Mennonite
Central
Committee

Trip Report for Kenya

By: Andrew Hough

Executive Summary

International aid agencies responded with massive grain shipments to Kenya in 2000 to avert the famine precipitated by drought. Given the food insecurity situation in Kenya and recent advances in genetic engineering which provide new opportunities for food production it is appropriate to evaluate the root causes of hunger and the role of modern biotechnology.

The MCC undertook research on issues surrounding food security and biotechnology in Kenya during the spring of 2001. The objective was to view the food security situation in Kenya broadly, understanding causes and solutions while evaluating the merits and risks of biotechnology. MCC believes that products of biotechnology need to be compared to other available options and that social and ethical questions need to be posed. Information was gathered through interviews with researchers, policy makers, farmers and members of the NGO community.

Research shows that the food security crisis in Kenya has been caused by many factors. Specifically by drought and deeper structural issues including trade liberalization and the break down of services to farmers. Drought has caused crop failures in large areas of Kenya in 1999 and 2000. Meanwhile Kenya has pursued the directive of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to liberalize trade in the agriculture sector while eliminating domestic agriculture subsidies and the centralized marketing body. This has caused hardship for Kenyan farmers as maize and sugar are currently imported well below the Kenyan cost of production. In addition, rural credit is not available and quality agriculture extension is not presently provided. The cooperative system designed to assist small farmers has collapsed. The typical small scale farmer in Kenya has been pushed to a subsistence level because of these factors.

Among agencies that work on food security issues in Kenya there was a clear disjuncture on appropriate responses in the short and long terms. All agreed that food production needed to be increased per unit area and rural incomes needed to be increased for food security to be achieved at household, community and national levels. Between the academic and NGO community there were vastly different approaches to working to reach these goals.

In general, the Kenya academic community views food security at the macro level and is encouraging the development of capacity in biotechnology. Biotechnology is perceived to be a key tool in meeting current and future food needs. Partnerships with the private sector are being encouraged to foster technology development. Examples of developments in biotechnology in Kenya include drought resistant maize, disease and insect resistant maize, virus resistant sweet potatoes and tissue culture bananas. The academic community is working to develop an appropriate regulatory system and encourage an international intellectual property regime which meets the needs of Africa.

Perhaps what was most striking about the underlying current of support of biotechnology in Kenya was the view that the development of biotechnology was intricately linked to development. Specifically, that the development of biotechnology would catalyze the economic transformation of Africa.

The NGO community was most actively working with communities in helping them to meet local needs. In general, NGOs worked at food security issues at the local level holistically, defining innovation broadly and valuing locally available resources and knowledge. Local leadership and community participation was highlighted as an important factor in combating food insecurity. Evidence in the NGO community suggests that many alternatives to biotechnology are currently being implemented to combat food insecurity.

While in Kenya it was striking to recognize that there was very little public debate on genetic engineering as compared to other countries visited such as India, Mexico and Brazil. There was not a well organized or well funded anti biotechnology lobby. While many NGOs working in communities were concerned about GE crops from environmental and commercial view points most were too occupied helping meet acute needs of rural populations to debate recent advances in biotechnology.

The academic and NGO communities have important contributions to make in addressing the food security situation in Kenya. Academics stress the need for development in biotechnology for long term solutions. NGOs stress the need to view innovation broadly while working with locally available resources to meet needs in the short term. The development and extension of tissue culture bananas exists as an example where integration of these divergent approaches could yield significant benefits for farmers. Where technical innovation is needed, successful adoption is not possible without quality extension, rural credit, marketing structures and access to water.

The case of Kenya highlights that the causes of food insecurity are diverse, as are potential solutions. More than technical innovations are required and must be introduced holistically if food security issues will be addressed significantly at the local level in the long term.

Introduction

Millions of people in the greater Horn of Africa were on the verge of famine in 1999 and 2000 as drought engulfed the region. The World Food Programme (WFP), the Food Aid Agency of the United Nations launched special relief efforts to bring over a million tonnes of food to the region to avert disaster.

Rains came to some regions late in 2000, but drought-affected people remain in a precarious state having lost much of their livestock assets and have little or no food. The WFP projects that emergency food assistance will continue to be needed at high levels throughout 2001.

The MCC responded to this critical situation by programming food relief and food for community development through the Canadian Foodgrains Bank to Kenya and Ethiopia in 1999 and 2000. MCC also works with communities in Kenya with an integrated project aimed at improving food security in the longer term.

Current food insecurity in the greater Horn of Africa has most obviously been triggered by drought. However, food security is a complicated issue with many contributing factors. Agriculture production in Africa has historically documented persistently poor performance for reasons which extend beyond climatic factors.

Advances in biotechnology and genetic engineering have opened up many new possibilities to increase food production. Many scientists and policymakers believe that these tools must be exploited in order that African farmers, communities and countries can become food secure. Extending products of biotechnology as a solution to food insecurity raises many questions and issues. To better understand the impact of biotechnology on food security, the factors contributing to food insecurity must be understood and the benefits and risks must be evaluated. Biotechnology needs to be compared to other available options and social and ethical questions need to be asked and answered. Most importantly the needs of the farmer and poor consumer need to be understood and met.

From February 3 to March 10 I visited Kenya and Ethiopia to gather research and better understand the food security situation and the role of biotechnology. Kenya was an important country to include in this study commissioned by MCC. Kenyan academics are leading the debate in Africa, promoting biotech solutions and trying to ascertain the role of biotechnology.

