ABD-DANIDA/CDA

THE COCONUT SUB-SECTOR IN KENYA

BASELINE SURVEY REPORT

May 2007

ABD-DANIDA/CDA

THE COCONUT SUB-SECTOR IN KENYA

BASELINE SURVEY REPORT

BY Githende Gachanja Institution Development & Management Services Zachary Odhiambo Coast Development Authority & Muli Musinga Alternative Finance Technologies Ltd

May 2007
ii

Table of Contents
Executive summary …………………………………………………………………… Acknowledgements …………………………………………………………………… List of abbreviations……………………………………………………………………
PART ONE: CONTEXT OF THE SURVEY 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1.2 Background ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1.3 Objectives ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1.4 Methodology …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2. THE COAST PROVINCE 2.1 Overview ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.2 Position ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.3 Population ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.4 Agricultural land ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.5 Agro-ecological zones …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.6 Economic base …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2.7 Tree crops …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2.8 Coconut production ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3. COCONUT FARMING: INFORMATION FROM LITERATURE 3.1 Overview ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3.2 Historical background ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.3 Coconut varieties …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3.4 Coconut products …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3.5 Agronomy …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3.6 Pests and diseases ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3.7 Marketing of coconut products ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 3.8 Legislation …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. PART TWO: RESULTS OF THE SURVEY 4. MAGNITUDE OF THE SUB-SECTOR 4.1 Overview ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4.2 Population of trees …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4.3 Number of farmers …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4.4 Acreage …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4.5 Production …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 1 2 2

vi x xi

4 4 4 6 7 7 7 8

9 9 10 10 12 12 13 13

16 16 17 18 20
iii

5. SECTOR DYNAMICS 5.1 Overview …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5.2 The age of trees …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5.3 Growth in the population of trees ……………………………………………………………………… 5.4 Coconut varieties cultivated in Kenya ……………………………………………………………………… 6. PRODUCTS AND MARKET ISSUES 6.1 Overview …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6.2 Mature nuts ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6.3 Immature nuts (madafu) …………………………………………………………………………………. 6.4. Wine ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6.5 Roofing materials (Makuti) …………………………………………………………………………………. 6.6 Brooms ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6.7 Coco-wood ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6.8 Copra …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7. PRODUCTION CLUSTERS AND SPATIAL VARIATIONS 7.1 Overview …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7.2 Tree population based production clusters……………………………………………………………………. 7.3 Product-specific production clusters……………………………………………………………………………. 7.3.1 Mature Nuts clusters ………………………………………………………………………………………… 7.3.2 Madafu clusters ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 7.3.3 Wine clusters ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7.3.4 Makuti clusters ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 7.3.5 Brooms clusters ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 7.3.5 Coco-wood clusters ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 8. CHALLENGES TO REALIZATION OF SECTOR POTENTIAL 8.1 Overview ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8.2 Constraints and challenges facing farmers ……………………………………………………………… 8.3 Production challenges ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8.3.1 Weather and the question of better adapted varieties ……………………….. 8.3.2 Pests and diseases ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 8.3.3 Access to planting materials ………………………………………………………………………….. 8.4 Markets and marketing constraints …………………………………………………………………………..

22 22 23 25

28 28 29 29 30 31 31 32

34 34 43 43 44 45 46 47 47

49 49 50 50 50 50 51 51 51 51 52
iv

8.4.1 Prices ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8.4.2 Market access …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8.4.3 Poor road infrastructure to markets …………………………………………………………. 8.5 Other Constraints ……………………………………………………………………………………………………

Survey Methodology 2.. Appendices: 1. List of key GOK and other stakeholder officials who participated 53 53 55 57 v .2 Conclusions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9.1 Overview …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9. 9.9.3 Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………………. References ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Worldwide.723 villages across the six Districts of Coast Province targeted in the survey. Kilifi.4 million . some of which are even more important than the dry nut. This does not however explain the full story. the dried endosperm or kernel of the coconut. vi .5%). cosmetics. This understatement therefore seems to have been perhaps deliberate. Although a part of this general understatement appears to have been as a result of estimation errors in the absence of a comprehensive survey. as other important products of the tree did not fall into the legality question. a major reason why coconut is cultivated is for its copra. The magnitude of the coconut sector has generally been understated. Primary data collection was done by a team of over 400 Enumerators independently hired at the village level and supervised on a daily basis by MoA frontline staff at every Location with oversight and coordination of an IDM Research Coordinator for each district. particularly owing to the legality question under which coconut wine fell into for many years until the lid was lifted under the current Government administration. Using a mix of qualitative and quantitative approaches.Executive Summary In December 2006. 63. the key reason for understatement has been due to failure to recognize the importance of other products of the coconut tree. brooms (3%) and other products of the coconut tree produced at the farm level including coco-wood and coir (0. A thorough literature review was also conducted to contextualize and benchmark findings of the survey.223 farmers were interviewed in 1. This is a positive move that is expected to further spur growth in the palm wine industry.2 billion with 60% of the value accounted for by palm wine. religious and social image questions. candle manufacture and some even refined further for edible oil. Data processing was done using SPSS software and part of the information included in GIS for pictorial presentation. Information from the survey shows that the population of trees stands at 7. the exercise was carried out in the months of January through mid March 2007. The size of the coconut sub-sector is much larger than what it has been thought to be in the past. and the balance accounted for by makuti (12%). In total. the Agricultural Business Development (ABD) program of the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) in collaboration with the Coast Development Authority (CDA) commissioned Institution Development & Management Services (IDM Services) to undertake a survey of coconut trees in four Districts of Coast Province – Kwale. From a careful analysis and interpretation of data obtained during the study. For a long time copra has been regarded as the main product of the coconut tree in Kenya at the farm level. that the Finance Minister has recently lifted the ban on traditional brews in his Gazette notice of May 2007. the survey team makes the following six main conclusions: 1. it is clear that this is the product that is currently driving growth in the sub-sector and it is likely to remain so as signals from the emerging fully commercialized market for this product indicate that this is where the returns are. The Survey used the administrative structures of the Ministry of Agriculture to collect data from villages in the coconut growing areas of the four districts and covering a sample of farmers in Lamu and Tana River Districts.3 million higher than the 4. Taking all products into consideration.4 million trees which were thought to exist in the past. Although coconut wine is still embroiled in legality1. 24% by nuts. The Consultants were also required to develop mechanisms to make estimates for Lamu and Tana River Districts. the value of the coconut sub-sector at the farm level is estimated to be Kshs 3. which is further processed into oil for use in the soap industry. Results of the survey however indicate that the situation has 1 We take note though. Malindi and Mombasa.

therefore present excellent points for intervention. Overall. Besides these general production clusters. 4.5%). pushed by the pressures of urbanization.2% of the total population or just slightly over 600. Average nut production currently stands at 21 nuts per tree which is quite low compared to optimal productivity levels of over 100 vii . The rise in population of trees is lowest in Kwale with only a marginal growth rate of 1. There are clearly identifiable production clusters in the coconut sub-sector The distribution of the population of coconut trees in Coast Province is in such a way that there are clearly identifiable production clusters. the population of coconut trees past the age of optimal productivity of 30 years is still large (44%) suggesting the need for increased replanting of trees if high productivity in the sub-sector is to be achieved. Overall. 2. Some of the 8 main industries that used to deal in copra have since closed down and those in operation are now largely dependent on imported palm oil from Malaysia or buy dry nuts to produce copra at the factory level for some of the specialized lines that require coconut oil. Kilifi district has the largest number of well developed clusters indicating a much more developed market for coconut products at the farm level.000 and not the 2. rough estimations of potential indicate that this could be a much bigger sub-sector. farmers have actually been planting more coconut trees and the proportion of trees in the age before the start of production now stands at slightly over 14%. To many farmers. reaching to even over Kshs 20 billion with the current population of trees and current growth trends. the Survey identified at least 36 production clusters in the province with Kwale and Kilifi districts having the highest number of clusters (each with 13). Only a small proportion (about 25%) of the potential of the sub-sector is currently exploited From an assessment of the current developments in production of the various products of the coconut tree. it therefore makes more business sense to sell the dry nut even at the lowest prices of Kshs 2 per nut than spend time crashing the nuts to obtain copra which with fetch a much lower per unit price. The population of trees aged over 60 years is only 8. there are specific clusters for the various products.4%. however. 3.2 million (50%) thought to exist in the past. there is a negative growth rate in the population of trees in Mombasa (-36. The price of copra at the farm level is Kshs 7 per kilogram which generally takes 5 – 7 dry nuts to produce. As is perhaps expected. Mature nuts and coconut wine have the largest number of clusters. Overall. Defined as areas of concentration in the population of trees within a small zone with a radius of 5-7 Kilometers. The population of coconut trees is on the rise and it is not true that farmers have not been planting trees Dynamics in the coconut sub-sector show that there is a general rise in the population of trees and fears that the population of trees is likely to go down as most trees are in the senile stage of over 60 years (and farmers are cutting them down) is not true. These clusters are important growth points of the whole sub-sector from where innovations and transformation will come from and. partly explained by a vibrant market for some of the coconut products especially palm wine and opening up on new settlements. The survey shows that contrary to generally held views.2% annually with the highest growth rates experienced in Kilifi and Malindi. the population of trees is growing at a rate of 2. Farmers are no longer involved in producing copra at the farm level largely as a result of poor prices offered and a general lack of a market for this product.changed and copra in no longer a major product of the coconut tree at the farm level as used to be the case up to the 1980s. although those related to wine are much more developed and vibrant.

This cultural value has dictated that almost every farming household in the coastal belt where coconut trees can grow. 5. brooms 21% and makuti 64%. this vicious circle is already broken and vibrancy is already starting to be seen. On the market end. As a positive mark. some dating as far back as a couple of centuries. this trend is already there and it only needs to be further propelled. It is also noted that efforts must be made to make sure that some of the past practices in the cultivation of the crop do not become a hindrance to its development. This cultural entrenchment in consumption of some of the major products plays a major part in driving the market for coconut products. This partly explains why some farmers will attempt to grow the crop even in fairly marginal areas. The low participation of farmers in production of the other products is another indicator that the potential could be much higher.nuts expected in good yielding varieties. Effects of the prolonged drought which extended to over 4 years in some areas was however mentioned by most farmers interviewed during the Survey as a foremost outstanding challenge facing farmers at the production level. practices and ways of life of coastal communities. manured or sprayed with agrochemicals. however. Many coastal meals will have a sprinkling (if not immersion) of coconut milk. and actual market access by farmers for their products. Without proper organization at the farmer level. The cultural entrenchment is however beyond the cultivation and is even more entrenched and widespread in the consumption of the products. Coconut farming is deeply entrenched in coastal farming systems and forms an important leverage point for improving the livelihoods of millions of people in coast province Coconut is a crop that is deeply entrenched in the cultures. this cultural attachment has contributed to the large population of trees and seems bound to continue holding ground. 6. The distribution and marketing channels are generally dominated by traders and middlemen who play an important role in getting farmers’ produce to the market. Overall. this can be viewed as a challenge for finding more tolerant varieties – which is one of the key research areas that should be focused on. viii . however. continually encouraging farmers to plant the crop. a coastal hotel) will be thatched with makuti and the general broom in coastal Kenya (and indeed Kenya) is the coconut broom. In general. The low participation rate of farmers is generally due to poor development of the markets for some of the products. has at least a few trees. farmers complain that the incentives offered by the market currently are not enough to make them invest substantively in their farms. It is however clear that market expansion must go beyond just the coastal populations who have a cultural attachment to the products. Wine production involves only 36% of farmers. key challenges relate to low prices and large flactuations during peak production periods. This is what needs to be built-on. From a development perspective. In some product lines such as palm wine. the cost of bulking and the inefficiencies of facing the market without any joint action is placing farmers at a disadvantaged position to benefit fully from the sub-sector. A good case is the now longstanding neglect of the crop that make some farmers think a coconut tree doesn’t need to be weeded. the normal house (even increasingly more so. This has led to the current low productivity in their farms – fixing itself as a vicious circle which must be broken for a momentum for growth of the sub-sector to take place. Coconut wine is also deeply entrenched as a local drink of choice. makuti and madafu for some clusters. Production and market related constraints are the key challenges to full potential The main challenges facing farmers at production level include accessibility of quality planting materials and the menace of pests and diseases. particularly those with a coastal origin. nurtured and replicated across the entire coconut belt. a normal way of quenching thirst is by madafu.

Overall. Ignoring the crop will mean wasted opportunity to utilize an important economic base for coastal populations. it is clear that coconut farming is a central part of the livelihood of most coastal households and will continue to be so into the foreseeable future. ix . Integrating this commodity sector into the market as an important cash crop will directly affect the livelihoods of many households in the Coast Province.

Mr. and for a stretch of one month. the opinions expressed in this report (or any errors therein) are solely those of the authors of the report and should not be misconstrued as the official position of ABD-DANIDA. Special thanks for the data processing exercise that was carried out by a team dedicated young officers from IDM Services who worked beyond the hours. sometimes late into the night. Edward B. Thanks go to the team of over 400 Enumerators for the many hours put for data collection in every village.M. While many individuals and organizations have participated in varied ways to the outcome of this report including providing useful comments and observations. DAO Mombasa Madam Jacinta Simba and her Deputy Mr. would wish to recognize the good work performed by Jonathan Mwatata (Malindi). Sulleiman Kinda (Mombasa). the District Agricultural Officers. CDA. Kilifi Mr. Mwangangi. Mr. Thanks to the Coast Development Authority especially Mr. B.K.M. Dr. Kanamu. Mng’ong’o for their very valuable written contributions. Mburu and his deputy madam J. Mrs Phoebe Odhiambo.M. Special thanks go to the ABD team in Coast Province. Kimani and his deputy. and Mr. Baabu and the DAO Kwale. Mrabu.M. Mureithi and his deputy Mr. The Provincial Administration deserves special mention for their support on the ground. DAO. Mr. We particularly acknowledge the Chiefs. We register our appreciation to the Provincial Director of Agriculture. It is also important to record the contribution of the coconut stakeholders’ task force that provided valuable critique that shaped the final outcomes of the report. Jimmy Davis of Kocos Kenya. We take this opportunity to thank the Danish Government for the financial support through the Agricultural Business Development (ABD) program of the Agricultural Sector Program Support (ASPS) implemented in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture. G. Kennedy Mayende in charge of Kwale. Mr. Christian Sorenson for the support and approval for the survey.J.Acknowledgements We would sincerely wish to express our gratitude to many individuals and organizations who have significantly contributed to the successful conclusion of the Coconut Survey exercise in Coast Region. We are particularly indebted to Mr.S.A. MoA or any other institution or persons that helped in accomplishing this work. particularly George Mazuri in charge of Kilifi/Malindi. Assistant Chiefs and the Village Elders for working very closely with MoA Location Staff and our Enumerators collecting information from every farmer in all the villages of Coast Province where coconut is grown. Hemed Mwabudzo who chaired the Palm Working Group under which the terms of reference for the survey was drawn. Nyale in Malindi and the ABD Senior Advisor. We particularly. P. Enoch J. the DAO Malindi. Githende Gachanja Project Lead Consultant INSTITUTION DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT SERVICES – May 2007 . Mr. Singi. Kingi. Mwangi Njoya of Msabweni Development Company.I. Government of Kenya. To all those mentioned above and others who may in one way or the other have contributed to the success of this project we are indeed very grateful. without consideration of weekends to complete the data entry and cleaning exercise in time. Mr. Sulleiman Mkotah (Kwale) and Kazungu (Kilifi). B. The success of the survey was a joint effort by the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture from the six Districts of Coast Province and farmers.

Structural Adjustment Programmes Terms of Reference United States Agency for International Development International Coconut Genetic Reserve Network xi . Agro – Ecological Zones Coast Development Authority. District Crop Development Officer Frontline Extension Officer Frontline Extension Workers Gross Domestic Product Institutions Development and Management Services Ministry of Agriculture Provincial Director of Agriculture.List of Abbreviations AAEO ABD AEZ CDA CDO CL DAEO DANIDA DAO DCDO FEO FEW GDP IDM MOA PDA SAPs TORs USAID COGENT Assistant Agricultural Extension Officer Agricultural Business Development. Community Development Officer Coastal Lowlands District Agricultural Extension Officer Danish International Development Agency District Agricultural Officer.

PART ONE CONTEXT OF THE SURVEY .

Malindi and Mombasa Districts. The coconut palm produces food and drink for people. 1. This potential is however far from exploited and coconut farmers remain among the poorest in Kenya. fibre for ropes. copra cake/meal. a number of stakeholders have made efforts to develop various initiatives targeted at different points of the value chain. Data collection was carried out in the months of February and March 2007 using a team of over 400 Enumerators hired at the village level and supervised on a daily basis by MoA frontline staff at every Location with oversight and coordination of an IDM Research Coordinator for each of the survey districts besides the MoA line staff at the Division and District levels. Kilifi. It is information generated through this approach that is the basis of this report. copra for oil. Contracted to a private consulting firm based in Mombasa (IDM Services). The list goes on and on. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 1 . Palm International. survey of trees was carried out only in Kwale. mats. The exercise could therefore be easily regarded as a MoA activity where the consultants were merely brought in to coordinate and manage the activity mainly at the design and data processing. building materials in the form of poles for construction and leaves (makuti) for roofing as well as timber for furniture.1 Overview This report presents findings of a baseline survey of coconut trees in Coast Province commissioned in December 2006 by the Agricultural Business Development (ABD) program of the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) in collaboration with the Coast Development Authority (CDA). the Government. In general terms. the Coast Development Authority (CDA). palm wine.2 Background Coconut (cocos nucifera) growing was introduced in Kenya in the 16th century by the Portuguese and since then. and brooms.4 below provides further details of the survey methodology. the coconut palm has grown to become one of the key sources of livelihood for many households in the coastal region. Section 1. a number of stakeholders in the sector have in the last couple of years Baseline Survey Report. To share information and make inroads towards a coordinated force from the various interested parties in development of the sub-sector. the coconut sub-sector demonstrates an immense potential to drive economic development in the main coastal belt.1 INTRODUCTION 1. fruit and the trunk. The coconut palm is traditionally known for many uses ranging from the leaves. Some of these are development agencies such as ABD-DANIDA. analysis and reporting stages. May. the work was carried out over a three month period using the administrative structures of the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). While all the six districts of Coast Province with significant coconut farming were covered. brushes. Lamu and Tana River districts were however also covered using qualitative estimation methods combined with a sample survey of selected farmers. while others are private business initiatives or even individuals interested in development of the sub-sector or coast region in general. To address constraints holding back the full realization of the potential of the coconut sub-sector. Taita Taveta was left out all together since the district doesn’t have significant coconut farming activities. and shells for the manufacture of utensils and ornaments. There are hardly any parts of the coconut that are left unused. The whole step-by-step methodology of the survey is also provided in detail as Appendix 1.

this group meets on a periodic basis and. and holding per farmer looked outdated and generally unreliable for planning purposes. Primary data was collected from farmers using two structured questionnaires – a main questionnaire administered to all farmers in the survey areas and a supplementary questionnaire administered on 5% of the farmers to obtain further. 1. one thing (among a number of others) that has come out as a common stabling block in the work of the various stakeholders is reliability of information available on the sub-sector.2 million) in the category suitable for wood needed to be credible enough to warrant efforts aimed at developing a fully fledged coco-wood market. more detailed information. de-aggregated by age and geographical areas of distribution. the presence of dead trees in the farm (defined as trees without a tip but still standing). was structured to be brief with one-page sheet able to capture information from up to 17 farmers (see Appendix 1). the need for reliable information is a critical component in effective planning and development of the coconut sub-sector has been an obvious gap to many stakeholders . The main methodology used in undertaking the exercise was therefore largely quantitative. information that the total population of coconuts trees was about 4. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 2 . Besides generating this basic information.3 Objectives The main purpose of the Coconut Survey exercise was to establish a reliable estimate of the total population of coconut trees in the coast province. 1. all basic information available in relation to the population of coconut trees. The first questionnaire. Other stakeholders in the sub-sector had similar questions with regard to information relevant for planning and programming their activities effectively.It is for this reason that ABD-DANIDA in collaboration with CDA under the auspices of the Palm Working Group commissioned the Survey of coconut trees in coast province which is the subject of this report. ownership of both the land and the trees in the farm. For instance. Gender de-aggregation of the farmer was also made.4 million with about 50% (or 2. Information was also sought on coconut seedlings not yet transplanted in the farm. By design. May. Currently chaired (and housed) by CDA. the coconut survey was formulated to take a Census format which by definition is largely a quantitative research task. the survey was also expected to yield important information on the various products of the coconut palm. initiatives geared at developing the emergent high-value niche market for coco-wood realized there were unanswered questions of how many trees there are in the senile stage (of over 60 years) when they become suitable for wood purposes (as hardwood). and number of trees cut down or planted over the last 12 months. As is the case of any sector. overtime. disaggregated by age (age-groups) and variety. this survey instrument was structured to be simple/brief enough to be administered to up to 25 farmers per day by a trained Enumerator.come together – currently referred to as the Palm Working Group to incorporate other palms besides the coconut tree/palm. their markets and the key challenges facing farmers in their farming activities. Information sought under this instrument related to the total population of coconut trees in the farm. IDM however also adopted participatory approaches for gathering qualitative information that was used in guiding the survey and enriching analysis and interpretation of the generated results. To many stakeholders. In general. their geographical and age distribution. land holding. used as the main survey instrument.4 Methodology By design. Baseline Survey Report. nut production in the last 12 months (2006).

