chapter 1: introduction 1

KENYA SUGAR BOARD STRATEGIC PLAN 2009

1

Acronyms iiiForeword ivExecutive Summary viChapter 1: Introduction 11.1 Overview of the Sugar Sub Sector 11.2 JustificationfortheStrategicPlan 61.3 TheProcess 71.4 OrganizationoftheStrategicPlan 7Chapter 2: Kenya’s Development Challenges: Global, Regional and National 8Chapter 3: Kenya’s Development Agenda 10Chapter 4: Role of the Kenya Sugar Board 134.1 Background 134.2 Mandate 134.3 Core Functions 134.4 Vision 144.5 Mission 144.6 CoreValues 144.7 PolicyPriorities 15Chapter 5: Situation Analysis 165.1 TheSWOTAnalysis 165.1.1 Strengths 165.1.2 Weaknesses 165.1.3 Opportunities 165.1.4 Threats 175.2 Lessons Learned 21Chapter 6: Strategic Issues, Objectives and Strategies 236.1 StrategicIssues 236.2 StrategicObjectives 25Chapter 7: Capacity 287.1 OrganisationalstructureandStaffing 28Chapter 8: Resource Flows 298.1 Funding 298.2 ResourceRequirements 308.3 RegularBudget 318.4 ResourceGapandStrategies 32

TABLE OF CONTENTS


2

Chapter 9: Implementation & Coordination Framework 329.1 ImplementationApproach 329.2 ImplementationStructure 329.3 AnnualOperationalPlans 339.4 QuarterlyReviewMeetings 339.5 Supervision 339.6 Servicedeliverysurveys 33Chapter 10: Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting 3410.1 MonitoringandEvaluation 3410.1.1 MonitoringMethodology 3410.1.2 EvaluationMechanism 3510.1.3 MonitoringandEvaluationFramework 35

List of Tables Table1.1:Production,Consumption,ImportsandExportstrends2000-2006 1Table1.2:NumberofPeopleEmployed2000-2006 2Table1.3:AreaunderSugarcane,AreaHarvested, Production,andAverageYield2000-2006 4Table1.4:FactoryPerformance2000-2006 4Table1.5:RatedCapacitiesoftheOperatingFactories 5Table5.1:StakeholderAnalysis 18Table8.1RevenueandExpenditure2001/02-2007/08 29Table8.2:KSBProjectedStrategicPlanResourceRequirements2008/09-2012/13 30Table8.3:KSBProjectedStrategicPlanResourceRequirements,2008/9-2012/13 31Table10.1:OverallLogicalFramework 36

List of Figures Figure1.1:Production,Consumption,ImportsandExportstrends2000-2006 2Figure1.2:NumberofPeopleEmployed2000-2006 3Figure1.3:RatedCapacitiesoftheOperatingFactories 5Figure7.1:KSBOrganizationalStructure 28

Appendix 1: Implementation Matrix 38


3

AcronymsCEO - ChiefExecutiveOfficerCOMESA - CommonMarketforEasternandSouthernAfricaCS - CompanySecretaryEAC - EastAfricaCommunityEACU - EastAfricaCustomsUnionEPAs - EconomicPartnershipAgreementsERS - EconomicRecoveryStrategyEU - EuropeanUnionFTA - FreeTradeAreaHa - HectaresHoA - HeadofAgricultureHoF - HeadofFinanceHoIA - HeadofInternalAuditHoP - HeadofPlanningHoST - HeadofSugarTechnologyHRM - HumanResourceManagementKEBS - KenyaBureauofStandardsKEPHIS - KenyaPlantHealthInspectorateServiceKESREF - KenyaSugarResearchFoundationKRA - KenyaRevenueAuthorityKSA - KenyaSugarAuthorityKSB - KenyaSugarBoardM&E - MonitoringandEvaluationMT - MetricTonesNEMA - NationalEnvironmentManagementAuthorityPC - PerformanceContractPR - PublicRelationsPRO - PublicRelationsOfficerSDF - SugarDevelopmentFundSDL - SugarDevelopmentLevySP - StrategicPlanSWOT - Strengths,Weaknesses,OpportunitiesandThreatsTC - TonesCrushedTCD - TotalCapacityWTO - WorldTradeOrganization


4

ForewordTheKenyaSugarBoardwhichistheapexBodyoftheKenyanSugarIndustryischargedwiththeresponsibilityofregulating,developingandpromotingtheKenyanSugarIndustry.Itisalsoco-ordinatestheactivitiesofindividualandorganizationwithintheindustryandfacilitatesequitableaccesstothebenefitsandresourcesoftheindustrybyallinterestedparties.

InviewoftheaboveandinlinewiththeGovernment’svisiontoconvertthesugarindustryintoavibrantcommercialenterpriseinlinewiththeNationalVision2030,KenyaSugarBoardaimsatre-engineeringtheKenyaSugarIndustrytowardslowercostofproduction,higherefficiencyandglobalcompetitiveness,whileguaranteeinganimprovedlivelihoodforthecommunitieswithinthesugarbelt.

KenyaisasignatorytotheEastAfricanCommunityCustomsUnion,COMESA,CotonouPartnershipAgreement(ACP-EU)arrangement(nowbeingreplacedwiththeEconomicPartnerAgreements–EPAs)andtheWTOAgreements.Sugarbeingacommoditytradedundertheseagreements,placesenormousresponsibilityandchallengeontheKenyanSugar Industryofensuring that it thrivesand remains relevantwithin thiscompetitivetrading environment.

Toaddressthisandeffectivelycarryoutourmandate,itisimperativethatwedevelopastrategicplantoidentifykeystrategicissuesthatneedbeemployedinaddressingthecurrentchallengesandenhancingoperationalandmanagerialefficienciesattheKenyaSugarBoardandallindustryinstitutions,whilemaintainingfocusontheprinciplesoftheNationalVision2030.

ThisstrategicdocumentisthereforeintendedtoguidetheBoardandManagement,asabenchmarkformonitoringandevaluatingprogressfromtimetotime.Inaddition,the strategic planwill be thebasis uponwhichannual performance contractswill bedrawn.

ThesuccessofitsimplementationwillhoweverrequirethecooperationandcommitmentoftheBoard,managementandstaff.Thereisneedtopooltogetherandharnesshumantalents,skillsandeffortsinordertogivemaximumreturnsprovideexcellentservicetoallourstakeholdersandplacetheindustryintheWorldClassdesiredposition.

R. MkokChief Executive OfficerKenya Sugar Board


5

AcknowledgementsTheKenyaSugarBoardhasmadetremendousprogressinthepastfouryearsdespitethemanychallengesitencounteredespeciallywiththetransitionfromthedefunctKenyaSugarAuthority toKenyaSugarBoard. Itwasalsoatatimewhenthesurvivalof theindustrywasthreatenedbyinherentchallengesinafastchangingcompetitivebusinessenvironment.

Thiswouldnothavebeensowithoutthecollaborativeeffortsofvariousindividualsandinstitutions whose input has been instrumental in the development of Kenya SugarBoard’sStrategicPlan.

IwishtothanktheGovernmentforprovidingaconduciveenvironmentwithinwhichtheindustryhasoperatedand theMinister forAgricultureHon.WilliamarapRuto forhissupportandPolicyguidancethathasenabledtheBoarddevelopboththeinstitutionaland industry Strategies.

Theprogressmadecouldnothavebeenachievedwithout thePolicyguidanceof theentireBoardandStrategicLeadershipoftheChiefExecutiveOfficer,R.Mkok.

I commend the management team and staff for their time and input in the initialstrategicplanningandreviewprocess.Theirvaluablecontributionswereofsignificantimportance.

Z. Okoth ObadoChairmanKenya Sugar Board


6

Executive Summary Thesugarindustryplaysasignificantroleinsocio-economicdevelopmentoftheKenyaneconomy.Thesectordirectlysupports200,000small-scalefarmerswhosupplyover85percentof thecanemilledbythesugarcompanies.AnestimatedsixmillionKenyansderive their livelihood directly or indirectly from the sugar industry. The industry isestimated toemploy some12,500Kenyans in sugarplantationsandsugar factories.Inaddition,theindustrysavesKenyainexcessofUS$250millioninforeignexchangeannually.Otherbenefitsaccruingfromtheindustryaresocialamenitiessuchasschools,roadsandbridges,healthfacilitiesprovidedtothecommunitiesbythesugarcompaniesand outgrower institutions.

Recognizingtheimportanceofthesector,theGovernmentandtheprivatesectorhavebeen involved in the promotion of the industry through direct investmentsmainly onfactories for processing caneandother related infrastructure. Currently, there are 8sugarfactoriesinthecountrywithacombinedcapacitytoprocess24,040TCD.However,despitetheseinvestments,self-sufficiencyinsugarhasremainedelusiveovertheyearsasconsumptioncontinuestooutstripsupply.Forinstancein2007,sugarconsumptionwas741,190MTcomparedtolocalproductionof520,404MTgivingashortfallof220,786MT.Ifthecurrentwayofdoingbusinessisnotradicallyreengineered,itisenvisagedthatby2012,productionwillhavegrownto578,615MTwhileconsumptionwillbeat794,844MTmaintainingthenationaldeficitat216,229MT.


7

The performance of the industry continues to face several challenges. The currentchallenges are; liberalization under the COMESA andWTO protocols, high costs ofproduction,poorstateofsomefactories,poorsupplyofchainmanagement,poorstateofroads,inadequateresearchdevelopmentandextensionservices.Otherchallengesare;insufficientfunding,unharmonisedindustryregulatoryframework,cheaperimportsand punitive tax regime.

Thisstrategicplanprovidestheroadmaptoaddressingtheseissuesandredirectingtheindustrytoprosperity.Itprovidesforanewdirectionwithavisiontopropelthesectortoaworldclassindustry.Thestrategicplantargetstoaddress8strategicissuesnamely;funding for the industry; value chain inefficiencies; privatization of the Governmentmills;infrastructure;diversificationandvalueaddition,costofproductionandcorporategovernance.

Thestrategicplanoutlinesseveralstrategicobjectivesthatwillbepursuedduringtheplan period in response to the identified issues. These are to facilitate the industryreformprocess;tostrengthenresearchanddevelopmentactivities;andtostrategicallyarticulate the Kenya sugar industry position to the relevant national, regional andinternationalauthorities.Otherstrategicobjectivesare;toestablishastrongcapitalbaseforKSBactivities;toimprovethequalityandimpactofservicesofferedtostakeholdersbytheBoardandfinallytoachieveacompetitivevaluechaintoenhanceefficiencyandproductivityintheindustry.Appropriatestrategiesandactivitiesareidentifiedtosupporttherealizationofthestrategicobjectives.

TheBoardwill require a total of Kshs. 479million to realize the strategic objectivesoutlinedinthestrategicplan.Theresourcewillbefromtheregularbudgetandothersourcesidentifiedinthestrategicplan.

Whereas theoverallguidancewith regard to the implementationof thestrategicplanremain theresponsibilityof the top leadershipof theBoard, itsactual implementationismainstreamed to theday-to-dayoperationand thereforeassigned to theHeadsofDepartment.Tofacilitatetheimplementationprocess,animplementationmatrixshowingthe activities, responsibilities and time frame is designed.A strategic planOversightCommittee to be chaired by the Head of Corporate Planning will be responsible formonitoring the implementationprogressandwill in turn report to theChiefExecutiveOfficer.Tofacilitatetheprocessofmonitoringandevaluation,anM&Emechanismwithalogicalframeworkisdesigned.


8

Chapter 1:

Introduction

Overview of the Sugar Sub Sector

The development of the sugar industry in Kenya started with private investments at Miwani in 1922, followed by Ramisi Sugar Company in 1927. After independence, six additional companies were established namely: Muhoroni (1966), Chemelil (1968), Mumias (1973), Nzoia (1978), South Nyanza (1979), West Kenya (1981) and Soin (2006). The establishment of the parastatals was driven by a national desire to (i) accelerate social-economic development; (ii) address regional economic imbalances; (iii) increase Kenyan citizen’s participation in the economy; (iv) promote indigenous entrepreneurship; and (v) promote foreign investments through joint ventures. This desire was expressed in the Sessional Paper No. 10 of 1965 on African Socialism and its Application to Planning in Kenya.

Despite these investments, self-sufficiency in sugar has remained elusive over the years as consumption continues to outstrip supply. Total sugar production grew from 368,970 tonnes in 1981 to an all time high of 520,404 tonnes in 2007. Domestic sugar consumption increased even faster, rising from 324,054 tonnes in 1981 to 741,190 tonnes in 2007. Consequently, Kenya has remained a net importer of sugar with imports rising from 4,000 tonnes in 1984 to 230,011 in 2007. The country’s annual National sugar deficit on average is 200,000 tonnes of sugar. There however exists potential for Kenya to become and retain self-sufficiency in sugar production and also produce surplus for export.

Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1 below shows sugar production and consumption trends in the period 2001-2008.

Table 1.1: Production, Consumption, Imports and Exports trends 2001-2007Year Production (MT) Consumption (MT) Imports Exports2001 377,438 630,065 249,336 3,6002002 494,249 652,129 129,966 12,0462003 448,489 663,780 182,225 11,3002004 516,803 669,914 164,020 11,5802005 488,997 695,622 167,235 21,7602006 475,670 718,396 166,280 13,5332007 520,404 741,190 230,011 20,8422008 517,667 751,523 218,607 44,332


9

Figure 1.1: Production, Consumption, Imports and Exports trends 2001-2007

Sugarcane is one of the most important crops in Kenya alongside tea, coffee, maize and horticultural crops. It directly supports 200,000 small-scale farmers who supply over 85% of the cane milled by the sugar companies. An estimated 6 million Kenyans derive their livelihood directly or indirectly from the sugar industry. The industry is rural-based benefiting the rural poor and significantly contributing to the achievement of one of the Millennium Development Goals on poverty reduction. The number of persons directly employed in the sugar factories has however been declining due to an emphasis on productivity and efficiency as shown in Table 1.2 and Figure 1.2.