While in Kenya, research was gathered through interviews and visits with policy makers, academics, non- governmental organizations and rural communities. The MCC and the African Centre for Technology Studies were the key organizations which facilitated my visit. A trip itinerary is found in Appendix 1 while contact information for individuals spoken with is included in appendix 2. Kenya and Ethiopia will be discussed in separate reports due to their significant differences. Intellectual property rights will be discussed in a separate report in the context of Africa.

This report will outline the Kenyan context for issues relating to food security and biotechnology by examining the current situation and changes in agriculture in the last 40 years. More in depth reporting and analysis of differing approaches to food security and biotechnology by the academic and NGO community is provided. Personal comments and reflections are added and important questions are raised. Lastly an example is provided which highlights the success of an integrated approach to addressing food security with technical and other factors for small farmers.

Country Overview

Kenya is a low-income and food deficit country with a population of approximately 30 million people. Over 90 percent of Kenya’s population live on about 20 percent of the country’s land area, the temperate highlands of southwestern Kenya. Close to 80 percent of Kenya’s land area is arid or semi arid. Kenyan society is still predominantly agrarian with 75 percent of the population living in rural areas. This implies that the vast majority of Kenyans either live in the temperate areas with limited land or attempt to survive in the drought prone regions.

Poverty and vulnerability assessments from the World Food Program indicate that 43 percent of the population live in absolute poverty (WFP, 2000). This vulnerability to food insecurity is highest among the urban poor and the pastoralist/small scale agriculturalists who occupy the semi-arid lands. The WFP estimates that 25% of urban population falls below the poverty line and that children from households headed by women (55% of all households in slums) lack access to education, adequate shelter and food (WFP, 2000).

The drought of 1999 and 2000 has dramatically affected these groups which have limited coping capacities. MCC Kenya Director Dr. Larry Loewen-Rudgers reports that in the Ngong division of Kajiado District that as a result of failure of the long and short rains during 1999 and much of 2000, crops withered and 70, 50, 10 percent of the cattle, sheep and goat populations perished by the time the short rains of 2000 began in November1. Francis Jumba Enziano, Director of the Ghetto Credit Scheme, noted that as the drought prolonged increasing numbers of people flooded to the slums of Nairobi, exacerbating crowded conditions, precipitating increases in violence and continuing the cycle of poverty.

Rain finally came, late in 2000 and lasted until March 2001 providing a better than expected harvest in marginal agricultural districts. The World Food Program plans to scale back their relief efforts in 2001 although relief will continue for the pastoralists in the worst hit areas as it will take them much longer to recover.

An overview of the Kenyan economy shows it to be in disarray and decline. Many observers see a heavily indebted and corrupt government. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank have pressured the Kenyan Government to establish an anti-corruption agency, privatize key government industries and continue on the path of trade liberalization.

Kenyan Agriculture Overview

While aid organizations rushed to meet the crisis created by the lack of rain, many observers witnessed a much deeper crisis in the farm economy - a crisis generated by policy and governance rather than the lack of rain (Clark, 2000). Agriculture, while being a major sector of the Kenyan economy, accounting for 24.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product in 2000 (KIPPRA, 2001) is not keeping pace with the country’s needs and has enjoyed more productive times.

From independence in 1963 to the late 70's agriculture output increased significantly allowing the country to become self sufficient in all food commodities with the exception of wheat and rice (Nyangito, 2000). Land reform was carried out as the government distributed to small scale farmers a considerable amount of land in the high and medium potential areas which belonged to the European Settlers. The Kenyan Government created research organizations which developed higher preforming varieties of maize and livestock breeds. Extension services for crop and animal husbandry were formed and agricultural credit programmes were introduced. The combination of planting improved maize varieties, the application of fertilizers and more land being placed into cultivation for food crops resulted in increased production levels. Also the move to maize monoculture increased maize production. The government implemented policies which established cooperatives and marketing boards for small scale farmers in an effort to process and market their agriculture produce. Price controls were in place for food commodities and inputs such as seeds and fertilizers were subsidized.

Despite their success in the 1960's and 1970's, Kenya faced a major food shortage in 1980 and was forced to import substantial maize, wheat and milk to meet the shortfalls. The factors precipitating the short fall of these commodities included pricing and marketing inefficiencies, low levels of fertilizer use, unavailability of credit to purchase inputs, drought conditions for the 1979/1980 crop and the displacement of food crops to other commodities which where more profitable (Nyangito, 2000).

In the last 20 years, Kenyan agriculture has struggled to expand and meet the growing needs of the country. Food production which declined in the late 1970s to early 1980's increased in 1984 reaching the highest levels in 1987 but declining again (except for sugar cane for which production started to decline in 1991) (Nyangito, 2000). The highest levels of production for maize in particular achieved in 1987 have yet to be reached to date.

Several observers commented to me that Kenyan agriculture had significantly digressed in the last 20 years. Agricultural research and extension organizations have been poorly funded and organized and have yielded few results according to conversations with Mwangi, Kenyajui, Loewen-Rudgers, and Miller. Credit is no longer available in rural areas. Many of the cooperatives which were established have collapsed or are corrupt to the point that they are no longer effective for the small scale farmer.

