Name: Wudassie Ayele ID: SGS/0371/2015A

ASSIGNMENT II: DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS

AGRICULTURAL POLICIES AND STRATEGIES: CASE OF KENYA AND ETHIOPIA

I. INTRODUCTION
Agriculture policies and strategies form the pillars of most African nations including Kenya and
Ethiopia. To this end both states have undertaken various reforms to enhance the productivity of
the sector to overall economic growth. The policy reform processes have been influenced by
various aspects and accordingly taken different directions with an implication on their success.
This paper aims to examine the key components that impacted the policy formulation process in
both Kenya and Ethiopia case with the objective of highlighting the lessons learned and possible
policy directions.

II. ANALYSIS
The communalities and differences between Kenya’s and Ethiopia’s Agriculture Policies and
Strategies is centered on the aspects identified in the review of Kenya’s policy development in the
diary, coffee and cotton sector. After a brief reflection on the overall implication of the case studies
in Kenya, based on the overall strategic directions adopted will follow a comparative outlook into
Kenya and Ethiopia.

The regulatory and structural reforms in the diary and coffee sector from monopoly or government
control to privatization were mainly initiated by the smallholder producers. This was later
recognized and support by various stakeholders including CSOs, donor organizations and
academic institutions, which further assisted the process through extensive researches. The
pressure coupled with a transition to democratic structure had led to the recognition and ownership
of the need for reform by the government.

Thereafter, the government took the lead in the realization of the structural reform with due
appreciation to the interest of the producers, research outcomes and the need for an inclusive and
participatory consultation with key stakeholders. Furthermore, established the necessary
facilitation mechanisms, such as taskforces to coordinate and fast-track the required regulatory
Name: Wudassie Ayele ID: SGS/0371/2015A

reform. As for the cotton sector reform, although it was participatory and inclusive, it was a reform
lead by the private sector and presented to the parliament as a private motion. Nevertheless, the
formulation of the Cotton Amendment Act of 2006 was a product of various researches, studies
and consultations conducted with a support from different actors.1

 Comparative Outlook of the Strategic Directions Adopted

Stakeholder participation and Ownership: - Kenya’s policy formulation processes has witnessed
a transition from a government controlled bureaucracy to an inclusive structure that engaged
various stakeholder starting with the immediate beneficiaries to CSOs and donor agencies. In the
immediate post-independence period the government had a monopoly over policy review process,
whereas the liberalization period was a product of external donor influence with sluggish
implementation due to lack of ownership. Noting the shortcomings and the democratization of the
country’s political process the policy formulation process was made inclusive taking a
participatory approach that engaged various stakeholders targeted at enhancing ownership and
implementation.

Accordingly, the policy review in the agriculture sector has been a product of a consultative
processes. Aimed at responding to the frustration and concerns raised by producers, it was a public-
led process championed by government agents that took the duty of creating the necessary
taskforce and consultative space to engage various stakeholder and coordinate the process. This
showcases that the country has a democratic structure that promotes free speech with government
officials that are accountable to the electorate; a participatory institutional structure; and free
market economy with the potential to set agendas and balance government power. In addition is
supported with donor agencies that don’t manipulate the outcome. However, it is critical to note
the involvement of different interest groups has made the process a bit lengthy. 2

On the other hand, the participation of various stakeholder has enhanced ownership, effective
implementation and limited donor’s influence. As the citizen’s take active role in policy

1
Roukayatou Zimmermann et al, (2002), Agricultural Policies in Sub-Saharan Africa Understanding CAADP and APRM Policy
Processes, Research project, German Institute of Development and Sustainability : 108-110
2
Ibid, 112-114
Name: Wudassie Ayele ID: SGS/0371/2015A

formulation processes, donor agencies are obliged to embrace the outcomes. Another aspect, is
that in Kenya as a result of the democratic election process, agriculture policies formed part of the
democratic competition. This had necessitated the need for a more inclusive policy formulation
that results in a stable long-term policy structure censored and owned by the public. In addition,
as the policy review was informed by various research and evidence based it had minimized the
space for manipulations and assured the creation of ownership.3

In comparison, the pre-1992 Ethiopia’s agriculture policies were a reflection of the ideological
thoughts adopted by ruling regimes with little or no consideration to the concerns of the
beneficiary. The policy review was monopolized by the government with no space for participation
that had restrained the continuity and public ownership of the policy structure leading to immediate
termination of its implementation with a change of government. During this period both
governments followed an industry led economic structure, the focus was to advance the non-
agriculture sector through resources mobilization from the agriculture sector. However the content
of agriculture policy was driven by the market for the Monarch regime whereas, Derg adopted a
socialist production policy structure.

The Emperor’s period’s First and Second Five-Year Development Plan focused on commercial
farming and coffee export giving little attention to cereal production sphere on which the majority
of Ethiopian farmers depended. In addition, until the occurrence of the late 1960’s food shortage
the sector was not given priority with inadequate government investment. After 1960’s despite
lack of any strategic changes, few amendments where introduced in the Third Five-Year Plan and
Integrated Rural Development (IRD) that attempted to provide improved seeds & fertilizer, credit,
rural health, and storage facilities. Unfortunately, the IRD program was terminated due to donor’s
withdrawal for political reasons.

