ABSTRACT Since the 1990s Conservation Agriculture (CA) has been presented to smallholders in Laikipia (Kenya) as a strategy to improve both soil fertility and productivity. In this paper, we provide a historical and social analysis of categories used to define soil management practices and farmers by agricultural programmes in colonial and post-colonial Kenya. For this purpose, we have conducted archive research, recorded the social memory of agricultural policies and farming techniques, and examined contemporary conceptual frameworks and institutional networks around CA in Ethi and Umande in Laikipia County, Central Kenya. We identified evidence of historical continuity in the strategies and methods of agricultural promotional practices. CA networks have broadly advertised the advantages of CA as a means to revert soil degradation and improve livelihoods. However, farmer categorizations based on engagement with CA, promotional strategies, and unclear operational definitions have all prevented CA from being understood by farmers as a technological farming proposal. Instead its adoption is linked with social status and occasional free access to agricultural inputs. Additionally, information about the potential risks and limitations of CA should be explicitly made available to farmers in Laikipia in order to promote transparency and informed decision-making.

中文翻译：

---

肯尼亚莱基皮亚保护性农业框架内的社会类别和机构

摘要 自 1990 年代以来，保护性农业 (CA) 已作为提高土壤肥力和生产力的战略向莱基皮亚 (肯尼亚) 的小农介绍。在本文中，我们对用于定义肯尼亚殖民和后殖民时期农业计划的土壤管理实践和农民的类别进行了历史和社会分析。为此，我们进行了档案研究，记录了农业政策和耕作技术的社会记忆，并检查了肯尼亚中部莱基皮亚县的 Ethi 和 Umande 围绕 CA 的当代概念框架和制度网络。我们确定了农业推广实践策略和方法的历史连续性证据。CA 网络广泛宣传 CA 作为恢复土壤退化和改善生计的手段的优势。然而，基于与 CA 的接触、促销策略和不明确的操作定义的农民分类都阻止了农民将 CA 理解为技术农业建议。相反，它的采用与社会地位和偶尔免费获得农业投入有关。此外，应明确向莱基皮亚的农民提供有关 CA 的潜在风险和局限性的信息，以促进透明度和知情决策。相反，它的采用与社会地位和偶尔免费获得农业投入有关。此外，应明确向莱基皮亚的农民提供有关 CA 的潜在风险和局限性的信息，以促进透明度和知情决策。相反，它的采用与社会地位和偶尔免费获得农业投入有关。此外，应明确向莱基皮亚的农民提供有关 CA 的潜在风险和局限性的信息，以促进透明度和知情决策。