Trade liberalization has further pushed many small scale farmers to a subsistence level. In response to international agreements, Kenya has opened its borders to food imports, removed domestic subsidies to farmers and eliminated the state controlled marketing structure. Maize and sugar farmers have been most impacted with corn from South Africa and sugar from Zimbabwe and South Africa being imported to Kenya. Even with import tariffs, these imports are priced well below the cost of production for Kenyan producers. Proponents of free trade saw this as a very good situation for the Kenyan consumer as it allowed the Kenyan consumer to escape high sugar prices passed along to them by highly inefficient and corrupt sugar cooperatives.

Currently, there is very little orderly marketing, with the removal of the National Cereals and Produce Board in 1993. There is very little reliable market information for farmers and the number of "middle men" and cartels of millers and traders has dramatically increased. Clark writes "In the face of cartels of traders and millers and with virtually no reliable market information, the farmer is left with very little market power and is obliged to accept what ever price is offered.....Some kind of orderly marketing system appears to be an urgent priority. Changes in both the current political situation and the global policy consensus (including trade rules) will, however be needed before such a system is likely to emerge. There is simply too much money being made from the current situation and too little domestic policy flexibility to tolerate the restoration of a publicly mandated marketing structure."

While 80% of maize producers are "small", they are caught with few options and limited opportunities for immediate diversification, lacking capital, affordable credit or markets to move into alternative crops.

The cumulative effect of drought, trade liberalization and the break down of agricultural services has pushed many farmers to a subsistence level (Loewen-Rudgers, 2000). Many farmers working with RODI, SACRED and MCC cannot afford improved seeds or fertilizers.

Responses to Food Security Problems

During my visits to the agencies that work at food security issues listed in Appendix 2, I found that there was a clear disjuncture between the academic/scientific community and the NGO community. Each agreed that for food security to be achieved at household and national levels, food production needed to be increased per unit area and rural incomes needed to be increased. However, between these communities of thought there were vastly different approaches to working to reach these goals.

1. Academic/Scientific Community

   While in Kenya, I had the opportunity to interact with several organizations in the academic/scientific community which included, the African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), the Kenya Agriculture Research Institute as well as briefly with the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). KARI and ISAAA are discussed later in the context of a tissue culture banana project focussed for small scale farmers in Kenya.

   The African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) is an international inter-governmental policy research and training organization located in Nairobi, Kenya. Established in 1988 as an independent, not for profit making organization, the Centre's activities focus on the implementation of Agenda 21 and related conventions on biological diversity, climate change, desertification and biotechnology2. ACTS works to increase the capacity of Sub-Saharan policy makers who must interact with global economic and geopolitical systems which are increasingly complex and are subject to unpredictable change driven by technological developments and rising environmental awareness.

   ACTS was leading the discussions in Kenyan and Sub-Saharan Africa on biotechnology and food security at the macro level. This was evidenced by their research, publications, capacity building and facilitation of conferences. One such conference occurred in December, 2000 on assessing capacity in biotechnology in Sub-Saharan Countries and building Private-Public Partnerships.

   While in Kenya part of my learning was based at ACTS. Due to the stature and influence of ACTS within Africa a more detailed description and analysis of their perspectives of food security and biotechnology is provided. It is important to highlight key principles and definitions which guide the work of ACTS.

   Definition of Biotechnology

   ACTS defines biotechnology very broadly. Activities of biotechnology include the applied use of living organisms, or their parts to produce new products.

   Calestous Juma3 characterizes the evolution of biotechnology by three major generations. According to Juma, the first generation of biotechnologies date back as far as 7000 BC and its products include the traditional methods of fermentation. These developments were based on empirical practice with minimal scientific or technological inputs. Production was done at the family level and knowledge was communal. Second generation biotechnologies involve the use of identifiable natural processes and is largely based on the selection of particular biological processes and their enhancement for industrial production. Innovations in this category include many food processing technologies, methods for conventional plant breeding and plant propagation. Development of second generation technologies are closely linked by advances in biochemistry made at academic institutions and the trend to industrialization. Third generation biotechnologies were made possible by scientific developments since the 1960s which allow researchers to manipulate the genetic code. The use of recombinant DNA (rDNA) and cell fusion techniques make it possible to modify life forms for a wide range of industrial processes. Included in the third generation are techniques of tissue culture, marker assisted selection and rDNA techniques.

   When ACTS speaks of fostering developments in biotechnology they are referring to third generation technologies and not simply advanced rDNA genetic transformations which have become synonymous with the terms biotechnology and genetic engineering. ACTS is interested in encouraging a wide range of developments related to plants and animals in the third generation of biotechnology.

   ACTS Principle 1

   Given the challenges facing Africa, specifically population increases and a currently degraded natural resource base new technical innovations are necessary for food production. Biotechnology is a key tool to be exploited in solving food security problems.

   This unprecedented challenge demands the development of new, high-productivity, environmentally sustainable agricultural production systems. Biotechnology is a frontier technology with significant potential, hope and promise both in the medium and long-term. Specifically, the technology is vital for African countries whose economies are directly dependent on agriculture (ACTS 2000a).

   Africa needs plants with high yielding capacity, better stress tolerance and less dependence on conventional insecticides and herbicides in order to increase environmental protection and reduced costs of production. Biotechnology techniques such as genome mapping, genetic transformation and molecular assisted selection have opened tremendous opportunities to meet the challenges of food production (ACTS 2000a).

