Ashish Shah

_________________________________________

The sugar industry is one of the major economies of Nyanza and Western Provinces. Yet, the industry, which constitutes a primary source of livelihood for many farmers in the region, faces a myriad of problems and challenges that have pushed it to the brink of collapse. Rather than bring prosperity, sugar cane farming has exacerbated levels of deprivation and poverty in the sugar belt, especially among the small-scale farmers who are the major stakeholders.

Unlike other agricultural sub-sectors, the sugar sub-sector has over the years lacked a comprehensive farmer friendly policy and legal framework. Other problems in the industry relate to lack of or ineffective farmers’ representation. Kenya Sugarcane Growers Association (KESGA), the one body that ought to represent farmers has failed to effectively lobby for farmers' interests. Aside from national constraints, international trade policies have also adversely affected the sugar economy in Kenya.

Thus the Sugar Bill that was published recently has been assumed to ‘rescue’ farmers from their plight and to herald prosperity in the industry. However, the Bill is considerably flawed and weak and requires extensive revision and input from the farmers if it is to redress the problems facing the industry. Even in its refined form, the Bill should be seen more as an instrument that lays the foundation for broad based reforms in, and not the panacea for all the problems and challenges facing, the industry.

It is against this background that ActionAid Kenya, together with interested partners, seeks to engage in a policy and advocacy process in Western Region (Nyanza, Western and Rift valley Provinces) with two key aims: firstly, to add value to and demystify the Sugar Bill so as to ensure that it is truly representative of the farmers’ interests, and secondly to facilitate a process whereby the capacity of the main farmers’ representative body can be build so that farmers interests can be represented independently and cohesively with an authoritative voice.

ActionAid has therefore convened this brainstorming meeting to strategize with key players on the best course of action to take with regards to the Sugar Bill and sugar policy in general and build a coalition of partners to carry the process forward.

Francis Waswa,

Kenya Sugarcane Farmers Association (KESGA)

___________________________________________

Mr. Waswa enumerated the problems of the sugar industry as follows:

Low factory capacity. While some factories are overwhelmed by sugarcane supply, others are under-supplied. As a result of low factory capacity, domestic demand for sugar outstrips local production. Many unscrupulous and corrupt operatives have taken advantage of the deficit on the one hand, and liberalisation and the favourable COMESA free trade regimes on the other, to flood the local market with cheap imported sugar.

Delayed payment for sugarcane delivery. Some millers are yet to pay farmers who delivered cane 24 months ago. In all, millers owe farmers a total of over KShs. 2 billion. Nzoia alone owes farmers over KShs.700 million, Muhoroni KSh. 300 million and Miwani 350 million.

High cost of sugarcane production. The cost of farm inputs such as fertilizers, and land preparation, cane cutting and transportation are very high, thereby undercutting returns to sugar cane production.

Taxation on local sugar. The VAT charged on local sugar raises its cost making it uncompetitive vis-à-vis imported sugar.

Exploitative cane pricing policy. Kenya’s cane pricing ratio is one of the lowest in the world. Her 55% ratio (on average) compares unfavourably with cane pricing in other countries e.g Mauritius (78%), Australia (66%). Besides, farmers do not share in the returns that accrue to cane by-products such as molasses, as is the practice elsewhere.

Long maturing sugar cane variety. The Kenyan sugar cane takes up to 18 months to mature as compared to 12 months for other varieties such as that grown in Guyana. This coupled with delayed harvesting and payment for delivery makes sugar cane farming very unprofitable.

Inadequate research. The sugar industry has been lacking in research in such critical areas as developing early maturing cane varieties and best practices in cane husbandry necessary for improved cane production.

Government neglect of the industry. The government does not have a sugar policy despite the industry’s importance in the national economy.

Lack of/inadequate financial services for cane growing. Sugarcane farmers cannot easily, if at all, access credit for sugarcane production. Sugarcane Development Fund (SDF) which should be the main financier is moribund. Similarly, other would-be financiers such as Co-op bank and Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC) are unyielding.

Poor infrastructure. Poor road network in the sugar cane belt adds up to the cost of transportation, which accounts for up to 30% of the total production cost.

