Zimbabwe to review local ownership law: minister

(AFP) - 7 hours ago

HARARE - Zimbabwe's cabinet will review new local ownership rules that have
sparked concern among business leaders, the industry minister said
Wednesday, saying the law had been published "prematurely".

Zimbabwe published a law three weeks ago requiring that major foreign firms
divest 51 percent stakes to locals. Banks and mining companies will be the
most affected by the law, which gives five years to comply.

"Unfortunately those regulations were published prematurely," Industry
Minister Welshman Ncube told a meeting of business executives in the
capital.

President Robert Mugabe, in power since independence in 1980, has defended
the law as being necessary to end colonial-era inequities.

But Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai, the former opposition leader who
joined the unity government one year ago, condemned the regulations -- 
saying they were drafted behind his back and passed without his approval.

Ncube said that cabinet should have reviewed the law before it was
published, but said the review was now taking place.

"It is now before the cabinet committee on legislation and we have asked
other ministers to make contributions," he said.

The committee will then make recommendations to government, which is sharply
divided on the measure, with Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change
arguing that the law will scare away foreign investment.

Victor Gapare, president of the Chamber of Mines, said foreign inflows had
already been affected "because of perceived country risk."

Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries president Kumbirai Katsande urged the
government to tone down its rhetoric to avoid frightening potential
investors.

"We have agreed with the minister to tone down on this sensitive issue,"
Katsande said at the meeting.

"Indigenisation is here to stay, but it must be done in a manner which
brings investment."

Indigenisation law to dominate Council of Ministers meeting Thursday

http://www.swradioafrica.com

By Tichaona Sibanda
3 March 2010

The dispute between ZANU PF and the MDC over the recently gazetted
indigenisation regulations is set to dominate Thursday's Council of
Ministers, which is to be chaired by the Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai.
Tsvangirai and Robert Mugabe met on Monday during their weekly meeting and
agreed the regulations would not be enforced until they were brought and
approved by Cabinet, as per procedure.
Tsvangirai' spokesman James Maridadi told SW Radio Africa on Wednesday that
the Prime Minister insists the new regulations on indigenisation, as
currently proposed, are 'counter-productive' and out of line with his
mandate to deliver broad-based empowerment through economic growth.
"The Prime Minister opposes the new regulations because they achieve the
exact opposite of what they are meant to bring," Maridadi said. Analysts
have blamed the controversial regulations for scaring away millions of
dollars in investment opportunities, forcing Industry and Commerce Minister
Welshman Ncube to wade into the row.
Ncube told a meeting of business executives in Harare on Wednesday that the
inclusive government will be reviewing rules that force foreign-owned firms
to sell a majority stake to locals. He said the regulations, which came into
effect on Monday were published prematurely last month.
The Minister reiterated that the rules had not been submitted to a cabinet
committee for debate on their legality and whether they were consistent with
government policy, adding, "That did not take place, and it's now taking
place and all the Ministers will be asked to make contributions."
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Tsvangirai has said restrictive measures by
Western countries against Mugabe and officials from ZANU PF can only be
lifted once the Global Political Agreement is fully implemented.
Clarifying reports that appeared in the state controlled Herald that quoted
Tsvangirai calling for the removal of sanctions; Maridadi said the Prime
Minister was quoted out of context.
Maridadi said the Prime Minister told a visiting Danish delegation this week
that targeted sanctions should be removed when human rights violations come
to an end.
"Never did the Prime Minister refer to them as sanctions, but 'restrictive
measures.' The media quoted him out of context, but he reiterated that the
West should acknowledge the progress of the government by lifting
restrictive measures, once certain prerequisites have been met," Maridadi
said.
 

State agriculture utility to let farms

http://www.zimonline.co.za/

by Tafadzwa Mutasa Wednesday 03 March 2010

HARARE - Zimbabwe's state-owned Agriculture and Rural Development Authority
(ARDA) is on a drive to lease out to private companies all its estates that
lie derelict after years of mismanagement as it tries to improve the country's
agriculture production.

Condemned as a corruption-infested institution with decaying infrastructure,
a senior ARDA official said the agriculture concern wanted to create green
zones on its estates while returning it to viability.

The southern African country has since 2001 largely lived on food aid from
Western donors after the spectacular collapse of its agriculture sector, the
backbone of the economy, which is attributed to President Robert Mugabe's
often violent and chaotic seizures of white-owned commercial farms.

"We will start with leasing about 4 000 hectares of land from our farms
dotted around the country, and we will also seek joint partnerships," the
official, who is not authorised to speak to the media told ZimOnline.

ARDA has dozens of farms and estates, with land totalling more than 450 000
hectares, which agriculture experts say could easily produce half of
Zimbabwe's grain needs on a commercial scale.

The official, who is part of a team spearheading the programme, said the
success of a pilot venture in Chisumbanje and Middle Sabi between ARDA and
two companies, Macdom Pvt (Ltd) and Ratings Investment, owned by business
tycoon Billy Rautenbach, had prompted ARDA to lease all its derelict land.

In the Chisumbanje venture Macdom is growing sugarcane for production of
ethanol while Ratings Investments is growing wheat in Middle Sabi.

"That is the template we are using because it guarantees optimal use of the
land and we as ARDA get to share in the profits as well. The companies will
also develop infrastructure on the estates," the official said.

ARDA is best remembered for seizing, in 2005, Kondozi Estates in Manicaland
province, then one of the most productive farms in the country, which has
since been turned it into a large derelict piece of land.

The institution was set up to spearhead agricultural and rural development
with increased support to smallholder farmers to facilitate the production
of sufficient high-quality food for the nation and generate employment and
income on a sustainable basis.

But the parastatals has for years been ridden by deep rooted corruption,
looting of agriculture inputs, equipment and livestock, with ministers from
Mugabe's previous governments benefiting the most.

Senior ARDA officials say Mugabe's personal farm manager and adviser, Joseph
Made, who remains Agriculture Minister since 2000, has taken machinery from
ARDA for use at some of the 86-year-old leader's farms.

The agriculture authority is failing to account for 428 tractors, part of a
consignment bought from Iran between 2007 and 2008. - ZimOnline

Zimbabwe Diamonds Center Stage in Harare as Parliament Probes Gov't Deals

http://www1.voanews.com/

Zimbabwe Ministry of Mines Permanent Secretary Thankful Musukutwa refused to
respond to certain questions from Parliament's Committee on Mines as to how
government partners in two diamond joint ventures were selected

Irwin Chifera, Sandra Nyaira & Thomas Chiripasi | Washington 02 March 2010

Zimbabwe Ministry of Mines Permanent Secretary Thankful Musukutwa refused
Tuesday to respond to certain questions from Parliament's Committee on Mines
as to how government partners in two diamond joint ventures were selected to
develop the increasingly controversial Marange field in the east.

Correspondent Irwin Chifera reported from the House of Assembly that
Musukutwa told the Mines Committee that he could not go into the matter as
it was under discussion within the Cabinet.

Farai Maguwu, director of the Center for Research and Development in Mutare,
the capital of Manicaland province in which the Marange field is located,
that the permanent secretary's refusal to answer parliamentary questions
signals a lack of transparency.

Meanwhile, Kimberly Process monitor Abbey Chikane of South Africa was in the
country for three days to  look into alleged Zimbabwean noncompliance with
Kimberly standards and the work plan that Harare committed to in Namibia
last December.

In a related development, the head of the youth wing of the Movement for
Democratic Change formation led by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai said the
premier must not lose focus in trying to root out diamond-related corruption
in Marange because of threats by ZANU-PF youths over Western sanctions.

Correspondent Thomas Chiripasi repored from Harare.

ZANU-PF youth marched in Harare last week to protest Western travel and
financial sanctions against President Robert Mugabe and the state-controlled
Herald newspaper later reported that the youths issued an ultimatum saying
Mr. Tsvangirai must do more to end sanctions or face unspecified
consequences.

Zimbabwe: Political and Security Challenges to the Transition

INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP - NEW BRIEFING

Harare/Pretoria/Nairobi/Brussels, 3 March 2010: Despite initial scepticism, Zimbabwe’s year-old unity government has achievements to its credit, but the democratic transition remains at risk, especially from hard-line security officials – President Robert Mugabe’s last reliable supporters.

Zimbabwe: Political and Security Challenges to the Transition,* the latest briefing from the International Crisis Group, analyses the situation resulting from the Global Political Agreement (GPA) that broke the stalemate following failed 2008 presidential elections and led to formation of the unity government in February 2009. It concludes that all domestic signatories of the GPA, as well as the South African mediation, must embrace democratic transformation as the vital objective of the transition.

A wide range of problems could return Zimbabwe to where it was a year ago – on the edge of collapse – if the long-ruling Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU-PF) party and the military leadership maintain an intransigent stance on the reforms for economic and political stability.

“As Zimbabwe enters its second year under a unity government, the challenges to democratic transformation are in sharp focus”, says Africa Program Director François Grignon. “The military leadership and other Mugabe loyalists in ZANU-PF are using their symbiotic relationship with the state apparatus to exercise veto power over the transition. A mature political system must develop, so ZANU-PF and the MDC engage as both competitors in politics and partners in government”.

Against the odds, the government that brought together President Mugabe and the leaders of the divided wings of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai and Deputy Prime Minister Arthur Mutambara, started well. Schools and hospitals re-opened; civil servants were paid and returned to work; Hyperinflation was halted; goods returned to store shelves; a cholera epidemic was controlled; human rights activists reported a significant drop in abuses.

Nevertheless, major threats can still derail the reform process. In particular, the resistance of powerful security sector leaders and fractious in-fighting between and within ZANU-PF and the MDC must be addressed now. South African President Jacob Zuma and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) need to press the parties, and especially Mugabe, to see the transition to a successful conclusion. Western donors should back their efforts, including by expanding assistance, keeping targeted sanctions on spoilers but also by ending sanctions on firms important for economic growth.

A relatively small number of “securocrats” oppose reforms, motivated by the fear of losing power, wealth and impunity. Zimbabweans across the political spectrum are quietly considering how to ease them into retirement, while simultaneously professionalising security forces respectful of human rights and a democratically elected government.

“Inter-party cooperation and the full engagement of civil society are essential for a successful democratic transition”, says Donald Steinberg, Crisis Group’s Deputy President for Policy. “Above all, Zimbabweans themselves must put the legacy of ‘divide-and-rule’ politics behind them”.

The International Crisis Group (Crisis Group) is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation covering some 60 crisis-affected countries and territories across four continents, working through field-based analysis and high-level advocacy to prevent and resolve deadly conflict.

Zimbabwe mulls decommissioning Hwange power plant

http://af.reuters.com

Wed Mar 3, 2010 1:01pm GMT

By MacDonald Dzirutwe

HARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabwe is considering whether or not to decommission
six generation units at the 750 MW Hwange thermal power station, which is
producing 50 MW due to recurrent breakdowns of its ageing plants, a minister
said on Wednesday.

The southern African country is battling power shortages, which miners and
industrialists say are a threat to the recovery of an economy that is
emerging from a decade of collapse.

Industry and Commerce Minister Welshman Ncube said the government had
continued to give money to state power utility ZESA to fix problems at
Hwange, but generation remained low.

"As of the end of last week, it (Hwange) was delivering 50 MW, which
basically means that it's not in play at the moment," Ncube told a group of
business leaders in Harare.

ZESA's chief executive Ben Rafemoyo told Reuters last week that two out of
six units at Hwange were already back in operation and that a third was due
to start production last week Wednesday.

Ncube mocked ZESA officials for misrepresenting the plant's problems to the
government, saying that at one time they blamed coal shortages but now said
the equipment at the power plant was too old to operate at full capacity.

All the six units at Hwange can only operate at 40 percent of their design
capacity, Ncube said, giving a maximum output of 300 MW.

Zimbabwe has a peak electricity demand of 2,000 MW but has had to rely on
the 750 MW Kariba hydro plant, which is operating at full capacity, and
imports to complement its supplies.

Ncube said a team of cabinet ministers had now been tasked to come up with a
report on the state of the equipment at Hwange and make recommendations
whether to continue with generation.

"Regrettably, over the last 12 months, the problems have always been
communicated to us differently," he said.

"The government has now had to say let us get a full report on all the six
units ... then we can say do we really need to spend more money on them
(units) or decommission them."

Zimbabwe has in recent weeks endured increased enforced power cuts in a bid
to match supply with demand.

To guarantee adequate electricity, Zimbabwe has long planned to add two more
300 MW generating units at Hwange and expand its Kariba hydro power plant
with two generators, adding 150 MW each by 2012 at a total cost of $800
million.

Ncube said the government should now seriously look at the Kariba option to
increasing power supplies.

Zuma backs end to Zimbabwe sanctions

http://uk.reuters.com

Tue Mar 2, 2010 7:50pm GMT

By Giles Elgood

LONDON (Reuters) - South African President Jacob Zuma on Tuesday urged the
lifting of sanctions against Zimbabwe if progress was to be made in
resolving that country's political crisis.

He also said that it was not the policy of South Africa's ruling African
National Congress to nationalise the mining sector, as had been demanded by
the head of the ANC's youth league.

The question of nationalisation could be discussed, but it would need to be
introduced into the ANC's policy-making process before any decision could be
reached.

The nationalisation issue has caused concern among investors in South
Africa, the world's biggest platinum producer and the third largest producer
of gold.

Speaking to reporters at the start of a state visit to Britain, Zuma was
also asked about sanctions on Zimbabwe.

"If they could lift sanctions, that would give Zimbabwe an opportunity to
move forward," he said.

He disagreed with the view expressed from outside Zimbabwe that more
pressure in the form of sanctions was the way forward.

He said the Southern African Development Community, a regional body that has
been dealing with Zimbabwe, had suggested that if sanctions were lifted they
could be reimposed if progress was made by a certain date.

He would be raising the question of how to make progress in Zimbabwe during
his talks this week with Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

POLITICAL RESOLUTION

Zuma said it would be difficult for Zimbabwe to deal with outstanding
obstacles to a political resolution while sanctions were still in place.

President Robert Mugabe and his old foe Morgan Tsvangirai formed a unity
government in Zimbabwe last year, but remain deadlocked on issues such as
the appointment of a new governor of the central bank and an
attorney-general. The trial of one of Tsvangirai's political allies for
treason is also an issue.

About three million Zimbabweans have fled to neighbouring South Africa as
the economy has collapsed at home.

South African officials have said the refugees are placing the country's
basic services under severe strain. South Africa would therefore like to see
relations improve between Mugabe and Tsvangirai.

Asked about demands from ANC Youth League head Julius Malema that South
Africa's crucial mining sector should be taken into public ownership, Zuma
said: "We are not nationalising. That is not the policy of the ANC."

Nationalisation could be discussed, but the idea had not been introduced
into the ANC's policy-making process, he said.

Malema had raised the issue of nationalisation for debate and that in South
Africa "anyone has a right to raise his views."

"People tended to think that because the matter has been raised it is now
policy. It is actually not. We are very clear on the matter," Zuma said.

"We have never taken a position of nationalisation," he said.

"If Mr Malema feels very strongly that the matter should be discussed, we
will certainly do so and the matter will be discussed. You will certainly
know the ANC viewpoint at the end."

Obama Extends Sanctions Against Zimbabwe’s Mugabe

By Merle David Kellerhals Jr.

Washington- The United States extended sanctions on President Robert Mugabe’s regime for another year, saying that Zimbabwe’s political crisis is unresolved, President Obama announced.

The United States has imposed travel sanctions and a freeze on the financial assets of President Mugabe, his family and closest political aides; a freeze on all non-humanitarian government-to-government aid; and a freeze on any transfer of defense-related items and services to protest a disputed presidential election and human rights abuses by President Mugabe’s government, the White House said in a message to Congress March 1. The European Union has also imposed targeted sanctions on the country.

“I am continuing for one year the national emergency with respect to the actions and policies of certain members of the government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions,” Obama said.

“The crisis constituted by the actions and policies of certain members of the government of Zimbabwe and other persons to undermine Zimbabwe’s democratic processes or institutions has not been resolved,” Obama said.

Former President George W. Bush imposed the original sanctions with the declaration of a national emergency in 2003, saying that the actions by the Zanu PF regime had “contributed to the deliberate breakdown in the rule of law in Zimbabwe.” There are no trade sanctions against Zimbabwe and the country does not qualify to participate in the U.S.-sponsored African Growth and Opportunity Act because of poor economic management and human rights abuses.

