标签： Suriname

After weeks of public speculation and unanswered questions surrounding its controversial large-scale agricultural initiative in Suriname, Braganza Marketing Group has issued a formal statement confirming that it has signed written binding agreements and framework contracts directly with Mennonite participants brought in to work on the projects. This confirmation marks the first time the firm has explicitly acknowledged the existence of separate Mennonite agreements, in addition to its existing contracts with Suriname’s Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (LVV).

Braganza director Lionel Blokland released the detailed statement to the press on Friday, following a request for comment from local outlet Starnieuws weeks earlier, when Blokland declined to respond on the record and promised to issue a full explanation at a later date.

According to Blokland’s statement, Braganza signed three land use right agreements with LVV on January 13, 2026, covering three distinct plots of land along the West Suriname Highway, with a combined total area of 34,185 hectares. Blokland emphasized that LVV holds no formal agreement with the Mennonite group; all working arrangements are structured as direct contracts between Braganza and the Mennonite participants. “The Mennonites have entered into a formal partnership with Braganza, and we have documented all terms of our working relationship in signed framework agreements,” Blokland wrote in the statement.

This disclosure clarifies the ambiguous project structure first raised by Starnieuws in previous reporting. An earlier public contract reviewed by the outlet showed LVV had conditionally granted Braganza access to 9,366.72 hectares of state-owned land, but made no mention of Mennonite involvement, despite the group’s central role in project implementation.

Blokland also pushed back on recent claims from Belizean Mennonite representative Peter Petersen, who told visiting parliamentarians and journalists that his group had paid $150 USD per hectare to secure access to land for agricultural activities in Suriname. Blokland firmly denied that Braganza has sold any land to the Mennonites at any price, stressing that no land transfer has taken place at all. Instead, he explained, the agreements with Mennonites cover their contributions of labor, agricultural management expertise, technical knowledge and hands-on experience for the execution of the large-scale projects.

The statement did not offer a definitive explanation for the $150 per hectare figure cited by Petersen. Blokland noted that Braganza has no insight into how Mennonite participants structure their internal financing arrangements. He did not rule out the possibility that individual Mennonite families pay a per-hectare contribution to the group’s collective fund, but described this as an internal matter that falls outside Braganza’s oversight.

Braganza projects that the three combined agricultural initiatives will generate approximately $78 million USD in annual production value once fully operational, with an estimated $13 million USD in annual tax contributions to the Surinamese government. The company stressed that these are projected figures, not realized output or revenue to date. It also confirmed that full financing for the projects has now been secured, addressing earlier uncertainties around funding and cash flow that were noted in an older business plan reviewed by Starnieuws. Total investments from Braganza and its international partners run into the tens of millions of dollars, the company added, rejecting accusations that it profits from the resale of state-owned land.

The statement also addressed ongoing questions about the immigration status of participating Mennonites. Blokland confirmed that all Mennonites connected to the projects are residing in Suriname through legal channels. He noted that Mexican Mennonites entered the country on valid visas, and applications for permanent residence permits have already been submitted on their behalf. For participating Mennonites from Belize, Braganza says registration via a Caricom residency certificate is required due to the country’s Caricom membership, and those applications are also already in process. This aligns with earlier guidance from Suriname’s Minister Mike Noersalim, who stated that foreign labor can only be employed at the projects in full compliance with existing Surinamese law.

Braganza additionally denied allegations that any illegal activities are being carried out at the project sites. According to the company, its agreement with LVV explicitly allows for the construction of temporary work camps, boundary demarcation, and other preliminary site preparation activities in the current project phase.

A key unresolved discrepancy remains surrounding reports of a court bailiff’s eviction notice. Blokland insisted that neither Braganza nor any participating Mennonites have received an eviction notice or order to vacate the project area, contradicting earlier reports that the Surinamese government had ordered Mennonites to halt activities and leave the land. Notably, the Mennonites themselves also stated this week that they have no knowledge of any such eviction order, leaving the conflicting accounts of the document unresolved.

Blokland also rejected claims that the project land encroaches on territory held by Indigenous and tribal communities in Suriname. He said Braganza has signed formal cooperation agreements with the local communities of Witagron, Apoera, Section and Washabo, focused on creating local employment opportunities and joint maintenance of public infrastructure, matching previous public claims the company has made about partnerships with surrounding communities.

Finally, the company dismissed unsubstantiated allegations of human trafficking connected to the Mennonite participation. Blokland described the arrangement as a legitimate business partnership, where Mennonites contribute specialized agricultural knowledge, decades of experience, and skilled labor to the initiative. Braganza said it issued the public statement to bring much-needed clarity to the intense public debate surrounding the project, and expects the Surinamese government will release additional detailed information in the near future.

As questions continue to mount over the presence of Mennonite communities in Suriname, a new group of Mennonite arrivals entered the country Thursday aboard a Copa Airlines flight. This new influx comes even as critical details remain unresolved about the status of existing Mennonite groups, the agricultural land they intend to work, and the agreements that were purportedly struck before their initial arrival. This situation cannot continue as it stands: full, permanent clarity on this entire issue is long overdue.

Against this backdrop, the recent site visit by Members of Parliament Rabin Parmessar and Jennifer Vreedzaam to the areas where Mennonites have settled is a welcome step. It is positive that elected representatives are not limiting their questioning to debates within the National Assembly, but are instead choosing to see conditions firsthand and speak directly to stakeholders. Even so, this on-the-ground visit is far from sufficient to resolve the deep uncertainty surrounding the settlement initiative.

During the visit, Peter Petersen, a Mennonite originally from Belize, made statements that have underscored the need for further formal investigation. Petersen told lawmakers that his group had no idea they would be required to leave the area they are currently occupying; instead, they were told that formal approval for agricultural use of the land was still being processed. He also shared that group members have already sold all their property in Belize and shipped their agricultural equipment to Suriname to begin work. Most notably, when asked who had facilitated the group’s relocation to Suriname, Petersen named two individuals: Ruud Souverein and Lionel Blokland.

These claims require urgent follow-up investigation, as both names have already been linked to the Mennonite settlement initiative and the allocation of agricultural land in Suriname. Souverein was involved in efforts to bring Mennonite farmers to Suriname for large-scale agricultural projects during the previous national administration. Through his firm Terra Invest, Souverein submitted extensive applications for large land parcels. While not all of these applications were approved, the paper trail confirms that the current controversial situation has roots in decisions made by the previous government. More recently, Braganza Marketing Group has emerged as a key actor in the initiative. The Surinamese Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (LVV) has signed formal agreements with Braganza for large-scale agricultural development projects, and the company has publicly stated its intent to partner with Mennonite farmers on these projects.

However, conflicting public statements from all involved parties, including the national government, have only deepened public confusion. LVV Minister Mike Noersaliem told parliament that the Surinamese government has not entered into any formal agreement directly with the Mennonite groups. Technically, this statement may be accurate, but that does not resolve the core controversy. If a company that has a direct formal agreement with the Surinamese state then brings Mennonite farmers into the agricultural project, the debate cannot end with a technical disclaimer that there is no direct agreement between the state and the Mennonites. This technicality hides far more complex arrangements that need to be brought into the open.

A series of core questions remain unanswered: Who first contacted the Mennonite groups about relocating? What promises were made to them before they left Belize? What agreements have they reached with Braganza or other private entities? Was the LVV aware that Mennonite farmers would be brought into these development projects? If the ministry was aware, when did they learn of this partnership, and how does this align with the government’s recent public order that Mennonites leave the land currently occupied? It is also critical to clarify what the Mennonite settlers themselves believed they were getting when they relocated. Do they expect to own or occupy the land themselves? Are they working as employees for Braganza? Are they private investors, project partners, or independent agricultural producers within the larger development scheme? These are not semantic points: the answers will directly determine the legal rights, obligations and accountability of all parties involved.

In this context, the $150 per hectare payment Petersen mentioned is also a key relevant detail. Who is paying this fee, to whom is it paid, and what is it for? Until this detail is clarified, a core part of the entire arrangement remains hidden from public view. And all the while, new groups of Mennonite settlers continue to arrive in Suriname, which only increases the urgency of resolving the controversy. Who is organizing these new arrivals? What information are they given before they leave their home country? Are they aware that there is ongoing debate and regulatory uncertainty about land access and approval in Suriname? Who is receiving them upon arrival, and what future plans are they promised upon entry?

It would be deeply irresponsible to allow Mennonite families to continue selling their belongings, shipping their equipment and relocating to Suriname under the impression they will be able to begin agricultural work, when fundamental questions about the project remain unresolved on the Surinamese side. This debate does not need to devolve into being for or against Mennonite immigration. The settlers who have already moved to Suriname deserve clarity just as much as the Surinamese public. If agreements were made with the settlers, we need to establish who made those agreements and on what legal basis. If agreements were made that cannot be honored, we must also establish who bears responsibility for that outcome.

Suriname’s parliament must deepen its investigation into this matter and leave no stone unturned. It is not only the current LVV minister that must provide answers. The full history of the initiative under the previous government also needs to be reconstructed: What land applications were submitted? What agreements were reached? What changes or adjustments were made to the plan along the way? And how did the country end up in a situation where Mennonite settlers are already living and working in Suriname, while they maintain they were invited here to develop agricultural land? Braganza must also provide full transparency about its role. If all processes have followed proper legal procedure, the company should be able to explain its agreements with the Mennonite settlers and how these align with its formal contract with the Surinamese state.

