The document discusses the need for a national policy on the conservation and sustainable management of below ground biodiversity (BGBD) in Kenya. It provides justification for such a policy by explaining how reduced BGBD decreases agricultural productivity and resilience. It notes that over 90% of crop varieties and 5% of animal breeds are lost each year. The document outlines gaps in existing policy and the benefits a new policy could provide. It analyzes situational factors and proposes a strategic framework with the vision, mission, goals and specific objectives for a BGBD policy in Kenya.

1. 5/27/2010
POLICY MAKING PROCESS
Policies are developed in response to the existence of a perceived problem or
an opportunity; they never exist in a vacuum.
The context is extremely important because it will shape the kinds of actions
POLICY BRIEF
considered. For example: Who has identified the problem? Is it widely
recognized by society as a whole or is limited in scope to a local pressure group
In the case of the former there may be a greater willingness to intervene than in
the latter, depending on the political power exerted by the pressure group.
PROPOSALS FROM THE NATIONAL Do the public authorities have the interest or will to respond? There are
usually many more problems than th policy makers are willing t address.
ll bl th the li k illi to dd
STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP Many issues remain unaddressed.
Do the public authorities wish to wield the instruments necessary to carry out
a policy response? The problem may be recognized, but public authorities may
have little ability to effect change. Such is the problem of many environmental
problems that require global solutions.
What is the timescale? How pressing is the problem, and how long would a
response take? Policy makers are notoriously prone to attempt only short-term
interventions, since their mandates are usually of relatively short duration. Long
term issues may not attract policy makers because the results of any policy
intervention may be decades away.
POLICY FORMULATION Policy Making process
Who has identified the problem, and why should it be seen to be a problem? Many problems
exist, but few are taken up because they are not brought before a wide audience.
Is there agreement on the problem? If there is no agreement that a problem exists, it is unlikely
that a strong policy response will be forthcoming. Effective policies are more likely to be
formulated if there is widespread recognition of a problem and its causes. Policy-making must be understood as a
Is it an issue that can be addressed by public policy?.
Is it too soon to develop a policy? This argument was used by the lobby in California that
opposed stricter emission controls on vehicles in the early 1990s, based on the argument that the
political process as much as an analytical or
technology of alternative energy for vehicles was not sufficiently advanced.
Is the problem seen differently by groups with different values? Environmentalists see many
problem solving one.
transport issues differently than many other interest groups. Divergence of opinions may affect
how the problem is addressed.
Is the problem fully understood? Do we know the causal relationships that may be necessary to
‘The policy-making process is not always a
The policy making
provide a solution? Can the relationships between the factors that make up the problem be
quantified? Problem definition is better when it is possible to measure the scale and scope of the
issues involved.
rational activity Indeed, policy making
In defining the problem or opportunity and to help address the questions above, background studies
are required. The state of affairs needs to be provided which will identify the actors, the issues and the
process can be rather messy, with outcomes
possible means that are available. It is also important to forecast trends in order to identify whether the
issue is likely to change.
occurring as a result of complicated political,
social and institutional processes which are
best described as ‘evolutionary’’,
The role of interest groups in the Reactions to change
policy process
The policy process is influenced by a range of People react against change for a wide range
interest groups that exert power and authority over of reasons, including fear of the unknown,
policy-making. These influences affect each stage of lack of information, threat to status, there
the process from agenda setting, to the identification being no perceived benefits, fear of failure,
of alternatives weighing up the options choosing
alternatives, options, low trust in the organisation, strong peer
organisation
the most favourable and implementing it. groups norms and being bound by custom.
A crucial aspect of all policy process is to determine When faced with change people perceptions
the interest groups in order to manage their range from negative reaction which perceive
participation in the process. change as a threat, to positive reactions,
which see it as an opportunity.
1