According to a 2009 report from the U.S. Congressional Research Service, the United States froze the financial assets held in the United States of 75 high-ranking Zimbabwe officials and President Mugabe’s wife, Grace. Nine companies and farms were added in 2004, and the list was further expanded in November 2005 to block the assets of 128 individuals and 33 entities. And more names were added to the list in December 2007 and again in November 2008, the CRS report said.

President Mugabe has ruled the country since its independence in 1980. But after the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) won the majority of Parliamentary seats in the March 2008 election, tensions began rising. Mugabe’s re-election as president in a June runoff was regarded as illegitimate by the United States and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. In September 2008, after weeks of negotiations, Mugabe and MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai signed a power-sharing arrangement aimed at resolving the political standoff. Tsvangirai had won more votes for president than Mugabe, but not more than the 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff.

Tsvangirai became the prime minister of a new coalition government following the power-sharing arrangement, and Cabinet positions have been filled among the nation’s political parties.

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton welcomed Prime Minister Tsvangirai to Washington in June 2009, praising the progress made “in very difficult circumstance” since he joined the unity government with political rival Mugabe. Speaking after their meeting, Obama said Zimbabwe’s power-sharing agreement “shows promise” and the United States is looking for ways to help Tsvangirai and the Zimbabwean people improve the country’s democratic and economic future.

(This is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State.  Web site: http://www.america.gov)

International labour org urged to intervene in Zim union’s harassment

http://www.swradioafrica.com

By Alex Bell
03 March 2010

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has been urged to intervene on
the behalf of Zimbabwe’s General Agriculture and Plantation Workers Union
(GAPWUZ), as the union’s leadership remains in hiding over police threats
and harassment.

The International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering,
Tobacco and Allied Workers Associations has made a written appeal to the ILO
to intervene. The letter urges the ILO to urgently contact the unity
government in an effort to ensure that GAPWUZ officials do not come to any
harm.

The entire union leadership went underground after increased threats and
harassment by officials from the Joint Operations Command (JOC), and a
number of police raids on the union’s offices in Harare. The raids have been
in response to the release of a shock report and documentary last year,
exposing the violent abuse of workers on farms seized by the Robert Mugabe
regime. Gertrude Hambira, the union’s Secretary General, has been in hiding
since last Wednesday and has since fled to the safety of South Africa, where’s
she said to be staying in a safe house.

‘We request your office to contact both the President and the Prime Minister
of Zimbabwe to convey our concerns and to insist that Hambira is not harmed
and her physical and psychological well-being is fully assured,’ the letter
to the ILO reads.

The ILO’s intervention to help Hambira has previously been requested when
the union leader was in hiding last year. She fled to South Africa shortly
before the release of the documentary and report, after a failed abduction
attempt was made at her home. Hambira wasn’t at home at the time, but her
husband was left shaken after being questioned over his wife’s whereabouts.
She spent a week in hiding before risking possible arrest to release the
report and documentary.

This time around Hambira fled into hiding after being interrogated for two
hours a week ago by 17 senior JOC officers. The officials stated that the
report and documentary contained ‘very serious allegations’ for which
Hambira should be ‘behind bars.’ Hambira and her colleagues were eventually
released, but the security officials warned that they would ‘call on her
again.’ A full scale raid was then carried out on Hambira’s office on Friday
in which two officials were arrested, but released after a few hours.
Another raid on the offices on Monday saw the rest of GAPWUZ’s leadership go
underground in fear for their lives.

South Africa’s trade union federation, COSATU has also expressed its anger
over the situation, saying in a statement that it is concerned about the
‘concerted harassment and continued threats of arrests’ against the union
leadership.

“We seek to relay our concerns to the ruling authorities in Zimbabwe,
particularly the Ministers responsible for police, military and security
forces to ensure the safety and security of Ms Hambira and to issue our
instructions that such harassment and threats of arrests should immediately
cease,” COSATU said.
The GAPWUZ report and documentary expose the devastating effects of the so
called land ‘reform’ programme on the livelihood of farm workers. The
documentary entitled ‘House of Justice’ contains 26 minutes of footage
detailing the horrifying human rights violations targeting farm workers over
the ten years of Mugabe’s land grab campaign. It also details top government
officials’ involvement in the torture, harassment and eviction of farm
workers in the chaotic land seizures. The report, ‘If Something is wrong,’
also highlights the impact of the land reform exercise on the farm workers
during the past ten years, and provides damning evidence that the violence
perpetrated on the farms has been largely targeted at farm workers.
“The documentary and the report compiled on the plight of farm workers in
particular and all workers in general, owing to the political situation in
Zimbabwe, should serve as a reminder to Zimbabweans that there is a need to
heal and unite the country by confronting challenges, including those
contained in a documentary and report,” COSATU added in its statement.

Meanwhile, human rights organisation Amnesty International has started an
on-line campaign, urging the public to send a letter to the authorities in
Zimbabwe over Hambira’s exile. The letters can be sent to Home Affairs
Minister Giles Mutsekwa and Augustine Chihuri, the Police Commissioner
General, to ensure Hambira’s protection.
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions_details.asp?ActionID=668

 

NUST students expelled, curfew imposed

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=27686

March 3, 2010

By Our Correspondent

BULAWAYO - National University of Science and Technology (NUST) authorities
have expelled student leaders, banned student activism on campus and imposed
a curfew over the university.

NUST Student Representative Council (SRC) president Brian Mtisi and
committee members Mlungisi Dube and Jorum Chikwadze were expelled this week
from the university for defying that order.

"Lobie Sifobela the Dean of Students wrote us letters of expulsion without
any disciplinary hearing. He accused us of defying an order that students
should not have an SRC at the college," Mtisi told The Zimbabwe Times.

He said a curfew had been imposed at the university in terms of which
students are not allowed to be on campus after 6.00 pm.

Most NUST students live in personal lodgings around the city as the
university does not offer accommodation.

"Armed  youth militias from the Border Gezi training camps are being
deployed every evening  to arrest and beat up any students seen loitering at
night," said Chikwadze.

Contacted for comment, NUST director of information and public relations,
Felix Moyo confirmed the expulsion of the three student leaders and accused
them of unruly behaviour.

"Yes, we expelled them because of their unruly behaviour," he said. "They
became violent over fee hikes last week and went around the college smashing
cars belonging to our respected visitors from Swaziland. What did you expect
us to do in such a situation?" Moyo said.

With regard to the imposition of a curfew and banning of student activism
Moyo said, "Students are currently busy with their examinations and they are
not expected to get involved in many things."

Last month Mtisi and Chikwadze were arrested and brutally assaulted by
officers from Bulawayo Central Police's Law and Order section after they led
a group of students to court where the trial of the university's principal
accountant, Roy Ndlovu was underway.

Ndlovu is charged with defrauding NUST of US$19 000, comprising fees paid in
by students. They spent three days in custody and were released with broken
limbs and head injuries.

Civic leaders complain of death threats

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=27680

March 3, 2010

By Our Correspondent

HARARE - Zimbabwe's civic society groups say some of their members have
received death threats from suspected security agents linked to Zanu PF who
are out to stop their countrywide activities on the constitution-making
process.

The groups have, however, declared that they will not be intimidated by the
threats.

"The last three months have seen an escalation in the number of threats,
intimidation and harassment leveled against members of civil society,"
ZimRights national director Okay Machisa told a media briefing Wednesday.

The threats have come in the form of cell phone text messages sent from a
given Telecel line and emails.

Nunurai Jena, ZimRights chairperson for Mashonaland West received a message
saying, "If we give you a task to ask your Zimrights colleagues to slow down
and forget about the constitution making process, will you do that or else.
Just comply."

The constitution=making process is a key component in the Global Political
Agreement signed in September 2008 by Zanu-PF and the two MDC parties.

Zanu-PF views the making of a new constitution as a threat to President
Robert Mugabe's entrenched hold on power, saying it is now a subtle method
by its enemies to do away with the controversial and elderly leader.

Mugabe lost the 2008 elections but clung to power after a three month orgy
of political violence waged by the military and Zanu-PF supporters.

Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai's mainstream MDC, which won the 2008
elections, sees the crucial process as an alternative method of redressing
Zimbabwe's political paralysis arising from the long tenure of  powerful
leader with multiple terms of office.

The delayed process will pave the way to fresh elections in Zimbabwe.

Zimrights Chitungwiza regional chairperson, Netsai Kaitano says he also
received threats.

"Have you forgotten the pain of those beatings? ," read the message. "Bidi
and Tsunga are gone, Pelagia, Ok, Phulu and Tshuma won't be there anymore,
when we will come for you."

Two weeks ago Machisa himself, received a message threatening "to consign
him to exile".

"You enjoy flying in and out of the country," so the message read, "Why don't
you stay there? They monitor, soon you will stay out."

Jabulisa Tshuma, the organisation's treasurer also received threats, all of
which have been reported to the police. No one has been arrested.

The past week has also seen Gertrude Hambira, secretary general of the
General Agriculture and Plantation Workers Union of Zimbabwe hounded out of
the country by state agents.

She was accused of producing and publicising a documentary exposing rampant
human rights abuses by Zanu-PF supporters and the state on the country's
farms.

The civic groups said they would soon raise the issues with co-ministers of
home affairs.

Machisa said the cell phone line which had been the source of the messages
had since gone off air.

Meanwhile, the civic groups, led by ZimRights, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human
Rights, and National Association of Non- Governmental Organisations,
affirmed they will continue with their work in spite of the threats.

"The organisations will not brook any attempts by rogue elements bent on
perpetuating the suffering of Zimbabweans by intimidating us into silence
and inaction," said Machisa.

"Our conscience remains clear and we are convinced that these organisations
and individuals are doing a necessary service to the nation as we stand
against any acts of commission and omission that are bent on de-humanising
our people, whatever their social status or other qualification."

The civic groups say the harassment is part of the works of the Joint
Operations Command (JOC), a committee comprising commanders of all the
security wings of the state, which are led by die-hard Mugabe loyalists.

"This monster should be dismantled," said Machisa.

Five years for possession of diamonds

http://www.thezimbabwetimes.com/?p=27664

March 3, 2010

By Our Correspondent

MUTARE - Newman Chiadzwa, found guilty of possessing 8,6 kg of diamonds
worth about US$30 million has been sentenced to a five - year jail term and
a U$32 000 fine in addition.

His lawyer, Chris Ndlovu says he will appeal against both the conviction and
the sentence at the High Court.

"We are filing appeal papers tomorrow," Ndlovu said immediately after the
ruling on Wednesday.

The judgment was handed down on Wednesday by provincial magistrate, Billiard
Musakwa after a protracted court battle.

Chiadzwa, hit the international headlines last year after he gave damning
evidence to the Kimberly Processing Certification Scheme last year. He led
the Kimberly Processing delegation to what he claimed was a mass grave in
the Chiadzwa diamond fields. He said the mass grave contained hundreds of
bodies of illegal miners and dealers shot dead by Zimbabwe security forces
during an operation to clear the area of illegal operators.

Chiadzwa, who misrepresented himself as "Chief Chiadzwa' attracted the full
wrath of President Mugabe's government after he volunteered the information
to the Kimberly Processing. Chiadzwa's damning information was used as
evidence to prove the Chiadzwa diamonds were bloody and should not be
approved on the international market.

Chiadzwa was subsequently arrested after he was found in possession of the
diamonds. His lawyer argued he kept the diamonds on behalf of the community.

The lawyer said the diamonds were mined at a time the government had openly
encouraged villagers to mine for the gems and sell them to the Mineral
Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe (MMCZ).

DFID's assistance to Zim discussed in UK parly

http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk

Wednesday, 03 March 2010 12:14
Oral Evidence
Taken before the International Development Committee on Tuesday 23 February
2010 Members present
Malcolm Bruce, in the Chair
John Battle
Hugh Bayley
Richard Burden
Mr Nigel Evans
Mr Mark Lancaster
Andrew Stunell

Memorandum submitted by Department for International Development

Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr Gareth Thomas MP, Minister of State, Mr Mark Lowcock, Director
General, Country Programmes, Department for International Development, and
Mr John Dennis, Head of Zimbabwe Unit, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, gave
evidence.

Q50 Chairman: Thank you, Minister, for coming to give evidence. This is the
final session on our inquiry into the situation in Zimbabwe. Would you. for
the record. introduce your team?

Mr Thomas: Mark Lowcock, who is the Director General for Country Programmes,
is on my left, and on my right is John Dennis, who is the Head of the
Zimbabwe Desk at the Foreign Office.

Q51 Chairman: Thank you for that. As you know, we visited Zimbabwe a couple
or so weeks ago. I will start by saying that we have an extract from an
Economist article saying that, since we left, things have deteriorated with
strikes. It says things like: the unity government is "as good as dead" and
that Harare is "abuzz" with talk of early elections and so forth. What is
the political situation? Has it changed that dramatically in the last couple
of weeks? Perhaps that would be the first question to ask, and then a couple
more will arise from it.

Mr Thomas: I do not think the political situation in Zimbabwe can ever have
been described as easy. We have always expected that there would be
difficult periods between the formation of the Inclusive Government and
eventually free and fair elections taking place. You are obviously aware
that there have been reports of both strike action over salaries and of
other tensions within the Inclusive Government. Whether or not it leads to
elections sooner rather than later, I am not in a position to make that
judgment, frankly, and I do not think any of us are in a position to make
that judgment. We knew that the period between the formation of the
government and elections would be a protracted and difficult period, and
events are bearing that out.

Q52 Chairman: Have you seen this article from The Economist?

Mr Thomas: I have not seen that article.

Q53 Chairman: Is that an accurate reflection of the current situation? That
is worse than the situation we would have observed three weeks ago. Saying
things like the Government of National Unity is "as good as dead." and "Mr
Zuma appears to agree that the unity government has become a sham" but that
he does not want any trouble before the World Cup. It says that Mr
Tsvangirai has given up all his demands, other than to try to see if he can
get space for free and fair elections. There is then this "indigenisation"
rule, saying that every company worth more than half a million dollars needs
to provide a 51% stake to black Zimbabweans - which is a blatantly racist
policy. That, even in relation to three weeks ago, appears to be a serious
degradation of the situation.

Mr Thomas: I have no sense that the President of South Africa has given up
on the mediation process that SADC have in place and have under way. Our
sense, certainly, is that the key players in the Inclusive Government have
not given up the sense of the work programme to which the government is
committed. As I say, there are tensions at the heart of the Inclusive
Government. As we all recognise, political power continues to be very
contested. Inevitably, when you have a situation like that there are going
to be moments of high tension as well as moments where tensions are
relatively lessened. I think we are probably in one of the tenser periods at
the moment.

Q54 Chairman: We will explore this in more detail, but for the ordinary
people, some of whom at least were getting access to education and health
and other services, has the position changed significantly in the last few
weeks? Or, in spite of those background difficulties and the strikes, are
those services still being delivered?

Mr Thomas: There has been an improvement in the delivery of basic services,
as I think you had the chance to see for yourselves when you were in
Zimbabwe. Having said that, there are huge challenges still in terms of the
delivery of those services. The crisis in terms of access to healthcare
which was at the heart of the cholera epidemic in Zimbabwe has not gone
away, albeit there are more health workers in place. In terms of your
specific question, our sense is that basic services are still in place, but
they are very basic, and there is still a much longer transition to more
recognisable, good quality health, education and other services to take
place. The Department staff in Zimbabwe continue to look at what else we can
do to improve the quality of those basic services, but that is very much a
job in hand, as I suspect you will have seen for yourself when you were
there.

Q55 Chairman: The final political point: a call for early elections. That
was in the air when we were there. The counter-argument was that you could
not possibly have free and fair elections if they were early because the
register does not exist - and to the extent that it does exist, it is
completely stacked to the benefit of ZANU-PF. Is this call for early
elections a realistic call? Is it achievable? Is it desirable?

Mr Thomas: It is difficult to believe that free and fair elections would
take place if they took place in the short term. As you say, there are
substantial changes that are required, in terms of thinking through issues
around voter education, constituency boundaries, the behaviour of the
security forces, the role of the diaspora in getting the right to vote. It
is difficult to see how free and fair elections could take place in the
short term, certainly.

