The Political Economy of Irrigation in Kenya

 

Irrigation in Kenya has always occupied a strange space in public policy. It is constantly spoken about, frequently promised, and endlessly cited as the solution to food insecurity. Yet for decades, it remained marginal in actual investment outcomes, fragmented in governance, and slow in delivery. 

Understanding why requires moving beyond canals, dams, and acreage figures, and examining irrigation through the lens of political economy. Who decides what gets built, where money flows, how risks are shared, and who ultimately benefits.

At its core, irrigation is not just a technical intervention. It is an economic choice, a political negotiation, and a governance challenge rolled into one. That is why progress in irrigation has historically lagged behind its strategic importance, even as Kenya’s population grew, climate risks intensified, and dependence on rain-fed agriculture became increasingly untenable.

Why Irrigation Has Always Been Politically Attractive but Practically Difficult

Few policy ideas sound as appealing as irrigation. It promises food security, jobs, rural incomes, and climate resilience in one sentence. Politicians across generations have embraced it rhetorically because it aligns neatly with voter expectations, especially in drought-prone regions. However, irrigation demands long-term thinking in a political environment that often rewards short-term visibility.

Large irrigation infrastructure requires heavy upfront capital, extended construction timelines, complex land and water rights negotiations, and sustained post-construction management. These realities clash with electoral cycles, where returns are expected quickly and visibly. As a result, irrigation has often been announced enthusiastically but implemented cautiously, or partially.

This gap between promise and delivery is not unique to Kenya, but local institutional constraints have amplified it. Historically, irrigation sat at the intersection of multiple ministries, agencies, and county interests, with unclear lines of accountability. When ownership is diffused, responsibility weakens, and projects struggle to move from planning to productive use.

The Cost of Treating Irrigation as a Public Good Alone

For many years, irrigation in Kenya was framed almost entirely as a public good, to be financed, built, and maintained by the State. While this approach expanded access in some schemes, it also created structural weaknesses. Public financing alone could not keep pace with the scale of infrastructure required. Operation and maintenance budgets were often inadequate. Farmer ownership was limited, leading to weak governance at scheme level.

The political economy problem here was subtle but damaging. When farmers were not financially invested, schemes were vulnerable to misuse, poor maintenance, and eventual collapse. At the same time, the Treasury faced competing demands from health, education, security, and infrastructure, making sustained irrigation funding politically difficult to defend year after year.

This model also discouraged private capital. Without clear revenue frameworks, water pricing structures, or risk-sharing mechanisms, irrigation was seen as politically sensitive and commercially uncertain. The result was a cycle where the State carried most of the burden, but without the fiscal space to scale.

Climate Change Has Shifted the Power Dynamics

Climate change has quietly but decisively altered the political economy of irrigation. Erratic rainfall, prolonged droughts, and rising food import bills have made the cost of inaction visible and measurable. Irrigation is no longer just about boosting yields; it is about stabilising national food systems, managing inflation, and reducing exposure to global supply shocks.

This shift has elevated irrigation from a sectoral issue to a macroeconomic concern. Food prices now influence political stability. Drought responses consume emergency budgets. Imports drain foreign exchange. In this context, irrigation investment is increasingly viewed not as discretionary spending, but as economic risk management.

This framing has helped unlock higher-level political backing and cross-government coordination. It has also justified new financing conversations, including blended finance, PPPs, and infrastructure funds, which were previously considered too complex or risky for the sector.

Devolution and the New Irrigation Bargain

Devolution added another layer to the political economy of irrigation. Counties became central actors in agricultural development, yet water resources, major dams, and bulk infrastructure remained national responsibilities. This division required a new bargaining framework between national and county governments.

In practice, irrigation success now depends on alignment rather than authority. National government may build infrastructure, but counties influence land use planning, extension services, market access, and farmer mobilisation. Where this coordination works, schemes thrive. Where it fails, infrastructure underperforms.

This reality has gradually pushed irrigation policy toward partnership models, where counties, communities, and national institutions share roles more clearly. The emergence of Irrigation Water Users Associations and their transition toward cooperative structures reflects this shift toward local accountability within a nationally guided framework.

Financing, Risk, and the Politics of Who Pays

Perhaps the most sensitive political economy question in irrigation is who pays and who bears risk. Farmers want affordable water. The State wants sustainability. Private investors want predictable returns. Balancing these interests requires political courage and institutional clarity.

Water tariffs, for example, are not just technical calculations. They are political decisions that affect livelihoods, public perception, and investor confidence. Setting them too low undermines sustainability. Setting them too high excludes smallholders. This is where evidence-based frameworks and transparent communication become essential.

Recent efforts to introduce de-risking instruments, water purchase agreements, and blended finance models signal a recognition that irrigation cannot scale without private participation, but private capital will not enter without clear rules. The politics here are delicate, but unavoidable.

From Infrastructure to Systems Thinking

Another shift in the political economy of irrigation is the growing recognition that infrastructure alone does not deliver outcomes. Water without markets depresses prices. Production without storage leads to losses. Schemes without governance collapse.

This systems perspective has started to reshape investment priorities. Irrigation is increasingly linked to aggregation, agro-processing, energy access, and data systems. This broader framing strengthens the economic case for irrigation, making it easier to defend politically and more attractive to financiers.

It also changes how success is measured. The focus moves from kilometres of canals to incomes, yields, job creation, and price stability. This outcome-based logic aligns better with national development goals and public accountability.

Leadership and the Value of Institutional Consistency

Within this evolving landscape, steady institutional leadership matters. Progress in irrigation depends less on dramatic announcements and more on consistent policy direction, coordination, and follow-through. The current period has seen a deliberate effort to anchor irrigation within long-term planning instruments, investment frameworks, and cross-sector collaboration.

While irrigation remains a complex and politically exposed sector, there is growing clarity about its role in Kenya’s economic future. The emphasis on planning tools, financing frameworks, and governance reforms reflects lessons learned from past cycles of ambition without execution.

Irrigation PS Ephantus Kimotho’s approach, particularly in grounding irrigation expansion within structured investment planning and partnerships, reflects this more mature understanding of the sector’s political economy. It is a recognition that irrigation succeeds not by rhetoric, but by aligning incentives across government, farmers, and investors.

Why the Political Economy Now Favors Delivery

For the first time in decades, the incentives around irrigation are converging. Climate pressure is rising. Food security is politically urgent. Financing models are evolving. Institutional roles are clearer. Technology is lowering costs. Farmers are more organised.

None of this guarantees success, but it creates conditions where delivery is more likely than stagnation. The political economy has shifted from one of symbolic commitment to one of practical necessity.

The real test ahead is whether this alignment can be sustained beyond individual projects and political terms. If irrigation continues to be treated as an economic system rather than a series of announcements, Kenya stands a real chance of finally realising its long-stated irrigation ambitions.

In the end, irrigation’s story in Kenya is not about water alone. It is about choices, incentives, and institutions. Understanding that political economy may be the most important irrigation investment of all.

Article by Victor Patience Oyuko. To support the blog Mpesa 0708883777