   The fundamental role of biotechnology in meeting both short term and long-term food security need, particularly in developing countries is a fact that cannot be overstated. It is widely appreciated that biotechnology has the potential to enhance socio-economic development. The challenge facing developing countries is how to adopt modern biotechnology applications in the battle against poverty and hunger (ACTS 2000a).

   ACTS Principle 2

   Appropriate policies must be in place in order that biotechnology can enhance agricultural productivity in the region. African farmers need this technology.

   Key policy issues include how to transfer biotechnology to African countries and to strengthen their agricultural competence to acquire, assimilate, further develop and effectively apply the technology for enhanced agricultural production. These issues centre on the nature of institutional arrangements to make the technology and its products accessible to rural farmers in the region (ACTS 2000b).

   Agricultural biotechnology is most crucial for African countries and especially for resource poor farmers whose sole livelihood depends on agriculture (Kameri-Mbote, 2000).

   ACTS Principle 3

   The private sector holds the capacity in the development of biotechnology and policy makers must work to encourage linkages between national scientists and the private sector.

   In their summary brief, Biotechnology For Food Security in Africa: From Rhetoric to Action, ACTS writes "No technology by itself can make a country food secure. It’s usefulness depends on how the technology is applied and molded by society. We are thus concerned with the institutional arrangements that need to be established to shape biotechnology and direct R & D activities to the farming needs of rural farmers. Even more important are the kinds of strategic alliances between public and private institutions, as well as the nature of fiscal and legal incentives that African governments should establish and/or promote, to attract private industry investment in biotechnology to enhance agricultural production in rural small scale farms (ACTS 2000b).

   ACTS highlights that, to effectively capture optimal benefits in biotechnology and ensure efficient and demand-driven research and development, the collaboration between the private and public sectors is of paramount importance (ACTS 2000a).

   ACTS Principle 4

   Possessing capacity in biotechnology is important in building an effective regulatory system to safeguard human health and the environment. Currently, African countries do not have the institutional capacity to foster biotechnology development and mold it to local needs.

   To deal with biotechnology process and products (be it through safe application or management of risk) requires some level of biotechnology competence. It is only those countries that understand LMOs/GMOs that can effectively monitor/regulate their application. In this regard, African countries such as Egypt and South Africa are poised to leap frog to higher levels of technological competence/performance as they have invested in sound institutional structures for managing biotechnology (Kameri-Mbote, 2000).

   ACTS Principle 5

   It is important to avoid the polarization of the debate on biotechnology and hold a balanced view.

   Indeed if biotechnology was the panacea for food insecurity problems, we would not be talking about hunger and starvation today in light of the net increases in food production recorded in the world in the last two decades (Kameri-Mbote, 2000).

   The development of capacity and involvement in biotechnology in the absence of clearly articulated policy speaking to the needs of the country is not a solution to the food security problem. It may foster globalization and have little impact nationally. Kenya for instance needs to target small scale farmers and ensure that the biotechnology techniques developed are effectively delivered to this category of farmers and is capable of diffusion by them in their production systems (Kameri-Mbote, 2000).

   ACTS Principle 6

   Technological innovations drive development and are instrumental in addressing food insecurity.

   In The Gene Hunters: Biotechnology and the Scramble for Seeds, Juma cites realistic concerns to biotechnology, but argues that Africa cannot ignore this technology, that Africa must utilize and mold these innovations at peril of being further left behind. A theme running through ACTS is that, "the competitive advantage of nations in international trade is currently being defined by the technological competitiveness of the leading firms in these countries. African countries can only seek real economic transformation in the acquisition and development of technological skills. Africa is still at a disadvantage on this front and therefore any choice of technology or priorities for technical development needs to take into account these longer term competitive considerations."

   ACTS argues that, "it is especially in pressing technology development since it is technological change that will drive such countries forward in the coming decades" and that "adoption of technology does not need to be linear, countries can leapfrog ahead to higher forms of technology.

   Current African Research and Capacity in Biotechnology

   Examples of current technologies in development or extension in Kenya include insect resistant maize, drought tolerant maize, tissue culture bananas and the KARI-Monsanto genetically engineered virus resistant sweet potato.

   According to Kameri-Mbote, (2000) Egypt, South Africa and Zimbabwe are generating and commercializing biotechnology products and processes using third generation techniques of genetic engineering. Kenya, Uganda and Ghana are engaged in third generation biotechnology research and development but do not have products and/or processes yet. Tanzania and Uganda are engaged in biotechnology which is mainly tissue culture.

2. NGO Community

   The NGO community approached food security issues very differently from the academic/scientific community. The majority of NGOs that I visited were working at the micro level in communities and viewed solutions to food security problems as much broader than the development and application of technical innovations.

   Several NGO’s were working almost exclusively on policy issues, such as Action Aid which has been trying to raise awareness and consensus among other NGO’s dealing with trade issues. One Kenyan NGO, RODI (Resources Oriented Development Initiatives) worked in communities and were also gathering data on the impact of trade liberalization to use in policy discussions.

   While in Kenya I was able to visit many different NGOs and see how they worked with communities. While there were clear differences in approaches, there were certainly common threads. It is worthwhile to highlight common principles. Many of this principles are derived from the experience of the Utooni Community, located in Machakos district. Leadership arose from within the community in the person of Joshua Mukusya in the late 1970's. Development of the community has occurred in the face of economic globalization, in an unfavorable Kenyan policy/political environment, and has occurred with very little outside support from the NGO community and nearly no support from the Kenyan Government. Success of this community has been their leadership, their community organization, their willingness to work together and their decision to tackle the problems of their community holistically.

