Land reform in Zimbabwe

Land apportionment in Rhodesia in 1965.

In Zimbabwe, the question of land distribution and redistribution (land reform) is perhaps the most crucial and the most bitterly contested political issue today.

The white farmer population first came to Southern Rhodesia in the 1890s.. In 1918 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London issued a ruling that the land of Southern Rhodesia was owned by the Crown and not by the British South Africa Company, a ruling which led to increased pressure within the colony for self-government.

After self-government was granted in 1923, the Southern Rhodesia House of Assembly created a legal framework for the allocation of land. The Land Apportionment Act of 1930, which was the basis for subsequent laws and continued in effect until independence, divided the land of the colony into areas where only Europeans could own property, areas which were held "in trust" for African tribes on a collective basis, and areas where only Africans could own property. One practical effect of the apportionment was that some African families were ejected from land they had worked for generations. The anger this caused had a profound impact on the politics of Zimbabwe in the post-independence period.

The lack of individual title in areas designated as Tribal Trust Lands made it difficult to develop such land through soil improvement, grading, irrigation, drainage, and roads. Few Africans had access to the capital funds necessary to buy large plots of land designated for sale to them in the Native Purchase areas. But white settlers were able to buy and develop large areas of farmland. The designated white areas tended to be in the uplands where the rainfall was higher and soil thinner—where large scale, mechanised farming was most conducive. Government policy favoured the more lucrative white commercial farmers through training support, direct grants, loan guarantee schemes, and funding for agricultural research. Also, rural road building programmes favoured white farming areas.

In the 1950s the government of Garfield Todd did make some attempts to address problems of land tenure and development in the Tribal Trust Lands, but these attempts were never popular with the largely white electorate. Many members of the white community supported the Unilateral Declaration of Independence regime of Ian Smith, which took over the government in the mid-1960s and broke with Britain over proposals for eventual democracy.

There was therefore a marked racial imbalance in the ownership and distribution of land. Zimbabwean whites, although making up less than 1% of the population, owned more than 70% of the arable land, including most of the best land. However, in many cases this land was more fertile because it was titled, resulting in incentives for commercial farmers to create reservoirs, irrigate, and otherwise tend the soil. Communal lands, with no property rights, were characterized by slash and burn agriculture, resulting in a tragedy of the commons.[1] Since the implementation of the most recent land reforms, only 300 of 4,500 commercial farmers remain on farms. The eviction of the mostly white farmers has been partly blamed by aid agencies and critics for Zimbabwe's worst famine in living memory, which left about two thirds of the 11.6 million people facing severe food shortage.* [2]

Lancaster House Agreement

After the Lancaster House Agreement paved the way for democracy, elections were won by Robert Mugabe in late February 1980. The three-month long Lancaster House conference nearly failed over land issues. However, the British agreed to fund reform on a willing buyer, willing seller principle, where farmers who were unwilling to stay in Zimbabwe would be bought out by funds provided by the British through the Zimbabwean government.

1980s

In 1981 the British were instrumental in setting up the Zimbabwe conference on reconstruction and development. At that conference, more than £630 million of aid was pledged.

In 1981 the Communal Land Act changed the Tribal Trust Lands into Communal Areas and shifted authority over these lands from traditional rulers to local authorities.

The 1985 Land Acquisition Act, though drawn in the spirit of the 1979 Lancaster House "willing seller, willing buyer" clause (which could not be changed for ten years), gave the government the first right to purchase excess land for redistribution to the landless. However, the Act had a limited impact, largely because the government did not have the money to compensate landowners. In addition, white farmers mounted a vigorous opposition to the Act. Because of the "willing seller, willing buyer" clause, the government was powerless in the face of the farmers' resistance. As a result, between 1980 and 1990, only 71,000 families out of a target of 162,000 were resettled.

1992

The 1992 Land Acquisition Act was enacted to speed up the land reform process by removing the "willing seller, willing buyer" clause. The Act empowered the government to buy land compulsorily for redistribution, and a fair compensation was to be paid for land acquired. Landowners were given the right to go to court if they did not agree to the price set by the acquiring authority. Opposition by landowners increased throughout the period from 1992 to 1997.

