Consistency of policy concerns with SRA priorities
The key policy concerns discussed so far are to a large extent consistent with SRA
priorities. The overriding objective of the SRA is to achieve a progressive reduction in
unemployment and poverty. The primary objective of the strategy is to provide a policy
and institutional environment that is conducive to increasing agricultural productivity,
promoting investment, and encouraging private sector involvement in agricultural
enterprises and agribusiness. Important for this environment is the creation of a legal and
regulatory framework that is fair to all farmers, producers, processors and marketers of
agro products. Among the objectives of the institutional reform agenda set out in the SRA
are: increasing productivity to lower per unit costs of production, improve the extension
service system, improve the link between research, extension and the farmer, improve
access to financial services, encourage growth of agribusiness, reduce taxation of
agriculture, increase market orientation and improve the regulatory framework.
The objectives and policy concerns among policy makers can be discussed in terms of
whether they are consistent with what is outlined in the SRA 2004-2014. These are the
areas of concern for the development of agricultural sector in terms of boosting
productivity and incomes, and ensuring food security, irrigation farming and enhancing
diversification into non-traditional commodities.
In the recent past, efforts aimed at addressing the problems of poverty have been
participatory in their approach. These include the Poverty Eradication Commission (PEC),
the Poverty Reduction Strategies Paper (PRSP) and Economic Recovery Strategy (ERS),
with all emphasising agriculture as the main sector both for poverty reduction and economic
development. Although the SRA recognises stakeholder involvement in the policy process in
the sector, it was not a result of a participatory process itself, marking its first major
bottleneck on whether it will sell with the stakeholders. It thus has to be marketed
aggressively so that stakeholders can buy it and take ownership of the various measures that
it prescribes to revitalise agriculture. Secondly the SRA is a medium term – to long-term
policy framework and should have embodied a monitoring and evaluation framework that
would be used to measure its success and failure to allow measures prescribed to be
refocused in light of its progress. This is another major oversight of the policy document and
ought to be thought out and formalised. Thirdly the SRA lays out a massive reform initiative
that requires it to have the right manpower in place for its implementation. Some of that
manpower could be lacking in skills required for the successful implementation of the
SRA. Capacity building for the kind of staff and skills required are not well spelt out in
the document. This could bring about haphazard and inconsistent implementation of the
policy framework and deny the economy of the benefits envisaged from it. Although
poverty reduction has been a major objective since independence, realisation of growth
even in the sector has not reduced it. Agriculture grew at an average rate of 4.7% during
the first decade of independence, but declined significantly to below 2% in the 1990s and
actually contracting by 2.4% in 2000 (Kenya 2001). Despite the sector’s growth during
the first decade of independence, the problem of poverty continued to increase, becoming
more entrenched with time. It has been argued that despite agricultural sector’s
importance in GDP, the sector’s performance is dominated by a few cash crops,
concentrated in the high potential areas. This has implied that only a small proportion of
the population participates in its performance. Hence positive growth in the sector even
during the first decade did not lead to a reduction in poverty2. Given that a number of
initiatives have already been undertaken with similar objectives, SRA does not give a
clear point of departure from these initiatives, and its value addition. Especially important
is the extent to which it is participatory and encourages participatory policy processes.
Pro-poor growth, targeting those activities within agriculture with the highest potential
for raising rural incomes is needed to address the issue of poverty reduction.
The SRA nonetheless also recognises efforts from other sectors that are necessary to
achieve its objects for example in having the right and stable macroeconomic
environment, supportive services in policy analysis and research, affordable financial
services, good roads especially rural access roads, rural electrification, water supply,
accessible and affordable curative and preventive health care and seeking to have the
resources and techniques to increase farmland under irrigation. However, it fails to
recognise and build in the policy framework the ongoing public expenditure reforms that
favour devolution of public expenditures to the districts and constituencies. These
devolved funds are creating rural infrastructure that without them would not have been
undertaken at all. Cognizance of these efforts is very important for they have the effect of
opening up the hinterland and enable resources that would have been taped only
expensively to be tapped relatively cheaply. In addition they also open up markets for
farmers whose produce would reach destination markets with difficulty and at higher
costs.