This instrument was administered to a sample of the farmers (5%) picked out in a systematic approach as every 20th farmer to be interviewed in the administration of the main survey questionnaire. this team of enumerators was supervised on a day-to-day basis by MoA Location level staff with backstopping from their line supervisors at the divisional and district levels. the exercise took 11. an exercise of spot checks was conducted at the end of the data collection exercise under the supervision of IDM services and attended by officials from ABD-DANIDA. Baseline Survey Report. Overall. Information was also sought on constraints facing the farmer in his/her coconut farming activities. IDM is satisfied that the quality of work on the ground was carried out successfully to give the necessary credence to the results of the survey presented in this report.0 for windows). this instrument also sought the reasons for cutting down trees among farmers who had felled their trees. In the actual implementation of the data collection exercise. The information gathered during this exercise was analyzed and used in computing any error adjustment factors for undercounts/double counting (see Appendix 1).The supplementary questionnaire was designed to generate information on the various products of the coconut tree produced by farmers at the farm level.5 working days for data collection to be completed in all the survey areas. however. The exercise was planned to take place over a two week period starting the first week of February. Overall. The first activity was to see whether the farmer was visited and the second was to cross-check the authenticity of the information collected. 2007.1. Due to concentration of coconut farmers in some zones. A spot-check was done on randomly selected zones of each sub-Location on 10 farmers (in a row). checking whether they were covered in the survey. Data processing and analysis was carried out using SPSS statistical software (version 14. and the average selling prices. This team was trained over a 1 day period by IDM in conjunction with MoA district level officers on the survey approach and instruments. Work in more than 70% of sub-Locations was however completed within the span of 10 days. For purposes of cross-checking possibilities of undercounts or double counting. May. the data collection exercise was carried out by a team of slightly over 400 Enumerators identified at the village level to make sure they have full local knowledge of the survey area and are acceptable among farmers. the exercise was extended by a varying number of days per the requirements of the different subLocations/villages to make sure the exercise was successfully completed. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 3 . As briefly mentioned in Section 1. the quantities sold. To authenticate and cross check the quality of work done by the Enumerators. To address fears that a lot of farmers where cutting down their coconut trees. Location level staff as well as division and district supervisors (including the team from IDM) made frequent spot checks among farmers.

Mombasa. It opens with a brief overview of the geographical position of the province. demographic factors and agro-ecological context before looking at the broad coast economy and the place of the coconut sub-sector. Kilifi. at 1o41’S to 4o40’S at the border with Tanzania (see Fig. Tana River. and Lamu before the creation of the additional 3 districts and leaving out Taita Taveta. Kwale.5 million people in 1999 with inter-censal growth rate of 3.2 Position Coast Province is one of the eight provinces in the Republic of Kenya.2 THE COAST PROVINCE 2. the focus of discussion is on the six districts of Kwale. The number has since increased to ten districts following the creation of three additional districts with Kaloleni district curved out from Kilifi district. 2. 1998). Coast Province recorded a population density of 22 persons per square kilometer in 1989. Mombasa. Malindi. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 4 . which increased to 30 persons per square kilometer in 1999 and is currently estimated at 36 persons per square kilometer.1%. particularly when it comes to past estimations of the coconut sub-sector. These six districts which boarder Indian Ocean are considered to have high concentration of coconut tree population and have a total coastline of 640 km.1 Overview This section sets the context of the coconut survey exercise by exploring background information on Coast Province that is important in understanding and interpreting results of the survey. This population is currently estimated at 3. For the purpose of this study (Coconut Survey). Until late 2006 the province had seven administrative districts namely.0 million people taking into account the impact of HIV/AIDS in the Province (table 1).3 Population Coast Province had a population of 2. It lies in the hot tropical region where the weather is influenced by the great monsoon winds of the Indian Ocean (UNEP. 1). Malindi. Kinango from Kwale district and Kilindini from Mombasa district. which forms part of the western border of the Indian Ocean. The Kenyan coast runs in a south-westerly direction from the Kenya-Somali border in the north. Information provided here is from review of literature and secondary information and should be interpreted as such. Tana River. Baseline Survey Report. The population density of Coast Province varies from one district to another and is highly influenced by the rainfall patterns and economic activities. Kilifi. 2. This accounts for 10% of the total Kenyan population. May. Lamu and Taita Taveta.

2007 Institution Development & Management Services 5 . May.Figure 1 The Kenyan Coastline and Elevation -Area above sea level Baseline Survey Report.

2 Agricultural land by District District Area in Km2 Mombasa Kwale Kilifi Malindi Tana River Lamu Taita Taveta Total: Source: Ministry of Agriculture.779.298 in 1979. Table 2. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 6 . The area supports 252.151 3.g.7 Taita Taveta 17.228 83.503 276.128.1 Population Distribution and Density in the Coast Province by Districts.529 Km2 (39%) suitable for crop production and the remaining 61% is Arid and semi Arid land (ASAL) supporting livestock production and game parks.6 38.128.872 222.466.090 farm families with majority (32.295.625 22.2%) found in Kwale.850 5. 753 in 1989.215 54.6 8.6 Tana River 38.514 people. industrial and other infrastructure development.750.166.728 252.949 1.3 Lamu 6.3 6. Mombasa town currently has a population density of about 3.3% in Taita Taveta and 13.018 in 1999 and is presently estimated to be 828. housing construction.816 Km2 with 32.517 5. which increased to 461.387 2. 1999 Population & Housing Census Population Density per Sq Km 3. 21.712 43. 2006 projections District Area in Km Mombasa 229.750. and 665. May.816 Source: CBS.528 34.529 No.514 575.7 17.779.3 82.6 Kwale 8.609 people per square km. It had a population of 375.152 81.3 Total: Coastal Districts 82.Low density is recorded in arid and semi-arid areas of the province.143 345.148 8. Mombasa district as the main urban area in Coast Province has been experiencing a rapid population growth rate of way over the 3% average for the province largely attributed to natural growth rate and immigration due to rural –urban migration especially among school leavers seeking employment opportunities.824 32.975.3 4.130 9. This has created the need for conversion of agricultural land to other competing uses e.609 69 137 47 6 14 16 36 Total Population 828.816 90 7. of Farm Families 6.166.026 653.466.090 Baseline Survey Report. which accounts for 61% of the total area and highest population densities are recorded in urban areas.7% in Malindi (table 2) Table 2.101 2.2 7.4 Agricultural land Coast Province covers a total area of 82.2 Malindi 7. For instance. 65% of the total population of the coastal region is found in rural areas and are engaged in various primary production and the remaining 35% are in urban and peri-urban areas (CBS: Population Projection). 2006 Agricultural land in Km2 229.3 Kilifi 4.295.6% in Kilifi 17.

this zone wuld be classified as high-potential. i) CL2 – Sugarcane Zone This is the wettest zone with an average rainfall of over 1. Coconut. but due to low soil fertility.15%. and annual precipitation of 1000mm -1200mm. Most of these economic activities (with exemption of shipping activities. May.7%. Baseline Survey Report. CL3.90C -26. The major crops grown are Cashew nuts and cassava. Cashewnut.45%. port and shipping activities . It spreads along the coastal uplands and lowlevel coastal plains with mean annual temperatures of 24o C -260 C. mining . ii) CL3 – Coconut – Cassava Zone The zone has the highest potential for crops. nonagricultural industries and other services) depend on the natural environment and employs 65% of the total population. Citrus. which explains why Coast Province experiences diverse climatic conditions. Mangoes and Bixa which are the most important cash crops for the local farmer.2.4%.60C. CL4. it can be more apltly described as medium-potential. CL5 and CL6 which covers four topographical features that include the coastal plain.90C -270C. foot plateau.6 Economic Base The principal economic activities in the province in terms of employment and their contribution to the Coast province economy (GDP) are tourism . iii) iv) v) 2. CL4 – Cashewnut –Cassava Zone This stretches northwards along the coastal plain with annual precipitation of 850-1100mm and average annual temperatures of 24. wildlife. CL2. These features with marked altitude differences are also characterized by different average annual rainfall ranging from 400 mm in the hinterland to 1200mm at the coastal belt.2% and other services – 13%. vegetables and food crops.90C -26. It varies in altitude of 90m-300m above the sea level with annual precipitation of 350mm700mm and annual temperature of 24. coastal range and the Nyika plateau. In terms of precipitation. forestry . 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 7 .400 mm per year. rice. fisheries . CL6 – Lowland Ranching Zone. cow peas and pulses.’ CL5 – Lowland Livestock – Millet zone The zone is of less potential with annual precipitation of 700mm -900mm and mean temperature of 24. maize.It is suitable for dry land farming including irrigated agriculture and livestock dairy ranching. bee keeping and mining. Key crops grown in this zone are tree crops.5 Agro-ecological Zones The Coast Province has five (5) agro-ecological zones of coastal lowland (CL) namely. It is most suitable for sugarcane but a large variety of crops can also be grown throughout the year.7 Tree crops Coast region is endowed with favorable climate for the growth of a number of tree crops namely. Major activities include ranching.8%.6%. The major food crops grown in the region include. non-agricultural industries . 2. agricultural production and processing . cassava.60C. poor drainage and salinity.

750 2. Kilifi and Malindi with some significant production from Mombasa.433 Production (Tonnes) .000 households as the main source of income (CDA. 2005 Baseline Survey Report.068 Source: MoA Annual report. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 8 .The Coconut as one of tree crops in the province has become an important source of income to the majority of small-scale farmers found in rural areas of the coastal region.795 1. May.605 57 82 42. Coconut requires 800 – 1400mm of rainfall per annum with an average temperature of 26 oC in the coastal lowlands and 27oC in the hinterland. Coast province.970 417 74 62. 2004).320 517 30. Coconuts grow well mainly in the Agro ecological Coastal Lowland (CL) zone (CL3 and CL4) but can also be found in the lower parts of CL5.109 785 21.3 Ministry of Agriculture Estimations on Coconut Production by District. 2004 District Kwale Mombasa Kilifi and Malindi Lamu Tana River Taita Taveta TOTAL Area under Coconut (Ha) 18. Lamu and Tana River.8 Coconut production: information available from literature Existing information shows that the main coconut producing districts in Kenya are Kwale. Coconuts are also grown in a smaller scale in the arid and semi arid areas in CL6 along the rivers and sections with sundy soils. 2.nuts 27. Table 2. Information available before this Survey estimated that the region had a population of 4 million coconut trees of which majority were planted during the colonial era and is currently supporting over 400.

pest and disease control. Cote d’Ivoire. Palm wine was used in nearly all social and ritual affairs and traded for economic gain. this section is intended to provide a context (or some sort of benchmark) from which to interpret and critically analyze results of the coconut survey. and moves on to look at issues of agronomy. Just like Section 2. 3. 2006). for their own trees. improvement on crop husbandry. touches on the introduction of the different coconut varieties in Eastern Africa and their suitability for different products.1 Overview This section further contextualizes the coconut survey by reviewing available literature on coconut farming particularly as it relates to Kenya. Low priority given to the subsector has limited the ability to undertake research and development activities with a view to introducing drought tolerant varieties. Untill 20th century the Rabai and Ribe remained the main growers and producers of palm wine. It opens with an overview of the historical background of coconut farming in the coast. Modagascar.2 Historical Background Kenya has been growing coconut for a longer period than most other countries in Africa (estimated to date from the 16th century) along the coastal region among the Mijikenda. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 9 .5% and recorded export of copra lastly in 1995 (FAO. year book. 2 Benin. as well as the different coconut products and their markets. Ghana. Research development of coconut sector in Kenya has been very slow as compared to the case of some of the other Eastern Africa countries such as Tanzania and Mozambique. Over 14 billion worth of vegetable oil which coconut has the potential to substitute by 30% especially coconut oil for soap making. the taping of palm wine was for long the most popular and important use of the palm. Although the Mijikenda also consumed fresh nuts. This has resulted in the country importing annually Kshs. Kenya. Seycheles and Tanzania Baseline Survey Report. May. Mozambique. Kenya is ranked seventh among the eight coconut producing countries2 in Africa with share contribution of copra production of 4. The last part of this section highlights some of the legislative issues that have relevance to the state of the coconut industry in Kenya. processing and marketing of the products and by – products.3 COCONUT FARMING: INFORMATION FROM LITERATURE 3. they employed tapers from Rabai (Herlehy 1984). Currently. Nigeria. Other Mijikenda continued to go to Rabai to buy palm wine and. It has also not been actively participating in some of the important network organizations in coconut such as the International Coconut Genetic Reserve Network (COGENT) which has played a leading role in introducing new varieties based on trials in participating countries.

Activated Carbon. produces an average of over 60 nuts per year under good husbandry. Hybrid variety was imported from Ivory Coast and established at Mtwapa (20 Plants) and Msabaha (15 plants) in 1978. hence good for both Madafu and oil production. EAT variety is the most popular variety among the farmers and it takes 5 – 7 years to start producing nuts. a lot of rain and good management. Coir Fibre. In Kenya. It requires a fertile and a well drained soil. The dwarf coconut variety produces excellent sweeter coconut juice (from madafu) but little copra. inadequate personnel and lack of funds. Coconut Shell. Toddy. Baseline Survey Report. The current research status in Kenya shows that there has been no research on coconut since 1990 at Mtwapa except for maintenance of germ plasm.M. the Dwarf and the Hybrid. In Kenya. May.3 Coconut Varieties Along the Coastal region of Eastern Africa. Shell Flours.D Kalange. 1992). The cause of death was lethol bole rot disease (W. Coir Dust. They start to produce at the age of 3 -5 years and have the ability to produce over 100 nuts per year. which have given coconut a low rating. and Fresh Coconut Juice.4 Coconut Products Worldwide. It is more tolerant to drought. They performed dismally and have since died. it is mainly grown around the homestead for ease of watering (but also for ornamental purposes) and can live between 40 – 50 years. Charcoal Briquettes. It requires a lot of rainfall or water. Copra is the most important coconut product that is further processed into oil. It has the ability to produce an average of 60 nuts per annum and can live for more than 60 years. 2000). Copra. but thick copra and quality wine. candle manufacture and some oil has been refined to edible quality. Oil. hybrid (Minazi Chotora) is a cross breed of EAT and dwarf variety and therefore contains the characteristics of both varieties. Baskets and Mats. Leaves. Shell Charcoal. fertile and well drained soil and good crop husbandry.3. which is mainly used in the soap industry. It starts producing at the age of 4 – 5 years and produces nut with thick copra flesh and has good quality immature nuts. existing literature indicates that coconut is mainly used for making copra and very little has been achieved in terms of developing and promoting other uses of coconut products. Krain and P. Mwangi and J. The EAT are the most common in Kenya and they yield nuts with good quality copra and toddy but the immature nuts are wanting i. the East African Tall (EAT). On a pure stand. 3. In 1996/97 attempts to measure productivity were made in Mtwapa whereby a selection of high yielding Palms of EAT of twelve trees ages varying between 15 and 25 years was done. Coconut Cream. The results drawn from 20 years observation indicated that the yield ranged between 18 and 128 nuts per palm with the best tree giving consistent yield of over 100 nuts per year. there are three major varieties of coconut. cosmetics. This has been due to national research priorities. it produces small quantity of Madafu juice. The three varieties are. dwarf coconut trees can yield up to 12. Desiccated Coconut. lives between 60 .e. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 10 . This implies they are good for “madafu” but more are needed in production of oil compared to the EAT variety. Brooms. Njoba. the major coconut products include.Copra cake.100 years and grows to a height of 15m (E.000 nuts per ha under recommended spacing of 9m x 9m On the other hand.

Studies on the quality of copra indicate that the quality of copra produced in the coast region has generally been of inferior quality (W. the coconut shell can be used for making shell charcoal briquettes. Pereira & Sons Ltd.000 tons per year (J.000 tons of oil per year. A study conducted in 1988 showed that despite the huge potential of producing up to 46. The study indicated that sun drying was the oldest method of drying copra and was still widely practiced in Kenya at the time. The name copra is derived from the Malayan word Kopra for dried coconut. May. Mombasa. Apart from sun-drying. Information from CDA shows that the combined milling capacity of these mills is estimated to be 30. Given that 6. 1984). Copra and the oil it contains are the principal products of the coconut palm (J. Mombasa. Copra sold to the mills has high moisture content and contains significant quantities of immature nuts.5 Agronomy Baseline Survey Report. Msambweni Development Company. 3. A study conducted by UNIDO in 1984 showed that about 90% of copra produced in Kenya was dried through sun-drying (UNIDO. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 11 .Copra is the dried meat or kernel of the coconut (wikipedia). These include Eastern Oil Millers (Lola Lola) in Changamwe Mombasa. Other products that can be developed for both domestic and export markets include desiccated coconut and coconut cream. Ohler. and can be used for upholstery and stuffing mattresses. It can also be rubberized for making various high value cushions or other products.D Pieris. 1984). then it would mean that between 30 million and 60 million nuts were being used in copra production at the time.756 tons of copra per year. Mwaura. Mombasa. Diamond Oil Millers.000 – 10. 1969).G. and Malindi Industries. Coco Industries ltd. the other important coconut products in Kenya are palm wine (also known as Toddy) which is consumed locally and in major towns in the coast region.W.000 tons with a potential production of 18. Pwani Oil Industries. Kisumu Wallah Millers in Shimanzi. The byproducts from husk include coir fibre. Mombasa. Malindi. The economic potential for coconut products and by-products is therefore wide and can be effectively utilized to enhance the income earnings of the local coconut farmers and in the process create employment opportunities mainly to school leavers. the average national production at the time was fluctuating between 5. brooms and makuti. Mombasa (now closed). The poor quality of copra is attributed to the system of drying (that is insufficient drying) and harvesting. Mafuta Oil Millers. Mombasa.V.000 nuts are required to produce 1 ton of copra. Coir fibre can be spinned into yarn for making mats. brushes and brooms. madafu from immature nuts. Some farmers are known to use small copra dryers (using direct heating systems) which they use whenever sun-drying is not possible. the largest coconut plantation also used to have an oil mill but this is now no longer in operation. In addition. copra can also be dried using copra kilns. The other product whose full potential has not been exploited is the husk. Mombasa Oil Millers. From literature. In terms of coconut oil milling. in shimanzi. 1988). Kenya has 9 major oil mills operating in Coast Province which can process copra. ropes. among others.