Ineffective farmers representation. In-fighting and divisive politics has discollectivised farmers, disarticulated their interests, and reduced their bargaining power.

Nickanor Odumo

Mr. Odume noted the following issues affecting the sugar industry:

Lack of information on the state of the industry. The farmer is at a loss as to the financial status of factories especially those under receivership such as Miwani.

Lack of consultation and communication between farmers, their organizations and government authorities.

Poor political representation. That the sugar belt is represented in parliament by over 44 MPs yet there is no solid legislation and government policy on the sugar industry bespeaks of poor political representation. Unless change in the sugar industry is thrust up the political agenda, issues affecting the sugar industry will continue remaining on the fringes of economic development discourse.

Unscrupulous traders and corruption are responsible for the flooding of the local market with cheap imported sugar, which has undercut the market for the local sugar.

Poor administration and management of sugarcane cess. The cess is misappropriated and/or channelled into areas other than those that benefit the sugar industry such as development of infrastructure.

Overall poor sugarcane production policy has led to the stagnation of the sugar industry. For instance, irrigation would boost sugarcane production.

Saulo Wanambisi Busolo

___________________________________________

In his opening remarks, Mr. Busolo thanked ActionAid for convening the workshop to strategise on the way forward for the transformation of the sugar industry. He noted that ActionAid’s initiative, which should otherwise be the primary duty of farmers’ representative institutions, attested to latter’s very weakness.

• Unlike other agricultural sub-sectors, the sugar sub-sector operates without a legal framework to govern its operations, management and privatisation. The absence of a legal framework could be a deliberate attempt to fleece the industry. A farmer-friendly sugar bill that defines the legal status of the industry thus seems a critical instrument to facilitate reforms in the sugar sub-sector.

• Farmers should mainstream matters affecting the sugar industry into the political agenda. They should do this by not only demanding effective representation from their elected political leaders but also by setting the agenda for persons seeking elective political positions by not only demanding cane farmer friendly policy programmes from aspiring politicians but also by holding current leadership to account for their actions in respect of the sugar industry. This is particularly critical at this point when the country is going through the constitution review process. Farmers’ interests should equally be mainstreamed into the review process.

• To gain broader support and achieve desired reforms in the sugar industry in particular, and the agricultural sector in general, there is need for the nationalisation of the sugar agenda. This should entail designing a broad structure involving individuals, organizations, pressure groups and other players committed to fighting for the sugar industry. The process should be organised, focussed and action-directed. This can be best achieved if the sugar industry is looked at holistically, as an industry that involves many actors at different levels of the production chain. They include suppliers, millers, distributors, transporters, financial institutions, researchers, e.t.c. As such a clear and comprehensive stakeholder analysis should be done if the status of the sugar industry is to be fully understood and more importantly, alleviated.

• The myriad problems afflicting the sugar industry largely relate to poor governance, corruption and vested interests in the industry.

• Resources should be committed to research aimed at developing quick maturing varieties of cane.

• Privatisation of Mumias will have dire consequences on the survival of the other factories. As a private concern, if Mumias is privatised, its driving motive will be profit making and may do everything to shut other factories out of the market, especially given its higher level of efficient management.

• The problem of indebtedness should be addressed urgently.

• The haste with which Mumias has undertaken to privatise, a pending Sugar Bill notwithstanding, raises serious questions as to the motive of the entire exercise. Lack of a legal framework for privatisation means that farmers are not cushioned in the event of collapse.

• Farmers and other sugar factories should have been given the first priority in the purchase of Mumias shares. It is curious that road shows for the sale of shares were mostly held in areas other than the sugar belt.

• The implications of the trading regimes within the regional trading blocs such as Comesa and East African Community on the local production should be critically looked at to guard against flooding of the market with cheap imports that will hurt local farmers.

• Competition among farmers’ representative institutions is necessary for efficient delivery of services.

Participants’ Views

• Rather than bring prosperity to the region, sugar cane farming has instead brought misery and aggravated the levels of deprivation and poverty in the region, thanks to poor and delayed payments. Why do farmers engage in sugarcane growing?

