Every year, 600 hectares of farmland disappear in Iparralde. They are aimed at building, other sectors of the economy or means of transport, permanently losing the function of food producer. But land also disappears: those who do not cultivate are buying, at high prices, with a logic of recreational consumption. Recent mobilizations against this type of sales are currently in place.

Although the phenomenon is not new, the fight against trade in land in the Berrueta de Arbona area in 2021 brought the problem to the table. The sale of twelve hectares and three racks of EUR 3.12 million aroused the complaint and concern of ELB and Lurzaindia and began to take place. The occupation lasted 120 days, ending with the Lurrama meeting, where over 6,000 citizens met. The struggle led to the owner’s decision to withdraw the good from the sale. A year later, however, it put back on sale for the same price, but only in that same period three buildings and four hectares; and again, thanks to the mobilization, the buyers in Paris did it to the liver. Two lessons were drawn from the question of Arbona: one, which is worth fighting and the other, that this speculative trend is legal and that today nothing can hinder – if not the pressure of the citizens…. Safer is a structure that, on the part of notaries, collects all the trade in farmland, and although it has tools to put the goods in the hands of farmers, everyday reality shows us that in some cases it is impossible. Safers were created in 1960 and this society linked to the Ministry of Agriculture is primarily responsible for the management of farmland. In particular, it has two months after receiving the sales promise to answer: either it exercises the right of challenge – and in this case it is intended for the farmer who acquires the good and does
so for the candidate – or it activates the preferential right of price review – in this case it proposes to its owner to buy it at a price other than speculation – or it does not intervene – it gives way to the trade in notification.

The main problem is that it is sometimes unable to do anything, and that the areas disappear in full legality, because in certain cases of sale the conditions for processing the right of withdrawal are not met. The current organisation also has a second strong border: the owner has the last word and can reject the Safer proposal to continue speculation as much as he wants. We will look more closely at the competences of the Safer, its limitations and its impossibilities by illustrating them with concrete examples that have been made today.

So that speculation is not a price fixing reference

The right of withdrawal is intended to apply land to cultivation. Among the conditions for this is the holding of a farmer who is a candidate for the location of Safer, and the work carried out by the ELB trade union and the Lurzaindia Foundation are important, which can take advantage of the possibility of installing farms and without land. In 2022 he exercised the right at the departmental level in 53 cases (most in the Basque Country), and in addition to three, all the others were to nullify the speculative price. Let us assume that last year in Urruña the target of selling 1,070 square metres for 80,000 euros was cancelled. But do not think that this is just a coastal problem: in Ortzaiz, 7.3 hectares of land were also sold with its frame valued at EUR 25,000.

At present the hectare is EUR 7,250 (without a rack), but nothing limits sales to this ratio. Basically, if Safer is not yet, nothing obliges the purchaser to guarantee agricultural activity. The Maryse Cachenaut of Lurzaindia considers the price review "very important", since if these huge prices were channeled, the reference price would rise… fixing early or late speculations.

In particular, when channelling the right to review the price, the owner has three options: accepting the price proposed by Safer – but, as we may think, has no interest in it and almost never occurs – removing the good from the sale; or going to the court to fix the price, which is not frequent either. Thus, in most cases transactions are annulled, and although it is not a complete victory, because in the end those lands can remain uncultivated until later sale, it serves to limit speculation and is nothing.

However, the director of Safer in the Atlantic Pyrenees, Eric Penacq, wanted to qualify ARGIA that "we often reduce the role of Safer to the right to buy preferentially, but they account for 20% of the interventions, while in another 80% the owner leaves the sale in the hands of Safer".

Legislation was slightly amended in 2014, extending the range of preemptions. Until then, the good had been destined for the cultivation that it all needed (suppose, if the house had no agricultural activity in the last five years, then it could not intervene in the trade and so many lands were lost). Since 2014, however, crops can be separated from the building and Safer can take advantage of the preferred land purchase option. This was the case for Berrueta de Arbona, but the owner did not accept the proposal of Safer. The only option for Safer was to purchase at a price of €3.14 million set by its owner. The "impossible" financially and politically, according to Penacq, not only do not deny that money, but include it in the speculative logic. A year later, when selling the four hectares and the racks, Safer triggered the same path, but the owner acted the same. So we have the limit: the owner has the last word.

"Legally we cannot intervene in all cases. I could say that in the case of goods free of strongholds there is no problem and that we can always channel that right, that we are limited when the good is also stronghold… in some cases we can do nothing”, says Penacq, stressing the need to adapt the law.

First of all, the rack should have a growing function and it should be grown in the five years before the sale. In other words, if six years ago agricultural activity stopped, then Safer can do nothing. Therefore, over the house of Berrueta in Arbona they could not propose a purchase route at a moderate price. The Lurzaindia Cachenaut also says that this limit is problematic, because it loses cultivation in the Northern Basque Country.

But that's not why you don't use that path. Basically, following the recent agreement between Safer and Euskal Hiria Elkargoa, the right to preemption of price review will be exercised in all transactions aimed at speculative logic, and the college will be systematically placed as "guarantee". Penacq says it is an important step: "this agreement shows us the political will of the Colegio Vasco de Cascos Urbano to promote the territory".