1979). however almost all the nurseries collapsed after sometime. Coconut under food crops and weed free plots has higher yields. The Government in an effort to ensure quality supply of seedlings had established nurseries that produced planting materials for farmers at a fee. Fertilizer trials were set at Mtwapa and Matuga most of which were abandoned due to tree variability and poor yield (Eijnatten. In advanced stage. Crop husbandry has not been observed in many fields resulting in low yields and poor quality palms. Weeding has shown to have positive effects on yields. usually growing in bushes. especially in treatments where nitrogen was applied. Surveys done in Kenya have shown that Kenyan palms are relatively free of this disease. lack of maintenance of field hygiene and the old age of the trees. Hence low yield are common phenomenon particularly in the dry zone. Most of the trees nearer 40 and 60 years for dwarf and EAT variety respectively have low rate of production per annum. aged and poorly managed trees. Sculling and Mpunami (1991) suggested that selections could be done in Kenyan genotypes in search of resistance of lethal yellowing. The result of these trials gave an indication that fertilized trees yielded more. The unavailability of drought tolerant varieties is making replanting of coconut in these zones difficult. The result indicated that there was no significant difference among the treatment. Potassium (P) and Calcium (K) on the productivity of mature tall coconuts and to observe the influence of normal weed control of natural vegetation and ring weeding and mulching in a grassed coconut planting.6 Pests and diseases Surveys have established that several diseases affect coconuts production in the region which has not made it possible for the trees to reach the optimal level of production. May. mainly unselected EAT. 3. yellowing and browning of leaves starting from the base to the crown. followed by necrosis of the inflorescence. This coupled with no maintenance and no fertilizer application has resulted in trees producing 3 to 4 nuts per bunch per season. In 1979 fertilizer experiment was set up to study the influence of Nitrogen (N). Long term solution to this problem lies in the introduction of resistant Baseline Survey Report. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 12 .Coconut grows well in the Agro-ecological Coastal Lowland Zones CL2. The result may have been influenced by disease attack on the tree since it is known that coconut trees respond favorably to application of Fertilizer. the leaves fall down leaving only the trunk. The infected plants die within 4-6 months from the first symptoms. Bole rot disease which is caused by the fungus was shown to be the most important. According to the study conducted by Kinyua (1993). This has made most of the farms in Kenya to be planted with seedlings obtained from relatives and friends. It is the main cause of many dead standing trees in coconut field. These are sometimes low yielding. Typical symptoms of LYD observed include premature nut fall. The disease is capable of wiping out the whole coconut plantation (Odieki et al. CL3 and CL4 but frequent drought in these zones has been affecting coconut yields. Lethal Yellowing (LYD) is another disease caused by mycoplasma–like organisms. The old trees are neglected. management is a major problem contributing to poor performance of the palms. 1979). The low yield reported in most of the farms in Kenya is as a result of combination of two factors.

Uganda. This has created an opportunity for middlemen to take advantage of the situation to pay farmers uncompetitive prices for their produce Currently there are no strong cooperatives for coconut products and by-products. establish an Authority for promoting and fostering the development of the crop for such area. lack of transport and low prices. Liberalization of the economy as a result of Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) implemented in the country in early 1980s coupled with mismanagement led to the collapse of the coconut sub – sector. the development of the coconut industry was governed by two Acts of parliament. Lack of institutional support for the coconut sector has greatly contributed to low production. local consumption and neighboring country of Tanzania. by order in the Gazette. powers were vested in the Minister of Agriculture who has never gazetted coconut as a special crop3 which would have facilitated the establishment of a Board to oversee the development of the sub sector. poor marketing and lack of research and development for the coconut in Kenya.7 Marketing of coconut products Until early 1980’s the coconut sub-sector had well established cooperative societies.“The Coconut Industry Act” and Cap 332. while Cap 332 concentrated with the crop husbandry/management. Currently the major destination of coconut products and by-products are oil industries. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 13 . Lack of organized marketing has denied farmers bargaining power and opportunity to exploit potential markets in upcountry and neighboring countries of Tanzania. the study proposed physical removal. Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the Authority being made responsible for the development of more than one special crop’’ Baseline Survey Report. Cap 331 was mainly concerned with the marketing of the coconut and coconut products. Rwanda and Burundi. In post independence. May. killing using a wire and removal of dead logs to eliminate breeding grounds for the beetles. which facilitated the marketing of copra. Warui and Gethi (1980) gave a thorough review of these pests and proposed methods for controlling them. indicated that the major constraints facing the farmers in marketing of their produce is unreliable market. 3. A diagnostic study conducted by CDA in Kilifi District in November 2000.8 Legislation During the pre-independence period. Cap 331. The most important ones being rhinoceros beetle (Orctes monoceros) and coried bug (Pseudtheraptus wayi) which kills the coastal trees by destroying the terminal buds.varieties and strict quarantine against importation of seed from locations know to have the lethal yellowing disease. For rhinoceros beetle. 3. Omondi and Eijinatten (1980) further proposed use of chemical and biological control using Maji moto ants and Oecphylla lonnginoda. the minister shall after consultation with the Treasury. “Coconut Preservation Act”. 3 Cap 318 section 191 (1) of Agricultural Act ``Where a Crop is declared to be Special Crop under section 190. Insect pests have also played a big role in decline of coconut production. and consisting of such members as the minister shall in order specify. Marketing is generally carried out through middlemen and brokers with farmers selling on individual basis.

2007 Institution Development & Management Services 14 . May.PART TWO RESULTS OF THE SURVEY Baseline Survey Report.

427 39.8 million trees (38. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 15 . Table 4.9% 1.1 Overview The size and magnitude of the Coconut sub-sector has generally been unclear for quite some time. Kwale is however leading with 2. May. for this reason that the MoA has had in its annual plans for the Coast province. The large numbers of trees in Kwale are generally accounted for by the large scale growers in the District. 4. the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) has been providing estimates which many (including MoA) considered as rough working figures which could be used in the absence of more reliable estimates. not just of nuts but of all major products of the coconut tree produced at the farm level.414 1.2% 35.859 100% 81. this close tie between Kwale and Kilifi is however a fairly recent phenomenon.8% 6. number of farmers.4 million coconut trees in the province – a figure well over two thirds higher than the 4.7% 100% Average trees per farmer 111 99 70 64 76 36 94 From a geographical distribution view. size of land under production. As will be discussed in Section 5.4 MAGNITUDE OF THE SUB-SECTOR 4.1 Population of coconut trees in Coast Province by district District Number of coconut trees Number of farmers Number % Age Number Per cent Kwale 2. From official statistics as well as indications on the ground.3% 4. February 2007 32.3% 2.9 million trees accounting for 39.425.2 Population of trees Results of the coconut survey show that the population of coconut trees in Coast Province is much higher than what has generally been thought to exist. It is indeed.3% 17. and the value of annual production.347 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey. The rate of replanting of trees is however much lower in Baseline Survey Report. acreage and annual production of nuts.768 Tana River 140.841 Mombasa 136.997 13.978 38.4 million trees generally quoted in the past as the total population of trees in the province.105 5. Using population of trees.2% 8.8% 3. This section presents information on size and magnitude of the coconut sub-sector from four parameters commonly used in measurement of sub-sectors – the population of trees.831.201 Kilifi 2.013 Lamu 434.1% 28.784 Total 7.938 1. farmers have actually been replanting trees and there is quite a significant number of trees replanted in the last 20 years.0% of the total population of trees in the Province closely followed by Kilifi with 2.1%). Table 4. among them plantations such as the Msambweni Development Company with over 180.000 coconut trees.3% 14.895.1 shows that there are 7.0% 26. the survey shows that Kwale and Kilifi Districts have almost an equal number of coconut trees. contrary to what has been the generally held view that farmers were not replanting coconut trees any more and most trees were very old. intentions of carrying out this type of a study to establish a more reliable estimate of the sub-Sector.739 Malindi 986. this much higher figure may be explained by the fact that.

The other two districts in Coast province with significant population of coconut trees are Malindi with almost 1 million trees (13. On average.9% 26.328 1. ownership of coconut trees is shrouded in joint ownership by extended family members – i. could become a significant base for household livelihoods in the Coast Province. the survey shows that while coconut growing is still a smallholder crop in Kenya with over 60% of the farmers with 50 trees or less. The coconut survey instrument was however designed in full view of these complications and attempted to cover all coconut trees regardless of their ownership.2% 1.3% 11. Baseline Survey Report. May. the number of trees owned per farmer is still much higher than for most other tree crops4(Table 4.297 21 – 50 trees 21. From an overall perspective.5% 0.0% 4. As discussions in Section 5 will show.0% 100. these four districts account for over 96% of the total population of coconut trees in the province. comparable studies for mangos and avocados show that more than 50% of mango and avocado farmers have less than 10 trees of the crop (USAID/Kenya BDS program). Together.001 – 10.2). with proper care and development of the sub-sector.8%). In terms of tree holding per farmer. each farmer has 94 coconut trees which.000 trees 447 10.863 501 – 1. the rate of growth in population of coconut trees is almost three times higher in Kilifi than in Kwale. the farm in question has other farmers within who do not have full authority over the coconut trees but carry out other 4 Though fairly limited in terms of geographical coverage.0% 18.479 201 – 500 trees 5. Tana River and Mombasa districts are not significant producers of coconut although there are certain small pockets of the districts where there are significant concentrations (clusters) of coconut trees. These include Kipini in Tana River District and Kisauni and Likoni areas in Mombasa District.7% 13.3% of total population) and Lamu with close to half a million coconut trees (5.001 + trees 4 Total 81. In coast province.2 Number of trees per farmer Number of trees Number of farms/farmers Up to 10 trees 16.903 101 – 200 trees 9.6% 0.347 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.155 51 – 100 trees 14.000 trees 1.347 farmers who have distinct farms/plots planted with coconut trees. February 2007 Per cent 20.Kwale than in Kilifi. Table 4.7% 7.870 11 – 20 trees 11. These farms have a designate owner or farmer but in many cases. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 16 .3 Number of farmers The number of farmers involved in coconut farming is not a straightforward figure easily discernable from responses obtained from questions of who owns the trees. the case of fathers and their adult sons.1 (above) shows that there are 81. this is further complicated by the significant squatter and absentee landlord issue.e. Table 4. Like in the case of other tree crops that outlive generations.

3 Gender dimension in coconut farming. February 2007 87.000.000 – 200.3 is that women generally own fewer trees than men.340 100.0% 7. only 14% of coconut farmers are women. ownership of trees by men and women Farmers Number of trees Number Per cent Number Per Cent Male 69. women only account for 9.476.3 shows the gender dimensions in coconut farming. Men on the other hand comprise 85.3% of farmers s in the province cultivate farms planted with coconut trees.farming activities on the farm and are farmers in their own right. This is because coconut farming among smallholders is hardly ever done in pure stand and trees are generally scattered across the farm sometimes in a manner in which seedlings sprouted on their own but many cases following certain pattern of portions of the farm that are suitable for the crop (sandy sections or along valleys/rivers. May.3% 233. bixa and even some forestry Baseline Survey Report. mainly because the trees were planted by their parents who are still the owners or ownership is joint along with other members of the extended family (in case where the parents are not alive).1% 100.8% 730.989 Female 11. the results of the Survey suggest that the number of farmers who cultivate pieces of land planted with coconut trees are in the range of 140. An interesting aspect revealed in Table 4. and registered farming companies like Msambweni Development Company in Kwale District. While the proportion of women who own trees is 13. Table 4.285 Total 81. coconut trees will be found intercropped with other trees crops – mangos. Table 4. Many of these farmers however only cultivate the land but do not have ultimate say on the coconut trees in that land.923 Institution 221 0. In most of the cases.3% of farmers in Coast Province actually own trees. hotels.8% 3. between 55.859 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey. This number generally reflects the number of women-headed households among coconut farmers. there are many cases where it is actually the woman who planted the trees but ownership will still be vested in their husbands. From Ministry of Agriculture information that there are 252. Indeed.000 farmers involved in coconut farming.4 Acreage As is the case with other tree crops cultivated by smallholders in Kenya. results of the Survey therefore suggest that although only 32. it was quite clear that ownership of trees is generally in the hands of the elderly – generally reflecting the fact that most of the trees where planted by the generations who had land ownership in the 1970s or earlier. Using information from questions of who owns the land and who owns the trees. citrus.2% of the trees. As would be expected from a cultural perspective where land and permanent crops are generally owned by men. cashew.9% of the farmers but own 87. A small but significant number of trees are owned by institutions – government institutions such as the Navy in Mtonwge.265 13.9% 6.090 farm families in Coast province. While the survey did not dwell on aspects of the youth (or age for that matter).837 85. This figure of farmers is generally in line with past general view that there are between 120. acreage under coconut cultivation is not a straightforward issue.5% and 79.2% 9.0% 4. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 17 . This does however not imply that women are not involved in coconut farming but merely the cultural practice where women are generally not regarded as de facto owners of the trees.8%.425.000 to 200.8% of the tree population.

427 26.522 56. During the coconut survey it came out clear that farmers generally know the total size of land they own but have difficulties in telling the exact size they have planted with coconut. On the ground.731 4.66 1. For comparison purposes only. these are intermixed with other crops. Baseline Survey Report.997 14. Hectarage imputed from recommended spacing is therefore not a very meaningful measure of size/magnitude of the sector. the population of coconut trees now established to be in existence would occupy 60.20 2. February 2007 The general approach used by the Ministry of Agriculture in calculating acreage for tree crops is to estimate the number of trees there are and then impute the size of land they would occupy if they were planted on pure stand using recommended spacing dimensions.859 81. Results of the survey show that Kenya’s total land under coconut cultivation currently stands at slightly over 200.4).414 1. even where there are trees.425. others even more squeezed.433 hectares under coconut in 2004 were computed. For coconut. It is through this method that the MoA figures in Table 2.268 22.347 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey. from the hectarage in the hands of coconut farmers it is clear that the potential for expansion in the population of trees is enormous.crops. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 18 . it is indeed interesting that trees are much more closely spaced many with 4 – 5 meter spacing. it is in the area of production where estimations have been grossly understated.831. May.895. While it is generally known that the coconut tree has many products.326 3. It is therefore difficult to estimate the exact acreage under coconut cultivation as some portions of land will have no trees at all while.768 Tana River 140.201 Kilifi 2.938 3.96 1.30 1.36 2.739 Malindi 986.105 6.978 28. generally mixed with other crops. From an overall perspective.841 Mombasa 136.398 27. the recommended spacing by MoA is 9mx9m and this is what the Ministry has been using to impute the land under coconut cultivation in the past. 4.013 Lamu 434.3 showing 42.862 4.95 3.000 hectares (Table 4.128 hectares equivalent. It is however important to note that this is the total size of land owned by coconut farmers in which certain portions are planted with coconut. results of the survey show that.5 Production Although official statistics have generally underestimated the magnitude of the coconut sub-Sector in terms of the population of trees and the related acreage.4 Size of land under coconut production (in hectares) Number of trees Number of Total land under Size of land per farmers coconut farmer (ha) 86.534 202.784 Total 7. Table 4.49 District Trees per hectare 33 50 36 19 28 30 37 Kwale 2. planted on pure stand and on the recommended 9mx9m spacing.

43 15.84 113.55 1.33 10. Institution Development & Management Services Baseline Survey Report. a Kshs 1.56 10.06 379. This figure is much higher than most other tree crops in Kenya. coconut oil and other products of the coconut tree account for the remaining 1%of the value of the sub-sector.68 0. An interesting finding of the survey is that a large proportion (83. the coconut sub-Sector is a Kshs 3.898.85 553.2 billion industry even just considering production at the farm level.17 5.15 97. The number of farmers involved in wine production is even much lower with only 36% of farmers.77 32.13 650. Table 4. other than nut production which is widespread across all coconut growing areas.56 Mombasa 26. The bulk (60.43 Tana River 2.1%) of the value of production is accounted for by wine which is. Other significant products of the coconut palm at the farm level are Makuti (roofing materials) accounting for 12% of the value of production and brooms (3. on its own.18 1. As will be discussed in Section 6.79 27.47 79. Feb 2007 The potential of the sub-sector in terms of production is however still understated by these figures owing to the fact that only a small proportion of the farmers are involved in production of some of the major products.39 0. 5 The Survey instrument was framed to capture “what was harvested” and “what was sold”.official statistics have only reported on nut production. The remaining portion (17%) of production is generally what is consumed (or used) by the family or shared with friends and relatives.9 billion industry at the farm level. Table 4. otherwise it will not be harvested in the first place5.43 Lamu 67. Copra is no longer a major product of coconut at the farm level. involved in production. Nut production account for less than a quarter (23. most in Kilifi District. only 41% harvest the immature nut – madafu.92 66.5 Value of annual production of various coconut products at farm level in 2006 (in Kshs million) District Mature Nuts Immature Wine Makuti Brooms Other Total Nuts (Madafu) Kwale 191.6%) of the value of production. taking all products into consideration. in a strict sense. Using information provided by farmers for year 2006. it is clear that while most (90%) farmers produce dry nuts.58 83.75 28.34 11.07 87.50 9.12 102. other products are in a large way localized to specific zones where a market has developed over time.8%).24 248. It is however plausible given that the nature of most products of the coconut palm are.26 2.18 2.31 18.62 Kilifi 234. This portion is however.79 31. In general.0%) of reported production is marketed.06 Malindi 133. May.73 1.68 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey. The emergent market for coco-wood of coconut trees.01 3.164.3%).177.5 shows that.03 6. 2007 19 .53 0.68 7.07 8. coir. non-food and therefore generally what is harvested is sold.52 3.30 167.70 395.08 7. The proportion of farmers producing Makuti stands at 65% while the comparable proportion for those involved in broom production is only about a quarter (25.3 136.58 Total 656.705. to a large extent accounted for by farmers who do not participate in the market (largely having few trees) at all rather than significant portions of reported production not getting to the market.

9% 22.8% 33.346 41 – 60 years 606.1(b) The age of coconut trees in coast province (per centages) Age category Kwale Kilifi Malindi Lamu T.895.427 2. Together.799 51.473 334.2% of the population of trees.8% 31. The section also looks at the different varieties of trees and the extent to which farmers are adopting newer varieties.242 26.0% 36.257 32.770 642.0% 100.490 29.831.877 676.7% 12.797 336.1% of the trees while the next age category of 6 – 20 year-old trees account for 25.8% of the total population of trees while trees in the age category of 41 – 60 comprise 20. accounting for 31.956 160.0% 100.0% 0.627 113.786 1.1% 23.3% 21 – 40 years 30.997 434. Table 5.2 The age of trees Results of the Survey show that contrary to earlier generally held view that about 50% of all coconut trees are over 60 years of age. these two young age categories of trees of 0 – 20 years account for 40% of the total population of trees.1% 14. the changes taking place that are influencing the current situation in the sector and the likely trends in the future.964 30.2% of the total population are actually in this category of senile trees (see Table 5.0% 100.1% 8.0% 23.217 19.2% 61 + years 11.843 118. The largest proportion of trees is in the age category of 21 – 40 years.0% Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.2% 7.251 26.8%. 2007 20 .458 160.1 Overview This section looks at the dynamics of the coconut sub-sector.050.137 4. February 2007 Total 14.600 7.414 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.1 (a) The age of coconut trees in coast province Age category Kwale Kilifi Malindi Lamu T.0% 0.007 21 – 40 years 891.849 80.3% 22. a much smaller proportion of coconut trees accounting for only 8.773 220.7% 34. Institution Development & Management Services Baseline Survey Report.938 Total 1.3% 26. On the other hand.615 861 61 + years 324.5% 49.8% 2.0% 100.780 136.105 140.914.1% 37.0% 100.321 2. River 0 – 5 years 395. May.9% 20.0% 16.9% 12.364.7% 1. It begins by exploring the age structure of the existing tree population and goes further to look at the rate at which farmers are planting new trees or cutting down old ones to give a of picture of the entire pipeline of trees from planting to old-age and felling. 5.044 608.9% Total 100.591 69.859 Table 5.2% 100. River Mombasa 0 – 5 years 13.488 69.1% 14.379 959.716 340.6% 19.513 155 Total 2.4% 21.978 986. unequivocally allaying earlier held fears that most of coconut trees are already too old and farmers are not replanting new trees.4% 41 – 60 years 21.0% 16.9% 18.425.0% 6 The Tall variety starts producing at the age of 5 – 7 while the Dwarf variety starts at 3 – 5 years. February 2007 Mombasa 19.9% 33. young trees before the bearing age (0-5)6 constitute 14.6% 6 – 20 years 23.230 1.499.1% 25.750 6 – 20 years 692.5 SECTOR DYNAMICS 5.1 (a) & (b)).

on average. Only 17. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 21 . For Kwale. this situation is generally accounted for by the old plantations in the district and in Mombasa it is largely due to low rate of replanting of trees pushed by the pressures of urbanization. many of them interlard in new settlements and further from the main roads have entered into coconut farming. Overall. those who get in. for instance Kilifi through Kaloleni. One possible explanation for the variance between the reality on the ground and generally held perceptions that most trees are old. Information showing that optimal productivity of coconut is achieved in trees up to the age of 30. The situation on the ground is that while in the 60s and early 70s most coconut trees were in the hands of few but larger-scale farmers (including plantations in the whole stretch of Likoni through Msambweni). Further analysis of Survey data reveals that a significant part of the growth in trees is accounted for by farmers who are new entrants in farming of the crop. the overall position looks fairly healthy where there seems to be a fairly good impetus towards replenishing old trees. plant more trees than their counterparts in the other districts.000 trees each year for varying range of reasons giving a net growth of slightly over 160.4%) of trees in the declining-productivity age categories of over 40 years.On the whole. things have changed over time and many more farmers. 57% of farmers have trees in the 0 – 5 year age category. Table 5.2 %.6% of farmers have trees aged over 60 years while on the other hand. there are geographical variations in the distribution of trees particularly in the older age categories. Msambweni through Shimba hills or even the settlement schemes of Lamu district easily confirms to the keen eye that it is not true that most coconut trees are in the senile age. On the other hand. for instance. farmers are planting well over 300. While it is true that productivity in the sub-sector cannot be optimized when there is still large portions (currently 28. Peoples’ perceptions have however continued to be driven by the high visibility of the increasingly aging and neglected trees in the old areas of high concentration of trees. For senile trees. the Table shows that Kwale and Mombasa disproportionately have more trees in this age category than the other districts and together hold almost 60% of all senile trees. however reminds us that it is important that the trend towards increased replanting of trees is build on as the proportion of trees beyond this optimal productivity age of 30 years is slightly over 44%. the overall picture emerging is that things are not as bleak as earlier held views seemed to suggest. From Kwale to Lamu. Table 5. A drive through the districts. is that a large proportion of the trees we have today has not come from planting of new trees by farmers who were doing coconut farming in the colonial and early years of the 1960s.3 Growth in the population of trees Computations generated from a comparison of the number of coconut trees planted in year 2006 against the number of trees cut down during the year shows that the population of coconut trees is generally on the rise at a crude annual rate of 2. May. This Table further reveals that although Kwale District has a disproportionately lower number of new farmers entering into coconut cultivation. Baseline Survey Report.2). 5.1(b) shows that although the general age structure applies across the districts.000 trees every year (Table 5. but rather from new entrants in the farming of coconut.000 coconut trees every year. farmers are planting new trees and have been doing so for many years now. with Kwale alone having over 50% of this category of trees.3 shows that almost 8% of the farmers involved in coconut farming today have started cultivation of the crop only in the last 5 years accounting for slightly over 9% of young trees in the age group of 0 – 5 years. farmers are cutting down slightly over 150.

