Exploring The Use of Participatory Communication in Enhancing Agropastoralism in Jaldesa Location, Marsabit County.

Abstract

This study explored the effectiveness of participatory communication (PC) and its role in enhancing agropastoralism, particularly focusing on the Borana community in Jaldesa Location, Marsabit County. Agropastoralism is practiced in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASAL) of Kenya as a means to cushion the communities from hunger due to persistent droughts. Jaldesa is one such area and it experiences a Semi-Arid climate which makes it arable and therefore suitable for agriculture. The area has great potential to produce food and curb increasing incidences of hunger whilst uplifting the farmers’ livelihoods. However, lack of participatory communication in development infinitives hinders the potential of community to be self reliant through agropastoral practices. This study explored the utilisation of participatory communication in agropastoralism and its influence in decision making, and sustainability of agropastoral practices. It also explored the awareness, knowledge and experiences of the community regarding participatory communication in promoting agropastoralism. Furthermore, the study identified specific areas that participatory communication was employed, to promote agropastoralism practices and finally the this study aimed to assess the perception of the community towards participatory communication. This study was underpinned by Participatory Communication and Community Participation theories. These theories emphasise involvement of community members in every phase of development discussion; from problem identification to implementation to foster ownership and sustainability. This study utilised the exploratory research design to collect data and thematic analysis process to analyse the data; purposive and convenience sampling techniques were utilised to gather data from focus group discussions and key informants. From the findings it was evident that PC was superficially utilised and misapplied in the community, it often functioned as a one-way communication rather than interactive and collective decision making process. Additionally, this study found that the community had no influence on the final project decisions and actualisation. Moreover, this study identified various barriers to effective participatory communication, which included operational, structural and cultural barriers that often undermined community contributions. This study concluded that there is semblance of participatory communication; merely calling for a meeting of community members to discuss a preconceived project or train them does not qualify as participatory communication. It is therefore imperative that development practitioners genuinely involve agropastoral farmers in development agendas, allowing them to take lead.