Is It a Judas Goat?
I have had a number of requests in relation to my thoughts on PROFCA and the Farm Compensation Agreement (FCA). It seems that many Title Deed Holders (TDHs) are so uncertain to the extent of confusion. Those desperate for any contribution to easing their financial hardships, no matter how small and see no alternative along with some who fear missing out on the only deal on the table as touted by the Compensation Steering Committee (CSC) are also considering the deal. The majority, like me, are suspicious, especially about the provenance of both PROFCA and the FCA. My major concerns are the following.
The sincerity of the Government. By far, my biggest concern.
The ability of the Government to find the money to pay (perhaps they will be happier with few that will still allow them to announce by fanfare that a ‘Global Deal’ with the farmers has been met without much financial exposure). After all this is a Government that regularly defaults on its debt obligations.
The fact that it is still linked to the Global Compensation Deed would, in their eyes, allow them to announce the previous, that is: a global settlement.
Why should I give up my title deeds when they claim they are paying for improvements not land?
The ability of the Government to deliver the required legislation through parliament. Why did they not do this before signing the agreement?
There is no proper legal opinion on its validity and a lack of full detail on procedures when default arises. Those within the agreement, like many of the clauses, are vague and far too simplistic.
Lack of transparency in the formation of PROFCA and the installation of its office bearers. Who is their constituency, and what is their mandate?
The professional video and hard-sell content set my alarm bells off. How could this group, unable to afford an independent legal opinion, afford this presentation? Where did the funds come from?
The integrity of some of the promoters may be questionable due to past actions and or vested interest.
Finally, last but not necessarily limited to, the pittance we will end up with, if actually paid, in real terms for our already hugely discounted improvements.
Remember, these are my personal misgivings; each individual, I am sure, will have considered these and many more before coming to a decision. That is to consider the benefits and risks analysis. I am concerned some will sign without being fully aware of their obligations and those of the government under the agreement. Get legal opinion on the FCA individually or in a group.
“One of my major concerns is that PROFCA may turn out to be a Judas goat, by default or intent, working on behalf of the Government. Leading the desperate like lambs to the slaughter while ensuring their own survival at the expense of all others.” - Peter McSporran
A piece of good news this week is the return to democracy this week at the CFU with a duly elected President and Vice President. Congratulations to Liam Philp and Daniel Burger.
"Getting the CFU to revert to its constitution was difficult; those involved, especially the council, in insisting on this have to be lauded. In the meantime, the task ahead for the new team will be arduous. Not least ridding us of those opaque cliques replacing them with inclusive, properly mandated teams to represent all.' - Peter McSporraan
Some Thoughts on Wilding.
What do you do when you are old and not so mobile due to illness? For me, much of my free time entertainment is spent watching podcasts on farming and fishing on the internet. I follow a number of individual farmer podcasts. I am often amazed at how candidly some of these podcasters outline their challenges, especially their tough times, often brought about by poor management decisions. I do not think I would have the candour to do this, and certainly do not have the technical ability to produce a podcast. In doing this, obviously, many of the external influences and problems outlined are caused by government bureaucracy with rules and regulations imposed on them with more cognition taken from the ‘Green Lobby’ than sound practical sense.
“Bureaucrats are not practical by nature. They see their role as creating academic solutions to perceived or real practical issues without having to implement them or work within them.” - Peter McSporran
Now farmers are being threatened by the new trend: wilding. That is the reintroduction of species perhaps extinct in Britain for many centuries.
Two already released in the UK and rapidly increasing in uncontrolled numbers are white-tailed eagles in the Western Isles and beavers more widely in the UK. In fact in the case of beavers, they are spread illegally by so-called nature-loving humans with large populations popping up in the most unexpected places. No planning and no thought of the consequences.
While the so-called advantages, real or unreal, are sung by their promoters, little attention is given to the problems they create, not just for farmers but the environment, be it on other species such as golden eagles in the case of white-tails or salmon, already endangered, in the case of beavers. Who has bothered to look at the extent of flooding attributable to beavers during the recent floods in the UK? The warnings given by the leadership of the National Farmers Union of Scotland seem to fall on deaf government ears and are met with scorn by the ‘Green Lobby’ who counter the sensible arguments by listing all the unproven advantages of their release. Mark my words, it will not be too far in the distant future when beaver culls will be demanded. Now they are lobbying for the release of lynx and wolves. How attractive will it be to the city dweller to go climbing the Munros if it is known wolves are around?
Like many other countries in Europe, here in the Iberian Peninsula, it is trying to boost the populations of wildlife, especially those species close to extinction and under threat. Unlike Britain, we have remaining small populations of lynx and wolves, although the majority of these survivors are to be found in Spain. As you may or may not know, wolves have become a real headache to sheep farmers in Germany, especially Bavaria, Switzerland and now even the Netherlands. Shooting of problem wolves is now already permitted in Bavaria.
“The ‘Green Lobby’ loves to quote the improvement in the environment wolves have had in Yellowstone Park. What they do not tell you is that Yellowstone in area is bigger than the whole of Argyll. Despite this huge area, the surrounding ranchers are encountering problems with predation of their livestock.” - Peter McSporran
Because of the terrain in Portugal and Spain where these species are still found, be it in low numbers, the old traditional way of herding sheep and goats still prevails. That is, they run in flocks with shepherds in attendance while day and night sheep guard dogs are present, the dogs living alongside the sheep. That is, the sheep are protected from predators twenty-four hours a day.
This is not the case in the UK where sheep are either in fields or hefted on the hills. As with the red deer, numbers increase, these proposed predators to be released would soon find themselves benefitting from the farmer's livestock. I presume even hill cows would be vulnerable to wolves. The problems for farmers brought about by the introduction of these species, especially wolves, in the UK will be more similar to countries north of us here in Portugal. They soon become an unwanted pest affecting farmers' income. Goodness, farmers have enough problems with dogs worrying sheep, let alone what would happen with the release of wolves.
Early 1993.
As it is New Year in my recounting of my life story, I will leave 1992 behind and step into 1993. It is hard to believe it has been over thirty years since I took office at the Commercial Farmers Union (CFU). Much of what I remember is rather vague other than large events such as an International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP) meeting in Turkey and a trip to Tunisia and Chicago, which I will cover later.
In early 1993, Anthony Swire-Thompson became more agitated, as I did, in securing the CFU’s future with the fast-approaching free market under the Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP). I was to learn, as all vice presidents of the Union would before and after me, that it was our role to do things while the president led. To this end, on top of my usual jobs and looking at marketing, I was now in charge of a committee to look into the union's future funding. I remember Phil Brink, Selby Chance and xxx were on this committee, plus others I do not remember. Part of our concern was that the wealthier commodity associations would look more to their investments to sustain them rather than their levy from members. Something that would be hard to collect outside of controlled marketing. We felt if this happened the relevance of the union to its members was in danger of falling away. It was interesting at the time that even minor associations, if unable to join as full members, wished to be affiliated with the union while larger associations wanted more independence.
“When you require money, rules are acceptable, while when you don’t require money, they become an unwanted burden.” - Peter McSporran
Some of these smaller associations included horticulture, wildlife, ostriches, sheep, goats and even crocodiles. Some of these would develop into full members, as did horticulture and wildlife.
Funnily enough, these smaller associations seemed to bring an unequal share of headaches and work. Like all new enterprises, the legislation and laws pertaining to their industries, especially in regard to licences and phytosanitary requirements, were often at odds with what was required for their growth and success. I remember the times spent procuring aircraft space and just trying to get the Government to recognise that wildlife production could be a business. When it came to land designation, it was not treated as such. In the early days, a lot of game ranchers found themselves on the lists for possible procurement for resettlement as underutilised land despite most of these being in the more arid areas of the country unsuitable for cropping.
In 1993 the list started appearing on a more regular basis and despite assurances that underutilised, derelict or foreign-owned land would be the only land taken, highly productive farms kept appearing on these lists. It seems that underutilised land was now land used for cattle and not just game ranching. Believe it or not, at that time, the Minister of Agriculture, Kumbirai Kangai was approachable and very helpful. Unfortunately, some individuals within the hierarchy of the ruling party saw compulsory land acquisition as a means to obtain land at no cost to themselves. Therefore, although trying to be seen as being helpful, Kangai would have his own challenges within the Politburo. Kangai was very candid in saying the below, a good lesson for me.
“What I tell you today is the truth, but tomorrow it may not be.” - Kumbirai Kangai
What he meant was that what was the rule today may not be so tomorrow, especially on the whims of Mugabe, the President and his henchmen. No individual Minister had the right to make assurances to anyone without the fear of it being overturned in the Politburo.
Some individuals had already taken over farms, hence the reticence of the British government to continue funding the land resettlement program. If I remember correctly, Brian Latham exposed Minister Made, amongst others, in acquiring more than one farm for themselves under the guise of being for resettlement. Anthony was always at pains to point out to the Government that it had obtained six-figure hectarages of land still unsettled, so why did they need more land, he questioned. Further, the land was the cheap part; the cost of resettlement and sustaining these farmers would be much greater. This wasn't true in reality as once resettled on the land these ‘New Farmers’ got no support in the form of extension, training or finance to grow crops, let alone capital for infrastructure and equipment. The whole exercise by 1993 had proven to be a failure, especially as many allocated land were urban dwellers already with existing jobs. Many in fact were in Government employ as they seemed to be able to get precedence over the rural dweller, genuine peasant farmer or war veteran. We at the CFU were aware that land was always going to be a highly sensitive political issue, but as yet, the Government, rather than addressing it properly, was at that time looking after its own individual interests. Mugabe and his family were to become, over time, one of the largest landholders in the country.
I should perhaps mention that the journalist, Brian Latham, got hold of the story about the ‘chefs’ being allocated land and exposed Made and others on the front page of the paper he was editor of, the Daily Gazette. Brian and many other journalists had the freedom to visit my office, unlike Anthony’s. Those who did had to present their questions before the interview with him. Being journalists, they never stuck to this rule. I think that was Anthony and my main and probably only different view on how to deal with issues. I thought open doors, he thought closed doors. I presume he had had a bad experience at some time, of which I have no knowledge.
Disclaimer: Copyright Peter McSporran. The content in this blog represents my personal views and does not reflect corporate entities.
Another good one Mac. Living history is great as you depict it. Yes, Kangai faced some tough challenges. But…he was ZANU-PF too.