Some of my blogs get more comments than others, and some of these comments come from unexpected sources. The blogs that always attract the most interest are when the subject of compensation for Zimbabwe-displaced farmers is mentioned. Sometimes, they are to correct me, sometimes to enlighten me on the facts, and some just voice an opposing view. All are welcome, although those with opposite views often prefer one-on-one exchanges rather than air them in public.
In mentioning the California fires, two sources, one by mail and one to my face, said the real cause of the problem and their spread was not the governance of the state or city but rather its past governance in that there were just too many people in an area unsuited for houses, being of steep slopes along with the prevalence of wooden houses. The houses are far too close together, I am told, coupled with the indiscriminate planting of non-indigenous trees such as Cyprus and Eucalyptus, more often than not overhanging the houses. Not unlike Portugal, but here, the homes are built with brick and mortar. I decided to Google it and came up with this surprising fact.
“90% of homes built in the USA in 2019 were wood-framed.” - The National Association of Home Builders
I read that the main reason for using timber is that in California, it is in an earthquake danger zone, and wood is much more flexible than steel or concrete in the event of a quake. My two informers, Gus Anderson from America and Valarie, who is visiting her sick brother Dan up the road from us, both have lived and or have family living in the area, said exactly the same thing: too many people, too many houses close together on slopes where it is difficult to control brush growth, further exacerbated with the planting of highly inflammable trees such as Eucalyptus and Cypress. I mention these enlightenments as my blog intimated I put much of it down to poor management of the state's departments.
These were easy comments to deal with or, in this case, to accept as corrections from people with personal knowledge. Not all are so. Unfortunately, some rebukes, if answered, will only lead to extended arguments with people with opposing views to my own. Best just to accept those views publicly and answer privately. I am probably trying to say a number of things here. Firstly, I really enjoy receiving comments; the more, the better. I especially welcome those who correct or disagree with me, and finally, as my blog is a personal record of how I recall and see things, I respect your comments as such. So, other than thank you for your comments, do not expect much more from me in the public domain if the subject is contentious.
“I do not doubt that in my old age, my prejudices have been strengthened rather than my enlightenment with access to the internet. No matter how contrary my perspective is, I will find support for it on the internet.” - Peter McSporran
In leaving the Commercial Farmers Union in 1996 and handing it over to Nick Swanepoel, I felt I was leaving an organisation that was respected locally and internationally. Importantly, I thought the farmers were well represented, getting value for their money, so to speak; no doubt some may differ in this. We had a close working relationship with the local agricultural unions and all the agricultural unions in the region, and our voice through the various commodity representations was heard through the International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP). It was even respected by the Government, often with civil servants entering our premises for advice from agronomy to finance. The union was in a strong financial position despite compulsory levy collection and membership being removed, both becoming voluntary. The agricultural college at Blackfordby was up and running, ZIMACE was successfully marketing our crops, and finally, but not least the Farmer Magazine, under strong management, was keeping our members well informed of the farming news, including the land issue. We had two sympathetic ministers in place who directly affected us, Dennis Norman at Agriculture and Kumbirai Kangai at Lands. What we had not resolved was the land issue despite our best efforts. We had succeeded in instituting regional land committees with our participation and Government to identify available land; however, despite the best efforts of some Government employees, the people awaiting resettlement and ourselves, the land had become a bargaining tool for Mugabe to at first try to extract further funding from the British for the purchase of land and resettlement and secondly, and more importantly for Mugabe and his cronies, a means to first award Mugabe’s supporters for their loyalty, and later to be more a bribe under the guise of the resettlement a promise of access to land for all to ensure his political survival.
Access to land had been a ‘cry to arms’ during the Bush War, and lip service was given to it for the first ten years following independence which was adequately funded by the British but flawed in its implementation. It soon fell into disarray. This was mainly due to a lack of funding for the actual resettlement and the lack of technical staff to provide extension support to the settlers, or the equipment and inputs to farm. The land was not the problem in the implementation of the program, it was the Government's own capacity to resettle it successfully. How better to take focus away from this inadequacy by instead blaming the non-existent shortage of land as being the major stumbling block in land reform? This failure was compounded by the greed of the politicos and their henchmen in grabbing the best-procured farms for themselves. It soon became a case of, “If he has land, I want land.” rather than trying to address the perceived injustices of the past by resettling bona fide farmers. The British then withheld the funds to support this ‘flawed and corrupt program’, further stimulating the lead-up to the land grab. There were other triggers as well, but as of 1996, they had not come into play, and we were still trying to work through the problem with the Government. We were still speaking.
Land designations were being challenged in the courts, and at that time in 1996, we at the CFU were still happy to support farmers taking this legal route. It was not a class action, but instead instigated by individuals, that is, those we could not get off the compulsory acquisition lists, which at that time was not of significant numbers, almost static in that year.
The greatest myth, both locally and internationally, was that the CFU opposed land resettlement and, in doing so, were withholding land from the program. On the contrary, every week, farms for sale would appear in the Farmer Magazine with the Government holding the right of first refusal. Further land was being identified by the regional land committees, much more than they could successfully resettle. I do not know of one farm the Government took up that year in a willing seller, willing buyer arrangement. To sell a farm, you had to have a letter from the Government of ‘no present interest’, which was still being issued before any sale could take place. Branch chairmen were continually frustrated in the lands committee by the seemingly politically motivated action of the Government identifying farms not for purchase rather than taking up those on offer. Further, the Government was sitting on a vast amount of previously purchased land, either unsettled or abandoned.
“In some quarters, there was and still is, a general assumption that no land was available due to white farmers refusing to give it up. Many have said and some still say, “If you had just given them some land, perhaps you would not have faced the consequences you brought upon yourself.” This is just not true. This lie, however, acts as an excuse for them to mitigate the guilt they feel about their inaction in supporting us in our fight to maintain our rights as citizens and landowners in Zimbabwe.” - Peter McSporran
I do not think I mentioned it before, but one of my sources on what was going on in Government regarding the land issue was Danny Stannard, who, although having left the CIO in 1992, still had good connections within the Government, especially its intelligence circles. It is said that once a spook, always a spook. I came to know him well as we both attended the 7am gym class at the Executive Gym during my tenure at the CFU. He informed me the land issue was political, driven from the top, not the bottom, and logic would not resolve it. Maybe the British could, but he doubted that us white farmers could. As those who knew him know, Danny had worked for both the Intelligence Services of Rhodesia and an Independent Zimbabwe, was trusted by Mugabe, having foiled a coup attempt on his life. Despite this knowledge, we persevered, hoping land issues would be resolved logically because they were critical to a stable economy.
Nick Swanepoel took over my role with Bob Swift as his deputy. Nick had gained the nickname ‘The Fixer’ within the CFU as he was what is known as street-wise. To be honest, I, like many at that time, thought he could keep a lid on the smouldering volcano, which was the land issue. Bob, I knew well, as chairman of the Cattle Producers Association and as a friend, so I thought I was departing the CFU, leaving a good team and a loyal staff in place to continue to represent the farmers.
“Any action can only be judged by what was known at the time. With hindsight, time and the actions of others can offer differing judgements.” - Peter McSporran
For me, it was back to the farm, like the release of a pressure cooker. It was probably much to the dismay of the farm managers and the staff that I could now appear at any time, not just early mornings or weekends. I was offered several positions on boards and other organisations, which I would have to consider. I had remained on the board of the Seed Co-op throughout my tenure at the CFU, and in 1996, it kept us busy as we were listed on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange that year. Being actively involved in the board of a company listing gave me a great insight into the business world and what drove it. Helpful for me in the not-too-distant future, but first some fishing.
Disclaimer: Copyright Peter McSporran. The content in this blog represents my personal views and does not reflect corporate entities.
Comentários