Q56 Chairman: That would imply that you think more time is needed to get
those issues straight.

Mr Thomas: Certainly, our view is that what was included in the Global
Political Agreement in terms of changes that were going to be needed has not
happened as yet. The Electoral Commission is not up and functioning yet,
albeit its head has been appointed - although not, I believe, formally
confirmed. We would want to see the Electoral Commission being able to go
about its work, completing the process of reform that everybody recognises
is necessary if free and fair elections are going to take place.

Q57 Chairman: Mr Dennis, do you want to add any comments?

Mr Dennis: I have no comments to add, thank you.

Chairman: Richard Burden.

Q58 Richard Burden: One of the pots of support that DFID has been providing
has been to the Office of the Prime Minister. We understand that the purpose
of that funding is around enabling that as an office to fulfil its role
under the GPA. When we met Prime Minister Tsvangirai over there, he felt
that that DFID funding had been particularly useful in fulfilling the
obligation to the GPA but he felt more could be done and extra support to
his office would be well used, in particular, on the same sort of areas:
helping the Prime Minister's role to lead executive business in parliament
and so on. Are there any plans to increase that support?

Mr Thomas: Certainly, if further approaches for assistance were made to us,
be it by the Prime Minister or indeed any other ministry that is committed
to reform and to a pro-poor agenda, then we would look at them very
sympathetically. As you say, our support is designed to enable the Office of
the Prime Minister to carry out the sort of normal functions that a head of
state's office would, including oversight of the budget, making sure that
the different ministries are following through on the government's agreed
work plan, and helping to resolve disputes between government departments
were they to happen. Certainly, that has been the purpose behind granting
the assistance that we have done. We also, as you may be aware, granted
assistance to a number of other departments to help them carry out the basic
functions of their ministries, not least the Ministry of Finance to help
them with the budgeting process.

Q59 Richard Burden: In terms of the level of that support, if a case were
made that increases in that would be consistent with the objectives, would
that be something that we would be prepared to look at?

Mr Thomas: Absolutely. We have increased our aid programme to Zimbabwe over
the last 12 months from £49 million to £60 million. Of course, we are
looking for the measures that can have most impact most quickly in terms of
helping the Zimbabweans get access to better services. Clearly, helping key
ministries be better functioning so that they can drive that process, is
sensible. When a prime minister or other key minister asks for assistance,
of course we always look at that sympathetically. We would have to make a
judgment about its relative merit as against other programme asks, but we
certainly would not rule it out by any means.

Q60 Richard Burden: What kind of conditionality would be applied if funding
were to be extended?

Mr Thomas: We would want to make sure that the assistance that is offered is
being used to help promote reform, is being used to help deliver pro-poor
services. Those would be the key conditions, as such. "Conditions" is
probably the wrong phraseology to use in that sense, in that it has a
resonance of the bad old days of Structural Adjustment Programmes.
"Conditions" is not a term we would use, in that sense. Certainly, in terms
of the decisions we might take about how we allocate aid in future, be it by
a minister's office or for a big programme of humanitarian assistance, we
would want to be convinced that it was helping to deliver a pro-poor agenda,
that it was going to lead to significant reforms in the way services are
delivered. Those would be, if you like, the guiding principles for the
decisions we might take.

Q61 Hugh Bayley: I want to ask a question about support for a free and
independent media. I should preface my remark by saying that, if any
government anywhere in the world funds the media, you need to ensure that
that there is editorial independence and no control from the funder, as, for
instance, with the BBC World Service. I recall in the run-up to liberation
in both Namibia and South Africa there was British funding for the Namibian
newspaper, possibly for The Sowetan, and it was seen as important to have
some forums which were not under state control disseminating information.
The print media in Zimbabwe is very strongly controlled by the state. I
wonder what thought both of your Departments have given to ensure that, in
the run-up between now and elections, whenever they come, there is fair and
unbiased information about electoral registration, about the platforms of
relative parties, the achievements of ministers and their ministries. Is
that something which your Department should be funding or possibly the
Foreign Office should be funding, or both?

Mr Thomas: First, there is no doubt that we would want to see reforms in the
way the media operate and are organised to allow more independent activity
by different media operations of one sort of another. The return of the BBC
is undoubtedly a positive step. Key to wider change in how the media sector
operates is the establishment of the media commission as heralded in the
GPA. Again, like the Electoral Commission, it has not yet started doing its
work, and that will be a key issue for the international community to
continue to watch. It is certainly a key issue set out in the GPA where
progress is needed. In terms of the run-up to free and fair elections,
absolutely. A substantial programme of voter education would be required,
the media clearly would have an important role in that. If we were asked to
be part of a multi-donor group supporting an election process, of course we
would want to consider doing that. Again, where we have been asked to enable
elections to take place in a free and fair way, we have provided support in
other countries to election funding arrangements. As I say, we would be
happy to look at that, if we were asked, when the time came.

Q62 Hugh Bayley: Given that the barriers to the dissemination of information
and the history of intimidation are probably greater in rural areas than in
urban areas, I would have thought radio was a particularly important medium.
Are you satisfied that there is wide access to radio giving independent and
unbiased news across the country?

Mr Thomas: It is not just radio where there is an issue; it is the media in
general. There is not free and fair access to the media in any way in which
any of us in the room would recognise. That is clearly one of the areas, as
set out in the GPA, where substantial reform is necessary. Like others in
the international community, we would want to see progress in that area, not
just so that elections can take place but, also, so that the executive can
be held to account regardless of their political affiliation in that sense.

Hugh Bayley: One final question on culture. DFID does not normally make the
promotion of culture a priority: you would defer, I suppose, to the British
Council or others. We held a reception at the Bookshop Café and that seemed
to me to be an oasis of free expression.

Chairman: From time to time. When it was not being disrupted.

Q63 Hugh Bayley: Relative free expression, yes. There is a strong tradition
throughout Africa of music - I think of Fela Kuti and Miriam Makeba -
permitting things to be said which could not be published in a manifesto.
Would either of your Departments - yours through the British Council, Mr
Dennis, or DFID - think about providing unusually and atypically support for
freedom of expression through culture or arts?

Mr Thomas: I do not know where the Foreign Secretary is on music. In terms
of DFID, again it is about the balance and the opportunity cost of providing
funding in one particular way as against others. You are right that freedom
of expression is hugely important, whether it is through music, through
media, through other sources of activity.

Q64 Hugh Bayley: We were given a couple of booklets published by the British
Council, which I thought was quite a courageous bit of work.

Mr Thomas: Do not get me wrong, I think the British Council does hugely
important work. We are contributing, along with others, in helping to
promote freedom of expression through the constitution review process, where
UNDP, with our support, have started to fund work that we hope will allow
civil society to engage in thinking about the type of constitution and the
type of state that Zimbabwe should have in the future. That is one of the
few ways at the moment - though it is very imperfect, as you will, I am
sure, have had a sense - in which civil society and Zimbabwean citizens can
begin to air views and bounce ideas around about the future of their
country. In that sense, it is a hugely important process. It is not just us
who are funding it - it is being led, as I say, by UNDP - but it is one way
in which we are beginning to see some signs of growing freedom of
expression.

Chairman: Mark Lancaster.

Q65 Mr Lancaster: Thank you, Chairman. I want to explore slightly beyond
Zimbabwe's boundaries and its relationship with other countries in the
region. Of course historically, before 1994, when we saw the end of
apartheid, Zimbabwe was very much the centre for the region, but
relationships with surrounding countries have deteriorated to a degree,
particularly those with South Africa and Botswana because of the Zimbabwe
diaspora. What do you think surrounding countries can do to help in
assisting the development of Zimbabwe, not least when it comes to finding a
permanent political solution?

Mr Thomas: SADC, in that sense, the group of Zimbabwe's neighbours, has a
key role to play and has accepted that role in terms of acting as guarantors
of the Global Political Agreement. It is encouraging that there is a
mediation process underway. It is a process I welcome but it is very much a
process that we need to respect, as SADC leading on that process and
fulfilling the role that it has. You asked me specifically about South
Africa. South Africa is probably the country that has seen most migration of
Zimbabweans who have fled the country or have left the country into South
Africa. Zimbabwe is very much a domestic issue for President Zuma and the
South African government, as it is an international or a regional issue. You
are right to flag the continuing importance of the region for resolving the
political tensions in Zimbabwe. It is a process that we are obviously
monitoring closely, but SADC is very much in the lead in that process.

Q66 Mr Lancaster: I agree with you wholeheartedly, and I think SADC do have
a key role to play, but, given the Chairman's opening questions and the
deterioration at the moment, and notwithstanding that it is right that SADC
should take the lead, what more can we do in supporting SADC to try to
resolve some of these situations? Or should we not do anything?

Mr Thomas: First, we have to respect the mediation process that President
Zuma has put in place. He has appointed a high-level team with significant
reputations themselves to lead on that mediation process and, despite
moments of high tension, which we all recognise will occur as the GPA
process moves forward, we have to respect that mediation effort that
President Zuma's team on behalf of SADC is leading. The other ways in which
we can help are more direct, frankly, and that is through our development
programme. It is important for the people of Zimbabwe that there has been
economic progress, and I think the economic progress is beginning to throw
the spotlight on to the lack of political progress that has taken place in
Zimbabwe. Through some of the assistance to the Ministry of Finance and
through our humanitarian programmes we have played a small role, but an
important role, along with others in the international community, in helping
the stabilisation of the economy, and in that sense allowing the issues
around the political process and the lack of sufficient political reform to
be further highlighted, both for SADC to continue to deal with and also for
the government to continue to have to deal with.

Q67 Mr Lancaster: Is it quite a difficult tightrope to walk really? For
example, when we were there, you will be aware from all the talk in the
papers that they had seized on comments that the Foreign Secretary had made
in the chamber and they were being spun one way by one party and the other
way by the other. Is it quite a difficult tightrope to walk, where on the
one hand, everybody in this room, I am sure, wants to see development and
progression within Zimbabwe in helping to secure that political process,
but, as soon as we are vocal, it can sometimes be counterproductive whilst
at the same time trying to support this process? Is that tricky? How do we
find that balance between the two?

Mr Thomas: That is not true just of Zimbabwe, it is true of a whole series
of relationships that we have with countries. Sometimes, you are right,
there is a tightrope to walk.

Q68 Mr Lancaster: Are we getting it right, I suppose is what I am asking?

Mr Thomas: Are we getting it right? I think we are getting the balance
right. We have a rising development programme. We do continue to deliver
tough messages to all members of the Zimbabwean government, regardless of
their political affiliation, and we continue to look to the leadership of
both South Africa and SADC more generally to provide that on-the-spot
mediation work that they are doing.

Q69 Chairman: Taking The Economist article, it describes SADC as a fairly
spineless 15-member regional group. Zimbabwe has already defied their court
rulings. They have just adopted another racist agenda which presumably would
fall foul of the South Africans. Mr Mugabe's attitude seems to be: "I don't
recognise SADC. It doesn't bother me. If it suits me, I will pray them in
aid, otherwise I will ignore them." What can we do to persuade SADC to stand
up for what it says it believes in?

Mr Thomas: If SADC was not prepared to play the role that it is playing, we
would not have seen President Zuma set up a high-level mediation group, and
we would not have seen that mediation group engaging in the very direct way
in which it has done. I do think we have to be careful not to respond to
some of the bluster from particular politicians in Zimbabwe at the moment
and allow the SADC mediation process to continue. On occasion, we deliver
blunt messages to all the members of the Zimbabwe government when it is
required, and we provide direct assistance to help the journey of reform
where it is appropriate to do so. There is also this international effort
through SADC, and we have to allow it to continue to do its work and not be
put off, if you will forgive me for saying so, by particular articles or
particular comments by particular leaders in Zimbabwe.

Chairman: Nigel Evans.

Q70 Mr Evans: Thank you, Chairman. President Zuma is in London next week for
a State Visit. Do I assume that yourself and the Foreign Secretary will be
meeting with him and, if so, that you will raise the mediation process?

Mr Thomas: It would be pretty odd if he came to the UK and there were not
conversations with the Foreign Secretary and the Development Secretary. I am
sure there will be a whole series of conversations about affairs in southern
Africa, and Zimbabwe will inevitably be one of those areas that gets
discussed, but there is a broad agenda for the State Visit, so it is not the
only issue that will come up by any means.

Q71 Mr Evans: No, I assume that other things will be spoken about as well,
but clearly his important role in Zimbabwe is fully recognised by the world
community.

Mr Thomas: Absolutely. We recognise that he is playing a key role and we
respect that. The decision that he took to set up a three-member mediation
team and to include in that team some people who are extremely well
respected in southern African politics was a sign of the seriousness with
which he views the situation in Zimbabwe, but those were decisions that he
took and we have to respect his leadership, given the importance of South
Africa to SADC. Obviously, as I say, we will talk inevitably about Zimbabwe.
It is one of the issues that will be on the agenda, but there will be a
whole series of other issues that we have to talk through as well.

Q72 Mr Evans: I want to touch on land reform, but before I do that the
Chairman referred to The Economist piece about businesses having a 51% stake
by black Zimbabweans. Does the Government see that as a racist policy?

Mr Thomas: With all decisions in South Africa, the key test is avoiding
explosive language. The concern we would have is more about the impact of
particular policies on the economy and on the people of Zimbabwe, so if it
makes investment in Zimbabwe less likely, if it reduces the chance of jobs
being made available, then of course it has to be a considerable concern.
One of the issues, as the Committee will recognise, as to why so many people
have left South Africa is the lack of job opportunities, so anything that
prevents the private sector from beginning to develop, anything that further
discourages private sector investment, is clearly going to be a major
concern, but in the end this has to be a decision that Zimbabwe takes for
itself.

Q73 Mr Evans: But clearly it is a racist policy. If you say that there are a
lot of white Zimbabweans living there and people who are not black
Zimbabweans living there, surely they should have an opportunity to be able
to be a major partner in whatever businesses exist within a country. If any
other country did this sort of thing, we would be banging the table and
saying, "This is racist."

Mr Thomas: We want everybody in Zimbabwe to have equal economic
opportunities in that sense, quite clearly, but sometimes there is a way of
recognising that a whole series of reforms are required. I appreciate, Mr
Evans, that you might want me to use particular phrases to describe a
particular set of policies but, with respect, I am not going to do that. The
broad message is that there has been progress in terms of the economy. We do
not want that progress put at risk. We want the economy to stabilise still
further. That is going to require a whole series of political reforms now to
take place to create the conditions for longer-term private sector
investment to take place.

Q74 Mr Evans: That leads me on to land reform, which is part of the reforms
that clearly are essential to get some sort of progress and stability within
Zimbabwe. Have you seen the documentary Mugabe and the White African?

Mr Thomas: I have not, no.

Q75 Mr Evans: I would heartily recommend it because our Committee has had an
opportunity to see it. It is quite startling exactly what pressures clearly
are on white farmers who exist within Zimbabwe. It is an incredible and very
moving documentary. Clearly a number of people have had their lands grabbed,
basically in a way that is not helping Zimbabwe. One can understand the
reason for reform - we talked to the Commercial Farmers Union when we were
in Zimbabwe and they can understand the sense for reform too - but something
that is not orderly, something that is not structured, and something that
leads to so much farmland being taken out of production and, indeed, then
handed over to the cronies of politicians or friends within Zimbabwe,
clearly is not doing Zimbabwe any favours.

Mr Thomas: I would agree with that. I would go further and say that not only
do we condemn the huge number of farm invasions that have taken place, but
we have seen terrible human rights abuses committed as part of those
invasions which are completely unacceptable, both on an individual basis,
the individual rights of the people affected, but also, as you quite rightly
describe it, in terms of the devastating impact it has had particularly on
the rural agricultural economy. Frankly, "economic madness" would be an
appropriate phrase to use to describe that. I hope that that situation will
desist. We will continue to make that clear in our comments to the
politicians in Zimbabwe. It is clear that we do need to see a land policy
that is fair, that is pro-poor, that is transparent, because that will, as
you say, help to revive the economy, particularly in rural areas. It would
help to revive the agriculture sector. We are a long way from that point at
the moment, but we would stand ready, as part of a wider donor group, to
help in that process if the political conditions were right. I suspect,
frankly, the first step would be for some sort of land audit to take place,
if the Inclusive Government were so minded, but, at the moment, we are not
seeing signs that there is a willingness by all the parties to the Inclusive
Government for a fairer land policy to take place.

