Some county governments have made public intentions not to renew leases to some parcels of land within their counties. Nandi County spoke last. The governor was allegedly quoted ‘’assuring the Nandi community that all the tea companies whose leases have expired will not have them renewed and the Nandi government will manage the land on behalf of the people’’. The sentiments further observe that the local community lost huge tracts of fertile land during British colonial rule and it was time to get it back. Nandi is just one of the Counties in the Rift Valley famous for tea plantations and related economies

Leases to multinationals

Land leased to multinationals, individual local and foreign large scale farmers for agricultural and livestock farming is to be found in many of Kenya’s Counties. Western, Rift Valley, Eastern, Central and the Coast regions of Kenya are home to many such farms. Most of this land was allocated during the pre-colonial era and was derived from land until then occupied or claimed by communities resident in the respective regions. Quite a lot of coffee farming in Central and Eastern Kenya has been done on such farms. Livestock farming in large parts of Rift Valley, Eastern Kenya and the Coast has been on such land too. Sisal and pineapple industries have also relied on farms in Counties in Central Kenya and the Coast. A quick read of our local geography and agricultural growth provides specifics.

If the sentiments echoed from Nandi were to scale up, Kenya would need to be prepared for the resultant economic setback. One needs to think about the impact of the non-renewal of leases to land on which stands thriving plantations of cash crops like tea, sisal, coffee, wheat and pineapples. Think about the effect of repossessing the dairy and livestock farms and subdividing them for smaller scale use. Given vested interests and voter pressure, one could guess that any land reverting to county governments without careful pre-considerations may easily be allocated to county power wielders or be subdivided for reallocation to preferred voter groups. This could have the effect of putting the farms in the hands of powerful locals without the capacity to work them for optimal production while subdivisions, as informed by the past, could create non-viable parcels of land. Each of these is bad for our county and national economies.

Pressure for land allocation

Granted, governors may be under regular political pressure to help local communities reverse some painful historical appropriation of land. Indeed, the law is on their side on this matter too since County government have a stake in the renewal of leases derived from public land. But it is precisely here that governors must rise above parochial interests and demonstrate judicious leadership and long-term vision for their counties. They need to manage the hopes of the people they lead for the right outputs. A weaker county economy is a negative output.

But governors must also beware that land debates ignite raw and emotive politics at all levels. Governors could easily find themselves consumed by the passions of any hopes they create to allocate land to local people. There’s never enough land. They will also find themselves under intense pressure for land from some MCA’s and executive officers schooled in the old ways of the defunct local authorities where land allocation was used to reward loyal cronies. In the new dispensation where transparency and accountability has become a rule book, such practice could lead to the censure of a governor and divert them from their wider development agenda.

Lease determination to be based on objective criteria

Governors coming under pressure to determine land leases could first call for an audit of land use within their counties and interrogate the results to see whether the utilization of the land under leases complements local and national food security and economy. If not, then the owners to such land can be put to task to justify else lose their leases. Governors should also keep in mind that the law as is currently requires the National Land Commission to manage the (re)allocation of any land whose lease has expired and reverted to government. But where such land is under satisfactory use, alternative discussions could be entertained, including considering innovative ways of earning from such land. But such earnings, ordinarily from statutory taxes, must be professionally guided to ensure win-win results for the farmers and government. If well managed, such earnings could be ploughed into the development of county physical and social infrastructure and benefit many.

In daring the matter of land leases, county governments must be driven by sincere social economic considerations and not malice, historical anger or hate.