Institutions and Knowledge Transfer

change. Thus, this highlight the importance of consumer behaviour and emphasises it to be an overriding determinant for the smallholders to adopt more circular practices.

The findings of this section emphasise the power of the market as a determinant for circular practices. It was revealed that the impact of the market differs to a great extent depending on the farmer and his production. The farmers producing for the domestic market on one hand face insignificant incentives to change practices due to the lack of enforcement of standards.

The farmers that produce for the export markets are on the other hand encouraged to produce more circularly because of the market’s high requirements and the consequences of not complying because of the increased focus on enforcement. Finally, lack of reliable market information as well as a lack of consumer demand for sustainable products discourage the farmers to change to circular practices.

previously mentioned, that education on basic agricultural practices used to be part of the curriculum in school, however, this had been changed since less people were getting employed in the agricultural sector compared to earlier. Additionally, literature has found educational training, or the lack of, to be a factor contributing to the low labour productivity in the horticulture sector (Kangai & Gwademba, 2017). The lack of support from the different governmental authorities proved to impede the adoption of more circular practices among the smallholders.

Farmer 5 who solely produced for the domestic market had never engaged with any regulators or enforcers (Appendix 5). Rizos et al. (2015) argued that the lack of encouragement and effective legislation were significant barriers to adopt more circular practices. As mentioned, our findings revealed that standards and policies were in place, however, these were primarily enforced in relation to large-scale producers and export farmers. It was explained that the lack of resources of the government parastatals prevented them from enforcing the standards for domestic and small-scale producers. Even if too high levels of contaminants are found, no fines are given. This lack of support and enforcement is a big discouragement to the farmers and leaves them with no incentives to produce more sustainable or buy quality and safe inputs. Similarly, Govindan & Hasanagic (2018) argued that regulations related to environmental protection must be existing and enforced in order to drive change. Rizos et al. (2015) found that in cases where no effective enforcement mechanisms are present, managers attitude toward sustainability can instead act as a driver of environmental improvements. This was found to be the case for the organic farmer we interviewed. Even though, there was no policies or standards forcing him to change his practices, he still went ahead with it because of his own environmental concerns. Nonetheless, if the manager, or in this case the farmer, does not hold a positive attitude toward sustainability then the conditions around him, including enforcement, need to be effectively in place in order to drive the change.

Our findings revealed that management of waste was a major issue in Kenya since no adequate waste disposal or recycling services have been implemented on a national level. This means that only few people can afford to have their waste collected by private actors, whereas the rest is forced to bury or burn hazardous wastes such as plastic (Soezer, 2016). The lack of

an efficient waste management system immensely impeded the implementation of circular practices since the farmers told that they often had to burn or bury their plastic wastes harming the environment. Literature has further underlined the importance of governmental services and frameworks to support more circular practice as it has been revealed that ineffective recycling policies and the lack of encouragement from government are barriers to circular economy (Rizos et al., 2015; Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; De Jesus & Mendonça, 2017).

Our findings indicated that programmes initiated by the government intended to help the farmers were impeded by corruption, which hindered the adoption of circular practices. The fertiliser subsidy programme, initiated in 2009, was supposed to make inorganic fertilisers easier accessible and cheaper. From a circular perspective, an increased use of inorganic fertilisers is undesirable. However, it can be useful if the inorganic fertilisers are able to close nutrient loops that can otherwise not be closed by organic fertilisers and increase the food production. Furthermore, a controlled supply might ensure the quality of the input and the knowledge of its origins and what it contains. This is important to know before applying it on the soil and it can also help to increase productivity. Nevertheless, various problems existed in this regard. First of all, it was argued that the unsteady supply of the fertilisers led to an inappropriate use. Moreover, the subsidised fertilisers were resold to middlemen selling it at a higher price and as an unknown mix. Farmer 5 explained “the fertiliser prices are changing a lot. The county government is in charge of it but they often sell it to middlemen who mix different kinds of fertilisers and other stuff so you don’t get what you need. I have tried many times to use fertiliser where nothing happened even though I used a lot. You don’t know what you get and it might be bad for the crops” (Appendix 5:32-36). He further stated “the middlemen have some contacts in the county government and get the license to sell it and can sell it for an over price. The county government also earns money that way by being paid by the middlemen. That is why I would like to produce more organic but I cannot afford to change” (Appendix 5:38-41). This shows how corruption acts as a barrier to produce more circular. It further entails that farmers might increase their use of fertilisers and get a mix that can potentially damage soil fertility and thus decrease productivity and supply of food. The farmer’s experience is supported by various investigations of the subsidy programme that points towards the fact that challenges and corruption are related to the governance system

in Kenya (Mugai, 2018). This can be explained by the fact that Kenya ranks as number 143 out of 180 countries according to the 2017 Corruption Perception Index (Transparency International, 2017), indicating corruption to be a general problem in the country.

To fill the gap of lacking governmental management, other stakeholders were supporting the farmers. The engagement with export companies especially seemed to be impactful in regard to knowledge transfer of circular economy practices. Engaging in export entails stricter control with external inputs such as pesticides and fertilisers levels, which forces the farmers to be more aware of their practices often implying more circular practices. It was also found that being connected to the export market automatically led to engagement with the government parastatals as they would help the farmers attain the standards and requirements. Further, we also found NGOs to have a positive impact on the adoption of circular practices. It was even suggested by Professor Wahome that they have a bigger impact than the policies in place because they have direct contact with the farmers. Due to their capabilities and substantial levels of inputs, they can offer long-term impacts, which all go a long way in providing the farmers with incentives (Appendix 7). Our findings seemed to substantiate this as the farmers demonstrated their knowledge and implementation of various circular practices facilitated by NGOs, such as prevention of soil erosion and conservation of soil, that are expected to have long-term impacts.

Our findings emphasise the important role of institutions and support previous studies that have indicated that the institutional environment both supports and inhibits the adoption of and transition to circular economy (Ranta et al., 2018). From institutional theory, we learned that change in social values and regulations as well as external social, political and economic pressure all influence decisions regarding activities such as adopting circular economy (Glover et al., 2014). These influences were also clear among our findings. Moreover, our findings revealed that the lack of governmental support and enforcement impeded the adoption of circular practices. The lack of existing knowledge among the farmers, as discussed previously, can further be attributed to the absence of governmental support and knowledge transfer. Nevertheless, it was found that the export companies and NGOs to a certain degree were able to fill out this gap. This is also consistent with literature that have found governmental ineffectiveness to generally act as a barrier, whereas private stakeholders and

NGOs are found to be drivers (Rizos et al., 2015; Govindan & Hasanagic, 2018; De Jesus &

Mendonça, 2017). The connection to export companies in particular proved to be a driver. It is important to consider our findings in the light of the economic and political context of Kenya in which governance systems and institutions are impeded by corruption, weak coordination and lack of resources (Transparency International, 2017; World Bank, 2018).