Table 1.2: Number of People Employed 2001-2007Year Sugar Plantations Sugar Factories Total2001 3,497 5,379 8,876 2002 2,634 6,357 8,991 2003 2,853 5,776 8,629 2004 2,579 5,210 7,789 2005 2,870 5,243 8,1132006 2,692 4,686 7,3782007 2,182 4,797 6,6792008 2,163 5,158 7,321

100,000

2001Year

(MT)

2002

Production (MT) Consumption(MT) Imports Exports

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000


10

Figure 1.2: Number of People Employed 2001-2007

In addition to the regular employees, there were casual workers as follows:-

Year No.2001 8,4772002 2,7622003 17,484*2004 8,8752005 7,9152006 4,8662007 4,6382008 8,666

Source: Year Book of Sugar Statistics 2007* MSC had an expansion campaignTables 1.3 and 1.4 provide the sector performance for 2001-2007

1,000

2001Year

No. o

f peo

ple

Empl

oyed

2002

Sugar Plantations Sugar Factories

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000


11

Table 1.3: Area under Sugar cane, Area Harvested, Production, and Average Yield 2001-2007

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Area under cane(Ha) 117,131 126,826 122,580 131,507 144,765 147,730 158,568 168,421

Area under cane(Ha) 47,794 54,010 50,468 54,191 56,537 54,621 59,201 54,465

Production(Tonnes) 3,550,792 4,501,363 4,204,055 4,660,995 4,800,820 4,932,839 5,204,214 5,125,821

A v e r a g e y i e l d(Tonnes /Ha)

63.71 70.67 69.17 73.81 71.46 70.89 70.87 72.94

Table 1.4: Factory Performance 2001-2007

ITEM 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

1. PRODUCTION Sugarcane Crushed (TC) 3,689,571 4,576,335 4,312,991 4,805,887 4,845,384 4,889,529 5,202,360

Sugar Made (TS) 378,227 489,202 446,616 512,835 491,252 475,277 518,713

Sugar Bagged (TS) 377,438 494,249 448,489 516,803 488,997 475,670 520,404

Sugar Sold (TS) 337,567 475,386 485,215 523,224 466,959 491,076 498,341

TC/TS Ratio 9.75 9.35 9.66 9.37 9.86 10.29 10.03Rendement (sugar % cane) 10.25 10.69 10.36 10.67 10.14 9.72 9.97Molasses Produced (T) 126,605 161,487 146,402 163,989 168,975 170,940 174,707

Molasses % Cane 3.43 3.53 3.39 3.41 3.49 3.50 3.36

2. MILLING DATA

Pol Extraction (%) 87.64 90.75 90.9 89.94 91.26 89.99 90.88

4. TIME ACCOUNT Gross Grinding Time (Hrs) 8,760 8,760 8,760 8,784 8,760 8,760 8,760Average Actual Grinding time (Hrs) 4,163 5,134 4,746 5,357 5,239 5,452 5,266Factory Time Efficiency (%) 80.21 77.06 81.14 83.23 81.87 79.58 78.03

Overall Time Efficiency (%) 60.19 70.84 67.69 73.01 71.97 73.07 70.16

5. CAPACITY UTILIZATION (%) 45.71 66.55 53.58 59.73 60.18 59.61 58.91


12

The country has 8 operational factories with a combined crushing capacity of 24,040 TCD as detailed in Table 1.5 and Figure 1.3. By- products of sugarcane processing include molasses, baggase and filter press mud.

Table 1.5: Rated Capacities of the Operating Factories

Factory Original Capacity Current Capacity Proposed Expansion (TCD)1. Sony 2,160 3,120 6,5002. Miwani 800 - -3. Chemelil 800 3,360 4,2004. Muhoroni 800 2,200 6,5005. Mumias 1,250 9,200 9,6006. Nzoia 2,000 3,360 7,0007. WestKenya 250 2,500 3,5008. Soin 500 100 6009. Kibos 800 800 1,750

Total 9,360 24,640 39,650

Figure 1.3: Rated Capacities of the Operating Factories

Rated Capacities of operating factories

Original Capacity

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

0,000

12,000

Current Capacity Proposed (TCD)

Factories

Son

y

Miw

ani

Che

mel

il

Muh

oron

i

Mum

ias

Nzo

ia

Wes

tK

enya

Soi

n

Kib

os

Rat

ed C

apac

ity

The Board has also registered four new white sugar factories; Butali, Kwale International & Allied Ltd, Keiyan and Trans Mara Sugar Companies with a combined potential capacity of 3,000 TCD. During the period of the Strategic Plan, it is expected that an additional mill will be established in the Tana River Districts, along the coastal lowlands.In addition, there are four licensed and operational jaggery millers; Lubao, Shajanand, Farm Industries and Homa Lime Jaggeries, who produce a combined capacity of about 300 TCD.


13

Apart from these, there are many informal and mostly mobile jaggeries, in excess of three hundred, that each consume between 3 and 35 tonnes of cane per day. The importance of the jaggery mills to the economy is recognized as they provide employment to over 5,000 people and alternative market for sugarcane. However their regulation is a major challenge for the industry.

Domestic production of sugar saves the country in excess of US$ 250 million in foreign exchange annually. In the last five years, sugar contributed about 1.8% per annum to the National GDP, which in 2006/07 totalled Ksh. 26.7 billion.

Apart from the economic contribution of the sugar industry to the National Economy, there are many social benefits accruing to the communities in the sugar belt. Sugar companies and some outgrower institutions have embraced the principles of corporate social responsibility and have invested in social amenities, including schools, roads & bridges, health facilities, sporting facilities especially football clubs and environmental protection through reafforestation programmes and effluent treatment.

The performance of the industry however continues to face several challenges which include; liberalization under the COMESA and WTO protocols, high costs of production, poor state of some factories, poor supply chain management, poor state of roads, inadequate research, development and extension services. Others are; insufficient funding, unharmonized industry regulatory framework, cheaper import and punitive tax regime.

To improve efficiency in domestic production, pricing and marketing of sugar was liberalized in 1992. Further trade liberalization has been implemented under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and regional and bilateral trading arrangements under East African Community (EAC), Common Markets for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) Free Trade Area, and the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with the EU. These have the potential to precipitate stiff competition to the domestic sugar industry.In Kenya, sugar is still the core commodity produced from sugarcane. Value addition to the co-products of sugarcane processing i.e. molasses, bagasse and filter mud is still low keyed and largely unexploited. Major sugar-producing economies notably Brazil, Mauritius and Egypt, are diversifying to other enterprises e.g. ethanol and power co-generation.

1.2 Justification for the Strategic Plan

For the Board to remain relevant in the industry, it will need to develop, promote and facilitate the implementation of strategic objectives that will increase sugar production and productivity, reduce cost of production, expand the product base and benchmark with efficient sugar producers to attain world class standards. The Board will play a leading role in the intended privatization of government owned sugar companies.The strategic plan provides a roadmap for the Board to address industry challenges in order to make it competitive, profitable and vibrant.


14

1.3 The Process

The process of preparing this strategic plan was participatory and involved stakeholders. The following approach and methodology was adopted:

The KSB Board of Directors and management critiqued the Strategic Plan i) 2004-2007 and made recommendations for amendments.The KSB Board of Directors and management developed the draft Strategic ii) Plan 2007-2012.A Management Task Force was constituted to polish and fine tune the draft iii) Strategic Plan 2007-2012.Draft document circulated to Board, management and other stakeholders for iv) comments.Presentation of the fine tuned document to KSB Management and staff, Board v) of Directors and sugar industry stakeholders for their final comments.Stakeholders’ validation workshop.vi) Specific alignment with the National Vision 2030 as directed by the Office of vii) the Prime Minister and Ministry of State for Planning, National Development and Vision 2030.

1.3 Organization of the Strategic Plan

The strategic plan is presented in eleven chapters. The first four chapters give an overview of the National Development Agenda, introduction to the sugar industry and the role of the KSB in the context of this Strategic Plan. Chapters five up to eleven capture the Strategic issues, objectives, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the corresponding strategies. The implementation matrix is given as an appendix.


15

Chapter 2:

Kenya’s Development Challenges: Global, Regional and National

Being a member of the international community, any changes in the global and regional arena have a direct bearing on the national development agenda.

The on-going meltdown of the global economy and the credit crisis currently facing Europe and the Americas spells the beginning of bad times economically for Kenya and Africa at large. The expected effect will be in terms of access to credit, grants, donor support and cash remittance by Kenyans in diaspora.

Kenya faces the challenge of ensuring macroeconomic stability by continued implementation of prudent fiscal, monetary and exchange rate policy by:

Ensuring that overall Government deficit is sustainable and does not lead to •crowding out of private sector investment;Raising the revenues collected from 20.7% to 22% of GDP by 2015 despite •a reduction in the scope of raising taxes due to on-going EAC and COMESA liberalization;Continuing growth of expenditure while creating fiscal space through expenditure •rationalization to shift resources to priority areas eg. Flagship projects critical to the 2030 Vision.Reduction in the wage bill to 6% of GDP through engagement of a leaner more •efficient work force;

The gradual movement from a low income to lower middle and then upper middle income country will progressively reduce resources from concessional funding. There is therefore need for increased reliance on access to international financial markets for its financial needs as well as on non-debt creating foreign direct investment.

Targeted growth rate of 10% and above has been achieved by few countries, other than those with substantial endowment of natural resources. Extra effort and sacrifice will therefore be required by Kenya to rise to such targets.

With regard to the monetary policy, Kenya faces the challenge of:Maintaining a low and stable inflation, critical for long term economic development. •The target is below 5%. Ensuring a flexible exchange rate system that facilitates the economy’s •competitiveness in line with an export-led private sector driven strategy.Increasing Public and Private sector investment•Increasing gross national savings from 15.6% to 26% of GDP by 2012/13•


16

The growth in world population has led to an increased demand for goods. The challenge for Kenya within the global context is to increase production levels and quality of goods and services in the face of increased competition.

Integration into the EAC, COMESA and the WTO trading regimes will inevitably expose weak industries or sectors to competition from more developed and stronger ones as we grapple with the challenges of the end of the era of protectionism.

Kenya has to progress the structural reforms in governance and anti-corruption especially in the broad areas of prevention investigation, recovery of corruptly acquired assets and strengthening of prosecutorial capacity.

In order to attract investment in various sectors of the economy, infrastructure development is necessary in terms of reduction in cost of energy, power outages, telecommunications as well as water access and urban transport system. In the energy sub-sector there is need to improve on weak transmission and distribution infrastructure.

The use of technology and innovation will be a critical factor in rapid economic growth. This has been the experience in other countries which has achieved sterling growth eg. Korea, Malaysia, Finland and China. Kenya’s use of technology and innovation is still largely untapped.

Added to technology is the challenge of human resource development in terms of quality technical, industrial and entrepreneurial skills.

A key challenge that the country has to deal with is security. Poor security keeps investors out and away. In the financial tear 2007/08, companies spent 7% of total sales on security personnel and infrastructure which is constraining to growth. Major sources of insecurity are politically based and the availability of small light arms.

The Public Service holds the key to major economic and social transformation of the nation. Kenya must seek to transform the public service into a citizen focused, result oriented and dynamic body.


17

Chapter 3: Kenya’s Development Agenda

Kenya’s development agenda is anchored to three key pillars: Economic, Social and Political.

Economic pillarThe Agricultural Sector has been the engine of development with its percentage contribution to GDP dropping slightly in every subsequent year. The sector however remains largely unexploited with much potential still lying latent. Reforms in the Agricultural Sector must address the following key areas:Land reformsIncreasing productivity by transforming land use structuresLand use to ensure under utilized land is used to potentialImproving inefficiencies in the supply chain eg. Storage capacity lack of post harvest services and poor access to input markets.Value addition – increase competitiveness by processing and quality packaging

Retail and wholesale trade has grown marginally over time. With an expanded market to the wider East African Region and beyond, increased purchasing power of the population, growth in retail and wholesale trading could serve to progress Kenya’s development agenda. This could be addressed through enhancing forward and backward linkages to reduce wastages in the supply chain; promotion of producer based groups or associations to address the issue of fragmentation and informality; improving the business environment through removing barriers to trade such as entry barriers.

The tourism sector must be revamped in order to face to the competition by emerging destinations, notably Tanzania, South Africa and Egypt. Kenya must expand her global and African Market share by offering new products, expanding tourism expenditure per capita and improving her international marketing strategies through: increased hotel/bed capacity; product quality and diversity; improved security; strategic leadership and coordination; etc.

The manufacturing sector is growing but is grappling with the challenges of high input costs (raw materials, labour and energy); low productivity levels (low capital productivity); inefficient flow of goods and services (transport); unfavourable business environment (heavy regulation, weak trade agreements, lack of rigorous legal enforcement, insecurity, limited access to capital).

