MPs Reject Bill Seeking to Impose Tax on Ndengu: A Step Back for the Mung Bean Industry?

The Kenyan National Assembly voted against the Mung Bean Bill, 2022 during its second reading. This marked a significant development in the long-standing debate over the regulation and taxation of the mung bean, commonly known as ndengu. The decision comes at a time when discussions around agricultural reforms in Kenya have intensified, especially in the context of improving market access and regulating food security.

The Mung Bean Bill had sought to establish a comprehensive framework for the regulation of the mung bean industry. Proponents of the Bill argued that it would provide much-needed structure to an under-regulated sector, while opponents feared it would stifle small-scale farmers with burdensome regulations and financial penalties. While the National Assembly’s rejection does not signal the end of the bill’s journey, it has raised critical questions about how agricultural reform is handled in Kenya.

This article explores the broader implications of the rejection, the specific provisions of the bill, and the likely future of mung bean regulation in Kenya.

Overview of the Mung Bean Bill, 2022

The Mung Bean Bill, 2022 aimed to regulate the entire mung bean production chain—from farming to marketing and large-scale trading. At the heart of the proposal was the goal of formalizing an industry that has seen substantial growth in recent years. Mung beans, known locally as ndengu, are a staple crop in Kenya, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions where they provide a reliable source of protein and income for many smallholder farmers.

The Bill proposed a framework for implementing national policies that support the development and regulation of the mung bean industry. Central to its provisions was the requirement for individuals or entities involved in marketing, processing, or large-scale trading of mung beans to obtain a license from their respective county governments. Failure to do so would result in hefty fines or even imprisonment. The fines were capped at Sh1 million, while imprisonment terms could last up to two years.

A key component of the proposed law was the establishment of County Executive Committees (CECs) to oversee the issuance of licenses and to maintain a register of mung bean farmers within each county. These committees were to consist of public officials, representatives from the agriculture department, and a grower representative to ensure that farmers’ voices were heard. The Bill also left it to each county to determine the criteria for farmer registration, giving local authorities the freedom to adapt the law to their unique circumstances.

At first glance, the Bill seemed to promise enhanced coordination between farmers, processors, and markets. It would have streamlined the industry and encouraged compliance with industry standards, potentially leading to better product quality and increased export potential. But for many farmers, particularly small-scale producers, the Bill’s regulatory and financial burdens outweighed its potential benefits.

Opposition and Concerns Raised by Farmers

The most vocal opposition to the Mung Bean Bill came from small-scale farmers, who feared that the regulations would disproportionately impact their livelihoods. During the public participation stage, numerous farmers and stakeholders raised concerns about the financial and bureaucratic barriers that the Bill would introduce.

For small farmers, the requirement to obtain a license to sell their produce posed a significant challenge. Many feared that county governments would use the licensing process as an opportunity to collect excessive fees, making it harder for small-scale farmers to operate profitably. In addition, the Sh1 million fine for marketing or processing mung beans without a license was seen as an unnecessarily punitive measure that would discourage many from continuing in the industry.

The administrative requirements of the Bill, such as the maintenance of a register of mung bean farmers, were also criticized for being impractical. Critics argued that these provisions would create additional paperwork and red tape that would further complicate the lives of small farmers, who already face numerous challenges in accessing markets and obtaining fair prices for their crops.

These concerns were compounded by the Bill’s broader implications for food security. Ndengu is an important source of affordable nutrition for many Kenyans, particularly in rural areas. By imposing new regulations and costs on the mung bean industry, opponents of the Bill warned that it could lead to increased prices for consumers, exacerbating food insecurity in the country.

The Legislative Process and Rejection of the Bill

The rejection of the Mung Bean Bill at the second reading in the National Assembly was a pivotal moment in its legislative journey. The second reading is the first opportunity for MPs to debate the general principles of a Bill, and the fact that a majority voted against it signals significant opposition within Parliament.

Despite its rejection, the Bill is not entirely dead. Under parliamentary rules, a Bill that is rejected at the second reading can be reintroduced after six months, provided that it undergoes significant changes or reconsideration to address the issues that led to its initial rejection. The Mung Bean Bill, 2022 could therefore return to the legislative agenda, but it would need to be substantially revised to gain broader support.

Broader Implications for Agricultural Reform in Kenya

The rejection of the Mung Bean Bill raises broader questions about the direction of agricultural reform in Kenya. The country has long grappled with the challenge of modernizing its agricultural sector to improve productivity, market access, and export potential while ensuring that small-scale farmers are not left behind.

On one hand, there is a clear need for better regulation and coordination within the mung bean industry, as well as other agricultural sectors. Formalizing the industry could lead to better product quality, more transparent markets, and improved access to both domestic and international markets. On the other hand, there is a real risk that poorly designed regulations could hurt the very farmers they are meant to help by imposing new costs and bureaucratic hurdles.

The experience of the Mung Bean Bill echoes the recent controversy surrounding the Livestock Bill, 2024, which was also withdrawn earlier this year after facing significant resistance during public participation. Like the Mung Bean Bill, the Livestock Bill had sought to introduce new regulations for small-scale farmers, but it was ultimately seen as out of touch with the realities on the ground. Both cases highlight the need for more inclusive, farmer-friendly approaches to agricultural policy.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Mung Bean Regulation

While the rejection of the Mung Bean Bill marks a temporary halt to efforts to regulate the mung bean industry, it is likely that the issue will resurface in the near future. The fact that the Bill even reached the second reading stage indicates that there is political will to address the challenges facing the mung bean industry. The challenge moving forward will be to find a regulatory framework that balances the need for industry development with the realities of small-scale farming in Kenya.

One potential solution could involve greater input from farmers during the legislative process. By ensuring that the concerns of small-scale farmers are heard and addressed, lawmakers could craft a more tailored, less punitive framework that encourages industry growth without imposing undue burdens on those who are least able to bear them.

Additionally, there could be room for more flexible, county-specific regulations that take into account the unique challenges and opportunities in different parts of the country. Counties with more established mung bean industries could benefit from stricter regulations, while those with smaller or emerging industries could adopt a lighter-touch approach.

Conclusion

The rejection of the Mung Bean Bill, 2022 by the Kenyan National Assembly underscores the complexities of agricultural reform in Kenya. While the Bill aimed to bring much-needed structure to the mung bean industry, its provisions were seen as too burdensome for small-scale farmers. The debate over mung bean regulation is far from over, and as Kenya continues to grapple with the challenges of modernizing its agricultural sector, lawmakers will need to find a more balanced approach that promotes industry development while protecting the livelihoods of small farmers.

As the Bill heads to mediation, stakeholders in the mung bean industry will be watching closely to see how lawmakers respond to the concerns raised during the public participation process and in Parliament. For now, ndengu remains untaxed, but the future of the industry remains uncertain.