Q76 Mr Evans: They seem to be dragging their feet on doing anything about a
land audit, but clearly that looks like being a necessary forerunner to
making some real progress in that area. You have just mentioned the
international community doing its bit, along with the United Kingdom, in
trying to bring some sort of commonsense solution to this issue. What do you
think the international community and Britain specifically can do in this
area?

Mr Thomas: As I have said, we do stand ready to provide assistance, as part
of a wider donor group, if we are asked to. As I have said, the first thing
would be to conduct an audit of land. Frankly, we would only see a merit in
such an audit taking place if we had confidence that the information that
such an audit gleaned would be used to promote the type of pro-poor,
sensible, transparent land reform policy that most people independent of
some of those in Zimbabwe recognise as being necessary to revive the rural
economy there. We stand ready to help as part of a wider international
effort if the conditions are right. They are not right at the moment.

Q77 Mr Evans: Even with the hyperinflation that the country has gone
through, a lot of white farmers have gone to neighbouring African countries,
as I understand it, and set up businesses there and are doing rather well. I
suspect that Zimbabwe is importing some of the produce now of the former
white Zimbabwean farmers - which is clearly insane. Do you think we are
getting any closer to the political reality within Zimbabwe that a solution
should be found? Or do you think that the mentality is still: no, we wish to
right the wrongs of many generations and we do not care about economic or
humane consequences of what the policy is that we are now doing in Zimbabwe?

Mr Thomas: Unfortunately, land is one of those issues around which the
political power continues to be very heavily contested. As I described in my
comments earlier, whilst we have seen some progress in terms of the
stabilisation of the economy in Zimbabwe, we have not yet seen the major
political changes which the GPA has set out as being necessary. One of the
areas where we are continuing to see (to use a diplomatic phrase)
"unfortunate activity" is around land. I hope, as the economy has begun to
stabilise, that there will be recognition in all parts of the Inclusive
Government of a series of further steps that need to be taken to help that
economic progress. If those political realities kick in, then perhaps we
will get closer to the situation that you describe.

Q78 Hugh Bayley: Do you not think it would be helpful if the British
Government were to acknowledge that the terms on which white settlers, many
from this country, obtained land at the end of the 19th century and the
beginning of the 20th century was not fair and did not follow the rule of
law, and that the consequence for many indigenous people was that they were
forced on to marginal land and suffered enormously? If we were to say that,
then perhaps we would be in a better position to oppose the wrongs of
fast-track land reform and to move the debate on to a position you were
talking about, of pro-poor, rural development - which is what Zimbabwe
clearly needs - rather than a return to settler plantations.

Mr Thomas: With respect, Mr Bayley, I am not sure it would be helpful. I
think I should take responsibility for what we as a party have done since we
took power in terms of our aid programmes and our foreign policy since 1997.
I am not sure we should try to reach back all the time into history to look
at what happened a very long time ago. We need to deal - forgive me for
saying so - with the realities on the ground at the moment. In that sense,
the report that your party group produced was very helpful in trying to put
to bed some of the misnomers that have existed around what happened in 1980,
but, despite the importance of that report, we should rather think ahead. We
should recognise, as Mr Evans has described, the continuing adverse
implications of the land policy which particular elements in the government
are pursuing from time to time and recognise that there needs to be a
comprehensive change in terms of land policy at some time which needs to be
led by the government in Zimbabwe, but which, if the conditions were right,
we would stand ready to support.

Q79 Hugh Bayley: I think you are right to want to see a land audit, but if
British money alongside money from other donors is to go towards
establishing land title for poor landless Zimbabweans, how would you see
that process unfolding? In other words, how would you select the landless
poor? Who would get land? Who would you compensate?

Mr Thomas: Mr Bayley, with respect, I am not going to go down that
particular route. That is a process that the government of Zimbabwe has to
lead, and I hope it is a government that would be elected in free and fair
elections so that it had a clear mandate. I have said that we would be ready
to help as part of a series of donors with such an audit if we could be
convinced that the information from that audit was going to be used
properly. We do not have those conditions at the moment. We do stand ready
to help, as I say, but we are not going to put money on the table when,
frankly, we know that there is a series of other priorities where we can
have a sense that our money were to achieve good outcomes for the poor in
Zimbabwe more immediately. But we recognise the importance of the land issue
and staff and ministers will be ready to respond if the political conditions
changed.

Q80 Chairman: We agreed, anyway, that, whilst we would refer to the land
issue, it was not going to be central to our report because it is such a
major issue, but I think Mr Bayley has put his finger on some of the
background to it. You just mentioned about effective DFID programmes.
Indeed, DFID is doing a lot of the co-ordination on the ground and that
seems to be welcomed by a number of the NGOs and charities. Two things were
said to us: one was that if things improve a lot more donors are likely to
come in and it is important that co-ordination is established in advance,
otherwise it could get chaotic. That, on the other hand, may be too
optimistic in terms of what is likely to happen. But you cannot give the
funding directly to the government in most cases. Does that make it much
more difficult to co-ordinate? Clearly other donors may not be very keen to
hand it over to one lead donor, so what mechanisms do you need to have in
place, or what could you do to ensure that the relationship between donors
and the government is more direct than it is now? What are the criteria that
would need to be met?

Mr Thomas: We are a long way away from having confidence in the systems of
the government of Zimbabwe, so it is a long way off before we would want to
be putting money directly into the government of Zimbabwe's budget.
Nevertheless, there are a number of ministries which are developing plans
which are pro-poor, which are designed to help all communities across
Zimbabwe and behind which we feel we can align some of our support, so there
are discussions with government about their future plans and we are trying,
as you say, to work with other donors where we have confidence in those
plans or in the merits of those plans to put our financial assistance to
support the achievement of those plans. In terms of the broader issue about
donor co-ordination, you are right that donors are co-ordinating in general
fairly well, particularly those which are traditional OECD Development
Assistance Committee donors. There could still be better co-ordination with
the World Bank and others within the UN system. In the longer term, if we
can draw some of the non-traditional donors into the donor co-ordination
process, players like China, like South Africa, like Brazil, that would
clearly be an aspiration that we would want to have, not just in the
Zimbabwe context but in a whole series of other developing country contexts
too. Also, the donor co-ordination mechanisms are relatively informal at the
moment. As you say, if conditions continue to improve and other donors were
to come in, then we would need perhaps to formalise some of the donor
co-ordination structures that are there at the moment, but, in general,
relations between the main donors are very positive, as you describe.

Q81 Chairman: You have increased the programme in recent years in difficult
situations. If you were going to put more money in, are you satisfied that
the mechanisms you have in place would be effective, or would you need to
find different or better ways of delivering it?

Mr Thomas: We are comfortable that the mechanisms we have available at the
moment are strong enough and robust enough to ensure that the money that we
are spending in Zimbabwe is going to where it should go. Clearly, if you
increase your aid programme into a country, you have to think through what
implications that has for the particular funding instruments that you use.
We work, as you know, with UN agencies and NGOs but also with a number of
private sector organisations which manage particular programmes of aid for
us. As I say, we have a strong process for monitoring how our money
operates. Thus far, we are confident that we have managed to make a
significant difference with our money. If we were to increase funding
substantially, then clearly we would look at the mechanisms we had available
to us.

Chairman: If we are moving on to that, I will bring in John Battle.

Q82 John Battle: In a sense, the real issue is governance, from my
experience of the visit we did, in particular the field visit. I would like
to express gratitude to the staff at DFID who took us out of Harare to
Bulawayo. I went with some of our colleagues to Tsholotsho and I was very
encouraged and impressed by work on the ground, not least around the
Protracted Relief Programme. All these things have great titles, but I found
a programme there to reach to people who were poor, the poorest of the poor,
the people who were landless, to try to get back their livelihoods, with a
whole range of activities from home care right the way through. I was very,
very impressed by that programme. I just want to ask you a couple of
questions about it. If that has gone in the right direction, can it be
amplified and done elsewhere? The programme has two phases, as I understand
it, and we have just entered Phase II. Phase I was going for a few years. I
am lost at the scale of it. As I stood in a field in Tsholotsho with those
older women, trying out new cultivation techniques for getting more water
into their plants so that their fields of maize and cowpeas would look
rather healthier than the ones across the way, I asked whether there was
just one field or thousands of fields like that. In the DFID letter it says
that the programme is reaching over two million poor and vulnerable people,
but the plan for Phase II is to reach two million people, and sometimes we
include the two million that we have not quite yet reached. I want to know
the extent of the programme. Is it really being disseminated across? Do you
have just one field in Tsholotsho or do you have programmes elsewhere in the
country? Can it be scaled up? I know the programme is working with other
donors as well, but is the scaling up happening and is it possible for it to
happen? Can you find the land? Can the people respond to it? Can it be a
much more mobile programme than just one or two little pivotal projects?

Mr Thomas: I will bring in Mr Lowcock in just a minute, but, first, thank
you for your comments about DFID staff in Zimbabwe. If I may, I will to put
on record my appreciation for the work they do. They have had to operate in
some extremely difficult circumstances in the past.

Q83 John Battle: Indeed.

Mr Thomas: As Members will recognise, we have some of our most talented
staff deployed in Zimbabwe, given the importance of the work we are doing
there. The Protracted Relief Programme has expanded. It is not just that one
field that you were sent to, but let me bring Mr Lowcock in to amplify on
that.

Mr Lowcock: It is a long time since I have been in Tsholotsho, so I am glad
to hear that particular report. The programme covers 300,000 households,
which is about two million people, which is probably 20%.

Q84 John Battle: At present?

Mr Lowcock: At present, yes.

Q85 John Battle: The target for Phase II was to reach two million people.

Mr Lowcock: I think that is the current coverage.

Q86 John Battle: So you are already well ahead.

Mr Lowcock: I think that is the case, Mr Battle, yes.

Q87 John Battle: Good. What about the range of activities? Many of the NGOs
praise the programme for its innovation in reaching from home care, and
quite personal support, to innovative agricultural techniques, including
community participation. While we sometimes focus on, as I said, governance
at the government level, the new engagement of the people is the real
innovative work that DFID and other NGOs are leading internationally. Is
that integration being extended? Is that development of those kinds of
participatory tools able to take place? I felt the local officials were not
resisting it at the local level, which augured well for the future of
Zimbabwe if it could be scaled up from the bottom. Is that the view of the
Department in the work that is going on at field level, at floor level?

Mr Thomas: Absolutely. We would want to continue to see that programme
scaled up. There is a series of developing countries - and I think of
Afghanistan - where we have similar grassroots programmes. We are
particularly fortunate in Zimbabwe to have very many committed civil society
organisations which are playing, as you describe, a crucial role in helping
to identify who needs the support that the PRP programme can give in
communities most. As you say, the range of support we are able to give is a
particularly important feature of the programme, from the very direct
assistance, be it seeds and fertilizers or home care, to some of the more
technical assistance, to help NGOs help the individual farmers understand
what they have to do to increase their yields. As you say, it is an
innovative programme and we have been encouraged by the international
community's response to that programme. As you know, Phase I was very much a
programme that DFID initiated. Phase II has had much broader donor support
and in that sense has become a proper multi-donor programme.

Q88 John Battle: What struck me as well was that perhaps with the word
"farmer" in English we think of some strapping young man who is ultra-fit
out there in the fields, but there were women who were older than I am and
what impressed me immensely was they have not had the benefit of my
education but their knowledge of agriculture and agricultural techniques was
incredible. I was quite excited by this new conservation agriculture method
and I wonder whether your Department is able to feed that into DFID and some
of the climate change discussions and see if those methods can be tested out
elsewhere in Africa and South East Asia so that the learning from innovation
can be passed on? I thought as well as the process of engagement with the
people there may be some good agricultural science in there that could be
very helpful as well.

Mr Thomas: Far be it from me to suggest recommendations to the Committee but
drawing that particular point out would certainly help us continue to spread
some of the lessons from the Zimbabwe programme across our other country
programmes. As you quite rightly said, the lessons in terms of climate
change, in terms of the particular farming environment, if you like, in
which our programme operates does potentially give information that would be
useful in a whole series of other developing countries - Sedex -
particularly in the climate change context. As you know, one of the
priorities that the Secretary of State set out in last year's White Paper
was for us to do more on climate change in developing countries. Learning
the lessons from successful programmes such as the PRP where there is a
climate element is exactly the type of thing that we need to continue to
spread across the Department.

Q89 John Battle: It was noticeable that we were speaking directly with the
women, the farmers themselves, not through an intermediary, an agent, the
NGO's leader or even the DFID person. DFID is actually involved in the
programming. If I can put it to you this way: I understand DFID now uses
managing agents and some of the conversations suggest that using agents can
become bureaucratic and can tie up resources of the partner NGOs having to
fill in analyses and sometimes the direct link with DFID is not quite there,
as it were. Although we had the experience of talking to someone in the
field, when the process is taking place on a daily programme basis is the
use of managing agents causing delays in the transaction between DFID and
the work on the ground? Is it sometimes holding up the provision of DFID
support?

Mr Thomas: We need to recognise that there was a substantial difference
between Phase 1 of the PRP and Phase 2. Phase 2 is inevitably much more
ambitious and involves a series of other donors. In a sense, what you want
from your staff is that they make things happen on the ground in terms of
developing countries. Our staff initiated this programme and as others come
onboard the pressures on those staff and their ability to do other things
would inevitably have been much more constricted if they had continued to
run the programme direct, so we took the decision to bring in a private
sector operator and there was an international tender, as I understand.
Inevitably, when you have that sort of change there are one or two bumps
along the process. What the head of the DFID office in Zimbabwe is making
sure happens is that there are regular, I believe quarterly, meetings with
the heads of civil society groups in Zimbabwe to make sure that we continue
to have good coordination with civil society. That will clearly be of
importance, not just in terms of the PRP programme but also in terms of the
other programmes that we have.

Q90 John Battle: I will pass to Andrew in a second. It was expressed to us
that there could be a distancing built in. What would worry me is that what
seems to be really radical - to use a word, I think it is connected to the
word "roots" - about DFID's work is that ability to reconnect at the ground
floor level and get the pro-poor development going on there and then feed it
back up through. If you build a layer in that cuts them off again it could
undermine some of the good work that has been done. I think Andrew wanted to
follow through on this.

Mr Thomas: May I just pick that point up and bring Mr Lowcock in in a
second. I think if there was not regular communication with civil society
then, you are right, that would be a concern. In order specifically to avoid
any suggestion that we are getting remote we wanted to set up a proper
process for communicating with key players in civil society, and that is
what we have now initiated.

Mr Lowcock: I would just like to put on the record that we have three
members of staff in the Harare office who still work primarily on this
programme and they are spending less of their time on the routine
administration and more of it on the strategic dialogue and, indeed, at
least once a month going out to regions like Tsholotsho and seeing what is
happening. In terms of the objectives of making sure we stay in touch with
the goals and the delivery of those goals, the way we have organised the
work is an improvement on the past arrangement.

Q91 Andrew Stunell: If I could just pick up where John finished. First of
all I want to say that we saw some excellent on the ground projects which
will be the anecdotes and illustrations of my presentation about the work
the Department does for a long time. They were very good projects.

Mr Thomas: But.

Q92 Andrew Stunell: The "but" is that there are so many levels between the
money going in from the office in Harare to the wheelchair-bound lady with
her four chickens in the compound outside Bulawayo that we have paid for.
There is the managing agent, there is the Zimbabwe-wide NGO and there is
civic society. When we pour £100 in at the top in Harare, how much goes out
and buys chickens at the bottom, where does the other money stop on the way
and what is the value of that other money on the way in terms of the
investment in civic society and so on?

Mr Thomas: I would have to get you the exact breakdown in terms of the
portion of what we put into the PRP programme that is taken up, if you like,
as administration costs. We need to be careful and to recognise that those
different layers, as you have described them, also play a key function in
helping us to account for how the money is spent, making sure that money
goes to the most needy people in Zimbabwe but also that we have proper
accounting processes in place. I can see that as the programme has got
bigger certainly one or two people have raised concerns, but I do think it
is important that we have that administration element in there so that we do
have proper checks and balances. We will very happily provide for the
Committee, Mr Stunell, a more detailed explanation of what portion of the
PRP programme goes as administrative costs if that would be helpful.

