Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 491327,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/491327/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 200,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "that we had a diversity of the various natural resources. This enabled us to get a feel of what we were doing. As a Committee, we felt that our engagement with county governments, county assemblies and communities was very critical. Therefore, the information we got was very important. Another group that was key was the investors. We wanted this to be a participatory process from the beginning. Where we met investors, we actually articulated to them what we were getting to. We also clarified that we were not trying to make their investments and their profits dwindle. We felt that if communities have to continue to co-exist and continue feeling that they can reap from their natural resources because there is no other way to go. We put into place a programme and a system that was long overdue. If we put it out there in a cohesive manner, it will stop us from having a situation where we have communities who are complaining and they do not know how to do it. We should have regulations put in place to ensure that those communities know what is coming to them in a very systematic manner. That is why we are proposing a detailed benefit sharing scheme that will trickle down to the counties and to the communities. This is very critical for us because at the end of the day, we felt that if we have a regime that is very clear and everybody knows how that money is to trickle down, it becomes very important. That is what the communities and their representatives told us. Madam Temporary Speaker, one of the things that this Committee was meant to do was to come up with percentages of royalties that accrue from the natural resources that should be remitted to the county and to the communities. As we continued with work in this Committee, we realized that it was going to be very difficult due to the following reasons: There is such a diversity of the natural resources and the various laws that control the administration of those resources. For example, we have the Wildlife Conservation Management Act, 2013; the Natural Resources Forestry Conservation and Management Act, 2013; the Water Act, 2012; the Energy Act, 2012, among others. All these have a way of thinking through the revenue stream which is not similar across all the natural resources. For some revenue streams, it is in terms of fees and for some, it is in terms of royalties. Therefore, we decided that if communities and counties will reap from these natural resources, we need to come up with a process that touches on whatever it is that is coming up, whether it is a charge or a levy, it has to trickle down to the community and to the county. That is why we broadly called it the Natural Resources Benefit Sharing Bill. Initially, we hoped to come up with specific royalty percentages that need to be given out. We realized that it was going to be very difficult for us due to the diversity of the natural resources. As a Committee, we agreed that it is going to be almost impossible to revoke and change all the laws already in place. We decided to work with what is already there but give the Benefit Sharing Authority the responsibility to review upwards those levies and fees at any specific time so that at any one particular time, the The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}