In Makueni County, Patrick Muinda stands beside his thriving orchard, where rows of fruit trees stretch toward the horizon, their roots nourished by water pumped from the nearby Kiumanya water pan. The reservoir, established by the National Irrigation Authority, is a lifeline for farmers like Muinda, offering a reliable water source in a region where rainfall is increasingly unpredictable. His story is a testament to how targeted agricultural interventions can transform livelihoods—but it also raises a critical question: *Who decides what technologies reach farmers like him, and how well do they truly serve local needs?*
That question took center stage at a participatory technology assessment forum held in Murang’a town last Friday, where agricultural experts, policymakers, and civil society groups gathered to examine the growing influence of technology in farming. While innovations like irrigation systems, digital platforms, and climate-smart tools hold promise for boosting productivity, participants warned that many solutions are designed without sufficient input from the very people they intend to help—smallholder farmers. The result? Technologies that may clash with traditional practices, disrupt local ecosystems, or fail to address the real challenges farmers face on the ground.
Barbara Ntambirweta, a lawyer and researcher with the ETC Group, an organization advocating for biodiversity and agroecological food systems, underscored the disconnect. “Most of the technologies being used in the agriculture sector are brought in from outside Africa,” she said. “We want farmers to be at the heart of the technologies they use.” Her concern reflects a broader tension in modern agriculture: the push for high-tech solutions often overshadows the knowledge systems that have sustained smallholder farming for generations. Ntambirweta called for stronger legal frameworks to guide the deployment of agri-tech tools, ensuring they align with agroecological principles—such as preserving soil health, protecting native seed varieties, and maintaining farmers’ autonomy over their land and practices.
The stakes are particularly high as digital tools reshape how farmers access markets, manage crops, and even share data. Ntambirweta raised alarms about the unchecked collection of farmers’ information by private companies, many of which operate without clear mandates or oversight. “Counties need to develop policies that protect farmers from exploitation,” she urged, pointing to the risk of data being used to push proprietary seeds, chemical inputs, or financial products that could deepen farmers’ dependency on external corporations. Without safeguards, she warned, digitization could further marginalize smallholders rather than empower them.
Gideon Muya, a program assistant with the Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya (BIBA-Kenya), echoed these concerns, emphasizing that digital transformation must not come at the expense of biodiversity or food sovereignty. “We want digital solutions that conserve biodiversity while supporting food security,” he said. His organization has long advocated for farming practices that avoid synthetic inputs, which can degrade soils and harm human health over time. Yet, as agri-tech companies flood the market with apps, sensors, and AI-driven advice, Muya noted that many tools still promote conventional agriculture—relying on chemical fertilizers and pesticides—rather than agroecological alternatives.
The challenge is compounded by demographic shifts. In Murang’a County, where the median age of farmers hovers around 60, low digital literacy can hinder the adoption of new technologies. But Muya sees an opportunity in this generational divide. “Preserving traditional farming skills can bridge the gap,” he explained, suggesting that younger, tech-savvy farmers could collaborate with older generations to blend innovation with time-tested knowledge. This hybrid approach might prevent the erosion of indigenous practices while still leveraging technology to improve efficiency and market access.
Some counties are already experimenting with this balance. James Nyaga, an agroecology lead with the Murang’a County government, highlighted a digital platform connecting organic farmers directly to buyers. The mobile application, known as the Global Open Data Integrated Food Operating System, allows farmers to list their produce—whether it’s organic spinach from Kangema or maize from Maragua—and reach consumers as far as Nairobi. By cutting out middlemen, the system not only increases farmers’ profits but also strengthens the market for agroecological products. “It’s about creating a system where technology serves the farmer, not the other way around,” Nyaga said.
Yet, for every success story like Nyaga’s, there are lingering questions about scalability, equity, and long-term sustainability. The forum in Murang’a made clear that technology alone cannot fix the complexities of smallholder farming. Instead, experts argued, the future of agriculture must be shaped by inclusive design processes—where farmers, researchers, and policymakers collaborate to ensure innovations respect local contexts, protect biodiversity, and uphold farmers’ rights. As Patrick Muinda’s orchard demonstrates, the right tools, tailored to the right conditions, can yield remarkable results.