POLICY BRIEF
FAMINE & CHRONIC HUNGER IN KENYA

“Famine is, by its very nature, a social phenomenon… [I]t has to be recognised that even when the prime mover in famine is a natural occurrence such as a flood or a drought, what its impact will be on the population will depend on how society is organised.”
(Drèze, J. & Sen, A., 1989)

Natural disasters occur frequently worldwide; only on rare occasions are they associated with famine. Famines are extreme events that generate spontaneous goodwill from churches and charitable organisations. Chronic hunger does not necessarily lead to famine but kills a proportionately larger number of people. However recurrent, we cannot deal with a mighty blaze alone if we forget the slow, smouldering combustion that is eating people day by day.

Though the country is making progress in dealing with malnutrition, one Kenyan out of three is undernourished and the under-five mortality rate is still growing. Chronic hunger is related to poverty and a persistent failure to allow sufficient groups of people to have access and control or ‘entitlements’ over food. Rather than importing food stuffs from other countries, we strongly advocate for egalitarian social and economic development. This is likely to be required for sustained, extensive reductions in chronic hunger.

In tackling the recent famine and prevailing chronic hunger we look upon the State and its institutions in terms of immediate response, coordination, redress and prevention. The economic successes in the tea, horticulture and dairy sector in Kenya have all been attributed to public support and favourable regulations. A 2005 Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) report on food-security in Africa mentioned in particular the positive effects of: “…
- the role of the legal and policy framework (land reform, regulatory frameworks, contractual arrangements);
- institutional support through initially public-funded authorities that provide services to producers, and sometimes are used for channelling subsidies (inputs), but which are gradually transferred to producer associations or the private sector; and
- Public infrastructure (for transport of product and export abroad).”

Concentrating on food availability in a country like Kenya does neither identify the real causes of chronic hunger nor of famine. Increasing Kenya’s agricultural productivity alone will, therefore, not solve the problem. Instead, an examination of the social relationships that identifies different groups of people with command and ‘entitlements’ over food is more effective and points at the heart of the matter. It has been said that the top 10 percent households control over 42 percent of the country’s total income, while the bottom 10 percent control less than 1 percent. For every shilling a poor Kenyan earns, a rich Kenyan earns 56 shillings.
Land is often regarded as an important resource in Kenya and can be the origin of inequality and violent disputes. The type of land being held and the way it is being held is important. With over 80% of the population dependent on agriculture, access to arable land is a clear dimension of inequality. While a few landowners own huge tracks of idle land, landless farmers are squatting in fragile forests. Whereas the arid and semi-arid areas remain inappropriately administered, policed or abandoned entirely in spite of their potential viability, public land, eyed as profitable, was allocated illegally or irregularly to the well-connected and often developed subsequently with public funds as well. As a matter of priority, we urge a sustained and firm commitment to develop the marginalized areas of Kenya, in terms of access to water, security and public infrastructure.

A key element in the prevention of famine is the protection and creation of livelihoods, which can in principle be achieved through public action. Public action could reduce chronic hunger through providing jobs, health care, education, access to water and elements of social security. This, obviously, raises questions about a government’s development policies in general, and its actual political will to implement those. We would like to see massive support for the small farmer through improved land tenure security, extension services, irrigation schemes, and access to credit.

Kenya was to develop its Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping System (FIVIMS) since 2002, this has been a challenge to date. We welcome the spirit of openness on the part of the Government, indispensable in creating a collaborative environment in which decisions are to be taken. We see, however, two significant weaknesses in this system: (1) underdeveloped co-ordinating structures at national level, in particular limited government involvement in the existing structures and poor linkages between information and response planning/policy options; and (2) poor linkages within and between levels e.g. from community to district to provincial and national levels. We see the lack of coordination and integration within and between the various structures and institutions as probably the most important constraint in the fight against famine and chronic hunger. We are particularly weary of new and ad hoc departments within government which have been created over the years when ever there is famine and only complicate the prevailing disorientation.

We also question the ways of channelling public aid to those who are most in need. We fear that the lack of accountability and transparency, which has tainted the Kenyan administration for decades, is reflected in this matter as well. The intention of a government when it declares a “national disaster” can be a noble one. The ensuing influx of funds, however, also creates new temptations for those who know to turn the system to their personal advantage. The situation is further complicated by reported poor handling of the Strategic Grain Reserve, of market interventions and decision on imports. Several sources suggest that big producers and traders are holding on to their stocks in order to create an artificial shortage of maize on the market and keep prices at a high level at the same time they are exporting maize to neighbouring countries. We see relief food marked ‘not for sale’ ending up in the shops. To misallocate funds destined for the poor, even through neglect, is a grave sin in the Bible (Luke 16, 19-31).

Public action to prevent famine is most likely to be taken when vulnerable people have been empowered by political movements which establish a governmental obligation to prevent mass starvation. In this regard, we disapprove the tendency, to remove all affirmative action in favour of minorities and marginalized groups.


Your reactions and comments are welcomed