Contribution of Indigenous Innovations for Mitigating Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda J. E. Smith) among Maize Farmers for Improved Food Security

Fall armyworm (FAW) is a new invasive pest that causes economic damage to a wide variety of crops. This pest is estimated to reduce maize yields by about 60%. FAW could cause crop losses of up to US$13 billion annually across sub- Saharan Africa, threatening the livelihoods of millions of resource-poor farmers worldwide. Governments have warned against the indiscriminate use of chemical pesticides that could undermine pest control strategies for smallholder farmers who rely heavily on natural enemies. Since the invasion of this pest in Kenya, there had been limited studies conducted on indigenous innovations to tackle the challenges of FAW infestation. There has also been limited knowledge on the effects of the indigenous innovations adopted by smallholder farmers on crop production. A total of 150 farmers from Busia, Siaya, and Vihiga counties were purposely sampled and appropriately informed about the indigenous innovations they developed to address and leverage FAW challenges with the help of well-structured questionnaires. The impact of the indigenous innovations on crop production were evaluated. Analysis of quantitative data was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20. Results showed that households affected by FAW without indigenous methods in place were 11% more likely to experience food shortage, and their members had a 13% higher probability of going to bed hungry or going a whole day without eating, compared to households affected but with indigenous methods in place. Conversely, households that reported severe level of FAW infestation due to lack of indigenous methods in place, observed a 44% significant decrease in per capita household income and their members were about 17% more likely to go hungry relative to their unaffected counterparts. Finally, food security implications, we find that the affected households without control action had nearly a 15% higher likelihood of experiencing hunger, while their counterparts that applied control measures were 10% more likely to experience hunger, compared with households unaffected by FAW. Thus, while FAW infestations contribute significantly to hunger, the likelihood of hunger is lesser when a control measure is applied.