HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 301971,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/301971/?format=api",
"text_counter": 284,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Ms. Karua",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 166,
"legal_name": "Martha Wangari Karua",
"slug": "martha-karua"
},
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Motion. Even as we pass this Motion, there is no reason why the Ministry of Agriculture and the other concerned Ministries are not walking the talk. We are talking of a well-funded extension service with incentives such as ready markets, subsidized inputs and credit. We are looking at what is happening today. Are the grain farmers getting ready market? Are the maize, rice and other grain farmers getting ready market? We are a food insecure nation and the Government should be at the forefront in ensuring that it provides a ready market for farmers instead of year-in, year-out enriching farmers outside Kenya; buying at higher prices than they could have bought from our farmers. Before we went on recess, I remember asking a Question to the Minister for Agriculture regarding the maize of our farmers in Hola. This maize was under threat by weevils because the Ministry was not able to purchase it. Up to today, even though this question was asked in this House, the grain is still going to waste. So, it is one thing to bring us good policies and another to walk the talk. We want to see the concerned agencies moving with speed to walk the talk. We will pass this policy but if the Ministry continues as it is currently, then this policy will just be good for the shelves. We want to see a Ministry that is moving to ensure that farmers access credit. Currently, what is under “subsidized inputs” goes to farmers. Yes, fertilizer is being subsidized but who benefits from the subsidy? It is the brokers who buy it and then in turn sell it to farmers at higher prices. Sometimes the subsidized fertilizer comes too late. We want to see a Ministry, not one that is just good at putting forward policy papers but also good in acting because there is nothing, absolutely to stop the Ministry from taking interventions that are necessary even without this policy. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have noticed that the Minister is using interchangeably the words “commercialization” and “privatization”. My understanding of “commercialization” is making sure that the extension services are self-sustaining where the farmer may be called upon to make a token contribution. But “privatization” is giving over to people who want to make profits out of the extension services. This is okay for large-scale farmers. But for small-scale farmers and majority of our farmers in Kenya are small-scale farmers but whose total or accumulative output has a profound effect on the nation whether on food security or on the exports that we export daily. I think the Government still must come in to protect the small-scale farmer from the brokers and the cartels who exploit them mercilessly. One way is making sure that the relevant agencies provide these extension services even if the farmer is called upon to give a token or a very minimal contribution to sustain the service. This distinction must be made so that as we approve the policy, we are clear in our minds that we are moving to protect the small- scale farmer and that privatization can only apply to those who have the bargaining power. Today, in my area, we are one of the counties that produce the highest export for horticultural products. These are small-scale farmers. My area does not have large farms. They are very small pieces, sometimes of a quarter of an acre but the cumulative effect has a profound effect even on our foreign exchange reserves. If these farmers are protected, given the extension services which mean that seeds will be available to these farmers and good quality seeds; which mean that ready markets and credit is also organized, it means that the farmers do not have to succumb to unconscionable contracts which they are being given. This is because when you do not have seeds, you sign up a contract with anyone who comes. You are given seeds and fertilizer at a very poor price for your product and you continue being poor. Sometimes, they sign contracts with people who never come back to pay after collecting the crops. The point I am making, Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, to the Minister is that our small-scale farmers still need protection. If you aggregate their yield, you will find that they can have a bargaining power. That is why our tea production in this country continues to be good although the acreage under tea, a majority of it is still under small- scale farmers. This is because there is an organized structure. There is the Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA), the Kenya Tea Board and the factories. However, I must say that even tea is now affected by lack of good governance, and I am glad that this policy is capturing the issue and the need for good governance. However, we want to see good governance, not tomorrow or a later date but today. Why are the regulators not working? The Ministry of Co-operative Development and Marketing regulates the co- operatives. Why is it not working? Why are coffee farmers still suffering? That is why I am calling upon the Ministry as we say “well done for at last bringing the policy”, could you please walk the talk? How do we expect to eradicate or fight poverty if we do not protect a majority to get the fruits of their sweat? Once the small-scale farmer who is a majority of