Article from The Bulletin - April 2000 (This is a monthly publication in Bulawayo)
Guy Hilton-Barber does the Farming Bulletin every month.

LAND CLASSIFICATIONS IN ZIMBABWE


LAND IS NOT THE REAL ISSUE
By Guy Hilton-Barbour

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.

Communal land, subsistence farming-peasants	41.8 percent	19,082,609 ha
Re-settlement - mostly badly done also subsistence & 10% not yet resettled	9.2 percent	4,200,000 ha
Indigenous tenant, small scale commercial	8.0 percent	3,652,174 ha
DTZ (virtually Joshua Nkomo's estate) and State leased farms	1.0 percent	456,122 ha
CSC and ARDA (Government parastatals)	1.2 percent	547,826 ha
National Parks & Forestry : non-agricultural and not what it used to be	15.8 percent	7,213,043 ha
TOTAL	77.0 percent	35,152,174 ha
Commercial Farmers (not all white)	20.6 percent	9,404,349 ha
Multi-national company farms	2.4 percent	1,095,652 ha
TOTAL COMMERCIAL FARMS	23.0 percent	10,500,000 ha

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

( 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)

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.