Back to Index

Land reform is irreversible: Interview with Zimbabwe Minister of Agriculture
New African
June 2005

In the next few months, the Zimbabwe government will publish a landmark National Agricultural Strategy Framework to cover the next 30 years (2005-2035). It will be a comprehensive document never before seen in the annals of the country. This was revealed by the minister of agriculture Dr Joseph Made, in an interview with New African in June. Here are the excerpts:

New African: According to some private newspapers in this country, Zimbabwe is short of food, that you have only 60,000 metric tonnes of food left in your national stock, is it true?

Made: Well, I think there is a mix-up in those figures. First of all, the source of that information is not credible. It is not factual. Let's start by defining what is food. Certainly you are not suggesting that this country has got only 60,000 metric tonnes of meat protein - be it beef, mutton, chicken, goat, etc. That is ridiculous, so let's get the facts correct. You shouldn't mistake food with maize. You shouldn't mistake the 60,000 tonnes quoted by the newspapers as meaning cereal and grain and starch. That is a big joke.

Let's start with meat protein. You have to convert two million cattle (the national herd) to some value, and I am talking of cattle alone. And we have a big national herd of sheep, goats and pigs. Their meat also constitutes food on the protein side. So let's get our facts very, very clear. Then we go to starch, which is crop-based. In this country, we've got sorghum, millet, maize, sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes and so on. And you are not suggesting to me that all that constitutes 60,000 metric tonnes. When we talk of food, we are also talking about fish and many other items that constitute food. So the Zimbabwean case is totally misunderstood. What constitutes food is much, much broader than the tonnage of grains quoted by the newspapers.

Even with grains, Zimbabwe has always imported wheat, and we have been importing maize for the past 18 months. Currently we are sitting on 150,000 metric tonnes of committed purchases of grains, which we are already moving into the country. On top of this, we are also harvesting our own maize crop. Sadly, because of the impact of drought, which is now in its third year, we won't get the quantities we had hoped for. This year, we've had what we call a mid-season drought that started at the end of January and extended into February and March. We have thus had to declare it a drought-year. This is why one of our major activities now is the strengthening of the irrigation capability of the country. In fact, we have enough water in the reservoirs and dams and we think that if we work around the clock to develop irrigation, national food security will be greatly enhanced. We also have to make sure that our irrigation development is efficient in terms of utilisation - we are now using several irrigation systems - flood irrigation, sprinkler irrigation, drip irrigation and centre-pivot irrigation. We are now moving much more towards the centre-pivot approach because that gives us greater efficiency.

NA: Irrigation conjures the images of big time farmers. Is the government doing anything to help smallholders in terms of irrigation?

Made: In terms of irrigation rehabilitation, I want to emphasise that our work is now mostly concentrated on A2 (large-scale commercial) and Al (small-scale) farmers. This is because the former white commercial farmers destroyed the irrigation infrastructure as soon as we acquired the land from them. So the concentration on Al and A2 farmers is simply because they need immediate help to rehabilitate the irrigation equipment vandalised by the white farmers. That is not to say nothing is being done in the communal (smallholder) areas. In actual fact, irrigation development in the communal areas has been intensified. I should also add that we have a lot of tractors that the white farmers hid away in warehouses, or removed parts from them as they retreated. As a result, many of these tractors are unusable.

NA: Is the government buying the tractors?

Made: The white farmers hid them in warehouses with the intention of smuggling them out of the country. Some of them even tried to melt the aluminium pipes used in irrigation so that they could smuggle the aluminium contents out of the country. We had to institute measures at the border points to stop them. In fact, the attempts to undermine the land reform programme was not restricted only to the destruction of machinery and equipment, the white farmers also contaminated the soil in certain areas. Currently, we have a wave of theft of pipes and new pumps in areas where we have re-installed this equipment, and there are strong suspicions that this is also politically motivated.

NA: There are claims that you took too much land under the land reform programme than necessary, and as a result you have land lying idle with nobody to work it. Is that true?

