Qatar to Grow crops in Kenya

[kingtut]

Qatar is hoping to grow crops in north-east Kenya. The Gulf state, made up mostly of barren desert, has asked Kenya to lease 40,000 hectares of land. In return it will fund a port on the tourist island of Lamu costing 3.5 billion US Dollars. A spokesman for Kenyan president Mwai Kibaki said Kenyans have to make concessions if they want people to invest in their country. Kenya hopes building docks in Lamu will open a new trade route that will give landlocked Ethiopia and Southern Sudan access to the Indian Ocean. Construction of the port will start in 2010 if the financing is agreed. - Panos London.

www.africanloft.com/qatar-to-grow-crops-in-kenya/

[einstein]

Tana River delta, said to be where Qatar will be given land for growing crops. Photo/FREDRICK ONYANGO

Queries as Qatar seeks to grow food in Kenya


Kenya will lease out 40,000 hectares (about 100,000 acres) of land to a Gulf state to grow food at a time when the country is facing serious food shortages.

The deal with the government of Qatar is similar to a model that has been widely criticised by agricultural experts worldwide and mainly involves poor African countries and rich nations or corporations especially from the Middle East.

Second port

In the Kenyan case, Qatar will, in exchange for the land, fund construction of a new Sh2.4 billion port on Lamu island to serve as Kenya’s second port after Mombasa. The deal was struck during President Kibaki’s visit to Qatar in late November.

At the time, the Presidential Press Service only revealed that the government of Qatar had agreed to fund construction of a second port in Lamu at a cost of Sh2.4 billion and that the Gulf state had expressed interest in obtaining land in Kenya to grow food but the acreage was not given.

But it has now emerged that the land in question is part of the fertile Tana River delta in Coast Province, the same stretch where plans by Mumias Sugar Company to build a sugar factory have raised objections from pastoralists claiming that their animals will lack pasture and the environment will be destroyed.

Agriculture minister William Ruto said he was not aware of the deal and could, therefore, not comment on it. His permanent secretary, Dr Romano Kiome, however, welcomed the concept, saying Kenya needed to attract more investors.

He said: “I can confirm that it works in other countries and why not in Kenya?”

Eastern Africa Farmers Federation Union president Philip Kiriro questioned the rationale of the Government.

“Are we saying that a foreign government can produce food here and feed its own people and the Kenyan Government cannot support us to feed ourselves?” he asked.

According to the Guardian News and Media of London, the deal is the latest example of wealthy countries and companies trying to secure food supplies from the developing world.

Other Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, have also been negotiating leases of large tracts of farmland in countries such as Sudan and Senegal since the global food shortages and price rises earlier this year, the group’s website reported.

The deal is a reminder to another controversial agreement between President Kibaki and the then Prime Minister of Thailand, Mr Thaksin Shinawatra, who was later deposed, for Kenya to export wild animals to Thailand.

But conservationists and politicians opposed the deal saying it would deny Kenya tourism revenue as visitors from Thailand who might have preferred Kenya for its wildlife would not visit.

There were also questions about whether the animals to be exported could withstand the long distance between the two countries. Eventually, the deal fell through and has not been mentioned again.

The Guardian quoted the director of the Presidential Press Service, Mr Isaiah Kabira saying: “Nothing comes for free. If you want people to invest in your country then you have to make concessions.”

The newspaper reported that the deal is likely to cause concern in Kenya because fertile land is unequally distributed. Several prominent political families own huge tracts of farmland, while millions of people live in small parcels.

The country is also experiencing a food crisis, with the Government forced to introduce subsidies and price controls on maize after poor production and planning caused the price of the staple maize flour to double in less than a year.

This week, the Government placed an advertisement in the papers inviting people interested in importing one million bags of yellow maize.

By building docks in Lamu, Kenya hopes to open a new trade corridor that will give landlocked Ethiopia and the autonomous region of Southern Sudan access to the Indian Ocean.

Mr Kabira said that if the financing was agreed, construction of the port would begin in 2010.

Qatar, which has large oil and gas revenues, imports most of its food, as most of its land is barren desert and just one per cent is suitable for arable farming. It has already reportedly struck deals this year to grow rice in Cambodia, maize and wheat in Sudan and vegetables in Vietnam.

Much of the produce will be exported to the Gulf. Qatar’s foreign ministry in Doha did not return calls, but Mr Kabira said that its intention was to grow “vegetables and fruit” in Kenya.

The area proposed for the farming project is near the Tana Rver delta where the Kenyan Government owns nearly 500,000 hectares (1.3 million acres) of uncultivated land.

But a separate agreement to allow Mumias to grow sugarcane and build a factory in the area has attracted fierce opposition from environmentalists who say a pristine ecosystem of mangrove swamps, savannah and forests will be destroyed.

Pastoralists, who rear up to 60,000 cattle to graze in the delta each dry season, are also opposed to the plan. The sudden rush by foreign governments and firms to secure food supplies in Africa has some experts worried.