2. 5/27/2010
Reactions to change Managing Change
Identifying ‘change agents’ (policy champions)
It is important to identify individuals who will lead
change. These are the people who will give direction and
momentum to the implementation of new policies and methods.
In some situations it is difficult to identify a single individual or
agency to lead the change. In such circumstances reform
change
leadership may be embodied in special task forces,
commissioner co-ordinating committees.
Recognizing barriers to change
It is important to predict the reaction of individuals and groups to
proposed changes and manage them
Managing change Ownership of the policy process
Ownership of the development policy process tends to be drawn away from
local and indigenous groups to policy experts or outsiders.
‘Policy-making tends to become the mystique of elites. And these elites are
separated from [local] people ... these mysteries and separations put policy-
making processes in rural and agricultural development into a privileged
position’,
An important tool by which policy discourses ‘control’ or marginalise the
interests of indigenous groups is by labelling and categorising them. Target
groups are l b ll d (
labelled (such as ‘l dl
h ‘landless’ or ‘
’ ‘women’) and as a result can b
’) d lt be
conceived as passive objects of policy rather than as
active subjects with projects and agendas of their own. This has been referred
to as the ‘disarming of labelling’.
It is important to ensure that local people be guided by the stewardship of
techno-managerial elites, be they experts in host country governments,
international donor agencies,or transnational NGOs
PHASES TITLE
The phases are:
Recognising and defining the nature of the issue to National policy on the conservation and
be dealt with
Identifying possible courses of action to deal with sustainable management of below Ground
the issue Biodiversity
Weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of
each of th
h f these alternatives
lt ti
Choosing the option which offers the best solution
Implementing the policy
Evaluating the outcome
The national stakeholder workshop was the beginning
of this process
2

3. 5/27/2010
JUSTIFICATION JUSTIFICATION
Agriculture is the main livelihood activity for the majority of Kenyans and the soil Below-ground biodiversity is dramatically reduced when forests
is a major component of agricultural productivity.
Soil fertility has been declining gradually in Kenya as a result of agricultural
are converted to agricultural land, and when agricultural land use
practices adopted earlier in the century as a means of increasing crop is intensified Reduced BGBD decreases agricultural productivity
production such as scientifically tested agricultural technologies, including the and reduces the "resilience" of agricultural systems, which then
use of fertilizers, pesticides and mono cultural practices, have resulted into a
backlash of the ecosystem. become more vulnerable to adverse climatic events, erosion,
Below-ground biodiversity is dramatically reduced when forests are converted to pests, diseases, and other threats.
agricultural l d and when agricultural l d use i i t
i lt l land, d h i lt l land is intensified R d
ifi d Reduced BGBD
d It is estimated that more than 90 per cent of crop varieties have
decreases agricultural productivity and reduces the "resilience" of agricultural
systems, which then become more vulnerable to adverse climatic events, been lost from farmers’ fields in the past century and animal
erosion, pests, diseases, and other threats. breeds are disappearing at the rate of 5 per cent per year.
It is estimated that more than 90 per cent of crop varieties have been lost from
farmers’ fields in the past century and animal breeds are disappearing at the The rate of loss is exacerbated by global trade rules, intellectual
rate of 5 per cent per year. property rights regimes, the concentration of agricultural research
The rate of loss is exacerbated by global trade rules, intellectual property rights and development of inappropriate technological ‘solutions’, and
regimes, the concentration of agricultural research and development of
inappropriate technological ‘solutions’, and introduction and promotion of introduction and promotion of genetically engineered organisms.
genetically engineered organisms.
POLICY GAP
No existing policy on BGBD yet it is an important Despite empirical evidence on the loss of Below Ground
natural resource; Biodiversity in Kenya and the resultant decrease in agricultural
productivity, the Government has not developed a specific policy
It is a vital resource for agricultural production; on sustainable conservation and management of Below Ground
Helps on control of plant diseases; Biodiversity.
It is therefore imperative to develop a policy that will among other
Necessary for soil fertility improvement;
y y p ; reasons guide appropriate land use systems, provide guidelines
Natural reservoir for biotechnological products; on commercial exploitation of BGBD materials.
This will assist farmers and other stakeholders to conserve,
It is a vital resource for plant growth and production manage and develop agricultural biodiversity leading to
in natural ecosystem; sustainable livelihoods and national food security. Similar to
Crucial link in carbon cycle and mitigation in climate other Government policies, the BGBD policy will be anchored
and guided by Vision 2030, which is the Government’s
change; overarching policy framework for attaining economic
For integration of natural resource policy aspects development, as well as other related sector policies including
touching on BGBD. agriculture, environment, water, forestry etc.
BENEFITS OF THE POLICY Critical success factors
The proposed policy will ensure: -
The sustainable conservation and management of BGBD How do we measure the success of the new
The regulation of BGBD bio-prospecting. policy?
Further research and development of BGBD.
Development of guidelines for the ex-situ breeding and en mass production of
specific BGBD components.
Rate of adoption by stakeholders
Long term monitoring and evaluation of the CSM-BGBD Kenya benchmark sites
Development of BGBD export and i
D l t f t d import regulations.
t l ti
Increased yields due to improvements in soil
y p
Development of regulation to conserve BGBD by controlling threatening fertility
agricultural practices and processes.
Development and use of appropriate technologies for the maintenance of soil Food security and poverty reduction
fertility in agro-ecosystems.
Identification of instruments for use in raising funds for BGBD management. Reduction of government Expenditure on
Creation of a national BGBD institute (e.g. expand the Nairobi MIRCEN to
incorporate BGBD) or other appropriate body. agricultural inputs
Allow for incorporation of BGBD curricula into our Education system
Enhanced environmental quality and services
3