While some land was purchased by the fund, few families were resettled. Instead, hundreds of abandoned and expropriated white farms ended up in the hands of cabinet ministers, senior government officials and wealthy indigenous businessmen. The British and Americans cut their losses and money, alleging widespread corruption. To date, fewer than 70,000 of the people of Zimbabwe have been resettled, most without the necessary infrastructure to work the huge commercial farms on the 12 hectare plots they have been allocated.

Britain withdrew aid to the land reform programme, accusing Mugabe of giving the land to his "cronies". (London now claims to have contributed £44m, but Timothy Stamps, Zimbabwe's health minister, says only £17m was contributed by Britain).[3]

At that time, British contribution in terms of aid to Zimbabwe stood at a half billion pounds since independence. Furthermore, £47 million of that was specifically targeted for land reform, and approximately £100 million was budgetary support which could have been used for land reform.

1997

As part of the implementation of the 1992 Land Acquisition Act, the government published a list of 1,471 farmlands it intended to buy compulsorily for redistribution. The list came out of a nationwide land identification exercise undertaken throughout the year. Landowners were given thirty days (as the 1992 Act demanded) to submit written objections.

1998

In June 1998 the government published its "policy framework" on the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme Phase II (LRRP II), which envisaged the compulsory purchase over five years of 50,000 km² from the 112,000 km² owned by commercial farmers (both black and white), parastatal corporations, churches, non-governmental organizations and multi-national companies. Broken down, the 50,000 km² meant that every year between 1998 and 2003, the government intended to purchase 10,000 km² for redistribution.

In September 1998 the government called a donors conference in Harare on land reform (LRRP II); 48 countries and international organizations attended. The objective was to inform the donor community and involve them in the programme. The donors unanimously endorsed the land programme, saying it was essential for poverty reduction, political stability and economic growth. They particularly appreciated the political imperative and urgency of the land reform, and agreed that the "inception phase" (covering the first 24 months) should start immediately.

1999

The Commercial Farmers Union freely offered to sell the government 15,000 km² for redistribution. Landowners once again dragged their feet. In response to moves by the National Constitutional Assembly, a grouping of academics, trade unionists and other political activists, the government drafted a new constitution. The draft was discussed widely by the public in formal meetings, and amended to include restrictions on presidential powers, limits to the presidential term of office, and an upper age limit of 70 years for presidential candidates. This was not a suitable outcome for the government, so the proposals were amended to remove those clauses and insert a new one to compulsorily acquire land for redistribution without compensation. The drafting stage of the constitution was largely boycotted by the opposition (supported by the landowners), who claimed that Mugabe only wanted a new constitution to entrench himself politically.

2000

The government organised a referendum on the new constitution, despite having a sufficiently large majority in parliament to pass any amendment it wished. If it had been approved, the new constitution would have empowered the government to acquire land compulsorily without compensation. Despite vast support in the media, the new constitution was defeated, 55% to 45%. There was wild jubilation by the MDC's local and foreign supporters, prompting "End of Mugabe" headlines in the British and Zimbabwean media.

A few days later, the pro-Mugabe War Veterans Association organised people of like mind (not necessarily war veterans, as many of them were too young to have fought in the Liberation War) to march on white-owned farmlands, initially with drums, song and dance. They claimed to have "seized" the farmlands. A total of 110,000 km² of land was seized.

The referendum result prompted the government to delay the parliamentary elections, so that an intensive voter registration exercise could take place. In the June parliamentary elections, ZANU PF got 48% of the vote (62 seats) and the MDC and ZANU got 52% (58 seats). The composition of the new parliament prevented the government from making further amendments to the constitution without opposition support.

2002

Mugabe defeated Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) in presidential elections in March 2002. The incumbents picked Land Reform as the basis of their campaign.

2004

On July 3, 2004 a report adopted by the African Union executive council, which comprises foreign ministers of the fifty-three member states, criticized the government's handling of the election.[4]

Minister for Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement John Nkomo said on June 5, 2004 that all land, from crop fields to wildlife conservancies, would soon become state property. Farmland deeds would be replaced with 99-year leases, while those for wildlife conservancies would be limited to 25 years. However, there have since been denials of this policy.

