The visit by members of De Nationale Assemblée (Suriname’s parliament) and media representatives to the areas where the Mennonites are active has once again opened a debate that in Suriname has now become bigger than the question of whether or not a group of foreign farmers is welcome. Anyone who looks only at the Mennonites misses the larger issue underlying this entire matter: what does Suriname actually want to do with its enormous agricultural area, how serious are we really about the development of large-scale agriculture and why have we for decades failed to structurally utilise the agricultural potential of the interior?
President Jennifer Simons has made it clear that she sees no room for large-scale agriculture in which primary forest is cleared and that agricultural development must take place on suitable land, including in the coastal plain. That position is understandable in itself and I would even say: necessary. No one can seriously claim that Suriname should build its future by indiscriminately destroying primary forest. But at the same time, we must not end up at the other extreme, in which every form of large-scale agriculture is viewed with suspicion, as if production, capital, technology and foreign knowledge by definition pose a threat to Suriname.
Because let me be clear about this right away: I am in favour of large-scale agriculture.
In fact, I believe Suriname has spent far too long talking about agriculture without truly treating it as a strategic economic sector. For years, I have heard that Suriname could become the food producer and even the ‘breadbasket’ of the region, that we have sufficient land, water, a favourable climate and are close to markets in the Caribbean, Guyana, Brazil and other parts of the region, but whenever it comes down to it, we remain stuck in committees, policy papers, land applications, permits, political changes and projects that disappear somewhere beneath a thick layer of paper after a change of government.
West-Klaaskreek and unequal treatment
And that is precisely where my personal conflict with the current Mennonite debate begins.
Because I can hardly say that I am against foreign large-scale farmers when I have simultaneously advocated for years for the development of West-Klaaskreek.
Stichting LOKEO, the Landbouw Ontwikkeling Klaaskreek en Omgeving, was established back in 2014 and is working on the development of West-Klaaskreek as an area for agribusiness, agroforestry and agro-industry, with the aim of bringing about not only agricultural production, but also processing, entrepreneurship, employment and further area development. The project has even already seen concrete steps, including infrastructure development and the construction of a road towards the area.
And then, as a Surinamer, I ask myself: how is it possible that people from our own village community have been approaching various governments for years to develop West-Klaaskreek through private operators and investors, while we simultaneously see that foreign farmers apparently can relatively quickly become part of major agricultural projects?
That is not an attack on the Mennonites.
That is a question for the Surinamese state.
Because if LOKEO, the village community and other local initiators have been saying for more than a decade: give us the space, give us the opportunity to produce, give us the chance to attract investors and let us develop an area in which agriculture, processing, employment and housing come together, why does it take so long?
Why must a Surinamer be sent from pillar to post through different governments, while a foreign party ultimately does come into the picture when a major agricultural project is on the table?
Foreign knowledge can also be an opportunity
And this is where my discomfort truly begins.
Because if the Mennonites do in fact possess the knowledge, experience, technology and discipline to turn large tracts of agricultural land into productive farming operations, then I must be honest enough to say: let them produce.
If they can ensure that Suriname finally gets serious about maize, soy, grains, livestock farming, food processing and eventually exports, then it would be short-sighted to look only at their foreign origin.
But then I do want to know one thing: why can we not combine that model with Surinamese land, Surinamese entrepreneurs, Surinamese workers and Surinamese communities?
Because the goal should not be to bring a group of Mennonites to Suriname and then hope that they will save our agriculture. The goal should be to build an agricultural system in which foreign knowledge and capital are used to make Suriname itself stronger.
Suriname must not be naive
At the same time, we must also be honest about the other side of the story.
The problems now arising around the Mennonites have not come out of nowhere. In other countries where large Mennonite agricultural communities have developed, conflicts have also arisen over land, deforestation and the expansion of agricultural areas. In Belize, for example, Mennonite communities have grown into major agricultural producers, but research has also pointed to large-scale land purchases and deforestation, with some communities jointly acquiring and managing land through trusts and other structures.
