implications
of North-South Biotechnology Transfer. ISAAA Briefs No. 7, International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY.
Qaim, M (1999). Assessing the impact of banana biotechnology in Kenya. ISAAA Briefs No. 10-1999.
Published by ISAAA in collaboration with Zentrum fur Entwicklungsforschung Centre for
Development Research Universitat Bonn. 38 pp.
24