Sundayview: Land: A key Objective of the Liberation Struggle http://www.thestandard.co.zw/
Saturday, 30 January 2010 16:42
THE right to own land and the right to education were the two key objectives of the liberation struggle. Landless peasants, whose sons and daughters formed half of the freedom fighters, were fighting primarily for land.
The land hunger was respected for the first three years of Independence, when some 2 million hectares of land were given to landless peasants. However land resettlement slowed down, and by 1987, had halted.
It was only to resume in 2000, following a forceful reminder by war veterans that this important aspect of the liberation struggle had been forgotten and neglected. Soon after, the programme was taken over by Zanu PF, and named the Third Chimurenga.
War veterans and a large number of youths were recruited to take the programme to scale. Now, almost a decade later, it is appropriate to examine the positive and the negative sides of the Land Resettlement Programme.
Originally, the commercial farm lands covered 16 million hectares, farmed by some 5 000 white farmers.
These large farm holdings averaged about 2 000 hectares each. In 1976, only 327 white farmers were extremely successful, utilising their land fully.
About 40% were successful enough to pay tax, whilst as many as 60% were not earning enough to be taxed. At Independence, 3 million hectares were bought through a US$80 million grant given by the Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher.
When the Labour Party came into power in 1998, they, through international aid Minister Clare Short, flatly refused to fund any further land resettlement.
Although land resettlement had fizzled out a decade earlier, there were some hopes that it would resume.
Zanu PF has consistently blamed the British Government for the stalled land resettlement programme. The Zimbabwean government was dependent on British funds for this important programme. Donor dependency was part of the problem.
The 2000 Land Resettlement Programme differed from the 1981 – 1983 Resettlement Programme, and perhaps gives a hint as to why the earlier programme was halted.
The 1981 – 1983 Programme gave land to landless peasants. By 2000 it was decided that some of the land should go to people who were well resourced.
However in both cases the land was not sold, but was given free of charge. The new programme divided land resettlement into A1 and A2 schemes, A1 being for small-scale farmers and A2 being for large-scale farmers.
In an imitation of the colonial set up, the land was being divided in effect into large-scale commercial farms for the well endowed and small-scale farms for the poor, who were the majority.
Land was being given to Zanu PF loyalists, irrespective of their knowledge, skills and experience in farming.
Little was given in terms of training and extension support. Whilst seeds and fertilizer were being distributed either free or at a very low price, this was difficult to access, and went mainly to the top political leadership.
Four weaknesses of the programme can be identified: firstly the blind imitation of the settler colonial agricultural set up favouring large-scale farmers, yet it is well known that it was communal farmers who had fed the nation since the 1980s; secondly the failure to provide training and extension support; and thirdly, the failure to provide adequate seeds, fertiliser and draught power. The fourth weakness, and the most fatal, was to tie the programme to patronage, utilizing political loyalty as the main criterion at the expense of actual commitment and capacity to farm.
The provision of free handouts under the patronage system proved fatal, as non-farmers were able to sell the handouts at a premium without actually planting anything. Whilst a small percentage of political supporters may
also be excellent farmers, on the whole political loyalty does not prove that one has farming skills.
Land resettlement remains one of the most important challenges facing Zimbabwe.
It is impossible to return to the past. It is also counterproductive to retain the colonial settler model, as has been done in the 2000 imitation of the Rhodesian system of dividing farmers into well endowed large-scale
commercial farmers and small-scale subsistence farmers, with inputs being made available mainly to the large-scale ones.
About 11 – 12 million hectares of the land formerly held by white commercial farmers have now been taken over by the government.
The issue of multiple ownership of land is clearly against stated government policy, and this can be speedily rectified. Some 200 – 300 of the political elite hold multiple farms.
Ending multiple farm ownership could free up about half a million hectares of land. This land can become the core of a new land resettlement scheme.
The majority of the resettled, about 150 000, do not own multiple farms. It would be extremely disruptive to have a wholesale movement of the newly resettled at this point.
On the other hand, un-utilised and under-utilised land is absolutely detrimental to the development of Zimbabwe. A number of approaches can be taken to ensure that all land is productively utilised. A few of these
include:
The first is to provide training and extension services to those who have been given land.
The second is to make inputs, in particular seeds and fertiliser, freely available on the open market, so that everyone can access them. Seeds and fertiliser should not be free, and should be available in hundreds of
outlets, such as farmers’ co-ops and village shops. Imagine if tooth paste or soap were only available in one depot per district!
There would be queues and corruption, as has been the case with seeds and fertiliser.
Seeds and fertiliser can be subsidised so that they are affordable. This would be based on an analysis of production costs, profit level, and affordability to the majority of farmers. Since these inputs would be sold,
they will generate funding for further investment.
Loans should be made available to both small-and large-scale farmers to enable them to buy inputs.
“Land to the tillers” is one of the most important slogans of the liberation struggle, and should be adhered to. The situation where the politically powerful have been able to hold onto large farms without farming them should end.
Present settlers should be given a five-year licence to remain on the land, during which period they have to prove that they are serious farmers. They should have opportunities to train, to enjoy extension services, to buy
inputs at reasonable prices, and to access loans.
At the end of five years, each farmer’s production record can be examined, and decisions made case-by-case regarding whether they can retain their farms or not.
Serious farmers will be given the opportunity to buy their farms or part of their farms on a 99-year leasehold system. The price should not be set by market prices, but should be based on productivity and affordability.
In the 1981 – 1983 Resettlement Scheme land was bought from white farmers at an average of US$200 a hectare. Some of it was for less.
This could very well be an affordable bench mark, and farmers will have had five years to save enough to buy one. Thus a good small-scale farmer could pay US$1 000 for a five-hectare plot, whereas a large-scale farmer could pay US$80 000 for a 400-hectare plot.
The gradual sale of 10 million hectares of land will bring in about US$2 billion, and this can be spent on improving agricultural productivity. Such leaseholds can be sold, with one or two conditionalities, such as they can be sold only to serious farmers.
Inheritance is also possible, but only if the heir is a serious farmer. Serious farmers would prove their seriousness by acquiring some form of agricultural training or by proving that they have been productive on
allotments or communal farms.
A serious farmer would also spend a large amount of time on the farm itself, and this can be measured.
Only the indigent or very poor should be given land free of charge. Assuming that there are 2 million indigent families in the country, and each is given half a hectare of land, this will mean reserving some 1 million
hectares of land for this purpose.
Indigents should be given land according to the allotment system, where land can be hired for short periods of time, such as one to five years.
This would be social welfare scheme, providing the indigent with the opportunity to utilize land for survival purposes. Allotments can be dotted all over the country. The objective is to allow the indigent to feed his or
her family. Free and/or low cost seeds and fertiliser can be made available to this group.
The successful ones would qualify to become farmers through the mainstream land resettlement programme.
Land is too valuable to gamble with. Land must be utilised to best effect. Land must be productive. Land is the lifeline of the country.
BY FAY CHUNG