In Mexico, too, tensions have arisen between Mennonite large-scale agriculture and Maya communities, including over deforestation, agricultural chemicals and the expansion of industrial agriculture. At the same time, scientific research shows that there is also cooperation and economic interdependence between Maya farmers and Mennonite farmers. The story is therefore not as simple as ‘Mennonites bad, local population good’.
In South America, the concerns are also well known. Research has linked the expansion of Mennonite agriculture in, among others, Paraguay and Bolivia to large-scale deforestation and the conversion of natural ecosystems into agricultural land.
Suriname would therefore be wise not to be naive.
But neither should we become paranoid.
The question should be: what rules do we impose on everyone who wants to practise large-scale agriculture here?
The same rules for everyone
And that, in my view, is where the real solution lies.
If a Mennonite wants to develop 10,000 hectares, fine. If a Surinamese entrepreneur wants to develop 10,000 hectares, also fine. If a Brazilian investor wants to develop 20,000 hectares, likewise fine. But the same rules must apply to everyone.
No primary forest.
No encroachment on the residential and living areas of Indigenous and tribal communities.
No land allocation without a transparent procedure.
No arrangements in which the actual user of the land becomes visible only afterwards.
No permits issued after the fact.
No political cronyism.
And above all: no preferential treatment for foreigners and no disadvantage for Surinamers.
That last point may be the most important to me.
Questions about agreements and damages claim
Because we are now hearing that three agreements may have been concluded for agricultural projects along the road to West-Suriname, jointly covering 34,185 hectares, while Braganza Marketing Group states that the projects were agreed with the government and that the Mennonites are being deployed because of their experience in large-scale agriculture. At the same time, the company has announced a draft damages claim of US$ 86 million, after the government spoke out against certain activities. However, the precise legal position and the various claims concerning permits, agreements and responsibilities have not been independently established and are presented differently by the parties involved.
And for that very reason, we as a society should not simply call the Mennonites ‘illegal’, but neither should we simply assume that everything arranged around their arrival is automatically lawful and transparent.
Because if a company says it can claim US$ 86 million in damages, then as a taxpayer I want to know: where does that amount come from?
What agreement underlies it?
Who signed that agreement on behalf of Suriname?
What land was made available exactly?
For how many years?
Under what conditions?
How much is being paid for that land?
Who pays for the land?
Who receives the revenue?
Who is legally responsible for the Mennonites?
And if land is indeed being paid for or leased, how much exactly do these foreign farmers pay per hectare?
These are not anti-Mennonite questions.
These are normal questions in a state governed by the rule of law.
In fact, if the government answers these questions clearly, it could actually protect the Mennonites from the impression that they were brought into Suriname through the back door.
Who made which promises?
Because they too are now in a situation that is not easy.
They are confronted with political criticism, public suspicion and allegations of deforestation, while at the same time they say they began working in Suriname on the basis of agreements with the Surinamese government. Braganza further states that the Mennonites involved from Belize and Mexico have valid visas and that the projects stem from agreements with the government.
If that is correct, then the question is not only what the Mennonites have done wrong.
Then we must also ask: who brought these people to Suriname, what promises were made to them and what promises were made to them on behalf of the Surinamese state?
Because I increasingly get the feeling that we are questioning the wrong people.
Perhaps we should not ask only the Mennonites why they are here.
Perhaps we should above all ask the people who brought them here what they promised them.
Because if you bring foreign farmers to Suriname, discuss major agricultural projects with them, make land available, reach agreements and then, after a political change, tell them that they are not really welcome, then you create the problem yourself.
And if a damages claim of US$ 86 million then appears on the table, indignation is not enough.
Then society must see the documents.
All the documents.
Not only a press release.
Not only a statement by a minister.
Not only a statement by an entrepreneur.
We want to see the contracts, the maps, the conditions, the environmental studies, the land titles, the permits and the responsibilities.
This issue is about Suriname
Because ultimately, this issue is not about the Mennonites.
This issue is about Suriname.
It is about whether we finally dare to choose production.
I am in favour of that.
I want to see large-scale agriculture in Suriname.
I want to see thousands of hectares of agricultural land on which maize, soy, rice, cassava, fruit, animal feed and other crops are produced.
I want to see factories where those products are processed.