The Business process outsourcing and off-shoring sector in Kenya is a small and new part of the economy accounting for less then 0.01% of GDP. However, the global offshore market is expected to grow beyond US$ 100 billion in 2009 and Kenya will make efforts to gain a large share of this growing global BPO market. This shall be achieved by tackling the following challenges:


18

Basic infrastructure – high cost and unreliable telecommunications and energy •supply and lack of dedicated BPO facilities weaken the attractiveness of Kenya as a primary BPO destination;Talent pool – most workers need retraining•Lack of local supply base for international ICT and telecommunication firms•Lack of an incentive framework from the Government.•

Financial sector reforms shall be undertaken to increase mobilization of resources and allow for deeper penetration of banking services. The reforms will see improvement in efficiency, transparency and accountability in public financial expenditure, under a coordinated strategy.

Social pillarThe Education Sector is tasked with the role of providing the skills. The challenge is to develop human resource requirements for a rapidly changing and more diverse economy through provision of:

Provision of high standards of education in terms of education offered with •contents that are relevant to the economy and society;Rapidly raise the standards of education in regions that have previously lagged •behind to be at par with other areas;Improve the overall transition rates particularly from secondary to tertiary levels;•Create a cohesive society in built with a culture of hard work and efficiency and one •that values transparency, accountability, respect the rule of law and concerned about the environment.

Health care: Majority of Kenyans still do not have access to affordable health care. The challenge is to restructure the health delivery system and also shift the emphasis to preventive care in order to lower the nation’s disease burden.

Water and Sanitation: Kenya is a water scarce country with renewable fresh water per capita at 647m3 against a UN recommended rate of 1,000 m3. The challenge is to check and reverse the decline of fresh water per capita as it is estimated to drop to 235m3 by 2025, unless checked.

Environment Management: The planned development activities in Vision 2030 will inevitable generate large quantities of solid waste and increase the pollution levels. Additionally, an increase in urban population will impact adversely on the environment and therefore requires effective management to ensure sustainability. Strong policies will be required on the environment to sustain economic growth while minimizing the impact of rapid industrialization.


19

Gender, Youth and Vulnerable Groups: Vision 2030 mainstreams gender equity in all aspects of society and will be addressed in making changes to opportunity; empowerment; capabilities and vulnerabilities. Women are disadvantaged in accessing labour markets and productive resources. The challenge is to correct the glaring gender gaps in access to and control of resources, economic opportunities and in power and political voice. The youth (15-35 years) account for 38% of the population. Government interventions will cover the following areas: building capacity and empowerment to equip the youth to engage in productive activities; creating employment opportunities; providing the youth with the necessary support (financial and market linkages); supporting initiatives that mould character; strengthening programmes to advance youth health and well-being; and giving the youth a voice to articulate their issues as well as participate in decision making.

Housing: Providing Kenya’s population with adequate and decent housing in a suitable environment and come up with a guide or planned programme in urbanization and housing that is also consistent with the path of economic and social investments anticipated by Vision 2030.

Social equity and Poverty Reduction: Challenges include raising average annual incomes per person to US$ 3,000 from US$ 650 and avoiding the gross disparities while rewarding talent and investment risk in a manner that is deemed socially just.

Political pillarUnder this pillar, Kenya’s development agenda is to fight corruption, promote efficiency in public expenditure and improve revenue collection. The plan is to put in place a political system that is issue-based, people-centred, result-oriented and accountable to the public.


20

Chapter 4:Role of the Kenya Sugar Board

4.1 Background

Kenya Sugar Authority (KSA), the predecessor of the Kenya Sugar Board, was established under an Order of the Agriculture Act, CAP 318 through Legal Notice No. 32 of March 1973. It was predominantly a government–controlled organization, with farmers and millers represented on the Board. The Sugar Act of 2001 that established the Kenya Sugar Board (KSB) as a successor to KSA, came into operation in April 2002. This enhanced the role of stakeholders in policy making and regulation of the industry through Government and elected representatives to the Board.

4.2 Mandate The mandate of Kenya Sugar Board as stipulated in Section 4(1) and 4(2) of the Sugar Act 2001 is as follows;

Regulate, develop and promote the sugar industry.(a) Co-ordinate the activities of individuals and organizations within the industry.(b) Facilitate equitable access to the benefits and resources of the industry by all (c) interested parties.


21

4.3 Core FunctionsThe functions of the Sugar Board are stipulated in the Sugar Act 2001 with the following being considered core:

Participate in the formulation and implementation of overall policies, plans and (a) programs of work for the development of the industry.Act as an intermediary between the industry and the Government.(b) Facilitate the flow of research findings to interested parties. (c) Monitor the domestic market with a view to identifying and advising the government (d) and interested parties on any distortions in the sugar market.Provide financial, economic, technical, safety and environmental advisory services (e) to the growers, outgrowers institutions and the millers to achieve efficiency.Establish and implement guidelines on pricing of sugar cane and appropriation of (f) proceeds from the disposal of the co products between millers and growers. Represent the industry in such organizations as are relevant for the promotion of (g) the industry.Oversee the formulation of standard provisions governing the mutual rights and (h) obligations of growers, millers and other interested parties.Collect, collate and analyze industry statistics and maintain a database for the (i) industry.License sugar mills.(j)

4.4 Vision

Our Vision is to be the best facilitator and regulator of a World Class Sugar Industry.

4.5 MissionOur Mission is to provide effective leadership towards an efficient, competitive and sustainable sugar industry.

4.6 Core Values i) Service excellenceWe value our stakeholders and strive to exceed their expectations through excellent service delivery.

ii) CompetitivenessWe are committed to engaging in practices that ensure competitiveness in a global setting.

iii) TeamworkInordertomeetourgoals,wepractiseteamworktooptimizethesynergiesofindividualandcollectivehumanresourcetalentandcapacity.


22

v) EfficiencyWith a highly motivated and competitively remunerated staff, we ensure the optimum utilization of resources at our disposal to deliver quality and timely services to all stakeholders.

v) IntegrityWe uphold virtues of integrity through honesty, confidentiality and fairness in discharging our responsibilities.

vi) AccountabilityWe endeavour to manage the resources entrusted to us in a professional and transparent manner.

vii) Social responsibilityWe endeavor to be socially responsible to our stakeholders and society at large and pursue our goals through socially acceptable practices that preserve the environment, promote socio-economic development and add value to the society.

4.7 Policy Priorities This strategy will contribute to the productive sector interventions contained in the National Vision 2030. These are;

Increase sugar cane production and productivity•Increase sugar production•Diversify the industry product base through value addition•Promote legal and institutional reforms•Steer the sugar industry towards privatization•Streamline the industry supply chain management.•


23

Chapter 5: Situation Analysis

5.1 The SWOT Analysis

5.1.1 Strengths Competent human resource base within the organization♦Availability of industry database♦Regular inflow of income to fund core activities♦A conducive physical working environment♦A regulatory framework – Sugar Act 2001♦A Board of Directors that is representative of industry key stakeholders♦

5.1.2 Weaknesses Inadequate financial resource base•Inadequate computerized systems•Lack of effective internal communication•Heavy industry indebtedness•The nature of the Board election process that does not provide for election of •directors on rotational basis to ensure continuity and corporate memory

5.1.3 Opportunities Growth in domestic and export markets•Access to industry information•Facilitating investment in production and marketing of refined sugar•Room for value addition to co-products for enhanced competitiveness•Stable legal and regulatory environment•Restructuring and privatization of sugar industry •Classification of sugar as a sensitive commodity under the E.A. Customs •UnionExistence of potential and suitable land for cane development•Rivers in the sugar growing zones that could be used for irrigation•Extension of the COMESA safeguard period•Exploiting alternative sources of funding as provided for under Section 6 of •the Sugar A

5.1.4 Threats

Threat of growers switching to alternative cash crops leading to inadequate •supply of raw material and loan default;Millers closing down factories due to adverse trading environment leading to •massive unemployment and loan defaults;De-gazettement of the levy which would affect the main source of funding;•


24

Low priced sugar imports arising out of the EU reforms and Economic •Partnership Agreements (EPAs) leading to incapacitation of the local industry Government bureaucracy (slow process of addressing sensitive matters •pertaining to the sugar industry)Flaws in the Sugar Act 2001•Retrogressive land tenure system•Unpredictable weather patterns while relying on rain-fed agriculture•KSB perceived as cash-rich organization and therefore attracts diverse •interests from stakeholdersAdverse effects of Aids and HIV within the sugar industry•Punitive tax regime which has led to uncompetitive pricing, indebtedness and •cost inefficiency in the industryLack of strategic direction, corruption and mismanagement of some of the •industry institutions which has led to inability to meet set targetsWeak outgrower institutions•Poor roads infrastructure•Poor cane transport system•Poor recovery of SDF loans from the institutions•


25

Table 5.1 Stakeholder Analysis Stakeholder Functional

RelationshipsRole of stakeholder

Expectations of stakeholders

Relevant Department

1. Growers Crop production Qualitycropproduction

Adhere to given standards

Providetimelyand accurate data

TechnicalAdvisory•servicesAdviceonpolicy•implementationMonitor and advise on •caneavailabilityAdviceonoverallindustry•performanceMonitor and advice on •globaltrendsaffectingtheindustry

Agriculture/Planning

Funding cane development

Appropriate use of funds

Promptrepayment of loans

Timelyfinancingof•activities

Sugar DevelopmentFund/Audit/Finance/CS

Appropriate Technology

Adoption of appropriate technology

Provideequitable•mechanism for pricing of sugar cane and appropriation of proceeds fromthedisposaloftheby products of sugar production.Determine transport rates•

Sugar Technology/Agriculture

Training QualityManagement

Facilitaterelevanttraining•Training advisory services•

HumanResources

2. Millers Consumer of cane

Providesamarket for cane

Providetimelyand accurate data

TechnicalAdvisory•servicesAdviceonpolicy•implementationMonitor and advise on •caneavailabilityAdviceonoverallindustry•performanceMonitor and advice on •globaltrendsaffectingtheindustry

Agriculture/Planning


26

Stakeholder Functional Relationships

Role of stakeholder


Relevant Department

Funding of factory rehabilitationand infrastructure development

Appropriate use of funds

Promptrepayment of loans

Promptremittance of SDL

TimelyFinancingof•activities

Sugar DevelopmentFund/Audit/Finance/CS

Provisionoftechnicaladvice

Adherence to given standards

Infrastructuredevelopmentprojects

Licensing •Technicaladvisory•servicesGuideonthe•developmentandadherence to manufacturing standardsProvidetechnical•advise on infrastructure development

Sugar Technology/CS

Training QualityManagement

Facilitaterelevanttraining•Training advisory services•

HumanResources

3 KESREF ResearchandDevelopment

Carry out industrialresearch

Facilitatecollaborative•industrialresearchandlinkages.Adviceonpolicy•implementation

Agriculture

Sugar Technology

Funding research activities

Appropriate use funds

Providefundsfor•research

Sugar DevelopmentFund/Audit/Finance

4 GovernmentMinistries/Departments

Policyformulation,monitoring and evaluation

Policyguidance Adherencetopolicy• AgricultureCSSugar TechnologyFinance/Planning/Audit

5 Financialinstitutions

Providefinancialservices

Investmentoptions/opportunities

Credit agency

Business opportunities• Sugar DevelopmentFund


27


Role of stakeholder


Relevant Department

6 KRA Agent for collectionofSDL

Timelycollectionandremittance of SDLtoKSB

PhysicalVerificationofimported sugar

Timelysubmission of data on imports

Agency fee payment•List of importers and •exportersSugarproduction,sale•and stocks data

Sugar DevelopmentFund/Audit

7 KEBS Provideguidance on standards

Spearhead the developmenton industry standards

Ensure imported sugar complytostandards

Identifystandardneeds•for the industry

Sugar Technology/CS/Audit

8 NEMA Guidanceonenvironment,healthandsafety issues

Providepoliciesandlegalframework on environmentalhealth&safety issues and ensure compliance

Actasleadagencyon•environmentalissuespertaining to sugar industry.

Sugar Technology/HRM/CS/Audit

9 KEPHIS QualityAssurance

Certificationofseed cane

Certificationofqualitycaneasarawmaterialfor production of export sugar

Notificationofimports•and export of seed cane materialsNotificationofnewlocally•bred seed caneData on variety and crop •management practices

Agriculture

10 Importers/Exporters

Regulationofsugarimports/exports

Adhere to import/exportregulations

Registration•Monitorlevelsofimports•and exports and advise theindustryappropriately

Planning/CS

11 Consumers Providemarketfor sugar

Consume and pay appropriate taxes and levies

Facilitateadequateand•regularsupplyofsugarProvidemarket•information

Planning


28


Role of stakeholder


Relevant Department

12 Suppliers Providegoodsand services

ProvidePromptqualitygoodsand services

Facilitatepromptpayment•for services rendered

Sugar technology/Agriculture/Planning

Transporters Cane transport Efficienttransportation of sugar cane

Facilitatedeterminationof•fair transport ratesFacilitatemaintenanceof•roads

Sugar technology/Agriculture/Planning

13 Employees Servicedelivery Providetimelyandqualityservices

Conducive working •environmentCompetitive remuneration•Careerdevelopment•

HumanResources/Audit

5.2 Performance/Achievements of the Board

i) Corporate Governance Reform

Change in institutional management has led to better efficiency and profitability of the industry. Management of sugar industry institutions are now recruited on merit rather than political patronage as was the case previously. This has led to performance based management with improved operational profits by sugar companies.

ii) Debt Restructuring and Funding

The Board suspended interest and penalties on previous loans owed by farmers and millers to the Sugar Development Fund (SDF), amounting to about Ksh. 4.7 Billion, to enable them build their financial bases.

As at December 2007 the Board had disbursed over Kshs. 1.15 billion to farmers, being payment for the outstanding arrears owed by respective factories for the periods 1999 to 2006.

The SDF lending interest rate has been reduced from 10% to 5% per annum, as an incentive to cane farmers and millers.

iii) Research & Development

Research funding was stepped up in 2003 by 100% of the proportion allocated from SDL collected in order to enhance research, development and dissemination of appropriate technologies to the industry.


29

iv) Sugar Import/Export Regulation

In December 2003, the Government secured a four-year COMESA safeguard period from the COMESA Council of Ministers, within which to restructure the sugar industry and make it regionally and globally competitive. In 2008, an additional 4 years was granted to enable the Government successfully conclude its restructuring programs.

The Government gazetted the Sugar (Imports, Exports and By-products) Regulations 2008 to provide for the better management and monitoring of sugar trade. These were an amendment to the regulations gazetted in 2003.

v) Sugar Arbitration Tribunal

The Sugar Arbitration Tribunal has been formed to arbitrate over contentious issues that may arise in the industry. This is intended to engender harmony, mutual understanding and provide an amicable way to expeditiously handle disputes.

5.3 Lessons Learned

The KSB Strategic Plan 2004-2007 was fundamentally flawed and it proved difficult to implement, monitor and measure performance. It had a critical shortcoming in that it did not have an implementation matrix. Also missing were the annual action plans, time lines and parties responsible.

In the absence of SMART objectives, it was difficult to measure performance against targets. These shortcomings have been addressed in the 2008-2012 Strategic Plan, which has annual action plans that will form the basis for the annual Performance Contracts between KSB and the Government. The Board also intends to apply the Balanced Scorecard to measure performance against targets, and make it easier to keep performance on track.

Conspicuously absent from the 2004-2007 Strategic Plan was the linkage between KSB’s strategic objectives and the National Development Agenda. The new SP is cascaded from the Vision 2030 Medium Term Plan 2008-2012 and is therefore in tandem with the National Objectives.


30

Chapter 6:

Strategic Issues, Objectives and Strategies

6.1 Strategic Issues

i) SDL Funding Sugar Development Levy is a tax charged on sugar as determined by the Minister of Finance. The Levy is currently at 4% on both local and imported sugar (excluding imported refined white sugar) and so far the most competitive source of credit to the sugar industry and only source of funding for KESREF and KSB operations. This fund is however not adequate to meet all the funding requirements of the industry. It also poses the risk of over-reliance on one dominant source of funding.

Value Chain Inefficienciesii) In the current set up, the total industry supply chain has glaring inefficiencies that require both short and long term attention. The plan, in recognition of these shortcomings, has developed for implementation specific strategies that will address the total supply chain management in order to enhance competitiveness and sustainability.

iii) Privatization of Government-Owned MillsAll sugar companies in Kenya, with the exception of Mumias, Kibos and West Kenya Sugar Companies have majority government shareholding. The situation was precipitated by the drive by Government at the time of establishment of the mills for social-economic development of the rural areas.

Industry focus is now shifting towards commercialising enterprises with a drive for profit, hence the policy by Government to divest in order to pave way for private sector involvement in the development of the sugar industry. The sustainable development of the sugar industry is pegged on diversification and value addition to the products of the sugar industry, all of which are capital intensive.

Immediately after the privatization of Mumias Sugar Company in 2001, positive results on productivity were registered. West Kenya Sugar Company started off as a private investment and unlike the parastatal mills, has consistently posted profits.

The parastatal mills are debt ridden to the tune of Kshs. 58 billion as at 31st December 2007 and a prerequisite for privatization is the cleaning up of the debt portfolio. Specific proposals for individual parastatals mills have already been forwarded to Government for approval.


31

iv) Improvement of Roads Infrastructure

It is estimated that the cost of cane haulage from the farm to mill contributes about 35% of the total cost of cane which is considered too high. In order to drastically reduce this cost, the plan has identified key strategies for implementation which address the overall state of industry infrastructure and the requisite funding. The plan is, therefore, expected to spearhead change in the total management of infrastructure in the industry in order to improve efficiencies and reduce the cost of sugar cane production.

v) Diversification and Value Addition

In order to reduce over reliance on sugar as the only product of value from sugar cane processing there is need to diversify the industry product base. Apart from sugar the other main products of sugar cane processing are molasses, bagasse and filter press mud. Diversification and value addition to these by-products would increase the revenue streams accruing to the sugar industry.

vi) High Cost of Sugar Production

Production of cane in Kenya is expensive owing to high altitude and rain-fed agriculture, poor crop husbandry, high cost of transportation and farm operations, low technology adoption, inadequate research and expensive farm inputs. Because of poor recoveries arising from aged and poorly maintained equipment, poor management, high cost of finance and punitive tax regime sugar production is expensive. In order to address the high cost of production and achieve competitiveness, the total value chain will be analysed with a view to eliminating inefficiencies in the system.


32

vii) Corporate Governance

Poor corporate governance has been a problem in the industry. For efficiency and profitability of the industry, the reform process should be geared towards developing and implementing policies that will ensure that the principles of good corporate governance are instilled and maintained. This will ensure competitiveness and sustainability of the industry business enterprises and attract investment.

viii) Legal and Regulatory Framework

The industry is governed by various legal and regulatory statutes that sometimes conflict. These ought to be streamlined and harmonized to ensure that they serve the best interests of the industry.

The Sugar Act 2001 and its subsidiary legislation should also be reviewed to remove inherent impediments and create an enabling environment for the growth of the Industry.

6.2 Strategic Objectives

Strategic Objective 1: To Facilitate the Industry Reform Process

Strategies:

1.1 Implementation of change programmes that will lead the industry to attain self sufficiency, sustainability and competitiveness, with benefits accruing equitably shared among all the stakeholders.

1.2 Provide leadership of the industry towards product diversification, market orientation and consumer focus.

1.3 Institutionalize the development of industry strategic plan and operating policies to harmonize implementation of industry programmes/activities.

1.4 Play a leading role in the review of legal and regulatory framework to harmonize legislation governing the industry in order to ensure effective execution of stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities.

1.5 Privatization of the Government owned sugar factories.

Strategic Objective 2: To Strengthen Research and Development Activities

Strategies:

2.1 Adoption of research and development findings and technology transfer.2.2 Identify alternative sources of industry research & extension funding


33

Strategic Objective 3: To Strategically Articulate the Kenyan Sugar Industry’s Position to the Relevant National, Regional and International Authorities. Strategies:

3.1 Ensure effective representation of the industry at government level in the negotiation of trade protocols.

3.2 Rationalization of tariffs in EACU and COMESA union.3.3 Lobby for extension of safeguard period

Strategic Objective 4: To Establish a Strong Capital Base for KSB’ Activities Strategy: 4.1 Step-up levy and debt collection mechanisms.

Strategic Objective 5: Improve the Quality and Impact of Services Offered to Stakeholders by the Board

Strategies:

5.1. Attract, develop and retain skilled, competitively remunerated and highly motivated human resources

5.2. Facilitate the development of a coherent working culture.5.3. Review and streamline the Board functions and organization structure in

line with the strategic plan and Sugar Act 20015.4 Provide leadership for establishment of industry training institute5.5. Develop and implement industry agreements5.6. Implement KSB service charter5.7. Improve the management of loans and grants to the industry5.8. Development and implementation of a risk management policy for the

industry.5.9 Carry out annual technical audit of industry performance by multidisciplinary team5.10 Embrace ICT as a vehicle towards e-business for enhanced effectiveness/

facilitation of transactions.


34

Strategic Objective 6: Achieve a Competitive Value Chain to Enhance Efficiency and Productivity in the Industry

Strategies:

6.1. Domestication and adoption of global standards in cane production and processing to reduce cost of production.

6.2. Facilitate transition to quality based payment.6.3. Reduction of cost of sugar and sugar cane production.6.4 Collaboration with Ministry of Public Works and other agencies to improve

infrastructure


35

Chapter 7: Capacity

Organisational structure and Staffing1.1 The Board’s organisation structure currently comprises the Board of Directors and a management team headed by the Chief Executive. There are a total of 8 functional departments as shown below.Fig: 7.1 KSB Organizational Structure

BOARD OFDIRECTORS

COMPANYSECRETARY

HEADFINANCE

HEAD OFHUMAN

RESOURCE

HEAD OFAGRICULTURE

HEAD OFPLANNING

HEAD SUGARDEVELOPMENT

HEAD OFINTERNAL

AUDIT

HEAD OF SUGAR

TECHNOLLOGY

CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER

The current organisational structure has some gaps. The following functions/activities need to be strengthened when preparing the new organisational structure.

Information communication technology: ICT is a unit under the Finance Department. ♦KSB is seeking to upgrade this unit into a department in order to boost technology and innovation for the benefit of the entire sugar industry.Trade and marketing: KSB is seeking to create a unit to follow up on trade protocol ♦issues within the contest of regional integration and membership to the WTO. Supply chain: There are glaring weaknesses in the supply chain which lead to losses ♦within the system. To address these losses, KSB is seeking to establish a strong supply chain unit that will track the entire value chain for enhanced efficiency.PR/Corporate communication: The Board wishes to improve its corporate image and ♦enhance linkages with all her stakeholders, hence the need to strengthen the PR unit.Environment health and safety: It is mandatory that employees and customers of the ♦Board operate in an environment that guarantees their health and safety, hence the need to introduce the EHS unit.Risk management: Under the Internal Audit, a Risk Management Division shall be ♦established to implement the company’s risk management policy.Surveillance: The monitoring of sugar trade has been a weak aspect of the Board, ♦leading to entry into the domestic market of illegal sugar. The Board is strengthening the surveillance unit to address this weakness.


36

Chapter 8:

Resource Flows

Funding1.1 8.1.1 Sources

The operations of the Board are financed by a component of the Sugar Development Fund (SDF). The SDF was created in 1992 as a revolving fund for the promotion of the sugar sector. The fund is financed through the Sugar Development Levy currently at 4% on both locally manufactured and imported sugar (SDL on refined white sugar for manufacturing is 0%). The levy is utilized to fund the following programmes, in the proportions indicated below:

%a) Factory Development Rehabilitation 0.71b) Research and Extension 0.94c) Cane Development and Maintenance 0.66 d) Industry Infrastructure 0.29 e) Kenya Sugar Board (KSB) Administration 1.40f) Sugar Arbitration Tribunal and Sugar Strategic Reserve (This is subject to the passage of the Sugar Amendment Bill by Parliament) TOTAL 4.00The SDF has had significant impact on the development of the sugar industry. It has assisted farmers to increase the area under cane to the current 158,568 hectares in 2007. In addition, millers have accessed the funds for rehabilitation of the factories. Mumias, Nzoia, West Sugar Company and Sony have obtained grants for roads and infrastructure development from the SDF.

Table 8.1: Revenue and Expenditure 2001/02-2007/08

2002/2003KSHS’000

2003/2004KSHS’000

2004/2005KSHS’000

2005/2006KSHS’000

2006/07KSHS’000

2 0 0 7 / 2 0 0 8 KSH’000

(a)

KSB INCOME79,908 113,127 91,540 336,342 381,913 295,557

KSB EXP178,243 131,416 282,516 318,508 285,417 290,455

Surplus/Deficit(98,334) (18,288) (190.976) 17,833 96,496 5,102

(b)

SDF INCOME 1,480,773 1,786,550 1,932,993 2,218,724 2,518,557 1,788,614SDF EXP

307,9147 729,928 732,124 882,036 1,599,612 1,299,296Surplus/Deficit

1,172,858 1,056,621 1,200,869 1,336,687 918,946 489,318

Source: Audited Financial Statements


37

Resource Requirements 1.2 Implementation of the strategic plan activities over the next 5-year period will require a total of Kshs. 479.0 million as shown in Table 8.2. Out of this figure, Kshs. 28.0 million will be for the regular budget. The Board will require to raise a total of Kshs. 451.0 million from other sources.

Table 8.2: KSB Projected Strategic Plan Resource Requirements, 2008/9-2012/13

Item Strategic Objective

2008/9Kshs’000

2009/10Kshs’000

1010/11Kshs’000

2011/12Kshs’000

2012/13Kshs’000

Total Kshs’000

1 To facilitate the industry reform process

10,250 4,000 4,000 4,000 3,500 25,750

2 To strengthen research and development activities

4,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 1,600 11,000

3 To strategically articulate the Kenya Sugar Industry’s position to the relevant national, regional and international authorities

3,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 12,000

4 To establish a strong capital base

1,400 200 200 200 200 2,200

5 Improve the quality and impact of services offered to stakeholders by the Board

18,420 9,520 5,020 21,020 1,020 55,000

6 Achieve a competitive value chain to enhance efficiency and productivity

2,100 60,000 5,500 300,000 5,500 373,100

Total 39,970 77,520 18,520 329,020 14,020 479,050

Less Budgeted

- - - - - 28,000

Required - - - - - 451,050


38

Regular Budget1.3 Table 8.3 shows the projected budget for regular expenditure of the Board for the period 2008/9 to 2012/13. Over the 5-year period, the Board anticipates a total collection of Kshs. 2.02 billion out of which Kshs. 2.01 billion will be spent on regular expenditure leaving only Kshs. 18 million surplus.

Item

Des

crip

tion

2008

/9K

shs’

000

2009

/10

Ksh

s’00

010

10/1

1K

shs’

000

2011

/12

Ksh

s’00

020

12/1

3K

shs’

000

Tota

l K

shs’

000

%

Inco

me

344,

801

389,

671

409,

155

429,

612

451,

093

2,02

4,33

210

0O

verh

eads

S

taff

Cos

ts16

7,14

720

1,33

621

1,40

322

1,97

323

3,07

21,

034,

930

51.1

Dire

ctor

s’ E

xpen

ses

28,0

9230

,100

31,6

0533

,185

34,8

4515

7,82

77.

8M

otor

Veh

icle

Exp

ense

s10

,492

9,78

410

,273

10,7

8711

,326

52,6

622.

6C

omm

unic

atio

n E

xpen

ses

6,31

96,

800

7,14

07,

497

7,87

235

,628

1.8

Trav

ellin

g E

xpen

ses

25,4

3329

,396

30,8

6632

,409

34,0

3015

2,13

37.

5M

arke

ting

and

Pub

licity

E

xpen

ses

27,5

1629

,963

31,4

6133

,034

34,6

8615

6,66

07.

7

Est

ablis

hmen

t Cos

ts27

,220

28,4

2329

,844

31,3

3632

,903

149,

727

7.4

Ent

erta

inm

ent

2,51

42,

960

3,10

83,

263

3,42

715

,272

0.8

Pre

mis

es E

xpen

ses

12,0

9413

,971

14,6

7015

,403

16,1

7372

,311

3.6

Pro

fess

iona

l Fee

16,4

0016

,100

16,9

0517

,750

18,6

3885

,793

4.2

Insu

ranc

e97

095

099

81,

047

1,10

05,

065

0.3

Dep

reci

atio

n17

,481

16,0

9416

,899

17,7

4418

,631

86,8

484.

3F

inan

cing

Cos

ts20

119

020

020

922

01,

020

0.3

Tota

l Ove

rhea

ds34

1,87

938

6,06

740

5,37

042

5,63

944

6,92

12,

005,

876

99N

et S

urpl

us/D

efici

t2,

922

3,60

43,

784

3,97

34,

172

18,4

561

Tabl

e 8.

3:

KSB

Pro

ject

ed R

esou

rce

Req

uire

men

ts fo

r 200

8/9-

2012

/13


39

Resource Gap and Strategies 1.4 The strategic plan requires that the Board raises Kshs. 451.0 million from other sources to successfully implement all the activities. The Board over the five years will only generate a surplus of Kshs 18 million which could be applied to fill this gap leaving a shortfall of Kshs. 433 million. This gap will be met through a combination of different strategies;

Contribution from the outgrowers institutions and millers to fund some of the i) activitiesContribution from the SDFii) Saving from other expendituresiii) Development partners’ supportiv)

Ksh. 360 million required for cane testing units is expected to be sourced from the SDF. This drastically reduces the balance of funding to be sourced to finance the activities within the Strategic Plan.


40

Chapter 9:

Implementation & Coordination Framework

9.1 Implementation Approach

The strategic plan activities will be mainstreamed into the day-to-day activities of KSB. Departments will be responsible for implementation of the activities outlined in the strategic plan. The activities will be implemented over the 5 year plan period. The activities are sequenced to follow in a logical order. It is intended that activities which can be accomplished quickly at little investment outlays are implemented early so that quick wins are achieved; this is important so that all those involved are motivated to keep the momentum.

9.2 Implementation Structure An Oversight Committee chaired by the Head of Corporate Planning will be established to oversee implementation of the strategic plan. Heads of technical and service departments will provide regular reports on performance to the Oversight Committee that will in turn report to the Chief Executive Officer.

9.3 Annual Operational Plans The Heads of Departments will be expected to prepare annual operational plans for each of the interventions breaking down the activities into tasks. They will assign implementation responsibilities to individual officers, specifying the time frame and resource requirements. This will be the basis for drawing annual performance contracts.

9.4 Quarterly Review MeetingsThe Implementation Committee comprising representation from

Corporate Planning Department – to provide overall guidance, •

Sugar Technology Department – To facilitate implementation of all technical aspects •of the SP

Public Relations – To ensure that all the activities are geared towards enhancing •customer satisfaction and have the input of internal and external customers of the Board; and

Finance Department – To ensure that the activities in the SP are properly catered for •in the budget.


41

The Implementation Committee will hold quarterly meetings to review implementation progress. Any external factors negatively impacting on the implementation of the SP shall be reported to the Management, which through the CEO shall seek guidance from the Board of Directors.

9.5 Supervision Heads of Departments will be responsible for effective implementation and supervision of the strategic plan activities. They will ensure prompt submission of quarterly progress reports to the Implementation Committee.

9.6 Service delivery surveys The Implementation Committee will organize internal and external surveys on the level of service delivery.


42

Chapter 10:

Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting

10.1 Monitoring and Evaluation The strategic plan identifies several key output areas that should be pursued. For each output area, strategic interventions together with support activities have been identified. A lot of resources in terms of personnel and funds will be used and expected performance targets for each output areas are outlined.

During implementation of the strategic plan, KSB will need to monitor and evaluate the inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes to ensure that the strategic plan objectives are delivered as expected. There is need therefore to design an effective M&E mechanism.

10.1.1 Monitoring MethodologyThree methods will be applied to monitor the strategic plan implementation and performance; routine collection and analysis of data, supervision, and surveys.

i) Routine Data Collection and AnalysisMonitoring will involve routine data collection and analysis on the success or failure of the implementation of this strategic plan. The results from the analysis should then be used to inform decision making. This way, the objectives of the strategic plan will be reinforced through corrective measures when and if necessary.

Endorsement of the Indicators •For each of the output areas success indicators are identified. These indicators should be available to all those involved in the implementation of the strategic plan and be used for planning and M&E cycle.

Data Collection and Analysis•Data to be collected and analyzed at every level will be identified. The frequency of the data collection will be determined and responsibility for collection allocated.

Data Collection Tools •There will be need to adopt a uniform set of checklists, registers, reporting forms and other monitoring tools at all levels.

10.1.2 Evaluation MechanismThe strategic plan will be evaluated before, during and after implementation to ensure that it is feasible and produces the intended results. The evaluation will be carried out using the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact criteria.


43

The relevance criterion ensures that the strategic plan is addressing the policy priorities of the sector/government at all times. The efficiency criterion assesses the extent to which resources are used optimally while the effectiveness criterion assesses the extent to which the desired outputs are being achieved. Sustainability ensures that there is capacity to continue with the strategic plan while impact assessment is concerned with outcomes realization and positive contribution.

10.1.3 Monitoring and Evaluation FrameworkA logical framework showing the overall goal, purpose, outputs activities and inputs will guide the evaluation of the strategic plan implementation. The Logframe shows the objectively verifiable indicators the means of verification and the assumptions. The overall framework is shown in Table 10.1.


44

Nar

rativ

e su

mm

ary

Obj

ectiv

ely

verifi

able

indi

cato

rs

Mea

ns o

f ver

ifica

tion

Ass

umpt

ions

Ove

rall

goal

A w

orld

cla

ss s

ugar

indu

stry

Cos

t of p

rodu

ctio

n im

prov

es to

o

mat

ch w

orld

sta

ndar

ds.

Qua

lity

of s

ugar

is im

prov

ed to

o

mat

ch w

orld

sta

ndar

ds.

InternationalSugar

Organisation(IS

O)R

eports

TheGovernm

entw

illsupportthe

refo

rms

Stakeholderscollaborate

Purp

ose

of th

e St

rate

gic

Plan

Impr

ove

lead

ersh

ip fo

r an

ef

ficie

nt, c

ompe

titiv

e an

d su

stai

nabl

e su

gar

indu

stry

.

Ext

ent t

o w

hich

sta

keho

lder

s o

part

icip

ate

in p

lann

ing,

im

plem

enta

tion

and

M&

E im

prov

es10

0% o

f fun

ds a

lloca

ted

reac

h th

e o

bene

ficia

ry ta

rget

s

Sur

vey

repo

rts

Performancereports

M&

E re

ports

TheGovernm

entw

illsupportthe

refo

rms


Out

puts

1. T

he s

ugar

indu

stry

is r

efor

med

su

cces

sful

ly

1.1

Num

ber

of o

utgr

ower

com

pani

es

oper

atin

g pr

ofita

bly

1.2

Num

ber

of G

over

nmen

t- o

wne

d su

gar

fact

orie

s pr

ivat

ized

1.3

Num

ber

of s

ubsi

diar

y le

gisl

atio

ns

harm

oniz

ed

1.4

Num

ber

of p

olic

ies

impl

emen

ted

succ

essf

ully

1.5

Num

ber

of n

ew a

reas

on

suga

r pr

oduc

tion

and

co-p

rodu

cts

intr

oduc

ed

Annualreports


Developmentpartnerscollaborate

Fundsareavailable

Supportivelegislation

2. E

ffect

ive

res

earc

h an

d de

velo

pmen

t

2.1Num

berofresearchfindings

implem

ented

2.2Formalresearchfram

ework

establishedandused

2.3Researchfundsincrease

Annualreports

Sur

veys

Fundsareavailable

3. E

ffect

ive

repr

esen

tatio

n of

in

dust

ry p

ositi

on

3.1Num

berofsugarsectorposition

papersadoptedandim

plem

ented

3.2TheCOMESAFTAimportquota

exte

nded

3.3EACU/COMESAtariffsrationalised

Annualreports

Governm

entsupport

Fundsareavailable

Tabl

e 10

.1:

Ove

rall

Logi

cal F

ram

ewor

k


45

Nar

rativ

e su

mm

ary

Obj

ectiv

ely

verifi

able

indi

cato

rs

Mea

ns o

f ver

ifica

tion

Ass

umpt

ions

4. A

str

ong

and

sust

aina

ble

capi

tal

base

for

KS

B

4.1Num

berofnew

alternativesources

offundingtoKSB

4.2Governm

entapprovaltoundertake

alternativeinvestments

4.3Outstandingloanreducesby15%

annually

Annualreports

Governm

entapprovalletter

Governm

entsupport


5. Im

prov

ed d

eliv

ery

of s

ervi

ce

thro

ugh

mot

ivat

ed s

taff

5.1Improvedcustomersatisfaction

5.2Num

berofofficersmeetingtargets

incr

ease

s5.3Num

berofofficerstrained

5.4Num

berofofficeswithadequate

facilities

Customer/stakeholder

surv

eyPerformancereport

HRtrainingreports

Fundsareavailable

6. A

com

petit

ive

valu

e ch

ain

and

enha

nced

effi

cien

cy a

nd

prod

uctiv

ity

7.1Qualitybasedpaym

entsinplace

7.2Costofsugarcaneandsugar

productionreducedby10%

annually

Annualreports

Fundsareavailable

Stakeholdercollaboration


46

App

endi

x I:

Impl

emen

tatio

n M

atrix

Stra

tegi

c O

bjec

tive

1.0:

To

Faci

litat

e th

e In

dust

ry R

efor

m P

roce

ss

OU

TPU

T(T

arge

t for

5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et Y

2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

1.1

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

cha

nge

prog

ram

mes

th

at w

ill le

ad th

e in

dust

ry to

atta

in s

elf

sust

aina

bilit

y an

d co

mpe

titiv

enes

s,

with

ben

efits

ac

crui

ng e

quita

bly

shar

ed a

mon

g th

e st

akeh

olde

rs

Str

ateg

ic

plan

and

an

agre

ed c

hang

e P

rogr

amm

e fo

r 2

inst

itutio

ns

annu

ally

. 2

Sta

ndar

ds p

er

year

1.1.1Facilitatethe

developm

entof

indu

stry

pro

duct

ion

stan

dard

s ba

sed

on b

est p

ract

ice

and

ensu

re

implem

entation.

HOST/HOA/C

S

0.5m

(Bud

get)

1.1.

2 M

onito

r andevaluate

key

perfo

rman

ce

indi

cato

rs o

f su

gar i

ndus

try

institutions.H

oP/

HoS

T/HoA

1.5m

(Bud

get)

1.1.

2 M

onito

r and

evaluatekey

perfo

rman

ce

indi

cato

rs o

f su

gar i

ndus

try

inst

itutio

ns.

HoP

/HoS

T/

HoA

1.5m

(Bud

get)

1.1.

2 M

onito

r andevaluate

key

perfo

rman

ce

indi

cato

rs o

f su

gar i

ndus

try

institutions.H

oP/

HoS

T/

HoA

1.5m

(Bud

get)

1.1.

3 F

acili

tate

th

e st

ream

linin

g of

out

gro

wer

co

mpa

nies

into

vi

able

inst

itutio

ns,

thro

ugh

deve

lopm

ent o

f st

rate

gic

plan

s an

d ch

ange

m

anag

emen

t pr

ogra

mm

es.

SD

F/H

R/C

S/

HO

P/ H

OIA

-2.0

m

(Bud

get)

1.1.

2 M

onito

r and

evaluatekey

perfo

rman

ce

indi

cato

rs o

f su

gar i

ndus

try

inst

itutio

ns.

HoP

/HoS

T/

HoA

1.5m

(Bud

get)

1.1.

2 M

onito

r andevaluate

key

perfo

rman

ce

indi

cato

rs o

f su

gar i

ndus

try

institutions.H

oP/

HoS

T/

HoA

1.5m

(Bud

get)


47

OU

TPU

T(T

arge

t for

5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et Y

2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

1.2

Pro

vide

Le

ader

ship

of

the

indu

stry

to

war

ds p

rodu

ct

dive

rsifi

catio

n,

mar

ket o

rient

atio

n an

d co

nsum

er fo

cus

Qua

rter

ly

Mar

ketin

g F

orum

re

port

s

Qua

rter

ly r

epor

ts

on m

arke

t

Ann

ual r

epor

ts.

1.2.1Facilitate

ajointindustry-

mar

ketin

g fo

rum

. HoP

/PRO

1.25

m (B

udge

t)

1.2.

2 M

onito

r th

e do

mes

tic

and

inte

rnat

iona

l m

arke

t for

sug

ar

and

co-p

rodu

cts

HoP

5.0

m

(Bud

get)

1.2

.3 D

evel

op

and

mai

ntai

n a

data

ban

k on

op

port

uniti

es

on n

ew c

ane

grow

ing

area

s,

dive

rsifi

catio

n an

d va

lue

addi

tion

in

the

suga

r in

dust

ry

HO

ST

/HO

P/

HO

A

2.5m

(Bud

get)

1.2.

2 M

onito

r th

e do

mes

tic a

nd

inte

rnat

iona

l m

arke

t for

su

gar

and

co-

prod

ucts

HoP

5.

0m (B

udge

t)

1.2.

2 M

onito

r th

e do

mes

tic

and

inte

rnat

iona

l m

arke

t for

sug

ar

and

co-p

rodu

cts

HoP

5.0

m

(Bud

get)

1.2.

2 M

onito

r th

e do

mes

tic a

nd

inte

rnat

iona

l m

arke

t for

su

gar

and

co-

prod

ucts

HoP

5.

0m (B

udge

t)

1.2.

2 M

onito

r th

e do

mes

tic

and

inte

rnat

iona

l m

arke

t for

sug

ar

and

co-p

rodu

cts

HoP

5.0

m

(Bud

get)

1.3

Inst

itutio

naliz

e th

e de

velo

pmen

t of

indu

stry

str

ateg

ic

plan

and

ope

ratin

g po

licie

s to

har

mon

ise

impl

emen

tatio

n of

indu

stry

pr

ogra

mm

es/

activ

ities

.

Qua

rter

ly

indu

stry

pe

rfor

man

ce

repo

rts

Rev

iew

ed

stra

tegi

c pl

an.

1.3.

1 M

onito

r an

d ev

alua

te th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of

Indu

stry

str

ateg

ic

plan

s H

oP/A

ll D

epts

6.0m

(Bud

get)

1.3.2Reviewthe

suga

r ind

ustry

strategicplan.

HoP

/AllDepts

1.5m

(Bud

get)

1.3.

1 M

onito

r an

d ev

alua

te th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of In

dust

ry

stra

tegi

c pl

ans

HoP

/All

Dep

ts

6.0m

(Bud

get)

1.3.

1 M

onito

r an

d ev

alua

te th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of

Indu

stry

str

ateg

ic

plan

s H

oP/A

ll D

epts

6.0

m

(Bud

get)

1.3.

1 M

onito

r an

d ev

alua

te th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of In

dust

ry

stra

tegi

c pl

ans

HoP

/All

Dep

ts

6.0m

(Bud

get)

1.3.

1 M

onito

r an

d ev

alua

te th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of In

dust

ry

stra

tegi

c pl

ans

HoP

/All

Dep

ts

6.0m

(Bud

get)


48

OU

TPU

T(T

arge

t for

5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et Y

2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

1.4

Pla

y a

lead

ing

role

in th

e re

view

of

legi

slat

ive

fram

ewor

k to

ha

rmon

ize

legi

slat

ion

gove

rnin

g th

e in

dust

ry to

ens

ure

effe

ctiv

e ex

ecut

ion

of

stak

ehol

ders

’ rol

es

and

resp

onsi

bilit

ies.

Zer

o ra

ted

VAT

on s

ugar

Des

igna

tion

of s

ugar

as

sens

itive

pro

duct

un

der

CO

ME

SA

an

d W

TO

Sub

sidi

ary

legi

slat

ions

Com

plia

nce

1.4.

1 A

dvoc

ate

for

an in

dust

ry fr

iend

ly

tax

regi

me

to

redu

ce th

e ov

eral

l co

st o

f pro

duct

ion.

P

lann

ing

1

.5m

(B

udge

t)

1.4.

2 D

evel

op

and

faci

litat

e ga

zette

men

t of t

he

rele

vant

sub

sidi

ary

legi

slat

ion

of th

e S

ugar

Act

200

1.

CS

0.

5m(B

udge

t)

1.4.

3 M

onito

r an

d en

sure

com

plia

nce

to le

gisl

ativ

e re

quire

men

ts a

s pr

ovid

ed fo

r in

the

Sug

ar A

ct 2

001

e.g.

lice

nsin

g. S

DF

/C

S/H

OS

TH

OA

/HO

IA2.

5m (B

udge

t)

1.4.

1 A

dvoc

ate

for

an in

dust

ry

frie

ndly

tax

regi

me

to

redu

ce th

e ov

eral

l cos

t of

pro

duct

ion.

P

lann

ing

1.

5m (B

udge

t)

1.4.

2 D

evel

op

and

faci

litat

e ga

zette

men

t of

the

rele

vant

su

bsid

iary

le

gisl

atio

n of

th

e S

ugar

Act

20

01. C

S

0.5m

(Bud

get)

1.4.

3 M

onito

r an

d en

sure

co

mpl

ianc

e to

legi

slat

ive

requ

irem

ents

as

pro

vide

d fo

r in

the

Sug

ar

Act

200

1 e.

g.

licen

sing

. SD

F/

CS

/HO

ST

HO

A/H

OIA

2.

5m (B

udge

t)

1.4.

1 A

dvoc

ate

for

an in

dust

ry

frie

ndly

tax

regi

me

to r

educ

e th

e ov

eral

l cos

t of

pro

duct

ion.

P

lann

ing

1.5

m

(Bud

get)

1.4.

2 D

evel

op

and

faci

litat

e ga

zette

men

t of

the

rele

vant

su

bsid

iary

le

gisl

atio

n of

the

Sug

ar A

ct 2

001.

C

S

0.5m

(Bud

get)

1.4.

3 M

onito

r an

d en

sure

co

mpl

ianc

e to

legi

slat

ive

requ

irem

ents

as

pro

vide

d fo

r in

the

Sug

ar

Act

200

1 e.

g.

licen

sing

. SD

F/

CS

/HO

ST

HO

A/H

OIA

2.5

m

(Bud

get)

1.4.

1 A

dvoc

ate

for

an in

dust

ry

frie

ndly

tax

regi

me

to

redu

ce th

e ov

eral

l cos

t of

pro

duct

ion.

P

lann

ing

1.

5m (B

udge

t)

1.4.

2 D

evel

op

and

faci

litat

e ga

zette

men

t of

the

rele

vant

su

bsid

iary

le

gisl

atio

n of

th

e S

ugar

Act

20

01. C

S

0.5m

(Bud

get)

1.4.

3 M

onito

r an

d en

sure

co

mpl

ianc

e to

legi

slat

ive

requ

irem

ents

as

pro

vide

d fo

r in

the

Sug

ar

Act

200

1 e.

g.

licen

sing

. SD

F/

CS

/HO

ST

HO

A/H

OIA

2.

5m (B

udge

t)

1.4.

1 A

dvoc

ate

for

an in

dust

ry

frie

ndly

tax

regi

me

to r

educ

e th

e ov

eral

l cos

t of

pro

duct

ion.

P

lann

ing

1.5

m

(Bud

get)

1.4.

2 D

evel

op

and

faci

litat

e ga

zette

men

t of

the

rele

vant

su

bsid

iary

le

gisl

atio

n of

the

Sug

ar A

ct 2

001.

C

S

0.5m

(Bud

get)

1.4.

3 M

onito

r an

d en

sure

co

mpl

ianc

e to

legi

slat

ive

requ

irem

ents

as

pro

vide

d fo

r in

the

Sug

ar

Act

200

1 e.

g.

licen

sing

. SD

F/

CS

/HO

ST

HO

A/H

OIA

2.5

m

(Bud

get)


49

OU

TPU

T(T

arge

t for

5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et Y

2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

1.5

Priv

atiz

atio

n of

th

e G

over

nmen

t ow

ned

suga

r fa

ctor

ies.

App

rove

d fr

amew

ork

Suc

cess

ful

priv

atis

atio

n

1.5.1Developa

fram

ewor

k on

the

man

agem

ent o

f non-performing

loansCS/HOF-

0.5m

(Bud

get)

1.5.2Provide

technicalsupport

toGovernm

entin

the

priv

atiz

atio

n process.C.E.O-

0.5m

(Bud

get)

1.5.

2 P

rovi

de

tech

nica

l su

ppor

t to

Gov

ernm

ent

in th

e pr

ivat

izat

ion

proc

ess.

C

.E.O

-0.

5m (B

udge

t)

1.5.

2 P

rovi

de

tech

nica

l sup

port

to

Gov

ernm

ent i

n th

e pr

ivat

izat

ion

proc

ess.

C.E

.O-

0.5m

(Bud

get)

1.5.

2 P

rovi

de

tech

nica

l su

ppor

t to

Gov

ernm

ent i

n th

e pr

ivat

izat

ion

proc

ess.

C

.E.O

-0.

5m (B

udge

t)

1.5.

2 P

rovi

de

tech

nica

l sup

port

to

Gov

ernm

ent i

n th

e pr

ivat

izat

ion

proc

ess.

C.E

.O-

0.5m

(Bud

get)

Stra

tegi

c O

bjec

tive

2.0:

To

Stre

ngth

en th

e R

esea

rch

and

Dev

elop

men

t Act

iviti

esO

UTP

UT(

Targ

et fo

r 5

yrs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et

Y2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

2.1

Ado

ptio

n of

re

sear

ch a

nd

deve

lopm

ent f

indi

ngs

and

tech

nolo

gy

tran

sfer

.

Bi-a

nnua

l S

take

hold

ers

mee

tings

2.1.

1 F

acili

tate

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

res

earc

h an

d de

velo

pmen

t fin

ding

s. B

y H

OS

T/H

OA

/K

ES

RE

F

5.0M

(Bud

get)

2.1.

1 F

acili

tate

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

res

earc

h an

d de

velo

pmen

t fin

ding

s. B

y H

OS

T/H

OA

/K

ES

RE

F

5.0M

(Bud

get)

2.1.

1 F

acili

tate

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

res

earc

h an

d de

velo

pmen

t fin

ding

s. B

y H

OS

T/H

OA

/K

ES

RE

F

5.0M

(Bud

get)

2.1.

1 F

acili

tate

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

res

earc

h an

d de

velo

pmen

t fin

ding

s. B

y H

OS

T/H

OA

/K

ES

RE

F

5.0M

(Bud

get)

2.1.

1 F

acili

tate

the

impl

emen

tatio

n of

res

earc

h an

d de

velo

pmen

t fin

ding

s. B

y H

OS

T/H

OA

KE

SR

EF

5.

0M (B

udge

t)


50

OU

TPU

T(Ta

rget

for 5

yr

s cu

mul

ated

)O

UTP

UT

IND

ICAT

OR

UN

ITB

ASE

LIN

E YE

AR

(2

007/

08)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et

Y2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

2.2

Iden

tify

alte

rnat

ive

sour

ces

of in

dust

ry

rese

arch

& e

xten

sion

fu

ndin

g

Dev

elop

men

t P

artn

ers

.

One

res

earc

h P

rogr

amm

e ar

isin

g fr

om

linka

ge p

er

year

A

Res

earc

h F

ram

e w

ork

2.2.

1 E

ncou

rage

K

ES

RE

F P

repa

re

prop

osal

s fo

r re

sear

ch fu

ndin

g.

By

HO

ST

/HO

A/

HO

P/K

ES

RE

F

1.0M

(Bud

get)

2.2.

2 Id

entif

y th

e D

evel

opm

ent

part

ners

who

can

fu

nd r

esea

rch.

By

All

DE

PT

S/

KE

SR

EF

1.

0M (B

udge

t)

2.2

.3 F

acili

tate

lin

kage

bet

wee

n K

ES

RE

F

& p

oten

tial

Dev

elop

men

t pa

rtne

rs.

C.E

.O1.

0 M

(Bud

get)

2.2.

4 F

acili

tate

th

e cr

eatio

n of

a

form

al r

esea

rch

fram

e w

ork

for

the

Indu

stry

. BY

HO

A/

KE

SR

EF

/HO

ST

3.0M

(Bud

get)

2.2.

1 E

ncou

rage

K

ES

RE

F P

repa

re

prop

osal

s fo

r re

sear

ch fu

ndin

g B

y H

OS

T/H

OA

/H

OP

/KE

SR

EF

1.

0M (B

udge

t)

2.2.

2 Id

entif

y th

e D

evel

opm

ent

part

ners

who

can

fu

nd r

esea

rch.

By

All

DE

PT

S/

KE

SR

EF

1.

0M (B

udge

t)

2.2.

3 F

acili

tate

lin

kage

bet

wee

n K

ES

RE

F

& p

oten

tial

Dev

elop

men

t pa

rtne

rs C

.E.O

1.

0 M

(Bud

get)

2.2.

1 E

ncou

rage

K

ES

RE

F P

repa

re

prop

osal

s fo

r re

sear

ch fu

ndin

g.

By

HO

ST

/HO

A/

HO

P/K

ES

RE

F

1.0M

(Bud

get)

2.2

.2 Id

entif

y th

e D

evel

opm

ent

part

ners

who

can

fu

nd r

esea

rch

By

All

DE

PT

S/

KE

SR

EF

1.

0M (B

udge

t)

2.2

.3 F

acili

tate

lin

kage

bet

wee

n K

ES

RE

F

& p

oten

tial

Dev

elop

men

t pa

rtne

rs C

.E.O

(1.

0 M

)

2.2.

1 E

ncou

rage

K

ES

RE

F

Pre

pare

pr

opos

als

for

rese

arch

fund

ing

By

HO

ST

/HO

A/

HO

P/K

ES

RE

F

1.0M

(Bud

get)

2.2.

2 Id

entif

y th

e D

evel

opm

ent

part

ners

who

can

fu

nd r

esea

rch.

By

All

DE

PT

S/

KE

SR

EF

1.

0M (B

udge

t)

2.2

.3 F

acili

tate

lin

kage

bet

wee

n K

ES

RE

F

& p

oten

tial

Dev

elop

men

t pa

rtne

rs

C.E

.O

1.0

M (B

udge

t)

2.2.

1 E

ncou

rage

K

ES

RE

F P

repa

re

prop

osal

s fo

r re

sear

ch fu

ndin

g .

By

HO

ST

/HO

AH

OP

/K

ES

RE

F 1

.0M

(B

udge

t)

2.2.

2 Id

entif

y th

e D

evel

opm

ent

part

ners

who

can

fu

nd r

esea

rch.

By

All

DE

PT

S/

KE

SR

EF

1.

0M (B

udge

t)

2.2.

3 F

acili

tate

lin

kage

bet

wee

n K

ES

RE

F

& p

oten

tial

Dev

elop

men

t pa

rtne

rs.

C.E

.O

1.0

M (B

udge

t)


51

Stra

tegi

c O

bjec

tive

3.0:

To

Stra

tegi

cally

Art

icul

ate

the

Ken

yan

Suga

r Ind

ustr

y’s

Posi

tion

to th

e R

elev

ant N

atio

nal,

Reg

iona

l and

Inte

rnat

iona

l Aut

horit

ies

OU

TPU

T(T

arge

t for

5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et

Y2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

3.1

Ens

ure

effe

ctiv

e re

pres

enta

tion

of th

e in

dust

ry a

t go

vern

men

t lev

el

in th

e ne

gotia

tion

of tr

ade

prot

ocol

s.

Bi a

nnua

l re

port

s

Bi a

nnua

l re

port

s

3.1.

1 Lo

bby

Gov

ernm

ent

repr

esen

tativ

es

to e

nsur

e th

e S

ugar

Age

nda

as a

str

ateg

ic

com

mod

ity is

in

corp

orat

ed

in th

e in

tern

atio

nal a

nd

Reg

iona

l tra

de

nego

tiatio

ns.

HoP

/CS

/CE

O5.

0M (B

udge

t)

3.1.

2 Lo

bby

for

favo

urab

le

nego

tiatin

g po

sitio

ns w

ith

repr

esen

tativ

es

from

reg

iona

l su

gar

indu

strie

s w

ithin

the

resp

ectiv

e tr

adin

g bl

ocks

. HoP

/CS

/C

EO

5.0M

(Bud

get)

3.1.

1 Lo

bby

Gov

ernm

ent

repr

esen

tativ

es

to e

nsur

e th

e S

ugar

Age

nda

as a

str

ateg

ic

com

mod

ity is

in

corp

orat

ed

in th

e in

tern

atio

nal a

nd

Reg

iona

l tra

de

nego

tiatio

ns.

HoP

/CS

/CE

O 5

.0M

(Bud

get)

3.1.

2 Lo

bby

for

favo

urab

le

nego

tiatin

g po

sitio

ns w

ith

repr

esen

tativ

es

from

reg

iona

l su

gar

indu

strie

s w

ithin

the

resp

ectiv

e tr

adin

g bl

ocks

. HoP

/CS

/C

EO

5.0M

(Bud

get)

3.1.

1 Lo

bby

Gov

ernm

ent

repr

esen

tativ

es

to e

nsur

e th

e S

ugar

Age

nda

as a

str

ateg

ic

com

mod

ity is

in

corp

orat

ed

in th

e in

tern

atio

nal a

nd

Reg

iona

l tra

de

nego

tiatio

ns.

HoP

/CS

/CE

O5.

0M (B

udge

t)

3.1.

2 Lo

bby

for

favo

urab

le

nego

tiatin

g po

sitio

ns w

ith

repr

esen

tativ

es

from

reg

iona

l su

gar

indu

strie

s w

ithin

the

resp

ectiv

e tr

adin

g bl

ocks

. H

oP/C

S/C

EO

5.0M

(Bud

get)

3.1.

1 Lo

bby

Gov

ernm

ent

repr

esen

tativ

es

to e

nsur

e th

e S

ugar

Age

nda

as a

str

ateg

ic

com

mod

ity is

in

corp

orat

ed

in th

e in

tern

atio

nal a

nd

Reg

iona

l tra

de

nego

tiatio

ns.

HoP

/CS

/C

EO

5.0M

(Bud

get)

3.1.

2 Lo

bby

for

favo

urab

le

nego

tiatin

g po

sitio

ns w

ith

repr

esen

tativ

es

from

reg

iona

l su

gar

indu

strie

s w

ithin

the

resp

ectiv

e tr

adin

g bl

ocks

. HoP

/CS

/C

EO

5.0M

(Bud

get)

3.1.

1 Lo

bby

Gov

ernm

ent

repr

esen

tativ

es to

en

sure

the

Sug

ar

Age

nda

as a

st

rate

gic

com

mod

ity

is in

corp

orat

ed in

th

e in

tern

atio

nal

and

Reg

iona

l tra

de

nego

tiatio

ns. H

oP/

CS

/C

EO

5.0

M (B

udge

t)

3.1.

2 Lo

bby

for

favo

urab

le

nego

tiatin

g po

sitio

ns

with

rep

rese

ntat

ives

fr

om r

egio

nal s

ugar

in

dust

ries

with

in th

e re

spec

tive

trad

ing

bloc

ks. H

oP/C

S/

CE

O5.

0M (B

udge

t)


52

OU

TPU

T(T

arge

t for

5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et

Y2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

3.2

Rat

iona

lizat

ion

of ta

riffs

in E

AC

U

and

CO

ME

SA

un

ion.

Har

mon

ised

ta

riffs

3.2.

1 P

artic

ipat

e in

neg

otia

tions

H

oP/C

S/C

EO

1.0m

(Bud

get)

3.2.

1 P

artic

ipat

e in

neg

otia

tions

H

oP/C

S/C

EO

1.0m

(Bud

get)

3.2.

1 P

artic

ipat

e in

neg

otia

tions

H

oP/C

S/C

EO

1.0m

1.0m

(Bud

get)

3.2.

1 P

artic

ipat

e in

neg

otia

tions

H

oP/C

S/

CE

O1.

0m (B

udge

t)

3.2.

1 P

artic

ipat

e in

ne

gotia

tions

HoP

/C

S/

CE

O1.

0m (B

udge

t)3.

3 Lo

bby

for

exte

nsio

n of

sa

fegu

ard

perio

d

Ext

ende

d pe

riod

3.3.

1 N

egot

iatio

ns

with

CO

ME

SA

C

ounc

il of

M

inis

ters

.H

oP/C

S/C

EO

1.0m

(Bud

get)

Stra

tegi

c O

bjec

tive

4.0:

To

Esta

blis

h a

Stro

ng C

apita

l Bas

e fo

r KSB

Act

iviti

es

OU

TPU

T(T

arge

t for

5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et

Y2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

4.1

Ste

p-up

Lev

y an

d de

bt c

olle

ctio

n m

echa

nism

s.

Age

nts

appo

inte

d4.

1.1

Out

sour

ce

colle

ctio

n of

deb

ts

owed

by

indu

stry

in

stitu

tions

. (D

ebt

fact

orin

g, d

ebt

com

mis

sion

ag

ency

) S

DF

PM

/C

S0.

5m (B

udge

t)


53

OU

TPU

T(T

arge

t for

5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et

Y2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

Gaz

ette

d S

tand

ards

4.1.

2 In

crea

sing

su

rvei

llanc

e an

d m

onito

ring

of im

port

s an

d lo

cal

prod

uctio

n of

sug

ar. H

oP/

CS

1.0

m (B

udge

t)

4.1.

3 S

eek

legi

slat

ive

empo

wer

men

t to

gazz

ette

m

arke

ting

stan

dard

s fo

r im

port

ed s

ugar

:

i)

Lic

ense

pac

kagi

ng o

f su

gar

Str

engt

hen

a.

surv

eilla

nce

Str

engt

hen

b.

KS

B’s

deb

t co

llect

ion

unit

Reg

ular

aud

its a

nd

verif

icat

ions

for

Impo

rt le

vy

colle

ctio

ns H

oST

/CS

/HoP

/A

udit/

SD

F 0

.5m

(Bud

get)

4.1.

4 E

nsur

e th

at a

ll ou

tsta

ndin

g lo

ans

are

secu

red.

C

S/S

DF

PM

0.2m

(Bud

get)

4.1.

2 In

crea

sing

su

rvei

llanc

e an

d m

onito

ring

of im

port

s an

d lo

cal p

rodu

ctio

n of

sug

ar.

HoP

/CS

1.0

m (B

udge

t)

4.1.

2 In

crea

sing

su

rvei

llanc

e an

d m

onito

ring

of

impo

rts

and

loca

l pr

oduc

tion

of

suga

r.H

oP/C

S1.

0 m

(Bud

get)

4.1.

2 In

crea

sing

su

rvei

llanc

e an

d m

onito

ring

of im

port

s an

d lo

cal

prod

uctio

n of

su

gar.

HoP

/CS

1.0

m

(Bud

get)

4.1.

2 In

crea

sing

su

rvei

llanc

e an

d m

onito

ring

of im

port

s an

d lo

cal p

rodu

ctio

n of

sug

ar.

HoP

/CS

1.0

m (B

udge

t)


54

Stra

tegi

c O

bjec

tive

5.0:

Im

prov

e th

e Q

ualit

y an

d Im

pact

of

Serv

ices

Offe

red

to S

take

hold

ers

by th

e B

oard

.O

UTP

UT(

Targ

et

for 5

yrs

cu

mul

ated

)O

UTP

UT

IND

ICAT

OR

UN

ITB

ASE

LIN

E YE

AR

(2

007/

08)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et

Y2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

5.1

Attr

act,

deve

lop

and

reta

in s

kille

d,

com

petit

ivel

y re

mun

erat

ed a

nd

high

ly m

otiv

ated

hu

man

res

ourc

es

Sta

ff m

anua

l

Tra

inin

g ne

eds

repo

rt

5.1.

1 D

evel

op a

nd im

plem

ent a

hu

man

res

ourc

e m

anag

emen

t an

d de

velo

pmen

t pol

icy

and

proc

edur

es m

anua

l.H

RM

0.7m

(Bud

get)

5.1.

2 C

ondu

ct a

trai

ning

nee

ds

surv

ey to

asc

erta

in s

taff

trai

ning

an

d de

velo

pmen

t nee

ds.

HR

M

0.5m

(Bud

get)

5.1.

3 D

esig

n an

d de

velo

p ad

equa

te s

taff

trai

ning

and

de

velo

pmen

t pro

gram

me

in li

ne

with

iden

tifie

d tr

aini

ng n

eeds

.

HR

M

0.5m

(Bud

get)

5.1.

4 C

ondu

ct a

job

eval

uatio

n an

d be

nchm

ark

KS

B’S

re

mun

erat

ion

to th

e m

arke

t rat

es.

HR

M

0.7m

(Bud

get)

5.2

Fac

ilita

te th

e de

velo

pmen

t of a

co

here

nt w

orki

ng

cultu

re

Sat

isfa

ctio

n su

rvey

rep

or

All

staf

f tr

aine

d

5.2.

1 C

arry

out

an

empl

oyee

bas

e lin

e sa

tisfa

ctio

n su

rvey

. HR

M

0.7m

(Bud

get)

5.2.

2 C

ondu

ct o

rgan

isat

iona

l cu

lture

and

atti

tude

cha

nge

prog

ram

mes

. H

RM

2.

0m (B

udge

t)


55

OU

TPU

T(Ta

rget

fo

r 5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et

Y2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

5.3

Rev

iew

an

d st

ream

line

the

Boa

rd’s

or

gani

satio

n st

ruct

ure

in li

ne

with

the

stra

tegi

c pl

an a

nd th

e su

gar

Act

200

1

Rep

ort

Str

uctu

re

New

str

uctu

re

New

str

uctu

re

5.3.

1 C

arry

out

a r

evie

w o

f the

cu

rren

t str

uctu

re v

is a

vis

the

func

tions

. H

RM

2.0m

(Bud

get)

5.3.

2 D

evel

op a

str

uctu

re b

ased

on

the

core

func

tions

and

st

rate

gies

. HR

M 0

.1m

5.3.

3 Im

plem

enta

tion

of a

ppro

ved

stru

ctur

e.

HR

M

10.0

m (B

udge

t)

5.3.

5 C

oncl

usio

n of

act

iviti

es

requ

iring

go

vern

men

t ap

prov

als

rela

ted

to n

ew

stru

ctur

e H

RM

2.

0 m

(Bud

get)

5.4

Pro

vide

le

ader

ship

for

esta

blis

hmen

t of

indu

stry

trai

ning

in

stitu

te

Rep

ort

Rep

ort

Inst

itute

5.4.

1 C

ondu

ct d

ue d

ilige

nce

to

esta

blis

h in

dust

ry tr

aini

ng n

eeds

. H

RM

/HoS

T/H

oA

1.5m

(Bud

get)

5.4.

2 C

ondu

ct a

feas

ibili

ty

stud

y to

est

ablis

h th

e vi

abili

ty o

f es

tabl

ishi

ng a

trai

ning

inst

itute

H

RM

/HoS

T/H

oA

2.0

m (B

udge

t)

5.4.