Made: No that is not true. People who make these claims are detractors of the land reform programme. But don't mistake the under-utilisation of land in the A2 sector where we have to deal with the issues of inputs and capacity, because the A2 requires much more investment by individual farmers. That is an isolated issue that we are now addressing. We still have a lot of decongestion to do in the communal areas. For example, in Manicaland in the eastern part of the country, the governor there has been saying there is not enough land to be distributed to the people. We still have heavily populated areas that we have to decongest. And there are also professionals and technicians still waiting to be given land.

I want to emphasise to you that the land reform programme is irreversible. In the meantime, we are addressing the issues of land utilisation and productivity. We want to make sure that land is allocated only to people who have the capacity and interest to utilise it.

The claims you’ve mentioned in fact started just before our recent elections when some people spread rumours that the former white commercial farmers would be returning to their land. That, of course, was not true. Any former commercial farmer who wishes to continue farming would be given land in the same manner as every Zimbabwean would, without fear or favour and irrespective of colour.

In a way, the poor performance of the new farmers could be partly blamed on the lack of credit and unwillingness of financial institutions to help them. Remember that the former commercial farmers used to own the agro-industries that produced inputs for farmers. Currently, we have a shortage of certain inputs, especially fertilisers and chemicals. If you look at the ownership of the companies producing these inputs, you clearly understand where the problem lies. In short, the issue of production is not just the person sitting on a piece of land and not utilising it, it has also got to do with the whole agrarian reform and the institutions servicing the agricultural sector.

NA: So the land reform programme is not complete?

Made: Not yet. It is still going on, and we are now infusing the land reform into our general agrarian reforms. In fact, we are now pushing the agrarian side and addressing the issues of productivity relating to the institutions that service farmers and agriculture. The corporate sector is now playing its role in the contract farming we have introduced, they are now beginning to do well.

NA: Under A2, is land under-utilisation a major problem as reported elsewhere?

Made: Yes, it is a major problem and that is the point I am making - that under A2, which is commercial production, it is not just producing for your home, it is producing certain industrial crops. Take cotton for example or even sorghum, which is related to manufacturers who make beer products and stock feeds. If you have a farmer with 50 or 200 hectares of cropping to be done, it means there should be a closer relationship between him and the industry that supplies inputs. And I am asking: who owns this industry supplying inputs - in relation to saying you took the land away from me? Are we together?

But, having said that, the corporate sector is now beginning to understand that land reform is here to stay, that it has taken place, and it is irreversible. The companies have now realised that the government is serious, and they are now beginning to help address the real issues that we face, one of which is that A2 farmers need support and it is much better to support them than sit on the fence and forlornly hope that land reform will be reversed. The government has stood its ground, and investors are now coming in fully aware that land is irreversible. For example, Standard Chartered Bank (Standard Bank) has now announced a full programme to support agriculture, and these are some of the positive institutional changes or attitudes we are now seeing under the agrarian reforms.

NA: So the problem is just not A2 farmers taking the land and not working it. It is more than that. It involves linkages beyond their scope?

Made: Yes, you are right, it is a much broader issue. If there is a break in the linkages, it has a ripple effect, and that is what we are addressing. We also want to improve the network of roads, railways, marketing depots and other facilities so that agricultural inputs can be moved on time. But the actual business of production itself is left to the farmer and the corporate sector. That notwithstanding, we are saying the government is also obliged to make sure that these farmers are well looked after. In Europe or the USA, farmers are not just left to fend for themselves. We are also saying that the government must intervene where necessary to enhance the productivity of our farmers, something that has hitherto been denied them.

NA: If you were to put a percentage on under-utilisation of land in the A2 sector, what would you say?

Made: That will depend on the areas; remember we have a very large area for livestock, and A2 livestock farmers have taken up their land. The real problem is in the cropping sector because it is more challenging. For example, if you have 50 hectares to put under cropping, you need a tractor, you need a certain level of machinery and equipment, and these are not readily available. That explains our emphasis on the importation and assembling of tractors in Zimbabwe - it is to enhance our production capacity. So I am saying the blame is not squarely on the individual A2 farmer, it also falls on us in government in terms of our programme and policies regarding resource allocation; and that is what we are now concentrating on.