   NGO Principle 1

   Addressing food insecurity implies viewing situations holistically.

   Edward Charles, Programme Representative in Tanzania for Catholic Relief Services, suggested the problems facing rural communities be addressed as livelihood security instead of food security. This is indeed true in a country where close to 75% of the population is still rural, the production of food has implications for nutrition, health, cash and medicine.

   Dorcas Aid, working with communities in the Machakos district integrated various approaches to combat food insecurity. Sand dams were built, existing drought tolerant crops (sorghum, amaranth, cow peas) planted to combat drought and promoted through the community by a local research plot (managed by the community). Local seed multiplication occurred and a community seed and grain store was built.

   NGOs highlighted that "silver bullet" approaches are rarely effective in the long term and that increasing crop yield does not necessarily equate to food security.

   NGO Principle 2

   Innovation needs to be defined broadly, including new techniques, new technologies as well as historic traditions and methods.

   This principle is illustrated well by how certain communities coped with drought. For a problem as complex as drought, many small solutions need to be implemented together in order to make a significant difference.

   Alternative or micro solutions promoted included:
   Water catchment using cisterns, (where water was collected from roofs), catchment ponds (which collect run off water from the soil) and the construction of sand dams which hold water in sand behind cement walls (made accessible through the drilling of wells). Drought tolerant Crops can be planted. Some communities use open pollinated drought tolerant maize developed by KARI, while others select their own. MCC is promoting drought tolerant crops already available such as sorghum, millet, cowpeas, amaranth. The Utooni community saves water by altering their land management practices. Land is terraced which reduced water run off and soil erosion. Other practices employed include reducing tillage, use mulches and soil covers to slow soil drying. Green manures are also planted to increase the soil organic matter and improve the water holding capacity of the soil. Other communities choose to conserve water by reducing use, planting more trees in the region and constructing more wells for the community. In the dry season, crops can still be grown in certain regions using efficient drip irrigation systems or water already available in the form of kitchen gardens.

   NGO Principle 3

   Experience in the Utooni Community illustrates that the most important factors in overcoming food insecurity are not technical or political realities but social factors at the local level.

   One of the contributing factors of success of the Utooni community was community organization. Strong local leadership provided empowerment to the community and promoted reflective attitudes and discussions on their situation. Together the community evaluated their key problems and constraints facing their community. For example drought/soil erosion/food insecurity was just one problem that the community identified. Together they developed a strong cohesive community which made decisions together. Collectively they made decisions to work together on communal and individual projects. For example land was terraced, sand dams built, wells constructed, and community housing, a training school, a grain mill and a health clinic were built. Joshua Mukusya highlighted this principle by saying, "The most difficult thing is keeping everyone’s minds together."

   NGO Principle 4

   A spirit of reflection is critical in development.

   Again the Utooni community provides wisdom. There traditional practices were reviewed and evaluated were outside technologies. The community asked "what is appropriate for us, what fits?" The community has chosen not to adopt certain innovations such as hybrid seeds and chemical inputs while breeding their own white maize and re-introducing millet to their cropping systems. The community also examined attitudes and beliefs. As a result, the community chose to abandon certain superstitions.

   NGO Principle 5

   The focus must be on locally available resources.

   Kenyan NGO, RODI encourages communities to focus on their resources before their problems. They believe that the attitude in which rural people and communities approach their situations is incredibly important. To focus first or only on the problems at hand can be paralyzing. RODI believes that even in the bleakest situations, there are resources and often these resources are people related.

   This was illustrated beautifully by a profound visit to the Mugunmimi Widows Self Help Group. While I sat and talked with them, I observed that, "the poor are not passive observers to their situations. They are not unfilled vessels waiting to be filled." The Mugunmimi Widows Self Help Group is a group of close to 20 women who held small plots of land in a community north of Nairobi and were all widowed. Several years ago they chose to work together. In that time they have build cisterns for close to half the group members, made soap, made shoe polish, organized to receive training on goat rearing and vegetable gardens. Interestingly, it was only after they had formed their group that they became involved with RODI. In their words, "We have seen that it is better to be a group." They have more goats now, they have assisted one another in paying school fees, are currently working on a biogas digestor with the help of RODI and are contemplating selling vegetables together at a small road side kiosk.

   In the Maasai Food Security Program, the MCC is promoting drought tolerant short seasoned open pollinated as opposed to hybrid maize as well as sorghum, common beans, cowpeas and amaranth.. All crops whose seed can be used the following season to decrease the cost of initial inputs and to give the farmers the possibility of selecting their own varieties which are even more drought tolerant. When starting the program 4 years ago all farmers who grew maize grew less drought tolerant hybrid maize, the seed of which they could not use. Now nearly all grow open pollinated maize.

   NGO Principle 6

   Local knowledge is important and must be valued in the process of development.

   During the visit to the Mugunmimi Widows Self Help Group these formally uneducated women communicated a great deal to me during the short visit about important agricultural subjects.

