Back to Index

Agricultural chaos and food security
Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
Weekly Media Update 2006-25
Monday June 19^th 2006 – Sunday June 25^th 2006

THE confusion and policy contradictions that have characterised government’s management of agriculture in recent years continued to contest for space in the media.

Typically, almost all of the official media’s 67 stories on agriculture (government Press [25] and ZBH [42]) were generally piecemeal and one-sided narratives that only explained the problems blighting farming through the lens of the authorities.

For example, there was no balanced discussion on the real causes for the widespread under-utilisation of farms by resettled farmers, or the delays by government to fully audit and compensate all former commercial farmers for improvements made on their former farms. Neither did these media investigate the motive behind government’s plans to acquire farms protected under Bilateral Investment Agreements (BIAs).

Instead, Spot FM and ZTV (21/6, 6pm & 8pm) passively reported Security and Lands Minister Didymus Mutasa telling foreign diplomats that farms protected under BIA could still "be compulsorily acquired but with strict adherence to the bilateral agreements." He did not explain how exactly this would be done apart from saying affected farmers would be allowed "to contest the compulsory acquisition in court unlike other landowners in Zimbabwe".

Again there was no explanation about whether such legal recourse was provided for under Constitutional Amendment No. 17 that the government wanted to use to acquire the properties. Neither was Mutasa asked to explain the criteria to be used to identify farms for seizure. Such passive media coverage of these important developments was also apparent in the 11 stories the official papers carried on the subject. Like ZBH, they gave extensive space to Mutasa’s pronouncements without seeking the views of foreign diplomats – let alone independent opinion – on the matter.

The remaining 14 stories in the government papers on the country’s agricultural problems were equally inadequate. For example, nine of the stories muddled the extent and reasons behind the poor use of acquired farms simply by concentrating on the authorities blaming resettled farmers for their failure to produce. There was no attempt to reconcile the farmers’ alleged failure with the authorities’ own policy shortcomings, characterised by poor support schemes for the farmers and continued farm invasions.

For instance, The Herald (22/6) did not seek the reasons for Mutasa suddenly withdrawing a land offer to Langton Masunda after he won a farm ownership dispute with ZANU PF chairman John Nkomo. Instead, it just cited Masunda’s lawyer, Vonani Majoko, vowing to contest the withdrawal of the offer letter.

It was only the Chronicle of the same day that quoted Mutasa as saying they had withdrawn the farming offer from Masunda because he was "wantonly hunting animals (on the property) without following laid down regulations".

Although the paper did not ask the minister to detail these regulations, it did balance its story with comments from Majoko, who was reported accusing Mutasa of violating the procedures governing the allocation of land in the country. The lawyer contested that under the regulations the minister should first have given Masunda the right to be heard before cancelling his farming licence.

The official media’s reluctance to examine government’s land policies critically and their negative ramifications on productivity resulted in these media failing to provide a clear picture on the country’s food situation.

ZBH, for example, simply carried six reports in which the Grain Marketing Board (GMB) and farmers played the blame-game on the causes of low grain deliveries. While Radio Zimbabwe (20/6,1pm) and Spot FM (24/6,1pm) reported farmers as having attributed the issue to delays by the GMB in paying them, they also quoted the Board blaming "unscrupulous" dealers who were illegally buying maize from farmers.

None of the stations tried to establish the truth of the matter or view the low deliveries as an affirmation of independent observers’ projections that the country had produced half its annual grain requirement. Instead, ZTV and Spot FM (19/6, 7am & 1pm) tried to project the GMB as taking measures to improve grain deliveries at its depots by deploying more personnel to man roadblocks where police were allegedly "inconveniencing" farmers delivering grain. Whether the farmers had produced enough grain or were unwilling to sell it to the GMB remained unexplored.

The government media’s lack of professional journalistic inquiry in tackling agriculture was reflected in the predominance of government sources quoted, as shown in Figs 1 and 2.

Fig. 1 Voice distribution in the government Press

Fig. 2 Voice distribution on ZBH

The grim realities facing Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector were only adequately revealed in the private media, which carried 19 reports on the matter, of which 16 were in the private Press and three on private radio stations (which MMPZ was able to monitor).

The reports continued to view the country’s agricultural problems as emanating from government’s bad policies.

For example, The Financial Gazette (22/6) viewed Mutasa’s eviction of Masunda as a "kick in the teeth for the rule of law" and disrespect for "property rights".

In fact, contrary to the official media’s glowing coverage of government’s plans to compensate dispossessed farmers for improvements made on their farms, the paper disclosed that the authorities had reneged on their promise and would now only pay them between five and 10 percent of what they were due. The paper interpreted this as another policy blunder that "could draw sharp attacks from the international community, which has accused Zimbabwe of spurning international advice on how to proceed with land reform".

And while the official media tried to conceal the country’s precarious food levels, Studio 7 (23/6) revealed that three major milling companies had stopped operating due to grain shortages.

SW Radio Africa (23/6) carried a similar report noting that "small milling firms" were now "the ones supplying retail shops because they were sourcing their grain on the parallel market".

However, Studio 7 quoted GMB spokesperson Muriel Zimura as having denied the reports saying the grain procurer was well stocked after receiving "more than 30,000 tonnes this season".

Meanwhile, The Daily Mirror (19/06) reported that government had gazetted a new land Bill – the Gazetted Land (Consequential) Act – which if enacted, will criminalize "anyone occupying land without lawful authority", among other provisions. According to the paper, those found breaking this provision would be liable "to a fine not exceeding level seven or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years" or to both punishments.

However, instead of assessing the implications of the proposed law on agriculture and security of tenure, the paper (20/6) only "welcomed" the punitive aspect of the Bill on the simplistic grounds that it would eliminate the chaotic occupation of land, especially by the political elite.

The relatively varied sourcing pattern of the private Press is shown in Fig 3.

Fig 3. Voice distribution in the private Press

Visit the MMPZ 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