• Unless farmers’ plight is alleviated, the high levels of disillusionment among farmers may lead to non-farming of cane and consequently to farther under utilization of factories thereby opening the window for further flooding of the Kenyan market by imported sugar.

• Sensitisation of farmers on the issues affecting the sugar industry is necessary for farmers to make informed choices in respect of the sugar industry, understand what goes into the production process, advocate for a responsive sugar policy, influence policy, demand good governance in the sugar industry, resist exploitation, demand effective representation from both farmers organisations as well as from political leaders.

• The performance of farmers’ organisations has been below par. Rather than fight for the interests of farmers, many farmers’ representatives have in the past colluded with millers to fleece the farmer. To secure effective representation, the capacity of farmers’ organisations should be build and the number of such organisations restricted.

• KESGA has remained an ivory tower institution since its inception. It is remote to the farmer, many farmers are not aware of the existence, let alone the mandate, of KESGA.

• Farmers are not involved in decision making by KESGA. Besides, KESGA’s public statements are hardly backed by action.

• KESGA operates more as an appendage of Kenya Sugar Authority (KSA) than a farmers’ organisation. It cannot be independent of KSA if it is at the same time housed by the latter. The logical starting point in enhancing KESGA’s performance will be to move out of KSA offices.

• KESGA Chairman blamed the organisation’s woes on poor financing and betrayal of farmers’ course by farmers themselves.

• Forging farmers’ unity is very critical if the myriad problems dogging the sugar industry are to be resolved.

• The Sugar Bill is not the solution to farmers’ problems, but the action by farmers themselves.

• Farmers should mobilize to demand better and prompt payments for their produce. They should be ready and willing to participate in demonstrations and any other activities that may help to pursue their agenda.

• The media representatives assured other participants that the media would do its best to highlight on the plight of sugarcane farmers.

• Farmers should be encouraged to vote for persons during electioneering on the basis of their plans for the sugar industry.

• Mobile weighbridges should be introduced to facilitate weighing of cane on the harvesting site. This will not only hasten the weighing process but also check exploitation of farmers. The current practice of transporting cane for long distances to the factories for weighing unaccompanied by farmers not only leads to loss of cane but also manipulation of final weight.

• A policy should be introduced allowing farmers to share in the profits accruing to bye-products. Alternatively, farmers should only pay for milling of the cane and retain ownership of the processed sugar and related bye-products.

• Farmers are underrepresented on cess committees, which are dominated by councillors (7 councillors against 5 councillors). The committees should comprise millers and farmers only (councillors should not sit on the committees) to ensure that the collections are ploughed back into the development of infrastructure in the sugar zones.

• Some farmers’ organisations have been deducting money from farmers – e.g 1% administrative and 15% retention levies - without their approval.

• Farmers should be involved in negotiations regarding farm preparations and transportation. The monopolisation of procurement of farm inputs and transportation has immensely contributed to the high production costs. Farmers should be given the freedom to purchase farm inputs at competitive prices on the market and those who are able to transport cane on their own to factories should be allowed to do so.

• The government should waive VAT on sugar to make it competitive vis-à-vis ‘cheap’ imported sugar. Since the quality of imported sugar is questionable, it is a fallacy that the sugar is cheap.

• Millers should be penalized for delayed harvesting

• Dialogue should be opened with the Ministry of Agriculture and KSA on funding for KESGA and representation of farmers in all decision-making structures pertaining to sugar.

• Women are not fully involved in decision-making pertaining to the sugar industry starting at the family. Sometimes women don’t even know, leave alone share in the returns to cane farming. Yet they form a core part of the labour force and bear the heaviest responsibilities. This situation should change if the levels of poverty and deprivation and related calamities such as HIV – AIDS are to be brought down.

• CBK should have made provisions for bridging funds for sugarcane as it has done for coffee and tea.

• Most employees of sugarcane factories are also sugarcane farmers, most without farms. This is a clear case of conflict of interest and a source of corruption, malpractices and poor service for bona fide cane farmers. Some employees steal from farmers’ deliveries during weighing.

Shem Ochola

African Academy of Sciences

__________________________________________

Mr. Ochola discussed the critical issues in the privatisation of the sugar industry, paying special attention to the privatisation of Mumias.

