‘Reforming’ land reform greatly needed
http://www.theindependent.co.zw/
May 3, 2013 in Comment, Opinion
Four months ago, a new book was released in the United Kingdom, entitled
Zimbabwe Takes Back Its Land. It had three collaborating authors, Joseph
Hanlon, Jeanette Manjengwa and Teresa Smart.
Report by Eric Bloch
Overall, they enthuse about the success of Zimbabwe’s land reform, although
they acknowledge that it “has not been neat”, and that “huge problems
remain”. However, they imply that the benefits reaped from Zimbabwean land
reform are considerable, and far outweigh the problems and the attendant
negatives. They suggest that notwithstanding the remaining problems, the
favourable counterbalance is that “245 000 new farmers have received land,
and most of them are farming it. These peope have raised their own standard
of living; have already reached the production levels of their former white
farmers; and, with a bit of support, are ready to substantially increase
that production”.
The authors support their positive stance by stating: “Agrarian reform is a
slow process and it takes a generation for new farmers to be fully
productive”, and suggest that over the years since the land reform programme
was vigorously pursued, “Zimbabwe’s agricultural production has largely
returned to the 1990s level”.
They reinforce that contention by alleging that “small-scale black farmers
together now produce almost as much tobacco as the big white farmers once
did.” They re-emphasise that contention by stating that “driving into the
old white farm compound of a particularly named farm – “Craigengower Farm”-
one arrives at a hub of activity.
There are several buildings – grain and machinery stores, houses for some
farmers, and a house for the agricultural extension officer who serves this
and two other farms.
Although the authors undoubtedly formed their opinions and expressed them in
good faith and they are well-intentioned, those opinions and conclusions are
regrettably at pronounced variance with the realities. Tragically, the
actualities of the land reform are very markedly different due to the
outcomes to date of the actions of expropriation and reallocation of
farmlands. One of the foremost harsh facts is the magnitude of decline in
agricultural production.
It must be acknowledged that slowly, but progressively, tobacco production
has significantly recovered, having been as great as 237 million kg in 2001,
and over subsequent years declining to as low as 45 million kg. It has
subsequently improved to an estimated 150 million kg in the latest season,
but nevertheless, this production is still considerably below previous
attainment. The major factor that enabled a rise in the dismal volumes grown
after land reform commenced has been that over recent years, several of the
larger tobacco companies have provided essential funding to contract
farmers.
However, similar transformation from production decline has tragically not
materialised in respect of other crops and agricultural output. Prior to
land reform, Zimbabwe was known as the region’s breadbasket, producing not
only sufficient maize, wheat, and other grains for the populace, but a
surplus exported to neighbouring countries. However, since land reform there
has been a critical dependence on imports. Approximately 1 800 000 tonnes of
maize are required annually to meet the country’s needs against the current
national yield of a little more than 300 000 tonnes per annum. Government
seeks to justify the appallingly low yields to adverse climatic conditions,
but even in years of ideal conditions, the crop outputs have been low.
In like manner, volumes of cotton, sugar, diverse vegetables, and many other
crops are lower than attained in pre-land reform days, and the national
livestock herd is now estimated to be only 36% of that of 2000. The awful
decline of almost all fields of agricultural production has been occasioned
by diverse factors. The foremost contributor to agriculture’s massive
decline is that the majority of the new farmers did not have the capital
necessary to fund operations and could not access such funding. By
peremptorily, in disregard of international law and property rights,
expropriating all farmlands, claiming absolute title thereto, and only
making the farms available to new farmers by way of leases, the state denied
those farmers collateral security necessary to access the working capital
required for viable farming operations.
Moreover, many of those granted farm leases had very limited experience in
substantive agricultural production and grievously lacked the necessary
equipment to achieve that production. To make matters worse, there have been
minimal opportunities for farmers to sell their produce at viable and
realistic prices, not those prices being determined by government
parastatals such as the Grain marketing Board (GMB). Repeatedly, government
also failed to assure timeous availability of essential agricultural inputs,
and to effectively initiate national irrigation resources. Such resources as
exist are all too frequently unavailable because of recurrent disruptions in
energy supplies.
Now, very belatedly, and unduly slowly, the state is beginning to address
some of the innumerable constraints on substantive agricultural production.
The new constitution, overwhelmingly voted for in the recent national
referendum, has provided for state-controlled farmland leases to be accorded
negotiability and transferability (which in part restores features which are
attributable to title deeds). However, the constitution is yet to be
approved by parliament, let alone receive presidential assent. New farmers
can anticipate possessing some collateral security to source funding.
However, that will only be effective once the leases have actually been
issued, for to date, the majority of new farmers have only received offer
letters, but not comprehensive leases.
Furthermore, access to funding will remain very limited until such time as
significant money market liquidity is restored, which can only occur once
Zimbabwe has considerable, consistent, and recurrent economic stability and
growth, as well as ready access to international loan funding and foreign
direct investment.
One reason the book’s authors justify their contentions of success of the
Zimbabwean land reform is that, as a result of that reform, 245 000 new
farmers exist, giving them enhanced prospects of improved livelihood.
However, that alleged counter to poverty disregards that in excess of 350
000 farm workers lost employment, and therefore their source of income,
primarily because most of the new farmers could not employ them. On a basis
that each of the former farm workers supported themselves and an average of
at least five other family and dependants, almost two million Zimbabweans
were reduced to extreme poverty.
The economy has also been cataclysmically ruined by the expropriation of the
lands without compensation, and in very many instances, in disregard for
Zimbabwe’s obligations under numerous Bilateral Investment Promotion and
Protection Agreements (Bippas), as a result of which many potential foreign
direct investors have been deterred and discouraged from investing in
Zimbabwe. This has been severely prejudicial to the economy as a whole, and
therefore to a great majority of Zimbabweans.
The bottom line is that, in contrast to the conclusions of the book’s
authors, which are very considerably aligned with those of the initiators of
land reform, and that of the programme’s continuing advocates, its benefits
are grossly exceeded by its negative consequences.