So on the cropping side under A2, land uptake or utilisation has been a little bit low, and I can safely say 40% to 60% uptake, whereas in the Al sector the uptake or utilisation of land for cropping is around 85% to 90%. Why, because Al farmers tend to use animal-drawn implements and family labour, so there is much better utilisation of land there.

NA: When will the local assembling of tractors begin?

Made: We have a number of programmes in the pipeline. Already Iran, India and Brazil have expressed interest. But the much more advanced programme is the importation of knocked-down kits. In the next four or six months, we will see a more intensified programme of tractor assembling in this country. The advantage we have in Zimbabwe is that we also produce for the regional market, so it will be a win-win for all.

NA: So the future is bright?

Made: Yes, the future is very, very bright.

NA: If the former white commercial farmers, wherever they are now, decide to return to Zimbabwe, would you give them some land back?

Made: No, no, no, that cannot be; otherwise on what basis would you do that? Zimbabwe's land reform was to address the racial imbalances of land ownership in the country and the historical rights of Zimbabweans. No. Please.

NA: But these people are also Zimbabweans. They may have left the country in anger at the height of the land reform programme, but they would be returning home still as Zimbabwean nationals.

Made: They left the country on what basis - that land reform was taking place? I want to understand. Land reform is land reform whether you left or stayed. It was a major programme in relation to the armed struggle, we fought for our birthright.

NA: But I am looking at a situation where the white farmers who left are now remorseful, they have changed their former hard line stance and want to return home.

Made: No, what has that got to do with addressing the racial imbalance of land ownership in the country and the benefits of the liberation struggle? What has that got to do with the birthright of Zimbabweans?

NA: But I remember in our last interview in April 2002, you said any Zimbabwean, black or white, who wanted land would be given land, and I am putting it to you now that the white farmers who left would be returning still as Zimbabweans.

Made: I said they would apply along with everybody else.

NA: Exactly. So now what happens if the white farmers who left in anger for Australia now say they want to return home?

Made: They left on the basis of what? Threatening Zimbabwe? Sure, you want to go back to somebody who says, "today I am Zimbabwean, tomorrow I am not". Oh no! Never. Every Zimbabwean has a right to land and will be considered along with other Zimbabweans. But remember, the whole issue is that our people were deliberately denied an opportunity to own a piece of land by a small group of people who said they were much more privileged than us. It was not on the basis of production because I have already given you the figures that the white commercial farmers had long stopped producing maize or cotton. They were growing roses for export, and katambora grass to feed cattle. Seventy-five per cent of our maize requirement (now 85%) was produced by peasant farmers in the communal areas on marginal lands. It has always been like that. So why should we now entrust our stomachs to people who vacillate - one minute they are Australians, another minute they are Zimbabweans? No way! We cannot do that! Remember, we still have a good number of white farmers here who have been given land or retained their farms under the A2 programme, they are still here producing, they have stuck it out.

NA: In his Sky News interview in May last year, President Mugabe insisted that your estimates showed that the country would produce more maize this year. We've talked about the mid-season drought that started in January 2005. So where are we now? What is this year's production like?

Made: The president's position in that interview - and he made it very clear - was in relation to our plan, production and weather forecasts. If you look at the amount of maize that had been planted at the time, yes, what the president said was very, very correct. But you are now dealing with the weather, and the vagaries of it. And the weather decided against us. But remember the president indicated that no Zimbabwean would starve. So there is no contradiction there.

NA: Now that the weather has again been unkind to you, it means you will need to import more maize this year?

Made: We have always been importing maize anyway, we did not stop importing. That is why we have this extra stock already moving into the country from the ports. And the focus now of the president and country is on irrigation development so that we can fully utilise the water at our disposal and not held to ransom by the rains. We've had enough of the vagaries of the weather.

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