Case study on a Policy Failure and Policy Success in Agriculture
Assignment
1. Identify One case of Policy Failure and One case of Policy Success in
Agriculture.
2. Identify;
● The drivers for the policy change?
● The Reasons for Success or Failure of the Policy?
● The Recommended strategy for dealing with the success or failure of
the Policy. Eg should the Policy be maintained, Improved upon or
terminated? If improved Upon, In what way?
A report compiled by the Group 3 members.
Admission Number
Names
102032
Hellen Onyango
171068
Jessica Obura
171798
Tony Juma
84845
Cindy Maundu
75042
Michael Ndichu
BACKGROUND
The agricultural sector in Kenya is primarily composed of small to medium-sized
farmers, with an average landholding ranging from 0.2 to 3 hectares. Small-scale
production constitutes 75% of the total market and contributes up to 70% of the
marked agricultural production. The country's entire agricultural sector relies
heavily on the bimodal rainy season. With 80% of the nation considered arid and
semi-arid, experiencing an average yearly rainfall of 400mm, frequent droughts
result in the loss of one out of every three seasonal crops. A decline in agriculture
has profound implications for employment, income inequality, and food security in
the country (UNDP 2002).
Despite impressive growth in the Agriculture Sector since independence, numerous
challenges persist, including achieving food and nutrition security, transitioning
from subsistence to commercial production, enhancing market access, optimizing
input usage, and securing agricultural credit. Climatic shocks further exacerbate
disruptions to agricultural production. Before the development of the Agricultural
Policy (2021), the sector's growth and development were guided by various policies,
such as overarching government policies identifying agriculture as a key driver for
national development, as well as development plans and strategies.
The responsibility for policy-making in the agriculture sector lies with the Ministry
of Agriculture. Individual county governments are also expected to formulate relevant
policies aligned with their County Integrated Development Plans for Agriculture.
While Kenya is recognized for its well-conceived and impactful strategies and
programs, extending influence beyond its borders, particularly to Western countries,
there's a recurring challenge. These commendable policies often struggle to translate
into tangible on-the-ground development. In many instances, the policies and
regulations lack the specificity needed to address the unique challenges and
circumstances at the farm level within Kenya's developing agriculture ecosystem. It's
imperative that any legislation and policy objectives serve as enablers, empowering
farmers to produce and effectively market their produce.
CASE OF POLICY FAILURE
Strategy for revitalising agriculture, 2004-2014
The SRA is a 10-year agricultural policy framework to be implemented under the
Medium-term Expenditure Framework budgetary process, structured around threeyear rolling plans. At the national level the framework for the SRA encompasses a
yearly national forum of stakeholders in the agricultural sector, organised by lead
ministries. The overall aim was to refocus the state on the provision of key public
goods, such as research and extension (which in theory should benefit all producers),
road and irrigation, infrastructure, creating greater space for the private sector to
expand the services it provided to producers, most notably output marketing, but
also input supply and financial services.
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Lack of sufficient financing. The SRA’s reform agenda was termed as
ambitious, it was implementable, but required more resources and
collaboration.
Lack of coordination with other sectors- An Inter-Ministerial Coordination
Committee (ICC) that was to be “composed of permanent secretaries of the
lead and collaborating ministries and representatives of the private sector”
and “responsible for coordinating the planning of the strategy at the sector
level and monitoring its implementation, but committee did not work well due
to lack of leadership, communication, political interference, and cabinet
reshuffles
The lack of stakeholder ownership of the proposed reforms, due to the speed
with which the policy was brought out. This had serious implications for
resource allocation to implement proposed policy reforms. What was also
lacking was political leadership, especially at ministerial level, to overcome
opposition to the reform programme and initiate change from past practices.
Lack of capacity to carry out such a massive reform initiative and lack of
provision within the policy document itself.
Failure to build into the policy framework- Was not linked to the ongoing
public expenditure reforms that favour devolution of public expenditures to
the districts and local authorities.
