admin
The Herald of Thursday, 9 July 2015 reported “Cabinet okays new land rentals”.
This, in my view, is a very significant and important decision made in the context of the country’s Land Reform Programme, which now cries for final resolution and solutions.
The reported annual land rentals were US$15 for A1 farmers and US$5 per hectare for A2 farmers. Also levied are estates and plantations (US$10 per ha per annum), while for wildlife conservancies land rentals were still to be agreed on.
These rentals were to be with effect from January 1, 2015 and payable by 31 December of each year.
Companies which pay rent for estates and plantations are issued with leases or permits allowing them to continue with their operations.
This, it is envisaged, gives corporates security of tenure, which it is anticipated will spur them into making long-term investments on the land.
The revenue raised by Government in the process (estimated at US$22 million in the first year) will go towards financing periodic land audits, surveying and other related operational costs; as well as compensating farmers who lost land during the Land Reform Programme – presumably for improvements they had made on such farms. (Except for BIPA farms, which are compensated for both the land and improvements).
Going forward there is need, in my view, to get these land rentals properly legislated so that everything is perfectly legal and above board by January 1, 2016, at the very latest.
The land rents present a welcome and opportune time, to among other things, address conclusively and rectify some of the challenges, mistakes and shortcomings that arose or were occasioned by land reforms from 2000.
For starters, it is estimated that about 300 000 households benefited under the A1 and A2 land redistribution schemes, but there are still some 500 000 households on the waiting list.
It is also public knowledge that, notwithstanding the land allocated to the 300 000, numerous such pieces of land are underutilised, lie derelict/fallow, and that there are cases of multiple farm ownership contrary to the official policy of both Zanu-PF and Government.
Despite these apparent and real flaws, the programme has nonetheless largely had the positive effect of resolving a long-outstanding and sensitive socio-political question that in itself was one of the major reasons and fundamental causes behind our liberation struggle.
The programme has had its fair share of success, particularly in tobacco production and the resultant upliftment of the standards of living for this particular group of new farmers.
In the 2014/15 marketing season, tobacco produced is estimated at about 190 million kg.
We are witnessing a gradual movement towards the record 236 million kg produced just before the land reforms of 2000.
My good guess is that post-land reform, the country has the potential to hit 450 million kg or more of tobacco, to become second internationally to Brazil provided Government plays its role fully as desired and expected; which role has this far been played mainly and fairly successfully by our Chinese friends.
China continues to be the main funder of tobacco contract farming.
This global economic giant has a special preference for Zimbabwean tobacco for blending with its own, and presents huge market potential with its over 300 million smokers.
To add icing to the cake, the current highest price of about US$5 per kg of unprocessed tobacco on our auction floors is double the US$2,50 per kg of the pre-land reform era.
There is potential to go even higher given that this unprocessed tobacco is currently being sold offshore at prices of above US$10 per kg – a reflection of its premium quality.
Another plus for tobacco is that most production is by small-scale farmers, as is the case in Brazil.
Should we value add more of our tobacco locally, the economic benefits can only multiply.
Production performance of maize has, however, been less impressive. In fact it has been most disappointing even given the droughts, floods and other adverse weather conditions experienced since 2000.
My suggestion is that we plan, arrange and secure greater irrigable maize to meet national requirements of about two million tonnes a year.
We can initially target irrigation to produce 500 000 tonnes, equivalent to our Strategic Grain Reserve, and then progressively move to two million tonnes over a period of five years.
I will not dwell on issues pertaining to production of small grains although they are relevant to food security and nutrition.
The above targets are realistic and achievable.
With the prudent introduction of land rentals, the new strategic thrust should – in my view – be one informed, driven and guided by the need to improve productivity.
Firstly, it must be acknowledged that there is an absolute necessity to cut farm sizes for both A2 and also A1 schemes, though to a lesser extent for the latter, if we are to assist the 500 000 households on the waiting list.
It is expected that at some point in the future, new demand for land will gain equilibrium with land made available through natural means such as death and repossessions by the State.
We should expect a welcome willingness by A2 and A1 farmers to voluntarily surrender some of their allocations as people realise their individual capacities.
Farmers should be given time to survey and sub-divide land (at their own cost) they wish to voluntarily surrender to the State.
Similarly multiple farm owners should come forward to surrender extra farms without waiting to be inevitably exposed by audits – unless they are already being very productive on these farms.
Beneficiaries from the waiting list should, in my view, be selected on the following priorities:
(a) Youths and anyone with recognised qualifications from agricultural colleges/institutions;
(b) Woman and war veterans, war collaborators, ex-detainees and restrictees; and
(c) All who have proven resources to get into agriculture;
The length of time one has been on the waiting list should be acknowledged but should be assigned less “weight” when compared to the above priorities.
It should be quite easy to come up with computer software that gives due weight to the above factors with beneficiaries only given the latitude of choice of provinces and nature and type of farming activities they wish to partake in.
The SAP software system already in use in Government requires only minor customisation to undertake this task with minimal costs to the State.
Experience has taught us that when allocations are done manually, much corruption emerges.
It should be noted that persons falling in category A above require Government assistance by way of finance and mechanisation.
Those in category B require similar assistance, and also need to be encouraged and assisted to undertake training programmes, whereas those in C require mostly training only.
To make the Land Reform Programme an enduring success, Government should:
(a) Grant Government guarantees on all 99-year leases and special permits so that they can be used as security instruments when seeking financial support. Those who perennially fail to honour their obligations should expect to lose their land back to the State.
(b) Ensure that the cost of finance for agriculture is reasonable, say not more than five percent per annum for working capital and even cheaper (below two percent) for capital expenditure. Capital expenditure finance should come at zero deposit.
Repayment intervals for capital expenditure and working capital should be synchronised with harvesting and marketing – not monthly or such other intervals that unsuitable to farmers.
(c) Subsidise seed, fertilisers and agro-chemicals, electricity, water, petro-fuels and coal. Such subsidies were behind the recent bumper maize harvests in Malawi and Zambia. The practice of agri-subsidies is long-recognised internationally.
(d) Undertake farm mechanisation programmes, particularly those relating to irrigation, with debt recovery measures from beneficiaries tightened and enforced.
(e) Fund research and development in agriculture, and ensure successful outcomes of such research are practically implemented timeously.
(f) Capacitate all agriculture-related entities like Agribank, Arda, AMA, GMB, CSC, Land Commission. We should seek such funds from institutions like the Asia Investment Bank, the Brics New Development Bank, the Chinese Import and Export Bank and Chinese Development Bank.
Cde Edmore AM Ndudzo (CA) is a beneficiary of the 2000 Land Reform Programme and writes in his personal capacity and in the national interest
Online Reporter