Mr Jacques Diouf, director general of the United Nation’s Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), recently spoke of the risk of a “neo-colonial” agricultural system emerging.

The FAO boss said some of the first overseas projects by Gulf companies in Sudan, where more than 5 million people receive international food aid, showed limited local benefits, with much of the specialist labour and farming inputs being imported.


Additional details from The Guardian

[einstein]

Why are some people busy auctioning our country??

[kingtut]

If kenyans are too lazy to farm then why not let the Arabs come in and farm. I dont see a problem with Qatar farming in kenya if kenyans are a lazy bunch who prefer to dwell in city slums.

[kangethe]

King, farming in Kenya is either a profession for the very wealthy or the desolate....with the latter being the majority. In the US, the govt worked out a formula to entice small scale farming by issuing tax breaks and soft loans to the food producers.......very basic, why cant the Kenyan government lease the land to its people? we would even build a port at lake victoria if we self sustain let alone Lamu!
Also, whats the rationale in a few politically correct power barons holding massive tracts of land that is idle land? I shudder at the thought that I will never understand!

[judy]

Seriously King are you being sarcastic or what? People don't live in slums because they are lazy but because they are trying to find a better way of life. Do you know what resources are needed to do farming?, do you trully believe that given a chance to do better in rural areas, someone would still want to live in a 1 room house with their wife and kids,and trek to industrial area for a Ksh 1000.00 a month job?. Whatever Qatar can do,kenyans can do, the government needs to step up and provide resources to it's people. Before we know it everything in the country will be leased out to other foreign governments.

[sky11]

Gents and ladies, lets not forget that this is Kenya we are talking about and not a developed westernized country! There is still quite a of subsistence farming still going on... we are struggling to feed ourselves and yet our government is busy leasing land to Arabs and Koreans?!? Am I missing something here?!? Is it not LAND that is the cause of the all the carnage we witnessed eleven months ago (and every five years for that matter)? Are we aware of the government induced food shortages as well as our ever increasing reliance on imported food!! Are we sure that we should really be leasing out land?.. Me thinks we are in for interesting five, ten and fifteen years to come... when hunger hits, the stuff that hits the fan will surely be evenly spread out!!
We should be (and have the capacity) effectively, empathically and efficiently managing our scarce and most precious resource LAND

[akello]

while governments in desert lands are busy securing their own food security for the future, our own government whose people are currently dying of hunger and food insecurity is leasing its land to foreigners. this is what visionless and mediocre leadership that is forced upon us bequeths to our nation. we are lacking direction, the driver's seat is empty, and we are heading off the road. who will save us?

[mank]

Estleigh, long left out to rich foreign Somalis, continues to grow into a wound for Kenya by the day, and all we do is look the other side. From the east, as inland as places of Meru, the whole of north east, into Eastleigh and now city center around Jamia and Koja, the immigration cancer spreads by the day. Now bring in foreign Arabs to rape the country from the south under the guise of leasing land.

Some people are jumping up and down at the mention of Ksh. 240 B because that's some dough, but I have not heard a thing about the length of time Qatar claims the land for that price. Although the Nation quotes the price at Ksh. 2.4b, someone in the Nation's blogs claims that the official number is Ksh. 240b. I say am not impressed by either numbers. What time frame is the lease? Are there any other conditions? I imagine Qatar people would come and work on the land ... give rise to a new generation of Kenyans that will be left on the land once the lease expires (there is the possibility of Qatar refusing to give back the land at the end of the lease anyway, what will Kenya do .... fight the occupants, or go fight in Qatar?). What will Kenya do with those folks? Of course those will be Kenyans, not Qatarians, and the only place they will know as home is that land now being leased out. So, really, is this a lease, or a transfer of land along with a citizenship to a future generation that will only be burden of Kenya? Does the Ksh. 240b factor these concerns in?

If the government wants to lease out the land it should first gazette it for internal lease. Kenyans should not be deceived that there aren't natives who would make viable investments on such land. Wast this land ever on offer for bids, or how did Qatar secure the lease? Idiot politicians should stop mortgaging Kenya.

[einstein]

President defends land lease

President Mwai Kibaki on Saturday defended the government’s plan to lease 100,000 acres of the Tana Delta to Qatar, saying Kenya stands to benefit immensely from the possible Sh180 billion ($2.4 billion) deal.

The director of Presidential Press Service, Mr Isaiah Kabira, said the proposed project would open up vast areas of northern Kenya towards southern Sudan and Ethiopia.

Doha visit

The potential deal was discussed last month with Qatari officials when President Kibaki visited Doha for a development conference. It would see the Gulf state fund construction of a port in Lamu in exchange for use of the land.

“This is an integrated project which comprises highways, a railway line from Lamu through to Isiolo to Ethiopia and Sudan. This would serve as a new corridor to open up that part of the country for which we have never had a comprehensive plan,” Mr Kabira said in a telephone interview with the Sunday Nation.