• Sugar is a highly politicised commodity. The continued growth of government participation and control has played a major role in determining the industry's performance worldwide. With respect to Kenya, it is important to analyse sugarcane growing and sugar as a commodity, the market relationships that reflect the diversity of its interest groups - and more specifically to the privatisation of the industry that has begun.

Privatization: what it means and why?

• Privatization refers to a range of policy initiatives designed to alter the mix of ownership or management away from the government in favour of the private sector. It is rationalized on the premise that governments are not efficient in doing businesses, and that private entities are best suited as they follow purely commercial principles. Most countries have concluded that the state is ill suited to running the sugar mills.

• In Kenya, privatization has been driven by the fact that the state has failed to enhance operational efficiency and profits, improve services to the farmers and consumers, curb escalation costs, attract new investments, gross mismanagement of the factories among others.

• The character of the state in Kenya has meant that any meaningful socio-economic progress has taken place with state approval, guidance and participation, and any meaningful changes must involve institutional change in form, structure and content.

• In Kenya, privatization would therefore alter the ownership structure of sugar factories, which are predominantly state owned, for example:

• The argument is that privatization would lead to:

• Widening of share ownership among the farmers and employees, increase access to private investment, create popular capitalism and economically empower the citizens and reduce political patronage.
• Injection of capital and upgrading of technology and the expansion of factories' capacities.
• Improvement in technical expertise and productive efficiency
• Self-sufficiency in production and a reduction in prices to consumers.

• In Kenya, privatisation is a component of domestic sugar reforms, which was formalised by the publication of the Policy paper on public enterprise reform in 1992, in which the government listed all the sugar factories to be restructured and privatised. Further, according to the Sugar sub-sector restructuring study (SSRS) commissioned by the government in 1994, its priorities for the industry included:

• Facilitating institutional and policy reforms through effecting necessary changes to legislation.
• Managing privatisation process and resolving the problems relating to sale of the sugar mills, excessive debts load, legal claims, lack of title etc.
• Promoting higher productivity and factory efficiency.

• But privatisation per se is not a panacea to all the problems in the sugar industry, most of which are domestically induced. Studies had shown that these benefits are not automatic. With respect to the Kenyan sugar set up, this is because of:

• The absence of legal framework, weak institutional structures and poor regulatory environment. The institutions themselves do not provide for purposeful and meaningful interaction among themselves.
• The sugar Bill that should guide the sector's operations was drafted with inadequate input of the farmers and has not been tabled in parliament.
• The process is being carried out haphazardly
• The institutions are not well developed
• The KSA as presently constituted is not an industry body.
• Lack of political goodwill, which is compounded by vested interests.
• High level of poverty among the farmers, this brings into question their financial capacity.
• Lack of social safety net to take care of the vulnerable groups from the negative effects of privatisation.
• Misinformation about the process itself.

• The above problems are compounded by the fact that there is no blueprint on privatising the sugar industry. This to a given extent is manifested by the methodology used. Sugar industry has no statutory backing as in the cases of coffee and tea.

• The institutions and institutional processes define the values of a society, the aspirations of a nation and the rules of the game, which further determines whether the long-term goals in the sector and the economy at large will be achieved. Therefore, privatisation should be carried out within a policy and legislative framework that takes all concerns into account. These include the selection of buyers and preferential schemes, safeguard measures and procedures that deals with valuation of the sugar mills, financing of the share purchases, inheritance of the debts incurred by the companies, safeguard against asset stripping etc.

The Role of Information in the privatisation process:

• Comparative experiences would be necessary to draw some lessons for Kenya. During the initial stages of privatisation in Peru, the procedures for making and responding to private investors’ offers were unclear. And because of lack of information about privatisation itself, one firm, the Kimberly group, took to the street offering to purchase the shares of the sugar company being privatized, Paramonga, by promising to pay social benefits to retired workers and farmers. The trick worked and the firm bought 55 percent of the total shares. But the process raised concerns whether the workers knew the value of their shares and the alternative offers prompting the government to suspend share trading.

