Commercial Farmers' Union of Zimbabwe

Commercial Farmers' Union of Zimbabwe

***The views expressed in the articles published on this website DO NOT necessarily express the views of the Commercial Farmers' Union.***

Land reform cost Zimbabwe $33bn

Land reform cost Zimbabwe $33bn

Former president Robert Mugabe is blamed for the chaos that characterised the Land reform

THE land reform programme has cost the country over $33 billion in export revenue due to failure to fully participate on the global markets, statistics have indicated.
Zimbabwean agricultural economist and trade policy analyst based in South Africa, Tinashe Kapuya, said land reform did not achieve any economic development as the country lost opportunities on the global market.
“The country has spent at least $3 billion on grain imports since the fast-track land reform programme started. This brings the cost from export revenue lost, plus increased imports, to $20 billion. With former white commercial farmers claiming compensation in the region of $9 billion, the direct cost of fast-tracked land reform in Zimbabwe is thus about $33 billion,” Kapuya said.
The estimate excludes lost job opportunities both within the agriculture sector and through direct and indirect linkages to the manufacturing sector, not to mention the broader effects of general food insecurity, stunted economic growth, falling average incomes, and the collapse of social and economic services.
“Export revenue fell drastically over the years and Zimbabwe became a net importer with no meaningful exports,” he said.
Economist Eddie Cross has also previously estimated lost revenue at $20 billion.
The $3 billion imports in grain also include food aid, which became a lifeline for most rural households in drought prone areas.
The debate on land expropriation without compensation in the region has generated some interesting facts on Zimbabwe with economists disputing the fact that the programme was a success.
“Lessons from Zimbabwe show that the land reform programme was a failure, it failed to ensure national food security. Analysts may argue on the social aspects, but economically, Zimbabwe has been importing more than exporting. The net imports remain higher than the exports generated,” Kapuya said.
“With the land reform, Zimbabwe lost its potential for economic growth. The country missed a lot of opportunities on the international markets, we missed out on the international price boom, and it could have benefitted our farmers.
In 1997, Zimbabwe generated $14 million per day from exports, while in June 2018 the trade deficit widened to $1,2 billion.
Zimbabwe did not just lose out on earnings from horticulture, timber, and cash crops, it also paid a heavy price through exceptionally high levels of agricultural imports.
“The land reform was a disaster from the word go, property rights should be protected and the new leadership should restore property rights. Without these rights no-one will invest in the land. Compensation should be paid because it is a cost that sits on us no matter who takes over the reins of power,” Kapuya said.

[email protected]

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp

New Posts: