|
|
|
|
|
|
Article from The Bulletin - April
2000 LAND
CLASSIFICATIONS IN ZIMBABWE LAND IS NOT THE REAL ISSUE By Guy Hilton-Barbour Additional Comments (in red) come from a Zimbabwean farmer The
problem with those whose greed for power is insatiable is that they will do
anything to preserve it. It would
seem that the thought of existing without the status of vast power, and the
personal wealth that has resulted from it, is so unbearable as to blind their
minds to the point of insanity. Well, that is how it appears to a simple
beleaguered farmer anyway. The length
and breath of the continent is littered with the ashes of destruction from power
struggles. Certainly in Zimbabwe the flimsy veneer of civilised democracy is
becoming shredded. Little conscience is taken of the history of anarchy, the
perpetrators of which ultimately perish one way or another. Less than
10 percent of the electorate regards land as an issue in the forthcoming general
election. Yet the mindless invasions of commercial farms, now numbering over
1500 continue. The "peaceful demonstrations" have deteriorated into
provocation and in some cases serious violence, hostage holding or various forms
of terrorism. Added to
which the law has been amended that Government may acquire land without
compensation. Effectively this means that the State owns all commercial land. The
details how this acquisition is to be implemented will no doubt follow but in
the meantime there seems no reason for the thousands of squatters to occupy
farms. Presumably landowners will be given notice of a year or so to vacate,
reap their crops and sell their livestock or is it Government's idea that a
free-for-all will ensue in which the invaders will occupy land on a first-come
first grab basis? The
police, up to now, have been powerless, acting like hypnotised pigeons,
paralysed in the face of the instruction by the Chief Justice to remove and
prosecute those illegally squatting on farms. If anything, the law enforcement
agencies appear to be aiding and abetting lawlessness judging by reports of CIO
vehicles transporting war vets on to farms. The peaceful demonstrations by
supporters of the MDC turned violent when supporters of the war vets, so called,
intervened with the police apparently assisting this mob more than anything
else. Following
the announcement of the new acquisition laws vets have taken it upon themselves
to deliver "letters" to landowners to vacate their farms within 24
hours just to add to the current confusion. There are
so many misconceptions about where land fits into the political equation, and
how much this subject is being used as a political tool, it's a good idea to
understand the background. Firstly
the "Liberation War" was fought for "one man, one vote", not
land for the landless. Secondly, in the early 1980s, 3.5 million ha of
productive commercial farmland was purchased from willing sellers with the aid
of the British Government. 91,000
families were subsequently resettled, somewhat short of the intended 165,000
families. This exercise took so long that by the time settlers arrived much of
the original infrastructure on these farms had been vandalised or pumps,
engines, piping, fencing, roofs and the like stolen. The
resettlement model that was employed, by Government's admission, was not a
success. Between 300,000 and 400,000 ha remain today not resettled but occupied
by squatters. Additional farming land has been offered to Government since it
became law to give the State first refusal, but little was taken up. An
undisclosed number of farms ear-marked for resettlement went to politicians
instead. The focus on land became directly proportional to the declining
popularity of the ruling party and in November 1997, 1,471 commercial farms were
arbitrarily identified for acquisition. The CFU,
(Commercial Farmers Union) which always acknowledged the necessity of land
reform, but on the basis of orderly transfer, in the quick time secured 1.5
million ha owned by willing sellers and supported, under conditions of
productive sustainability, by foreign donors. This culminated in the 1998 Donors
Conference after which an agreement was signed by Government, the CFU and the
donor representatives on the development of an inception phase and framework
plan. The CFU then informed its members that land acquisition had been resolved
and farmers breathed a sigh of relief. It should
also be remembered that the commercial farmers through the CFU and ZTA (Zimbabwe
Tobacco Association) had set up projects and programmes to assist and train
peasant farmers and school leavers. The Farmers Development Trust was
established in 1983, for instance, along with other organisations and donors.
There are four training institutes throughout the country from which an
estimated 10,000 people benefit annually. The ZTA
Small Holder Commercial Production Committee went further in assisting the
implementation of programmes involving water development, distribution of
tobacco seedlings, transport, woodlots, chemicals, village and field days. For
example in 1999 the ZTA members ploughed 1,287 ha at the cost of ZW$1.1 million.
They distributed 200,000 blue gum seedlings together with fertiliser and
chemicals to small scale growers and spent ZW$45,000 on 260 tobacco seed beds.
Two eight tonne trucks were purchased to transport the tobacco and gum seedlings
and the ZTA drilled 22 boreholes at the cost of $1.7 million. (Additional note : at the same time the bore hole drilling scheme for
the rural areas by the government was being hijacked by government ministers and
cronies to drill boreholes at their residential homes in the suburbs of the
major towns) As a
result the small scale growers increased from 194 in 1990 to 5,400 in 1999. This
gross income rose from ZW$2.7 million to ZW$215 million over the same period. There are
many other outreach programmes, if not as dramatic, in which commercial farmers,
collectively and individually assist the small scale and peasant farmers. Almost
every commodity organisation is involved, from cattle management courses and
irrigation schemes to sewing factories. Not to mention the millions of dollars
in food aid, transport and the like to flood victims. Little of this effort is
acknowledged by Government because they do not bring in votes. Instead,
at the height of its unpopularity because of issues unrelated to land such as
the economy, unemployment, the Congo war, corruption - terminating in the great
historic NO vote - the Government lashes out at the whites in general and the
white farmer in particular and sets up "land invasions" and
promulgates a new land acquisition act. Now lets look at how this land is actually distributed.
( Additional Note : this
commercial land includes the +400,000 ha owned by Van Hoogenstraten - the
British tycoon who supports Zanu-PF. Which means this man or his companies owns
nearly 1% of Zimbabwe's land) (In the communal to DTZ
land there are 27.3 million ha with 7.5 million people. Giving an average of
3.65 people per ha. In the commercial farming area there are 10.5 million ha
with 2 million people (not merely 4,000 white farmers), giving an average of
5.25 people per ha.) This is what all the fuss is about - the less than
a quarter of Zimbabwe's land that feeds the nation produces 90 percent of the
agricultural exports, employs the biggest labour force of all industries and has
a gross production in excess of ZW$32 billion (US$842 million). This land
amounts to 10.5 million ha and is farmed by standards rated of the highest in
the world in terms of yields per ha and quality of produce. This is the land "stolen from the
blacks" 100 years ago. As president Mugabe said why should 4,000 white
farmers occupy this land when 4,000,000 black farmers are landless. Okay, then,
what will they do on 2,63 ha each? Seriously, though, on the proposed acquisition of
Government's initial requirements of 5 million ha on its proposed re-settlement
scheme the CFU has proved to Government that three times as many farm workers
will be displaced as those that would be settled. What then? There is a feeling among many farmers that the CFU
in doing its job well under almost impossible circumstances, should be
countering the misinformation and blatant rhetoric more positively and more
often. The CFU leadership did well in getting the Chief Justice to declare the
invasions illegal and order the Commissioner of Police to take action against
the squatters. The War Vets Association leadership has also signed acknowledging
the illegality of these acts - not that it has made any difference to those who
think they are obviously above the law. CFU statements on the land crisis came across as
almost apologetic. Without sounding confrontational or aggressive the facts
regarding the amount of land controlled by whites, its production and its labour
force should be strongly disseminated for the local public, not simply directed
to the diplomatic representatives in Harare and overseas. Also important are the ramifications of the latest
bill which facilitates the acquisition of land without compensation. For example bank loans and overdrafts secured by
the bonds registered against title deeds - how will bankers view these as
securities? Obviously long-term development and agricultural expansion will
cease. The revelations of the wider effects can be left to the economists but
these will obviously kill foreign and local investment and tourism, already half
dad, and the unemployment time-bomb will tick on rapidly. Shooting yourself in
the foot is harmful but in the mouth is suicide. The degree of intimidation to which, not only
white farmers but the entire electorate, will be subjected over the period
leading to the elections only time will tell. In the meantime as they say south of the border,
we must "vasbyt" - hang in with faith and courage. Additional notes: The information that
farmers own 70% of the best land can easily be reputed by the numbers. If the
commercial farmers owned 70% of the "best" land, this would mean of
the 10.5 million ha of land owned by commercial farmers would mean that
commercial farmers were in control of 7.35 million hectares of the best land.
The other 30% of the "best" land would amount to 3,15 million ha in a
total area of land of 35,152,174 ha. Also what constitutes
"best" land. Different areas of Zimbabwe are suitable for different
types of farming. In the drought stricken Matebeleland area it is most certainly
not suitable for non-irrigated cropping and is therefore more suitable for
cattle and game ranching. In the Midlands, which is
not as drought prone as Matebeleland, the land is more used for mixed farming.
In the Mashonaland region, which has a more reliable and higher rainfall than
the rest of the country, it is suitable for intensive cropping and in the
Eastern Highlands where the land is mountainous it is more suitable for timber
and tea production. The Lowveld again is an
area which is drought prone with a low annual rainfall game farming and cattle
ranching are carried out with the exception for the Chiredzi/Triangle area which
has water brought down by canal from Masvingo at great expense and is then
suitable for sugar production. Black Zimbabwean farmers
can be as competent as white Zimbabwean farmers given the same access to finance
and education. And there are many successful black commercial farmers that prove
this point, and ironically they have also been subjected to similar invasions as
their white counterparts on the pretext that they are MDC supporters. Also, just because someone
lives in a rural area, does it mean they are a farmer. Like in every walk of
life, different people have different skills. Resettlement schemes have in the
main failed because of unskilled people, without the necessary resources being
resettled. These resettled farmers do
not have tenure of their land and are therefore unable to secure the necessary
finance. No person, black or white, can farm successfully without adequate
resources. And this is more so now with runaway inflation in the region of 70%
p.a. In addition peasant farmers are unlikely to have adequate education to deal
with the financial complexities of commercial (as opposed to subsistence)
farming. In The Herald of 6th May
2000 minister Cde Chem Chimutengwende is quoted as saying "The
truth is that such resettlement will enable the resettled people to grow enough
crops to feed themselves and pay for the health services and the education of
their families,'' This then leads to the question of which schools and
clinics are these people going to attend? Who is going to feed the +3 million
people living in the towns if these resettled people are only going to grow
enough to feed themselves? It is not surprising that
Zambia, Mozambique and Uganda are keen for Zimbabwean white commercial farmers
to move to their countries, and yet these were some of the very countries
supposedly involved in getting Mugabe to broker a peace deal with the farmers.
Their commitment to the process must be put into question |