• Kenya could be heading to the above scenario. This is because of the following:

• Lack of financial and business information, which is a symptom of poor management practices. This slows decision-making process as well.
• Poor record keeping by most sugar companies.
• Lack of information about the asset values of the companies.
• Disbanding of the ESTU/DGIPE, the body that was in charge of privatisation by the government.
• The sugar framework paper is silent on the criteria and rules for share purchase.
• Deliberate misinformation by the Government agents on the benefits and costs of privatisation.
• There is no social safety net to take care of the vulnerable (farmers) from the negative effects of privatisation.

• Investors need accurate and timely information in order to make wise investment choices. This calls for putting in place uniform reporting rules that provides information to both buyers and sellers during privatisation. This has not been the case in Kenya. There are fears that privatisation of the factories may lead to concentration of wealth in the hands of a few people, and not necessarily the farmers.

• There are critical issues that stakeholders should ponder about:

• The impact of full privatisation of Mumias could negatively affect other factories, as its decision will be private sector driven. This could be market destroying.
• If the government is running away, why are farmers getting in?
• Why priority for share purchases is concentrated in non-cane growing areas.
• Inadequate time devoted for road shows and information dissemination with respect to privatisation of Mumias sugar factory.
• There is no public relations office to facilitate the process itself.
• There is no sugar bill yet to cushion the stakeholders against the problems arising.
• Why sell in a depressed market while the national stock exchange share index is in its 10 year low.

Mr. Gichira Kibara

Centre for Governance and Development (CGD)

______________________________________________

Mr. Kibara noted that CGD was in the process of analysing the bill in detail with a view to informing the debate on the bill when it comes before parliament. He discussed the implications of enacting the bill, centring on whether it empowers the sugarcane farmers and gives them the main say in the industry.

• The principal stakeholders, farmers, were not directly involved in the development of the legislation. There were no consultations involving farmers before drafting the bill. Yet, the law aught to emanate from the people for it to fully reflect their desires, interests and aspirations. Legislation is made for the people, not the other way round.
• The composition and operations of the Board, Arbitration Tribunal, and Annual General Meeting have particularly seriously implications for farmers’ say in the management of the sugar industry.

• The composition and operations of the Board is the most critical issue in the entire regulatory structure. As the bill stands now:

• The Board can constitute a quorum without farmers’ representatives.
• The majority decision means that the Chair, Vice Chair and the Chief Executive can be appointed without farmers’ representatives.
• Any Board member, including the Permanent Secretary, can become Chair.
• The Minister has the powers to amend provisions appearing in the schedule by gazette notice.

Suggestions from participants

• Farmers should be entitled to more representation on the Board. They should be the majority, and the Chair should be a farmer.

• Government representation should be trimmed by at least two. Possible casualties are Permanent Secretary, Treasury, and Director.

• Farmers’ representation on the Board should be either by zones or farmers’ organisations.

• This is perhaps the second most important institution after the Board, given the myriad conflicts in the industry. However, as constituted,

• The Tribunal does not enjoy security of tenure necessary for independence.
• There is huge government representation. Its composition is based on the assumption that the government will continue controlling the sector.
• Farmers have no say on who sits on the tribunal.

• While this should be the most important organ in the industry, it appears like a formality.

• There is no clear statement on who constitutes the AGM. Is the AGM open to everyone? Should it include representation from the grassroots, for instance, based on sugar zones? What should be the quorum of the AGM? Where should it be held and what is its mandate?

Dr. F. N. Owako

Farmer and Representative of Nyanza Professional Caucus

____________________________________________

Dr. Owako analysed the Sugar Bill in terms of its strengths and weakneses and made various recommendations on the same. Detailed comments on the Bill are attached as Apendix 2 (NOL). (Hard Copy of Appendix Available from SUCAM Secretariat)

• Since being published the bill has not attracted public debate from the major stakeholders in the sugar industry, namely the sugar cane farmers and the public at large. Some of the reasons for this include:

• Lack of sensitisation of the farmers to the existence, and in particular, to the contents of this bill.
• Apathy among sugar cane farmers arising out of the disillusionment caused by the negative government policies, which have inflicted on the farmers poverty, instead of prosperity.
• Poverty of the farmers, which made it impossible for the farmers to buy copies of the bill at KSh. 100 per copy.