Under the proposed agreement, details of which are being worked out, Qatar would help Kenya develop an equivalent number of acres for its own food security, he said.

“The area has great potential for vegetables and fruit. What the Qataris are saying is that they have the money and the market while we have the land,” Mr Kabira said.

He described the proposed arrangement as being of great strategic importance, particularly now that work is underway on a second port in Djibouti.

“It is critical that we put up a new port with modern infrastructure because Djibouti will make Mombasa suddenly look very old. If we don’t position ourselves appropriately, we will lose out to Djibouti,” he said.

Promising that the government would make as much information as possible available to the public, Mr Kabira said the project is expected to take five years to complete.

The PPS boss clarified that the project is still in the formative stages and involves the Office of the President and the ministries of Finance and Foreign Affairs. He said other ministries like Transport and Ariculture would be brought on board should the project go forward.

Mr Kabira stressed that the project is still in the proposal stage, and the government can still look for another partner. “Our options are open, and if we are unable to to seal a deal with Qatar, we are free to look elsewhere.”

The area earmarked for the project is part of 1.3 million acres of uncultivated land owned by the government in the Tana River delta.

Proposed project

A proposed project in which Mumias would grow sugar cane and build a factory in the area has drawn controversy with environmentalists saying the project would destroy ecosytems. Pastoralists also claim the project would deny them access to grazing lands.

Many oil-rich countries are turning to leasing land in sub-Saharan Africa to boost their own food security, raising concern from UN agencies.

Jacques Diouf, head of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, has warned that the trend has the potential of ushering in an era of neo-colonialism and expressed skepticism that the projects would benefits people in host countries.

[kipsang]

STOP KIBAKI FROM AUCTIONING THE COUNTRY!!!

Friends,

The president of the Republic of Kenya swore to uphold the constitution (protecting its people, heritage, and everything that is on the country’s land, sea and air) of the country. For the few years Kibaki has been at the helm of country’s leadership, the country has gone through a series of trauma. First, after being sworn in as the country’s president, though through a controversially contested presidential election, he failed to protect the lives and property of Kenyans during the transition period. He kept on saying that he was “duly” elected the president while the country was on fire. This behavior showed the kind of person he is- the lives and property of the people of Kenya and the country do not matter to him and that is why he has presided over nerve-numbing decisions on behalf of the country!
www.kalenjin.net/newsite/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1224&Itemid=234

[enigma]

Dec 20, 2008 3:43:54 GMT 3 @kingtut said:

If kenyans are too lazy to farm then why not let the Arabs come in and farm. I dont see a problem with Qatar farming in kenya if kenyans are a lazy bunch who prefer to dwell in city slums.

I take exception to your continually referring to Kenyans as lazy.
However, why cant this land be leased to Internally displaced people and other Kenyans who would like to farm? Seriously did anyone think about ordinary Kenyans before looking beyond the shores? It would be a shame for Kenyans to starve while Qatar feeds its people using kenyan produce.

[enigma]

Dec 20, 2008 16:48:06 GMT 3 sky11 said:

Gents and ladies, lets not forget that this is Kenya we are talking about and not a developed westernized country! There is still quite a of subsistence farming still going on... we are struggling to feed ourselves and yet our government is busy leasing land to Arabs and Koreans?!? Am I missing something here?!? Is it not LAND that is the cause of the all the carnage we witnessed eleven months ago (and every five years for that matter)? Are we aware of the government induced food shortages as well as our ever increasing reliance on imported food!! Are we sure that we should really be leasing out land?.. Me thinks we are in for interesting five, ten and fifteen years to come... when hunger hits, the stuff that hits the fan will surely be evenly spread out!!
We should be (and have the capacity) effectively, empathically and efficiently managing our scarce and most precious resource LAND

I wouldnt use the word scarce to describe land given that 100000 acres might be given away. I think there's plenty of land.

[Daktari wa makazi]

Dec 20, 2008 23:16:04 GMT 3 mank said:

Estleigh, long left out to rich foreign Somalis, continues to grow into a wound for Kenya by the day, and all we do is look the other side. From the east, as inland as places of Meru, the whole of north east, into Eastleigh and now city center around Jamia and Koja, the immigration cancer spreads by the day. Now bring in foreign Arabs to rape the country from the south under the guise of leasing land.

Some people are jumping up and down at the mention of Ksh. 240 B because that's some dough, but I have not heard a thing about the length of time Qatar claims the land for that price. Although the Nation quotes the price at Ksh. 2.4b, someone in the Nation's blogs claims that the official number is Ksh. 240b. I say am not impressed by either numbers. What time frame is the lease? Are there any other conditions? I imagine Qatar people would come and work on the land ... give rise to a new generation of Kenyans that will be left on the land once the lease expires (there is the possibility of Qatar refusing to give back the land at the end of the lease anyway, what will Kenya do .... fight the occupants, or go fight in Qatar?). What will Kenya do with those folks? Of course those will be Kenyans, not Qatarians, and the only place they will know as home is that land now being leased out. So, really, is this a lease, or a transfer of land along with a citizenship to a future generation that will only be burden of Kenya? Does the Ksh. 240b factor these concerns in?