Kenyans; that is from the livestock farmer to those who grow high yield crops, subsistence or are on a commercial scale--- If their work can be protected, they can get value for their work and we will be alleviating poverty and they will at last cater for their day to day needs and the Government gets revenue. Today, the farmers work for the middleman. The brokers and cartels for all practical purposes look like the owners of the sweat, the toil of the labour of these poor farmers and the farmers look like the beggars. We have got to change this situation. Where the middlemen are necessary, let them get their dues. I remember in this very House, in the Eighth Parliament, because it was not in the Ninth, when we passed the Coffee Bill to allocate the percentage that must go to the farmer and the amount that must be shared by everybody else along the line. We may need to do this even for sugar cane. If I may take, for instance, the case of Mumias Sugar, a company that performs well year-in, year-out and we always congratulate the management, why is that high yield by that company reflected in the sugar belt and around the farmers who supply Mumias with the cane or any other area in the sugar belt? This is because even just by looking, you will notice poverty in the sugar belt. Why is the sugar belt not looking, for instance, like the small-scale tea farmers east of the Rift? That means that sugar farmers are being ripped off even by companies where they are shareholders. Who is carrying home the profits if not the sugar farmers? I am just giving these as examples of where regulation has failed, where good governance has failed and where Government support for small-scale farmers is completely lacking and even if we, on paper, talk about Vision 2030, we need to get our people out of poverty to achieve Vision 2030. One way is through agriculture and agri-business. I am in total agreement with issues surrounding value addition. It is time even in the tea sector which does relatively better than the others that we moved to value addition so that we can get better yields for our money. Even if it means going into partnerships with those who are buying and packing in Europe; if to enter their market we need partnership with them, why not so long as our farmer will get more? Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the same applies to macadamia nuts. A gazzette notice prevented our farmers from selling our macadamia nuts unprocessed. This amounted to an atrocity against the farmers because they are now being forced to sell to only two or three Kenyan companies. Those companies have become cartel-like. That gazzette notice was meant to fight off the Chinese who had come and were buying and exporting the raw nuts to China for packing. Whereas we would love to see value addition here, what makes sense to a farmer is the take home amount. It does not matter to the farmer whether the nuts are going to be packed in Kenya or in China. The farmer is counting the value they get for their sweat and Chinese were and are still paying better than the three Kenyan-owned nut companies. Why could the Ministry not leave it open to force the market forces in which case the local companies would have increased what they were offering the farmers? The Ministry must not use its regulatory powers to oppress the local farmer and help cartels. It must balance the interest of this country doing value addition and the interest of the farmer reaping the maximum benefit. Why for instance have we not stopped tea farmers from exporting tea before value addition yet we stopped the macadamia nut farmers? Our Constitution does not allow discrimination. As we pass this policy I am asking the Ministry to make sure that any discriminatory practices are completely erradicated and the Ministry must find a way of incentivising the practice they want the farmers to adopt. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to end by saying that to date there are very many farmers who have made deliveries to certain extension service providers. These are people who are providing the seeds, the fertilizer or the pesticides and then the ready market. But they never deliver the money. Whereas they will say that they have not been paid, they have actually been paid. They are doing well; you can see them expanding and the farmers are languishing in poverty. Their children have been sent away from school. The Ministry must think of how to handle these situations. Once we pass this policy, I can see the need for legislation to take care of these concerns that we are raising today so that our farmers can be helped. Even now, before any laws are passed the Ministry still has muscle to intervene and help the farmers and these are things we would want the Minister to see where she sees her intervention coming. Recently, we were trying to bring amendments to the Sugar Act during the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The Ministry opposed saying they were bringing comprehensive amendments to the Sugar Act. Parliament resumed yesterday and I have not seen any such Bill. All the farmers wanted were the judgments of the Sugar Tribunal to become enforceable as judgments of the court, like with other tribunals. The sugar farmers and sugar unions have judgments against the sugar companies which they cannot do anything about. These judgments relate to the monies of thousands of farmers. So, could the Ministry pull up its socks? Now that we are about to approve this policy, could we have the relevant Bills which will make the good things that this policy has in store for farmers a reality? With those very many words, I beg to support."
}