• The bill was therefore prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture, AG’s office, Millers and KESGA, with hardly any input from the farmers. KSA was unwilling to involve other sugar cane farmers other than members of KESGA during the deliberations. As a result, although the bill has a few positive aspects to it, overall it does not reflect the aspirations of the sugarcane farmer.

The positive aspects of the bill include:

• Establishment of a new body – Kenya Sugar Board - to run the sugar industry in replacement of the Kenya Sugar Authority, which had become abhorrent to the sugar cane farmers and a disaster to the sugar industry in Kenya.’

• Provision for prompt payment of sugarcane farmers for cane delivered to the factories within 30 days.

• Provision for penalties and payment of interest on monies owed to the farmers.

• Provision for arbitration to settle disputes within the sugar industry.

• Marketing of the Kenyan sugar as a function of the Kenya Sugar Board.

• Providing for farmers to establish and choose the outgrowers’ institution they would like to belong, instead of forcing farmers to belong to only oine outgrowers’ institution, as hitherto had been the case.

The negative aspects of the Bill include:

• Wrong emphasis in the wrong areas through over-regulating farmers’ activities, thereby giving the impression that it is the failures on the farmer’s part that have led to the present near collapse of the sugar industry in Kenya, while in effect it is the negative government policies and actions, which have led to the near collapse of the industry.

• By over-regulating farmers’ activities, the Bill does not take cognizance of the fact that some farmers have been in grown sugarcane business for many years and are well conversant with cultural practices required for obtaining optimum yields.

• The bill is soft on the major causes that have adversely affected the sugarcane farmers and sugar industry in general. A case in point is the penalty to be meted on the importers of sugar, who contravene the sugar rules. A fine of KShs. 500,000 is peanut for an importer who brings in, or diverts into the local market sugar worth KShs. 100 million.

• The Bill ignores the suffering of the local sugarcane farmers, by basing sugar policies on regional and international agreements, instead of adopting policies that can encourage the farmers to grow cane for self-sufficiency, since it is only through self-sufficiency that sugarcane farmers can effectively compete with farmers from elsewhere. Regional agreements, and in particular COMESA and WTO rules must be reviewed, so as to enable Kenya to attain self-sufficiency in sugar production, before opening the doors to imported sugar. The current practice of imposing tariffs on imported sugar after the market has been flooded with imported sugar is a self-defeating exercise and a half-hearted measure in dealing with the sugar problem. The COMESA and WTO agreements must be reviewed, if the sugar industry is to be revived.

• The Bill does not prescribe for a governance structure at the factory level, yet it is common knowledge that it is at the factory level that a lot of mess takes place, and where interaction with the farmer is paramount. Establishment of a Board of Directors and a Zonal Committee at this level are absolute necessities for the proper management of the sugar industry, and which should therefore be provided for in the bill.

• The Bill introduces foreign ideas in the running of the sugar industry in Kenya by blindly copying ideas, which have not been digested by those entrusted with the management of the sugar industry. A case in point is the proposal to pay farmers on the basis sucrose content using a formula, which is incomprehensible and incompetent.

• The Bill imposes on farmers an umbrella organisation, namely KESGA, which was formed for the farmers by the Ministry of Agriculture and KSA to give semblance of farmers participation and representation in the running of the sugar industry. Just as KSA is to be replaced by a new body – KSB – so must KESGA be replaced by a new organisation of the sugarcane farmers, by the sugarcane farmers and for the sugarcane farmers to spearhead the aspirations of the sugarcane farmers. It is suggested that the new umbrella organisation be known as Kenya Sugarcane Farmers Association (KESUFA).

• The Bill protects the Chief Executive Officer and officers of the Board from prosecution for the sins they have committed against the farmers. Such a protection would be a cover-up for corruption and should therefore be rejected.

• The idea of running the sugar industry in Kenya based on the miller vs outgrower concept needs to be reviewed, with a view to finding out whether there are other models, which may be more suitable for the Kenyan situation. The miller/outgrower model is indeed one of the causes of high cost of production of sugar in Kenya.

