The latest definition of food security includes both physical and economic access to sufficient and nutritious food that meets dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (World Bank Group, 2023). Nevertheless, this definition itself has its limitations and represents much deeper inequalities that need to be addressed. This blog focuses on the issue of Kenya’s food insecurity, which has continued to persist since its independence. The referent object in this analysis is the Kenyan agri-food system. The main argument of this discussion is that over the decades, these agrifood systems have been securitised in a manner that has systematically weakened their working and efficiency. It is due to the policies, laws and norms of the international system and the successive national governments that Kenya is still not self-sufficient. There are three main sections in this blog. First, the role of imperialism and the colonial history. Second, a continuation of imperialism through neo-colonial policies of the state. Third, the agrifood systems in a globalised world. The analysis is based on the post-colonial approach. The main aim is to critically examine the status quo to understand who assumes the role of the protector and who is being protected.
Kenya was a British colony from 1920-1963. During this period, the British implemented a bimodal structure in the colonial agricultural policy. Most of the land was allotted to the European farmers who grew cash crops like tea and coffee to satisfy export demands. The Kenyan farmers themselves were excluded from access to fertile land. Their average farm size was two hectares as compared to the European farm size of eight hundred hectares. This policy also led to a loss of indigenous crops and seeds. It created a system of discrimination and inequality that continued to persist post-independence (Gow and Parton, 1995). After independence, most of these European farms were acquired by the African elite, who continued to grow cash crops. They even pushed for commodity-specific agricultural policies that would benefit them instead of focusing on larger goals of food security.
The Kenyan government continues to securitise their agrifood systems through laws like the Seed and Plant Varieties Act 326. This act criminalises the sharing, exchange or selling of unregistered seeds. Most of these so-called unregistered seeds are local seed varieties. The justification given for such laws is to prevent biopiracy and the spread of seed-borne diseases. Regardless, most of such laws and practices do not benefit or protect Kenyan farmers.
In a globalised world that is marked by interdependency and interconnectedness, even seed sharing for agriculture comes under its ambit. This globalised neoliberal regime is based on the Western ideas of peace, democracy and free markets (Barkawi and Laffey, 2006). This interdependence is not equal but, in fact, highly unequal. The ban on indigenous seeds forces farmers to buy registered seeds from multinational companies that control the global seed market. The experience of Western countries with the neoliberal market cannot be universalised since it has just created increasing inequality in other parts of the world. This situation of inequality could be further exacerbated by Western countries through developmental aid and assistance. Such acts are increasingly determined by the donor’s security interests rather than the recipient’s needs (Sandor and Abrahamsen, 2018). For instance, the UK committed 5.8 million pounds to Kenya as aid for the financial year 2023 to 2024 (Foreign, 2023). Such acts do not address the problem but become a short-term solution for the recipient country since they do not address the fundamental structures and reasons that create and continue these problems. The Bretton Woods system and the role of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in pushing for reducing the state’s role in agriculture through subsidies has made the situation even worse. The developed countries continue to benefit through these institutions due to their colonial past, which is rarely addressed. This strategy of abstraction acts as containment in International Relations (IR) (Krishna, 2001). Therefore, terms like food security itself are crucial to IR discourse and were all emergent in encounters between the West and the Third World.
Therefore, it brings forth the question of how these laws are trying to protect the farmers and their fields from exploitative practices and policies of other nation-states and multinational corporations (Krause and William, 2018). While the post-colonial approach brings out the historical inequalities rooted in colonial practices and regimes, it does not focus on the role of specific religious, sexual or gender minorities in its discourse. It takes the broad category of farmer and does not complicate the discussion any further.
To conclude, these domestic policies and international regulations may seem to protect countries' agricultural systems from pests and diseases or economic shocks. However, in reality, the burden of these policies and laws is on the farmers and further leads to the deterioration of Kenyan agrifood systems. Thus, a re-evaluation of policies is required to address the root cause of food insecurity in Kenya and promote agricultural development that benefits the primary actors, the farmers.
References
Barkawi, Tarak, and Mark Laffey. “The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies.” Review of International Studies, vol. 32, no. 2, Apr. 2006, pp. 329–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0260210506007054.
Foreign, Commonwealth &. Development Office. “UK Pledges Support for Over a Million People in East Africa.” GOV.UK, 23 May 2023, www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-pledges-support-for-over-a-million-people-in-east-africa.
Gow, Jeff, and Kevin A. Parton. “Evolution of Kenyan Agricultural Policy.” Development Southern Africa, vol. 12, no. 4, Aug. 1995, pp. 467–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03768359508439833.
Krause, Keith, and Michael Williams. "Security and “Security studies”: Conceptual evolution and historical transformation." 2018.
Krishna, Sankaran. “Race, Amnesia, and the Education of International Relations.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, vol. 26, no. 4, Oct. 2001, pp. 401–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/030437540102600403.
Sandor, Adam, and Rita Abrahamsen. “The Global South and International Security the Global South and International Security Oxford Handbooks Online.” Uqam, Apr. 2018, www.academia.edu/36386976/The_Global_South_and_International_Security_The_Global_South_and_International_Security_Oxford_Handbooks_Online.
World Bank Group. “What Is Food Security.” World Bank, 28 Aug. 2023, www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/food-security-update/what-is-food-security.
Comments