If the government wants to lease out the land it should first gazette it for internal lease. Kenyans should not be deceived that there aren't natives who would make viable investments on such land. Wast this land ever on offer for bids, or how did Qatar secure the lease? Idiot politicians should stop mortgaging Kenya.

What has Eastleigh to do with the Qataris?

I see an anti Muslims agenda in the quote, above. If, indeed, it was an attempt to attack Muslims, it must have fallen flat.

Immigration has nothing to do with the leasing, as I understand it. Furthermore, why would one surrender Qatari Nationality for Kenyan one? That is how shallow that comment was......


On the substantive issue of the leasing of Tana River Delta - I oppose the idea simply because the land could equally be used by the local landless squatters for farming - leading to self-reliance in food production. The Govt ring fenced these area and only allowed ADC to farm not allowing the locals to do the same. To lease the land for farming by Qataris while local are deny the same opportunity is hypocrisy. Locals must be given the first refusal - if no one turns up with an interesting proposals then seek outsiders. Moreover, sugar was being grown there but the govt killed that idea by refusing to help with sugar processing plant. Why not rejuvenated the sugar industry and allow Mumias to develop it further creating local jobs and opportunity. The Qataris will come with heavy machinery employing very few Kenyans and I don't see how they could be made to pay for the lease equitably. One does not understand the value attached to the lease - unless Kibaki is very keen on corrupt deals to enhance himself and the few next to him. Building a port or railway does not seem to me to be reciprocative to the lease as suggested.

Secondly, why not lease the inhospitably arid but very fertile Lodwar -Mandera triangle. That land is very fertile but lacks water - if the Qataris are serious - they could source water from Turkana and develop their major modernized farm. The Turkana land is a capital intensive project and because we are constantly told Qataris are wealthy - they should be able to pay for it. In contrast, Tana Delta has everything one needs for faming - water, fertile land and labour. Qatar has poor land, which is inhospitable and poor quality and that is why even with their money they cannot develop agriculture - like Saudi Arabia or Israel - which have pumped water to their deserts turning them into farms because the soils are high quality. If Turkana was leased to Qataris - I am sure many would see logic in doing that - but not the Tana Delta.

Thirdly - Tana Delta has been associated with oil. If we lease the land to Qataris and they discover oil - the lease will allow them to drill our oil.

Furthermore, I refuse to believe that the Qataris will build a port at Lamu and a railway line to Ethiopia nd Sudan. Qatar has no railway - how on earth will they build one in Kenya? When the Qataris took our althletes and gave them their nationality - they promised stadia and other sport facilities - none of which materialized. How are we to believe them on the lease - and what if they do not honour their side of the bargain?

Kibaki must tell us more - he is making money for himself to cater for his ever increasing family and his dependents knowing that he will be irrelevant come 2012.

Does it not concern you that Kabira of the PPS is the one selling the lease to the Qataris? Here is un-elected advisor deciding govt policy and leasing govtal property. Where are the govt ministries and gov't ministers whose reposiibility includes such decision making?

[njamba]

www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-land20-2008dec20,0,2196104.story?page=2


It is land stupid. If Kibaki cannot resolve a simple issues as land grabbing issue how is he supposed to protect Kenyan interests in this deal; we are still yet to know how the Grand Regency deal came into being the "plots" land sold in this deal amount to billions of kshs so 2.4 billion is nothing for an utility the size of 40,00 acres. Kenyans have shown thru dairy farming and tea farming that they can organize and be as efficient in food production as BIG SCALE FARMERS. Kiambu specifically githunguri dairy farming is good example of how land if utilized well and if market is liberalized can benefits farmers. Thus the consencission on land is JUST NOT RIGHT. Kibaki is short on details what the Qatar terms are and what are leases terms. We need a very good cost-benefit analysis on this project.
Anyway it seems like the whole land problem will be solved in the battle feild one day. Meanwhile the land barons in kenya can go on and auction this country to whoever they like but let them know that they day of RECKONING is coming very soon. You cannot TAME NATURE for ever.


Kibaki and his deal leak of corruption

[mank]

Dec 21, 2008 11:34:56 GMT 3 Daktari wa makazi said:

Dec 20, 2008 23:16:04 GMT 3 mank said:

Estleigh, long left out to rich foreign Somalis, continues to grow into a wound for Kenya by the day, and all we do is look the other side. From the east, as inland as places of Meru, the whole of north east, into Eastleigh and now city center around Jamia and Koja, the immigration cancer spreads by the day. Now bring in foreign Arabs to rape the country from the south under the guise of leasing land.

