RESEARCH INTO
SUGAR CANE PLANTATIONS IN WESTERN KENYA
The following
research was conducted by FIOH Kenya into the social, economic and environmental
consequences of growing sugar cane in the Muhoroni,
Koru,
Chemilil, Angoro, God Abuoro and Ponge near Lake Victoria in Western
Kenya.
In 1998 Rom Wandera
(FIOH Kenya) and Mike Thomas (FIOH UK) visited the sugar cane growing
region of Muhoroni in Western Kenya. As this area was approached a pungent
smell became very noticeable and this turned out to be caused by the
effluent from a sugar cane processing factory. This was discharging
into a river from which many people withdrew their drinking water.
Mike remarked on the apparently poor living conditions for the factory
workers and the very poor construction of the homes in the surrounding
countryside. He wondered who was actually benefiting from growing and
processing sugar cane. Two years later, upon learning about the further
lowering of cash crop prices in Africa as a result of globalisation,
he asked Rom if he and other members of FIOH Kenya would carry out a
survey of the living conditions and earnings of the farmers and workers
in the factory.
The sample
The sample
comprised 15 sugar cane farmers, a field officer and a research officer.
The only woman was the research officer, who worked in the factory.
Those working as casual labourers for the farmers were not willing to
be interviewed as they feared being victimised. As only one factory
worker (and only woman) was interviewed, the survey was not a truly
representative sample of the community as a whole.
The questionnaire
The FIOH
team visited the area without prior notification and interviewed a random
sample of people involved in growing and processing sugar cane using
a questionnaire comprising the following questions:
Name?
Area?
What is your occupation and how many years have you worked in the
factory/owned your own land?
What are your earnings?
Do you think that growing sugar is a good idea? If not, what would
you like to see the land used for?
Do you think that more of the land should be used for growing food
crops?
Is a good price obtained from selling the the sugar cane? If not,
what do you think is the reason for this?
Are there any pollution problems associated with growing and processing
the sugar cane? If so, what are they?
What are your living conditions like? What are your main problems?
Would you consider yourself very poor? If so, what do you think is
the main cause of your poverty?
Responses
Most of
the farmers had been growing sugar cane for more than 20 years (ave
22 years) and many had previously been in well paid jobs and had used
their savings to purchase land to grow a crop they had considered would
yield a good profit.
The amount they were earning for each harvest (approx every 18 months)
ranged between 5,000 Kshs (£50) and 80,000 Kshs (£800).
The research officer was paid 156,000 Kshs (£1,560) per year and
the field officer 84,000 Kshs (£840). Note that both of these
technical workers attached the factory were earning more per annum than
any of the farmers.
Only two of the farmers thought they were getting a good price for their
crops. All the farmers complained of late payments, often more than
a year, and that this was a major cause of their hardships.
Eight of the farmers
(53%) thought that growing sugar cane was a good idea but most of these
felt that they should also be using part of their land for food crops.
The seven farmers who did not think that growing sugar cane was a good
idea wanted to be able to switch to growing other crops - coffee, citrus
fruits, maize, millet, sorghum, sunflowers, cassava, groundnuts and
vegetables. Some also wanted to raise cattle.
All the farmers
said that there was considerable pollution involved with growing sugar
cane from:
- chemical herbicides
and pesticides on crops and effluent from the factory discharging
into the river that most people used for drinking water.
- fly ash and smoke
from the factory chimney.
Only the research
officer and one of the farmers said that their living conditions were
reasonable. Everyone else said that their living conditions were poor.
Ten farmers and the field officer (73%) considered themselves to be
very poor.
Late payments and low prices were cited as the main cause of poverty
and some mentioned lack of capital to diversify into other means of
income generation.
Other problems mentioned:
1. Farmers needed
to hire oxen or tractors to plough their land and pay people to plant
seed and cut the mature cane and to transport it to the factory. Often
the farmers needed to take out loans, sometimes as a result of late
payment for the previous crop, and repay this at high rates of interest.
Most of the farmers grow only sugar cane and rely entirely on the proceeds
for buying food for their families. They cannot afford school and medical
fees and materials needed to build decent homes.
2. Cases of corruption
in the factory management were cited. Cheap sugar was brought in from
outside the area and bagged up and sold at a high price before the locally
produced sugar is sold out.
3. Some farmers
only have small plots of land and are unable to allocate part of this
for food crops.
Casual farm workers
did not agree to be interviewed individually but remarked that their
wages were poor and there were often delays in paying their salaries.
They expected the factory to close down and to be out of a job in the
near future.
The closure of
the factory
As Mike
Thomas had originally feared* and the farm workers anticipated, the
factory closed down several months after the survey. An FIOH group was
then established at Muhoroni with the help of FIOH Kenya and a further
survey is planned to assess the impact of the closure of the factory
on local communities and the problems they now face. Strategies for
improving the livelihoods of the poor will also be discussed.
*
March 1998 "About a
mile before we reached the site we were aware of a foul smell rather
like that of silage. This was coming from a stream and was being caused
by the effluent from the sugar cane factory. This was clearly an area
of extreme deprivation. Very small mud huts were dotted around the fields
with pockets of squatter settlements near the plantations resembling
the the worst slums that could be seen in India or Latin America.
The plantation on the hill was covered with rotting sugar cane which
had been standing there for 3 years. I was told that the market for
the sugar cane had been depressed by cheap imports. I could not see
that this crop was providing any benefits at all for the poor people
of this area and indeed little benefit for the landowners either. Surely
it would have been better for people to grow food crops?"
FIOH KENYA ACTIVITIES