I want to see cold storage facilities.
I want to see logistics centres.
I want to see exports.
I want to see Surinamese young people who do not all have to move to Paramaribo because there is nothing to do in their district.
I want villages in the interior not to depend solely on gold mining and government jobs.
I want Klaaskreek, Brokopondo, Para, Saramacca, Nickerie, Marowijne and other areas to become agricultural centres where people can live, work, do business and build a future.
And for that, we need large-scale agriculture.
Large-scale agriculture does not automatically mean foreign companies
But large-scale agriculture does not automatically mean large foreign companies.
Large-scale agriculture means scale.
And that scale can be organised by Surinamese companies, foreign companies, joint ventures, cooperatives, village communities and public-private partnerships.
Why, for example, could Mennonites and LOKEO not exist side by side?
Why could foreign farmers not apply their knowledge in a project in which the local community remains the owner or co-owner?
Why could Surinamese farmers not be trained by the same foreign specialists?
Why could we not build a model in which a foreign agricultural enterprise provides technology and knowledge for ten years, while at the same time being required to train Surinamers, employ local workers, use local suppliers and eventually place part of the production capacity in Surinamese hands?
That would be real local content to me.
Not only in the oil and gas sector.
Also in agriculture.
Under what conditions may they come?
And perhaps we should therefore finally stop asking:
‘May the Mennonites come here?’
The better question is:
‘Under what conditions may people come here to help Suriname produce?’
One rule must apply to everyone.
Anyone who wants agricultural land will not be given forest to clear without limit.
Anyone who receives land must produce.
Anyone who invests must be transparent.
Anyone who brings in personnel must comply with Surinamese labour legislation.
Anyone who creates wealth here must also leave value behind in Suriname.
And anyone who is Surinamese and has been knocking on the door for fifteen years with a serious agricultural plan must not be placed at the back of the queue because a foreign investor suddenly is in a hurry.
Foreign investment and fairness
That is why I remain in discussion with myself.
I am in favour of large-scale agriculture.
I am in favour of foreign investment.
I am in favour of knowledge from abroad.
I am in favour of technology.
I am in favour of production.
But I am also in favour of fairness.
And I want to understand how it is possible that a country that has been talking for decades about developing its agriculture can facilitate foreign farmers relatively quickly, while its own communities and entrepreneurs sometimes have to wait for years for land, infrastructure and permission.
If the Mennonites can ultimately contribute to making Suriname an important agricultural producer in the Caribbean and South America, then I say: welcome.
But if we welcome them, we must also welcome the Surinamers who have been saying for years:
‘Give us the opportunity to produce ourselves.’
Make the agricultural debate bigger
Perhaps the solution, therefore, is not to send the Mennonites away.
Perhaps the solution is to finally make sufficient agricultural land available to everyone who seriously wants to produce.
And perhaps we should use this moment to correct the historic mistake by making this entire debate something far greater than a dispute over one group of farmers.
Make West-Klaaskreek an agro-industrial centre.
Make Brokopondo a producer.
Make Nickerie more than just rice.
Make Saramacca a food and processing hub.
Make Para a centre for agroforestry and high-value agriculture.
Make the interior a place where production and community development go hand in hand.
Because Suriname cannot forever say that it is a country with enormous possibilities.
At some point, we must actually start using those possibilities.
And if we truly believe that Suriname can become a breadbasket, then we must finally stop talking as if agriculture is a hobby.
Agriculture is the economy.
Agriculture is food security.
Agriculture is employment.
Agriculture is exports.
Agriculture is regional power.
And in a world in which food is becoming increasingly important, Suriname’s greatest strategic mistake may well be that we possess land, water, climate and space, yet continue to watch as others do organise agriculture on a large scale.
Surinamese large-scale agriculture
Large-scale agriculture then? Yes, absolutely.
But let it become Surinamese large-scale agriculture.
With foreign knowledge where needed.
With foreign capital where needed.
With foreign farmers if they can genuinely add something.
But above all with Surinamese land, Surinamese people, Surinamese entrepreneurs and a Surinamese government that finally knows what it wants to do with this country.
Charles Muller