Some people are jumping up and down at the mention of Ksh. 240 B because that's some dough, but I have not heard a thing about the length of time Qatar claims the land for that price. Although the Nation quotes the price at Ksh. 2.4b, someone in the Nation's blogs claims that the official number is Ksh. 240b. I say am not impressed by either numbers. What time frame is the lease? Are there any other conditions? I imagine Qatar people would come and work on the land ... give rise to a new generation of Kenyans that will be left on the land once the lease expires (there is the possibility of Qatar refusing to give back the land at the end of the lease anyway, what will Kenya do .... fight the occupants, or go fight in Qatar?). What will Kenya do with those folks? Of course those will be Kenyans, not Qatarians, and the only place they will know as home is that land now being leased out. So, really, is this a lease, or a transfer of land along with a citizenship to a future generation that will only be burden of Kenya? Does the Ksh. 240b factor these concerns in?

If the government wants to lease out the land it should first gazette it for internal lease. Kenyans should not be deceived that there aren't natives who would make viable investments on such land. Wast this land ever on offer for bids, or how did Qatar secure the lease? Idiot politicians should stop mortgaging Kenya.

What has Eastleigh to do with the Qataris?

I see an anti Muslims agenda in the quote, above. If, indeed, it was an attempt to attack Muslims, it must have fallen flat.

Immigration has nothing to do with the leasing, as I understand it. Furthermore, why would one surrender Qatari Nationality for Kenyan one? That is how shallow that comment was......


On the substantive issue of the leasing of Tana River Delta - I oppose the idea simply because the land could equally be used by the local landless squatters for farming - leading to self-reliance in food production. The Govt ring fenced these area and only allowed ADC to farm not allowing the locals to do the same. To lease the land for farming by Qataris while local are deny the same opportunity is hypocrisy. Locals must be given the first refusal - if no one turns up with an interesting proposals then seek outsiders. Moreover, sugar was being grown there but the govt killed that idea by refusing to help with sugar processing plant. Why not rejuvenated the sugar industry and allow Mumias to develop it further creating local jobs and opportunity. The Qataris will come with heavy machinery employing very few Kenyans and I don't see how they could be made to pay for the lease equitably. One does not understand the value attached to the lease - unless Kibaki is very keen on corrupt deals to enhance himself and the few next to him. Building a port or railway does not seem to me to reciprocative to the lease suggested.

Secondly, why not lease the inhospitable but very fertile Lodwar -Mandera triangle. That land is very fertile but lacks water - if the Qataris are serious - they could source water from Turkana and develop their major modernized farm. The Turkana land is a capital intensive project and because we are constantly told Qataris are wealthy - they should be able to pay for it. In contrast, Tana Delta has everything one needs for faming - water, fertile land and abudant labour. Qatar has poor land, inhospitable and poor quality and that is why even with their money they cannot develop agriculture - like Saudi Arabia or Israel - which have pumped water to their deserts turning them into farms because the soils are high quality. If Turkana was leased to Qataris - I am sure many would see logic in doing that - but not the Tana Delta.

Thirdly - Tana Delta has been associated with oil. If we lease the land to Qataris and they discover oil - the lease will allow them to drill our oil.

Furthermore, I refuse to believe that the Qataris will build a port at Lamu and a railway line to Ethiopia nd Sudan. Qatar has no railway - how on earth will they build one in Kenya? When the Qataris took our althletes and given them their nationality - they promised stadias and other sport facilities none of which materialized. How are we to believe them on the lease - and what if they do not honour their side of the bargain?

Kibaki must tell us more - he is making money for himself to cater for his ever increasing family and his dependents knowing that he will be irrelevant come 2012.

Does it not concern you that Kabira of the PPS is the one selling the lease to the Qataris? Here is un-elected advisor deciding govt policy and leasing govtal property. Where are the govt ministries and gov't ministers whose reposiibility includes such decision making?

Perhaps you should pay attention to the word "foreign" and "immigration" and recede from you religious biases. You are the one making this a "Muslims agenda".

On another note, I did not suggest that Qatari's will give up their nationalities. Those to be born on the leased lands may be endowed with their Qatari nationality, but they will also be Kenyans, and will be in Kenya and most will not even know any Qatar homes.

[Daktari wa makazi]

Dec 21, 2008 17:09:15 GMT 3 mank said:

Dec 21, 2008 11:34:56 GMT 3 Daktari wa makazi said:

What has Eastleigh to do with the Qataris?

I see an anti Muslims agenda in the quote, above. If, indeed, it was an attempt to attack Muslims, it must have fallen flat.

Immigration has nothing to do with the leasing, as I understand it. Furthermore, why would one surrender Qatari Nationality for Kenyan one? That is how shallow that comment was......


