History Essay Help Samples : Land reform in Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe

Land reform in Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe
History Essay Samples

Running head: Land reform in Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe

 

 

 

 

Land reform in Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe

In Zimbabwe, dualism in access to land has a history of more than a century. After colonization in 1890, white settlers proceeded to appropriate land. In 1898, the colonial government created the so-called Native Reserves, lest the African population become completely landless. In 1930, the Land Apportionment Act formalized this racial separation of land rights that had developed further on a mass scale during the first decades of the twentieth century. In the Act, 19.7 million hectares – amounting to half of the land area of the colony – were set aside for its 50,000 white settlers.

Most of the remaining territory, i.e., some 42% of all land, was considered unsuitable for white settlement and was formally allocated to the African population (Land Tenure Commisssion, 1994). The areas set aside for Africans – as of 1981 called the communal areas – were generally faced with a combination of high population density and low agro-ecological potential: no less than two-thirds of these areas had excess populations of more than double their assessed carrying capacities ( Whitlow, 1988 and Moyo). From the mid-1980s, the schemes mainly concentrated on translocation resettlement and communal area land use reorganization, but policy remained focused on the (near) landless (Moyo, 1995). After the first decade of land reform, the land distribution pattern had changed considerably as a consequence

In 1991, the National Land Policy re-affirmed the goals of resettlement. Fully in line with the Economic Structural Adjustment Policy (ESAP), instead of social indicators for eligible households (poor, no or very limited access to land), economic reasons and market-oriented criteria were now introduced, and those eligible needed to prove themselves to be ‘master farmers' or formally trained agriculturalists. In the following year, 1992, land acquisition by the government was made easier by deferring to market-determined prices and more flexible currency regulations (Land Acquisition Act, 1992). Apart from land acquisition through the willing seller–willing buyer principle as before, land could now be acquired through designation by the state. Five procedures for acquiring land were formulated, viz., resumption of ownership; compulsory acquisition; land designation; the right of first refusal given to the State; and acquisition of derelict land without compensation. (Annelet & Henk , 2001) Soon after, in 1994, the government re-emphasized its guidelines for land acquisition. The following criteria were announced:

 

• The land must be near where it is needed, i.e., as near to the congested communal areas as possible;
• The land must be large enough to form an economically viable scheme;
• The topographical characteristics should be such that the land can be developed without too much difficulty.

The policy change of targeting ‘better-off peasants' has since been criticized as it meant a virtual neglect of the majority in the rural areas (cf. Moyo, 1995). Among other aspects, this criticism led to new discussions on the appropriate course of action. In 1996, rural land needs were categorized as follows:

• Land needs to decongest overpopulated wards and villages for the generality of landless people;
• Land needs of successful peasant farmers with limited means and resources who want to venture into small-scale commercial agriculture;
• Land needs of citizens who have means and resources to enter into large-scale commercial agriculture (Tenant Farmer Scheme) (MLGURD, 1996).

For each of these sets of land needs targeted packages were developed to ensure successful realization. However, their actual implementation has been piecemeal, due to both economic–financial and political reasons.

All in all, by late 1998, after 18 years of land reform policy, 71,000 households had been resettled on 3.5 million hectares of land (GOZ, 1998a). Four resettlement model schemes have been established, viz. Model A Schemes with individual arable holdings, Model B Schemes with cooperative holdings, Model C Schemes with individual ‘out growers' holdings' surrounding state farms, and Model D Schemes that regulate rotating access of farmers of communal areas to adjacent range lands. Over 80% of all resettlement has followed Model A, which has provided each settler arable land of 5 ha per household, of which 3 ha are expected to be ploughed once the rest are left fallow for land regeneration. Grazing is shared communally. Land tenure is based on three permits: for residence, cultivation and pasturing stock. (Annelet & Henk , 2001)

These comprised, among others, a number of years of severe and prolonged drought and, partly related to this substantial shortage of capital, shortage of qualified manpower, institutional problems and – up to 1992 – restrictive provisions due to the willing buyer–willing seller principle, and possibly a lack of political will. In spite of the fact that the initial goals have not been reached, the achievement has been considerable in comparison to resettlement records elsewhere: no other African government has ever acquired such hectare age of land commercially for redistribution purposes.

