| |
Back to Index
The Limited Success of the Land Reform Programme
Justice
for Agriculture (JAG) Zimbabwe
December 13, 2002
Since various
ministers in the government have declared the land reform process
over, and since Robert Mugabe has declared the process of land grabbing
(succinctly described as "Jambanja") terminated, it seems likely
that one of the main matters for discussion at the Zanu-PF National
Conference will be congratulations on a job well done. Indeed, Vice
President Joseph Msika recently announced that the success of the
land reform programme means the revival of the country's economy.
The Herald quotes him as saying "the fact that the success of the
land reform programme has affected other sectors of the economy
is evident". In this matter we find ourselves in strong agreement
with him - obviously being one of the oldest statesmen in the world
has not impaired his ability to cast light on the dusty corners
of government policy. The lamentable state of the economy is the
prime topic of conversation in this country, second only to the
lack of available food, and both issues owe much to the poorly
managed issue of land reform.
Mr Msika claims that the insurance industry is set to boom at the
hands of the 50 000 new farmers that have been "empowered", but
fails to appreciate that the claims on this industry from evicted
farmers who have had extensive losses and thefts are likely to make
a significant dent in any such earnings. Likewise, the construction
industry will need to provide much of the infrastructure for these
new farmers, supposedly fuelling a revival in the flagging fortunes
of the sector. However, where the money for such extensive improvements
will come from is unclear, since the resettled farmers have no title
deeds with which to secure loans, and the government has already
made it clear that it lacks the resources to fund such improvements.
However, the supposed recovery of either of these sectors is unlikely
to mean very much to the majority of the country, since the real
question on everyone's minds is "Where is the next meal going to
come from?"
According to the recent report on the famine situation released
by the Food Security Network, nearly half of the reports on children
that they received showed that these children were dropping out
of school due to hunger, and another third reported increased absenteeism.
The amount of food available within the cities has dropped drastically,
causing frustration amongst the urban population who are often unable
to secure bread or maize meal even after queuing for hours. Furthermore,
the grain supplies are drastically reduced, which means that many
areas have received one or fewer deliveries of maize in the course
of a month. The GMB has taken to seizing the reserve stocks of farmers
which were meant to feed their labour, thereby causing more hunger
in these victimised populations whilst in no large measure reducing
the scale of the national problem. Certainly there is not much for
"Zanu-PF to raise its head high with pride" about, at least in terms
of the success of the land reform programme.
Mr Msika puts forward the idea that the land reform programme was
"a move meant to empower the black people who were marginalised
during the colonial era" - undeniably a laudable motive, and one
that should indeed be followed up on, with some coherent plan. However,
when he says that "what the majority do with the land is their business",
he is only partly correct. On many farms where land was primed and
prepped for planting, the land sits idle, whilst people in the cities
think happily about their new kumusha that they will visit again
sometime soon. Zimbabwe is starving as a result of this laissez-faire
attitude to the land. The commercial farmland used to produce a
more than significant portion of the nation's food crops, and the
yields per hectare were as much as four times that of communal areas.
This is not, as the government would have us believe, because it
is the only arable land in the country, but rather because of the
appropriate management of the soils, inputs, and growth regime -
in short, because the land was well-farmed. The employees on the
farms know this well, and are often quite capable of taking over
the farming operations and ensuring just such bumper crops. Had
these people been allocated their 20% share of the acquired land
as they were promised, no doubt we would not be in such dire straits.
However, very few farm workers have been allowed to remain on the
land they have helped to till for years, and much of the infrastructure
lies idle.
On Mervyn Jelliman's farm in Kadoma, center pivots and sprinklers
lie dormant over dry fields. Normally at this time of year some
300 hectares of maize would have been growing, in addition to the
2,400 to 3,200 tonnes of wheat and barley he would have already
produced. This year, he was chased off the farm three weeks before
his cereal crop came to fruition. On an average year some 6 to 8
tonnes per hectare would have been harvested off this land, but
the settlers turned off the sprinklers and failed to maintain the
crop. When they eventually carried out a very late harvest using
his combine, they obtained no more than 450 tonnes. Since then,
no further planting has been done. A similar occurrence on Mike
Kemple's farm, where he would have 4,800 tonnes of wheat over the
600 planted hectares, meant that after he was chased off some two
months before the crop reached maturity the settlers harvested a
fraction of the normal expected yield. Is this what the Herald blithely
refers to when it says that "even crops such as wheat have been
demystified as the black farmers start making inroads into growing
the crops"?
We do not contend that resettled farmers are incapable of producing
food for our nation. In truth, black commercial farmers have been
growing wheat for some time, and will readily confirm that it does
require some training, expertise and experience. However, what has
happened is that the majority of the country's most productive farms
are no longer producing more than a tenth of their prior capacity,
and the people who are receiving much of this land do not seem interested
in producing food. The haphazard and (dare we say nepotic) nature
of the land reform programme has thrown some of the most unlikely
people into farming. From her harvest to date, it is clear that
Monica Chinamasa (the wife of Patrick Chinamasa) is as much in need
of education on how to grow paprika and tobacco as many of the other
resettled would-be farmers are in their choice of crop. Her crop
of 15 paltry hectares of tobacco is nutrient-stressed and overgrown
with weeds, and her paprika seedlings are still sitting unplanted
in the nursery.