The Derg reigme agriculture policy was an absolute reflection of its socialist ideology
characterized by nationalization of land, promotion of collective farming, the establishment of
cooperatives and state farms, government regulation of market and price as well as state monopoly
over fertilizer and improved seed distribution. The inefficacy resulted the 1983/84 drought

3
Ibid, 115-116
Name: Wudassie Ayele ID: SGS/0371/2015A

following which the government adopted a few amendments targeted at expanding farmer
cooperatives and introduced the Peasant Agricultural Development Extension Program (PADEP).
Nevertheless, the changes where inadequate in cultivating the necessary changes and the financial
incapacity of the government to continue subsidizing the sector resulted in failure. Here, it is
important to note that in both regimes, the dependency of the policy programs on either donor
funds or government subsidies had impacted the continuity of the programs as well as ownership
by the public.

As for the post 1992 period, a change in the growth strategy was adopted through adoption of
agriculture led industrialization. To this effect the Agricultural Development-led Industrialization
Strategy (ADLI) was implemented by the new government. The strategy further liberalized key
aspects of the agriculture sector including price, distribution of fertilizers, seed market and food
grains. Furthermore, the state farms where liberalized, except for the ownership of land that stated
under government control.4

Knowledge, evidence, and information used for policy and strategy development: - Researches,
studies and reports of task forces as well as their recommendations have ensured an evidence based
policy formulation and recommendations in Kenya. Regular researches conducted by national
researchers and institutions with due recognition to the challenges faced by producers and small
holder farmers as well as their active engagement have influenced the review processes every step
of the way. At the same time donor agencies have funded varies studies.5

Unfortunately, the Pre-1992 Ethiopian agriculture policy assessment don’t outline the role of
research in guiding the direction of the research. Rather, most publications focus on the ideology
driven nature of the policy direction. As for the past 1992 period, it is indicated that the ADLI
was dedicated to the engagement of regional and national research centers in it overall
implementation through addressing local and regional problems.6

4
Zerihun Gudeta Alemu et al (2002), Agricultural development policies of Ethiopia since 1957, South African Journal of
Economic History, 17: 1-24,
5
Roukayatou Zimmermann et al, (2002), Agricultural Policies in Sub-Saharan Africa Understanding CAADP and APRM Policy
Processes, Research project, German Institute of Development and Sustainability : 115 -118
6
Akhilesh Chandra Prabhakar and Yinges Alemu (2013), Agricultural development-led industrialization strategy in Ethiopia: An
overview, African Journal of Political Science and International Relations, Vol. 7(5): 237 - 246
Name: Wudassie Ayele ID: SGS/0371/2015A

Alignment, harmonisation and coordination: - To meet this objective Kenya have established the
Kenya Coordination Group (KCG) under the Ministry of Finance (MoF). It is tasked with ensuring
the consistency of development cooperation with national policies and structures. The sub-group
ASCU leads the coordination of the agriculture sector. The Donor Coordination Group (DCG) was
formed to coordinate donor’s engagement with MoF. The Kenyan case studies have underlined
the need to engage donors from the initial stages to attain donor ownership and design processes
and comprehensive policy framework to avoid donor policy pressures.7 In contrast during the pre-
1992 period and after the adoption of ADLI policy lack of proper coordination mechanism and
institutional structure impeded the implementation of the policy structures put in-place.8

Drivers of policy and strategy change: - In general as previously stated policy change in the post-
independence period was driven by economic development, whereas the following phase came
into place due to external pressure and call for liberalization which proved to be ineffective without
taking a holistic approach. Thus, the consequent review process was more inclusive and
comprehensive. As for the agriculture sector, the policy reviews where a product of producers
demand for change with a support of politicians. Producers where being exploited due to
unregulated liberation and poor governance. In response ASCU was established to coordinate
sectoral policy review and take a pro-active approach to policy formulation. The Kenyan
experience has also showed that donor driven policy changes should form part of the national
policy structure if agreed upon by national stakeholders to maintain ownership and facilitate
implementation. Furthermore, an active engagement of small holder farmers and grass roots can
be facilitated through formation of collective forums and capacity building.9 As outlined the
primary section Ethiopia’s policy strategies have significantly been driven by imported ideological
metaphors with significant involvement of donor agencies in maintain the financial sustainability
of their implementation.10

7
Roukayatou Zimmermann et al, (2002), Agricultural Policies in Sub-Saharan Africa Understanding CAADP and APRM Policy
Processes, Research project, German Institute of Development and Sustainability : 118-121
8
Zerihun Gudeta Alemu et al (2002), Agricultural development policies of Ethiopia since 1957, South African Journal of
Economic History, 17: 1-24,
9
Roukayatou Zimmermann et al, (2002), Agricultural Policies in Sub-Saharan Africa Understanding CAADP and APRM Policy
Processes, Research project, German Institute of Development and Sustainability : 122 -124
10
Zerihun Gudeta Alemu et al (2002), Agricultural development policies of Ethiopia since 1957, South African Journal of
Economic History, 17: 1-24,
Name: Wudassie Ayele ID: SGS/0371/2015A

III. CONCLUSION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall, an inclusive and participatory policy formulation processes that is directed by credible
and independent research outcome and evidence based assures the public ownership of policy
documents and facilitates its smooth implementation. Moreover, an effective harmonization and
coordination structure forms a key pillar in fast-tracking effective implementation of policy
programs. To this end below are some recommendations to consider:

 The overall policy formulations cycle should be inclusive and participatory engaging
various stakeholders and be centered on defining the processes to maintain the autonomy
of the government to protect national /public interest;
 Research and regular independent assessment should form part of policy formulation
process to ensure recommendations are evidence based and responding to existing
challenges;
 Effective coordination and harmonization institutional structure should form part of any
policy formulation process to attain effective implementation and coordination.