The land is to be acquired mainly by compulsory acquisition, and compensation is based on the open market value. In 1999, a land tax has been introduced in the framework of the Zimbabwe Program for Economic and Social Transformation (ZIMPREST). This tax is meant to enhance the revenue performance and, especially, to bring underutilized land onto the market, thereby improving the overall utilization of land (GOZ, 1998b). The selection of beneficiaries in the new phase will vary according to the land resettlement models to be implemented. Four-fifths of the total land area is to be reserved for the so-called A1 model, in which households are allocated individual arable plots varying from 3 to 6 ha (depending on the agro-ecological conditions), for both residential and cropping purposes. Without doubt, the execution of this ambitious Phase II program is prone to a number of problems rather similar those which have frustrated implementation in the first phase. Finance and qualified manpower shortages, problems in institutional organization (in the implementation of Phase II, not less than eight ministries are to be involved) and political problems are among the most likely constraints. In program documentation, attempts are made to address these obstacles. (Annelet & Henk , 2001) However, the matters related to the (longer term) sustainability of the land reform are not addressed.

If land reforms had not taken place, the drop in agricultural production would have not been nearly so dramatic. Zimbabwe's insurance policy--its irrigated commercial farm system--would have greatly ameliorated the harm of the drought by providing the hard currency for seeds for the following year and food for the present. (Craig J. Richardson, 2005) Zimbabwe would have simply exported very little of its maize and used most of it to feed the people. The drought would have registered as a tough year but hardly a catastrophe, as the following year brought restorative rains. In fact, as we have seen, dams were widely reported as full throughout this period.

In view of the current events in Zimbabwe, the future course of the land reform process is difficult to predict. However, it is likely to differ considerably from the process of the past two decades. The current land invasions, the announced confiscation of 3041 white-owned farms, and the land allocation practice on the first farm as taken by the government after it was ‘legally' designated for confiscation all suggest that the land reform policy and the implementation procedures have changed drastically. The expropriation of the latter farm seems to benefit families strictly chosen for their loyalty to Presidents Mugabe's ZANU-PF party, not because of their farming skills. Infrastructural facilities, tools and farming equipment are reportedly not provided for. In addition, the amount of land allocated to this first group of ‘official' settlers also deviates strongly from the usual hectare age: 28 ha (McGreal, 2000). Time will learn what the land-starved Zimbabweans and, ultimately, Zimbabwe's economy are to gain from such a new ‘land reform policy'.

References
Annelet Harts-Broekhuis and Henk Huisman, Resettlement revisited: land reform results in resource-poor regions in  Zimbabwe, Geoforum Volume 32, Issue 3, August 2001, Pages 285-298
Craig J. Richardson; the Loss of Property Rights and the Collapse of Zimbabwe, the Cato Journal, Vol. 25, 2005.
Government of Zimbabwe ( GOZ), 1998a. Land reform and resettlement programme phase II. A policy framework and project document (draft). Harare.
Government of Zimbabwe ( GOZ), 1998b. ZIMPREST: Zimbabwe Programme for Economic and Social Transformation 1996–2000. Harare.
Land Acquisition Act, 1992. Harare.
Land Tenure Commission, 1994. Main Report. Report of the Commision of Inquiry into Appropriate Agricultural Land Tenure Systems, vol. 1. Government Printer, Harare.
McGreal, Ch., 2000. Farm seizures start with widow's eviction. The Guardian, 5 August.
Ministry of Local Government, Rural and Urban Development ( MLGURD), 1996. Rural Development Fund: the Resettlement Programme: Targets, Achievements, Constraints and Proposed Way Forward. Harare.
Moyo, S., 1995. The Land Question in Zimbabwe, SAPES Books, Harare.
Whitlow, R., 1988. Land degradation in Zimbabwe, a geographical study. Report prepared on behalf of the Department of Natural Resources. Harare.