Mr Lowcock: May I make an additional point? As well as the cost of
delivering the programme we need to think about what the returns and
benefits of the programme are. It costs about $70 per household to provide
the assistance we provide under the PRP and the value of the production that
is generated by that $70 is about $140, it is a very high rate of return.
The alternative to providing some of the inputs that we have provided would
be in many cases to provide food aid which would cost us between $700 and
$1,000. The opportunity saving of this programme is very high and the rate
of return on the programme is also very high. The numbers I have given you
reflect the administration costs as well as the costs of the inputs. We
honestly think that in terms of value for money this is a very effective
programme.

Q93 Chairman: I think it is a very important question that Mr Stunell is
asking. As you will know, Minister, we are up against rather tight
timetables. The constitutional requirements tell us that we have to have
this report done in a very short space of time, so if you are able to give
us that breakdown we need it very soon. I think it would be very helpful.

Mr Thomas: Okay. We will see if we can do that.

Q94 Andrew Stunell: I just want to underline that point. To give us real
confidence that Mr Lowcock's presentation is resilient, it would be helpful
to have an additional report and note from you.

Mr Thomas: Okay. We will get that to you even quicker than usual.

Q95 Richard Burden: This is really on the same subject. From what we saw, I
think we do understand why managing agents are used and the good pressures
that lead DFID to go down that road. It is also fair to say that in terms of
the projects we saw in Tsholotsho and the engagement of the women from GRM
there it appeared to be good. However, I think the uncertainty that some of
us still feel is whether we will get to a stage where the tail starts to wag
the dog. If the need to have those managing agents is because of their
expertise and they get such expertise that they are used not just by DFID
but other partners as well, the danger is that they could then become
intermediaries that start determining what happens rather than
intermediaries that do what is required from the grassroots or reflecting
policy. I do not think we are saying that is what is happening but we see
there is a danger that could happen. The question really is, is it right
that could be a danger and, if so, how do you guard against it?

Mr Thomas: Let me bring Mr Lowcock in in a second. When we take a decision
that we want to contract out, if you like, the management of a particular
programme there are a whole series of well-established processes which we
follow. We are very happy to provide some further information to the
Committee if that is what you need to give you some confidence that the tail
will not wag the dog in this particular context. There is good donor
coordination in Zimbabwe and, as I say, we have some very experienced staff
operating in our office, so I do not believe, if you like, the worst case
scenario that you are posing would happen. Let me bring Mr Lowcock in to
give you some further detail.

Mr Lowcock: I think you are exactly right, Mr Burden, that in principle the
problem you have described could be one we face. We have tried to describe
how we are mitigating it in this case. The Committee knows very well the
staff of the Department is quite stretched. If we had more staff available
to us in Zimbabwe my own view would be that are were other things I would
rather they did next before more administration and more detailed monitoring
and engagement on the PRP. I am satisfied with the approach that we have to
the management of the PRP at the moment.

Mr Thomas: Just one other point to make. It is not just us as one donor who
plays a role in this, there are a series of other donors who also are
funders of the PRP. In a sense, it is a shared process for looking at the
administrative cost element and taking decisions about tenders, et cetera,
which in that sense I hope gives further confidence and further checks into
the system.

Q96 Andrew Stunell: I would like to hear from Mr Lowcock that if he did have
those extra staff and it is not what Mr Burden was postulating, what would
it be that the extra staff would be dedicated to?

Mr Lowcock: One of the issues that came up in discussions yesterday with the
finance minister in Harare was follow-up to a discussion he had in
Washington last week when the board of the IMF restored Zimbabwe's voting
rights. He had some discussions with the staff of the IMF about what it
would take for Zimbabwe to move towards fuller normalisation of its
relations with the international financial institutions, including
potentially debt relief. We have a very good economist, who I am sure you
met, in our office in Harare, who is one of a rather small number - I think
I could count them on my fingers, excluding the thumb, of one hand - of
international macroeconomists in Harare at the moment. That is a big prize
for Zimbabwe to normalise its relations to that degree, an awful lot has to
be done to secure that prize, but that would certainly be an area where it
would be worth putting additional professional resources in. We will find
ways to do that. That is one example I would give in answer to your
question.

Q97 Mr Lancaster: We will move on to health, if we may. The Committee
visited two hospitals, the Mpilo Hospital in Bulawayo and a hospital in
Harare. We saw the maternity unit and we saw programmes associated with
HIV/AIDS which Mr Evans will ask questions about in a moment. What we saw
was very good. One of the key points that was put across to us, and perhaps
we should not be surprised at this given the diaspora and the migration, was
that there is a real shortage of skilled health workers, many of whom have
gone abroad. For example, in the hospital in Bulawayo they had only
recruited approximately 50% of midwives, although there is a midwife
shortage in the UK so perhaps that is a bad example. What are we doing to
try and recruit and retain health specialist staff in Zimbabwe?

Mr Thomas: One of the things, as I suspect the Committee will be aware of,
that has, if you like, continued to focus our attention on the health sector
was the cholera crisis in 2008/09 where the crisis was sparked by a
long-term lack of investment in water and sanitation, but also the
substantial deterioration in the health sector which was caused by many
health workers wanting to migrate or simply not coming into work because
they were not being paid. What we have done is to ensure that there is an
allowance paid directly into health workers' bank accounts to provide that
direct incentive for them to turn up to work and to go about their business.
We can provide direct assistance in that way, but in the end there has got
to be further economic stabilisation and a further reduction in the
political instability that exists in Zimbabwe. We can make a difference in
terms of public services, but to get anything like the type of public
services that we would recognise here in the UK those broader economic and
political changes are going to have to happen. As I say, we are making a
difference in terms of the allowances we fund directly into health workers'
bank accounts which has helped recruitment to pick up. We are also helping
to fund the supply of crucial drugs. If you look at the government of
Zimbabwe's budget, they simply cannot afford to pay all the salaries of
health workers that are required or all the needs for drugs, so it is the
donor community which has to plug that gap. It is not just us, it is a
number of other donors too that are playing a role.

Q98 Mr Lancaster: You say the government cannot really afford to pay the
wages, so given that we have strikes at the moment in Zimbabwe, and I think
they are currently paid $200 a month and they are demanding $500, is that
realistic? What effect would that have? What can we do?

Mr Thomas: One of the things we can do is not to get involved in what is a
conversation that has to take place between those workers themselves with
their own government. What we can do, as I have said, is to respond to the
requests that we have had from the government, the Inclusive Government, to
provide support to the health sector, and through the continuation of these
allowances that is what we are doing and by making further money available
to target, for example, maternal health and to continue our different aid
programmes.

Q99 Mr Lancaster: Workers' pay and drugs to one side, I suppose the other
key element to try to improve the health structure in Zimbabwe will be
infrastructure. I know that we are investing in six hospitals in Zimbabwe at
the moment. Can you perhaps outline what the aims of that programme are and
whether or not you intend to increase it, or how you see it us moving
forward in that area?

Mr Thomas: Obviously we want to move from, if you like, the crisis phase of
the health support to getting a longer term plan in place for the health
sector, one that can tackle all the different health challenges that the
people of Zimbabwe face. I would not want to underestimate to you the scale
of the challenge that there still is, we are still in a situation where I
think substantial humanitarian assistance will have to be provided for
Zimbabwe. The scope to dramatically expand our health programme, whilst I
think it is there, is perhaps more limited than we would like. You are
right, we have to continue to invest in infrastructure but continue to make
sure there are health workers in place and that those health workers are
being paid and, crucially, that the basic drugs and other supplies that they
need to go about their business are in place. If you like, the next ambition
that we have is to try to reduce maternal and child mortality where there
has been a substantial deterioration in Zimbabwe more recently. We have
recently committed some £25 million over the next five years to help people
continue to get better access to family planning services, to antenatal
care, to obstetric services and newborn care services. If you like, that is
the next iteration of our support to the health sector.

Q100 Mr Evans: Another health subject is HIV/AIDS, which you have already
touched on. We all had an opportunity to see some of the projects involved
with that and I think we were all impressed with what we saw. It is
tremendous if one considers that in parts of Zimbabwe some of the aid is
somewhat thin. Certainly where we were in Bulawayo and Harare we saw some
tremendous projects, so I was very pleased with that, but still last year
140,000 people died in Zimbabwe of AIDS. Compared to other countries, Zambia
for instance, where the amount of money spent is way above, I think it is
US$187 per person as opposed to Zimbabwe where it is $4, why is there such a
staggering disparity?

Mr Thomas: I think often the disparity, frankly, relates to the political
situation in Zimbabwe and the ability for the international community to
spend money effectively to tackle HIV/AIDS. With our programmes on the
health sector we have wanted to get to a stage where other players in the
international donor community would support it. The Global Fund are now
funding the health workers' support programme. As I say, I think as the
economic situation stabilises there will be more opportunities to do more on
healthcare, of which HIV/AIDS will continue to be a priority for ministers.
Nevertheless, I think the UK can take some pride in the success that there
has been, notwithstanding the significant levels of death because of AIDS
that there is in Zimbabwe, for the fact that it has not been even higher.
HIV prevalence has come down, it has halved over the last ten years, and our
aid into the sector over that period has been absolutely pivotal to helping
those who wanted to make a difference in this area in Zimbabwe be able to do
so.

Q101 Mr Evans: I have got no doubts about that whatsoever. We went to see
one of the hospitals there where the storeroom had eight months' worth of
supply whereas two years ago they would have had nothing.

Mr Thomas: That is right.

Q102 Mr Evans: Getting the capacity and getting those drugs out into the
villages and into the more rural areas is clearly something that needs to be
done. Within the infrastructure that exists there, are we able to target
some of the high risk groups like sex workers, children and, indeed, gays
and lesbians?

Mr Thomas: We have a behaviour change communications programme which is run
by an organisation, Population Services International, who are very well
established in this field who are doing hugely important work in terms of
getting those prevention messages out on AIDS. There is a whole programme of
work around voluntary counselling and testing which has also been very
important in making a difference. I am sure the Committee will be familiar
with the way in which those who have migrated from Zimbabwe potentially
would not get access to information about how to avoid becoming HIV
positive, but through funding we give to the International Organisation on
Migration we have been able to provide support for them to get help and
information to those migrating from Zimbabwe to avoid the obvious risks at
transit points, et cetera. One of the keys in terms of preventing the spread
of AIDS and HIV infection is making sure there is good access to condoms and
that is something we have continued to be in the lead on in the provision in
Zimbabwe.

Q103 Mr Evans: One other area which helps greatly is male circumcision which
apparently improves the rate of protection to 60%. The target is to
circumcise 80% of the males within Zimbabwe as soon as they possibly can.
Apparently the cost of that will be around $140 million but they will save
over $3 billion if that could be achieved. We visited one of the clinics and
talked to a couple of people who had gone through it, so they were acting as
peers to encourage other males to go through the procedure. Do you envisage
upping the amount of money that we will be directing towards male
circumcision within Zimbabwe over the coming months?

Mr Thomas: Rather than just focusing on one specific intervention in
response to one specific disease, however important that disease is, and I
have a longstanding interest in HIV/AIDS, I think the challenge for us, both
in DFID and the wider donor community, is how do we get more support more
generally into the health sector in Zimbabwe and get a clear coordinated
plan that looks at maternal health, that looks at HIV/AIDS, that looks at a
range of other diseases too. Many of the responses that you need to tackle
HIV/AIDS or to tackle maternal health are common across the piece in terms
of having good health workers and good infrastructure in place. The
challenge is to continue that process of coordination under good leadership
from the government of Zimbabwe to get a series of clear health priorities
in place which the international community could get behind. That is
certainly what our ambition would be to support. Whether it has to be just
DFID upping our funding levels on healthcare or whether there are other
players in the international community, such as the Global Fund, who can
take up that extra financial need is something that we need to continue to
review. Health is certainly one of the areas that we watch very closely.

Q104 Mr Evans: Clearly all the donor organisations talk to one another
anyway and that is important to make sure there is no duplication or people
working against one another. When we visited the clinics we saw a number of
posters with famous Zimbabwean footballers who were saying that they were
getting this procedure and encouraging others to do so. It does seem to me
to be economic commonsense, never mind humane commonsense, to ensure that as
many people as possible have this particular procedure to better protect the
nation, particularly when you look at the colossal number of deaths. This is
a bit of a lobbying plea really. All I would ask is that you look at this
again and make absolutely certain that not for the want of directing the
money there, which as I say will pay dividends in the short and medium-term,
we support this procedure as much as we possibly can.

Mr Thomas: I recognise both the lobbying plea and I fear one of the specific
recommendations that will emerge from your report, and will obviously
respond to the report in the usual way and no doubt faster than we would
normally.

Q105 Chairman: I think it might be the next government that has to deal with
that.

Mr Thomas: Mr Evans, I think your point in general about support for
HIV/AIDS is well made, not only in the context of Zimbabwe but actually in
the context of Sub-Saharan Africa more generally. We are five years on from
Gleneagles where that commitment to try to deliver universal access to
anti-retroviral drugs was one of the pivotal elements of the Gleneagles
Agreement. We are probably two-thirds of the way towards achieving that
commitment, so massive progress has been made but the target has not yet
been reached. One of the issues that ministers in DFID are looking at is how
we can use the international meetings that are taking place this year to
refocus attention on that commitment to universal access, to look at what
has worked in Sub-Saharan Africa, what has not worked perhaps, and what else
the donor community needs to do. There will be an international meeting that
takes place in London very shortly that looks at exactly that question.

Q106 Mr Evans: Hopefully when President Zuma comes as well on South Africa,
maybe pushing him a little bit more on that area.

Mr Thomas: I hear your message, Mr Evans.

Q107 Richard Burden: One of the other major health areas, and you have
alluded to it yourself, is the issue of water and sanitation. Six million
people still have not got access to clean water and sanitation and obviously
there was the bad cholera outbreak just a little while ago. When we met the
Mayor of Bulawayo during our visit, if there was one priority that he wanted
to identify it was the issue of the water system in the city. He said it was
close to collapse and that was not unique in Bulawayo and his plea was for
donors to concentrate on trying to address that as an issue. Where would you
see the issue of investing in the water and sanitation infrastructure to
rank compared to other priorities in terms of health and so on?

Mr Thomas: That is a very difficult question to answer. In the longer term
there is no doubt that for a series of economic and social reasons as well
as health reasons we need to see more investment in water and sanitation in
Zimbabwe. That is absolutely clear. Through some of the programmes that we
already have, not least the Protracted Relief Programme, there is work
taking place on water and sanitation, but I would not want to give you the
sense that there is a clear long-term sector-wide plan on water and
sanitation which we are leading. This is one of the issues where as the
humanitarian situation stabilises and as hopefully too we see progress on
the politics in Zimbabwe the donor community with the government can start
to put together a plan for beginning to see much longer-term, more sustained
investment in water and sanitation going forward. It might be one of the
areas potentially that the Multi Donor Fund that we are in the process of
trying to establish under the leadership of the World Bank can look at. In
the same way that water and sanitation is a key long-term issue, so is
investment in the road network in Zimbabwe and investment in access to
electricity. These are long-term issues which we will have to address.
However, given the humanitarian need that still exists, and I think will
exist for at least another couple of years, the balance of our programme
focusing on the delivery of basic services plus, where we can, targeted
assistance to support reforms in key ministries is broadly right for the
moment, but we have got to keep in view those longer term issues like the
Mayor of Bulawayo has identified, I think that is absolutely right.

Q108 Richard Burden: When you mention the Multi Donor Trust Fund, are you
saying that this is an issue they could look at?

Mr Thomas: Possibly, yes.

Q109 Richard Burden: Or that they are looking at?

Mr Thomas: The Multi Donor Fund is not up and running yet, there is still a
series of preparatory meetings that are taking place to sort out how the
fund will operate and what it will focus on. Exactly what it does we are
still in discussion on, but it certainly could look at water and sanitation
issues. Frankly, if you are looking at a series of other longer term issues,
such as infrastructure, roads, et cetera, you have got to think about water
and sanitation issues to some extent anyway.

Q110 Hugh Bayley: Could I come in on the issue of the diaspora before we
move on to a different subject. There are many thousands of Zimbabweans in
this country and they tend to be relatively better educated because the
better educated migrants migrate longer distances. They are very committed
to their country and because of human rights abuses or political or economic
pressures they do not want to be there at the moment, but might well return
if there was political change. When the Government is talking next week to
President Zuma, will you be talking about the issue of a right to vote given
particularly that South African citizens in this country are entitled to
vote in South African elections?