2.8 Lamu 1. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 22 .156 8.Table 5. Table 5.615 26.5%) closely followed by Malindi with an annual growth rate of 4.938 Total 7. and suggests a trend towards a return of larger-scale coconut farming in Kwale compared to the other Districts.2 Kilifi 1.887 160.831. Baseline Survey Report. On the reverse however.5% meaning that.1 Tana River 182 581 3 Mombasa 500 4.2 Estimated rate of coconut re-planting District Number of Coconut trees Coconut trees Net trees trees in 2006 planted in cut down in planted in 2006 2006 2006 Kwale 2.997 54.3%. The Table shows that the rate of growth of trees in Mombasa is negative 36.4% 4.243 -49.888 22.2 4.427 87.347 Kilifi 2.716 10.492 Malindi 986.938 5.491 152.5 2. these results show a higher adoption rate in coconut farming among farmers in the other districts. Likoni) cut down trees as part of their strategy for claiming rights of ownership.105 Tana River 140.456 99.885 126.3 Total 6. An interesting finding depicted in Table 5.604 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.305 55.191 15.3% -36.1 4.414 Mombasa 136.978 166. results of the Survey show that the growth rate in tree population varies by district with the highest growth taking place in Kilifi District (4.703 Lamu 434. February 2007 Referring back to Table 5.518 46. Kwale district has a growth rate of only 1.0 Malindi 1.4 2.4 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.171 41. February 2007 Ratio of planted: cut down 2.078 25. from this aspect that there are also quite a number of new trees planted during the year. This is of course easy to understand as this is a phenomenon driven by pressures of urbanization.859 313.2 is that coconut farming is fast declining in Mombasa district.003 12. The more than triple growth rate in tree population in Kilifi compared to Kwale may explain how Kilifi has edged up over the years to now almost have the same population of trees as Kwale which in the past was considered as the clear leader in coconut farming.7 -10. At this trend.564 15. A significant part of the heavy cutting down of trees in 2006 is however also explained by the squatter/absentee landlord issue where squatters in a few areas (Bamburi. It is perhaps.096 12. it will not take long before Kilifi takes lead in the population of trees as it has already become leading in terms of coconut farmers.2% This is partly explained by the lower population density in Kwale and the related availability of land.3 Number of farmers who have entered into coconut farming over the last 5 years. May.895.4% partly explained by the higher rate of cutting down of trees and fewer farmers entering into the cultivation of the crop.5% 4. many areas of Mombasa will no longer be considered to have significant coconut farming activities in a few years and coconut trees will become more ornamental/aesthetic just like it has become in the island and other parts of urban Mombasa.291 11. at this rate. by District District Number of farmers Number of trees Average trees per farmer Kwale 1.1 Growth rate 1.588 42.377 39.425.267 33.

Dwarf variety and Highbrid variety obtained from a mix of the Tall and Dwarf varieties. For instance.978 100. From literature and information generated during the survey pre-testing stage. soil conditions and diseases. there are about 11 sub-varieties of the Tall variety.427 122. Out of these varieties.997 53. Orange Dwarf. it was established that the only major varieties in Kenya ere the EAT and the Dwarf varieties. flooding.4 is however that combining the number of dead trees with those in the senile category of over 60 years gives us a total of almost 1.895. Since the questionnaires were administered in local languages. For simplicity.210 1. The other factor relates to the population of dead trees. February 2007 Total stock coconut trees 3.Table 5.895 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.606 5. during training of Enumerators.367 Lamu 434.938 4. The survey instrument therefore had questions on desegregation of the total number of trees owned by the farmer between the EAT variety and the Dwarf variety. and Green Dwarf.105 140.852 779.412 Kilifi 2.105 Tana River 140.301.151 3.193 279.075 195.077 Total 7. One of these areas relates to the availability of seedlings at the farmer level.039 Malindi 986.287 8. There are three major sub-varieties of the Dwarf Variety – the Yellow Dwarf. there are numerous highbrid varieties developed for suitability for various products and agro-ecological adaptability. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 23 .414 Mombasa 136. the local terms for these two varieties “Kongoo” for EAT and “Mitsemire” for the Dwarf variety were used and enumerators instructed to use these local terms. it came out that there were significant numbers of Dwarf trees contrary to expectations.831. May. From the first batch of questionnaires returned from the field.414 163.4 shows key areas to watch in the process of ensuring a continued growth in the population of trees. Table 5. All District Teams were therefore reminded to re-instruct enumerators to use the local terms to distinguish Baseline Survey Report.4 million trees that could be immediately available for coco-wood exploitation. respectively.272 22.859 279.312 283. the varieties in the questionnaire were distinguished as “Tall” and “Short” for “East African Tall variety” and “Dwarf variety”. While many of the dead trees are as a result of age.4 The stock of coconut trees in various points of the pipeline District Total life trees in farm Coconut Seedlings – Dead trees (still not yet transplanted standing in farm) Kwale 2. in Africa alone.485.235.4 Coconut Varieties Information from Literature shows that there are three broad varieties of coconut grown around the World – the Tall variety.211. each generally associated with a region such as the East African Tall (EAT) variety generally found along Eastern Africa. An important thing to note from Table 5.425. there are strong indications that drying in some areas is as a result of other factors – drought.439 434. There are however many sub-varieties found among each of these main varieties. Results of the survey show that few farmers have good access to quality seedlings.

Orange and Green Dwarfs were also observed among farmers.600 Mombasa 126.1% 10. with Malindi having a disproportionately higher percentage of this newer variety.136 94. 8 It is however noteworthy that a number of the sub-varieties of the Dwarf variety – Yellow.763 97.013 100.0% Number Per cent Number Kwale 2.6% 7.6% 924.9% 14.931 Malindi 760.201 100.116 90.4% 1.1% 226.120 82.8% 27.9% 6.0% 100.4% 919 24.955 28.0% 336.0% 100.012 33. Table 5.997 434. traditional / ‘indigenous’ variety introduced in Kenya.6 shows that EAT is not just the variety with the highest number of tree population but also the one most widely adopted by farmers with 95% of coconut farmers cultivating this variety. Results of the survey under this section of “Varieties” should therefore be treated with this caution.841 100.427 2.the varieties to eliminate the possibility of returns showing Dwarf variety when the farmer on meant the trees that are still short in height (and not necessarily of the dwarf variety) 7. so to speak.4% 2.768 100.6% 1.358 32.784 100.0% Malindi 12. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 24 .855 Total 6.895.0% Kwale 25.414 136.419 90.2% 564 30.299 96.831. February 2007 7 Though the Survey team took these necessary steps in getting enumerators to ask the right question to farmers regarding varieties. The Survey however only picked out differences between the East African Tall and the Dwarf varieties.347 100.0% Tana River 1.981 92.982 92.2% 81. District Table 5.6% 9. Results of the Survey show that Kenya cultivates only two of the main varieties – the East African Tall and the Dwarf varieties8.501. It is therefore interesting that there are actually a small but significant proportion of farmers (4%) who have opted to only concentrate in cultivating the Dwarf variety.6% 4.0% 282. Baseline Survey Report. there are variations observed in some areas that have a higher concentration of the Dwarf variety than others.127 Lamu 401.455 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey. Table 5.609 Kilifi 2.859 Per cent 100.938 7.0% Lamu 6.0% 22.0% 100.0% Mombasa 3.5 shows that the majority of coconut trees are of the East African Tall variety accounting for slightly over 87% of the trees with only 12% of the trees being of the Dwarf variety.9% 12.511 95.6 Distribution of coconut tree varieties among farmers Tall variety Dwarf Variety Total District Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent * Kilifi 27.4% 3.975 77.4% Number 2.780 90. While this pattern holds across all districts. May.6% 28.547.0% 100. February 2007 Table 5.548.0% 100.404 87.0% 10.0% Note: * Row total reflects total population of coconut farmers in district rather than raw total Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.933 Tana River 136.539 88.888 34.425.0% Total 77.105 140.7% 9.978 986.739 100. This is not surprising given that this is the. it is still possible that some of the returns (responses) for Dwarf variety actually mean just short trees of the EAT variety.9% 7.329 35.0% 100.6% 31.6% 26.3% 3.808 98.5 Geographical distribution of coconut trees in coast province by variety Tall variety Dwarf Variety Total Per cent 12.

Given that cultivar selection is a critical factor in determining productivity and management of costs and possible risks (from pest/disease. the Dwarf variety is now cultivated by 33% of coconut farmers. Baseline Survey Report. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 25 . While the Survey did not go into details of why farmers opt to cultivate one variety and not the other or the combinations they have of the two.Much more recently introduced in Kenya. May. and drought tolerance through selection of more tolerant varieties). indications are that the introduction of new varieties has not been properly guided and farmers have generally been left to make decisions on the variety to grow based on their own observations or what they hear from others. it is obvious that the area of varieties is a key aspect that calls for attention at research level.

657 (90. immature nut (madafu).68 26.1 Overview This section explores the various products of the coconut tree to look at the true value of the sub-sector and analyze the various segments (products) that may be driving or slowing down growth among farmers.80 Total 81.249 82. wine.579. perhaps the most important across the board of all farmers. roofing materials (makuti).00 Tana River 1. As discussed in Section 4.1%) 162.15 Baseline Survey Report. Unlike most of the other products.1 Annual production and marketing of mature nuts in 2006 District Total Number of Total volume Per cent of Average prices farmers farmers involved of production production (in Kshs) in production (in pieces) marketed Kwale 26.3%) 61. Each of these products is analyzed.347 72.60 Lamu 6.076.615 74.739 25. it was however clearly shown that this product comprises only a small portion (20%) of the total value of production of the subsector.0% 3.31 234.780.75 67. It is however still one of the most important products – the second in overall ranking of value.00 Mombasa 3.486 (89. From a perspective of participation of farmers.141.784 3.377 (88. is many times considered as the main product of the coconut tree and it is indeed this product that has conventionally been captured in official documents in Kenya regarding production of the coconut sub-sector. the mature nut can however still be regarded as the most commonly produced product and therefore.77 133.203 91. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 26 .7%) 29. Feb 2007 Value of production (in Kshs mln) 191.08 2.540 90.768 6.7% 7.7% 3.345 (93. 6. A few farmers may also not be producing nuts because they have decided to exclusively focus on wine production which generally means cutting off the inflorescence for the wine tapping purpose.885 69.037 (80.321 85.267 (92.1% 4.013 12.8%) 13. the coconut per se.56 656.60 Kilifi 28. almost all farmers who cultivate the coconut palm are involved in production of mature nut (Table 6.80 Malindi 14.0) 382. there are six main products of the coconut tree produced at the farm level – the mature nut. The number of farmers not in production generally reflects newcomer farmers whose trees are not yet in the production age as well as a few farmers whose trees are very old or planted in zones unsuitable for coconut farming that they are hardly producing any nuts. proportion of production that is marketed and the prevailing prices in the different geographical areas.829 80.6 PRODUCTS AND MARKET ISSUES 6.1% 5.376.3%) 4.0% 4. looking at the proportion of farmers involved in production. May. generally after 60 years. Table 6.011 (85.0% 5.841 1.201 24.415. From our discussions in Section 4 earlier.1).2 Mature Nuts Mature nut. the total volume of production. and the wood of the tree which is a high value hardwood once the tree becomes senile and no longer productive.6%) 53.00 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.

2% 5.7%) 4. coconut wine can be regarded as the main product of the coconut tree and it appears to be the one that is driving growth in the sub-sector. This is however a difficult product that is embroiled in faith-based (religious) and legality questions. Mombasa stands out as the highest producer of madafu.098 61.55 6. This is because madafu is merely the same nut only that it is harvested before it matures.7%) 3.00 Mombasa 3.739 12.330 (52.647. or possibly due to smaller size of nuts as quite a number of the trees are much older than in the other districts.5% 5. 85% is marketed with Kwale leading in the proportion of production marketed (91.92 97.2% 5.039 67.519.2 there are strong suggestions that the market for madafu is not widespread and it is.1% 5.0%) 35.65 Malindi 14.201 8.810 54.465.00 per piece although in some areas they range from as low as Kshs 1 -2 to as high as Kshs 7 – 10 in areas close to the market.33 0.205 (40. Surprisingly though.784 1. again possibly explained by the drive of the Mombasa urban market.6% 5.Table 6. Prices for madafu are generally in the range of Kshs 5.473 (80.00 Tana River 1. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 27 .851169 84.20 Lamu 6. This is perhaps due to the large portion of marketed production. It also appears to be a fairly narrow market.3 Immature Nuts (Madafu) In official statistics Madafu are normally combined with mature nuts to give an indication of production of the coconut sub-sector.283 (42. Table 6.230 (62.4%) 17.293 (31.114 82. May.8% 6. The farmer has therefore the option of selling the immature nut or waiting until it matures to sell it as dry nut. Out of the total production.2%) 1. generally to be consumed as a soft beverage.24 32.347 35.70 7.013 7.596 (42.00 Kilifi 28. Malindi is the leading producer of madafu.1%) 1. From a price perspective. Why would the farmer then wait for many more weeks for the nut to mature only to sell it for a lower price? From Table 6. On a proportional perspective (per farmer) however. Table 6.364 23.90 Total 81. Perhaps due to the high concentration of the Dwarf variety coconut and possibly the vibrant tourist market.768 4.4 Palm Wine (Toddy) As highlighted briefly in Section 4.3% 5. perhaps driven by a ready urban market. particularly given the bulky nature of the product and the fact that it is much more perishable than the mature nut. It is therefore perhaps from this perspective that many have shied away from viewing this product as the Baseline Survey Report.18 28. 6.18 10.2 Annual production and marketing of immature nuts (madafu) in 2006 District Total Number of Total volume Per cent of Average prices farmers farmers involved of production production (in Kshs) in production (in pieces) marketed Kwale 26.60 per nut across the District during the year (2006).5% 5.841 1.5.2 however suggests that the question of selling madafu or waiting to sell the mature nut may not be a simple decision in the hands of the farmer but more so dictated by the market.50 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.1 shows that Kilifi is the leading producer of mature nuts with an annual production of close to 62 million pieces.7%) compare to Mombasa where only 69% of production is sold. Feb 2007 Value of production (in Kshs mln) 18. it would appear that simple business sense would dictate that farmers should sell their nut as madafu as the price for this product across the board is generally higher than that of the dry (mature) nut.358. closely followed by Kwale district with annual production 53 million pieces. it is also in Kwale were prices are lowest averaging Kshs 3. in terms of value of production.839.484 15.

3%) 3. prices are good.5%) 539.279 100. Malindi and Mombasa where this has evolved to a level of an industry on its own. Table 6. wine is still the product contributing highest to the total value of production.784 1. after wine and mature nuts.342 83. generating hundreds of millions of shillings annually. only 36% of farmers are involved in production.808 (41. not sold exactly in its original form of production.688 79.841 184 (10. The makuti making process is predominantly carried out by women although increasingly there are also many men involved as the value chain has increasingly become commercialized. Compared to the other products.00 Malindi 14. Feb 2007 Value of production (in Kshs mln) 248.3 Annual production and marketing of coconut wine in 2006 District Total Number of Total volume of Per cent of Average farmers farmers involved production production prices in production (in 750ml bottles) marketed (in Kshs) Kwale 26.014.00 Tana River 1.479 (17.79 66.013 5.0% 20.2% 18. but the stage seems to be all set for larger numbers to join in.0%) Mombasa 3.8%) 18.80 Lamu 6.267 92.4 shows that this is the third major product of the coconut tree.3%) 65. at times is also sold to those involved in makuti making.5%) 21.growth engine of the sub-sector.482 (36. however.739 15. It is however noteworthy that.06 6. It is generated from the coconut leave locally called Kanja which.5% 13. Baseline Survey Report.496. Kilifi District has the highest level of participation by farmers. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 28 . From a perspective of participation by farmers.45 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.5 Roofing materials (Makuti) Makuti as a product of the coconut trees can be regarded as a secondary product. usually at a fairly low price averaging Kshs 2.383 93.347 28.177.00 Total 81.959 83.43 1.47 1. From a geographical distribution view.261 (33.405.07 10.768 846 (12. even in the districts of low production such as Kwale.80 Kilifi 28. At the moment. Lamu and Tana River districts have fairly small production of wine compared to Kilifi.9% 17.460.005. Table 6.898. overall. the reality on the ground is that this is the commodity that is generating the highest value from the coconut tree and seems set to continue doing so as a nascent market seems to be sending signals to farmers that this is where he returns are.1%) 108.1% 18. the income flow is on a daily basis unlike the nature of the other products. legislative or social prejudices (and image) of coconut wine. It is perhaps from this consideration that Kwale.904 (55.30 395. it is quite clear that religion plays a major role and wine production is generally heavy outside areas where the Islamic faith has strong roots. the market seems to be there even at the local level.201 4. and perhaps even most attractive. 65% of all coconut farmers are involved in its production. Irrespective of religious. this can be regarded as the second most important (widespread) product after dry nuts as.2% 19. May.

