Many questions are directed to the Cabinet and its affiliated institutions about the diversification of income sources and the strengthening of the national product. These questions are valid, considering that those involved in these matters – owners of agricultural, industrial or service holdings – are keen on revitalizing the national economy and freeing it from procedures that burden citizens and hinder the development of commercial, industrial, and most importantly, agricultural activity in the country.
Before delving into the heart of the matter, it must be emphasized that food security is not a luxury, and agricultural holdings are not meant to benefit one party or another. Rather, they were established to secure a food source that can help stem the outflow of funds spent on imports and ensure a reasonable level of food security. This principle has been followed by cabinets since the establishment of the modern State. Successive governments have even reinforced the role of this vital sector, recognizing its potential for economic diversification, maximizing the contribution of the private sector, and moving beyond the monopoly of State revenues.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the agricultural sector proved its resilience, significantly mitigating the food crisis. Moreover, in the recent war, it played a crucial role in stabilizing the local market and ensuring food security when supply chains were disrupted. This underscores the need to further strengthen the sector through flexible and supportive measures for farmers and companies operating within it. Unfortunately, the recent decisions concerning this sector can be described as short-sighted, as they hinder its development. In contrast, in other countries, agriculture is considered a cornerstone of national security, inviolable and protected by all measures designed to bolster it. Therefore, the recent measures taken are not in line with this principle at all.
When a citizen acquires agricultural land and works hard to develop it, transforming it from a barren desert into a fertile oasis, he invests his money, effort and time. When he grows old and no longer able to care for it, he will not relinquish it. Instead, he will sell it to someone who understands its value and manages it to ensure it continues to contribute to food security.
Consequently, when government decisions are issued that hinder this, they are condemning a successful project, one into which thousands, perhaps even millions, have been spent – a project that serves food security and contributes to the security of the nation. Thus, the recent measures prohibiting the sale, investment or inheritance of these holdings do not serve food security, diversify national industries or reduce the outflow of capital abroad.
On the contrary, they contribute to the degradation of the land, generating dust storms and harming the environment. Some neighboring countries, particularly the United Arab Emirates (UAE), preserve these farms by allowing the conversion of up to 10 percent of such land into tourist sites.
This helped reduce dependence on the State. In Kuwait, this decision was implemented for a certain period, and then the government reversed it, perhaps due to envy, as there is no justification for preventing farmers from benefiting from a source of supplementary income that eases the burden of the State. Furthermore, electricity and water tariffs for farmers have increased, and recently, the prices of agricultural supplies have risen.
What does this signify? Is it not a death sentence for a vital sector? These recent measures, and others taken regarding industrial and service plots, do not serve economic security. Rather, they affect social security and hinder the achievement of food and industrial self-sufficiency, thus, depriving the vital agricultural sector of its vitality. It is true that some violations can be addressed to prevent the sector from collapsing, but to deprive a person of the fruits of his labor is very strange.
Throughout the world, the disposal of personal property, even if it was a government grant, is not restricted, because it is part of personal freedom. How much more so when that property serves food security, which is the national security of the State? Let the owners of these holdings invest in them wisely and comfortably. If some view them with resentment, then impose taxes on them or even force them to relinquish their holdings.