Mr Thomas: I think the point you make about the issue of the right to vote
for the diaspora has been recognised as one of the issues that the Electoral
Commission when it gets on to do its work will have to address. We all want
to see progress on those political parts of the GPA where progress has been
much slower. I think the big ticket items are getting the Electoral
Commission established so that it is in a position to do its work, of which
looking at the voter roll and the issues around the diaspora is one of a
series of issues that are key to getting free and fair elections to take
place.

Q111 Hugh Bayley: One other thing I wanted to raise that affects the
diaspora is this: there are circumstances, as you are acutely aware, where
money from the UK may appear politically tainted in Zimbabwe. The diaspora
traditionally sent a lot of money back through remittances which has played
a vitally important part in allowing Zimbabwe to survive an economic
collapse. When I met the Institute of Migration's director of programmes in
Zimbabwe, she talked about imaginative schemes that operate in other
countries of the world whereby the government of the country in question
from which the migrants have migrated and donors match dollar for dollar,
pound for pound remittances that are sent back. Given that remittances tend
to be spent locally, not by government agencies but by families on essential
services, would your Department look at the feasibility of setting up a
scheme both to encourage Zimbabwean citizens living in this country to remit
money and to find a good channel for transmitting money from your
Department? Is that something you would examine?

Mr Thomas: I am not sure we would want to look at a programme that matches
exactly what one particular Zimbabwean living in the UK or elsewhere donates
to his or her family as such. There are a whole series of obvious technical
difficulties with such a scheme. We certainly do want to make it easier for
remittances to get back. I would go along with the director-general of IOM
in this regard: there are a whole series of innovative programmes around
remittances and the use of technology making it easier and cheaper for
people to get remittances back which are being deployed in other countries.
One thinks of Kenya's M-PESA programme, for example, where remittances are
being sent using mobile phones from a whole series of countries, as I
understand it, to the individual recipient in-country. We are looking at a
programme of work to try and spread the benefits of that technological
innovation around remittances. I would hope Zimbabwe would be a beneficiary
in that regard. As you may be aware, we have tried to get much more
information into the public sphere about the different rates of interest and
different types of financial product that are available for people who want
to remit money to be able to do so to try and create much greater
competition and, as a result, drive the administrative costs, commissions,
down for those sending money back.

Q112 Andrew Stunell: Children have certainly been victims of the current
difficulties and it could be said probably that Zimbabwe used to have the
best educational system in southern Africa, it has now probably got the
worst, yet DFID is still only contributing about 2% of aid to education. I
wondered if you could give us some account of how that priority was set and
whether you feel it should be a greater contribution in the future.

Mr Thomas: We have a couple of programmes that are supporting the education
sector. One is a programme of support to orphans and vulnerable children,
which is managed by UNICEF which helps to pay the school fees of a number of
the most vulnerable children in Zimbabwe. We estimate that we have helped
almost 250,000 schoolchildren through that process and we are hoping that
the programme will expand this year to reach almost 600,000 children
directly. Some of the other benefits of that programme include better access
to nutrition, to healthcare, to welfare and to psychosocial support services
for those young people so that in turn they can benefit better from the
education that is available to them. The other source of funding for the
education sector is an Education Transition Fund which we launched the idea
of back in June last year and pledged £1 million to it. Our interest has
generated pledges now worth a total of $50 million and we are in the process
of sorting out the procurement process to enable the purchase of substantial
textbooks for schools in Zimbabwe. One of the problems in the education
sector, as I suspect you will have seen, is as a result of the political
instability there has been a substantial loss of good quality materials for
teachers to use. We hope that this fund will be one opportunity to begin to
restore that damage.

Mr Lowcock: Can I just clarify the point on your 2% figure, which I suspect
we gave you.

Q113 Andrew Stunell: You did, yes.

Mr Lowcock: I think that refers to the £1 million towards the wider Multi
Donor Fund programme the Minister has just described for textbooks in
particular. Probably what we should also have explained is that the
programme of support for orphans and vulnerable children, which again the
Minister has described, is also that education dimension, so to give a fair
overall summary of how much we are putting into education we should include
that as well. I apologise that we did not do that the first time. I just
wanted to correct that on the record.

Q114 Chairman: How much is that?

Mr Lowcock: I will have to calculate that for you, Chairman. It is
significant, and we can do it quickly.

Q115 Andrew Stunell: Can I just pull out a couple of points from your two
replies, if I may. The underlying problem is that a lot of schools have been
lost to use and a lot of teachers have emigrated or fled from the country.
Are there any specific plans that DFID is developing or working with the
Zimbabwean government on to get the restoration of school buildings and
bringing back teachers?

Mr Thomas: One of the things that the Inclusive Government did when they
came to power was to offer a $100 allowance to all civil servants, including
teachers, which has helped to see a series of teachers returning to post and
in that sense has made a difference.

Mr Lowcock: The biggest issue in our opinion is teachers. I am afraid it is
going to be a significant challenge for Zimbabwe to attract back many of the
best teachers who have left the country. The thing that will attract them
back over time is an improvement in the political and economic situation and
confidence in the future of their country, so it all turns back on what the
Minister was describing about the overall political situation. Clearly there
is also a school infrastructure problem and textbook issue, but we think
first teachers, second textbooks and probably third infrastructure would be
the order of priorities.

Q116 Andrew Stunell: Can I just ask a question about textbooks? I asked a
number of questions in Zimbabwe and we received representations from some of
the witnesses there. My impression was that we had gone for a big bang
solution to getting textbooks in which was leading to a substantial delay in
getting any textbooks in, when it might have been better or more appropriate
to have gone for a small-scale solution with more rapid results. We were
told by an official from the Department of Education, I think, that they
were still waiting for textbooks which were supposed to have been ready at
the beginning of the school year, et cetera. I would be interested in your
commentary on that situation and for some assurance about how the textbook
programme, for which we appear to have set aside funds, is actually going to
be delivered to a sensible timetable.

Mr Thomas: I think the first thing is that our initial interest back in June
in making money available for the supply of textbooks has sparked
considerable interest from the wider donor community, perhaps more than
certainly I had expected. What we are trying to do is to make sure that
money collectively is well spent by having a central procurement programme.
We believe that will deliver substantial economies of scale. There has been
a process by which the Zimbabwe Ministry of Education has been looking at
trying to prioritise a particular core set of textbooks to be delivered
across the country. I recognise the appetite inevitably for teachers to want
to have access to those books, but it is right that we get the procurement
process right and it is right that we try to deliver economies of scale.
Given the size of the pot and the increase in the size of the pot it has
clearly taken some time to get that right, but we hope we are close to
achieving that and getting the textbooks out.

Mr Lowcock: I would, if I may, like to answer the question we promised you a
subsequent answer to, which is the share if we had included the programme of
support in our total programme in education. It would be about 6%, about
£2.4 million going into education through the programme of support and then
£1 million this year through the Education Transition Fund. As the Minister
said, we were trading off speed with efficiency and value for money. We have
got a much cheaper deal and, therefore, can buy many more textbooks in the
way we have done the procurement, but I take the point you have made about
needing to think carefully about that trade-off between speed and
efficiency.

Q117 Andrew Stunell: So when do we now expect those books to be available to
schools, bearing in mind the money was allocated back in July, August last
year?

Mr Lowcock: We will need to check when we expect the first deliveries, but
the procurement process is advanced now.

Q118 Andrew Stunell: And the schools have no books.

Mr Lowcock: Well, most schools have some books. Clearly, yes, there is an
issue and that was the trade-off we were trying to manage. I will find out
for you exactly when we expect the first deliveries.

Q119 Mr Lancaster: The Committee went to see some projects directed at
orphans and vulnerable children and the Department estimates that more than
90% of the country's orphans have been absorbed by the extended family.
Indeed, 40% of households in rural areas actually care for orphans and
vulnerable children but they have almost no financial assistance, so how do
you feel that external donors can help in this process and support them?

Mr Thomas: There are a number of programmes that we contribute to which have
an impact on orphans and vulnerable children and the financial needs either
of the individual children themselves or those who are looking after them. I
described the programme of support to orphans and vulnerable children in
answer to Mr Stunell. Paying for education fees of the most vulnerable
children is one obvious way in which we can help. The second is through the
Protracted Relief Programme which we talked about in answer to questions
from Mr Battle. That also provides support often to some of the young people
of Zimbabwe who have lost parents and who perhaps head up households
themselves because of the loss of parents. Many of those people who have
taken in orphans and vulnerable children are beneficiaries of the Protracted
Relief Programme and in that sense get support from the international
community. As a Department we do not pick the individual recipients, that is
done through the NGOs who, if you like, deliver the process and the support
on the ground.

Q120 Mr Lancaster: I accept the answer, but I suppose what I am really
pushing for is given the sheer scale and how a relatively small percentage
are being reached given limited resources from the Department, how can we
move forward perhaps in greater collaboration with others. That is really
what I am asking.

Mr Thomas: I think the Protracted Relief Programme is expanding. It has gone
from the first phase when it was largely just the UK funding it to a much
bigger programme which is allowing us to reach many more people, including
orphans directly or those who are looking after orphans. Similarly, the
expansion of the number of children who will get support through the
overseas programme up from about 250,000 so far to, we hope, 600,000 this
year is an example of the way in which we are trying to expand the numbers
that we can access. As we have discussed, in the end it does come back to
the economic and political situation in the country moving forward and
donors being willing to do more as a result and, frankly, more resources
being able to be generated in-country.

Q121 John Battle: If I could just go back to the issue of food security. I
think the UN at one point said five million people would be food insecure
and the Crop and Supply Assessment Mission estimated around 2.8 million
might need humanitarian assistance before the next harvest, which is this
April. Some of the reports are suggesting that the weather has not been all
that good and the harvest might not be that good. What is your latest
prediction for food aid requirements that are coming up in the next year
from April?

Mr Thomas: In terms of prediction in terms of hard numbers, I am not sure I
can give you that specifically now. We share the analysis that you employed
that there are some early indications that this year's harvest is not going
to be as good as in previous years. As I said, notwithstanding that sense of
what this year's harvest is going to be, I think we will have to provide
humanitarian assistance anyway at least for the next two years.

Q122 John Battle: The next two years.

Mr Thomas: In recent years there has always been a substantial humanitarian
component of our aid programme at different times, almost 50% or more. We
work very closely with organisations such as the World Food Programme who
deliver that food aid and humanitarian assistance. Frankly, the development
of the Protracted Relief Programme is not only an attempt to meet the
immediate food needs of those affected but is trying to get at some of the
deeper roots of that humanitarian crisis. As well as giving the seeds and
fertiliser programme direct support, we are also giving support to NGOs so
that they can give actual guidance to people as to how to use those seeds
and fertilisers to increase the yields that they do get.

Mr Lowcock: I was going to add a point on when we will have a better sense
of this year's harvest. It will be March-time probably. Most people think
that it will be better than 2008 and possibly less good than 2009, so the
numbers requiring emergency assistance will be in that range that you
described.

Q123 John Battle: Can I thank you for the way in which you gave the answer
to that longer term rather than immediate relief. Forgive me, I am not sure
I clearly understand this. You provided £9 million to the World Food
Programme in 2009 and that aid was mainly for food relief programmes. I
wonder whether the World Food Programme itself has that longer term food
programme development as well as relief. It is that distinction between your
work on the programmes I referred to earlier that are getting sustainable
agriculture again, but are you working with the World Food Programme itself
on getting those longer term programmes in as opposed to just dishing out
food aid, frankly?

Mr Thomas: We are, but it is important to recognise that the World Food
Programme has particular expertise at getting food aid to those who need it
instantly, who are hungry now in that sense. We are looking as a donor
community, which includes WFP, at a cash transfer programme, in a sense,
which helps people both to plan for a slightly longer term process as well
as meeting their immediate needs now.

Q124 John Battle: If I could follow through from Mark Lowcock's comment.
When will the figures be available? We are in March next week, are we not,
so is there a chance that an assessment could be included in our report?
Have we got time to get that far?

Mr Lowcock: Normally it is sensible in Zimbabwe to make an assessment of the
harvest level by late March. We will give you any update we can at the point
at which you want to go to press, but late March is probably the earliest at
which we can say something resembling an authoritative answer.

Q125 John Battle: If I can be absolutely clear, that is two things: one to
get on to those longer term food development programmes, both our own and
working with the World Food Programme, and the other is to look to cash
transfers to stimulate that rather than going to handouts. Have I got that
right?

Mr Thomas: That is effectively where we are now. Obviously if the harvest is
better than anticipated then we can move further up that particular
long-term process earlier.

Q126 John Battle: Also not to lose, and sometimes it is lost, may I say, and
criticism is made of the UN and the World Food Programme sometimes. People
standing in queues and just getting it dished out to them does not always
encourage community participation, whereas other methods might include that
engagement of development with the people at the local level, which is where
I am hoping our programmes are geared towards now.

Mr Thomas: You have to use a range of ways of getting help to people and you
have to look at the reality on the ground and adjust what you do to reflect
that reality.

John Battle: The direction of the overall programme is very clear from that
answer, thank you.

Q127 Richard Burden: Could we move on to the question of internally
displaced people, which is clearly a very, very big issue. Estimates vary of
IDPs making up between just over 4% of the population and 7.5% of the
population. Yet there is also difficulty, there is quite a lot of evidence,
a lot of concern being voiced that as far as the Zimbabwean Government is
concerned, because they take the view that IDPs do not exist, IDPs are being
fairly systematically excluded from a number of relief and humanitarian
programmes. Some of the NGOs are saying that really the UN as an institution
is not tackling this head on and that it needs to be a lot more assertive
around the question of IDPs, both in terms of Zimbabwe's own obligation
under UN obligations but also from a straight humanitarian point of view;
aid is not getting to where it should be getting. What is your response to
that?

Mr Thomas: I think that was a situation that was certainly true of the
previous Government. I think the Inclusive Government has been better at
recognising both the existence of IDPs and their needs, but I would not want
to downplay the challenges that still remain. I think many of our existing
programmes upon which we have touched are also giving assistance to those
who are internally displaced within Zimbabwe but who are perhaps living with
other families or who are vulnerable in some other way. Clearly there is
more we need to do, as we have described, across the range, but I do believe
that our programmes and those of others in the international community, are
helping to get aid to those who are internally displaced, albeit there is
clearly a lot more that could happen.

Q128 Richard Burden: Certainly the impression we got was that a number of
NGOs and others were saying that yes, whilst things may have improved since
the formation of the Inclusive Government, the issue is still very much
there as far as IDPs are concerned. Partly because of the nature of some of
the security ministries, it is quite easy to get in the way of aid
programmes where necessary.

Mr Thomas: In that sense, absolutely, I would agree with that. There is a
huge problem in terms of the ability of IDPs to move around in terms of
particular locations and the level of need that we have described in terms
of humanitarian issues, in terms of children or young people, if they have
been internally displaced, it is particularly acute in that sense. What I
would want to avoid the Committee having the impression is that none of our
programme is thinking through issues around IDPs; they very much are.
However, as NGOs have described to you, certainly there are real
difficulties for IDPs in terms of the security situation.

Q129 Chairman: The aid programme to Zimbabwe has more than doubled in the
last four years. You said in a press release last August that the Department
was willing to re-engage and support recovery in Zimbabwe provided the new
Government can demonstrate: its commitment to sound economic management; the
democratic process and respect for human rights; the rule of law; full and
equal access to humanitarian assistance; and a timely election held to
international standards. I would suggest none of those things is what is
happening on the ground. The serious point behind that is, nevertheless, you
have increased it. What capacity is there for increasing it further or
perhaps, putting it the other way round, how do you assess your ability to
deliver and whether you should do more or less? What is the process that
goes round the Department in evaluating this?

Mr Thomas: We do look firstly at the humanitarian situation on the ground
and we would provide humanitarian aid almost regardless of the political
situation, and it is clearly right that we do get help to people who are in
desperate need, despite the particular governments that they have. In terms
of long-term development assistance, you are right, we will have to look at
the political and economic conditions that are operating and are on the
ground before we can make big decisions about be it substantial increases in
aid or substantial changes in the nature of our programmes. I think there
has been progress in Zimbabwe, in particular in terms of the economics of
the country. Clearly the political progress in Zimbabwe has been much, much
slower, and that certainly affects our ability to do more and more quickly;
there is no question of that. If we were to see faster political progress,
then there is no question that we could do more, and more quickly, and I am
sure that others in the international community would probably see things in
the same way.

Q130 Chairman: We were told, and indeed we saw for ourselves, that in spite
of the migration of some of the brightest and best people from Zimbabwe, the
administrative capacity to deliver services was one of the best in Africa.
Even now we saw effective delivery. Do you envisage a situation, if the
political background were transformed, where government support or sector
support would be a possibility? Obviously it is not today but can you see a
scenario where it would and how would you judge that? Is that something you
could even incentivise?

Mr Thomas: I think it is a long way off. I would hope that we could get to a
situation where the politics of Zimbabwe had moved so radically forward that
we could have confidence in government systems or in the particular sector
plans of particular ministries. I think we are a long way off from having
confidence that the Government's financial systems are strong enough and
robust enough and would be free from political interference. Having said
that, there are ministries that are committed to reform and who are starting
to try and give direction to what should happen in their particular sectors,
and where we have confidence in the plans of those ministries, then we are
trying to align our support as a donor community behind those plans. I think
moving down the route of sector support or budget support is a long way off.
The first stage is what we are embarked on, which is where we have
confidence in the plans of a particular ministry thinking through how,
without going through government systems, we can support those plans and
move forward.

Q131 Chairman: And if you were increasing the funding further, how would you
allocate that between multilateral or donor partnerships as opposed to the
bilateral work that the NGOs are doing, which, to be honest, is mostly what
we were looking at, which was extremely good, but the question is whether it
is best to expand that or would it be best to expand it through
multilaterals or would it be a parallel process?

Mr Thomas: I do not think we have a fixed view, frankly, in that sense. We
would want to spend money in a way that was going to have most impact most
quickly and for which we can properly account. Whether that is through UN
organisations or through civil society, I think in reality it will be
through a mixture and quite what the balance of that mixture would be going
forward, I do not think we are yet in a position to say. It does depend on
how particular programmes work. I think the Protracted Relief Programme is a
programme, for example, that has a mixture of a whole series of civil
society organisations and is making a significant difference. If the
humanitarian situation were to deteriorate, clearly using organisations like
the World Food Programme would make a huge amount of sense, but they, too,
use civil society organisations, as I understand it, so it is not a question
of either/or. I think it will simply come down to a hard decision as to
which particular organisations are going to get money on the ground where it
needs fastest.

Q132 Chairman: In spite of the very heavy anti-British rhetoric, the general
dynamic on the ground is the attitude between the Zimbabwean and British
people is quite positive in terms of that underlying trend. It was suggested
to us that Zimbabwe ought to be one of the overriding priorities for the UK,
in other words one of the three or four countries in which we do most, not
because of that particular British interest, which is just stated as a
positive underlying fact, but because it would have such a dynamic effect on
the whole dynamic of Southern Africa if it could be turned around. Do you
accept that as a possible analysis and, if you do, what could DFID do more
that would reflect that priority, taking on board entirely that it is
complicated and unpredictable but the argument that so long as you were
working in the right direction it justified that kind of prioritisation?

Mr Thomas: Zimbabwe takes up a significant amount of both ministerial and
very senior official time in both Departments in that sense, so it is
accorded a high level of priority. I think the analysis about the importance
of Zimbabwe to sub-Saharan Africa is absolutely right. There is no doubt
that if we were to see further economic stability and progress and further
political progress, Zimbabwe's recovery could help to drive progress towards
the Millennium Development Goals across the whole of the region. I have a
particular interest in regional integration and in the transport
infrastructure that helps to drive, if you will forgive the pun, that
integration, Zimbabwe has a pivotal place in the north-south corridor, a
network of key roads, and therefore the investment, or lack of investment,
that Zimbabwe puts into its road network has a fundamental impact on the
capacity of sub-Saharan Africa to trade between the countries in that area.
I think the analysis is spot on and that is why I hope that we will see the
type of economic progress and political progress that I suspect all of us
would want.

Q133 Chairman: Thank you very much. The Committee would want to repeat the
thanks that have already been made to the DFID staff for the visit they
organised. All eight members of the Committee who went on the visit came
away with a much more positive impression of what is going on than we had
anticipated, although I would hasten to add we are not naive enough not to
realise the huge political difficulties and underlying tensions and threats
that could blow it all away. We understood that. What we saw was impressive.
Our report has to focus on the development agenda rather than the political
agenda, but, again, you cannot deliver the one without the other. Our
intention is to complete the report in advance of an Election unless we are
ambushed.

Mr Thomas: With that in mind, I wonder if I can ask Mr Lowcock to give you
the answer on the textbook delivery timescale. I think we have that
information.

Q134 Chairman: Anything you have now and anything you do not have now if you
can think days rather than anything else.

Mr Lowcock: Could I preface the answer to Mr Stunell's question by saying
that of course we are not in complete control of this because we are a tiny
part of the financing. We have to get all the other players into place as
well. The answer to the question is that the contract will be let in the
next few weeks and the first books will be delivered from about eight weeks
from then, so about 12 weeks from now the first books will be delivered.

Q135 Chairman: The Committee will obviously watch with interest the
developments which obviously go through convolutions almost daily. Perhaps
the one positive thing Mark said was that whilst nobody knows where it might
head, the feeling was that things had got to the point where going back to a
situation where there was no space was perhaps unthinkable unless the
situation deteriorated beyond all hope. If I may say so, there were comments
and compliments about DFID's role, and indeed the Foreign Office's role
because it is important to recognise this is a joint operation, in doing
that. I think it was the Dutch development representative who said
specifically that he wanted to put on record his appreciation of the
leadership role that was being provided by DFID in Zimbabwe and how
important it was, both politically and in terms of development. I am happy
to put that on the record and say that we appreciate it and we appreciate
that the team there are doing really good work in difficult and challenging
situations, but at the moment not unrewarding because there is something
coming back for it. Can I thank you very much indeed for your evidence. I
genuinely hope that our report is something that will make a useful
contribution to both your work and a wider understanding of what we are
trying to do.

Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Bruce.   - Neither witnesses nor Members have had
the opportunity to correct this record. The transcript is not yet an
approved formal record of these proceedings

Property rights will stop food hand-outs in Zimbabwe-Theron

http://www.zimeye.org/?p=14298

By Gerald Chateta

Published: March 3, 2010

Harare - Zimbabwe will continue begging for food aid from the donor
community until it addresses and guarantees property rights in the
Agriculture sector, Commercial Farmers Union has said.

CFU president Deon Theron told Zimeye in an interview on Wednesday that the
government should address property rights if the country is not to depend on
food hand-outs from the donor community.

Agricultural production has plunged since the year 2000 when the then
ZANU-PF government began seizing white owned commercial farms on the pretext
of giving it to the black farmers deprived of the resource under the former
colonial rule.

"Respect to property rights is the only way forward the revival of the
Agricultural sector. Lack of property rights is not an issue affecting white
commercial farmers in Zimbabwe only. Even the new farmers are not investing
as they should be doing because they are not sure of what will happen to the
land they are occupying right now.

"The country will never stop importing maize and other food stuffs which the
country can produce if the issue of property rights is not addressed." said
Theron.

The USAID-funded Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWSNET) has predicted
that 2.2 million Zimbabweans will need food aid as the dry spell has
resulted in crops wilting and consenquently expected out put levels will be
low.

"Yes we are having a drought this year and we had even predicted this before
the start of the season but this is not the only problem that is going to
affect the yields.

"Since the beginning of the farming season a number of disturbances
experienced in the commercial farming community are going also to affect the
yield. For example we will be luck to produce 500 000 tones of maize only a
quarter of the tonnage the country requires this year owing to drought and
political instability bedeviling the farming community", said Theron.

Commercial Farmers Union said the majority of its members mainly whites,
were disturbed by violence unleashed to them by ZANU-Pf senior officials
that continued despite the formation of the inclusive government formed a
year ago.

The Union said it noted a steady continuation and in some cases escalation
of state sponsored violence and disturbances on commercial farms over the
past year.

ZAPU congress deferred again

http://www.zicora.com

Posted By Own Staff Wednesday, 03 March 2010 07:43

ZAPU members will have to wait a little longer for the much awaited congress
as it has again been moved to August.

Initially the congress that is expected to usher in a substantive leadership
was set for May at an undisclosed venue.However,  Zapu spokesperson
Methuseli Moyo says the postponement was done in order not to affect the
constitution-making process.

"The Zapu NEC unanimously resolved at a meeting held in Gweru on Saturday 27
February 2010, to shift the congress from May to August to avoid holding the
congress during the national constitution making process outreach
 programme," Moyo said.

Moyo said four provinces were campaigning to host the congress.

"The specific date and venue of the congress will be decided in due course.
Provinces, notably Bulawayo, Mashonaland West, Mashonaland Central and
Masvingo are canvassing to host the congress," he said.

At the congress, party members will debate and endorse the amended Zapu
constitution, party policy and manifesto.

"Also, the congress will elect a substantive National Executive Committee
and Council of Elders Committee. The party will emerge from congress with
substantive leadership and commonly adopted policies and manifesto to lead
Zapu to victory in the forthcoming national elections," said Moyo.

However, disgruntled Zapu members claim that the postponement was a ploy to
buy time for the interim leadership to "deal with suspended members".

Last December, Zapu suspended Evans Ndebele, Retired Colonel Ray Ncube,
Smile Dube, former Bulawayo councillor Alderman Charles Mpofu, Nhlanhla
Ncube and Charles Makhuya after they were accused of deliberately flouting
the party's rules and regulations. Among other allegations, the six are
accused of holding unauthorised meetings which Zapu says were acts of
insubordination.

They are also accused of making statements to the press viewed to be in
contempt of the party's leadership. But they are accusing interim
chairperson, Dumiso Dabengwa of working against the interests of the revived
party.They are still to be called for a hearing.

UK labour group urges Zuma to remain firm on Zim sanctions

http://www.swradioafrica.com

By Alex Bell
03 March 2010

A British labour group has urged South African President Jacob Zuma not to
call for targeted sanctions against Robert Mugabe's inner circle to be
lifted, saying that a relaxation of the measures would be seen as a
relaxation of support for human rights in Zimbabwe.
Zuma began his state visit to the UK on Wednesday and is expected to raise
the sanctions issue with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Thursday.
Responding to questions from London newspaper editors at the start of his
three-day state visit to Britain, Zuma said he disagreed that more pressure
in the form of sanctions was necessary to force a political settlement in
Zimbabwe. Zuma told South African journalists recently that sanctions were
'undermining' his efforts to push Mugabe and Prime Minister Morgan
Tsvangirai to agree to an electoral framework that could guarantee a free
and fair vote.
"We want to create a conducive environment so that they can have elections
to choose their own government, but the continuation of sanctions is
undermining the agreement," Zuma said.
The European Union (EU) last month extended the targeted sanctions on Mugabe
and his inner circle by another year citing lack of progress in implementing
the Global Political Agreement (GPA). Zuma's statement on the sanctions has
since attracted criticism from analysts who say the person to blame for
Zimbabwe's woes was none other than Mugabe himself, as well as his ZANU PF
party, the very same people that would be rewarded if the measures were
dropped.
The UK's Trades Union Congress (TUC) echoed this sentiment in a letter
delivered to the South African High Commission in London on Wednesday. In
the letter TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber says: 'Despite the formation
of the Government of National Unity, human rights violations have not
stopped. Relaxing sanctions would be seen as a relaxation of support for
human rights in Zimbabwe.'
The TUC said it is particularly concerned by two reports, namely a dossier
of recent attacks on unions published by the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade
Unions (ZCTU), and a damning report from the Agricultural workers union
GAPWUZ. The GAPWUZ report details the plight of farm workers who have been
the silent victims in the continuing farm seizures which have left tens of
thousands of workers beaten, homeless and unemployed. In response to the
GAPWUZ report, security forces raided the union's offices twice in the last
week, arrested two of its leaders and forced Gertrude Hambira, the General
Secretary, into hiding.
Brendan Barber's letter concludes: 'What the two union reports demonstrate
is that, prevented from printing money by the dollarisation of the economy,
ZANU PF are now looting the remaining natural resources of Zimbabwe - e.g.
farms and mines - while millions of their fellow Zimbabweans go hungry. And
they are using the repressive apparatus of the state to prevent anyone
opposing them or even revealing their larceny. Given this situation, I hope
that you will agree that the pressure on the ZANU-PF leadership needs to
remain in place rather than be relaxed.'
Zuma is already being urged to take a decisive stand on Zimbabwe, a topic
set to be high on his agenda while he is in the UK. Athol Trollip, the
parliamentary leader for South Africa's main political opposition the
Democratic Alliance (DA), on Monday said Zuma needed to clarify South Africa's
stance on the 'shopping' sanctions. Trollip told SW Radio Africa on Monday
that these are considerations critical to stabilising Zimbabwe's tenuous
political situation. He said the Global Political Agreement between the MDC
and ZANU PF, which was meant to address the numerous crises facing Zimbabwe,
had not resulted in any meaningful change by the country's administration.
Trollip said there "remains no sufficient political reason for the sanctions
imposed on Mugabe to be lifted."
"In the light of few real steps taken by the Zimbabwean administration
towards truly democratic governance, President Zuma needs to support the
European community's decision to reconstitute sanctions against President
Mugabe," Trollip said.
 

SA moves to ensure productivity on farms

http://www.zimonline.co.za/

by Own Correspondent Wednesday 03 March 2010

JOHANNESBURG - South Africa will implement the "use it or lose it" principle
to ensure resettled farmers maintain production at redistributed farmland, a
government official said on Tuesday.

"You know, use it or lose it will work now, with the recapitalisation and
development with the strategic partnerships we will form with farmers,
whether active or retired," South African Land Reform Minister Gugile
Nkwinti told reporters in Cape Town.

"Our view is that give them a chance, establish a clear system of managing
these farms, provide necessary support and those who do not want to work the
land, take them (off). There is not going to be any compromise on that part.
The only thing that we thought we should strengthen is the support."

Thousands of poor blacks are still waiting for the ANC government to deliver
on its promise on coming to power in 1994 when it set itself an ambitious
target of redistributing 30 percent of all agricultural land to the black
majority by 2014.

But the huge cost of acquiring land - estimated at R75 billion for 82
million hectares of land - as well as problems in negotiating land prices
under a "willing-buyer, willing-seller" policy have seen the government
managing to acquire only 4 percent of land from private owners to date for
redistribution, amid growing unrest among the poor landless blacks.

But instead of setting a new deadline, Nkwinti said the government has
decided to focus on making redistributed land more productive.

"We don't want to target now because we want to balance development. We want
to (create a) balance between the number of hectares we get and the extent
to which we use those hectares to produce food."

Nkwinti who revealed last year that more than half the farms bought by
government as part of its land redistribution had failed or fallen into
decline, said on Tuesday more than 90 percent of the 5,9 million hectares of
land the state bought for emerging farmers was not productive, and that the
state was therefore losing revenue.

"More than 90 percent of those are not functional, they are not productive
and therefore the state loses revenue. So we cannot afford to go on like
that. We then say the agriculture sector's production as a proportion of the
GDP is going down - this is part of the reason. That land has been given to
people and they are not using it. No country can afford that."

South Africa - just like Zimbabwe - inherited an unjust land tenure system
from previous white-controlled governments under which the bulk of the best
arable land was reserved for whites while blacks were forced to crowd on
mostly semi-arid and infertile soils.

But South Africa, which has one of Africa's biggest farming sectors and its
biggest economy, has repeatedly said it will not follow the example of
Zimbabwe where President Robert Mugabe seized most of the farms owned by
that country's about 4 500 white commercial farmers and gave them over to
blacks destroying commercial agriculture.

Two weeks ago a South African court dismissed a black community's land claim
because the community would not be able to meet production levels current
white farmers occupying the farmland have achieved.

Farm seizures are blamed for plunging Zimbabwe - once a net exporter of the
staple maize grain - into severe food shortages since 2001 after black
peasant farmers resettled on former white farms failed to maintain
production because the government failed to support them with financial
resources, inputs and skills training. - ZimOnline

Namibia helps Zim clean-up diamond industry

http://www.zimonline.co.za/

by Nokuthula Sibanda Wednesday 03 March 2010

HARARE -- The Zimbabwean government has hired Namibian consultants to train
locals and help clean up its diamond industry to meet Kimberley Process (KP)
requirements, secretary for mines Thankful Musukutwa told members of
parliament on Tuesday.

The announcement by Musukutwa as KP monitor Abbey Chikane visited Zimbabwe's
controversial Chiadzwa or Marange diamond field suggested Harare was keen to
remain part of the KP despite threats by President Robert Mugabe to pullout
out of the grouping of government, industry and civil society actors formed
to stop trade in blood or conflict diamonds.

Mugabe and Mines Minister Obert Mpofu have threatened to sell Zimbabwe
diamonds outside the KP process should the regulator rule that efforts by
Harare to comply with its standards were inadequate.

But striking a more conciliatory tone Musukutwa told Parliament's portfolio
committee on mines that the Namibians had been brought in to help ensure
that the two firms contracted to mine the Marange claims were doing so in
accordance with KP standards.

He said: "We have brought in Namibians who are the consultants in diamond
mining, there are also training some Zimbabweans, so that we can have a 100
percent compliance with the KP."

Musukutwa told the legislators that one of the two firms working on the
Marange claims, Mdaba Investments, has met all KP requirements while the
other firm, Canadile Miners, was working to bring its operations in line
with the standards of the diamond watchdog.

"At the moment we are 100 percent compliant with Mbada although Canadile is
somewhere between 85-90 percent," Musukutwa said.

Chikane, who arrived in Zimbabwe on Monday, was yesterday expected to tour
Chiadzwa to assess mining of diamonds there.

Upon arrival Chikane, who is South African, held meetings with Mpofu,
officials from the finance ministry, Zimbabwe Revenue Authority, Minerals
Marketing Corporation of Zimbabwe and the police. Officials from the
Namibia-based Global Diamond Evaluators also attended the meeting.

Chikane has also inspected Mbada Investments' sorting and valuation facility
at the Harare International airport.

Mbada and Canadile are two joint ventures that the government-owned Zimbabwe
Mining Development Corporation (ZMDC) last year formed with two South
African firms as part of measures to bring mining of diamonds at Chiadzwa in
line with standards stipulated by the KP.

Chiadzwa is one of the world's most controversial diamond fields with
reports that soldiers sent to guard the claims after the government took
over the field in October 2006 from a British firm that owned the deposits
committed gross human rights abuses against illegal miners who had descended
on the field.

Human rights groups have been pushing for a ban on Zimbabwean diamonds but
the KP last November declined to suspend the country and instead opted to
give Harare a June 2010 deadline to make reforms to comply with its
regulations. - ZimOnline.

 

Investors in S. African Mining Firm Urge It to Put Zimbabwe Investments on Hold

http://www1.voanews.com/

African Rainbow Minerals sources said Anglo-Rand Financial Services and
three other major shareholders have expressed opposition to the company's
plans to invest in platinum and gold mining operations in Zimbabwe

Gibbs Dube | Washington 02 March 2010

Shareholders of African Rainbow Minerals, a South African company, are
urging its managers to put the firm's Zimbabwe investment program on hold
following the implementation of Zimbabwe's Indigenization and Economic
Empowerment Act this week.

Company sources said Anglo-Rand Financial Services and three other major
shareholders have expressed opposition to the company's plans to invest in
platinum and gold mining operations in Zimbabwe.

African Rainbow Minerals directors recently met with Mines Minister Obert
Mpofu to follow up on a 2009 application to invest in the country. The firm
had planned to make the investment this April.

Economist Eric Bloch said many other companies may put their Zimbabwe
investment plans on hold for fear of suffering capital losses through
indigenization.

"Almost every foreign investor has put their intentions on hold because they
find these indigenization regulations so dominating that they are not
prepared to put their investments at risk at this stage," Bloch told VOA
Studio 7 reporter Gibbs Dube.

But he said some foreign investors and managers think certain Indigenization
Act provisions may be modified so that non-Zimbabwean companies do not have
to cede a 51 percent interest to black Zimbabweans.

He noted that about 120 business people who attended an investment
conference Monday in Harare said they will monitor the situation before
committing funds.

Bulawayo-based political commentator Roderick Fayayo said South African
firms may be at risk of share seizures under Zimbabwean indigenization
despite the Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement signed late last
year by both countries.

Zimbabweans in London protest to Zuma

Idasa February 2010 GNU Watch

Please Click Here to download the February 2010 GNU Watch

The Zimbabwe GNU Watch provides an overview, month by month, of political developments under the terms set out in the Global Political Agreement (GPA). The sections profiled in monthly outputs may vary depending on events and issues raised in that particular report. Where possible, the relevant article as stipulated in the GPA has been provided. As this documentation began in April 2009, there may at times be references to activities or events that took place in previous months.

Please Click Here to download the Global Political Agreement (GPA) against which this analysis is drawn.

A people's guide to the agreement - Africa Community Publishing and Development Trust (ACPDT)

Click here for the January 2010 GNU Watch

For previous 2009 GNU Watches - click on month:

April    May    June    July   August   September   October   November    December  

Zimbabwe is not a one-party state

http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/

Written by John Makumbe
Monday, 01 March 2010 16:20
The formation of the inclusive government following the signing of the
global political agreement (GPA) did not transform Zimbabwe into a one-party
state.  Indeed, all the three political parties that were involved in the
negotiations for the GPA are also represented in Parliament, but that should
not be taken to mean that government ministers should not be asked some
tough questions about the activities of their ministries. It was therefore
unfortunate that when Joseph Made was asked tough questions about the Nestle
saga good old Ago Mutambara decided to shield him as well as to give the MPs
an unnecessary tongue lashing. Deputy Prime Minister Mutambara was wrong to
intervene in the manner he did because the nation needs answers to those
questions.
In a situation where political parties form a governing coalition, it
becomes imperative for backbenchers to play the role of an opposition
political party. The questions that would have been asked by opposition MPs
will have to be asked by backbenchers regardless of their political party
affiliation. It is therefore misleading for Ago to argue that so-called
"tolerance and inclusiveness" imply that backbenchers should not ask tough
questions on matters of serious concern to the nation.
It is also not true that the government has a policy of tolerance. What
tolerance is the government expressing by totally ignoring the strike by
civil servants and even prohibiting the bungling ZBC and the noxious Herald
from carrying any news about the strike? Is that tolerance or inclusivity
Hon. DPM Mutambara? With regard to the matter of Gushungo Farm, the nation
needs to know how Nestle was tricked into purchasing milk from Amai's
ill-gotten property. Mutambara should not be allowed to block that
information from reaching the people of this country.
Parliamentary portfolio committees are doing a lot of good work exposing the
corruption that has run rampant in government. Right now, there is massive
looting of the Chiadzwa diamonds, and the relevant Parliamentary committee
is on the verge of being stopped from probing the matter any further. Will
such action mean that the government will be exercising tolerance and
inclusivity? What is intolerant about asking for information on matters of
national gravity? Why should backbenchers not play their oversight role?
If backbenchers are no longer allowed to ask government ministers tough
questions then perhaps we no longer need Parliament under this GNU
arrangement. We will probably save a lot of money if we just have the few
ministers doing as they please without parliamentary scrutiny until the next
elections. I would have thought that Ago was astute enough to understand
basic parliamentary procedures.
In classic Ago style, the Hon. DPM went on to preach about personal business
and activities and then this, "We want to make sure that we do not allow
individuals to be victimized because of political affiliation." Where does
this man live? Arthur, try telling this to the former white commercial
farmers, including the former owner of Gushungo Farm, and find out what they
will say to you.
For some reason, Mutambara does not seem to stop saying things that make so
many people feel that he is Mugabe's personal assistant. This man will make
MDC-M lose the next elections big time. "A farm is a farm," said Ago as the
intimidated MPs listened. If that is the case, why did Ben Hlatshwayo lose
his first farm to the same greedy lady who now claims to own Gushungo Farm?
No, a farm is who owns it and how it was obtained, Ago. There is much more
to a farm than meets the eye.

Zimbabwe: Esther's story

Zimbabwe's forgotten children, struggling to survive

http://news.bbc.co.uk

GMT, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 Advertisement Zimbabwe: Digging for bones By Xoliswa Sithole Producer, Zimbabwe's Forgotten Children Zimbabwe, when I was growing up there, was the breadbasket of Africa and had one of the best education systems in Africa if not the world. The healthcare system was great, too. For a child born in apartheid-era South Africa, as I was, it was a land of opportunity. After my mother moved to Rhodesia, I received a first-class education, and graduated from university in post-independence Zimbabwe. It is startling how quickly a society can fall apart. My film, Zimbabwe's Forgotten Children, follows the stories of a number of children struggling to survive in the country today. Zimbabwe has become a very hard place to be poor, and poverty is ugly. Conspicuous consumerism is very evident, and greed is also very visible. I shot the film undercover, after getting a permit to make another film, about my childhood and how it has shaped me. Esther with her mother and baby sister I was raised as a child of the Zanu party. My stepfather's cousin Nabaningi Sithole, founder of Zanu, was a prominent politician, and my cousin Edison Sithole the first doctor of law in southern and central Africa - he disappeared in 1975, abducted by Ian Smith because he was a human rights lawyer and political activist. But while I was making this film the Zimbabwean government launched Operation Murambatsvina (Remove the filth) - a slum clearance programme that left thousands of people on the streets. This made me resolute to make another film, about Zimbabwe's children. I focus mostly on three stories. There are Michelle and Grace, who live with their father Joseph. Joseph dreams of saving enough money to pay for his children's education, but for now they all work - by digging bones from a rubbish heap and selling them. "What I am doing is child abuse really," he says. "They should not be working like this. It hurts me." There is Esther, who looks after her mother as she dies of Aids, and also her younger brother, Tino. After her mother dies, Esther's life becomes simpler. "It's much easier to look after Tino now, because I don't have to look after mum as well," she says. Esther's case is not an unusual one in today's Zimbabwe. It's a common scenario. Zimbabwe: Harare's street kids There are also the street children. When I lived in Zimbabwe in my twenties, there were hardly any street children in Harare. Children are now not only living on the streets, they are giving birth on the streets. A second generation of street children is growing up. The system was supposed to take care of its people, but it has failed. In less than a generation, the country has changed beyond all recognition. Xoliswa Sithole is a South African film-maker based in Johannesburg. She was awarded a BAFTA, for her role in producing the BBC/True Vision documentary Orphans of Nkandla, chronicling the effects of Aids in Africa. Zimbabwe's Forgotten Children can be seen BBC Four, at 2245 on Wednesday 3 March, or on the BBC iPlayer . Click here or ALT-T to return to TOP A new Mugabe?   article from 1980 http://www.economist.com Mar 8th 1980 | From The Economist print edition Britain has discharged its responsibility to Zimbabwe, its last African colony, with what even the most suspicious must see as democratic punctilio. Having brought about a tolerably clean election, and ended a seven-year war, it is about to hand over Zimbabwe to a man who is the indisputable choice of most of his people. Mr Robert Mugabe's sweeping victory gives him a claim to the prime ministership which nobody, inside Zimbabwe or outside, should attempt to obstruct. Mrs Thatcher's Conservative government, hard pressed at home, has against the odds and to most people's surprise carried through a major act of foreign policy to its intended conclusion. Well, half its intended conclusion. It is no secret that the British government had hoped, and its foreign office had expected, that Mr Mugabe would not be the country's unchallengeable new leader. The puncturing of that expectation produces inevitable tremors. The pursuit of a high Tory colonial policy has put an avowed Marxist in power in Zimbabwe. The man who was most reluctant to accept the Lancaster House agreement, Mr Mugabe, has triumphed from it, and Bishop Muzorewa, the ex-prime minister whose desire for peace made the settlement possible, has been trounced at the polls. All those tortuous attempts to write checks and balances into the constitution have been made irrelevant by an election that has given Mr Mugabe an unpredicted 57% of the parliament. Can he resolve the contradiction? There was always a potential contradiction between Britain's commitment to settling the Zimbabwe problem by a one-man-one-vote election, and its interest in seeing the new Zimbabwe follow a moderate, pro-western course. The commitment has been carried out, but at the price of putting the interest at risk. Everything now depends on which is the real Mugabe. Intelligent, joyless, dapper, tough, Mr Mugabe is as difficult to gauge in his politics as in his personality. On the evidence of his past five years, and of his behaviour in London during the Lancaster House talks, Mr Mugabe takes his Marxism seriously. His articulate defence of "scientific  socialism" and his coldly ascetic personality raise understandable fears that, after a conventional bow to national unity, he may try to impose on Zimbabwe the doctrines that have brought economic inefficiency and political repression to so many other countries. But the past few weeks, and particularly the past few days, hold out a qualified hope of a new Mugabe. Though still without a smile, nobody could have sounded more the man of reassurance. There will be a place for whites in his cabinet; there will be a job for his ex-partner and rival, Mr Joshua Nkomo, which could prevent a disastrous tribal split. General Walls, the leader of the former government's security forces, will stay on to integrate the rival armies into a single force. Marxism has been put aside-or postponed-with promises that there will be no widespread nationalisation, and that the (much needed) land reform will not, according to the new Mugabe, mean displacing white farmers, but will simply redistribute the large tracts of land now either under-used or held by absentee landlords. In foreign policy, Mr Mugabe's Zimbabwe may remain in the Commonwealth, will be non-aligned and will coexist peaceably with South Africa. Recognising that the country's present, very successful, economy is run along capitalist lines, Mr Mugabe says that any changes will be "built on that structure". It is little short of a miracle, and calls for the half-raised eyebrow that miracles evoke. But the transformation is not entirely unbelievable. Marxism has seldom taken root in ex-British colonies. Some men who used the rhetoric of the left while working for their countries' independence disavowed it when they came to power. Jomo Kenyatta and Hastings Banda were once African socialists. Lee Kuan Yew, of prosperous, capitalist Singapore, was once widely thought to be a communist. Mr Mugabe may follow their example. He has only to look at neighbouring Mozambique and Angola to see the devastation wrought by Marxist economics and the mass exodus of Europeans. Indeed, it is Mozambique's President Machel who, having learnt the hard way, has been the most moderating influence on Mr Mugabe. Mr Mugabe's opportunity is great. No other African leader, on coming to power, has inherited a country with so large a white tribe (some 230,000 people) or so substantial a black middle class. That black middle class has been given a taste for some luxuries rare in Africa: a relatively free press, multi-party elections and vocal political opposition, well-stocked shops and, despite the war, a remarkably well-observed law. Mr Mugabe, unlike most African leaders, is in a position to deliver on his election promises of peace and prosperity. Peace is already delicately at hand; prosperity could rapidly blossom once the country's long-isolated free-enterprise system is opened up to western markets, loans and investment-none of which Marxism can deliver. If the rate of growth that the economy clocked up before the imposition of sanctions can be restored (and that means keeping the whites confident and investing), the country could soon be one of the richest in black Africa. There is a wider issue upon which the new Mr Mugabe should also fix his steely eyes. Zimbabwe, trading freely with the west, peaceful at home and on its borders, could soon prove the natural leader, in wealth and influence, of the nine black nations of southern Africa that ring the Republic of South Africa. For the moment these countries are in pathetic disarray. Some, such as Zambia, are on the verge of bankruptcy; others, such as Angola, are in a self-inflicted communist isolation. Zimbabwe is the second most populous, the most prosperous and, for the moment, the most stable. If the old Mugabe attempts in Zimbabwe the economic experiments that have failed elsewhere ever since they left Karl Marx's pen, the chaos would be felt throughout southern Africa. South Africa would become more isolated, more convinced of its racist theories and more ready to fight off any challenge by military force. But a Mr Mugabe running an open economy, tolerant of whites and leading a prosperous Zimbabwe-another Kenya, in effect-would make a profound impression on South Africa. Nothing would be a greater spur to the gathering mood among Afrikaners that they must give more wealth and responsibility to their black people and learn to live at ease on a black continent. It is the peace of southern Africa that is at stake. Britain's success in giving Zimbabwe its democratic chance would prove pyrrhic indeed if all its efforts had handed this vital corner of the world into Marxist hands. It is a legitimate fear. Will the new Mr Mugabe dispel it? Back to the Top Back to Index