201 15.841 736 (40. predominantly processed and traded by women.6 Brooms Brooms constitute the other major product obtained from the coconut leave ( Kanja). The average price Baseline Survey Report.032 86.80 Kilifi 28.515.52 27.760. Feb 2007 Average prices (in Kshs) 8.692 (25.077 (73. others taking advantage of available market opportunities – 75% of the farmers sold the trees they cut down.132 85.448.660.0%) 549.739 21.9% Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.0%) 17. Some of the price differentials shown in Table 6.Table 6. The production of brooms is however not as widespread among farmers as some of the other products and it only 27% of all farmers who are involved in its production.7 Coco-wood In year 2006.2% 5.7% 7. brooms are a secondary product. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 29 .75 10.1% 4. Table 6.670 (59. the coconut tree produces a hardwood in the class of mahogany and other high-value hardwoods.84 0.7% Total 81. Table 6.768 4.7%) 80.3%) 33.53 15.847 80.975 90. Feb 2007 Value of production (in Kshs mln) 79.013 8.7%) 2. Well matured to over 60 years.118 52. others for ridding the farm of unproductive trees.284 (42.4%) 749.58 87.653 (68. This reflects the emerging market for coco-wood.50 3.1%) 322.1% 4.549.999 89.34 102.2% Malindi 14.10 13.65 Total 81.8% 4.03 379.895.30 10.5 may be accounted for by different sizes of the brooms produced from different clusters.79 6.5% 3.50 Lamu 6.5% Mombasa 3.404 80.784 695 (18.108 61. In general. Although the reasons for cutting down the trees varied – some for clearing the land for other uses. May.00 8.912.931 12.8%) 3. While this is true and coco-wood furniture is a highly priced product generally for high-value niche markets.956 (51. Table 6.347 53. 21% of coconut farmers cut down one or more of their trees. again.00 Tana River 1.201 4.7% Tana River 1.5 shows that this is a product generally produced for the market as 87% of production is marketed at prices that vary from one district to another by generally average in the region of Kshs 11 per piece. Just like makuti.442 (64.452 (17.60 Mombasa 3.50 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.467 81.347 21.3% Lamu 6.8%) 20. prices are highly varied ranging from as low as Kshs 50 or less per tree to as high as Kshs 500 in some areas.8%) 19.4 Annual production and marketing of roofing materials (makuti) in 2006 District Total Number of Total volume of Per cent of Average farmers farmers involved production production prices in production (in pieces) marketed (in Kshs) Kwale 26.057.68 83.795 79.0%) 8.0%) 1.784 1.289 (70.17 6.841 1. some to obtain building/fencing poles.7%) 6.5 Annual production and marketing of brooms in 2006 District Total Number of Total volume of Per cent of farmers farmers involved production production in production (in pieces) marketed Kwale 26.39 2.050 63.20 12.797 (62.07 167.809.115 (15.013 2.00 Malindi 14.12 6.768 1.10 Value of production (in Kshs mln) 8.254 86.367 88.26 0.773 80.6% 5.45 11.6 shows that this market has not yet fully developed to reach the farmer with benefits of high prices.739 12.974 (27.2% Kilifi 28.

however is in the region of Kshs 250 – 300 per good sized tree going to the furniture industry.201 6.2% 170 Kilifi 28. Pwani Oil millers.8% 204 Total 81.588 63.3 shillings per nut is some areas. Table 6. 10 Mr. Kisumu Wallah Millers in Shimanzi. Mombasa.6 Annual production and marketing of coco-wood in 2006 District Total Number of Total volume of Per cent of Average farmers farmers involved production production prices in production (in trees) marketed (in Kshs) Kwale 26. Feb 2007 Value of production (in Kshs mln) 7.347 17. Coco Industries ltd. While the general farm gate prices are still low. Baseline Survey Report. cosmetics.8% 184 Lamu 6. Samuel Nyale of Kilifi/Malindi (over 20 years in coconut business). The team also made some 10 repeat visits to a sample of 40 randomly selected villages in the four survey districts. Malindi Industries. and Msambweni Development Company’s oil mill.182 152. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 30 . In general.784 763 55.013 2. there are still some that are in operation dealing in coconut oil. Diamond Oil Millers. Kwale (over 10 years in coconut) and Mr.644 coconut farmers interviewed during the survey across the 1.3% 212 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.3 31. the Tanzanian market has opened up as a key destination for Kenyan nuts and this has pushed up prices significantly from what they used to be in the past. Unlike in the 9 Eastern oil Millers (Lola Lola) in Changamwe Mombasa.841 Mombasa 3. Following an initial vetting of the draft survey report with a small number of experts on the coconut industry in Kenya. Discussions with the oil millers show that while some have closed down and others stopped producing coconut oil.723 villages in Coast Province marking the coconut belt however indicate that the situation has changed and copra in no longer a main product at the farm level. Mombasa Oil Millers.007 11. Mombasa.414 46. Kwale (over 20 years in coconut business). the survey team made follow-up interviews with all the major Coconut Oil milling industries9 (both in operation and those that have closed down).8 Copra Copra used to be one of the major products of the coconut tree at the farm level in the past. Mombasa. sometimes ranging as low as 2.998 39. Mohamed Mwachome. the indication is that copra is no longer a profitable product at the farmer level as a kilogram of copra is bought at Kshs 5 – 7.73 2. as well as a number of the coconut traders10 who used to supply copra to the milling industries. Pereira & Sons Ltd.885 83. this price is still much higher than that of copra. Mombasa. To many people knowledgeable of the coconut industry in Kenya.171 82. Mafuta Oil Millers. Msambweni (no longer in operation). a trader in Msambweni. Information from the 62. Prices are much lower for trees used for building/fencing poles making the general average price stand at Kshs 212.768 Tana River 1.85 9. Since it takes 5 – 7 nuts to produce a kilogram of copra.01 6.13 11. farm gate.739 7. Ali Omar Mwamtitiyo of Tiwi. Information obtained from this post-survey assessment confirms that copra is no longer a significant product at the firm level. Malindi. May.887 75. farmers would rather sell their nuts in the form of dry nut at prevailing prices instead of spending time to crash them to obtain copra which is then sold for a much lower per unit price. candle and some even refined further as edible oil.8% 244 Malindi 14. Over the years. this is a surprising outcome as copra used to be the main product of coconut with 9 main milling industries established in the coastal region to produce coconut oil for various end uses including soap manufacture. Mombasa (now closed).243 65.

however. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 31 . copra has become an unattractive product to farmers across the coast region. those millers interested in copra are now forced to buy the dry nut and crush it themselves.past. This is the same line of story told by the traders who are very clear that particularly due to price increases caused by competition for nuts from traders from Tanzania. May. Baseline Survey Report. where the millers would buy copra produced by farmers.

To the extent to which production clusters can be said to exist in the case of coconut and be actually identifiable. although Kilifi does not have any cluster with over 400. then it would mean that the sub-sector has nodes from which business relations can easily be developed.7 PRODUCTION CLUSTERS AND SPATIAL VARIATIONS 7. Some of these clusters are really big in terms of number of trees with Mivumoni and Kinondo clusters in Kwale District being the largest each with well over 400. growth and overall transformation of sectors.000 coconut trees within a radius of 5-8 Kilometers. say a radius of 5 or so Kilometers which makes it easy to enjoy economies of scale such as joint sourcing of services and attracting customers to the market due to volume of production.2 Tree population-based production clusters There is no standard way of defining production clusters in agriculture. It looks at clusters from two perspectives – the mere concentration of the population of trees in certain areas and the concentration of production of specific coconut products within certain geographical areas. results of the Survey show that the distribution of the population of coconut trees in Coast Province is in such a way that there are clearly identifiable production clusters. On the other hand. Malindi has 6 production clusters mainly in Magarini and Malindi Divisions. In general however. the concentration of trees is more evenly spread across most of the clusters in a way that.1 (and Map 1) shows that there are 36 production clusters across the entire stretch of the coastal belt. the cluster will be in such a way that producers have some common points such access road or a shopping centre (ease to organize into a common collection point or route) and possibly a common defining feature such as a sub-Location (village) etc which makes it easy for them to find a common unifying point in the event of organization. these are also areas where targeted interventions can be made geared at influencing growth of the entire sub-sector.1 Overview Development theory and practice gives a lot of importance to the phenomenon of enterprise clustering in driving innovations. Mombasa on the other hand does not have the size of trees concentrations found in the other districts but.000 trees – partly explained by the large scale producers in these areas. This section explores the question of production clusters in the coconut sub-sector in Coast Province. 7. Using the definition of a cluster adopted in this report. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 32 . overall the size of the 13 clusters in the district are almost the same size as the 13 clusters in Kwale. Table 7. has three areas that Baseline Survey Report. each with 13 clusters. The major clusters are however concentrated in Kwale and Kilifi.000 trees. For the purposes of this report. stretching from Msambweni in Kwale District to Mkomani in Lamu. all the same. we have defined a production cluster to be an area with a concentration of upwards of 50. From a development perspective. Usually. May. a production cluster is an area of high concentration of a certain crop (in our case coconut trees) and its producers (the farmers) within a short distance.

Tsimba cluster: (Kindutsi – Mazumalume areas) 11.634 146. Kikambala) 2.641 1.271 363. Tezo. Junju cluster (Kuruwitu.718 2.591 83.773 61.020 210.262 1. Chonyi) Sub-Total Malindi District 1.371 636 205 1. Majoreni cluster: (Majoreni area – Pongwe kidimu) 12.487 1. Dabaso-Mida Cluster: (Dabaso and Mida areas of Gede) 2 Ngomeni (Gongoni area.105 74.678 1. Kubo) 8.488 155. These are Jomvu Kuu in Miritini. Milalani cluster: (Milalani area.158 777 646 1. Msambweni 3. Vipingo areas. Shirazi – Kingwende cluster 9.131 50. Zaini. Matsangoni cluster: (Uyombo-Mkongani – Matsangoni) 4. Msambweni loc) 7. Nganda-Msabaha cluster: 6. Zowerani Cluster: (Zowerani area.429 174.728 94.372 114. Mkomani Cluster 2. Jimba – Mbaraka/Chembe cluster. Bahari Div) 3. Diani cluster: (Gombato – Bongwe – Ukunda areas) 6.658 129. Roka Cluster: (Chumani – Roka areas.546 1.221 1.340 50. 2007 587. Msambweni 2. Kaloleni 8.883 333. the production clusters identified account for 71% of the total population of trees in Coast Province though they represent only 42% of the farmers.834 166.765 60.074 110. Kinondo cluster: (Ganzi – Kinondo sub-locs). Marereni Cluster: (Marereni area. Chonyi 12. Mkongani Cluster: (Mkonga –Tiribe-Mtsamviani areas) 4. Magarini) Sub-total Lamu 1.318 1.609 1.932 125. Simkumbe (Tiwi) Cluster 13.363 148.396 1. Ngerenya Loc.169 636 1. Junda in Kisauni and Mwakirunge in Bamburi. Banda ra Salama Cluster.393 115.446 1. Kambe – Mbwaka/Kikomani Cluster 13. Bahari Div) 5.879 105.929 667.702 469. Junju. Pongwe Kidimu cluster (Majoreni – Mzizima areas) 10. Watamu 4. May.089 56.610 98. Chasimba cluster (Chasimba area. Chonyi Div) 6 Jibana cluster: (Kwale-Nyalani-Chilulu). Chonyi 9. Fundisa Loc. These are the growth nodes of the sub-sector from where innovations and transformation will most likely come from.132 192.141 82. Magarini Div) 3. Mivimoni). All taken together.675 139. Malindi Div 5.389 360 1.098 51.803 63.could also be regarded as production clusters (albeit using a more relaxed definition). Kizingo (Mwarakaya. Shella Cluster Baseline Survey Report.993.1 Production clusters in the coconut sub-sector Number of trees Cluster description – location Number of farmers Average trees per farmer 336 136 116 116 98 181 559 84 147 82 100 66 362 151 217 273 128 112 413 87 120 154 77 214 113 119 105 150 167 215 163 74 71 142 134 33 Kwale District 1.384 93. Kubo) Sub-Total Kilifi District 1.124 889 400 4.544 134.994 - Institution Development & Management Services .525 134. Mivumoni – Kikoneni: (Bumbani. Ruruma cluster: (Mleji – Miyuni areas). Mokobe .011 510 758 140 14. Ziani cluster: (Ziani – Ng’ombeni areas).504 1.079 810 1.040 85.748 3.437 397 664 519 577 13. Boyani Cluster: (majimboni Loc. Bahari 11.Cluster: (makobe area of Majimboni. Kaloleni cluster: (Kaloleni – chalani/Mihingoni areas) 10. Tezo Cluster: (Mtondia – Kibarani areas. Mwaluphamba Cluster: (mlafyeni – Kizibe stretch) 5.171. Table 7. Kijiwetanga-Shella cluster. Kaloleni 7.

Tchundwa Cluster Tana River District 1. Junda (Kisauni) 3.591 332 491 504 1.814 5.173 21.568 65.329 18. May. Feb 2007 54.533 81. Mwakirunge (Bamburi) TOTAL Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.3. Miritini Cluster 2. Kipini Cluster Mombasa District 1. Jomvu Kuu.035 66 52 37 49 154 Baseline Survey Report. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 34 .917 25.266.327 34.

2007 Institution Development & Management Services 35 . May.Map 1: Coconut trees population density (trees per sq km) in Coast Province. 2007 Map1: Coconut tree population density in Coast Province Baseline Survey Report.

Map 2: Coconut trees population density. May. Kwale district Baseline Survey Report. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 36 .

May.Map 3: Coconut tree population density. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 37 . Kilifi District Baseline Survey Report.

Map 4: Coconut tree population density in Malindi District. May. 2007 Baseline Survey Report. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 38 .

2007 Institution Development & Management Services 39 . 2007 Baseline Survey Report. May.Map 5: Coconut tree population in Mombasa District.

Map 6: Coconut tree population density. Tana River and Lamu Districts Baseline Survey Report. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 40 . May.

530. Chonyi seems to have some of the largest clusters in Mature Nuts production.375.374 22. In Kilifi.316. This is the Ngomeni cluster with over 166.980 Malindi District Baseline Survey Report. one can say that coconut farming for the market seems to have taken root.509.779 2. this section narrows down to products to establish whether there are specific clusters associated with any of the major products of the coconut tree. Table 7. Tiribe . it is worthy noting that although Kilifi has a larger number of production clusters. Mivumoni cluster 1.489.906.291 323. Kwale District has some of the largest clusters in production of dry (mature) nuts. chonyi) cluster 577 60. Junju (Junju. Kinondo cluster. Kikambala) cluster 868 109.939 7.046. Kaloleni cluster 301 37. indeed much bigger than even the largest clusters in Kwale and Kilifi. a specific cut-off is defined largely driven by the volumes that would make serious sense from a business perspective. Malindi District has two Nut production clusters but one is really big.921 3.594 7. and 2 in Malindi.221.868 2.2 Mature nut production clusters by district (based on 2006 annual production figures) Cluster description – location Number of Number of Production farmers trees (in pcs) Kwale District 1. There are however still clearly identifiable production clusters. Matuga cluster 819 46.149 2.3 Product-specific production clusters After looking at the production clusters in general in terms of the population of trees and farmers in Section 7. four clusters in Mombasa are clearly discernible. Ziani.050. Information on the ground shows that these are well known and attract buyers not just from Kenya but also from neighbouring Tanzania. From the look of things in Kilifi. Msambweni 1.105 6.221 288. (Chasimba. Chasimba.1 Mature nuts production clusters As discussed in Section 6. 7 in Kilifi.446. Roka cluster 710 204. these identified clusters account for 38% of the total nut production. Table 7. . Zowerani.925 7.3. Mkongani cluster 549 50.000 trees. Bumbani.028 2.397 22.727. Mkomboani. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 41 .143. Chumani. (Kingwende/shirazi) cluster 541 41. May.2 above. With a relaxed cut-oof point of annual production of 500. Mature Nuts is the product with the most widespread production across the entire coconut production belt.307.390 3. Matsangoni cluster 537 81. 7.568 4. generally driven by the population of trees. Kikoneni cluster 2.362.372. Uyombo. Golini. Ngerenya cluster 397 85. Together. Information provided for Lamu and Tana River Districts could not allow for rigorous statistical manipulations to ascertain the existence of nut production clusters in these two districts. For each product.7. From a geographical distribution perspective.155 146.025 5. and Golini clusters.921 3. Kingwende. Mombasa can also be said to have up to 4 identifiable production clusters.2 identifies 6 main production clusters in Kwale District.288 1. Bumbani. Though much smaller compared to those in other districts.280 4.700 6.109 Sub-total 6.677 2. cluster (Chonyi) 516 67. however.475 3.840 5.339 6.172 Kilifi District 1.487 3.234.043 2.576 897.492 2.920 4.540 2. These include the Kinondo.000 nuts..737 2.

Vingujini. Mwarakaya.069 6.775 594.264 3.879 16. Mtsara-wa-tsatsu 2.3.879 116. Kisauni cluster 4. 2007 819 566 355 1.496.814.166 360. Kijiwetanda cluster Sub-total Lamu Tana River District Mombasa District 1.482 21.285 126 145 160 332 763 15.804. Shanzu 2. May.3 Madafu production clusters Number of farmers Cluster description – location Number of trees Total production (pcs) 1.015. Kiwegu.613.924.630 322.314 56.912 166.008 959.391 42 Kwale District 1.106 6. Jomvu Kuu.337 2.792.935. Gede cluster 777 508 1.048 715.708 2.692 596.510 805.598 482. Ngomeni cluster 2 Fundisa cluster 3.740 756 355 359 176 1.690 61.786 11. Chonyi cluster 3.822 1.069 6. Table 7.525 425.571 453.560 28.620 Institution Development & Management Services . Marereni cluster 4. 3.917 48.143 17.680 2.1.433 360. Ngomeni.475 34. Vanga cluster Sub-Total Kilifi District 1.607 126 145 46.646 777 306 400 549 575 2.206 35. Msambweni cluster 3.510 340. Shella.105 316.666. With a fairly relaxed cut-off point for annual production.927 9.925 9.345 1.173 58. Mwembe Legeza cluster 3. Golini Cluster 2. it can be said that there are about 14 madafu production clusters in all with Malindi having a larger number perhaps to reflect the more developed market for this product in the District as discussed in Section 6.929 24.386.879 131. Mazeras/Mugumo Patsa 4.233 14.944 344.109. Mwembe Legeza Baseline Survey Report.620 10.264 20.941 685.555 1. Gongoni cluster Dabaso.068 780.2 Madafu production clusters From the number and size of clusters with a focus on production of madafu it appears safe to say that the madafu value chain is not as well developed as some of those of the other products.033 71.865. Feb 2007 7. Malindi cluster 5.783 Lamu District Tana River Mombasa 1. Miritini cluster TOTAL Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.088 2.048 297.546 166. Shanzu cluster 2. Vinagoni Sub-Total Malindi District 1.

308 381 176 346 511 876 404 451 355 582 519 5.283. Kaloleni 6.595 6.357 306 777 489 468 400 185 650 508 39. Mwaluvanga 2. 10.151 56.155 636 428 283 725 4.012 46.127 7.605 539.897 1. Mlafyeni Sub-Total Kilifi District 1.217 1.903 516.258 1.407. Marikebuni 5.346 3. Mida 8.978 1.668.551. Jibana Mwarakaya.022.364 6. Fundisa 2 Ngomeni 3. Kakoneni 4.3 Wine production clusters Although only 36% of coconut farmers are involved in wine production.827 741.033 14. Chonyi Matsangoni. Masindeni 7.898. Golini 3.528 1. Kiriba/Magawani 4.909 1. however.699 2.765 521.752.322 1. Unlike the other products.149 115.841 128.308.812.430 1. May.815 Cluster description – location Kwale District 1.879 8.578. particularly in Kilifi and Malindi Districts.146 45. Milalani 5. there are specific zones in Kwale District which are also quite active.044 61. Chalani/Mihingoni.171 278.929 6.339. Mbunguni 6.335 Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey. Marereni 6.963.611 46.931 1. Msabaha Baseline Survey Report.738 20.511 89. Pingilikani 7.491 1.3.875.296 18. Jimba.099 51.731 2.210.634 16.370 22. Vinagoni 3. Kisauni 160 431 10.630 61. Roka 5.216 2. 2007 Total production (750 ml bottles) 2. Table 7. this is not just a tree-population driven commodity where production comes in because the trees are already there and they will somehow produce when in season.143 96.372 31.090 1. Dumbule 7. Mivumoni 4.917 43 Institution Development & Management Services .479. Indeed. 9.467 1.653.541 1.434 1.885 1.314 166. 8.136 1. information from the survey suggests that the second largest palm wine production cluster in Coast Province is in this District – Mwaluvanga. Nyalani. Wine production is a deliberate business decision by the farmer and the production clusters are not necessarily ones with the highest number of trees.882.193.575 34. Table 7.4 Coconut wine production clusters Number of Number of trees farmers 262 819 1.348.482 26. Although Kilifi and Malindi have the largest number of clusters where millions of shillings change hands on a daily basis.613 1.475 146.763.256 444.856. Ruruma cluster 2.685 680.786 39. Mbwaka/Kikomani Sub-Total Malindi District 1.189.486.784.4 shows that the wine industry is fairly well developed at the production stage.3. Feb 2007 7.

