HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 1279515,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1279515/?format=api",
"text_counter": 572,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Navakholo, ODM",
"speaker_title": "Hon. Emmanuel Wangwe",
"speaker": null,
"content": "Hon. Temporary Speaker, let me start by informing new Members that this is a retrieve of the Sugar Bill, 2019, which was forwarded to the Senate for consultation on 29th November 2021 before the lapsing of the 12th Session. Allow me to share an outline of the sugar industry in Kenya. Sugarcane was an indigenous crop grown in Kenya before the advent of the colonial era. Local sugarcane varieties were grown by agrarian communities along riparian lands. The crop was chewed as food and used in making traditional beer. Sugarcane as an industrial crop was introduced in Kenya in 1902 when the first trials were planted in Kisumu. The first sugar factory was established at Miwani near Kisumu in 1922 and later at Ramisi in the Coast Province in 1927. The Government of Kenya has been widely involved in expanding sugar production through investment in sugarcane growing schemes and factories. Policies on sugar production from the early 1900s up to Independence in 1963 were based on colonial law, which indicated that only Asians were allowed to grow sugarcane. Policy reforms of the Swynnerton Plan 1954, which allowed Africans to grow certain cash crops, did not affect sugarcane. That changed with the enactment of Sessional Paper No.10 of 1965, which allowed Africans to grow industrial sugarcane after Independence. In the 1960s, the Government invested in sugar factories, mostly in western Kenya. In 1973, the Government established the Kenya Sugar Authority (KSA) to advise on the development of the sugar industry in the country. To expand the mandate of KSA, the Kenya Sugar Board (KSB) was established in 2001 by the Sugar Act 2001 to improve the industry's affairs. In 2003, agricultural sector reforms led to enacting the Agriculture and Food Authority Act of 2013 to consolidate numerous legislation within the sector, address the overlap of functions, repeal obsolete legislation, and secure benefits from economies of scale. This led to the repeal of the Sugar Act 2001 and gave birth to directorates under AFFA. The directorates included coffee, fibre crops, horticulture crops, food, nuts and oil crops, miraa, pyrethrum, and other industrial crops. Let me shed some light on the policies behind the Government’s involvement in the sugar sub-sector. One, there is a need to ensure self-sufficiency with the exportable surplus in sugar production. Sugar production was considered an essential import substitution strategy to save the country's much-needed foreign exchange. Sugarcane growing was seen as a tool for social development. It provided employment opportunities and wealth creation in rural areas of Kenya. As a social tool, sugarcane production was seen as a catalyst for raising living standards in rural Kenya. The high proportion of workers in the sugarcane industry implies that sugar revenue directly permits and irrigates the whole rural economy, thus contributing to rural stability. Sugarcane growth is viewed as urgent for infrastructural and rural development. Sugar industries naturally promote other activities in agriculture, horticulture, or recreational areas. It also promotes much-needed services such as mechanics, shopkeeping, and agrochemicals. Within sugarcane-growing areas, plantation and out-grower farms are supplied with roads, rural electrification, housing, health facilities, and education centres. The construction of such facilities goes a long way to improve the infrastructure of rural areas. Sugarcane growth was thus viewed as a justification for undertaking such projects and programmes. Finally, during Independence, the domestic Kenyan market was served by imported sugar. Local sugarcane growing was seen as a viable alternative to protect this domestic market. Deliberate policy measures were thus put in place to attain this goal. In pursuit of the above policies, the development of the sugar industry has been political. Hence, sugar can be regarded as a political commodity and politically sensitive. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}