On the substantive issue of the leasing of Tana River Delta - I oppose the idea simply because the land could equally be used by the local landless squatters for farming - leading to self-reliance in food production. The Govt ring fenced these area and only allowed ADC to farm not allowing the locals to do the same. To lease the land for farming by Qataris while local are deny the same opportunity is hypocrisy. Locals must be given the first refusal - if no one turns up with an interesting proposals then seek outsiders. Moreover, sugar was being grown there but the govt killed that idea by refusing to help with sugar processing plant. Why not rejuvenated the sugar industry and allow Mumias to develop it further creating local jobs and opportunity. The Qataris will come with heavy machinery employing very few Kenyans and I don't see how they could be made to pay for the lease equitably. One does not understand the value attached to the lease - unless Kibaki is very keen on corrupt deals to enhance himself and the few next to him. Building a port or railway does not seem to me to reciprocative to the lease suggested.

Secondly, why not lease the inhospitable but very fertile Lodwar -Mandera triangle. That land is very fertile but lacks water - if the Qataris are serious - they could source water from Turkana and develop their major modernized farm. The Turkana land is a capital intensive project and because we are constantly told Qataris are wealthy - they should be able to pay for it. In contrast, Tana Delta has everything one needs for faming - water, fertile land and abudant labour. Qatar has poor land, inhospitable and poor quality and that is why even with their money they cannot develop agriculture - like Saudi Arabia or Israel - which have pumped water to their deserts turning them into farms because the soils are high quality. If Turkana was leased to Qataris - I am sure many would see logic in doing that - but not the Tana Delta.

Thirdly - Tana Delta has been associated with oil. If we lease the land to Qataris and they discover oil - the lease will allow them to drill our oil.

Furthermore, I refuse to believe that the Qataris will build a port at Lamu and a railway line to Ethiopia nd Sudan. Qatar has no railway - how on earth will they build one in Kenya? When the Qataris took our althletes and given them their nationality - they promised stadias and other sport facilities none of which materialized. How are we to believe them on the lease - and what if they do not honour their side of the bargain?

Kibaki must tell us more - he is making money for himself to cater for his ever increasing family and his dependents knowing that he will be irrelevant come 2012.

Does it not concern you that Kabira of the PPS is the one selling the lease to the Qataris? Here is un-elected advisor deciding govt policy and leasing govtal property. Where are the govt ministries and gov't ministers whose reposiibility includes such decision making?

Perhaps you should pay attention to the word "foreign" and "immigration" and recede from you religious biases. You are the one making this a "Muslims agenda".

On another note, I did not suggest that Qatari's will give up their nationalities. Those to be born on the leased lands may be endowed with their Qatari nationality, but they will also be Kenyans, and will be in Kenya and most will not even know any Qatar homes.

You seem to be digging yourself in it.

Eti those born on the leased lands will be Kenyans

For your information, one can only claim Kenyan citizenship when one's parent is Kenyan.

[mank]

Dec 21, 2008 18:28:39 GMT 3 Daktari wa makazi said:

Dec 21, 2008 17:09:15 GMT 3 mank said:

Perhaps you should pay attention to the word "foreign" and "immigration" and recede from you religious biases. You are the one making this a "Muslims agenda".

On another note, I did not suggest that Qatari's will give up their nationalities. Those to be born on the leased lands may be endowed with their Qatari nationality, but they will also be Kenyans, and will be in Kenya and most will not even know any Qatar homes.

You seem to be digging yourself in it.

Eti those born on the leased lands will be Kenyans

For your information, one can only claim Kenyan citizenship when one's parent is Kenyan.

And what does Kenya do with people who are born in Kenya, but who according to you cannot claim citizenship?

[politicalmaniac]

Dec 20, 2008 17:41:16 GMT 3 @akello said:

while governments in desert lands are busy securing their own food security for the future, our own government whose people are currently dying of hunger and food insecurity is leasing its land to foreigners. this is what visionless and mediocre leadership that is forced upon us bequeths to our nation. we are lacking direction, the driver's seat is empty, and we are heading off the road. who will save us?

The sloth kegs and his dad story would tell you this guy has no compunctions about selling his soul to the devil.
Ni mambo na pesa tuu
Remember Arturs? what were they doing in SH cavorting with the second lady and her daughter?
Kuna kitu huyu jamaa wont sell?

[einstein]

Did somebody here on Jukwaa try to deny a religious angle to this deal?? Now look at the proponents of this deal!!!!!




The Tana Delta. Photo/FILE


Leaders give verdict on Qatar deal


Key politicians and religious leaders from the Coast Province have supported the Government’s decision to lease out 40,000 hectares of land that Qatar is seeking to grow food in the Tana Delta.

However, Tourism minister Najib Balala said citizens in the affected areas should be consulted first before the deal can be approved.

“If the proposed land is idle, then it should be leased to Qatar so as to develop it,” Mr Balala said in a telephone interview with the Nation on Sunday.

His views were supported by Malindi MP Gideon Mung’aro and Council of Imams and Preachers of Kenya organising-secretary Sheikh Mohamed Khalifa.

But Coast Parliamentary Group chairman Benedict Fondo opposed the deal as did Law Society of Kenya vice-chairman James Mwamu.

Mr Fondo said the government of Qatar should fund the project so that it could be undertaken by Kenyans themselves.

Mr Mwamu criticised the Government for considering leasing land to a foreign government, yet it had not taken any serious steps to address the land crisis in the country.

Build sea port

Under the proposed project, the government of Qatar will give Kenya Sh180 billion that will be used to build a second sea port at Lamu and build roads and railways linking the region to the Ethiopian and Southern Sudan borders.

While defending the deal at the weekend, the director of the Presidential Press Service, Mr Isaiya Kabira, said the projects would open up the region for which the Government had no comprehensive development plan.

Mr Balala said those living in the affected area must have a say over the proposed project because it might affect their lives.

“I am sure the Tana Delta residents will benefit from job opportunities and improve their standard of living,” he said.

Supporting Mr Balala, Mr Mung’aro said it would be wrong for the authorities to lease the land to Qatar without the involvement of local residents, who have over the years been using the delta for agriculture and livestock farming.

“Issues of land are very sensitive and therefore it is important for the Government to consult the residents about its plan,” he said.

But Mr Fondo said it was unnecessary for the Government to lease the land to Qatar to grow fruits and vegetables, yet Kenyans could grow the horticultural products if they got funding.

“Let Qatar assist the country with funding so that locals can implement the project. In this, we shall empower the villagers,” he said.

Sheikh Khalifa asked the Government to lease the land as this was not “a new idea”. According to him, many foreigners own huge tracts of land in Kenya.

“In upcountry and some parts of the Coast region, there are some foreigners who were leased large parcels of land by the Government to undertake various agricultural projects,” the cleric said.

Controversy has in the past dogged some projects fronted by various companies seeking to grow sugarcane in the Tana Delta, with pastoralists and environmentalists opposing the multi-million shillings projects.

The pastoralists said the projects would deny them range lands for their animals, while the environmentalists said growing sugarcane would lead to the extinction of some plant and animal species in the delta.

[mank]

Hi man einstein,

Allow me to use your latest to express what is bothering me about all this crap ... yes, I man is pissed! Perhaps there is a religious side into it, but that really is not what bothers me ... except someone introduced it to drown the inconvenient truth. The fact is that there is an immigration aspect in every international exchange (ask those in the army), and here we are talking of an agrarian transplantation ... I cannot imagine of anything of a bigger immigration implication.

Agriculture gives the practitioner an identity of the place of its practice, no matter what foolish law exists. Yes, foolish laws are often impractical, and logistics are what matter ... not what is in the book. The law quoted by Sadik is foolish, and toothless in the case of leasing land internationally. Its our law, I know, but its stupid. Are we going to deport the child born of an immigrant because the book says that child cannot be a citizen by virtue of being born on the land? What does it matter that one cannot claim citizenship when born on the land? Are those who claim citizenship going to execute the non entitled? Or am I missing something ... perhaps the lease contract will include "no sex among immigrant workers except when they become Kenyan citizens first".

Selective ignorance is perhaps a defense to some, and that's why Eastleigh is irrelevant here. I will soon start writing my book, about the Rwanda/Burundi that Kenya will be in a few generations to come, thanks to the Eastleigh recipe. I am speculating, so no need to argue with anyone over this.

Now this is contorted logic ....

If the proposed land is idle, then it should be leased to Qatar so as to develop it

Mr Balala said in a telephone interview with the Nation on Sunday. I know of lots of idle land in the United States of America ... by extension of Mr. Balala's logic this land "should be leased to Qatar so as to develop it"! Botswana has lots of idle land too, that ought be leased to Qatar for development.

[Daktari wa makazi]

I don't think there is any religious angle to leasing the said land to Qataris. If you guys are thinking, the lease is because the area is predominantly Muslims, you are very wrong. Tana River is mixed area with high population of Christians. The press coverage about 'religious leader' supporting the deal only had Sheikh Khalifa - who is a nominated MP, as far as I know. And of course the Coast Province as a whole and what used to be called the Tana River District has several non-Muslim MPs.

Where is the religious angle you are talking about? Let us not use places like here to simply attack Muslims baselessly.

Secondly, I don't think there is an Immigration issue to the deal. Assuming Qatar will bring its own people to manage farming - their children will remain Qataris - unless of course with Kenyan mothers - in that case it would not be any different from other foreigners who live and work in Kenya and have Kenyans spouses. I can assure you Qataris would rather be Qataris than be Kenyans.

The issues in this debate is and should

1. Mining rights
2. Rights of the local people
3. Restitution to locals and environment
4. Price of the deal/ gains from the deal

[politicalmaniac]

The lesson deriving from the Yala swamp irrigation scheme by the Americans should have been learnt!

Despite claims eti upto to 2B $ pumped into the project it seems to have left out the natives!, and not to mention the environmental degradation.

