Rome — RICH countries' agricultural subsidies and denial of market access to produce from developing countries were partly to blame for low crop production in developing nations, President Mugabe has said.
Addressing fellow Heads of State and Government at the Food and Agriculture Organisation Summit here yesterday, President Mugabe said other factors militating against global food security were climate change, inaccessibility to arable land, rising costs of farming inputs and general lack of money to finance farming operations.
Western subsidies, he said, were suffocating farmers in poor and developing countries.
"Add to this denial of market access to agricultural products from developing countries and that completes the host of factors which undermine crop production in our countries," said President Mugabe.
He told the summit that Zimbabwe's situation was worsened by punitive policies of certain powerful countries that were against the equitable redistribution of land to correct colonial imbalances.
"We face very hostile interventions by these states which have imposed unilateral sanctions on us.
"This has had a negative impact on our farmers who, according to our neo-colonial enemies, must fail so as to damn the rain-fed agriculture; which FAO reports say will see the production of food going down by about 50 percent by 2050 due to climate change.
"To protect the country from the vagaries of the weather, Zimbabwe has an ongoing programme of dam construction across the country to harness water and develop reliable water sources.
"With adequate support, Zimbabwe has the potential to increase the land under irrigation from the present 153 000 to 453 000 hectares," he said.
President Mugabe said apart from water shortages, Zimbabwe had been affected by insufficient supplies of affordable farming inputs such as fertilizers, seeds and agro-chemicals.
He said the Government would continue supporting the agriculture sector through a cocktail of schemes including concessionary loans for working capital and for the procurement of machinery.
"To buttress these schemes, the Government has also introduced a Farm Mechanisation Programme targeting both the smallholder and commercial farming sectors.
"But we remain keenly aware that the mechanisation programme cannot be complete if it does not yield the capacity to enable us to export value-added products," he said.
The energy sector played an integral role in the agriculture sector, said the President, adding that the combination of the power deficit experienced by the Sadc region last year and rising oil prices had a serious negative impact on farming operations.
He said Zimbabwe had consequently embarked on a biofuel project to produce diesel and petrol from jatropha and sugarcane.
"To avoid the negative effect of using maize as biofuel feedstock, our project uses jatropha seed and sugarcane," he explained.
Turning to the ravaging effects of HIV and Aids, President Mugabe said despite declining prevalence rates in the productive 15-49 age group dropping to 13,7 percent, Zimbabwe was concerned that the figure was still too high.
In response to the impact of the pandemic on the agriculture sector, President Mugabe said the Government adopted the Zimbabwe Agricultural Sector Strategy on HIV and Aids to offset its negative consequences.
The President also paid tribute to Sadc and FAO for assisting Zimbabwe in mobilising farming inputs for the generality of the population.
These interventions, he noted, had resulted in an increase in cereal crop yields by over 75 percent this year.
He said Sadc's agricultural inputs support initiative and the country's homegrown agricultural policies were paying dividends.
"We are grateful for the support we have received from the Sadc region, which provided seed and fertilizers through the Sadc agriculture inputs support initiative.
"With this support from Sadc, the country experienced a dramatic 75 percent increase in maize production this year.
"For the 2009/2010 season, we have received support from various international co-operating partners who provided input packs through the smallholder emergency support programme, which is co-ordinated by the Food and Agriculture Organisation and is expected to reach over 600 000 households. Zimbabwe is grateful for this support," he said.
The summit, which ends today, drew leaders from mostly developing countries.
Western countries snubbed the meeting, a decision that has been described as indicative of their lack of appreciation of the global food insecurity problem that led to food riots in 22 countries last year.
Comments 1 to 5 of 16 Post a comment
its always someone elses fault with Mugabe isnt it.
AWT Yeah!! Yeah!! Mugga has the habit of laying the blame on others!!! It is probably their fault that he has so many farms!!!!!
You can tell a leader has crossed the line into madness when he begins blaming the ills of his own nation on laws completely internal to a nation on the other side of an ocean. No doubt when the United States passes its universal health care law, Mugabe will blame his problems on that as well.
In response to Zimbabwe: President Blasts Wests Subsidies I am adding here comments from my news Column in the Zimbabwe Guardian titled Zimbabwe documentary mistitled Mon, 09 Nov 2009 (http://www.talkzimbabwe.com). The article mentions a US Senatorial hearing involving the United States Farm Bill Debate and its devastating effect on local farmers and the economy.
I also write that the Western media, including CNN and BBC, continuously and relentlessly demonize Zimbabweans and the Mugabe government as incompetent and corrupt due to its "poor land and farm management program" that the West claimed resulted in the destruction of the Breadbasket of Africa. I then state that this provided the pretext or excuse for the European Union, Britain, and the U.S.to install economic sanctions on Zimbabwe; further strangling its economic, agricultural, and farming development. Purpose: permanent infrastructural damage.
