PS Kimotho urges Bridging Funding Gaps to Accelerate Irrigation

 

Kenya’s irrigation ambition is clear, deliberate, and increasingly urgent. Yet between policy intent and water reaching farms lies a persistent obstacle that Irrigation Principal Secretary Ephantus Kimotho has repeatedly and consistently articulated: the funding gap. This gap is not abstract. It is measurable, structural, and consequential. It determines whether irrigation plans remain well-written documents or become functioning systems that secure food, stabilise rural incomes, and shield the country from climate shocks.

Over the past few years, PS Kimotho has framed irrigation financing not as a budgeting inconvenience but as a national development constraint. His argument has been consistent across forums, stakeholder engagements, and policy platforms. Kenya does not suffer from a lack of irrigation potential. It suffers from fragmented, insufficient, and poorly structured financing for irrigation infrastructure and services.

The Scale of the Irrigation Ambition

Kenya’s irrigation targets are ambitious by necessity. Climate variability has rendered rain-fed agriculture increasingly unreliable, while population growth continues to raise food demand. Against this backdrop, the Government has committed to expanding irrigated land to at least two million acres over the medium term, anchored in the National Irrigation Sector Investment Plan.

The scale of this ambition immediately exposes the funding challenge. Large dams, conveyance systems, on-farm infrastructure, water storage, power integration, and scheme management structures require capital that far exceeds annual budget allocations. PS Kimotho has often noted that relying solely on exchequer funding is neither realistic nor sustainable for delivering irrigation at this scale.

This is not a critique of public financing, but an acknowledgment of its limits. Competing national priorities such as health, education, security, and debt servicing constrain fiscal space. Irrigation must therefore compete for limited resources, even as its importance to food security and economic resilience grows.

Where the Funding Gaps Appear

The irrigation funding gap manifests at multiple levels. At the infrastructure level, capital-intensive projects such as dams, bulk water systems, and large-scale schemes face long development timelines and high upfront costs. Budget cycles, however, are annual and subject to political and macroeconomic pressures, leading to delays, phased construction, or stalled projects.

At the community and smallholder level, funding gaps appear differently. Farmer-led irrigation development is often constrained by limited access to affordable finance for pumps, piping, water storage, and efficient technologies. Even where government subsidies exist, coverage is insufficient to meet demand, and many farmers remain excluded due to credit risk perceptions.

There is also an institutional funding gap. Irrigation governance, data systems, monitoring, and scheme management require sustained investment. Underfunding these “soft” components weakens project performance, increases operational inefficiencies, and undermines long-term sustainability.

PS Kimotho has been clear that irrigation funding gaps are not just about money, but about how money flows through the system, who bears risk, and how returns are structured.

Why Traditional Models Are No Longer Enough

For decades, irrigation in Kenya was largely financed through government-led capital projects, often supported by development partners. While this model delivered important schemes, it also created structural weaknesses. Many projects struggled with operation and maintenance due to limited recurrent funding. Others failed to scale because public resources could not keep pace with demand.

PS Kimotho has consistently argued that the next phase of irrigation expansion requires a shift in financing logic. Irrigation must be treated as productive infrastructure capable of generating returns, not merely as a public good funded entirely by the State.

This shift does not mean privatising water or excluding smallholders. It means designing financing models that blend public investment, concessional finance, private capital, and climate finance in ways that reduce risk and align incentives. Without this transition, the funding gap will continue to widen as ambitions grow.

The Case for Blended and Innovative Financing

One of the central policy positions advanced by PS Kimotho is the use of blended finance to close irrigation funding gaps. Blended finance allows public resources to de-risk projects, attract private investment, and stretch limited fiscal space further.

In practical terms, this includes mechanisms such as public-private partnerships for large schemes, water purchase agreements that provide predictable revenue streams, and targeted guarantees that lower the cost of capital. It also includes results-based financing, where payments are linked to performance outcomes such as acreage irrigated, water efficiency gains, or farmer incomes.

PS Kimotho has also highlighted the importance of climate finance in irrigation. As irrigation increasingly serves as a climate adaptation measure, it qualifies for funding from global climate instruments. However, accessing these funds requires strong project preparation, credible data, and institutional capacity, areas that themselves require upfront investment.

Data, Governance, and Bankability

A recurring theme in PS Kimotho’s articulation of funding gaps is the issue of bankability. Investors and financiers do not shy away from irrigation because of a lack of interest, but because of uncertainty. Unclear water availability, weak governance structures, and limited performance data increase perceived risk.

Closing the funding gap therefore requires more than mobilising capital. It requires strengthening the systems that make irrigation investments credible. This includes robust water accounting, transparent tariff frameworks, clear land tenure arrangements, and empowered irrigation water users associations.

By embedding data-driven tools into planning and monitoring systems, the State Department for Irrigation has been working to reduce information asymmetry and improve investor confidence. These efforts directly address the underlying causes of the funding gap, rather than merely its symptoms.

Smallholders at the Centre of the Financing Debate

While large infrastructure often dominates irrigation funding discussions, PS Kimotho has consistently returned attention to smallholder farmers. He has argued that closing the funding gap must not result in an irrigation system that benefits only large-scale operators.

Inclusive financing models are therefore a policy priority. These include subsidised technologies, group-based financing through cooperatives, and partnerships with financial institutions to tailor products for irrigation investments. The aim is to ensure that smallholders are not crowded out by capital-intensive projects, but are integrated into the broader irrigation economy.

This approach reflects a deeper policy principle. Irrigation is not only about producing food. It is about livelihoods, equity, and rural transformation. Funding models that ignore these dimensions risk undermining public trust and political support for irrigation expansion.

The Cost of Inaction

PS Kimotho has been candid about the consequences of failing to close irrigation funding gaps. Continued reliance on rain-fed agriculture exposes the country to food shortages, price volatility, and increased import dependence. Drought-related livestock losses, crop failures, and humanitarian responses impose costs that far exceed the investment required for irrigation infrastructure.

From a fiscal perspective, underinvestment in irrigation shifts costs rather than eliminating them. Emergency food imports, social protection programmes, and disaster response budgets grow as irrigation funding stagnates. The policy choice is therefore not between spending and saving, but between proactive investment and reactive expenditure.

Toward a Coherent Irrigation Financing Framework

The emerging policy direction under PS Kimotho points toward a more coherent irrigation financing framework. This framework recognises the State’s role as an enabler, regulator, and strategic investor, rather than the sole financier. It prioritises coordination across national and county governments, development partners, and the private sector.

Crucially, it also recognises that closing funding gaps is a continuous process, not a one-off intervention. As irrigation systems expand, maintenance, upgrading, and climate adaptation will require sustained financial flows. Policy must therefore focus on long-term viability, not just project completion.

Funding Gaps as a Policy Opportunity

Kenya’s irrigation funding gap is often framed as a constraint. PS Ephantus Kimotho’s articulation suggests it should also be seen as a policy opportunity. An opportunity to rethink how irrigation is financed, governed, and delivered. An opportunity to align food security goals with climate resilience and economic growth.

Closing this gap will not be easy. It will require political commitment, institutional reform, and sustained engagement with financiers and farmers alike. But the alternative, continued exposure to climate shocks and food insecurity, is far more costly.

In the end, the question is not whether Kenya can afford to invest in irrigation. It is whether it can afford not to.

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