3 Im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e st

udy

HR

M/H

oST

/H

oA

20.0

m

(Bud

get)

5.5

Dev

elop

and

im

plem

ent i

ndus

try

agre

emen

ts

Sig

ned

5.5.

1 F

acili

tate

neg

otia

tions

be

twee

n th

e pa

rtie

s to

the

agre

emen

ts. C

S/H

oST

/HoP

/HoA

2.

0m (B

udge

t)

5.6

Impl

emen

t K

SB

Ser

vice

C

hart

er

Cha

rter

Impl

emen

ted

Cer

tific

atio

n

5.6.

1 S

ensi

tise

stak

ehol

ders

. H

RM

/PR

O/C

S.

0.5m

(Bud

get)

6.2

Obt

ain

ISO

cer

tific

atio

n H

OIA

/H

RM

2.

0m (B

udge

t)


56

OU

TPU

T(Ta

rget

fo

r 5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et

Y2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

5.7

Impr

ove

the

man

agem

ent o

f lo

an a

nd g

rant

s to

in

dust

ry

-Effe

ctiv

e Lo

an a

nd

gran

t ag

reem

ents

5.7.

1 Ti

mel

y ap

prai

sal a

nd

disb

urse

men

t of l

oans

and

gra

nts.

S

DF

PM

/CS

/HoI

A.

0.2m

(Bud

get)

5.7.

2 E

ffect

ive

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

SD

FP

M/H

OP

/HoA

/H

oST

2.0m

(Bud

get)

5.7.

2 E

ffect

ive

m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatio

n S

DF

PM

/HO

P/

HoA

/HoS

T2.

0m (B

udge

t)

5.7.

2 E

ffect

ive

m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatio

n S

DF

PM

/HO

P/

HoA

/HoS

T2.

0m (B

udge

t)

5.7.

2 E

ffect

ive

m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatio

n S

DF

PM

/H

OP

/HoA

/H

oST

2.0m

(B

udge

t)

5.7.

2 E

ffect

ive

m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatio

n S

DF

PM

/H

OP

/HoA

/H

oST

2.0m

(B

udge

t)

5.8

Dev

elop

men

t an

d im

plem

enta

tion

of a

ris

k m

anag

emen

t po

licy

for

the

indu

stry

Man

uals

Pol

icie

s in

pl

ace

Aud

it re

port

s

Pol

icie

s in

pl

ace

5.8.

1 D

evel

op r

isk

man

agem

ent

man

ual H

OIA

/CS

/HoI

A

1.0m

(Bud

get)

5.8.

2 R

ecru

itmen

t/ Tr

ain

risk

man

agem

ent e

xper

t. H

RM

/HO

IA.

0.5

m (B

udge

t)

5.8.

3 C

arry

out

per

iodi

c ris

k m

anag

emen

t aud

it. H

OIA

0.5

m

(Bud

get)

5.8.

4 P

ut in

pla

ce in

sura

nce

polic

y sp

ecifi

c fo

r th

e ca

ne c

rop.

CS

/H

OIA

0.

5m (B

udge

t)


57

OU

TPU

T(Ta

rget

fo

r 5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et

Y2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

5.9

Car

ry o

ut

annu

al te

chni

cal

audi

t of i

ndus

try

perf

orm

ance

by

mul

tidis

cipl

inar

y te

am

5.9.

1 A

ppra

ise

and

up s

cale

the

qual

ity o

f our

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion.

HoS

T/H

OP

/HoA

/S

DF

PM

5.

0m (B

udge

t)

5.9.

2 Ti

mel

y pu

blic

atio

n an

d in

corp

orat

ion

to th

e w

eb s

ite o

f th

e in

dust

ry s

tatis

tical

info

rmat

ion

–PR

O

0.1m

(Bud

get)

5.9.

1 A

ppra

ise

and

up s

cale

th

e qu

ality

of

our

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion.

H

oST

/HO

P/

HoA

/SD

FP

M

5.0m

(Bud

get)

5.9.

2 Ti

mel

y pu

blic

atio

n an

d in

corp

orat

ion

to th

e w

eb s

ite

of th

e in

dust

ry

stat

istic

al

info

rmat

ion

–PR

O

0.1m

(Bud

get)

5.9.

1 A

ppra

ise

and

up s

cale

th

e qu

ality

of

our

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion.

H

oST

/HO

P/

HoA

/SD

FP

M

5.0m

(Bud

get)

5.9.

2 Ti

mel

y pu

blic

atio

n an

d in

corp

orat

ion

to th

e w

eb s

ite

of th

e in

dust

ry

stat

istic

al

info

rmat

ion

–PR

O

0.1m

(Bud

get)

5.9.

1 A

ppra

ise

and

up s

cale

the

qual

ity o

f our

m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatio

n H

oST

/HO

P/

HoA

/SD

FP

M

5.0m

(B

udge

t)

5.9.

2 Ti

mel

y pu

blic

atio

n an

d in

corp

orat

ion

to th

e w

eb

site

of t

he

indu

stry

st

atis

tical

in

form

atio

n –P

RO

0.1

m

(Bud

get)

5.9.

1 A

ppra

ise

and

up s

cale

the

qual

ity o

f our

m

onito

ring

and

eval

uatio

n H

oST

/H

OP

/HoA

/S

DF

PM

5.

0m

(Bud

get)

5.9.

2 Ti

mel

y pu

blic

atio

n an

d in

corp

orat

ion

to th

e w

eb

site

of t

he

indu

stry

st

atis

tical

in

form

atio

n –P

RO

0.1

m

(Bud

get)


58

OU

TPU

T(Ta

rget

fo

r 5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et

Y2(2

009/

10)

Targ

et Y

3 (2

010/

11)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

5.10

Em

brac

e IC

T as

a

vehi

cle

tow

ards

e-

busi

ness

fo

r en

hanc

ed

effe

ctiv

enes

s/fa

cilit

atio

n of

tr

ansa

ctio

ns

Hav

e an

in

form

atio

n m

anag

emen

t sy

stem

for

KS

B

5.10

.1 D

evel

op

and

ICT

stra

tegy

for

KS

B

5.10

.2 D

evel

op

an in

tegr

ated

in

form

atio

n m

anag

emen

t sy

stem

for

KS

BH

OF

/ICT

1 m

(Bud

get)

5.10

.3In

tegr

ate

the

KS

B

info

rmat

ion

syst

em w

ith

the

Por

t C

omm

unity

B

ased

Sys

tem

fo

r ef

fect

ive

shar

ing

of

info

rmat

ion

for

trad

e fa

cilit

atio

n.

5.10

.4

Impl

emen

t an

ele

ctro

nic

perm

its

issu

ance

sy

stem

fo

r su

gar

impo

rts

and

expo

rts

HO

P

5.10

.5To

war

ds a

pa

perle

ss

orga

niza

tion.

R

educ

tion

of p

aper

tr

ansa

ctio

ns

at K

SB

by

50%

CE

O/A

ll de

part

men

ts


59

Stra

tegi

c O

bjec

tive

6.0:

Ach

ieve

a C

ompe

titiv

e Va

lue

Cha

in to

Enh

ance

Ef

ficie

ncy

and

Prod

uctiv

ity in

the

Indu

stry

OU

TPU

T(Ta

rget

fo

r 5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et Y

2(20

09/1

0)Ta

rget

Y3

(201

0/11

)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

6.1

Dom

estic

atio

n an

d ad

optio

n of

glo

bal

stan

dard

s in

can

e pr

oduc

tion

and

proc

essi

ng to

re

duce

cos

t of

prod

uctio

n.

Rel

evan

t st

anda

rds

Rep

ort

Dom

estic

ated

st

anda

rds

6.1.

1 Id

entif

icat

ion

of

rele

vant

sta

ndar

ds

HO

A/H

OS

T 0.

5m (B

udge

t)

6.1.

2 C

ostin

g of

th

e va

lue

chai

n

HO

A/H

OS

T 1.

0m

(Bud

get)

6.1.

3 F

acili

tate

do

mes

ticat

ion

an

d ad

optio

n of

the

stan

dard

s H

OA

/H

OS

T0.

5m

(Bud

get)

6.2

Fac

ilita

te

Tran

sitio

n to

qu

ality

bas

ed

paym

ent

Sta

keho

lder

m

eetin

gs

Can

e te

stin

g un

its

Res

earc

h pr

ogra

mm

e=

6.2.

1 C

arry

out

a

pilo

t pro

ject

on

qua

lity

base

d pa

ymen

ts. H

OS

T 60

.0 m

(Bud

get)

6.2.

2 S

ensi

tizat

ion

of s

take

hold

ers

on

the

new

sys

tem

. H

OS

T2.

0 m

(Bud

get)

6.2.

3 E

stab

lishm

ent

of c

ane

test

ing

unit

as p

rovi

ded

in th

e S

ugar

Act

. HO

ST

300.

0 m

(Bud

get)

6.2.

4 P

riorit

ize

rese

arch

tow

ards

hi

gh s

ucro

se c

ane

varie

ty. H

OA

0.

5m (B

udge

t)

6.2.

4 P

riorit

ize

rese

arch

to

war

ds h

igh

sucr

ose

cane

va

riety

. HO

A

0.5m

(Bud

get)


60

OU

TPU

T(Ta

rget

fo

r 5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et Y

2(20

09/1

0)Ta

rget

Y3

(201

0/11

)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

6.3

Red

uctio

n of

cos

t of s

ugar

an

d su

gar

cane

pr

oduc

tion.

Gui

delin

es

Cos

t cen

ters

Mod

els

deve

lope

d

Pro

cure

men

t m

anua

l

Rev

ised

tax

regi

me

Sta

ndar

ds

Pro

cedu

res

Red

uced

sp

illag

e an

d co

st o

f tr

ansp

ort

- Im

prov

ed

qual

ity o

f can

e de

liver

ed

6.3.

1 F

acili

tate

the

deve

lopm

ent a

nd

impl

emen

tatio

n of

in

dust

ry g

uide

lines

in

sup

ply

chai

n m

anag

emen

t. C

S /H

oST

/HoA

/HoP

0.1m

(Bud

get)

6.3.

2 C

arry

out

the

stud

y to

iden

tify

cost

cen

tres

. HO

P/

HO

ST

/HO

A2.

0m (B

udge

t)

6.3.

5 Lo

bbyi

ng fo

r a

favo

urab

le ta

x re

gim

es. H

OF

0.5m

(Bud

get)

6.3.

7 F

acili

tate

bu

lk b

uyin

g of

farm

in

puts

and

fact

ory

cons

umab

les.

HO

A/

CS

1.0m

(Bud

get)

6.3.

3 D

evel

op s

elf

regu

lato

ry m

odel

s fo

r va

rious

cos

ts

cent

res.

HO

P/

HO

ST

/H

OA

0.

5m (B

udge

t)

6.3

.4 E

stab

lish

a pr

ocur

emen

t ad

viso

ry s

ervi

ces

unit

for

indu

stry

in

puts

. CS

1.0

m

(Bud

get)

6.3.

6 D

evel

op

benc

hmar

k co

st

stan

dard

s an

d tim

e fr

ames

for

the

indu

stry

. HO

Ag/

HO

ST

1.0m

(B

udge

t)

6.3.

8 F

acili

tate

th

e re

view

and

im

plem

enta

tion

of a

n im

prov

ed

cane

tran

spor

t sy

stem

. HO

A/

HO

ST

0.5M

(B

udge

t)

6.3.

9 P

rom

ote

adop

tion

of

irrig

atio

n su

gar

cane

pro

duct

ion

1.0m

(Bud

get)

6.3.

9 P

rom

ote

adop

tion

of ir

rigat

ion

suga

r ca

ne

prod

uctio

n1.

0m

(Bud

get)


61

OU

TPU

T(Ta

rget

fo

r 5 y

rs

cum

ulat

ed)

OU

TPU

T IN

DIC

ATO

RU

NIT

BA

SELI

NE

YEA

R

(200

7/08

)

BA

SELI

NE

VALU

E (2

007/

08)

Targ

et Y

1 (2

008/

09)

Targ

et Y

2(20

09/1

0)Ta

rget

Y3

(201

0/11

)

Targ

et Y

4 (2

011/

12)

Targ

et Y

5 (2

012/

13)

6.4

Col

labo

ratio

n w

ith M

inis

try

of

Pub

lic W

orks

and

ot

her

agen

cies

to

impr

ove

infr

astr

uctu

re

Roa

ds S

tatu

s R

epor

ts

App

oint

men

t

Am

ende

d la

ws

6.4.

1 C

arry

out

su

rvey

to e

stab

lish

the

stat

e of

roa

ds,

brid

ges

and

irrig

atio

n fa

cilit

ies

in th

e su

gar

cane

gr

owin

g re

gion

. H

OS

T 1.

0m (B

udge

t)

6.4.

2 Lo

bbyi

ng fo

r th

e ap

poin

tmen

t of

KS

B a

s an

age

nt

of K

enya

Roa

ds

Boa

rd. H

OS

T 0.

5m (B

udge

t)

6.4.

3 Lo

bbyi

ng

for

the

amen

dmen

t of

the

rele

vant

la

w to

allo

w

KS

B c

olle

ct a

nd

use

cess

for

infr

astr

uctu

re

deve

lopm

entC

S

0.5m

(Bud

get)

6.4.

3 Lo

bbyi

ng

for

the

amen

dmen

t of

the

rele

vant

la

w to

allo

w

KS

B c

olle

ct a

nd

use

cess

for

infr

astr

uctu

re

deve

lopm

entC

S

0.5m

(Bud

get)

chapter 1: introduction 1

Documents