A R60-million European Union aid package to Zambia has been rejected by the government on grounds of racism, reports Anthony Kunda in Lusaka
THE Zambian government has rejected a European Union aid package of R60-million earmarked for its Agricultural Sector Investment Programme (Asip) as it would benefit the Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU).
Minister of Agriculture Edith Nawakwi said the government turned down the package because it was racially calculated to benefit the “non-indigenous, big white farmers”, at the expense of indigenous farmers, most of whom are small-scale operators.
Nawakwi said: “We don’t want something which will only benefit a single group. This is why we have turned down the package, and asked for modifications that will be satisfactory to the government.”
The EU’s initial plan had been to inject the money directly into private sector- driven projects, and then to ask the government to repay the loan.
According to the document accompanying the R60-million loan package, R45-million had been earmarked for projects that would benefit mainly white farmers, many of European origin.
Another R10-million was meant to help them improve seed production technology and capacities to be sold to peasant farmers.
Less than R3-million was to trickle down to small-scale farmers. There are 800 000 small operators, against fewer than 1 000 “big, non-indigenous” and commercial farmers.
Personal emoluments and consultation fees for two unnamed senior ZNFU officials would take up another R2-million.
Dr Austin Sichinga, permanent secretary in the Ministry of Agriculture, said the document emanated from ZNFU. He said it was written by a clique of predominantly white, expatriate farmers without consultation or consent from the government.
But ZNFU executive director Dr George Gray said it had been done with Ministry of Agriculture officials, and there was nothing racist in it.
Ajay Vashee, president of ZNFU, said the EU donor countries wanted to inject the money directly into the private sector because of concerns about “accountability. They want the money properly utilised.”
However, Sichinga insisted: “We have no problems with the EU, except our friends in the farmers’ union who drafted the document and specified which individuals must benefit from the money, when it is the government that will have to pay this money back.”
Brian Kelly, EU Zambia desk officer in Brussels, currently in Lusaka, said donor countries will allow the Zambian government to draw up its own document, “but we will have to examine it before we release the money to them”.
In the wake of the controversy, the Asip national committee has been dissolved, albeit somewhat unofficially. There has been no official announcement. But Gray, who used to represent the farmers’ union on the committee, has received a letter informing him of the dissolution. Last week, one government official said one of the members of the Asip national committee was behaving in a manner that “befitted one who had no interest in the activities of local farmers”.
Ben Kapita, chair of the agro-based opposition National Lima Party, said: “The Ministry of Agriculture must be grateful that donors have not withdrawn the money when the agreed conditions have not been met.
“The channeling of R60-million through the private sector is meant to ensure proper utilisation, accountability and repayment. Why should Sichinga insult those who toil to improve our economy and create employment?”
But Sichinga said EU donor countries were now “willing to put money directly into the ministry’s financial management unit”.
14