DAY TWO : October 2, 2001

George Oketch

• The basic rights campaign is an initiative being spearheaded by twelve organizations. These include the following:

• The NGO council
• Kenya Alliance or the Advancement of Children
• Network for Water and Sanitation
• International Commission or Jurists
• Citizen Coalition for Constitutional Change
• Shelter Forum
• Strategic Public Relations and Research
• Kenya Pastoralists Forum
• United Disabled Persons of Kenya
• Action Aid, among others.

• The Motto of the campaign is basic needs – basic rights. The advocacy dimension of its campaign is to have the basic rights included in the constitution. The structure of the Kenya’s constitution is tiered as follows:

• The supreme law is the constitution. The sugar Act therefore falls in the second tier. It is worth noting that the laws in the lower tiers should not contradict the constitution, as the constitutional law would override them. For example, the KACA Act was created by Parliament but a section of this Act contradicted the constitution. That explains its winding up. Changing the constitution requires a 2/3 majority of total parliamentarians vote, while just a simple majority in the quorum is required to change the Act of Parliament on a material day.

• A critical appraisal is necessary on how the constitution relates to the farmer. One of the objectives of the basic rights campaign is to get state support for the farmers and individuals in their quest for economic empowerment as development rights.

• The above notwithstanding, these development rights should be justiciable provision for redress in case of breach. In Kenya, however, lack of mandate (locus standi) has precluded the aggrieved from getting justice. The three A's of justice means that justice should be:

Available

Affordable

Accessible

• The above combinations give a perfect justiciabilty. Thus, justice should be available in terms of proximity, affordable with regard to costs of legal representation, and accessible with respect to absence of hurdles / roadblocks in seeking legal redress.

Constitutional of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC)

• This is a commission mandated to collect and collate views on constitution befitting Kenyans. The commission has been mandated to carry out civic education so as to open the eyes of citizens on issues relating to the constitution. The Republic of South Africa has a constitutional court, while in Kenya, the chief justice constitutes an ad hoc bench composed of seven judges.

• Information is power and there is need to disseminate it. This specifically underscores the need for farmers as stakeholders to get their views and rights into the constitution.

Peter Kegode

____________________________________________

The process of change has never been easy, and for the coalition would involve casualties. The process must not be done haphazardly. It has to be long term, and this calls for a proper reorganization of the structures and institutions to put in place a sugar campaign for change.

Strategy

This involves identifying and bringing all the institutions on board. They include:

KESGA, Outgrowers, Cooperatives, Kenya farmers' union, Private farmers, Other civil societies, KNUT, KNFU, Media coalition, Women organizations, Politicians, Professional organizations, Researchers, Factory workers, International organizations, Transporters, Dockworkers, Millers, The youth, Religious organizations, Consumers, Parliament, Government Deparments

There is a high probability of resistance for change in the sugar industry from different interest groups given the myriad vested interests. These include the following:

Provincial administration, Some Millers, Sugar importers,Kenya Sugar Authority,Government departments, Parliament, Media, Armchair economists, Financial Institutions, World Bank, Globalisation

• In order to move forward with the agenda for change, the following issues are critical:

• Strengthening the existing institutions, and creating linkages between existing institutions and coalitions through communication dissemination.
• Capacity building of, and integrating the primary farmer organizations to speak with one voice.
• Removal of identification tags among farmer organizations and forging a common front at national level as outgrowers and service bodies.
• Farmer crop diversification.
• Participation at the local / zonal level whereby the farmers elect 15 of their representatives. These elected officials are to elect KESGA officials.
• Organization of a strong structure and base at the local level.
• Sensitising the stakeholders on the pertinent issues in the sugar industry.
• Consultation with the coalition
• Constructive engagement of the adversaries.

Romborah Simiyu.

Bungoma Professional Caucus

_________________________________________

Mr. Simiyu gave a presentation on guided planning with regards to empowering sugarcane farmers with relevant information necessary for informed participation in the process of change in the sugar industry.

• The need for awareness creation among farmers is a pertinent issue in the struggle for change. As the major stakeholders, farmers should be in the vanguard of the struggle. The awareness campaign should be clear on the desired outputs, the target beneficiaries, the information to be disseminated, the methodology of delivering the message and the person/people disseminating the information.