Neglecting co-operative movements and societies that manage the
production and/ or marketing within the policy framework and process,
cooperative development was determined by the regional background of the
president and ministers. The money pumped into the new KCC provided
competition in milk purchase benefited farmers in Central Province (the home
area of both the Minister of Cooperative Development and the President) and
Rift Valley (home area of the Minister of Agriculture). Around the same time
the Minister of Livestock, from Kamba in Eastern Province, authorised
renewed investment in the Kenya Meat Commission (KMC). Farmers in
northern Kenya who had voted for NARC hoped that revitalisation of KMC
would enhance their access to the major markets for meat in the country.
However, in this case revitalisation was restricted to a complete overhaul of
the KMC factory at Machakos, also in the Kamba region of Eastern Province.
Lack of enhanced extension services- Even after receiving a considerable
amount of funding from World Bank SIDA, Danish AID there was no
significant improvement in extension services. Drawing on case study work in
four districts during 2007 and 2009, Future Agricultures Consortium 2009
found limited evidence of enhanced extension. Outreach to farmers was
hampered by systemic inefficiencies in budgeting and resourcing plus the
challenge of coordinating technical support across an increasing number of
rural development ministries.
Poor Market Development- A recent example of this is KCC, which was
relaunched in 2003 (see below), providing a valuable boost to dairy producers
by heightening competition with the two existing private milk processors.
However, as production increased in response, it did not expand its processing
capacity to match, with the result that farmers found themselves throwing
milk away by late 2009.
●
Lack of a monitoring and evaluation framework built into the policy
framework.
Reason for the Policy Failure
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Influence of the Political System (ethnic ties): The Kenyan political system
often reflects the interests and agenda of political parties, leading to. As
political parties are led along ethnic ties, it leads to policy inconsistencies in
implementation. This was observed when the Minister of Livestock focused on
using KMC to advance the interests of his constituents instead of looking at
national interests
Lack of Coordination: Absence of effective coordination among national and
county governments, private sector, CSOs, Farmers' Cooperatives, and other
stakeholders.
Infrastructure Gaps: Inadequate infrastructure development for supply
chains, exports, and post-harvest management, coupled with limited access
to irrigation and water.
Lack of consideration of intersectional Issues: Policies fail to consider the
interplay of issues like climate change, food security, and nutrition.
Overlook of the role of Smallholder Farmers: Policies often overlook the
critical role of smallholder farmers, neglecting their protection and welfare.
Inconsistent Policy Implementation: Frequent changes in government and
shifts in policy priorities result in inconsistent implementation, affecting longterm planning for farmers.
Lack of investments in research: Insufficient research hinders the
development of agricultural value chains, market integration, and the
adoption of technology.
Political economy of agriculture and dominance of donor assistance
priorities e.g introduction of GMO and how that will affect the food systems
and farmer rights and indigenous foods, green revolution.
Inconsistent Policy Implementation: Frequent changes in government and
shifts in policy priorities result in inconsistent implementation, affecting longterm planning for farmers.Farmers often find it challenging to plan and invest
in the long term when policies shift abruptly, impacting the overall stability of
the sector. For example the withdrawal of government subsidies as part of
economic reforms meant that many farmers became unable to afford such
services, leading to reduction in their use. Many governments have formulated
clear policies for sustainable agricultural development to meet the challenges
of agricultural production. Governments around the world also use a series of
subsidies to encourage farmers to increase production and adopt sustainable
production methods.
Economic Rent and Patronage: Artificial shortages, licensing, and
restrictions create economic rent in the agricultural sector, fostering
patronage.
CASE OF POLICY SUCCESS
Policy supporting the use of sorghum for commercial beer brewing in 2004.
The policy aimed to boost the demand for sorghum by waiving excise duty, providing
smallholder farmers with an avenue to enhance their agriculture and livelihoods. The
primary goal was to combat illicit brews, making sorghum beer more accessible to
individuals with lower incomes. There is substantial evidence indicating the success
of the policy, as it managed to achieve the following outcomes.
●
●
●
Enabled and facilitated Market development: sorghum beer processing
provided a stable market.
Protection of farmers in the value chain- contracts entered between the
main brewer and farmers guaranteed farmers a market and stable prices.
Good Economic Outputs on production and incomeo Farmers responded by increasing their production. Some attained
up to 3.3 tons/ha, which translated to an increase in incomes of about
220 per cent.
o Contract farming for sorghum beer processing expanded from three
counties in 2010 to the current ten counties, with four more in the
pipeline. During this period, the number of farmers has grown from
2,300 to 48,000 and farm-gate price per kilogram from 23 to 37 Ksh.
Yield has improved due to better agronomic services and inputs
provided on credit by the industry.
o The policies on flour blending provide additional uses for sorghum
in agro-processing.
●
●
Evidence on the outputs of the policy to demonstrate success.
Public and private sector engagement- Government, companies, CSO donor
agencies all playing different roles, from capacity building, funding, providing
market and addressing market barriers like financing farmers. Providing a
good ecosystem for the growth of the sorghum value chain in Kenya.
DRIVERS FOR POLICY CHANGE
Several drivers can influence and catalyse policy change in the agricultural sector in
Kenya. It's important to note that these drivers often interact and overlap, and their
effectiveness can depend on the specific context and political landscape.
1. Income Generation: Highlighting the potential for increased income and
economic growth through a more productive and efficient agricultural sector
can be a powerful driver. Demonstrating how policy changes can lead to higher
yields, improved market access, and increased profitability for farmers may
garner support.
2. Food Security and Nutrition: - Hunger and Malnutrition: Emphasising the
role of agriculture in ensuring food security and improving nutrition can
mobilise support for policy changes. Policies that promote sustainable farming
practices, crop diversification, and improved access to nutritious foods can be
framed as essential for the well-being of the population.
3. Climate Change and Sustainability: As climate change impacts agriculture,
policies that promote sustainable and climate-resilient farming practices
become imperative. Framing policy changes as essential for environmental
sustainability, water conservation, and climate change adaptation can gain
traction.
4. Technology and Innovation: Showcasing the benefits of adopting modern
agricultural technologies and innovations can drive policy changes. This
includes promoting precision agriculture, digital tools, and improved irrigation
techniques. Governments can be encouraged to invest in research and
development and create an environment conducive to technological adoption.
5. Rural Development: Addressing rural poverty by enhancing agricultural
productivity and creating rural employment opportunities can be a compelling
driver for policy change. Policies that focus on infrastructure development,
access to credit, and rural entrepreneurship can contribute to poverty
reduction.
6. Market Access and Trade: (Global Competitiveness): Highlighting the
importance of the agricultural sector in international trade can influence
policy. Policies that improve market access, reduce trade barriers, and
enhance competitiveness in global markets may gain support.
7. Stakeholder Collaboration: Collaborative efforts involving farmers, NGOs,
academia, and the private sector can create a groundswell of support for policy
change. Inclusive decision-making processes and consultations with diverse
stakeholders can lead to more effective and acceptable policies.
Combining these drivers strategically, tailoring approaches to the local context, and
fostering collaboration among various stakeholders can contribute to meaningful
policy change in the agricultural sector in Kenya.
Recommendations
Despite the failure of past agricultural policy initiatives to bring about agricultural
development and poverty reduction, a few lessons for donors can be drawn from
experience, particularly the importance of:
1. Cultivating local ownership and commitment to policy reforms within the
government and the broader community.
2. Acknowledging local factors, especially the political economy, as crucial for
the successful implementation of proposed policy reforms.
3. Identifying and establishing access to key decision-makers who wield
influence in policy formulation.
4. Fully costing policy proposals and establishing methods to integrate them into
the budgetary process.
5. Recognizing capacity gaps in the civil service and the necessity of introducing
a phased approach to address complex policy issues.
6. Enhancing coordination between the public and private sectors.
7. Ensuring donor and aid effectiveness in funding agricultural projects to
achieve maximum outputs.
8. Prioritizing research and learning from the implementation of agricultural
policies that shape the sector, rather than relying solely on political and donor
influence.