Existing Knowledge and Awareness

The farmers generally expressed a certain level of awareness of the need to change to more circular practices to sustain their production and reduce the negative environmental impacts of it. They all possessed a general level of knowledge in terms of basic agricultural practices and also performed practices adding to circular economy. However, in order to implement more circular practices through changes in their daily production, their existing knowledge was not extensive enough.

The AFPC farmers possessed knowledge on the handling of pesticide as farmer 4 expressed

“...I try to avoid the use [of pesticides] by applying practices learned from the export company.

For example, my planting times have now been adjusted to avoid some pests. But I would like more information on what is needed for my soil to produce in a way that hurts the environment the least” (Appendix 4:35-38). This example indicates that knowledge has led to a better control of pesticides. However, it also shows that more knowledge is needed in order to better control and further minimise the use. Contrary, farmer 5 expressed that he did not possess specific knowledge in this area (Appendix 5). Thus, it is arguable that he might not apply pesticides in the most efficient and least harming manner.

As most of the farmers did not know the fertility of their soil, it is arguable that they did not know how to control and minimise the use of fertilisers. Instead, this eventually led to an increased use of fertilisers, depletion of soil, potential discharges to the groundwater of excess fertilisers as well as increasing gas emissions. This gap of knowledge hampered the transition to more circular practices. The organic farmer had become aware of the benefits of organic production in terms of both environmental and financial gains. As he possessed more specific

knowledge on how to convert, he had changed his entire production and stopped the use of chemicals. He pointed out that being aware but not possessing knowledge or not being aware but possessing knowledge would not lead to change (Appendix 6). This highlights the importance of possessing both knowledge and awareness in order to drive change. Govindan

& Hasanagic (2018) similarly found lack of awareness to be a barrier for circular implementation. However, our findings revealed that the farmers possessed awareness that acted as a driver for them to change practices. The conventional farmers expressed views such as “...I am still trying to take care of the environment. I know it is not good if the pesticides residues gets into the spring, because it will affect the people here and our children in a bad way” (Appendix 4:33-35) and “we have to protect that mountain [Aberdare Mountain] for us to be able to get continuous supply of water. If you destroy it, it means water will stop” (Appendix 1:205-206), which further reflected their level of awareness.

Recycling nutrients from organic matter was a practice all the farmers exercised. They were well aware of the benefits of reusing manure and crop remains on the fields as fertilisers.

Their knowledge was reflected in various practices such as e.g. drying the manure in order to use it more efficiently on the fields. Farmer 2 had further invested in a polythene bag to dry the manure and explained “after getting the polythene bag, then I banned the manure and covered it with the polythene bag, I almost got the double amount from my crops. It was not difficult to see the benefits by drying the manure this way. And as I told, I let some of the other farmers use it as well as they have seen the benefits. It also means that we use less fertilisers”

(Appendix 2:89-93). This example shows how the farmers’ knowledge of practices to close nutrients loop reduced the use of inorganic fertilisers. Nevertheless, by contrast, one farmer had never heard about the polythene bag for drying manure and did not possess knowledge of optimising drying processes. It is therefore arguable that his lack of knowledge was impeding him from having an efficient nutrient recycling, which is an important part of a circular economy.

The farmers explained how they would remove crop remains from the fields to avoid spreading diseases and spread it back to the fields as compost and reuse all the by-products from their production. This knowledge enabled the farmers to reduce the use of inorganic fertilisers while feeding nutrients back in the loop. Nevertheless, the lack of existing

knowledge of their soil meant that they did not know which nutrients were actually needed for their soil. Even though a few soil samples and tests had been carried out in their area, this was not reliable information for them to change their practices. Govindan & Hasanagic (2018) similarly underpinned the lack of reliable information as a barrier to the implementation of circular economy. Thus, if they had had more adequate knowledge of their soil, this could have worked as a driver for them to change their practices. This indicates that the lack of knowledge in one area can lead to negative effects or impede the implementation of existing knowledge in another.

When asked about converting to organic production, and thereby more circular practices, the majority of the farmers confirmed they had considered it both because of environmental concerns but also due to the potential financial benefits. However, they did not possess sufficient knowledge about the actual conversion and also expressed that they lacked knowledge about the financial aspects. In this regard, farmer 4 explained “I know it and know some farmers are doing it but I don’t have any knowledge of the practices and what the change involves, if its economically beneficial, so I have never considered to change”

(Appendix 4:45-47). The ProGrOV project (2017) similarly emphasised lack of knowledge as a key barrier to organic conversion. It was argued that the limited information available among the farmers about the profitability of producing organically discouraged them from converting. Again, the project highlighted that the financial aspect should be emphasised further. In this regard, it was suggested by both literature and Mwaura that extension services should focus on the economic dimension. It was argued that if the farmers experienced and were educated about the economic advantages of adopting more sustainable practices, they would be more likely to do so (McCarthy & Schurmann, 2014; Appendix 10). This again shows that awareness and knowledge need to be equally present in order to drive change.

Our findings showed that the farmers in general were aware of the damaging effects of not producing circularly and, thus, it acted as a driver to change practices. Nevertheless, it was evident that existing knowledge also needs to be present in order to turn awareness into practice, which the organic farmer was an example of (Appendix 6). Thus, existing knowledge acted both as a driver and a barrier. Some farmers already exercised circular practices, however, it was clear that the lack of adequate knowledge often impeded further changes.

Furthermore, they expressed that they could not afford to invest in more knowledge themselves such as in a soil test, a polythene bag or consultancy in general.

According to Murimi, many smallholder farmers still lack knowledge about basic agricultural practices partly explained by the fact that most schools have cut down on education related to agricultural practices. This is also the reason why the county extension services are primarily focused on basic practices, instead of practices related to circular economy or organic production, which explains the farmers’ level of knowledge (Appendix 9). Our findings related to how existing knowledge impede circular economy are also consistent with the study of Rizos et al. (2015), who found key barriers to include the lack of internal skills to be able to identify more advanced practices that can reduce environmental impact and the lack of knowledge about the financial benefits from implementing circular economy practices. If the farmers for example were better informed on how a sample and test of their soil could benefit them economically, more would likely consider investing in one.

Our findings revealed that knowledge to a high degree is affected by institutional support in terms of the level of knowledge transfer as well as to the farmers’ financial constraints impeding them obtaining further knowledge. Moreover, our findings also emphasised the importance of the farmers having a broad knowledge concerning all aspects of their production as the lack knowledge in one area can affect existing knowledge in another. Thus, even though the farmer might have a substantial amount of knowledge in one area of production, and know how to do this process in the most efficient and sustainable manner, this can be immediately offset by the lack of knowledge in another area as the different process of production are highly correlated.