If evidence emerges that Mennonite settlers were brought to Suriname under false pretenses, it will be necessary to determine whether further legal action is required. The Mennonite controversy is already about far more than just agricultural development. It touches on state-owned land, governmental accountability, transparency, environmental protection, foreign investment, and the reliability of agreements made by the Surinamese government. Enough statements have been issued, and enough questions have been raised. It is time to put all cards on the table. The public deserves full clarity on who brought the Mennonites to Suriname, what promises were made to them, and what agreements underpin the entire initiative. As long as new settlers keep arriving while these questions remain unanswered, the problem will only continue to grow.

At the 57th World Trade Organization Public Forum held in Geneva, Venezuelan parliamentarian Rossellie Cotino has led a high-stakes working session focused on how national legislatures can advance the growth of sustainable trade in services, a core topic under this year’s forum theme “Powering the Future”.

Cotino is participating in the three-day forum, which runs from September 15 to 17, alongside fellow parliamentarians Steven Reyme and Mahinderkoemar Jogi from Suriname. As a sitting member of the strategic steering committee for the WTO Parliamentary Conference, she took on the role of discussion facilitator for the joint working session organized by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and the European Parliament. The session centered on a critical, underdiscussed question: how legislative bodies can deepen their engagement to build a more sustainable global services trade ecosystem.

Stakeholders from multiple sectors joined the conversation, including representatives from private industry, the European Parliament, national legislatures from across the globe, and a recently acceded WTO member state. The discussion yielded a key consensus that moves beyond traditional framing of trade policy: international trade agreements only lay part of the groundwork for expanding services trade. A far larger share of impact depends on domestic conditions within individual countries. Attendees emphasized that high-quality national legislation, transparent regulatory frameworks, efficient administrative processes, and well-functioning public institutions are all non-negotiable for unlocking inclusive, sustained growth in the services sector.

Participants further outlined that parliaments carry a broader mandate than simply passing new laws. Beyond legislation, these bodies are responsible for overseeing executive action, ensuring governments fully implement international trade commitments, and monitoring that the economic benefits generated by trade are distributed broadly across all segments of society. The session also drew critical attention to the stark capability gaps between WTO member states. Attendees agreed that any further liberalization of global services trade must be tailored to account for the unique economic contexts and institutional capacity constraints, particularly for low- and middle-income developing countries.

A core guiding principle agreed upon by participants is that services trade should not be treated as an end goal in itself. Instead, it should be structured to deliver tangible, broad-based progress: advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, creating quality formal employment, driving cross-border innovation, and building more inclusive economies. The parliamentary delegation’s visit to Geneva will conclude on September 18 with a scheduled meeting of the Parliamentary Conference’s strategic steering committee, where Cotino will continue contributing to ongoing institutional planning for parliamentary engagement at the WTO.

The 81st iteration of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is set to convene in New York from September 21 to 24, bringing heads of state and government from across the globe together to address pressing international challenges. This year’s assembly carries the overarching theme “Rebuilding Trust, Reforming Governance: A UN That Delivers Results for All”, and Suriname President Jennifer Simons will take center stage during the general debate on September 22, scheduled as the fourth speaker of the afternoon session, according to Suriname’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Cooperation Melvin Bouva.

In her upcoming address to the global assembly, President Simons will outline three core priorities for Suriname on the international stage, starting with a firm reaffirmation of the country’s commitment to upholding the international rules-based order. Minister Bouva confirmed that Simons will deliver a clear message on the necessity of binding multilateral agreements and collective action to address global issues. He emphasized that the Surinamese government remains a staunch supporter of multilateralism, believing that transnational challenges can only be resolved when all nations work together in accordance with mutually agreed upon norms.

Beyond multilateral diplomacy, the Surinamese delegation will use the UNGA gathering as a platform to advance bilateral diplomatic and economic goals. The government has already pre-planned a full schedule of bilateral meetings with neighboring countries, regional partners with existing strategic ties, and other globally important nations. Border relations and existing strategic partnerships will take top priority during these discussions, according to Bouva.

A key economic focus of these bilateral engagements will be attracting international investment to Suriname’s growing oil and energy sector. As an emerging oil-producing nation, Suriname is eager to leverage the UNGA platform to showcase its economic potential to the global investment community. Bouva stressed that any future investment negotiations will be conducted from a position of equal standing, with Suriname’s national interests always placed front and center. “That is our starting point, and based on that starting point, we are open to doing business with the world,” Bouva stated.

Climate action and forest conservation will also feature prominently in President Simons’ address. Last year, an international coalition of five major conservation and environmental organizations pledged $20 million to support Suriname’s efforts to protect its forests and biodiversity. Bouva acknowledged that the Surinamese government has not yet met all the legal requirements outlined in the funding agreement, but he confirmed that the administration is currently taking steps to formalize the commitments through domestic legislation to secure the funding.

This high-profile appearance at UNGA marks a key moment for Suriname as it seeks to position itself as a responsible global actor while advancing its own economic and environmental goals on the world stage.