The case of Arbona showed many limitations, including the following legal deficiency that in recent times are using speculators to prevent competition from Safer:

Arbona, Bidarrai: trouts, but legal

At the beginning of the year we already knew this truce thanks once again to the serious conservation work carried out by Lurzaindia and the OECD. Bidarrain, an owner sold sixteen hectares of land to a French sprinkler corridor for 90,000 euros, but after the sale the buyer would acquire only the bare property, without the enjoyment of the land. Why? By selling in two parts it quite legitimately avoids the right to buy Safer. Mediabask spoke to the buyer and the tone of contempt was also touched by the truffle: "He was also a peasant son" and did not intend to get pleasure in time, so that his children become peasants in the place... In art, he is not a farmer, he is a rich mediator of raids and is destined to a burden that cannot be cultivator.

Lurzaindia denounces this path: "We denounce as defenders of the land that we want for food those land grabs from the uncultivators, who lose their vocation as food. The Basque Country is far from food autonomy and the protection of crops must become the main challenge. In this sense, we ask them about abandoning these land purchases". This legal arrangement "is not acceptable" also from the point of view of the director of Safer.

Thus, most cultural actors see the need to adapt the law and in this regard the bill presented last year by Members Vincent Bru and Jean-Bernard Sempastous. This text implies, on the one hand, the declaration of the "general interest" of the crop and, on the other hand, the extension of the right of preferential acquisition of Safer. It is a set of "legal holes", with the help of Stephanie De Los Angeles, an expert in rural law. "For us they are positive proposals. It won't fix everything, but it's an improvement," says Lurzaindia Cachenaut. Today they do not have information about this legislative route and says that “it is important to press” for that law to be definitively voted.

Marienia: the hunger of urbanism

We must also look at the initial number: 600 hectares of farmland disappear each year in Lapurdi, Nafarroa Beherea and Zuberoa. In relation to this soil artificialization, both the houses of the municipality and the Basque Association of Urban Helmets have a great responsibility. If you ask whether the elected officials are aware of this land disappearance, Kashenaut says, "Some do and try to eat growing areas. But is it a chimera or a law enforcement? I don't know. We need mobilization and our instruments, but yet we need a law on land issues."

The document Local Plan of Urbanism and communal maps are the maps of the villages in which agricultural land is protected from artificialization. But it is also a further instrument of interest, to have an impact on the Cultivation Funds, which at the end of last year the Basque School of Urban Helmets has entrusted to the electorate: the instruments for the land funds, as they appear in the manual. We have also asked Penacq, director of Safer, about the degree of awareness of the houses of the people, but he does not want to express his opinion: "It is not for me to judge the work of the elect. But it is clear that the Northern Basque Country is a complex territory and that the problems are different within and on the coast. I could say that they are aware of the issue, but that many voters are unaware of the instruments to preserve farmland and to channel the succession of farms. Most voters are conscious, but they think they can do nothing." In that case, the College Guide Book will deny its role.

Mapping adaptation can make cultivated land buildable. Above all because an increase in the population is expected and because the Local Residency Program, voted by the College, implies a commitment to build 2,686 homes a year, until 2026.

The area of Marienia, in Cambo, is an example of this phenomenon: 3.7 hectares of land have been acquired for the construction of 94 houses by the compote company Bouygues Immobilier. However, the collective ELB, Lurzaindia and Marienia Ez Hunki do not admit that "Marienese lands are very good for cultivation, but once artificialized they will not be more productive". The question is in court, with the intention of also paralysing the draft by judicial means.

"Don't forget where we came from."

Those who have been around the OECD for years know that this trade union has not always had an easy road, that it has not always received such broad support in the fight for farms and farmland and that its current cooperation with Safer has not always been possible. To begin with, because it was not given room in the technical assembly of the structure. Stakeholders – trade unions, banks, mutual societies and representatives of communities – are analysing transactions, discussing the activation of the right to preemption and deciding to whom the good will go when there is more than one application. That is to say, it is an important point of decision, and if the OECD currently has a representative, it has not always been so. Proof of this is that GFA Lur, structure with the same objective of Lurzaindia, converted into Lurzaindia in 2013, intended the farmhouse of Ganga de Ainharbe for the landless peasants Jasmine and Fredo Larragnaga (where Fredo already worked, representing his recently deceased labrador spouse, but at the same time of the Safense trade union). Five voted in favour of the GFD, but six in favour of the other. The fighting was violent, there were demonstrations and they were arrested, tried and beaten. But the solidarity was greater and, finally, the owner agreed to allocate the estate to Fredo and Jasmine: the DFG bought the land – with 2,500 shares of 63 euros of citizens’ purchase – and the Bizitegia association, with 250,000 euros of citizen solidarity. Shortly thereafter, the OECD would achieve a place within the Safer System, opening the way for internal anti-speculation struggles and the installation of peasants.

At that technical meeting, Kashenaut, a member of the OECD, says that they are still missing today. But they have no impediment: "You have to be, and be, because when you exist, you can't do it as if you didn't."

From what was done by the OECD and the DFG Tierra/Lurzaindia, Cachenaut concludes that "We are there and we must be proud of ourselves. Everybody forgets a lot about where we came from, everyone talks about "the Arbona affair," but they always forget to name ELB and Lurzaindia -- remember where the achievements have come from." As in any social struggle, victories never fall out of the sky.

The report is completed with an interview with Isabelle Pargades, vice-president of the Association of Basque Urban Centers, in charge of cultivation and food: