Chapter 1


 Box 1.5 The Impact of Commercialization of Agriculture on Food Security in Kenya

 A study was undertaken in Kenya in the mid-1980s, at the request of the Kenyan government,
 to look at the impact of a new sugar factory in South Nyanza, which was contracting farmers
 from the surrounding area to grow and sell sugar to the factory. The study was to examine the
 impact of the shift to sugarcane production on food production, income, food consumption
 and child nutrition, both for the participating farmers and on the local community. In
 particular, sugar farmers were compared to non-sugar farmers.

 The year of the initial study coincided with a drought in Kenya. Nonetheless, the study found
 that there was no significant difference in the amount of land devoted to food crops between
 sugar and nonsugar farmers, and, in consequence, there was no difference in average calorie
 intake (about 94% of energy needs) nor in the size of food stores maintained. Sugar farmers
 cultivated more of their landholdings, partly because the main constraint on agricultural
 production in that part of Kenya was labour and sugar farmers could buy in labour services for
 land clearing, weeding, harvesting etc. from the sugar factory. Sugar farmers had higher
 Incomes than nonsugar farmers, but child nutrition in these families had not improved, the
 researchers suggest because the increase in income was not translated into an increase in
 healthcare infrastructure and services, which are generally provided through the state.

 As the initial year of the study was a drought year, it was repeated two years later. This
 "showed the same pattern of increased income, but no improvement in child nutrition, though
 increased income had led to an increase in household calorie intake. Certainly the food
 security of participating households had not suffered. In addition, landless labourers were seen
 to have benefited significantly, because the higher profitability of sugar production had led to
 an increased demand for the labour services of the landless.

 Source: E.Kennedy, 1989.


 Increases in cash cropping need not affect women's income adversely, but where it does,
 perhaps because women have less land to cultivate, or they are required to put some of their

FWhere food crop production is reduced, there may also be a negative effect. Income in kind,
i.e. subsistence food production is more likely to be used for family consumption than cash
income.

The agriculture sectors of most countries are already highly integrated into the exchange
 economy. True subsistence production is rare except in some of the poorest and least
 developed regions of the world. This means that in many countries the food security of the
 most vulnerable is often heavily dependent on the effective functioning of markets. This is
 at variance with the stylised picture often presented of small farmers. It is important that
 policy makers are aware of the vulnerability of the poorest to breakdowns in food market
 operation and the risks they face when moving towards greater market integration.

 There is often a good case for encouraging greater domestic production of food at a national
 level, particularly for poorer food deficit countries. It may be the most direct way of
 increasing the entitlements of the poor. However, to put self-sufficiency, as a matter o.
 principle, above broader issues of food security, at both the household and national level,
 could lead to loss of entitlements which the poor can least afford.




 26-