It Seems Anything Goes in Botswana’s Agricultural Sector
Whatever we do in the name of pragmatism and deregulation, it should not come at the expense of long-term sustainability and food security, writes DOUGLAS RASBASH
In a bid to stimulate local food production and enhance food security, Botswana’s legislature has adopted a rational series of measures intended to encourage agricultural growth based on import restrictions and protectionism.
However, a new motion was passed by Parliament last week which runs counter to the policy of stimulating local food production. The new decision will allow for diverse business ventures on agricultural land without necessitating a formal “change of land use”.
This presents a conflicting narrative that may undermine the food security strategy.
Significant threat
The move, led by the MP for Kanye North Thapelo Letsholo, aims to unlock the economic potential of agricultural lands, not by growing food but by permitting non-food growing enterprises such as restaurants, spas, craft shops, recreational facilities, filling stations, and processing facilities to operate on masimo (farm lands), meraka (free-range ranches), integrated farms, and other agricultural areas.
While this motion has been praised for its alignment with the Botswana Democratic Party’s (BDP) manifesto, which emphasises the need to “review legislation and processes that impede entrepreneurship” and “assist Batswana to optimise land use”, it appears to undermine efforts to enable farmers to grow food.
Moreover, it poses a significant threat to Botswana’s development planning. The introduction of non-farming activities on agricultural lands, without stringent regulations, could lead to chaotic and costly consequences for land-use management.
The Dichotomy of Legislative Intent
On one hand, the government’s strategy to impose import restrictions and protectionism aims to boost local food production by creating a market environment where farmers are incentivised to meet the country’s 70% food deficit.
This approach encourages farmers to invest in agricultural activities, thereby increasing productivity and reducing dependency on imported food. On the other hand, the motion to allow non-farming activities on agricultural land without a formal change of land use contradicts this strategy.
By enabling diverse business ventures on agricultural lands, the government may inadvertently reduce the amount of land available for farming, thereby undermining efforts to enhance food security.
This dichotomy in legislative intent raises questions about the limits of pragmatism and whether a laissez-faire approach is appropriate in this context.
Unregulated Development: A Recipe for Disaster
From a spatial and development planning point of view, allowing random development to proceed in an unregulated manner across Botswana’s agricultural lands is nothing short of disastrous. Agricultural land is a finite resource, and its primary purpose should be to produce food. Diversifying its use without careful consideration and regulation could lead to the following issues:
- Loss of Agricultural Land: The primary risk is reduction in available agricultural land. As more land is converted into commercial and industrial use, the area dedicated to food production will decrease, exacerbating that the food security issue the government aims to resolve.
- Environmental Degradation: The introduction of non-agricultural activities, such as industrial and recreational facilities, could lead to environmental degradation. Increased pollution, soil erosion, and water contamination are potential outcomes that could further diminish the land’s productivity.
- Urban Sprawl: Unregulated development on agricultural land can lead to urban sprawl, disrupting the rural landscape and leading to inefficient land use patterns. This sprawl can strain existing infrastructure and services, making it harder to manage and maintain rural areas.
- Economic Inequality: Allowing diverse business ventures on agricultural land may benefit wealthy landowners who can afford to invest in these ventures while small-scale farmers are left behind. This could increase economic inequality and create social tensions.
Balancing Economic Empowerment and Agricultural Integrity
While the intention behind the motion is to unlock economic potential and promote entrepreneurship, it is crucial to balance this with the need to preserve agricultural integrity. Pragmatism should not come at the cost of long-term sustainability and food security. Here are some recommendations to strike this balance:
- Regulated Land Use Changes: Introduce a framework that allows for land use changes but with strict regulations. Ensure that any change from agricultural to non-agricultural use is carefully evaluated and justified.
- Zoning and Spatial Planning: Implement zoning laws that designate specific areas for non-agricultural activities. This would help in maintaining a clear distinction between agricultural and commercial/industrial zones, preventing urban sprawl and preserving farmland.
- Support for Small Farmers: Provide support to small-scale farmers to ensure they can compete with larger enterprises. This could include financial assistance, training, and access to markets.
- Environmental Safeguards: Establish environmental safeguards to protect agricultural land from degradation. This includes measures to prevent pollution, manage waste, and conserve natural resources.
- Integrated Development Plans: Develop integrated development plans that consider the needs of the agricultural sector alongside commercial and industrial development. Ensure that all stakeholders are involved in the planning process to create a balanced approach.
The motion to allow diverse business ventures on agricultural land without formal change of use, while well-intentioned, risks undermining Botswana’s efforts to enhance food security and sustainable land use.
The message seems to be that land owners can do anything they want with their lands with minimum control. Planning deregulation is obviously another populist move in an election year, but the consequences are that beautiful Botswana risks becoming an ugly patchwork of publicly unsupportable random development.
Pragmatism has its limits, and in this case, a balanced approach that integrates regulation, spatial and development planning, and support for agriculture is essential.
By doing so, Botswana can unlock economic potential while preserving the integrity of its agricultural sector, ensuring long-term food security and sustainable development.