The Desired Output

The desired outputs of the campaign include:

• A farmer friendly Sugar Bill and a coherent agricultural policy.
• Building the farmer capacity and ensuring that the farmers control the sugar industry.
• An informed sugar farming community.
• A conducive environment that ensures that the farmer gets justified returns on investment in the sugar industry.
• Creating weapons to fight the enemies and strengthen the cane farming community.
• Improved capacity of farmers to participate in decision-making as well as the constitutional review process.
• Achieve co-ordination and unity among the farmers.
• Achieve effective farmers’ representation.

Target beneficiaries

The primary targets are the farmers. Secondary beneficiaries will include millers, administrators, local leaders and other key players at the local level, as well as the general public.

The Information

• The content of the message to be packaged for dissemination should include the following:

• The need for unity among the farmers
• The extent of the farmer exploitation
• The defects in the sugar Bill
• The importance of leadership and governance issues
• The basic rights and basic needs.
• The nature and dynamics of the process of change.
• Goal of the process itself
• The issues regarding privatisation
• The defective pricing policy and the alternatives
• The uses and benefits of the sugarcane by-products that should accrue to the farmers.
• The reasons for the high costs of production in the sector.
• That income from sugarcane should primarily be for family welfare.
• That farmers diversify so as to insure against the sectors’ problems
• Exploring other investment opportunities.
• The need for farmers to realise that they can bargain for prices so as to realize a reasonable margin.
• Pose the question " why are you growing the sugarcane? Is it for the government, the factory etc?
• Do a comparative analysis of how the industry should be run from examples elsewhere.

Strategy/Methodology

• Farmers will be reached through key individuals and civil society organisations that farmers identify with such as women groups, churches and farmers institutions

• Different fora will be employed in delivering the information:

The media, Press releases, Distribution of leaflets, Help of the Churches, Farmers’ own meetings, Farmers’ elected representatives, Seminars, workshops, conferences etc

The use of banners, posters etc

Using the existing publications

Who delivers the message?

The farmers’ representatives and farmer institutions, Churches, Trainers of Trainers (ToTs),

Capacity audit of the existing institutions and NGOs may be required to determine their capacity, will and drive.

Anticipated obstacles

The resistance to the campaign will probably come from the following areas:

Millers, Provincial administration, Farmer themselves,

Rogue opinion leaders especially among saboteur farmers with double standards.

Other opinion leaders, Politicians

Monitoring the Campaign

The campaign must be monitored to assess whether the message trickles to the grassroots. The campaign monitors are to comprise of the following:

The farmer organizations and institutions

Members of the coalition

Independent observers

The program should, however, be self-monitoring and self-evaluating, as the goals set are already known.

A campaign of such a kind may require a slogan or rallying point. "Sugarcane is our livelihood", was suggested.

It was agreed that the campaign be called: SUGAR CAMPAIGN FOR CHANGE (SUCAM)

The meeting passed the following resolutions:

1. We resolve to build a coalition for positive change in the sugar sector.

2. Having realised the weaknesses and divisions among sugarcane farmers, we resolve to work for unity among farmers.

3. We recognise KESGA as the apex farmers’ body and resolve to strengthen its capacity to be truly representative of farmers’ interests.

4. We resolve to undertake awareness campaigns on matters pertaining to the Sugar Industry.

5. We resolve to promote and lobby for sugarcane farmer friendly policies.

6. We recognise that all farmers’ organisations represent sugarcane growers and committee ourselves to creating zonal committees that are truly representative of farmers’ interests.

Coalition for change action plan.

The following persons were appointed to start co-ordinating coalition activities in their respective zones especially to begin laying the groundwork for zonal committee creation. 

NB: MINUTES OF ZONAL COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ELECTIONS AVAILABLE ON HARD COPY FROM SUCAM SECRETARIAT.

Zone Contact persons:

Busia Mr. Cajetan Owende

West Kenya Mr. Peter Murunga

Muhoroni Mr. Ombura Bala

Chemelil Dr. Kagumba

Mr. Enoch Ngeny

Miwani Mr. Atudo

Soin Mr. Ruto

Mr. Bii

Nzoia Mr. Mukania

Sony    Mr. Odumo

Ms Damaris