Robert Mugabe also, in mentioning as an aside that Welshman Ncube
received land through the resettlement programme, is attempting
to imply that the land distribution has been equitable in nature.
There is no contention that the farm invaders did not represent
a wide selection of Zimbabwean rural society (although spearheaded
by Zanu members) - however, the subsequent allocations, and in particular
the A2 resettlement scheme is hardly just. Can Mr Mugabe really
expect us to believe that more than a tenth of the Zimbabwean population
is either personally related to or involved with the ruling party,
because at least that percentage of the allocated farms have gone
to such people? And how does he answer the fact that the A2 scheme
has, of late involved the eviction of huge numbers of the "landless
majority" from the very land that he has promised them?
Furthermore, the wastage in terms of infrastructure is phenomenal.
It is not only irrigation systems that lie idle, either because
pumps or pipes are stolen or damaged, or because the new settlers
lack the necessary skills to run them. Tractors all over the country,
having been appropriated from farms through illegal or violent means,
have been literally driven into the ground due to lack of care and
maintenance. Ploughs and disc harrows, milking machines, tobacco
curing and handling facilities, pumps and generators, all are being
damaged and lost through untrained usage or wanton vandalism. This
is not inevitable, and the onus of blame must fall on the shoulders
of government. Productive agricultural land that provided essential
services to the nation should have been turned over gradually and
willingly to people trained in the necessary skills to maintain
it. This is not to say that anyone should have been excluded from
the land reform process due to lack of skill, but rather that the
government should have undertaken to provide the training and the
facilities to make it possible for resettlement farms to produce
comparable harvests. As it is, Robert Mugabe's "jambanja" has cost
the nation dearly. People may be "empowered" but who will enjoy
this empowerment as people die in their thousands? True empowerment
can only come from the right to property ownership and title. What
we are seeing now in effect is a reduction in freehold title land
from 28.2% of Zimbabwe's area to 2%, at a time when we desperately
need to increase this area, or at the very least to preserve the
area that is currently available.
David Sole struck a deal with the settlers on his farm, which was
in fact not listed. He ploughed and provided irrigation for 100
hectares on which the settlers could grow whatever crops they desired,
whilst he scaled down his cereal cropping operations to free this
land. This amicable arrangement, arrived at in conjunction with
the farm workers, was upset when Munyaradzi Machimedze, with the
backing of Governor Manyika of Mashonaland East, decided that he
wanted the land for himself. Arriving with a contingent of Zanu
youths, he proceeded to evict Sole and the farm workers, assaulted
and evicted the settlers, and disced their entire maize crop into
the ground. In an interview in the Herald (Thursday 12th December),
Robert Mugabe said that he expected some criticism for the inevitable
"mistakes" that have occurred during the land reform process! This
gives the inutterably false impression that on the whole the process
has been relatively coherent and orderly, instead of plunging the
country headfirst into a morass of lawlessness and, ultimately starvation
- and that cases such as David Sole's are the exception rather than
the rule. The truth is that it was inevitable, given the atmosphere
of invulnerability and the lack of accountability for violent and
criminal actions, that farming throughout the country would collapse.
Given this inevitability and the determination of the government
to see the process of "land reform" through to its bitter end "by
whatever means necessary", it was morally incumbent upon the government
to make some preparation for the long-term results. This they have
in no means done. To blame the hunger in the country on drought
is merely passing the buck - Zimbabwe has weathered far worse droughts
in the past twenty years: it is the destruction of the fallback
production of commercial agriculture that is causing starvation.
From the outset, the government should have been stockpiling inputs
and resources to allow the resettled farmers to instantly begin
farming. Mr Mugabe says that they were misled as to the capacity
of the chemical and fertiliser companies to provide the necessary
products, but is it not obvious that no such company can massively
increase its production without some prior increase in the inputs
and infrastructure to produce these essential commodities? Failing
that, and knowing that seed production must obviously be heavily
impacted when you remove the people producing the seed from their
farms, Zanu PF should have been looking elsewhere for the necessary
inputs a long while ago. Furthermore, since it was also clear that
there would be widespread hunger this year, with reduced cropping
and no maize reserves, Zanu PF once again succumbed to the inviolable
optimism of the spin doctors (or the moral turpitude of its more
intelligent members) and failed to set aside money for, or begin
sourcing, the necessary imports of food aid.
The only success of the land reform program has been the illegal
and unconstitutional removal of skilled farmers and workforces from
the one place that they could best contribute to the sustained wellbeing
of the nation, and to replace them with a misled and politicised
group who have been starved of the promised inputs by the government,
and have therefore been unable to fulfil the promise of feeding
the nation. The concomitant economic collapse is not due to "sanctions"
that the first world has in fact still not actually carried out
(investment in the country has dropped, but only because it is perceived
as being as politically unstable as any war zone), but rather through
mismanagement of the economy by a regime that prefers to fight wars
in foreign countries to addressing its own shortcomings.
In short, the government has overturned the highest law in the land,
to which even the president should be answerable, and violated innumerable
human rights to starve the nation of the most basic requirement
that is integral for survival: food.
Visit the JAG
Zimbabwe fact
sheet
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
