| |
Back to Index
MDC
Critique of Utete Report
Movement for the Democratic Change (MDC)
October, 2003
http://www.zimbabweinstitute.org/Publications/pub-categories.asp?PubCatID=24
Download
this document
- Acrobat
PDF version (25.3KB)
If you do not have the free Acrobat reader
on your computer, download it from the Adobe website by clicking
here.
Consolidated Findings and Recommendations
A selection of Views on the Programme Implementation is completely
biased towards proponents of the chaotic approach to the Land Reform
Programme.
- Resettlement
Models and Take Up Rates is quite quantitative but lacks on discussion
of the causes of such variability within and amongst provinces.
- A 100 percent
take up rate (Matabeleland South) just sounds exaggerated.
- Unofficially
Settled Farms needed more discussion as this likely to be a major
exhibit of irregularity. Definition of unofficially settled was
needed.
- Production
Patterns: 2002-2003 Summer Season does not provide objective (quantitative)
data that supports the Committee's assertion that 2002-2003 was
a good production year. The first bullet point under this section
strikes the reader as a lame appeal by the Committee to take it
from them that some new farmers did realise significant yields.
The operating words here are some and significant. What the Committee
seems to fail to appreciate is the fact that what is important
is the sum total contribution of these farmers who got significantly
good yields to the overall production. Tables 7 to 10 are irrelevant
as they only show years 1999 to
2001 and mainly reductions in production for that matter.
- Former
Farm Workers - The report is not quantitative on this
subject that has been perpetually a bone of contention on a humanitarian
level. The Land Reform policies continue to be insensitive to
farm workers mainly regarding them as non-citizens and allies
of white commercial farmers as cited on the fact that the former
workers tend not to want to work for black farmers. Organisations
dedicated to the welfare of farm workers such as Farm Community
Development Trust and Gawpuz (Farm Labour Union) should have been
interviewed and submitted their recommendations. (??)
- Issues
in Programme Implementation - This section is apologetic
for the planning failures of the programme and apportions blame
anywhere else but on Government. Smart sanctions that came after
all mistakes had already been made is blamed for some of the failures,
particularly of Fast Track (2000) while it is common knowledge
that the Government had already reneged on the agreed Land Reform
Programme (1998). The issue of CFU members contesting compulsory
acquisition is not valid as this was done within the provisions
of the law and the failure was on part of Government in that it
did not have the institutional capacity to process all the cases
that were filed. By undertaking the programme in haste, it figuratively
bit what it could not chew and swallow and consequently choked.
The capacity of the administrative courts were known and the Government
was repeatedly warned by its own officers that the time periods
allocated to each of the stages were not enough, but did not wisely
utilise that advice choosing instead to continuously temper with
the laws. The fact the Programme was implemented in a period of
poor performance is not valid if one applies the cause and effect
test. The failure of the national economy was caused mainly by
irrational and inconsistent land reform approaches of the Government
that were led by desire to manipulate the genuine uneven distribution
of land in the country to its advantage in respect of elections
at a time that the ruling party's popularity was plummeting. All
other macro-economic fundamentals referred to in that argument
were caused by the Government's disregard for good governance
issues. The issue of linkages (backward and forward) of agriculture
with the rest of the economy is nothing new and is trivial. Comments
under paragraphs 6 to 12 simply accept that the Programme as pertains
to Fast Track was absolutely ill conceived in spite of the abundance
of good advice and will both internally and otherwise. Paragraphs
13 to 18 (save for 16) outline accusations of corruption while
at the same time stepping gingerly in fear of exposing too much
and therefore chooses to employ diversionary tactics of there
having been a shortage of time to fully investigate the allegations.
Paragraphs 20 to 24 attempts to add sentimental value to rural
areas as being the home for urban dwellers and its value in liberating
the country. The latter is a fixation of the ruling party in the
wake of lost popularity in urban areas. This is used particularly
with knowledge that prospective donors have an affinity for rural
areas
(particularly Communal), but the sad reality is that with all
the assistance pumped into them the rural areas remain admittedly
the poorest. Paragraphs 25 to 27 toy around with the policy of
one-person-one-farm and bring various related issues that serve
to confuse the simple issue of land rights. What the Committee
should have focused on are the basic land rights of all Zimbabweans
and access to the land through various legal processes. The reason
why there is a scramble for land may not be the fact that all
concerned want to use the land for one purpose or another than
the fact that they may simply believe that they are entitled to
it. This argument leads on to the confusion caused by Government
itself when it issued certificates of no present interest to willing
sellers of land and turned around and listed the same farms for
compulsory acquisition. Interestingly, the buyers of land were
in some instances the ones obtaining certificates of no present
interest in corrupt circumstances. Generally, this whole confusion
has engulfed the rural land market and slowed down investment
into land-based commercial enterprises.
- Clarification
and Reaffirmation of Government Policy on Land Reform
- Land Identification remains even more confused than before the
Committee sought clarity on it. Maximum Farm Size also remains
noncommittal and is therefore open to abuse. There would be equally
a need for the minimum sizes to aid in subdivision. One Person
One Farm Policy is complicated by the fact that there is no straight
forward land rights policy that cuts across the whole spectrum
of society including high ranking party and government officials,
ex-combatants, recently retired combatants of the Congo (DRC)
war, etc. Lease Agreements or tenure arrangements should have
been agreed at the point of conception of the various models of
settlement. What if the settled household does not want the particular
arrangement eventually offered? Will it be, 'Tough luck, go back
to where you came from?'. Farm Workers issue is not being addressed
comprehensively by Government and will resurface in a more serious
version such as when people who were entitled to certain rights
will be suing for damages. Country-to-Country Agreements - The
fact that such farms have been affected by the Programme in the
first place is inexcusable bearing in mind that the concerns were
brought to Government's attention from the start. The former German
Ambassador as well as the High Commissioner of South Africa are
on record for having appealed time and again to the Government
on this issue, but while they were assured that the policy was
not to touch such farms, reality on the ground was different.
Policy on Continuous Gazetting of Farms - The Committee's Report
states that the policy of wholesale gazetting of is being discontinued
as a way of avoiding the facts on the ground that it is still
going on. The only difference is that at one point since the PLIC
had been disbanded it was now the Department of Lands that had
the sole discretion of what farms to gazette. This was the period
during which influential individuals were given the list of which
farms had not yet been gazetted and even accompanied by the junior
Land Officers on a farm shopping spree to select which farms they
wanted and then the farms would be put on Section 5 and subsequently
on Section 8 simultaneously with a directive from the Minister
of Local Government (or any other powerful individual in the ruling
party) to allocate the respective farms to the individuals that
would have hand picked them. The continued existence of gazetting
of farms is further negatively affecting confidence in investing
in the agricultural sector and for the Committee to be evasive
on this matter clearly indicates that their mission was not a
honourable one. Buka Audit Report - The Committee seems to be
answering with some authority that this Report will not be published
instead of indicating its significant findings and how they have
resolved them and then including it in full as an annexure. The
Committee loses credibility by allowing itself to be used as a
conduit for dubious activities by the Executive. Governance Issues
in Resettled Areas The Committee points out the obvious, but in
an apologetic language.
Download
full document
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
|