4. 5/27/2010
Situational analysis Economic
Political environment Opposition from fertilizer pesticides companies;
Bring them on board at the initial phase-to see the
Performance of the individual politician given economic benefit of using bio resources not just
more prominence; chemical ones;
Partisan political interests at national level; Nationally BGBD is an immense economic resource
but economic value in numbers need to be provided
Political shortsightedness; first-exports, savings etc;
Fear of opposition by politicians if BGBD will Fear of funding-budget but if well packaged
make farmers produce more food and supported;
therefore become more independent. At international level-the financial melt down may be
a threat to private section participation.
Socio-Cultural Technology
Eroding strong cultural beliefs held by people Young scientists interests in BGBD hence
regarding fertilizers& other BGBD; generational gap;
Gender age dimension .Farm managers not Curriculum in University to study BGBD vis
the right ones with BGBD information; avis existing research technology;
Land fragmentation-threat to BGBD- Utilize technology-Sms, ICT centres,Tv,
Intensification. Radio, Print Media, Discussion panels etc
Institutional arrangements for
implementation of BGBD
Environment Home Ministry: Ministry of Agriculture,
Resistance by regulatories in the use of bio control methods vis Institutional home: A parastatal (Establishment of a Board and
workforce) in the Ministry of Agriculture-Under agricultural sector
avis the environment e.g.KEPHIS, KEBS, NEMA; coordinating unit (ASCU)-
Lack of participation by key Environmental bodies in Kenya Justification:
e.g.KEPHIS, KEBS, NEMA. BGBD Outputs immediate and tangible in Agriculture;
Legal Geared towards food security;
Baseline data for agriculture;
Many laws about environment and potential that BGBD may be
Project launched by Assistant Minister for Agriculture;
captured under current laws;
Powerful Ministry-A Key economic ministry;
Many institutions Legally in the area of environment; Has supported BGBD from the beginning;
Open ended ness of the legal procedure for policy formulation A major beneficiary of BGBD;
with no time frame. This can lead to delays before the policy is Finding show significant contribution to food security and sustainability;
eventually formulated. Structure Organization to the grassroots;
Monitoring and evaluation system.
4

5. 5/27/2010
Other complimentary institutions:
Private sector Players:
Ministry of Environment-NEMA; Agro based industries;
Ministry of forestry and wildlife-have an impact of
BGBD; KENFAP-Kenya federation of agricultural
Ministry of Heritage-NMK National centre for producers;
biodiversity;
Ministry of higher Education science &Technology; Consumer information network;
Ministry of water and Irrigation-Contributes to Community based organization;
Agriculture;
Ministry of Finance; Nature Kenya.
Ministry of Planning;
AG Office (Draft to legal document).
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK Specific Objectives
Vision To develop and establish a long term BGBD
‘To ensure efficient conservation and sustainable management of research and monitoring programme.
soil organisms for soil fertility improvement in agricultural
ecosystems’. To create a BGBD institution or body.
Mission
‘To promote research utilization and management of soil
To develop BGBD bioprospecting policy and legal
organisms i all K
i in ll Kenyan ecosystems th
t through th establishment
h the t bli h t frameworks.
frameworks
of accountable and transparent laws, institutions and systems To mainstream BGBD concerns in agricultural
dealing with BGBD’.
Goal extension services.
The policy shall offer a framework of policies and laws designed To mainstream BGBD concerns in the education
to enhance comprehension of the soil organisms and provide for sector.
fair and equitable sharing of benefits accruing from their
utilization in line with the Convention on Biological Diversity Build capacity in our local farmers to better manage
(CBD) principles.
BGBD.
Financial Arrangements Sustainability of the policy:
Budget item-budget allocation in the ministry Education and training
of agriculture; Information Education and communication(IEC)
Participating institutions sponsoring; Curriculum training on farmers, schools ,colleges
Awareness education(public)
(p )
Donor community;
Pressure groups
Taxes and levies-impose BGBD levies,
Demonstration to the farmers and presentations
penalties; PPP (Public private partnership)
Incentives to the farmers for access to the Legal regulatory framework
inputs Sensitization of policy makers especially politicians
Resource mobilization
5