   On the impact of outsiders/top down solutions, they commented "Since farmers know where they itch, they know where to scratch. Outsiders may not know where to scratch." On the failure of the cooperatives they said, "We toil and toil and toil and give coffee to the leaders (of the cooperatives) and never get paid." "Coffee cooperatives have enslaved us. They used to be very good. It used to send our kids to school but we have not been paid in the last 2 years. At the end of the day we get nothing. What kind of agriculture is this?" On their future plans they said, "We will learn as a group and grow as a group but the benefits will go directly to an individual."

   NGO Principle 7

   For any appreciable development which is sustained in the long term, solutions must be appropriate for small scale farmers.

   Interestingly enough certain organizations in Kenya are still promoting the use of improved seeds and fertilizers. This despite the fact that most small scale farmers can not currently afford these inputs and credit is not available. More in line with the realities of the average small scale farmer were the NGOs who were promoting organic agriculture. Not because these products would attract a higher price in the local market or supermarket or because they were perceived as healthier but because they could be produced more economically with fewer inputs. In the context of Kenyan agriculture and the stresses placed on the farmer, Dr. Larry Loewen-Rudgers sees, "a return of many small scale farmers to subsistence or even lower level and the need for NGOs to recognize this fact and work with farmers to improve their subsistence agriculture and then slowly move into a more holistic improvement of agriculture that results in profits despite the bad agriculture economy in Kenya. Substantial use of most biotechnologies will have to wait until the agricultural economy of Kenya has improved."

   Loewen-Rudgers expands on the options available to farmers and NGOs despite the poor agricultural economy in Kenya. "For as long as this situation exists, first farmers should be helped to practice a good subsistence or near subsistence agriculture through the adoption of already existing technologies such as the growing of existent drought tolerant crops and good crop husbandry practices which minimize high cost inputs. This would include , amongst other things, good weeding, use of animal manure, etc (organic farming). It would also include the use of more drought tolerant sources of milk such as milk goats, preservation of hay and silage on the animal side of things. It would not usually include such things as high cost insect resistant maize, etc. After farmers have become good at subsistence agriculture but still within the current bad agricultural economy they can be encouraged to adopt a more holistic agriculture which can bring them out of subsistence agriculture — such as various methods of water harvesting from micro to macro (sand dams, hand-dug water pans, collection of roof rain water, terracing), agroforestry, etc. so that crops such as irrigated vegetables for both home use and sale at local markets can be grown. Other agricultural and non-agricultural enterprises can also be adopted, such as modern ways of harvesting honey, cottage industries, etc. All of this can be done in the current bad agricultural economy and generally takes the approach of being involved in crops/enterprises least affected by that bad agricultural economy."

   SACRED Africa, a Western Kenya NGO has linked organic production to improving marketing channels for farmers to address food security problems. Specifically they have improved connections between farmers and buyers in Nairobi (supermarkets) and improved market information for farmers by record keeping and contacting various buyers before selling. These simple (non technical innovations) actions allow farmers to bypass the middle man and sell directly to the supermarket, and know what a fair price is for their produce regardless of their market. It also helps them sell outside of their local area and access a higher price. Together these actions help make farmers more food secure. They are better able to plan what to grow and what to invest in their crop, because they have a good idea that they will be able to sell and at what price.

Linking Approaches to Food Security

Example of Tissue Culture Bananas

Bananas have been developed through a partnership with KARI and ISAAA using tissue culture techniques and are now being extended to farmers in the Kenya. This an example which links learning points from both the scientific/academic community with the NGO community.

Specifically, high yielding cultivars have been cleaned using tissue culture techniques. Tissue culture is a technique that has proved very useful in propagating and improving asexually propagated crops. Tissue culture is widely accepted as a safe, benign technology which has been used successfully in many different crops.

Bananas are produced by small scale producers in central, western and southwestern Kenya and many of these producers have struggled with diseases due to unclean planting materials. Thus the application of this technology was indeed needed by small scale farmers and targeted to small scale farmers.

I was able to visit various farmers who have adopted these new planting materials. Through visits with farmers and the consultants which are extending this technology it was overwhelmingly clear that for successful adoption several conditions are necessary. Farmers need good information through agriculture extension. Farmers also need affordable credit to purchase sufficient numbers of banana seedlings in order to make a difference for them economically. Farmers and consultants have also identified that the development of markets are important given that bananas are a food and cash crop. With improved production levels, local markets would easily be flooded unless market linkages are set up. Consultants have also learned that adoption rates are higher when farmers are organized in learning groups to facilitate learning and to make extension more efficient. Also, access to water made a significant difference in the production of bananas. Farmers with better access to water, or who had better means of moving water (ie. pump vs. watering can) produced much better bananas quicker.

This TC banana study is being used to promote the idea that biotechnology is advantageous, beneficial and appropriate for small scale farmers. However this study illustrates that the impact of technical innovation is limited unless accompanied with good extension, credit and marketing linkages.

The TC banana project is a positive example of scientists working to meet the needs of small scale farmers. However it raises important issues. How much innovation is needed (and what types of innovation are needed) if good extension, credit and marketing alternatives are available? The TC banana study also illustrates that few innovations are size neutral, a theme from the green revolution. In this case, the wealthier farmer (with better access to water, credit or land) stands to benefit at a much greater level than the poorer farmer.

Discussion

Many academic organizations share similar views and working principles towards biotechnology as ACTS. Some of these organizations include the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), CGIAR research organizations, ISAAA, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the Kenyan Agricultural Research Institution. The view of academics is significantly different towards biotechnology as compared to the development community. Many see this as a significant policy gap.

