The Sunday News
Farming issues Mhlupheki Dube
THE story which was carried by one of our sister papers announcing a Government directive to ban cattle movement nationwide was really a bitter pill to swallow for most farmers. If this is implemented it will be the last proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. The livestock industry is already suffering
under the huge burden of FMD movement restrictions albeit for selected zones. If a blanket closure is instituted across the country the industry will go comatose without doubt.
While it is without doubt that it is Government’s prerogative to come up with policies as they see fit to address individual circumstances, it will not be out of order to counsel that such policies need to have a human face to the extent possible so that unnecessary confrontations between Government and farmers can be avoided.
This pen counsels that before such drastic measures are pronounced important stakeholders need to be consulted and their input sought. By stakeholders I do not mean livestock technical people who are holding various Government positions but mostly farmers who are the ones to carry the cross and bear the consequences of policy pronouncements.
What I have noticed by most of these so called consultative meetings is that they tend to be boardroom in nature with very little representation from the sector from which causalities will be recorded. It is one thing to be a livestock technical person and a completely different thing to be a livestock farmer. While the technocrat will make inputs based on theoretical understanding and borrowing of best practices from other regions, farmers will provide input based on personal day to day experiences. The latter tends to have a better and productive value than the former.
Farmers simply need to be given a voice when it comes to such sweeping changes that affect right to the core of their businesses. Even if it comes to the same conclusion in so far as the outcome of the consultation is concerned, the mere involvement of farmers means that they are not just caught unaware by an overnight introduced curfew but they are given time to make adjustments for the impending embargos. Such bans as the one carried in the paper obviously affect the entire livestock value chain from production to marketing because there simply has to be movement for production up to marketing to happen. One farmer may need to bring in animals to improve or increase his/her herd and the restrictions become an impediment. In communal smallholder areas farmers rely on taking their animals to relief grazing areas when grazing in their areas deteriorate badly. These relief grazing areas could be in neighbouring districts or provinces and with such movement sanctions it becomes a serious challenge.
Farmers on their part need to be strongly unionised for them to be effectively consulted. Government cannot consult individuals on the streets but representative bodies. What you find is that most farmers do not belong to any farmers’ union and they only remember the union when they have a crisis and they start complaining that unions are not doing anything. You have absolutely no right to complain about the performance of an organisation for which you are not a member. If you think that the union has weak leadership which cannot adequately represent your interests why don’t you join and be the strong leadership that it is lacking?
Also to expect a union which is largely made up of crop producing farmers to be your voice when you are in livestock sector I think it’s having too much faith. Livestock farmers need to represent themselves and in that regard they need a strong vibrant union. That association can only be as strong as its membership. It is that association which should be engaging Government right now on this thorny matter.
