Zimbabwe shows no signs of real Improvement.
SA Farmer’s Weekly 7 September 2018
Dr Tinashe Kapuya
Zimbabwe has just gone through a gruelling election cycle in which Zanu-PF won an overwhelming two-thirds majority in Parliament, while its leader scraped through with only a decimal point victory.
It is an election outcome that will surely have some implications for agriculture in the country particularly, and within the broader region generally. This is because Zimbabwe is one of the key import markets for grain, mostly from Zambia recently, as well as other processed agricultural products, especially from South Africa. ,
Zimbabwe is not the same agricultural powerhouse it was before the fast-track land reform programme, which was implemented in 2000.
Now, 20 years later, it remains to be seen if Zimbabwe will emerge to re-establish itself as an agricultural powerhouse.
However, after examining the political manifestos of the two main political parties, the MDC Alliance and Zanu-PF, I am not optimistic. The manifestos were, overall, extremely disappointing in terms of agriculture. Not only were they weak in their respective pitches, but they were also scanty and short on detail.
There are a number of issues that Zanu-PF has to tackle to begin the task of reviving the agriculture sector. In its manifesto, it noted seven key areas important for the revival of the sector: (i) concluding and finalising land reform, (ii) state-sponsored support and interventions, (iii) technology, (iv) tenure security, (v) water rights and security, (vi) access to finance, (vii) market reforms, and (viii) value addition and beneficiation.
CHALLENGES THAT HAMPER REVIVAL
On concluding land reform, Zanu-PF is suggesting compensation to white commercial farmers, a colossal error that is now set to cost the government US$9 billion (about R127 billion). This is equivalents the country’s national debt, and there is no indication where this money will come from. What is even more worrying is the insistence of state-driven ‘command agriculture’, which includes land allocated for grain production for food security. However, this programme appears to be a preserve for the political elite and connected, as there are no clear and transparent beneficiary selection criteria. It’s a programme that has not yielded any significant impact in the past.
Moreover, Zanu-PF’s thrust towards state-led interventions to mechanise and modernise farming is also concerning.
GOVERNMENT HAS NOT ADOPTED A CLEAR STANCE ON TENURE SECURITY
Between 2004 and 2008, such efforts were made through a number of programmes, such as the Productive Sector Facility, the Agriculture Sector Productivity and Enhancement Facility, Operation Maguta, and the Farm Mechanisation Programme, among others. Several media reports reported that the programmes suffered from elite capture, corruption and cronyism, and inevitably, very little came of it.
There is nothing to suggest that the new government will handle such programmes differently.
With respect to tenure security, government still struggles to craft a system that strengthens the security of tenure and water rights, 20 years after the implementation of land reform. In its manifesto, Zanu-PF mentioned that it would prolong leases, but there was no mention of the length of such leases. Yet this kind of detail is key to determining if land is tradeable or not.
Such vagueness in its policy shows that government has not been able to adopt a clear stance, and there is no indication whether such leases would indeed create confidence, especially given ongoing land conflicts, as well as threats to enforce the one-man one-farm policy.