Memorandum submitted by FARM-Africa
1. Realistically, Kenya's prospects for
meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are non-existent.
FARM-Africa's work relates closely to Goal 1: "to eradicate
extreme poverty and hunger"; sadly, the number of people
going hungry and living in absolute poverty in Kenya has been
steadily rising since the declaration of the MDGs. Progress on
goal one is possible but it would require a serious commitment
to improve the prospects for smallholder farmers, these being
the majority of the poor and hungry in Kenya.
2. The Kenyan Government has prepared an
impressive strategy document, "Economic Recovery Strategy
for Wealth and Employment Creation" (Government of Kenya,
June 2003) but the real challenge is implementing such policies
considering budget constraints and the potential for political
resistance to reforms. Changes on the ground require sound strategies
for implementing new policy and effective co-ordination between
Ministries (Agriculture and Transport, for example) and other
stakeholders. Ministries of Agriculture should be reformed so
they are performance driven, are able to work in partnership with
a range of organisations and are accountable to other stakeholders
in the agricultural sectors. Front-line government workers must
be retrained to improve their community facilitation and empowerment
skills and to encourage local innovation. Rural infrastructure
development is key to improving local markets and supporting private
sector development.
3. The challenge for donors is to ensure
a balance of support between national governments and local civil
society organisations so that top down policies can be implemented,
while people on the ground have the opportunity to make demands
and hold public agencies accountable. Innovative approaches to
rural livelihoods must be explored so that partnerships and funding
mechanisms for coordinated service delivery to rural areas are
developed.
4. DFID are to be complimented on a well
thought through Plan that integrates itself into recent policy
initiatives that have a pro-poor dimension to them. As we know
the difficulty lies in maintaining this pro-poor focus in the
translation of policy to practice, particularly in the face of
powerful interest groups and a strong culture of political patronage.
5. The Plan recognises the importance of
agriculture and natural resources in Kenya particularly for the
poor, many of who live in rural areas particularly in ASAL areas
of the country. This is welcomed by organisations like FARM-Africa
who have been fighting to address the decline in bilateral and
multilateral donor support for the agriculture in Sub-Saharan
Africa and indeed the low priority and reduced investment by African
country governments themselves in the sector. The reasons for
this situation are diverse but we are concerned that despite the
Plan noting the close link between agriculture and the rural poor
it is not drawn out sufficiently in the Key Objectives. Addressing
water and sanitation and the scourge of HIV/AIDS are of course
very important and making them a priority is correct, but if this
involves the transfer of funds from an already depleted agricultural
sector poverty in rural areas will continue to remain stubbornly
high.
6. The commitment to supporting a parallel
process of government capacity to supply services and non-state
actors to formulate demands for these services is very welcome.
There has been a tendency for many DFID country programmes in
SSA to invest wholesale in providing DBS to government in the
belief that these governments would be committed to strengthening
civil society in their own countries. DFID in Kenya have maintained
a more enlightened approach, through planning to ensure that a
strong civil society can hold those in positions of power accountable.
7. There is reference throughout the plan
to the importance of planning for policy formulation. This will
need to link with people at the grass-root level, particularly
the rural poor. There are an increasing number of opportunities
for government to link with bottom-up planning and this level.
Without supporting government to understand and implement these
links a gap will remain between policy at district level and above
and the needs of the poor in Kenya.
8. The private sector is mentioned as important
in the implementation of the ERS. Care needs to be exercised in
the privatisation of services for the rural poor. Innovative partnerships
need to build between the private and public sectors and communities
who can benefit from an improved service. FARM-Africa has developed
a model of good practice in the delivery of animal health services
in rural areas of Meru District using such an approach and lessons
should be drawn from this.
9. The Plan rightly identifies the importance
of supporting domestic drivers of change rather than using economic
or other levers to persuade the government to promote pro-poor
reforms. FARM-Africa would like to see an emphasis placed on the
importance of the development of farmers and pastoralist associations
and on district and sub-district level public information on Government
performance (E2) where the poor can engage in debate on government
policy and performance.
10. Finally the section on the use of aid
instruments suggests that DFID have spent some time on developing
their DBS approach with government but it is unclear what mechanisms
will be employed for the work with NSAs. Perhaps this is because
these mechanisms are in the early stages of development but clarity
here would help.
February 2004
| 