It is important to highlight that academics have a key role in discerning the merits and risks of biotechnology for Kenyan agriculture, as do NGOs. Within Africa, ACTS is a very important organization for Africa and issues related to Biotechnology. ACTS is one place to discuss and negotiate issues related to intellectual property protection, traditional knowledge, access to genetic resources, benefit sharing, and international agreements (WTO TRIPs, Convention on Biodiversity). In my opinion, ACTS provides a space for co-ordinated policy development to encourage a sound regulatory system for Kenya and Africa.

One difference between the voice of academics in Kenya compared to other regions such as India, Mexico or Brazil, was that the underlying current of support of biotechnology in Kenya was intricately linked to development. Calestous Juma promotes the idea that development in biotechnology will catalyse economic transformation and will aid in socio-economic development.

It was also striking in Kenya that there was very little public debate on genetic engineering as compared to India, Mexico or Brazil. There was not a well organized or well funded anti biotechnology lobby. Although, there were many NGOs working in communities who were concerned about GE crops from an environmental view point and also from a commercialization point of view. Most NGOs were occupied meeting acute needs.

In response to the policy gap in Kenya, certain NGOs questioned the objectivity of governments, research organizations and policy organizations, one factor being their funding sources. Maintaining objectivity is a challenge for all organizations.

Bridging the gap between academics and the NGO community and farmers is a much larger discussion and is well beyond the scope of this report. Within Kenya, IDRC has field projects which are encouraging greater linkages between plant breeders, extensionists and farmers. KARI researcher Dr. Kahiu Ngugi spoke of employing participatory plant breeding methods in the KARI program focused on the development of drought resistant maize using marker assisted selection. Luis A. Navarro, of IDRC, highlighted that still in many cases a large gap exists between policy makers and farmers and in many cases between policy makers and scientists.

In general, academics hope to harness biotechnology in order to address yield limiting factors. Johnson and Ives (2001) cite a 1999 study commissioned by the Rockefeller Foundation (Biotechnology for African Crops, 1999) which highlights this approach. The Rockefeller report notes that crop production in African countries is usually constrained by incidence of pest and disease, poor soil conditions and abiotic stress factors such as drought and heat. Johnson and Ives (2001) highlight that "most or all of these constraints may be addressed via biotechnological methods." Experiences in rural Kenya illustrate that these statements are indeed true. There are areas where biotechnology could be introduced and bring benefits. The NGO experience in Kenya highlights that there are also many other options available to address these agronomic problems.

Academics have the broad mandate to engage in policy development and desire to foster innovation which is beneficial to society and farmers. Specifically related to agriculture in Africa, ACTS has the diverse mandate to engage in policy issues at an inter-governmental level to foster greater food security at the national level and at the community level. ACTS seems to have a genuine interest in helping small scale farmers. However, many in the NGO community were concerned that the academic community was not effectively connected to farmers. There was clearly some academic organizations who were more connected with rural communities than others. Specifically, a concern expressed by NGOs related to many academic organizations was that there were few links with farmers where voices from rural communities could effectively provide direction or guidance to academic organizations or research programs. In the absence of significant linkages with farmers, the assumption by academics that this technology is most useful, most needed and most appropriate for African farmers must be questioned. In viewing food insecurity situations in Kenya, it was also not clear if academics had compared the option of innovation in biotechnology to other food security solutions. The ongoing challenge of understanding concerns at the grassroots level and responding appropriately is one that all organizations face, whether academic or NGO.

As the academic community approaches food security issues at policy levels, it is often difficult to understand how decisions made at international or national forums will impact local communities. One example of this is the willingness of academics to embrace public-private partnerships inorder to promote capacity development in biotechnology. Many in the NGO community questioned this strategy. It was not clear if academics had contemplated the implications of promoting this technology with private industry to the small scale farmer. What is good for industry or a Public-Private partnership and may meet national food security objectives may not necessarily meet the needs of farmers and rural communities. NGOs question if public-private partnerships will open the door to greater privatization in Kenyan agriculture and promotion of a type of agriculture based more extensively on purchased inputs. Many NGOs associate greater privatization in agriculture with a lose of seed security for farmers as companies either market hybrid seeds or protect their seeds via patents. NGOs predict that greater dependence on purchased inputs could erode farmers control, stability and their livilihood security. Increasing linkages between farmers and academics could strengthen their policy development process and help policy makers ensure that they are meeting the needs of African farmers with respect to the types of partnerships they are encouraging.

Members of the NGO community cited that while many of the products of biotechnology appear promising, they are a great distance from arriving in rural communities to meet the needs of the farmers they are allegedly designed to serve. One major concern highlighted was that as a result of the poor performance of the Kenya agricultural sector and the potentially high costs of biotechnology, the majority of farmers would be unable to adopt products of biotechnology.

Where farmers currently cannot afford to apply fertilizer, does it make sense to pursue a biotechnology research agenda where farmers will likely be required to pay for the products? Johnson and Ives (2001) cite Ndirtu, 1999 who reports that in 1995 Kenyan farmers spent approximately US$4.5 million on insecticides, US$10.5 million on fungicides, US$0.3 million on plant hormones and US$33 million to control livestock pests and diseases. Proponents of biotechnology believe that there could be significant cost savings for farmers if traits were introduced to plants and animals to resist these pests. Critics question if these developments would simply shift where farmers are spending their money and if they would be farther ahead? The situation in Canada with respect to herbicide resistant soybeans suggests that higher seed costs and technology use agreements offset reductions in herbicide costs. Yield and weed pressure are the factors which determine if a farmer is better off economically, not reduced herbicide costs. In Kenya certain NGOs such as RODI suggest that the best way to address pest and disease pressure for the poor farmer is to approach them from a low input perspective and to attach these systemic problems in a holistic manner.