Structures and Actors Affecting Agricultural Policy
Agriculture being the dominant sector in the economy draws a lot of interest from
different actors and stakeholders through the formulation of policies that affect its
performance and development. In an effort to discuss the structures and actors in
agricultural policy, we present a summary and discussion of two studies that have
attempted to identify the main players and policy making processes.
Drivers of Change
The first report titled “Strengthening the Incentives for Pro-Poor Change: An analysis of
drivers of change in Kenya” emanated from a study commissioned by DFID Kenya. The
overriding purpose is an analysis of drivers of change in Kenya. To this end, the major
problem focused on is the political elite having captured public institutions and resources
essentially driven by motives of serving their private interests. The resulting
consequences have been that “corruption has flourished, public institutions have declined,
growth has faltered and poverty has worsened” (p6)
Elite Attitude to Change and Prospects
In regard to attitude to change the report laments that the very same political elite
benefiting from the status quo have generally opposed desirable patterns of change. It is
nevertheless the contention of the authors regarding prospects for change that the types of
policy reforms required to reverse the decline, and hence for the envisaged change to be
realized, are fairly well understood. This somewhat complacent position is seemingly
based on the view that “better prospects for pro-poor change” were created by the
election of the NARC government in 2002. The indication stated in this connection is that
important reform processes are underway that could lead to improved governance and
renewed development.
Analysis Framework and Approach
The study, in terms of methodology, applied the “Drivers of Change” approach adopted
by DFID as an analytical tool notably in Zambia, Nigeria and Asian Countries to
understand processes of change at the country level. The focus of the approach is on long
term “incremental changes” taking place to interrelated social, economic, political and
institutional processes that alter the context for policy making over a period of a “few
decades”.
On the premise that critical obstacles to bringing about change lie in the realm of political
economy and governance the study for the most part relies on political economy
analytical framework. The key concept used is patron-clientelism. The rationale for the
framework is on the one hand to highlight the plight of the poor and argue for pro-poor
change. On the other hand, political leadership or elite and donors are identified as the
main forces affecting pro-poor change. The form taken by these forces depends on the
nature of incentives and restraints resulting from changes emanating from social,
economic, political and institutional processes which keep altering the context for policy
making.
The Relationship between Drivers of Change
It is categorically stated that change processes occur within the constraints of political
economy and hope expressed that donors should work with a broad range of actors to
promote pro-poor change. The various actors the report identifies and processes discussed
are set out in a table (p7) as follows:
Table 1: The relationship of drivers of change considered
Contextual Factors Institutions Agents of Change
Globalization, trade and Political process The political elite
investment Public administration
Civil servants
Regional influences and The rule of law Parliamentarians
integration Land rights Political parties
Demographic change Ethnicity Local government
Urbanization Gender The judiciary
Deteriorating The military
infrastructure Civil society organizations
The rise of the informal Trade unions
sector Academic and policy
Changing rural livelihood
research units
Human development Faith groups
HIV/AIDS The media
The private sector
Donors
To summarize, three types of drivers identified that may drive or block pro-poor change
are categorized as follows:
i) Long-term process of social and economic change-referred to as
contextual factors, globalization, urbanization, human development etc.
ii) Changes in the workings of institutions including political processes,
ethnicity, gender, etc.
iii) Reform minded organizations and individuals – referred to as agents of
change notably the political elite, parliamentarians, political parties, etc.
However, in the presentation in table form, drivers of change have essentially been listed
without clear indication of relationships between the various actors and more so actors
across the three categories. The listing could have been more analytical taking into
account the fact that policies are relevant to drivers of change to different degrees
depending on the particular issues at stake. It is therefore essentially drivers of change,
for whom pro-poor change policies are relevant, in other words those affected, who are
likely to get involved in that particular policy formulation process. A case in point is
agriculture policy affecting virtually all the actors since agriculture is the dominant sector
in the economy and the majority of the poor live in the rural areas and struggle to earn a
living from agriculture. In contrast, policy on tourism affects a relatively limited number
of drivers and smaller percentage of the Kenyan population. Furthermore, certain policies
are of immediate and direct consequences
in improving conditions of the poor, for example land tenure reform leading to landless
poor having access to or owning land for agricultural production to satisfy a critical basic
need food.