The sanctions began in 2002 which coincided with massive U.S. agricultural cutbacks to African farmers beginning in 2000.
US Farm Bill Debate Devastating
With a simple examination of the present day United States Farm Bill Debate one will conclude President Robert Mugabes land reform plan a near genius.
On the floor of the U.S. Senate Senator Richard G. Lugar introduced the FRESH Amendment with Senator Frank Lautenberg.
Excerpts of Senator Lugars statement follow:
"It is not an easy task to be Chairman or Ranking Member of the Agriculture Committee during a Farm Bill. Having served in both positions I know well the challenges you have both faced in putting together a bill. I am also pleased by the effort to provide interested farmers with a revenue based program that should be an improvement over the status quo.
"However, the Farm Bill we have before us does not provide meaningful reform. Our current farm policies, sold to the American public as a safety-net, actually hurt the family farmer. In the name of maintaining the family farm and preserving rural communities, todays farm programs have benefited a select few while leaving the majority of farmers without support or a safety-net. "The History
"The genesis of our current farm policies began during the Great Depression as an effort to help alleviate poverty among farmers and rural communities. At that time, one in four Americans lived on a farm and the rural economys vitality was largely dependent upon farmers. Farm programs were instituted that stifled agricultural productivity in order to raise commodity prices through a federally administered supply and demand program.
"Supply control programs cost U.S. taxpayers handsomely in higher food costs and job loss and now about half of the nations farmers are essentially prevented from growing other crops such as fruits and vegetables. To date, this same antiquated idea is promoted even though farm income is higher on average than other industries.
"Times have changed dramatically since then. Today, one in 75 Americans lives on a farm and only one in every 750 lives on a full-time commercial farm.
"Furthermore, nearly 90 percent of total farm household income comes from off-farm sources.
"In response to those ongoing changes, in 1996 Congress finally recognized that farmers, not the government, could best ascertain what crops are profitable, and granted roughly half of our farmers flexibility in planting choices and began to transition away from federally controlled agriculture programs.
"But in 2002, Congress and the Bush Administration reversed these reforms and created the so-called three legged stool which, in addition to other farm programs, has helped to place us in violation of our WTO [World Trade Organization] commitments. The Senate Agriculture Committee Farm Bill before us today perpetuates and even expands these defective policies without regard for the fact that the majority of farmers do not have a safety-net.
"The Three Legged Stool
"The first leg of the stool is direct payment subsidies to specific farmers who grow certain crops Direct payment policies are particularly irresponsible because the taxpayer funded subsidies go out to farmers regardless of whether cash is flowing in or out of their farms or whether they farm at all the Senate Farm Bill, as agreed to by the Senate Agriculture Committee, doles out up to $26 billion in direct payments from taxpayers, much of which will go to some of the largest and wealthiest farming operations in America. In fact, over 50 percent of these subsidies will continue to go to farmers in just seven states for a grand total of over $13.1 billion.
"Some may find these statistics surprising, but this is simply a continuation of business as usual when it comes to farm subsidies. Keep in mind that in the years 2000-2005, the farm sector received $112 billion in taxpayer subsidies, but only 43 percent of all farms received payments. This is because the majority of the payments go to just five row cropscorn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and rice. The largest 8 percent of these farms received 58 percent of the payments. In fact, the top 1 percent of the highest earning farmers claimed 17 percent of the crop subsidy benefits between 2003 and 2005.
"Smaller farms that qualify in the current system and that could benefit from additional support did not do as well. Two-thirds of recipient farms received less than $10,000, accounting for only 7 percent of their gross cash farm income. Minority (African American) farmers fared even worse with only 8 percent of minority farmers even receiving federal farm subsidies.
"Furthermore, half of the federal crop subsidies paid between 2003 and 2005 went to only 19 congressional districts (out of 435). Each one of these statistics illustrates that our direct payment system is inequitable and in conflict with claims you will hear on the Senate Floor that our current farm policies are a safety-net for the family farmer.
"The second leg of the stool is countercyclical payments, or having the taxpayer pay farmers when prices fall below a congressionally set price. The third leg is a marketing loan program that allows farmers to put their crop up as collateral to receive operating capitol. However, provisions allow farmers to go ahead and sell the crop and re-pay the government at a lower rate, leaving taxpayers to make up the difference.
"Because these two programs do not appropriately correspond with market forces, they have the effect of creating artificial markets for crops, even when markets do not exist. Yet neither program provides any help to farmers when they arguably need it most, during disasters such as drought. Of greater concern, these programs have been ruled to violate our trade agreements, but this new Farm Bill actually increases target prices for at least five crops, loan rates for seven crops, and adds a number of new subsidized crops.
"Trade
"Some Senators may wonder why we should be concerned that we are in violation of our World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments. They might think that this situation is simply limited to agriculture or specific crops with little impact on our overall economy. Others might even suggest that we are better off building up more barriers to trade; that this Farm Bill is about American farmers not farmers in Brazil or elsewhere. However, if Senators look further down the line they will see that our WTO violations could cost the United States billions in revenue, intellectual property, and lost trade opportunities. Failure to move toward compliance will invite retaliatory tariffs that legally can be directed at any U.S. industry.
"In fact, this is happening now. Brazil will soon have the authority to retaliate in kind against U.S. products, whether they be agricultural products or intellectual property, due to our unwillingness to fix our farm policies but what is clear is that the WTO has repeatedly found the U.S. Cotton Program to be in violation of our commitments. As a result, a host of challenges to other agricultural commodities have ensued including a case brought forth by Brazil and Canada in November that targets all of our commodity programs.
"In fact, this Farm Bill significantly increases the likelihood that other programs will be further challenged by the WTO. Specifically, the WTO found that countercyclical payments and marketing loans are trade distorting and that direct payments, argued to be trade neutral, are a trade violation as long as planting restrictions are retained. Astonishingly, the Farm Bill increases payments made under these trade distorting programs almost across the board, further exacerbating our trade situation.
"Should the WTO determine that other U.S. farm subsidy programs, as challenged by Brazil and Canada, do not comply with WTO rules, the potential for retaliation by other countries is immeasurable.
"Farm Consolidation
"If you are now a farm landowner in America, it is highly probable that your land will increase in value. Why? Because a landowning farmer or agriculture business can count upon receiving substantially more money through subsidies. As a result, you are able to leverage your land and crops to expand. If you are one of hundreds of thousands of farmers in this country who rent land as opposed to owning land, you face a very tough set of circumstances. Your rents are likely to go up each year as the value of the land goes up. Worse still, if you are a young farmer who hopes someday to own land, then your prospects diminish year by year.
"As a result, there are young members of farm families who are hopeful that with the reduction or repeal of Federal estate taxes, that they might inherit the land. Furthermore, elderly farmers who may be land rich but cash poor will be more inclined to sell their farms as their retirement nest egg. The most likely buyer of that farm is an owner of a larger farm who is in a position to expand thanks to government subsidies.
"Rural Development
"Despite this fundamental shift, the 2002 Farm Bill committed 69 percent of total spending to commodity payments, plus another 13 percent to conservation payments. In all, four-fifths of total funding went to a select few farmers, while only 0.7 percent went to rural development initiatives aimed at boosting rural economies.
"We now have evidence which suggests that direct payments to farmers have little positive impact on rural economies. A recent study revealed that most payment-dependent counties did not even match the national average in terms of job growth from 1992 to 2002. In fact, many experienced losses during that time. Furthermore, most of these payment-dependent counties experienced population losses during that same ten year period. Such job and population loss figures suggest that our current system of support for rural communities, which relies on subsidies like direct payments, does not work.
"Choices and Priorities
"Keep in mind that the median household income for Americans for 2006 was $48,200 and the average income of a Food Stamp recipient is less than $10,000. There is also an ongoing reluctance to consider change. Members will say, Farming is conservative by nature. You cant demand too much change. In 2002, I offered a similar type of reform proposal and opponents argued that the proposal was too new, too radical, and required too much change. You will hear that same baseless argument today. When is the time for reform? When will we fix this broken system? When will we act on the clear evidence before us?
"As Senators, we clearly must understand our responsibility. Whether we understand all the complexities of our current farm programs, we know where the money goes. The bulk of the money in the underlying Farm Bill goes to a very few farmers--a very few. That has been clear throughout. This is not a great humanitarian effort. This does not save the family farmer, the low-income farmer, or even the middle-income farmer.
"This bill is about making choices. And it is incredible to me that with all of the budgetary pressures that we are facing to fund critical needs such as providing better health insurance coverage for Americans, protecting Social Security and pension savings, improving education, increasing border security, and providing our men and women in the Armed Forces with appropriate pay and equipment that we would consider a bill which enriches so few individuals.
Long live the African and Zimbabwean farmers who secured their land by any means necessary.
So, Mugabe + land theft + targeted sanctions + American agricultural debate = Zimbabwe's agricultural destruction. I'm not a Rhodie, so please explain how Smith + White run farms + economic embargo + liberation war = Breadbasket of Southern Africa.
See All Comments