A representative from one NGO referring to the accessibility of products of biotechnology by typical Kenyan farmers comments in a slightly different light, "This does not mean that academic organizations which are promoting sophisticated biotechnology research or higher input agricultural research should stop carrying out such research, but that such technologies will be useful and adopted when Kenya’s agricultural economy improves. But such organizations during the bad times should be concentrating on low cost technologies and they along will all other international and local NGOs, government and development organizations must do all in their power to promote the good and decrease the bad effects of economic globalization."

NGO’s recognize that by nature farmers do not want to remain subsistence farmers. However, NGO’s and those working in extension with farmers normally work with farmers to bring the level of production up to a subsistence level before thinking of how to help them become small scale commercial farmers.

The historically poor agricultural production record of Africa is frequently invoked as a key reason why innovation in biotechnology is needed. The converse argument, which development organizations often cite is that Africa’s poor agriculture performance is related more to policy issues (National and International) and that available conventional technologies are not fully exploited or extended than the lack of advanced biotechnological solutions.

Development organizations highlight that policy reform could make a significant difference for farmers and rural communities. The work of the NGOs is simply not widespread enough to make a significant difference on a large scale. Actions which would lead to greater protection to outside agricultural commodities (maize and sugar), moderate support for the purchase of inputs (seeds, fertilizers), organized marketing support and available rural credit and extension would significantly assist farmers to improve their food security situation. Support for community initiatives such as cistern and sand dam construction to combat drought should also be encouraged.

NGOs are working to fill the void not occupied now by the government in terms of community development and agriculture extension. To a lesser degree NGOs are working to fill the void left by the collapse of the cooperative system and the lack of agricultural credit. Certain academics, highlighted that NGOs must become more active lobbying for policy changes at the National and International levels. Addressing food insecurity implies not just advocating development in biotechnology at the policy level.

More integration is needed between academics and organizations promoting different options for food security. Determining the proper place for technical innovation in addressing food security problems is important for long term sustainable development. Arguably, certain developments in the field of biotechnology could be very positive. However, if they are implemented in a non-holistic fashion or preclude other approaches, the net impact could be minimal or negative.

Further Questions

How does society evaluate technological advances?

Which innovations are positive, negative, appropriate or inappropriate?

Are there times when it is necessary to challenge the technological imperative, that if it is possible generate a technology, that technology should be pursued?

Are there times when it is necessary to challenge the economic imperative: that if a technology is profitable, that it should be commercialized?

How does society decide and who decides?

How can society integrate ethical, environmental, cultural and social values and concerns to these discussions at the community, national and international level?

Viewing food security in the long term, what are key technological innovations which should be pursued?

That type of research is particularly relevant for the poor small scale farmer with limited financial resources?

How can this type of research be encouraged in an environment with declining and scarce resources?

Conclusion

Food security issues in Kenya are very complex and require much more than technical innovations. Policy responses to food security must extend beyond building capacity in biotechnology and address impacts of trade liberalization, must encourage strengthening extension services, must make inputs accessible through credit and improved marketing structures. Innovations in Kenya agriculture are needed and must include technical and other factors, be appropriate for the small scale framer and be implemented in an integrated fashion. Advanced biotechnology is one approach but not the only one and cannot be implemented in isolation.

References

Clark, S. (2000). Kenya/India Trade/Food Security Trip Report for the Canadian Foodgrains Bank. December 2000.

Juma, C. (1989). The Gene Hunters: Biotechnology and the Scramble for Seeds. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey.

Johanson, A. Ives, C.L. (2001). Inventory of Agricultural Biotechnology for the Eastern and Central Africa Region.

Michigan State University. http://www.iia.msu.edu/absp/inventory1.html

Kameri-Mbote, P., Wafula, D. ACTS (2000a). Public-Private Partnerships for Biotechnology in Africa: An Agenda For the Future Policy Brief Volume 1 Number 1, November 2000.

Kameri-Mbote, P. (2000) Biotechnology and Food Security in Africa: Some Policy and Institutional Considerations. A paper presented to the Consultation on Biotechnology and Food Security sponsored by the MCC. Winnipeg, Manitoba October 13-14, 2000.

KIPPRA (2001) Agriculture Sectoral Performance in Kenya: 1992-2000, Kenya Institute for Public Policy and Research analysis. http://www.kenyaweb.com/economy/sectoral/environment.html

Nyangito, H.O. (2000). Food Policy and Food Security in Kenya. A paper presented to the workshop on "Prioritizing Food Security Work in Kenya." Organized by Action Aid, Kenya. November 17, 2000.

Mugabe J., Kameri-Mbote P., Odame, H. ACTS (2000b) Biotechnology For Food Security in Africa: From Rhetoric to Action. Policy Brief Volume 1 Number 2, November 2000.

WFP, (2000) Projected 2001 Needs for WFP Projects and Operations. www.wfp.org/bb99/