It would therefore seem worthwhile for understanding relationships between drivers of
change, their policy moves as well as policy actions and outcomes, that analysis does not
have to aim at a comprehensive listing of drivers of change. Rather, analysis should be
directed towards specific drivers of change for whom issues/problems in agriculture
policy area/sector, for example, are of relevance and will therefore participate in that
policy process. This is simply because for them stakes are particularly high in this policy
area and will direct greater effort and focus including mobilization of resources to realize
the policy outcome in their interest. They may of course participate in the policy process
for other areas but this invariably will be to a lesser degree depending on the nature and
extent of relevance of the policy issues.
A focus on agricultural policy also readily brings to mind other contextual factors not
addressed in the analysis such as natural resource base including arable land, grassland,
water, climate, etc, environmental degradation through soil erosion and deforestation and
a rural economy with an enduring subsistence subsector. The implication is a revision of
the drivers of change listing to bring out key factors and various actors in the agricultural
policy process. The ministries of agriculture and livestock as well as cooperatives are in
fact leading institutions together with their statutory boards, parastatals and cooperatives.
At the same time, as individual actors in the policy process they are also top of the list of
agents of change in agriculture. This is in contrast for example to the military, political
parties, the judiciary and to some extent trade unions. The argument in a nutshell is that
there will be varying configuration of actors for different policies even the various pro-
poor policies.
References
ILO (2002). Investment for Poverty Reducing Employment in Kenya. Jobs for Africa
Programme, ILO Area Office, Dar es Salaam.
ILO/EAMAT (1999). Kenya: Meeting the Employment challenges of the 21st Century,
Geneva.
Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (2006). Draft National Livestock
Policy.
Nyangito, H. and Okello, J. (1998). Kenya’s Agricultural Policy and Sector Performance:
1964-1996, IPAR, Occasional Paper No. 04.
Njuguna, N., Katumanga, M. and Gareth, W. (2004). Strengthening the Incentives for
Pro-Poor Policy Change: An Analysis of drivers of change in Kenya, Summary Report to
DFID.
O’brien F.S and T. C. Ryan (2001). Kenya: In. Devarajan S., D. Dollar and T. Holmgren
(eds). Aid and Reforms in Africa. Lessons from ten Case studies, the World Bank,
Washington D.C
Republic of Kenya (2006). Annual Progress Report: Investment Programme for
Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation 2003-2007. Nairobi.
Republic of Kenya (2005). Economic Survey 2005. Government Printer, Nairobi.
Republic of Kenya (2004) . Strategy for Revitalising Agriculture 2004-2014, Ministry of
Agriculture & Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development, Nairobi.
Republic of Kenya (2003a). National Export Strategy 2003-2007, Nairobi.
Republic of Kenya (2003b). Public Expenditure Review 2003, draft. Ministry of Planning
and National Development, Nairobi.
Republic of Kenya (2002). National Development Plan 2002–2008. Nairobi Government
Printer
Republic of Kenya (2001). Economic Survey 2001. Government Printers, Nairobi, Kenya
Republic of Kenya (1999). Kenya Human Development report 1999.
Republic of Kenya (1995). Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development and
Marketing. Agricultural Sector Review 1995, ASIP secretariat, Kilimo House.
Smith, L. and Karuga, S. (2004). Agriculture in Kenya: What Shapes the Policy
Environment? Report to DFID, Oxford Policy Management.
UNDP (2003). Third Kenya Human Development Report, Nairobi.
UNDP (2002). Kenya Human Development Report, UNDP, Nairobi.
Were, M., et. Al. (2005), Kenya’s Reform Experience: What Have We Learnt? KIPPRA
Working Paper No. 12.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTKENYA/Resources/donor_statement_agricultu re
Joint Statement of Development Partners for the Kenya
