A detailed and extraordinary account of the losses of farmland and production
since the "fast-track" occupations of the commercial farms in Zimbabwe.
Jack Shepherd
>Subject: Eddie Cross
>To: "Peter Soal"
The Cost of the Farm Invasions
In the late 90's the Government of Zimbabwe held a conference on land reform in
Zimbabwe. Broad agreement was reached between the State, the stakeholders and
international aid agencies but the agreement was never implemented. Two years
later, in an attempt to destroy the opposition base on commercial farms, the State
began what it eventually called the "Fast Track Land Reform" exercise.
They justified this programme to the rest of the world by arguing that they were
redressing historical injustices and racial imbalances in the ownership of the
land. The reform programme ignored the legal situation prevailing in respect to
farm ownership and it also ignored the issue of fair and reasonable compensation
for assets taken over by the State.
The legal position was quite straight forward commercial farmers held full
freehold title and in over 80 per cent of cases, also held a "certificate of no
interest" issued by the Zimbabwe government allowing them to buy the farms on
the open market after 1980. Such a requirement was mandatory in order to enable
the State to acquire the farms if they so wished, on a willing seller, willing
buyer basis. Some 3,8 million hectares of farmland was in fact acquired in this
way since 1980.
Farmers holding both the title and the certificates held an unassailable legal
right to the land and all improvements. By so doing they held the right to receive
in full, the market value of such assets when they were sold, less any bond obligations
to banks.
In the following 8 years, thousands of farms were "acquired" with the regime changing
the law every time a farmer or group of farmers secured legal judgements in their
favour. Eventually a group of farmers took their case to the SADC Legal Tribunal
in Windhoek, Namibia where they initially obtained a decision saying that they
had the right to go to the Tribunal on the issue (the State had apposed the action)
and subsequently secured a ruling in favour of the farmers instructing the
Government of Zimbabwe to protect the farmers legal rights.
One small group of affected farmers also enjoyed the protection of a "Bilateral
Investment Protection Agreement" signed between the Government of Zimbabwe and
the farmers home Government. A group of farmers of Dutch origin who had invested
after Independence and were protected by the BIPA took their case to the international
Courts in the Hague. Last week the highest legal tribunal in the world ruled in
favour of the Dutch investors and granted them nearly 22 million dollars in compensation,
payable in 90 days.
The attitude of the regime towards the farm acquisitions was quite straight forward.
They were "taking the farms" from their owners. They simply went to a nominated
agency or individual and obtained an "offer letter" which then allowed the "beneficiary"
the right to take occupation. No protection was afforded to the owner or his staff
and no interference was permitted, as the operation was considered "political".
In the majority of cases force was used mainly in the form of groups of young,
politically motivated thugs who acted on behalf of the "beneficiary". Once the
owners and their senior staff had been evicted, the new farmers took occupation
and took advantage of the assets and even standing crops and livestock on the
farms.
Many elderly and outstanding farmers were evicted in this way leaving some
of them so traumatised that they never recovered. One such farmer, Keith Harvey,
was evicted from his cattle ranch in the midlands and subsequently went into a
cationic coma for two years before he eventually died. He was a former chairman
of the Natural Resources Board and a life long conservationist. A fine cattleman
and a person of great integrity and commitment to the country of his birth.
But no estimate has yet been made of just what the disruption of commercial farms
has cost us and I asked economists in the farming industry to let me have the
numbers. Even I was shocked by the statistics. In 2000 the total output of the
agricultural industry in Zimbabwe was 4,3 million tonnes of agricultural products
worth at today's prices US$3,347 billion. This has declined to just over 1,348
million tonnes of products in 2009 worth US$1 billion a decline of 69 per
cent in volume and a decline of 70 per cent in value.
What is often not appreciated is that smallholder farmers have been just as badly
affected by the collapse of the industry as the large scale commercial farmers.
Their production in the past season is estimated to have decline by
73 per cent over that achieved in the year 2000. This is on top of the forced
displacement and loss of employment for 250 000 people and their 1,3 million dependents
on commercial farms.
Despite these stunning figures the farm invasions have continued with 480 incidents
on remaining farms recorded since the GPA was signed in September last year. Even
those farms that were granted legal protection by the SADC Tribunal have been
specifically targeted on a punitive basis by the elements that are carrying on
with this illegal activity and in fact are openly defying the SADC decisions.
The international decision is enforceable and creates very significant challenges
for the new Transitional Government.
Estimates put the total value of potential legal claims at US$5 billion dollars,
some 30 per cent more than current GDP.
It is quite clear that the reform programme pursued by the Zanu PF led regime
since 1998 has been a costly failure. This is demonstrated when it is appreciated
that over 90 per cent of all production from commercial farms in the past season
has emanated from the remaining large scale farmers who are now being disrupted.
There are reports that over half of all the farms taken over are in fact now derelict
and abandoned. Many of the individuals now "taking" farms are doing so for the
third or fourth time. The fact that sugar production in the lowveld, on highly
developed irrigation estates, has declined by 35 per cent almost all of the
decline outside of the control of the core Estates of Triangle and Hippo is due
to illegal land occupations.
It is time to accept that the past policies on land have been a failure and that
it is time to rethink and to put policies in place that will give all farmers
security and enable then to finance their operations properly. Such policies cannot
be implemented until the issue of the rights of farm owners is resolved and the
issue of compensation addressed. The combined costs of the folly of the land invasions
are staggering they include US$2,8 billion in international food aid on an
emergency basis, nearly US$12 billion in lost agricultural production over 10
years and now a potential bill for US$5 billion in compensation a total of
US$20 billion dollars.
And now we are asking for billions of dollars to fix this self-inflicted damage
its bizarre.
Eddie Cross
Bulawayo, 28th April 2009
Peter Soal
2 Burford, The Cotswolds
Indian Road
7708 KENILWORTH
Tel: 021 797 1882
Fax: 086 698 8574
Cell: 082 340 8672