Has Zim’s land question been solved?

Has Zim’s land question been solved?

Financial Gazette

8/8/2019

Tabitha Mutenga

The overarching objective of the three phases of the land and agrarian reforms in Zimbabwe since 1980 was to improve the welfare of ordinary Zimbabweans and resolve the century-long land dispute that culminated in the

first and second Chimurenga war.

The land question in Zimbabwe is the physical manifestation of a long history of white colonial rule in Zimbabwe; however the reforms triggered a range of internal and external forces mat placed agriculture in a quandary.

Zimbabwe has undergone three distinct phases of agrarian reforms since independence, particularly with reference to the reform of the agricul­tural policy.

“The first phase, which was characterised by widespread state involvement, entailed the pro­motion of a bimodal structure of agriculture and the revitalisation of the smallholder sector be­tween 1980 and 1990. The heightened state sup-fort to the smallholder sector culminated in the green revolution of the 1980s,” the 2018 Agricul­ture Sector Survey said.

The Agriculture Sector Survey was commissioned by the Financial Gazette in partnership with the Zimbabwe Agricultural Society.

At Independence, government had made a commitment to resettle 162 000 farmers by 1990 when the “willing buyer, willing seller agreement expired.

Despite the successes noted by the Agriculture Sector Survey, by 1990 government had not reached half its target” for several reasons. These included the “willing buyer, seller agreement”, lack of funds and capital to buy the land and de­velop it for resettlement, corruption within government and general bureaucracy.

By passing the Land Acquisition Act in 1992, which was supposed to speed up the land reform process through land designation and compulsory acquisition, government came up with a new and revised land reform policy after 1990. This marked the second phase of the land and agrarian reforms.

This policy allowed government to acquire, for compen­sation, land that it deemed unproductive. Studies conducted by the World Bank earlier showed that large-scale commer­cial farmers were utilising less than half of the 11 million hectares of land they owned.

“The second phase of agrarian reforms witnessed the withdrawal of state support from agriculture, resulting in liberalisation and deregulation of the economy during the economic structural adjustment programme (ESAP) from 1991 up to 2000.

“By the year 2000, following the redistribution of about 3,5 million ha since 1980, Zimbabwe’s agriculture was char­acterised by a dualistic structure — a low-input-low-output smallholder sector comprising mainly black indigenous farmers and high-input-high-output large scale commercial farmers (LSCF) sector comprising mainly white farmers.”

Out of Zimbabwe’s 12 million people in 1997, one mil­lion black families were still living in overcrowded commu­nal lands on an average of three hectares per family. This phase of the reform had railed as well.

Way forward, government convened the Land Reform Donor Conference in Harare in 1998, planning the third phase of the land acquisition process. Government estimated that it would need US$1,1 billion for the land acquisition, development, infrastructure and services such as roads, schools, clinics and farming implements.

Financial loans to finance the new farmers were also re­quired from banks, but as is the case today; banks were not willing to finance farmers without collateral. Government planned to compulsorily purchase over five years, five mil­lion hectares from the 11 million hectares owned by black and white commercial farmers, parastatals, corporations and multinational companies.

Again the process was slow, as a result, although highly politicising the situation, in 2000, led by the war veterans of the Chimurenga war, landless blacks began to invade farms and seize white owned land. The politicised process saw the invasion of over 1 000 farms by war veterans. Of the 300 000 farm workers living and working on the farms, 150 000 lost not only their jobs, but homesteads in these invasions.

‘The third phase, dubbed the Fast-Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP), was characterised by the abandon­ment of market-based approaches to land reform in favour of revolutionary approaches and fast-tracking land distribution, witnessed the reinstatement of state controls and pronounced involvement of the central government in agriculture.

“During the FTLRP, over 10 million hectares of land were acquired and redistributed to a broad range of beneficia­ries including landless peasants, war veterans, middle-class urbanites and farm workers,” the survey said.

Of the three main phases of agrarian reforms in Zimba­bwe, the FTLRP is the most prominent as it had wide and varied consequences on the performance of agricultural pro­duction and the whole spectrum of value chains.

The FTLRP entailed the redistribution of land from the minority white large scale farmers to mostly small and medi­um scale farms and also the introduction of new state based tenure regimes.

“Thus, the FTLRP has led to a significant reconfiguration of the agrarian landscape. Prior to the FTLRP, the large scale commercial farming sector comprised of about 4 500 farm owners and around 6 000 farms but these had been decimat­ed to around 300 by 2010. The area covered by white-owned large scale commercial farms has decreased drastically from over 15 million hectares in 1980 to just around 3,4 million ha in 2010 following the FTLRP.”

To legalise the whole process, government, in 2002 passed the Land Acquisition Amendment Act but since then, the country has witnessed massive decline in agricultural production since the turn of the new millennium.

Zimbabwe, which used to be bread basket of Southern Africa became a net importer of various agricultural produce which, inter alia, include wheat, maize, soya bean, fruits, vegetables, meat and eggs, among others.

With efforts from government through contract growing and Command Agriculture, Zimbabwe has witnessed a re­bound in the agricultural sector, particularly in the areas of tobacco and maize to some extent although there are chal­lenges emanating from the El Nino-induced drought during the 20118/19 season.

The rebound of these major crops especially during the 2016/2017 season was due to good rainfall coupled with improved financing under Command Agriculture which im­proved input access and tillage services.

“Even though Command Agriculture improved financing for farmers, access to finance, particularly by smallholder farmers, however, remains a major blockage to agricultural performance. A robust production and productivity enhance­ment programme driven by the government targeting low yielding small holder farmers will go a long way in securing the nation’s food security while at the same time increasing small holder farmer earnings since they will be able to produce a surplus,” the 2018 Agricultural Sector Survey said.