493 18. Makuti is the second most widely produced coconut product. Kijiwetanga Sub-total Lamu Tana River District Mombasa District 1.3.821 Kwale District 1.4 Makuti production clusters As discussed in Section 6.499 516.446 710 294 516 511 346 382 2.693 735.261 15. Mwakirunge 2.5 Makuti production clusters Number of farmers Cluster description – location Number of trees Total production (in pcs) 1.700. Table 7. Kwale District has only two main production clusters.929 3.168 2.171.538 5.089 228 228 146.3.770.513. Chumani 2 Ng’ombeni 3.821 735.815 6.913 607.744 1. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 44 .630 272.900.429 204.599 1.517.754 905. Kikoneni Sub-Total Kilifi District 1.538 7.549.828 58.783 504 240 744 390.027 1. Kilifi has 5 and Malindi has 4.716 1.933. Bumbani. Kiriba/Wangwani. the production process is not as well developed on the ground.815.494 1.043 128.759 777 508 229 575 2. this is a value chain that seems to be operating quite below its potential. Roka 4.578. Mivumoni 2.568 8.892.155 2.152 5. Vyemani.879 39.570.200.151.5 Brooms production clusters Baseline Survey Report.280 469.407. Bamburi Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.149 323.206 11.291 3. Takaungu Mavueni 5.693 27. fairly good prices in the market place and the good production base build around the population of trees. Vipingo Sub-Total Malindi District 1. Likoni Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.841 43. Feb 2007 3.424 1. Table 7.Sub-total Lamu Tana River District Mombasa District 1.180 6.5 however shows that.921 58.2-3. Feb 2007 1. Mambrui 4.582.636 1. Ziani 3. From the overall size of production (total value).005 16.031 67.099 14. Ngomeni 2 Msabaha 3.407 7.767 4.434 166.957 1.229 3. May.

896 Kwale District 1.105 58. rather than look at this merely from the currently available trees in the senile stage.540 44.638 - 1. Chonyi 2.597 170. Chasimba. 10. Jomvu Kuu 3. Junda Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey. we have combined this category of senile trees with that of trees aged 41 – 60 years to give an indication of the size of the coco-wood clusters not just from the pool of ready to harvest trees but also from those to be next in line. Ziani. Chilulu.6 Brooms production clusters Number of farmers Cluster description – location Number of trees Total production (in pcs) 373.865 7.429 85.Table 7.043 60. we did not look at the pattern of cutting down trees on the ground as the basis for indicating to us areas of production clusters.012 279.475 516 577 868 526 558 397 294 360 425 519 5.728 176. Mbwaka/Kikomani. In Kilifi. Table 7. One would therefore expect to see a population of trees-driven production pattern.013 228. Baseline Survey Report.593 - 332 160 491 983 21. Kilifi and Mombasa therefore remain as the only major brooms production clusters. Kaloleni Sub-Total Malindi District Sub-total Lamu Tana River District Mombasa District 1.318 4.917 10. Chalani/ Mihingoni 6. Kambe. Ng’ombeni 8. Bahari Div. Golini Sub-Total Kilifi District 1.530 58.329 57.027 262.416 164. Feb 2007 619 46. Junju 4.487 109.348 248.862 338. Ngerenya. with some of the largest tree population clusters has only one main production cluster.602 697.028 673. Ziani (in Chonyi) and Junju (Kikambala) stand out as the major brooms production clusters. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 45 .441. just like Makuti.6 Coco-wood production clusters For coco-wood.544 39.031 148.587. We therefore looked at possible production clusters from an analysis of concentration of old trees which would constitute the pool for coco-wood. Chonyi 3.040 - 67. May.482 25. Maunguja 2. Kisauni 4.6 shows that the market for coconut brooms is almost exclusively driven by production clusters in Kilifi District.857 251.765 732. Jibana 5.3. Ngerenya – Bahari 7. This is because farmers cut down their trees for a varied range of reasons some of which are not for the coco-wood market. Again. It is surprising that Malindi does not have any serious brooms production clusters. This is surprising given that.164 61.558 457. the material for making the broom is the same – the Kanja. This is however not the case and Kwale District.995 382. Kizingo 9.824 162. Zowerani.

7 Coco-wood production clusters Total trees 41 – 60 yrs 67.646 41.778 55. Gazi 2.189 151.128 273. Chumani.363 682.641 38.779 8.Table 7.970 52.638 437.159 30. Chumani 2. particularly looked at from available stock of ready-to-harvest trees.870 194.138 28. Bumbani Sub-Total Kilifi District 1. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 46 .7 shows that it is only Kwale that has significant production clusters for coco-wood. Milalani 4.348 278. May.738 78. From a consideration of the trees next in line however. Mombasa District 487. Kizingo 3.844 2.519 - Total old trees 166.830 214. Kuruwitu Sub-Total Malindi District Total trees 61+ yrs 98. Mivumoni 5. Feb 2007 Baseline Survey Report. Kizingo and Kuruwitu clusters in Kilifi come out as important clusters to watch.525 Sub-total Lamu Tana River District 1.329 14.519 30.345 149.586 8.192 47.183 31.640 33.739 67. Table 7.510 163.296 59.383 - TOTAL Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey. Kinondo 3.517 87.557 36.286 74.233 - Cluster description – location Kwale District 1.

1% Lack of financial services 4.1% 17.0% 3. It shows that.4% Land tenure issues 3.4% Unfavourable weather (drought) 25.2% 6.9% 37. 21 nuts per tree per year).1% 12. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 47 .3% Theft of products in farms 5.1% Other 1.0% Source: ABD-DANIDA/CDA Coconut tree survey.1 Major problems/challenges perceived by farmers Problem/challenge Per cent of farmer mentioning this as a major problem Ranked 1st Ranked 2nd Ranked 3rd Production related problems/challenges: 56.4% 100. overall.7% Poor market outlets 7.5% 14.0% Baseline Survey Report.7% 1.6% 3.3% 17.2% 5.6% 4.2% 16.1 Overview Information generated by the Survey and discussed under the last four Sections of this report (see Sections 4 through 7) suggests that only a small percentage of the full potential of the coconut sub-sector is currently exploited. closely followed by markets and marketing related problems.2% High transportation costs to mkts 1.9% 8.4% 41.5% 11.7% Missing (no response) 1.3% 41.8 CHALLENGES TO REALIZATION OF SUB-SECTOR POTENTIAL 8.6% Low prices for products 17.6% Poor roads to markets 2. Table 8. May.e.2 Constraints and challenges facing farmers Table 8.0% 8.4% 3. Feb 2007 Total (weighted) 43.2% Total 100. 8.7% 0.9% 6. further exploitation of this potential would mean adding billions of shillings in the hands of coconut farmers and their households. production related issues dominate the challenges they are facing.0% 11.9% Pests and diseases 17.1% Markets & marketing problems 28.3% 8.5% 1.5% 11.4% Shortage of labour at critical times 1.0% 100.1 presents farmers’ perceptions on the key problems and challenges they are currently facing in their coconut farming activities.4% 41.5% 4.7% 12.8% 33.4% 4. the number of farmers involved in production of some of the other major products and the extent to which production reaches the market.0% 100.1% 2. our estimations are that barely is 25% of the current potential of the sub-sector exploited.2% 3. Even at current prices.0% In-access to quality seedlings 12.7% 1.4% 11. This section looks at the constraints and challenges facing farmers towards realization of this potential.1% 9.0% 3.0% 1.7% 4.5% 5.3% 7. Looking at average productivity per tree for the different products (i.1% 12.5% 18.9% 18.

it can easily be said that this abandon and neglect of the coconut tree from an agronomy perspective is perhaps the most pressing challenge facing the sub-sector and holding back quality and productivity.3 Production challenges One thing that stands out clearly as one drives through the whole stretch of the coconut belt right from Lunga Lunga (Kwale) to Lamu. This is an area that must be addressed if the sub-sector is to be expected to grow and reach its potential. Pests include Rhinoceros beetle (Orctes monoceros) and Coried bug (Pseudtheratus wayi) which also attacks the terminal buds in coconut making many dry-up. there are three major challenges they face at the production level: harsh weather conditions (particularly the prolonged drought experienced over two years ago). is an obvious neglect of the coconut tree from an agronomy perspective. Some of the main diseases include Bole rot (fungal) which is capable of wiping many trees in a short period and is indeed responsible for many dead standing trees seen in the fields. It is however also possible that many farmers are not actually aware the extent to which adoption of good agronomy practices (even just simple orchard management practices) would increase productivity and generate a good return. May.1 Weather and the question of better adopted varieties The harsh weather conditions of the last couple of years (prolonged drought which in some parts extended for almost six years) and the recent flooding were highlighted by farmers as the most critical problem they have faced in their coconut farming activities.3. Given the critical importance of selection of quality planting materials as a determinant to yields and likely returns from the Baseline Survey Report. pests and diseases is one of the major challenges coconut farmers have to battle with in their farming activities. merely pick what has fallen down and germinated on itself. Farmers generally rely on their current crop to get a few seedlings to plant and. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 48 . Knowledge of the pests and diseases affecting coconut trees and ways of dealing with them stands out as perhaps the major challenge facing farmers. it is a conscious decision made in view of the current returns (per the returns they get from the tree). it can perhaps be interpreted as a research challenge on cultivar selection for adoptability. to many farmers.3 Access to planting materials Unlike in the (fairly distant) past. there are no-longer well established nurseries with a good supply of quality planting materials in coconut. From an understanding of the effects of good agricultural practices in increasing quality and productivity. pest and disease control.3. 8. particularly those planted in the marginal zones of CL5 or higher undulating ground. While of course one notices that there are very many trees. at times. From the farmer’s perspective. 8. a key aspect of research in other countries has been the identification and selection of cultivars that are most suitable for various agro-ecological zones. and accessibility to quality planting materials. While this is the problem seen by the farmer. This neglect is however the summation of a lot of underlying issues facing the farmer and. The drought forced many trees to dry up or to tip-off and stop producing. From a review of literature.3. This is however an area that Kenya has extremely lagged behind and farmers are left to plant what is available without any guidance on suitability in their areas.8.2 Pests and diseases Like in other crops. 8. even at current prices. one also sees that most of the trees are totally in the bush and with the land around the trees hardly ever cultivated/cleared.

farmers sell individually and rarely through collective action. In extreme cases. Information from the Survey shows large variability in prices. it is obvious that this current state of affairs is a major hindrance to growth and productivity in the sub-sector.4 Markets and marketing constraints Markets and marketing related challenges constitute the second most pressing challenge facing coconut farmers. poor/lack of sufficient market for their products. To the farmer. many farmers actually do not participate because of lack of any one to buy their products. the cost of transporting the commodities to markets sometimes completely wipes out the margins and. Market access and development is therefore a key problem facing farmers and.orchard. May. why would one take care of his trees if he is not going to get a buyer for the product? 8.4. many times. 8. the generally low price and the fact that they are not sure what the price will be is the major market related challenge discouraging them in their coconut farming activities. brokers) and there are rarely any direct linkages between the farmer and the market.4. disproportional to the efforts they have to make in production. Prices vary by season. Due to the poor roads. we provided information on prices for different coconut products in the various districts. Yet.1 Prices At the top of the list among markets/marketing issues facing farmers is what farmers view as low and unreliable prices for their products. It is indeed. Even here. perhaps the key to adoption of good agricultural practices in the cultivation of the crop. perhaps this is even a bigger problem when it comes to Makuti and brooms where the market is not as well developed and.5 Other constraints Baseline Survey Report. This particularly applies to dry nuts. roads are totally impassable during certain times and the farmer cannot get his product to the market at all. 8. and the physical inaccessibility of markets due to poor road infrastructure. Generally.2 Poorly developed markets Farmers complain that they are. This is even the case in the lucrative palm wine industry. not able to sell all their produce. farmers argue. The distribution and marketing outlets are generally dominated by traders and middlemen (some.4. not uncommon in undeveloped markets for agricultural (and other primary) commodities. distance (from the market). These comprise of low and unreliable prices. This is obviously a general development challenge that must eventually get addressed if rural farmers are to effectively benefit from the market economy. other than in some of the well developed clusters in Kilifi and Malindi. This is also the case even in the appearingly more developed wine industry. In Section 6. the commodity can easily fail to get a buyer.3 Poor road infrastructure to markets The marketing of coconut products is further curtailed by poor roads infrastructure in the districts. quality and also from buyer to buyer. in return affects the farmer by forcing the traders/middlemen to offer the very low prices for them to make a margin or not to get to some locations at all. very likely that the low number of seedlings planted is partly as a result of unavailability of well established nurseries for coconut seedlings. 8. 8. After all. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 49 .

Other key challenges facing farmers include accessibility of credit and other financial services. particularly the known squatter problem in Coast province. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 50 . May. Baseline Survey Report. insecurity of products while still in their farms (through theft) and issues surrounding land tenure.

2 Conclusions From a careful look at the discussions made in this report. a coastal hotel) will be thatched with makuti and the general broom is the coconut broom. this cultural attachment has contributed to the large population of trees and seems bound to continue holding ground. Many coastal meals will have coconut milk as one of the ingredients. May. this trend is already there and it only needs to be further propelled. it is clear that coconut farming is a central part of the livelihood of most coastal households and will continue to be so into the foreseeable future. The part on recommendations is therefore fairly narrow and more so directed at those likely to be interested in the sub-sector from a development perspective. particularly from a private business perspective. It is in no way exhaustive to possibilities that could be available. 9. manured or sprayed with agrochemicals. Integrating this commodity sector into the market as an Baseline Survey Report. has at least one tree. Coconut is perhaps the most important crop among coastal farmers. It highlights in a summary form the key findings of the Survey and uses this as a basis to highlight some of our thoughts on a way forward in the form of recommendations. particularly those related to results of the Survey (Sections 4 – 8). six major conclusions appear to be worthy noting: 9.1 Coconut farming is deeply entrenched in coastal farming systems and forms an important part of the coastal economy. some dating as far back as a couple of centuries ago. Overall. since. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 51 . The recommendations outlined should however be viewed merely as thoughts to build on. continually encouraging farmers to plant the crop. It is a crop that is deeply entrenched in the cultures. A good case is the now longstanding neglect of the crop that make some farmers think a coconut tree doesn’t need to be weeded. This cultural value has dictated that almost every farming household in the coastal belt. It is however clear that market expansion must go beyond just the coastal populations who have a cultural attachment to the products. This cultural entrenchment in consumption of some of the major products plays a major part in driving the market for coconut products. Coconut wine is also deeply entrenched as a local drink of choice. This partly explains why some farmers will attempt to grow the crop even in fairly marginal areas. Overall. Luckily so. the purpose of this study was merely to lay bare the facts on the coconut sub-sector so that different players and stakeholders can take these up and draw their own conclusions depending on their line of interest in the sub-sector. particularly those with a coastal origin. a normal way of quenching thirst is the madafu. It is also noted that efforts must be made to make sure that some of the cultural (actually traditional) practices in the cultivation of the crop do not become an hindrance to its development.2. in essence.9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9. practices and ways of life of coastal communities. The cultural entrenchment is however beyond the cultivation and is even more widespread in the consumption of the products. the normal house (even increasingly more so.1 Overview This Section brings into conclusion discussions made through the previous 8 sections.

Although coconut wine is still embroiled in legality.3 The population of coconut trees is on the rise and there is a general growth trend across all districts with the exception of Mombasa. This does not however explain the full story. Besides these general production clusters. propelled by a vibrant market for some of the coconut products among other factors.5%).2% of the total population or just slightly over 600. Information from the Survey shows that the population of trees stands at 7. although those related to wine are much more developed and vibrant. the value of the coconut sub-sector at the farm level is estimated to be Kshs 3. Mature nuts and coconut wine have the largest number of clusters.4 There are clearly identifiable production clusters in the coconut sub-sector The distribution of the population of coconut trees in Coast Province is in such a way that there are clearly identifiable production clusters. The survey shows that contrary to generally held views. Defined as areas of concentration in the population of trees within a small zone with a radius of 5-7 Kilometers.4%. The rise in population of trees is lowest in Kwale with only a marginal growth rate of 1. The population of trees aged over 60 years is only 8.2 billion with 60% of the value accounted for by Wine. particularly owing to the legality question under which coconut wine fell into for many years until the lid was lifted under the current Government administration. the study identified 36 production clusters in the the province with Kwale and Kilifi having the highest number of clusters (each with 13). religious and social image questions. 24% by nuts. Overall. pushed by the pressures of urbanization. Overall.important cash crop will directly affect the livelihoods of many households in the Coast Province. 9. the proportion of trees over the age of optimal productivity (of 30 years) is estimated to be 44% arguing for the need for initiatives towards increased replanting to increase the proportion of trees in the high productivity age categories for improvements productivity in the sub-sector. Overall. however.2% annually with the highest growth rates experienced in Kilifi and Malindi. May.2 million (50%) thought to exist in the past. the population of trees is growing at a rate of 2. 9. Although a part of this general understatement appears to have been as a result of estimation errors in the absence of a full Survey.000 and not the 2. farmers have actually been planting more coconut trees and the proportion of trees in the age before start of production is slightly over 14%.2 The size of the sector much larger than what it has been thought to be in the past and deserves due recognition as others sectors of similar magnitude in the country The magnitude of the coconut sector has generally been understated. they key reason for understatement has been due to failure to recognize the importance of other products of the coconut tree some of which are even more important than the nut.2. there are specific clusters for the various products. This understatement therefore seems to have been perhaps deliberate. Ignoring the crop will mean wasted opportunity to utilize an important economic base for coastal populations. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 52 . Kilifi Baseline Survey Report. 9.2. Taking all products into consideration.3 million higher than the 4. it is clear that this is the product that is currently driving growth in the sub-sector and it is likely to remain so as signals from the emerging full commercialization of the market indicate that this is where the returns are. there is a negative growth rate in the population of trees in Mombasa. As is perhaps expected.2.4 million . and the balance accounted for by makuti (12%). as other important products of the tree did not fall into the legality question. Brooms (3%) and the emerging market for coco-wood (0.4 million trees which were thought to exist. Dynamics in the coconut sub-sector show that there is a general rise in the population of trees and fears that the population of trees is likely to go down as most trees are over 60 years (and farmer are cutting them down) is not true.

It is however important that targeted interventions are guided by further analyses of each of the important value chains – Nuts.2.has the largest number of well developed clusters indicting a much more developed market for coconut products at the farm level. Effects of the prolonged drought which extended to over 4 years in some areas was however brought out as the most outstanding challenge faced by farmers at the production level. this vicious circle is already broken and a vibrancy is already starting to be seen. Makuti and even brooms. Wine. On the market end. 9. reaching well over Kshs 15 billion with the current population of trees and current growth trends. nurtured and replicated across the entire coconut belt. These clusters are important growth points of the whole sub-sector from which innovations and transformation will come from. not just in the coastal economy but also at the national level. it is true to say that coconut is not a highly visible sub-sector. farmers complain that the incentives offered by the market currently are not enough to make them invest substantively in their farms. Without proper organization at the farmer level. The low participation rate of farmers is generally due to poor development of the markets for some of the products. Some of the areas requiring intervention are quite obvious from information generated by the Survey. These analyses will take information generated from this Baseline Survey Report. This is what needs to be build-on. development practitioners and the business community need to know about the sector and its potential. one of the major reasons why the coconut sub-sector is not mainstreamed is basically because it has not been visible. From a development perspective.3 Recommendations From our view. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 53 . The distribution and marketing channels are generally dominated by traders and middlemen who play an important role in getting farmers’ produce to the market. Efforts towards further development of these clusters could easily catalyse a forward thrust of the entire sub-sector towards full transformation and growth. In general. The general public. 9. government. Initiatives in further development of markets must therefore constitute an essential element of any development efforts targeted at the sub-sector. however. brooms 21% and makuti 64%. From a look at the current development in production of the various products of the coconut tree. The low participation of farmers in production of the other products is another indicator that the potential could be much higher.6 Production and market related constraints are the key challenges to full potential The main challenges facing farmers at production level include accessibility of quality planting materials and the menace of pests and diseases. the cost of bulking and the inefficiencies of facing the market without any joint action is placing farmers at a disadvantaged position to benefit fully from the sub-sector. May. In some product lines such as wine.5 Only about a quarter of the potential of the sub-sector is currently exploited. this can be viewed as a challenge for finding more tolerant varieties – which is a key research area for the coconut sub-sector. key challenges relate to price level and general reliability and actual market access by farmers for their products. This is where efforts of mainstreaming the sector must start.2. rough estimations of potential indicate that this could be a much bigger sub-sector. While part of this may fall on issues of geo-politics (distance from the centre of power). Wine production involves only 36% of farmers. This has led to the current low productivity in their farms – fixing itself as a vicious circle which must be broken for a momentum for growth of the sub-sector to take place. Average nut production currently stands at 21 nuts per tree which is much lower compared to optimal productivity levels of over 100 Nuts expected in good yielding varieties. 9. makuti and madafu for some clusters.

More focused and market-driven research will also be required in product development. it is clear that the driving force in the sub-sector is the wine and unless there is a clear legality stand point on this product.Survey as the base and trace each value chain to the market so as to identify the specific leverage points for unblocking potential of the sub-sector. Baseline Survey Report. it is important that further research is carried out on the situation of copra to understand the causes of the shift from farmers from producing copra at the farm level to other products and whether this situation needs to be reversed or allowed to take root. pest and disease control. May. development of the sub-sector will always be kind of clandestine with no proper structures and business support systems. Research & Development is an important base for development of any sector. Coconut must therefore get included in the national Government agricultural research agenda if the sector is to experience a properly structured growth. It is also important for further diagnostics to be made on the question coconut varieties to validate information generated by the survey and establish the reasons why other varieties have not found acceptance among farmers. From information generated from the Survey. as well as post-harvets handling and utilization of coconut products. The coconut sub-sector continues to be embroiled and held back by legality questions. Immediate points of research relate to germplasm improvements (collection. Pubic image will most likely pick up from there and overtime. start judging the coconut wine industry less harshly as it deserves. Our hope is that different stakeholders will pick from here and draw the many possible conclusions and intervention areas necessary to move this important sub-sector forward. conservation. From a perspective of this survey. breeding and evaluation). 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 54 . This is an important area that needs to be picked up and conclusively brought to rest. Clear recognition and legal position would for instance allow farmers to use their wine production ventures openly in seeking credit for investment in the sub-sector. testing and introductions in the market.

Central Bureau of Statistics. Kenya. C. Dar-el salaam University Press Mwangi. Unpublished. Nairobi. PHD Thesis. Communication 14. Republic of Kenya (2002): Kilifi District Development Plan 2002 –2007 Ministry of Planning and National Development Republic of Kenya (2002): Kwale District Development Plan 2002 –2007 Ministry of Planning and National Development Republic of Kenya (2002): Lamu District Development Plan 2002 –2007 Ministry of Planning and National Development Republic of Kenya (2002): Malindi District Development Plan 2002 –2007 Ministry of Planning and National Development Republic of Kenya (2002): Mombasa District Development Plan 2002 –2007 Ministry of Planning and National Development Republic of Kenya (2002): Tana River District Development Plan 2002 –2007 Ministry of Planning and National Development Sculling.M (1979): Improved productivity of Coconut through fertilization? Coast Agricultural Research Station (CARS). Republic of Kenya (1999): Population and Housing Survey 1999 Vol.L. Kabonge (1992): Kanuni za Kilimo Bora Cha Mnazi.VII. FAO Production Year Book 2005 Vol 60. M. Waijenberg. Nairobi. Krain.I. N and Gethi (1980): The History of Coconut Growing and Lethal disease in the Coastal districts of Kenya Baseline Survey Report. Mtwapa Kenya. UNEP. Netherlands Warui. and P.(1993) The Coconut Palm in Coast Province of Kenya. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 55 . Mombasa –Kenya Republic of Kenya (1999): Population and Housing Survey 1999 Vol. Nairobi. Paper presented during and International Coconut Workshop for Africa. Government Printers. Rome GOK (2003): Economic recovery strategy for wealth and employment creation-2003-2007. E.References CDA (2000): Coconut Diagnostic Survey in Kilifi District. CDA (2003): Coast Development Authority Strategic Development Plan 2003 – 2008. Government Printers Eijanatten. Government Printers. W and J Njoba (2000): Coconut Development in Kenya. CDA (2003): Coast Development Authority Statistical Abstract 2004. Tree of life and bone of contention. Central Bureau of Statistics. A (1991): Lethal Yellowing disease of Coconut in Global Perspective UNEP (1998): East Africa Atlas of Coastal Resources 1: Kenya. H. May. (193) Demonstration to farmers on Management of Coconut land Coast Agricultural Research Station (CARS). Food and Agricultural Organization (2005). and Mpunami. Analytical Report on Population Projection. Unpublished. Mtwapa Kenya. Prepared by the Government of Kenya Kinya C.

041 in Malindi districts Table A.683 36. To this end.2 Instruments The survey exercise used structured questionnaire which was administered to households in the target survey areas and a supplementary questionnaire which was administered to 5% of the household (every 20th household). 36. During the training a number of issues were raised which formed the basis for refining the instruments as outlined in section A.1.1 Approach IDM Services used the Ministry of Agriculture structure to undertake the survey exercise and therefore held a series of meeting with ministry officials including Provincial Director of Agriculture (PDA) who expressed support for the exercise. some are in noncoconut producing areas and others are in urban centers.609 % of farmers household in the district 40% 8% 40% 25% Adjusted farmers H. the main survey and supplementary questionnaires (Annex 2) and logistics arrangements during the survey. Kilifi and Malindi) had total population of 418.037 in Kwale.037 14.885 Kwale Mombasa Kilifi Malindi A.3 A. 14.311 52.124 in Kilifi. According to the population survey. IDM was able to isolate non – coconut producing areas and derived the percentage of households involved in coconut production in each district and used the same to estimate the number of households targeted in each district (Table A. Based on the knowledge of the area and information collected during the planning meetings with MOA staff at the district level. In this regard. the four districts (Kwale .164 418.683 in Mombasa and 13. District No of Households 1999 92.Appendix 1 Survey Methodology The study utilized the household information contained in 1999 Kenya National Population and Housing Survey to develop the coconut survey framework of the targeted four districts of Coast province. IDM therefore targeted and administered questionnaire to least 100.609 households and not all are involved in coconut production since. May.041 100. training on data collection instruments i.540 90. Mombasa. conducted two planning meetings in each district with major focus on mapping of the geographical coconut growing areas and isolating areas where there are no coconut trees.H 37.1). 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 1 .124 13.e. administered Baseline Survey Report.594 183. Trained enumerators recruited from each village of the survey geographical area and supervised by the MOA Frontline officer with backstopping from IDM District co-ordinators.885 households. with 37.

Baseline Survey Report. Kilifi. The pre-test took four days and the data from the three sites was analyzed with the major focus on problems encountered in getting information from the respondents (farmers) and the ability to deliver the deliverables stipulated in terms of reference (TOR) which commissioned the study.the questionnaires. Malindi. i) Nut production (including Madafu) in 2006 ii) The Number of dead coconut trees in the farm iii) The number of seedlings in the nursery iv) The Number of trees planted in 2006 v) The number of trees cut down in 2006 vi) The number of coconut by variety i. For the purpose of presenting information up to the village level using GIS. Mombasa. In view of this.01 – What are the varieties of coconut trees you have? B. it was agreed that the exercise would continue as it was.(Kauma location).e from (0-7) to (0-5) years. The Questionnaires were then revised accordingly in line with the findings which include: a) The enumerators experienced some difficulties in getting information concerning the age of the tree as per the specified brackets. b) Some of the important information which were not captured in the pre-tested Survey questionnaire. B. Kwale. Tana River and Lamu districts with major focus on coconut producing areas which translated to the following divisions. In total. A. was included in the reversed version and include.How many trees did you cut down in total?. d) Another instrument used in the exercise was the Sub-location Maps. The 2 questions are. the number of personnel employed in each district was as indicated in table A. the Supplementary Questionnaire was also revised to include one question on the problems faced by the farmers in production and marketing process of the product and by-products. However the first bracket was adjusted to coincide with average year the trees start producing i. Kwale . Sub location Maps were generated and given to the MOA staff (Frontline Offer) to draw the village boundaries in consultation with the village elders. locations and sub location in each respective district.(Ngombeni location) and Kilifi. but since it is one of the basic requirements.05. The rationale of recruiting local enumerators was to increase confidence or avoid any resistance from the farmers.4 Coverage and Personnel The exercise covered six districts of coast province namely.3 below. two questions were deleted since they had been captured in the main Survey Questionnaire. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 2 .e Short or Tall variety c) In the supplementary Questionnaire.(Mtwapa location) to pre-test the Draft questionnaires in their respective villages.3 Pre Test A pilot survey was conducted to pre-test the survey instruments (Main Survey and Supplementary questionnaire) with a view to refine the instruments and improve in overall planning process. In this regard IDM recruited three enumerators one from Mombasa . A. May.

An important aspect in the data analysis stage was computation of weights for adjusting for any undercounts experienced in the field. Division. This process generated information of the number of farmers out of the 10 who were actually counted in the Survey.2 below.Table A. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 3 . May.4 below presents an outline of the resuts Baseline Survey Report. Table A. Data entry. As discussed in section 1. Upon receiving the questionnaires. processing and analysis was carried out using SPSS statistical software. IDM engaged the services of the MOA staff from the district to location level. 2 Administrative areas covered in the survey District No of Divisions No of Location covered covered Kwale 5 36 Mombasa 3 9 Kilifi 7 34 Malindi 3 17 Tana River 2 4 Lamu 5 8 Total 25 91 No of Sub-location covered 75 22 97 51 4 8 257 In order to ensure adequate and effective coverage of the survey exercise. spot checks were done in the field for every sub-Location to check the extent of undercount. Table A. A. In total the number of staff employed in each district is as indicated on the table 3. Instructions were that each Location level staff supervising the work of enumerators would do a spot check of to 10 farmers in a row but starting within a randomly selected point in the sub-Location. He also confirmed the totals of summary reports to facilitate easy entry in the computer. In addition. Location and Sub location. IDM recruited four coordinators.4. one in each district to liaise with MOA District coordinators.5 Data Processing and Analysis Data processing was managed by a team of trained data input and coding clerks. the coding clerk undertook the responsibility of verifying the entries and codes for each District. Data processing and analysis started with data cleaning to remove the gaps and ensure consistency. IDM adopted participatory approaches that yield qualitative information which are to be utilized in the enriching this report.3: Survey Personnel Personnel 1 District Coordinator 2 IDMS Liaison Officer 3 Division Coordinator 4 Frontline Officer 5 Enumerators Total Kwale 1 1 6 37 136 181 Kilifi 1 1 7 36 137 182 Malindi 1 1 3 14 80 99 Mombasa 1 1 5 5 48 60 Total 4 4 21 92 401 522 During the exercise.

1.25 1.25 1.2.058 717 724 1. 2007 # of households 1. Bofu 1.2 Kubo 1.1 Majimboni 1. Mabesheni 3. Mbegani 1. Busa 1.00 1. Mwaluvanga 2. Majimboni 4.11 1.11 1.00 1.11 1. 1999 Division Distri ct 1.1.00 1. May.1 Kinango Sub-locations 1.4 Mwaluphamba 1.11 1.00 1.25 1. Dumbule 1.25 1. Table A-4 Number of households in survey areas by Location. Mtsamviani 1. Mangawani 2.11 1.25 1.2.00 1.3 Mkongani 1.558 1. Lukore Institution Development & Management Services 4 .6 Mtaa 1.05 1.2 Mwaluvanga 1.1. Mwandimu 1.010 1.00 1. Titibe 3. Mkomba 2.1. Vigurungani 2.2.00 1. Kipambani 5.3 Vigurungani 1. Kingango 2. Mtaa 2.1 Kinango Location 1.11 1.5 Mangawani 1.2. Kifyonzo 1.2. Manyatta 1.259 663 676 479 Percent complete 95% 90% Covered 70% Left out Left out 80% 80% 85% 85% Left out 90% 90% 90% 8/10 8/10 8/10 8/10 8/10 8/10 9/10 9/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 9/10 9/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 Adjustment 1.5 Ndavaya 1. Mokobe 1.2 Gandini 1.obtained in this process which became the numbers used in formulation of adjustment factors for every sub-Location.00 1. Gandini 1.157 722 654 891 447 177 796 252 242 254 135 168 176 229 315 848 681 721 1.1.11 1.00 1.11 1. Boyani 3.25 1.25 1. Gulanze 3.25 1. Mlafyeni 2. Ndavaya 2.Kizibe 1.18 1.6 Lukore Baseline Survey Report.2.055 891 1. Shimba Hills 2.1.00 1.522 1. Kibandaongo 2.43 1. Msulwa 6. Mazola 2.18 1.4 Puma 1.

Jego 2.11 1.6 Vanga 1. Mazumalume 1.00 1.2 Waa 1. Ukunda 3. 2007 1.11 1. Bumbani 1. Gombato 2.4.3.4.146 6.11 1. Kasemeni 1. Kombani 3.717 2.5 Golini 1.4. Simkumbe 1.804 1.4 Msambweni 1.00 1.00 1.3 Matuga 1.00 2.11 1.00 1.4.1.556 650 931 599 1. Kinondo 2. Golini 1.053 815 896 684 732 1.7 Mivumoni 1.50 1.1 Tiwi 1. Kitivo 1.4 Diani 1. Bongwe 1.25 1. Matuga 2.42 1.365 891 2. Mkoyo 2. Mbunguni 1. Ganzi 1.00 1. Pungu 1. Milalani 1. Shimoni 4.751 640 1.2 Kinondo 1.4 Tsimba 1. Funzi 1.4.11 1.11 1.00 1.4.00 1.11 1.243 760 937 771 152 2.00 1. Kundutsi 2.3. Mzizima 1. Kiwegu 1. Sega 2.242 8/10 7/10 8/8 7/7 6/6 5/10 7/10 4/10 9/10 10/10 9/10 10/10 10/10 7/10 Not done 10/10 10/10 9/10 9/10 9/10 9/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 10/10 9/10 90% 80% 90% 8/10 10/10 7/10 10/10 8/8 1.3. Ng’ombeni 3.00 5 1.10 Mwereni Baseline Survey Report.869 1. Mivumoni 1.4. Majoreni 3.11 1.3.25 1.00 1.5 Msambweni 1.00 1.00 1.8 Kikoneni 1.3.4.3.25 1.9 Lunga Lunga 1.1Kingwende/Shi raz 1.554 2. Shiraz 2.42 1.3 Ng’ombeni 1.11 1. Vanga 3.489 809 208 881 563 961 5.00 1.00 1. May.00 1. Vingujini 2. Kingwende 3.252 779 2. Wasini/Mkwiro 2.6 Mbuguni 1.3 Pongwe /Kidimu 1.680 2. Mwena Institution Development & Management Services .4.42 2.460 1. Kiteje 2.4.00 1.42 1.

6.25 1. Silaloni 3.798 3.11 1.42 1.6. Macknon rd 2.542 1.1.5 Samburu 1.11 1. 2007 2. Taru 2. Mwabila 1.1.6. Matumbi 2.67 1. Hospital 4.594 816 832 1.1. Maji ya Chumvi 1.6.3 Macknnon Road 1.67 1.11 1.508 4.1 Taru 1.11 1.11 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.11 1.6 Chengoni 1.653 1. Mwamdudu 3.5 Samburu 1. Mkongani 3. Konjora 2. Mazeras 2.00 1. Mwatate 5 Kilifi 2.1.42 1. Kalalani 2.2 Kasemeni 1. Dupharu 1.155 1. Kinagoni 1.50 1.00 1. Chumani 2.5 Ngerenya 1.4 Matsangoni 1.3 Tezo 1. May. Uyombo 2.5.42 8/10 6/10 16/18 10/10 100% 100% 9/10 60% 6/9 6/9 4/4 7/10 90% 1. Makamini 1. Mtondia/Majaoni 2. Ezamoyo Baseline Survey Report.378 649 546 1.2.2 Kilifi Township 1. Vinyunduni 2. Matope 2. Mrima/Malamba 1.5.13 1.00 1. Kilimangodo 1.50 1. Kilibasi 1. Matsangoni 2. Chengoni 2.190 982 561 433 273 1. Sokoni 3.6.1 Bahari 37 2.1 Roka 83 1.11 6 Institution Development & Management Services .11 Dzombo 1.1. Kibarani 2.6.00 1. Mnarani 2.11 N/A N/A 1.642 1.4 Makamini 1.8 Mwatate 1.00 1.113 561 844 273 702 757 1.176 250 1.7 Mwavumbo 1.5 1. Mnyenzeni 4.00 1. Roka 2. Chigato 1.00 N/A N/A 1.4.699 395 733 1.085 452 533 585 502 376 10/10 9/10 Left out Left out 9/10 10/10 40% 10/10 Left out Left out 90% 90% Left out Left out Left out Left out Covered 90% 90% 70% 70% 1. Ngerenya 2.204 92.00 2.

3. Kitsoeni 3.4 Bandari 1.33 1. Ganze/Tsangalaweni 2.3 Palakumi 1.Mwambani 2. Mitsemereni 2. Midoina 4.33 7 1.33 1.4.18 1. Vitsapuni/Mariani 2.18 1.33 1. Mdangarani 2. Kidemu 3.4 Mwarakaya 1. Pingilikani 2. Mwembe Kati 1. Ziani 2.00 1. Mweza/Migodomani Institution Development & Management Services . Gede 3.2.4 Ganze 1. Marere 2.2 Mitangani 1. Petanguo 2.1 Ndigiria 1.4.00 1.4.4 Ganze 2.2 Jaribuni 1.1 Kauma 1. Mwakambi 2. Chasimba 2. Mtsara-wa-Tsatsu 2. Mwapula 3.1 Banda ra Salama 2.419 715 319 416 406 118 223 201 301 558 454 309 766 203 6/10 Left out Left out Insig’t Insig’t Left out Insig’t Insig’t Insig’t Insig’t Insig’t Insig’t Insig’t Left out 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 85% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 1.3 Bamba 1.33 1.18 1. Mikamini 2.18 1.18 1.2. Ndigiria/Mapotea 3.360 688 1.00 1. Dangarani 2.18 1.33 1.4.2 Chasimba 1. Vinagoni 3. May. Vyambani 4.3.3.00 1. 2007 526 298 377 315 162 130 171 195 483 661 966 228 334 244 710 829 851 848 695 1. Palakumi/Mugumomiri 2.3. Paziani 3.33 1.00 N/A 1. Mnagoni 2.2.18 1. Mwakwala 2. Ng’ombeni 2.33 1.18 1.33 1.5 Dungicha Baseline Survey Report.2 Bamba 2.00 1. Mihirini 2.3.3 Ziani 1.4.00 1.3 Chonyi 2.18 1.67 N/A N/A 1. Kizingo 2. Magogoni 2. Mwarakaya 2.33 1.33 1.33 1. Chivara 2. Zowerani 2.2.00 N/A 1.00 1.

25 1. Dungucha/Muhoni 2.11 1.5.5 Kaloleni 2.25 1.702 566 801 499 336 1.11 8 Baseline Survey Report.25 1.67 1.7 Kaloleni 1.11 1. Miyani 2.25 1. Kaloleni/Vish. Munyenzeni 2.5. Mazeras/Mugumo Patsa 2.5. Kithengwani/Mazia 2.5. Kisurutini/Mwelesi/Sim 2. Mleji 2. Tsagwa 2.2 Kambe 1.486 1. Kawala/Kadzonzo 2.002 773 1. Chauringo 1.518 75% 85% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 80% 9/10 9/10 5/10 9/10 6/10 4/5 4/5 80% 80% 80% 9/10 9/10 7/10 7/10 7/10 7/10 7/10 1. Kinagoni 3.6 Kikambala 2.5. Mikiriani 4. Mariakani/Mitangoni 2.10 Tsangatsini 1.11 2.326 1.5 Mwawesa 1. Tsangatsini 2.140 1.42 80% 80% 80% 9/10 9/10 9/10 Left out Left out 90% 1. Chalani/Mihingoni 3. Mbalamweini 2.42 1. Kwale 2.00 1.25 1.1 Ribe 2.5. Kijipwa 238 753 1. Mbwaka/Kikomani 2.25 1. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services .5. Buni/Chisimani 3. Miyuni 3. Mwamutsunga 3.308 761 647 459 532 345 285 730 998 935 499 820 685 404 1.25 1.4 Ruruma 1.8 Kayafungo 1.9 Mwanamwinga 1. Pangani/Maereni 2.11 1. Jimba 2. Kibwabwani 3. Bwagamoyo 2.5.5.11 1.11 1./Tsaka 2.18 1.25 1.195 999 581 437 619 771 4.25 1. Virogoni 2. Nyalani 3. Kalingombe/Jimba 4.2.11 1.11 N/A N/A 1.6.1 Mtwapa 1.11 1.25 1.33 1.335 2. Mikahani 2.42 1.3 Jibana 1.42 1.3 Rabai 1. Birini/Mwamuleka 5.42 1.5.386 1. Murimani 4.25 1. Mkomboani 2.6 Mariakani 1. Chilulu 4. May.11 1.5.25 1.

Mitsendini 2.25 1. Takaungu 4.2 Junju 1.311 826 230 1.25 9/10 left out 8/10 12/15 9/13 9/10 10/12 12/15 12/12 1. Dulukiza 3.703 913 649 1.33 1. Kuruwitu 2.44 1. Kiriba/Wangwani 3. Kaembeni 3.25 1. Kanamai 4. Junju 3.11 1.25 1.3 Fundisa 1.3 Sokoke 1.7. Mavueni/Majajani 2.25 1.25 1.1 Magarini 35 3.7.1. Pumwani 4.2 Vitengeni 1.33 1.7. Vitengeni 3. Shomela 3.025 247 153 570 312 499 701 391 447 353 368 90. Mambrui 2. Milore 2.11 1.3 Takaungu Mavueni 1. Bomani 3.021 2.778 1.6. Mrima wa Ndege 2. Dida 2.690 1.2 Magarini 1.11 1.7. Mwahera 2. Shimo la Tewa 3. Magogoni 2.25 1. Fundisa 2. Kidutani/Nawamba 2.1 Gongoni 107 1.25 1. Marereni Baseline Survey Report.072 1. May.25 1.00 1.11 1.11 1.20 1.1 Mrima wa Ndege 1.6.1. Dzikunze 4.871 1.1. 2007 7. Madawani 2. Mali ndi 3.7 Vitengeni 2.25 1. Ngomeni 2.25 1.33 1.00 1.33 2. Nyari 4.4 Mwahera 1.25 1.11 1.329 1. Ndumnani 7 3.146 75% 9/10 80% 75% 50% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% Left out Left out Left out 90% 90% 90% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 80% 1. Mkwajuni/Mkomani 2. gongoni 3.905 2. Marikebuni 3.33 N/A N/A N/A 1.33 1.2. Pare 3.095 929 469 949 973 202 210 323 1.00 9 Institution Development & Management Services .099 1. Vipingo 2.33 1.

6 Ganda 1.00 1. Mere 3.3.11 1. Kijiwetanga 4. Shella 5.00 1. Madunguni 3.3 Malindi 1.601 665 415 517 917 579 674 433 293 512 362 412 567 147 718 178 281 10/10 8/8 8/8 6/6 4/4 1. Barani 3. Makongeni 2. Jimba 3.11 1.00 1.00 3. kadzndani 3.25 1. Mida 4.530 634 286 705 292 588 1.00 1.11 1.053 547 591 102 256 1.00 1.5 Gede 1.00 1. Msabaha 3.501 2.00 1. Mongotini 3.11 1. Mbaraka Chembe 4. Mijomboni 2. Dabaso 3. Ganda 2.07 1. Paziani 4.00 1. Malanga 4.7 Jilore 1.00 1.2 Malindi 3.2.430 1.00 1.2.2 Chakama 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.2.3 Marafa 3.07 1. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 10 . Mkenge 3.3.109 1. Sabaki 2.00 1.1 Watamu 1. Jilore/Zian 3. Girimacha 3.2.11 1.00 1.20 1.2. Chembe Kibaba Muche 1. Malimo 5. May.00 1. Kakuyuni 2.4 Langobaya 1.00 1. Matolani 3.900 6.1 Adu 1.00 1. Makobeni 3.2. Adu Baseline Survey Report. Kisiki Cha Wangiriama 3.642 1.00 1. Mkondoni 3. Central 9/10 10/12 6/6 10/10 9/10 8/10 9/10 18/20 9/10 10/10 14/15 15/15 10/10 8/8 14/15 12/12 10/10 10/10 Left out 30/30 8/8 10/10 10/10 3/3 Left out Left out Left out 1.8 Goshi 1. Langobaya 2.00 3.2.2.362 7. Kakoneni 2. Ramada 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. Watamu 2.

3.1.00 1. Singwaya 2.5 Majengo 1. Bondeni 6. Kizingo 6. Kipevu 1.00 1. Birikani 2. Miritini 2.616 1. Shimanzi 6. Mambasa 3.4 Mikindani 1.074 1.461 3.20 6.1.736 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 9/10 100% 1. Masindeni 3. Ganjoni 2.2.2 Island 6. Bura 3.00 1. Jomvu Kuu 6. Mwembe Tayari 3.2. Majengo (King’orani) 6.3.5 Miritini 1.00 1.685 3.2.4 Tudor 1.413 2.1.00 1. Tudor 2. High Level 2.1 Changamwe 6.3 Garashi 1.00 6.2 Railway 1.00 1. Madina 3.252 4. Gandini 3. Mikuyuni 3.238 2. Dakacha 3. Tudor Four 6.6 Old Town Baseline Survey Report. Port Retz 1.568 4.00 1.3 Kipevu 6.103 563 443 228 52. Mom basa 6. Bore 2.18 1.3.5 Dagamra 1. 2007 1. Tononoka 2.984 3. Kamale 3.1 Ganjoni 1.051 1.3.20 1.909 1.343 714 1.4.00 1.11 1.022 5.1 Changamwe 6.3 Tononoka 1.00 1. Mji wa Kale Institution Development & Management Services 11 .923 16.11 1. Baricho 2. May. Bate 2. Kwa shee 2. Kaya 3 16 56 297 697 546 756 212 293 400 208 191 1.11 1. Changamwe 1. Majengo 2.2 Marafa 1.164 8/10 Insign’t Left out Insign’t 85% 10/10 90% 9/10 10/10 5/6 4/4 4/4 5/6 1.1.952 4.2.419 4.2.2.00 1.4 Bungale 1.765 15.1.00 1.2 Port Reitz 6.25 1.00 1.

702 11.3.083 5.11 6. Timbwani 3.3. Junda 6. Vyemani 2. Bofu 2.4.11 6.634 14.3.540 469. Mtongwe 1.305 5. Kisauni 2.11 9/10 1.2 Mtongwe 6. Mwembe Legeza 4. Maweni 6. Bamburi 2.2 Kisauni 1.649 2.545 6.569 932 3. Shanzu 1. Vijiweni 4 Total 32 17 165 35 321 Baseline Survey Report. Kongowea 2. Likoni 8.4. May.864 14.240 2.3 Shika Adabu 1.11 1.3 Kisauni 6. Magogoni 3.1 Likoni 1.583 1.792 9/10 9/10 1.3 Bamburi 1.384 4. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 12 .841 9/10 1.1 Kongowea 1.4 Likoni 6. Old Town/Makadara 6.599 15. Mwakirunge 3.4.2.977 1.508 183.

QUESTIONS ANSWER CATEGORIES CODE A.01 What are the main products you get from your coconut trees? Product 1. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 13 . Madafu (numbers) 3.ABD-DANIDA/COAST DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COCONUT SURVEY – COAST PROVINCE (2007) SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION A: To be administered to every 20th respondent interviewed in the Survey NO.01 A. Makuti (Stacks) 5.02 B. please state why? B.04 A.04 Which are the 3 main constraints you face in production and marketing of coconut products? Indicate the 3 numbers starting with the most critical one 1=High incidence of pest and diseases 2= Lack of quality seeds/seedlings 3= Unfavorable weather condition e.02 A.03 Have you cut down any of your coconut trees in the last 12 months? If YES. May. Nuts (Numbers) 2. Other 1= Yes 2=No 1 = To use wood for building/fencing/poles 2 = To sell wood/timber 3 = To clear land for other use 4 = To rid farm old trees 5 = To rid farm of diseased trees 6 = Other (Specify) Tick only three (3) critical problems Facing the farmer Units harvested (in 2006) Units sold (2006) Unit selling price B.03 A. drought or heavy rains 4= Unfavorable land tenure system 5= Lack of credit facilities 6=Lack of adequate market outlets 7=Low prices of the products and By-products 8= Poor road infrastructure 9= High transport cost to the markets 10= Lack of labour 11= High rate of theft 12= Others Specify………………… Baseline Survey Report.06 Enumerator name District Division Location Sub-Location Village Date of interview [ ]/[ ]/2007 SECTION B: B. Brooms (Numbers) 6. Wine (Bottles) 4.g.05 A. Timber (Running Feet) 7.

of Trees Planted . Location ……………………….. Baseline Survey Report. Village/Estate ……………………… Enumerator Name ………………… No. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 1 .Others No. No. May...Others M F 0–5 yrs 6–20 yrs 21–40 yrs 41– 60 yrs 61+ yrs Total by Variety Tall Short Total of dead Trees Who owns the trees? 1-Self 2-Family 3. Sub-Location …………………. Division ………………………. of seedlings in nursery Size of land in acres No.Family 3. of Nut producti on -2006 Who owns the land? 1-Self 2.. Sex Number of coconut trees in farm by age SERIAL NO……………… DATE……………………. Signature ……………….2006 al Name of supervisor (Loc) ………………………Date cross checked ………….e of the Farmer MAIN SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ABD – DANIDA & COAST DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COCONUT SURVEY – COAST PROVINCE (2007) District ………………………. of Trees Cut Down 2006 No.

Appendix 2 List of key GOK and other stakeholders officials who partcipated
PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL STAFF

Phoebe A. Odhiambo (Mrs)

Provincial Director of Agriculture Coast Province

MOMBASA DISTRICT MOA STAFF
Name 1. Joel M. Gatuthu Div. 2. Abdalla M. Ahmed 3. Dorren C. Njumwa 4. Tabitha Odhiambo 5. Aminah Mwajambza 6. Nassir Mohammed 7. Okoth Kagungu 8. Babu S. M 9. Godson k. Kazungu 10. Felix N. Piko 11. Jacinta Simba Position Crop Dev. Officer Div. Env & Land Dev. Off Frontline Ext Officer Frontline Ext Officer Div. Crop Dev. Officer Frontline Ext Officer Frontline Ext Officer Dist. Ext. Res. Liason Training F.E.O.I Div. Env. & Land Dev. Officer Dist. Agricultural Officer Division Kisauni Telephone 0726685744

Changamwe 0722 654349 Likoni Likoni Likoni Kisauni 0735 661719 0733 994678 0734 255397 0722 705276

Changamwe 0733 677385 Mombasa Kisauni Kisauni Mombasa 0722 836373 0735 661719 0722 484800

MALINDI DISTRICT MOA STAFF Name 1. B. K. Muirithi 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Position Div. Agricultural Officer Division Malindi Malindi Watamu Malindi Goshi Jilore Telephone 0724 237601 0734 570908 0735 712469 0721 257190 0725 918825 0722 372848
2

Bernard Mwangangi Dist/Div Agricultural Officer Safari Kirao Daniel Ngome Irene M. Chingawa FEW Div. Agricultural & Env. Officer FEW

Cosmas N. Makanda FEW

Baseline Survey Report, May, 2007

Institution Development & Management Services

7. 8. 9.

Malusi S. S. G.M Mwavitta Ireri Felix

FEW Div. GHMO Div. Agricultural & Env. Officer FEO FEO FEO FEO

Libaya Malindi Marafa Garashi

0723 995175 0734 436397 0720 876189 0720 894945

10. Swaleh Atik 11. B. Mwangala 12. Edward N. Nguma 13. James K. Ndeto

Ganda Loc. 0726 280841 Bungale Loc 0726 755053 Fundissa Loc.0733 231141 Gongoni Magarani Gede Chakama 0736 276545 0722 297586 0721 403378 0721 645195

14. Thomas m. Mwalimu FEO 15. Haron Mwangoma 16. David M. Baya 17. Daniel K. Charo Div. Crop Dev. Officer FEO FEO

KWALE DISTRICT MOA STAFF Name 1. D.T.O Nyandoto 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. F. K. Chapsat Alice M. Thome Benrad Mainga D.D. Murithi Kagundu E.N Digodziru M. K. Juma B. kizuka Soud Kombo Position DERITO DAEO DAEO AAEO DAEO DAEO Div. Crop Officer Div. Agric. Dev. Officer Div. Env. Land Dev. Off. FEW FEW Div. Crop Officer Div. Crop Officer Div Env. Land Dev. Off. SAA Div. GMO Div. CDO FEO TSMBLO Division DAO’s Office Samburu Lunga Lunga Matuga Kinango Kubo Samburu Samburu Msambweni Samburu Kubo Lunga Lunga Kinango Kinango Samburu Samburu Matuga Matuga Telephone 0726 608852 0720 256003 0734 518242 0721 309119 0735 484147 0721 754161 0720 483526 0723 592195 0721 658427 0726 862246 0734 864665 0722561846 0721 982151 0736 514156 0724 150105 0720 251334 0723 630919 0736 936183
3

10. Ndung’u Kibera 11. John K. Chengo 12. Victor Mzinga 13. E. Mwambire 14. Tunje C. G. 15. Iddi Mwambire 16. Elizabeth Nzoka 17. Mballa ARB 18. Ali saidi Siri
Baseline Survey Report, May, 2007

Institution Development & Management Services

19. M.M. Chombo 20. W.M. Mwakio 21. Martin Maluki 22. Esther M. Odundo 23. Goretta M. Maveke 24. Margaret Otiende 25. Gideon N. Mutua 26. Peter M. Muindi 27. Josephine Mwania 28. Nderitu Moses 29. Singi J. 30. A.I Kimani

Div. Agric. Dev. Officer Div. Crop Dev. Officer

Msambweni Msambweni

0736 832754 0734 317175 0734 875892 0722 276823 0721 445307 072- 688225 0734 957560 0727 743208 0720 307792 0721 599525 0733 625589 0720 368636

Div. Env. & Land Dev Off Kubo Div Agric & Env Officer GHMO GHMO F.E.O FEW FEW DM & EO DCDO DAO Msambweni Msambweni Matuga Kinango Lunga Lunga Msambweni Kwale DAO’S Office Kwale

KILIFI DISTRICT MOA STAFF Name 1. Jane M. Kanamu 2. Caroline a Akinyi 3. Nelson C. Mwadima 4. Mwanduni M. A 5. Peter M. Igogo 6. Mtsanganyiko Ndaa 7. A. M. Jilani 8. Opiyo K. James 9. Aoko Fredrick 10. Ronald Masinde 11. Mwandawiro A. M 12. Joseph G. Munga 13. Douglas Kabira 14. Kalu Kitsao Mwango 15. Peter M. Kogo 16. Boniface Mwandogo
Baseline Survey Report, May, 2007

Position Dist . Crop Dev Officer DAEO Div. Crop Dev. Officer Div. ADO DAEO Div. Crop Dev.Officer

Division Head Quarters Kaloleni Chonyi Kikambala Ganze Vitengenii

Telephone 0726 788937 0721 654497 0720 846219 0725 804869 0726 393081 0722 551499 0725 368794 0722 674451 0722459645 0735 524724 0735 787629 0736 315424 0723 144327 0724 804051 0726 393081 0722 791430
4

Division Crop Dev. Officer Bahari DAEO DAEO FEO FEO FEO FEO FEO DAEO FEO Bamba Chonyi Kauma Ganze Kambe (Kaloleni) Vitengeni Baharini Matsangoli Ganze Bahari

Institution Development & Management Services

17. Nelson Mwadzua 18. Ndunda k. Kioko 19. Agnes H. Katana 20. Mary M. Munyazi 21. Elfransiah M. Hare 22. Eunice Mwanyanya 23. Pamphil M. Mdighila 24. Juma Nyawa 25. Thomas Dzombo 26. Joseph M. Lewa

Div. Crop Dev Off. FEO FEO FEO FEO FEO FEO FEO FEO FEW

Chonyi Kaloleni Kaloleni Kaloleni Vitengeni Kikambala Vitengeni Kaloleni Kaloleni Chonyi Ribe Loc. Tsangatsini Mtsangoni/Yumbo

0720 846219 0733 242090 0734 790397 0726 318754 0723 600419 0722 448354 0734 963977 0723 756223 0726 941061 0722 434398 0733 348878 0726 820574 -

27. Johnstone A. Dhadho FEO 28. Hussen s.O Baya 29. Nyale K. Nyale 30. Boniface M. Karisa 31. Peter M. Mburu FEO FEO FEO DAO

Mavueni /Takaungu 0723 859433 Kilifdi 0722 872960

LAMU DISTRICT MOA STAFF Name 1. O.K Nyambu 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Elvis M. Mjomba B.M Chokera Elijah M. Rufus S.M Mbeka F.K Cheruiyot K.M Mazozo P.M Njuguna Charles Omondi Position Div. Agric. & Env.Officer FEO FEW Div. Crop Officer FEW Division Amu Hindi Loc Mpeketoni Amu Mokowe Loc Telephone 0727 048292 0735 744109 0725 611069 0727 788264 0720 283365 0735 335544 0722 674331 0735 321353 0722 672730 0723 402599

Div Agric. & Land Dev Off Hindi FEW Div. Crop Dev Officer Witu Witu

Div. Env. & Land Dev Off. DAO’s Office Div. Crop Dev. Officer FEW DPMEO Div. Crop Dev. Off DAO Mpeketoni Dide DAO’s Office Faza Lamu District

10. Gerald Yawa 11. Patrick L. Daiga 12. S.M Ndaiga 13. Munga P.P. 14. Ali Mwakuphunza
Baseline Survey Report, May, 2007

Institution Development & Management Services

5

Tana River District MOA Staff Name 1. 5. Ng’etich (Mrs) Provincial Commissioner District Commissioner District Commissioner District Commissioner District Commissioner District Commissioner District Commissioner District Commissioner Mombasa District Kilifi District Taita Taveta District Tana River District Lamu District Kwale District Malindi District Baseline Survey Report.M. Land Dev. Martin K. May. Kangi A. Mwambao William N. Crop Dev.R. Off Kipini Div. Off FEO Division Chara Garsen Kipini Garsen Mwina Unit 0721 338050 0736 308004 0726 393081 0734 151718 0735 298958 0735 818216 0736 134378 Telephone 0734 927554 0733 267264 0735 636064 Div. Johana 2. Haruta Position FEO / DAEO Div. 3. George Mukabi 13. Bakari S. Garashi Timothy M. 8. 4. Nyambu Jackson C. Victor John Muteti Kisuna Kassin M. Ole Lankas M. Igogo Anne S.M Wambua W. 2007 Institution Development & Management Services 6 . Odari Ngwetuo 12. 6.K. Galugalu A. Officer DAEO for DAEO DAEO District Crop Officer FEO DAO Kipini Garsen Garsen Bura Tana River Galole 10. Env. Matipei N. & Land Dev. Thuku J. Bunu A. Letimalo B.R. Env. Officer DAEO Div. 9. Crop Dev. Mwamuye Peter M. L. 7. Wekesa 11. Haji Tana River District PROVINCIAL ADMINISTRATION STAFF WHO SUPPORTED THE COCONUT SURVEY PROJECT Ernest Munyi R.

W K Mureithi 2. Mtwapa ABD Consultant MOA Civic USAD-KHDP CDA ABD DANIDA ABD DANIDA Palm International ADU Ranching KOCOS K LTD Kilifi co-op Union CDA 0734 884962 0725 464749 0722 836373 Box 97962 MSA Box 85784 MSA Box 1322 MSA 0722 244686 Box 87358 MSA Box 1202 Kilifi Box 5632 Malindi Box 1322 MSA 0722 641884 041 5485842 Box 49879 NBI Box 5454 Malindi 0727 200111 Box 43433 MSA Box 1322 MSA 0724 105520 0724 105515 0722 480819 0723 146353 0722 682018 0720 806809 Box 1322 MSA Box 1322 MSA 0733 258666 Institution Development & Management Services 26. Alice Maitha 22. Githende Gachanja 8. Jefwa Ngombo 13. Luciana Sanzua 12. Dan M Biryah 17. Simiyu KD 16. Lilian Hadullo 5. F C Mng’ong’o 19. Jim Davies 24. May. George Mazuri 20. G S Munga 3. Edward B Kingi 11. Muli Musinga 15. Private Consultancy Farmer CDA GTI Matuga KARI. Baha Nguma MOA KARI MOA MOA Palm International CDA/IDM IDM Msambweni Dev. Baetrice M Gambo 18.PARTICIPANTS IN DRAFT REPORT VALIDATION MEETING HELD ON 2/5/2007 AT CDA 1. Co. Finyange N Pole 14. Mwango Kazungu Baseline Survey Report. Hemed R Mwabudzo CDA 27. 2007 CDA 7 . Hubbel M Randu 25. Dr. Sam Pande 6. Zachary Odhiambo 7. Joseph M Njoya 9. Kennedy Mayende 21. Babu S Musa 4. Enoch Mrabu 10. Morris Mangi 23.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful