The Onslaught On European Farmers.
I said I would update you on my health this week, but I lied. This is because my appointment with the surgeon is late Friday afternoon, and my cousin Linda Hamilton and her husband Robert are visiting us this week. I see little time Friday night to include any news on that front before posting this blog. Meanwhile, I have a lot of other useless trivia stored in my brain to make up for this omission.
The first thing I would like to mention regarding 'Farmer Protest' is to bring to the attention of those yet not aware of Ben Freeth's 'Long Ride For Justice', which is an individual trek by him from his destroyed homestead on Mt Carmel farm in the Chegutu district of Zimbabwe to Windhoek, Namibia, where the regional court of justice, the Southern African Development Community’s SADC Tribunal, was based up until its closure in 2012. Mugabe instigated its closure after his Government lost the 'Campbell and Others' case brought against him and his Government. The Tribunal may be closed, but the ruling still stands in the statute books, and Ben, in travelling by horse, hopes to raise awareness of the requirement of reinstating the Tribunal to offer access to justice for all the peoples of Southern Africa. He is now in the final leg in Namibia, receiving huge support and recognition for his efforts in that country. I do not know Ben well, although I am acquainted with him. However, all who know him are only too well aware of his courage, fortitude, and belief in God and justice. His protest is both sedate and peaceful, unlike what is going on in Europe, but is certainly getting attention. I suggest a visit to his blog. https://www.mikecampbellfoundation.com/post/long-ride-for-justice
I thought following on from Ben's individual action, I would write about the plight of farmers in Europe, not just the EU, but farmers generally. As you may well know, there have been sporadic protests against many bureaucratic rules imposed by or planned to be propagated by their respective Governments. In the meantime, economically, farmers are being squeezed on price by the supermarkets, with their products often having to compete with cheap imports. They are cheap mainly because their producers do not have the challenges faced by European farmers, be it in the use of pesticides, labour welfare, paying a living wage, livestock welfare and not least environmental costs, some being applied under the banner of sustainable agriculture.
“It would seem to me sustainable agriculture in its present interpretation no longer necessarily includes farmers, who have been the guardians of the countryside from time immemorial while ensuring everyone was fed.” - Peter McSporran
I have just picked a few examples to give you an insight into some of the crazy legislation being imposed or about to be implemented on farmers. The most visible protests over the last few years have been the Dutch. Why? Despite transport and industry being the biggest producers of nitrate oxide, the Dutch government wanted to reduce nitrogen emissions by telling the farmers they must cut their livestock holdings by half. Notwithstanding, the government wants to buy up productive farms or simultaneously force farmers to set land aside, this plan would impact on the individual farmer's viability. Many would be forced out of business. I am not saying the Dutch would starve; - after the United States, the Netherlands is the second largest agricultural export producer. The leading importers are other EU countries and many of the Middle Eastern countries. What will they do when they cannot source from the Netherlands, of course, you know import from further afield and in doing so export their pollution to those countries. Out of sight, out of mind seems to apply to the ‘Green Lobby’ who are happy to get rid of their own country’s farmers to the benefit of the delinquent states with no regard to the environment, the general population or animal welfare. The EU has set aside $1.6 million to pay out farmers for voluntary sales and compulsory appropriation if necessary. As we know, the Government fell in Holland trying to implement this. It will be interesting to see what is in store for the Dutch farmers in the future. The green crusaders are unlikely to give up easily despite the threat to thousands of farmers' livelihoods.
The Welsh government, not to be outdone by the Dutch, has been more innovative in its battle against the farmers. Their plan is the Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS) and its guidelines, which are supported by a whole book of rules thought up by a combination of green lobbyist sentiment and bureaucrats. In these guidelines, they are suggesting that Welsh farmers should set aside ten per cent of their land to trees and ten percent to wildlife habitat. A whopping twenty per cent to be taken out of a farmer's production, be it intensive dairy fodder production, crops or rough grazing, it does not matter. Not many of us know that the average farm holding in Wales is only forty-eight hectares (120 acres). How many would remain viable with a twenty per cent reduction in production, let alone without compensation? How much production would be lost and how many jobs would be lost? That is not answered, nor has anyone within the Government thought it necessary to quantify. Added to this are the stupid rules; for instance, a hawthorn bush in a hedgerow does not count but if it’s a plantation it does. They plan to get rid of the farmers by putting them out of business. It is proposed grants and subsidies to farmers who do not comply with the rules will be withheld. Let's hope common sense returns before this SFS is applied.
“It is obvious from much of the legislation regarding farmers and their use of their land has nothing to do with their sustainability, although this word is used constantly by the policymakers who have no understanding of the true meaning of the word and its possible implications if misapplied.” - Peter McSporran
State of Play on Land in Zimbabwe 1993 and A Meeting with Mugabe.
On returning from Namibia in mid-1993, the issue of marketing, with the demise of the marketing boards, was the main one. However, this was to be taken over by land, now a political tool being used against the British to extract further funding, all at the expense of the white Zimbabwean commercial farmer and in truth the country as a whole. It should be said that this was not recognised by many at that time, especially those not involved in agriculture.
At the end of April, a further seventy farms were added to the list of the original three hundred, some of which had been designated and others which were voluntarily sold. We constantly queried the government why they wanted to designate land when farms were being advertised for sale every week in the Farmer Magazine and local press. Each and every one of those farms required a ‘Certificate of No Present Interest’ from the Government, which had to be given first refusal by law before you could advertise, let alone sell your property. I had bought my Mazowe farm, Rydal, with such a certificate as it was purchased after the enactment of this Statutory Instrument.
I took the time to visit some of the land taken over by the Government at the end of the war in the Mtoko, Murewa, and Hoyoyo areas, and my personal findings were the same as those of all who had visited other resettlement areas. It was a disaster. When many families were placed on a commercial farm, disputes immediately occurred amongst the benefactors on who could take what asset. As there was rarely agreement, sheds and buildings were dismantled for their roofing sheets, timber and anything else that had value. Electric cables and copper piping were highly valued as they could find a ready market. Then, there would be arguments over who should pay the electricity bill to run the borehole, let alone repair it. Many farms in the dry season had no perennial water, so relied on boreholes. This was all compounded if a diesel generator had been the source of electrical power on the property. Good land was carved up, and often homesteads (huts) were built in the middle of good arable fields along with cattle kraals and access tracks. No technical support was offered to the farmers, let alone support to purchase inputs; therefore, crops were as poor if not poorer than those found in the communal (tribal) areas. By the end of 1993, a very disturbing trend started to appear: the few senior politicians taking land were now the many. By the year's end, it was proven some six hundred commercial farms taken for resettlement were in the hands of ‘chefs’ despite Mugabe's ruling that party members should not benefit from the land resettlement exercise. He and his family, despite his own rules, were to become the biggest benefactors of the exercise. Some of the farmers on the latest list were high-profile individuals such as Max Rosenfels, who happened to be an MP for his home district in Figtree and Ronnie Pascoe from Shamva, an ex-CFU President who also sat on many boards. Certainly, not unproductive farmers as was being claimed.
Finally, in September 1993, Anthony Swire-Thompson and I were given an audience with Mugabe. We both knew him, having been introduced to him at several public events, although I doubt he remembered us. The meeting was held in his offices at the State House. As always, I was immediately struck by two things: first, his impeccable grooming and dress. Now and again, you come across someone who makes you wonder how long it took him to prepare for the day. I have never been one of them, as many of you well know. The second was his lack of emotion. In later years, we would see this facade fall away, but back then, in our presence, he seemed to be, as has often been said of him, a cold fish. After the introductions, he told us how important agriculture was and the need for the country to retain its commercial farmers. We then outlined to him the effect of the recent listings on farmer confidence and the confusion streaming from his minions putting highly productive farms on the lists for resettlement. Despite assuring us this would be ratified and corrected, we felt he was being insincere, and despite his rule about senior party members within ZANU (PF) not benefitting from the land redistribution, they were of which he claimed ignorance. Why make the rule then? We also stated some of the land did not fit their criteria due to its size or use, citing a smallholding in Mount Hampden being designated. His answer made us realise he was much more aware of the procedure to date than he pretended to be as he quickly told us that that smallholding was owned by an American, a foreigner. Now we knew whatever was happening in regard to land, he was probably part of it, most likely the instigator, as it seemed he thought white farmers were mostly ma-British. His assurances to us before leaving was that Zimbabwean citizens on productive farms, even ranches, would have nothing to fear was not believed by either of us. Not only a cold fish but an outright liar whose words we thought and learned would be worth little in the future. It always surprised me how many black Zimbabweans in senior business positions would argue that their president surely must be unaware of the effect of land appropriation on the economy.
“Mugabe was aware of the effects land appropriation would have on production and the economy as a whole; he just did not care.” - Peter McSporran
Disclaimer: Copyright Peter McSporran. The content in this blog represents my personal views and does not reflect corporate entities.
Comments