Zim land audit ‘cop out’ criticised
By Alex Bell
14 May 2013
The Zimbabwe government is facing criticism for ‘copping out’ of its
promises to undertake a comprehensive land audit across the country, and
instead opting for a ‘land use audit’.
This decision was revealed by the Lands and Rural Resettlement Minister,
Herbert Murerwa, last week when he told the Senate that a comprehensive land
audit (promised in section five of the Global Political Agreement) was not
possible “because of the economic situation we found ourselves in.”
“But in spite of this we have now agreed with the Finance Minister (Tendai
Biti) to make funds available so that we do what we call a ‘land use audit’,”
Murerwa said.
He explained that the plan was to go ward by ward to determine the size of
land being used, who was on that land and how best his ministry could help
those farmers.
But according to the Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers Union (CFU), this form of
audit will not be good enough to move the country forward in terms of
agricultural security and development. CFU President Charles Taffs told SW
Radio Africa that the decision is “unfortunate,” and a “cop out.”
“I see this now as a shifting of the goal posts. We need a land audit not
for any other reason than to find out the actual status of the land… to come
up with a comprehensive agricultural policy moving forward,” Taffs said.
He added that the date gathered from a ‘land use audit’ will not be good
enough to move the country forward, because such an audit is “open to
manipulation.
“We already hear of cattle and maize stocks being moved from one property to
another. So it’s not going to be an accurate assessment and for that reason
we are totally against it,” Taffs said.
He also refuted the Lands Minister’s claim that a lack of resources was the
reason for abandoning the promises of a comprehensive audit.
“We have extensive data as an organisation with our partners and we could
assist the government immensely in determining such an audit. We have it all
already. The problem is there is reluctance to do it for fear of uncovering
inconsistencies with government policy,” Taffs said.
He added: “I also see this as a softening of the implementors of the
agreement, who are bowing down to wishes to move the process forward, and I
think it’s a cop out to be honest.”