2005

Parliament, dominated by Zanu-PF, passed a constitutional amendment, signed into law on September 12 2005, that nationalized Zimbabwe's farmland and deprived landowners of the right to challenge in court the government's decision to expropriate their land.[5]

2006

In January 2006 Agriculture Minister Joseph Made said Zimbabwe was considering legislation that would compel commercial banks to finance black peasants who had been allocated formerly white-owned farmland in the land reforms.

Banks failing to lend a substantial portion of their income to these farmers would have their licenses withdrawn, Made warned.

The newly resettled peasants had largely failed to secureloans from commercial banks because they did not have title over the land on which they were resettled, and thus could not use it as collateral. With no security of tenure on the farms, banks have been reluctant to extend loans to the new farmers, many of whom do not have much experience in commercial farming, nor assets to provide alternative collateral for any borrowed money. [6]

Economic Consequences

The results of the land reform have been disastrous for the economy of Zimbabwe. Prior to land redistribution, land owning (mostly white) farmers had large tracts of land and utilized economies of scale to raise capital, borrow money when necessary, and purchase modern mechanized farm equiment to increase productivity on their land. The reforms broke this land into smaller tracts (thereby destroying the economies of scale) and gave it to former (mostly black) farmworkers and peasants, who had little knowledge of how to run the farms efficiently or raise productivity. Further, the refusal of banks to lend them money has limited their ability to purchase equipment or otherwise raise capital. As a result, the drop in total farm output has been tremendous and produced widespread claims by aid agencies of starvation and famine. However, Mugabe's expulsion of the international media has prevented full analysis of the scale of the famine and the resultant deaths. What is not in dispute is that a country once so rich in agricultural produce that it was dubbed the "bread basket" of Southern Africa, is now struggling to feed its own population. A staggering 45 percent of the population is considered malnourished. Foreign tourism has also plummeted, costing tens of millions of dollars a year in lost revenue.^[7]

Land reform elsewhere

Many observers view land reform as an essential component of decolonization. Since mainland China's economic reforms led by Deng Xiaoping land reforms have also played a key role in the development of the People's Republic of China. What remains controversial in Mugabe's Zimbabwe is the manner of the land reform, its haphazard nature, and the widespread suspicion that it is being used to reward Mugabe supporters and attack his opponents, with others (including thousands of black Africans who worked the white owned farms and those experiencing famine) losing out.

Currently (as of March 2007), Zimbabwe suffers from widespread food shortages, the world's highest inflation rate at over 13000%, and a bitter political struggle often turns violent between the ruling ZANU-PF party and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, whose members have faced imprisonment and torture. Domestic and international critics lay much of the blame for the current chaos at the feet of the land reform program. Many Zimbabwean refugees have fled to South Africa or Mozambique.

Quotes

On June 10, 2004, British embassy spokesperson Sophie Honey said:

The UK has not reneged on commitments (made) at Lancaster House. At Lancaster House the British Government made clear that the long-term requirements of land reform in Zimbabwe were beyond the capacity of any individual donor country.

Since independence we have provided 44 million pounds for land reform in Zimbabwe and 500 million pounds in bilateral development assistance.

The UK remains a strong advocate for effective, well managed and pro-poor land reform. Fast-track land reform has not been implemented in line with these principles and we cannot support it.

See also

• Land reform
• Agrarian Reform
• History of Zimbabwe

External links

• Landaction
• News 24
• Landnet
• House of Lords - Hansard
• Land tenure in Rural Zimbabwe
• Article in The East African supporting the Zimbabwe government written by High Commissioner of the Republic of Zimbabwe in Nairobi.
• Human Rights Watch report on fast track land reform in Zimbabwe
• Zimbabwe: 23 Years of Black Rule A Rhodesian-born journalist and author writes about the current situation in Zimbabwe; describes the controversial land-reforms; writes about the victims (both black and white)
• Zimbabwe broke land deal New Zimbabwe 06/18/2007 by Paul Boateng British High Commissioner to South Africa