“When the development of these regulations was being done, a stakeholders validation meeting was held for public participation and as stakeholders we agreed on a certain and specific amount to be paid as levy and for licence but what we had seen on the published document was quite different,” Mr Kimathi said.

The regulations had required traders to part with Sh30 for every kilogramme of miraa exported as levy and Sh20, 000 for a licence. The new regulations had also been met by opposition from the local authorities, with the former Meru County Governor Kiraitu Murungi threatening a legal suit to have the levy and the licence fees revoked.

The levies, he said, were out of reach for many traders. “Agriculture is a devolved function and there is no way we can be subject to regulations that were made without our input. They are illegal, unconstitutional, null and void,” Mr Murungi said at the height of the election campaigns. Jacob Manyara, a miraa vendor in Nairobi, said the new regulations had not sufficiently addressed the concerns of local market players.

“The government has done very little for miraa vendors. We have seen the both the national and county governments build markets for other vendors selling mangoes, vegetables and cereals but if you go to any part of the country, you won’t find even a shade or market built for miraa vendors,” said Mr Manyara, who has been a miraa vendor in Nairobi’s Eastleigh area for over 20 years.

The growth and development of any industry is determined by market forces. In Kenya Miraa producers have traditionally targeted domestic markets in major towns and export markets. Europe was the second largest market for miraa after Somalia prior to the ban in Netherlands in 2012 and United Kingdom in 2014. The major export markets before the ban were; United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

The decision by Britain to ban the export of the plant in 2014 led to the loss of incomes in the growing regions considering that Kenya fetched an estimated £12.7 million from the sale of miraa to the UK in 2010. According to AFA, closure of the miraa markets has been contributed largely due to the perception of Miraa as a drug of abuse, association of the commodity with the international control of cathine and cathinone under the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971).

There is also increased negative publicity from the civil society which enhances market barriers as well as competition from other producing Countries and the lack of organized production, handling, food safety and traceability standards.