Also the Taita mineral exploitation by Tiomin...
Jameni these MKM rats are gnawing mercilessly at the National wealth without any inhibitions!

[mank]

Dec 22, 2008 7:35:41 GMT 3 Daktari wa makazi said:

I don't think there is any religious angle to leasing the said land to Qataris. If you guys are thinking, the lease is because the area is predominantly Muslims, you are very wrong. Tana River is mixed area with high population of Christians. The press coverage about 'religious leader' supporting the deal only had Sheikh Khalifa - who is a nominated MP, as far as I know. And of course the Coast Province as a whole and what used to be called the Tana River District has several non-Muslim MPs.

Where is the religious angle you are talking about? Let us not use places like here to simply attack Muslims baselessly.

Secondly, I don't think there is an Immigration issue to the deal. Assuming Qatar will bring its own people to manage farming - their children will remain Qataris - unless of course with Kenyan mothers - in that case it would not be any different from other foreigners who live and work in Kenya and have Kenyans spouses. I can assure you Qataris would rather be Qataris than be Kenyans.

The issues in this debate is and should

1. Mining rights
2. Rights of the local people
3. Restitution to locals and environment
4. Price of the deal/ gains from the deal

You are the one who implicated religion in the discussion. No one is attacking Muslims, except that you are entangled in religious biases so much that at the mention of a group of people who happen to be Muslims you will interpret that Muslims are under the attack.

Your selective topics of discussion are not irrelevant, but to me they are just part of the list. What I brought up is totally valid, but you can chose to ignore it.

[job]

From the scanty reports so far after Kibaki’s return from Qatar recently, reading between the lines carefully will reveal stark similarity between the Tana-Delta-land-for-Lamu-Port deal and the Exotic-Wildlife-to-Thailand-for-Game-Trainees deal aborted in 2005.


The common denominator in the deals is that they both involve PERSONAL INVESTMENT by a FOREIGN LEADER (Emir of Qatari and Prime Minister of Thailand respectively) with partnership from the local host LEADER, KIBAKI (not Government of Kenya).


Whereas the first sought to grab our wanyama wa msituni, the current scheme seeks to grab productive arable land in a sophisticated way.

Because basic facts such as the duration of the lease are already giving conflicting reports (ranging from 25 yrs to 99 yrs), the onus is for Kibaki and his spokesman Isiah Kabira to prove that the deal is not as stipulated below;



Deal between Kenya’s president Kibaki and Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani ensures that;

-No upfront leasehold FEE for downpayment is made to the Government of Kenya


-The PRIVATE PORT to be constructed at Lamu becomes a privately run venture belonging to the Qatari Emir (not Qatari Government) in partnership with Mwai Kibaki (not Government of Kenya)


-Arms-length distance away from the Lands Ministry of Kenya, totally disregarding the current comprehensive land reform policy, is kept from this land-lease project.


-Arms-length distance away from the Ministry of Agriculture is maintained.


-Arms-length distance away from the Prime Minister's office is maintained.


-99-year lease of 100,000 acres of arable, uncultivated and very fertile delta land with plenty of Tana River water for irrigation is expropriated from the ownership of the Government of Kenya to the leasehold of Emir of Qatari and his local host Mwai Kibaki


-The intended fruit and vegetable (horticulture) farming with industrial level pesticide and fertilizer inputs has no environmental safeguards to the surrounding ecosystem and river.


-No guarantee for local labor provision (cheap farm workers or specialist workers can be hired from anywhere at the discreetion of the two private owners)


-Additional sweetheart import concessions for farm inputs for this PRIVATE INVESTMENT will be granted by the Government of Kenya


-Pastoralists, who regard the land as communal and rear up to 60,000 cattle to graze in the delta each dry season, will now be kept out of bounds.

Can the Emir of Qatar and Mwai Kibaki prove that they are both not exploiting their own countries under the tide of the sudden rush by foreign governments and companies to secure food supplies in Africa?


These answers could shed some light as to why people had to die for Kibaki to cling onto power by all means irrespective of the election '07 outcome.

Then, very important.

Considering our history with colonialism and land expropriation that has led to the current massive landlessness and squatter mess.


Is this not another classic case of an emerging “neo-colonial” agricultural system that Jacques Diouf, director general of the UN's food and agricultural organisation (FAO), recently warned about?

The FAO analysis reports that the first overseas projects by Gulf companies in Sudan showed LITTLE LOCAL BENEFITS with more than 5 million previously sustained people forced to receive international food aid.

Similar failure by Daewoo (Korea) engaging in commercial farming in Madagascar holds true.


How will the situation in Kenya be different?

And while at it, can ODM's Najib Balala come out and prove that he has not been recruited for a hefty sum as a local salesperson for this project on behalf of Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani?

Just curious - after Balala's spirited support for the project, current dalliance with Kibaki and apparent dwindling standing within ODM's pentagon and grassroots.

Interesting times in an interesting nation.