Kenya’s proposed agriculture policy not inclusive

NAIROBI: The Jubilee Government deserves plaudits for the bold steps it has taken to revolutionise the agricultural sector with a new policy document now in the final stages of preparation.

 

Dubbed the 'Agricultural Policy Draft III', the document proposes a roadmap on how best the agricultural sector can efficiently be used to boost Kenya's economy and hopefully spark an agrarian revolution.

Kenya relies heavily on the agricultural sector, which contributes about 40 per cent of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Further, nearly 70 per cent of Kenyans seek and get their livelihood from agriculture-related sub-sectors.

Therefore, every effort should be concentrated on making the multi-billion-shilling sector viably active to raise the standards of living and thereby actualise Vision 2030.

Last year, the Government embarked on a task aimed at coming up with a guiding policy to oversee the sector and provide a base for further legislation.

The draft policy is now with the Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture, waiting to be presented before the Cabinet for discussion.

After it is discussed by the Cabinet, it will thereafter be tabled in Parliament for debate and approval.

The draft policy, in its present form, is a good document that can steer the country forward if well implemented.

However, there is a general feeling among some stakeholders that some issues were not put into consideration when the proposals were being harmonised.

The stakeholders include a consortium of about 50 players grouped under the Agricultural Industry Network (AIN) who contend that the draft has inadequacies that need to be addressed before it is discussed, debated and approved as policy for use by the multi-billion industry players.

As chairman of this consortium, I can confirm we have petitioned the Agriculture CS to shelve the plans of presenting the draft policy to the Cabinet until key inputs are considered for inclusion.

One of the main issues of concern is failure to analyse capital as a factor of agricultural production, despite the fact that capital status informs the policies and their applicability.

There is also no analysis of entrepreneurship as a factor of agricultural production, although entrepreneurship is important for agricultural production and its status should be known.

Further, labour is only analysed briefly without data or evidence. Labour can be a comparative advantage and needs more thorough analysis so that the status can, among other things, inform the technological needs suggested in the draft.

Other issues include why there is no documentation on the sources of food for Kenyans, with a suggestion that sources of various kinds of food either in terms of regions or imports should be made available since such evidence would indicate advantages of various sources and support the policies proposed.

Marketing and marketing systems are discussed in passing, without data and evidence and with marketing intermediaries being regarded as exploitative.

A thorough analysis of food distribution systems would indicate weaknesses, constraints and impacts and should have been given more attention.

Marketing intermediaries are not always exploitative; they have performed better than Government or parastatals.

In some cases, there is a different school of thought on the matter, which would come out clearly if greater analysis was done.

The policy is silent on increasing quantities of cheap products but desires to guarantee social welfare in terms of food safety for agricultural products, animal and human health and environmental conservation.

The document should be improved to highlight the impacts of the choices made between availability of cheap products versus social welfare.

This draft policy recognises Vision 2030 and pledges to achieve its goals.

However, the target of Vision 2030, which is "attaining a middle-income status with high quality of human life" is not embedded in the text and neither are Vision 2030 flagship projects targeted in the agricultural investment policies captured.

Thus, the document should be improved to align more with Vision 2030.

Of serious concern is the fact that there is no time-line given whereas in normal circumstances, there should be a direction on when it should be reviewed periodically to address the sector challenges and emerging issues.

Other shortcomings are failure to address some key players in the sector like the co-operative society movement.

Societies are considered a key pillar in most parts of the country where farmers practice small-scale farming.

In short, the policy has not analysed - in detail and with evidence - the present situation in the agricultural sector.

Proposals are that the analysis should have a layout of different sub-sectors in terms of the production factors, resources available, the food situation, the income levels, and the performance against socio-economic indicators.