Who should own our pastures, which are a matter of survival for our health?

Perhaps the vast majority of our citizens living in cities do not sufficiently appreciate the value of our pastures.

Why are pastures so important? 

First and foremost, a pasture is an ecosystem in itself. 

This ecosystem is home to thousands of living creatures, both above and below the ground, consisting of plants and animals. 

When we think of pastures, we think of plant diversity, animal diversity, natural resources, erosion prevention, bees, birds, insects, reptiles, rodents, and habitats for wildlife.

However, in addition to these, pastures are the most important resource for the production of milk, meat, and other animal products. 

Animal husbandry systems that exclude pastures are neither economical nor conducive to the production of healthy animal-based food.

This is where human health issues also come to the fore as a matter of survival. 

Isn't the developmental delay starting in our children a result of not being able to access sufficient milk and meat consumption?

What are our people, who cannot consume enough milk and meat, trying to feed themselves with?

In our people, who turn to excessive bread consumption to feel full, isn't diabetes, along with obesity, rising steadily?

Are we aware? We have become the leading country in Europe in terms of obesity and diabetes.

Here, two important issues come to the fore: the non-agricultural use and the leasing of pastures.

THROUGH WHICH LAWS WERE PASTURES OPENED TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USE AND LEASING?

In 2005, Law No. 5403, the "Soil Conservation and Land Use Law," or the Soil Law for short, was enacted. While we were rejoicing that the Soil Law had been passed, Article 13 of the law allowed for the non-agricultural use of agricultural lands when certain conditions were met in the name of public interest. 

This article became a free-for-all, and agricultural lands began to be opened for non-agricultural use due to public interest(?). Provincial directorates of agriculture say, "Article 13 ties our hands; we are forced to grant permission in the name of public interest."

 With the "Omnibus Law" enacted later, the leasing and subsequent sale of agricultural lands such as pastures, highlands, meadows, summer pastures, winter pastures, and threshing floors were initiated. 

In fact, pastures had already begun to lose their characteristics through laws such as the "Organized Industrial Zones Law," "Tourism Encouragement Law," "Forest Villagers Development Law," "Land Hunting Law," "Mining Law," and "Laws Regarding Measures to be Taken and Aid to be Provided Due to Disasters Affecting Public Life." 

When laws such as "Free Zones," "Industrial Zones," and the recently enacted "Urban Transformation Law" were added to these, the conditions were set for pastures to be transferred to private ownership or leased for 49-99 years. 

However, despite the aforementioned laws, according to the existing Pasture Law, non-agricultural uses could be canceled by court decisions. 

But with the "Omnibus Law," the path to the courts has been completely closed.

Officials state that with the omnibus law, pastures will be leased on the condition that they are improved, and that the right to lease will primarily belong to village headmen (muhtars). In contrast, the answer to the question of how the opportunity for headmen to find the leasing fee will be created is not clear.

HOW MUCH PASTURE LAND DO WE HAVE LEFT?

In the 1940s, the pasture area was 44 million hectares, but today it has fallen below 14.5 million hectares.

Pastures have been opened to non-agricultural use. 

Moreover, the vegetation of our natural forage areas has deteriorated due to unplanned, excessive, and early grazing, and they have become areas prone to erosion.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

Turkey is a country that suffers from a red meat deficit.

The sale and leasing of pastures, meadows, and others, which form the backbone of livestock farming, according to the provisions ordered by the aforementioned laws, means abandoning livestock to starvation. 

Condemning livestock to starvation actually means condemning our people to hunger and unhealthy nutrition.

Moreover, leaving pastures to domestic and foreign entrepreneurs, or rather companies, coming from outside agriculture—in other words, taking them away from peasants engaged in family farming—means driving peasants out of agriculture.

Can't the poverty and desperation in the cities caused by driving peasants out of agriculture be seen? Doesn't desperation fuel a charity-based economy?

For red meat production to be sustained profitably, it is necessary to protect and develop pastures, let alone sell or lease them.

Pastures should not be opened to the use of domestic and foreign companies.

In fact, peasants have started counter-actions all over Turkey. 

However, it is not yet clear how other organizations in the rural sector, especially breeder associations, will take a stance against the non-agricultural use and leasing of pastures.

Let us ask our question in the title again.

Who should own our pastures, which are a matter of survival for our health? 

Companies or peasants?

What do you say?