Kenya can be malaria free. This statement forms the basis of the National Malaria Strategy (NMS) that targets reduction of the disease by more than 80 per cent between this year and 2017 but only states possibility, not intent.

The strategy paper was launched on Wednesday on the sidelines of the Fifth Pan African Conference on Multilateral Initiative on Malaria in Nairobi.

The Government acknowledges the threat malaria poses to the realisation of Vision 2030, Kenya’s economic blueprint.

The burden of the disease is highlighted by the statistics provided by the strategy concept. It says malaria is responsible for 30 per cent of outpatient consultations, 19 per cent of hospital admission and almost four per cent of in-patient deaths in Kenya. Also, 29 per cent of the population lives in malaria prone areas, which coincidentally accounts for more than 70 per cent agricultural output.

The NMS vouches for a multi-sector approach in malaria control interventions, including, decentralising operations to the implementation level. There is also call for deliberate attempts to strengthen malaria control performance and evaluation. The strategy targets 80 per cent of population in high-risk areas being covered by malaria preventive interventions by 2013. It also suggests that 80 per cent of all self-managed fever cases receive prompt and effective treatment, and that a 100 per cent of all fever cases be diagnosed and treated promptly in the same period.

Malaria prone districts are to be empowered to detect and respond to malaria epidemics in addition to strengthening surveillance, monitoring and evaluation of the campaign. Programme management will be strengthened for efficiency.

Even though the strategy seems a noble idea, it should not remain a mere wish considering that malaria is a perennial problem.

Like other sub-Saharan countries affected by the malaria pandemic, 40 per cent of the Ministry of Health’s budget goes to malaria programmes and this greatly affects other priority areas.

Malaria remains a serious concern because the Government’s nebulous health policies and practices are laden with inertia and sleaze.

Kenya failed to qualify for the eighth round of Global Fund because it has not spent the sixth and seventh tranches or cannot simply account for it if. This is despite the fact that most health programmes are donor-funded.

Zanzibar and Zambia are being touted by the World Health Organisation as case studies in malaria management because their policies are proactive and effective. Since Zanzibar embarked on an aggressive campaign to eliminate malaria, WHO reports that the island is 99 per cent malaria-free. Zambia, on the hand, does not experience ‘stock outs’ – insuffient supplies. The two countries’ malaria policies are preventive.

Previously, the Government’s excuse used to be funding and expertise. Under the Global Fund for tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/Aids initiative, under-funding has partially been lifted. The main problem is a dearth of foresight, thus restricting anti-malaria programmes to reactive interventions. Such timeworn thinking and strategy can only mean we continue to wallow in the miseries visited by the epidemic.