Report of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs on Study Visit to Zimbabwe, dated 5 August 2003:
The Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs reports as follows:
Introduction
A delegation of the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs undertook a study visit to Zimbabwe from 26 April to 1 May 2003, with a mandate as stated below:
Objectives of the visit
In a meeting on 4 March 2003 the Committee unanimously reiterated its earlier decision to undertake a study visit to Botswana and Zimbabwe, with the following objectives:
To study broadly the land reform program against the background of the Communal Land Rights Bill which will be tabled before the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs soon;
How does the communal land reform program impact on the stakeholders;
The role of traditional leadership in the land reform process; and
As Zimbabwe had experienced some agricultural and land reform difficulties, the delegation had to focus on the shortcomings and successes in the implementation thereof.
Delegation
A multi-party delegation, under the leadership of the Committee Chairperson, Mr N H Masithela -ANC included Adv. S P Holomisa –ANC; Ms B M Ntuli – ANC; Mr D M Dlali – ANC; Mr B A Radebe – ANC; Ms N F Mathibela – ANC; Mr M V Ngema – IFP; Mr A J Botha - DA and Mr J Boltina (Committee Secretary).
Bishop M.S Mogoba joined the delegation on the second day of the business, due to pressing engagements concerning his party. Unfortunately, a tenth member of the delegation from the New National Party, Azapo or ACDP was not available.
The collective role and participation of the delegation must be commended, but was however affected by Hon A J Botha undertaking a matter separate to that of the delegation.
Ten days before the departure date, the delegation received correspondence from the South African High Commissioner in Botswana, suggesting that the visit be rescheduled for the 28th of July 2003. This was due to the fact that the Botswana National Assembly would be in recess until July and that Members of Parliament would be visiting their respective constituencies during that period.
An attempt was made to obtain a balanced view, with inputs from various stakeholders, like the office of South African High Commissioner; the Crisis in Zimbabwe Coalition; the African Institute for Agrarian Studies; the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); the World Food Programme (WFP); the representatives of the South African Farmers in Zimbabwe; the Vice President of the Republic of Zimbabwe; the Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement; the Portfolio Committee on Lands, Agriculture, and Rural Resettlement; the Council of Chiefs Representatives; the Zimbabwe Farmer’s Union (ZFU); the Commercial Farmers Union (CFU); the Indigenous Commercial Farmers Union (ICFU); the Agricultural and Rural Development Authority (ARDA); the Agri Business Association; the General Agriculture and Plantation Workers Union of Zimbabwe & Farm Community Trust (displaced workers); and the delegation ended the business by visiting the World Food Program distribution point (Hurungwe Primary School- where the Republic of South Africa donated maize of about 64 000 metric tonnes was being distributed) and the Midlands Province (Kwekwe District) to oversee the resettlement farm schemes (Model A1 and A2).
Briefing by the South African High Commissioner
Overview
The Office of the High Commissioner indicated to the delegation that the following issues, properly addressed, could assist the Zimbabweans to move forward:
The lack of direct communication between the Ruling Party and the Opposition Party;
The manner in which the land reform programme is being implemented;
The economic crisis of Zimbabwe;
The displaced farmers and farm workers;
The high unemployment rate;
Bilateral Investment Protection Agreement;
South African farmers in Zimbabwe;
The problems surrounding the Foot and Mouth Disease;
The problems surrounding dual citizenships;
The influx of Zimbabwean into South Africa; and
Food shortage in Zimbabwe.
Briefing by the Crisis Coalition in Zimbabwe
Overview
The Crisis Coalition in Zimbabwe is a coalition of more than 350 civil society organizations. It was originally conceived in August 2001 as a collective response by Zimbabwean civics to the multi-faceted crisis facing the nation.
Land Reform is the critical issue facing Zimbabwe, and must be addressed. The Crisis Coalition in Zimbabwe supports the need for a thorough land reform program, but insists that this program must be carried out in a rational and well- planned manner, through consultation with all the stakeholders. The program must address not only land redistribution, but also issues of food security and the welfare of farm workers and others who are displaced through the resettlement exercise.
Background
At independence, white farmers (less than 1% of Zimbabwe’s population) held a grossly unfair 39% of Zimbabwe’s most productive land. This situation required urgent redress. However, as late as 1998, only 71 000 families had been resettled. Hundreds of thousands of black families continued to live in squalor. Land hunger and overcrowding also progressed resulting in spontaneous land invasions in the 1980’s and mid to late 1990’s. This was due to number of factors, namely:
An entrenched property clause in the Lancaster House Constitution of 1979;
The lack of adequate resources to comply with the Lancaster House Constitution;
These provisions required payment of adequate compensation for expropriated farm land, an d required that such expropriation be on a willing-buyer, willing-seller basis;
The intransigence of white commercial farmers and dilaying tactics by the international community; and
Absence of a consensually agreed land reform policy.
Land Reform
In March 2000, Zanu PF launched the "Fast Track Land Resettlement Program," supposedly to redress the above-mentioned imbalance in the land tenure, agricultural productivity and land distribution. This program was accompanied by considerable violence. Initially, compulsory acquisition of commercial farms occurred unconstitutionally, but was facilitated by an Act of Parliament which was amended to render the acquisition process increasingly unfair and arbitrary. To date, approximately 95% of commercial farms have been seized.
Essentially, the land reform exercise has been used to justify political upheaval and politics of selective citizenship based on race, ethnicity and political affiliation. Many of the larger beneficiaries of this fast track land program are not landless peasants but Ministers and other senior government officials and prominent supporters of the ruling party, including those who officially supervised the Presidential election.
Instead, land redistribution should be viewed not only as a tool through which to address historical imbalances, but must also focus on productivity. Thus, the Rukuni Commission recommendations should be revisited or a similar initiative should be taken up to ensure an orderly, internationally respected land reform program. In addition, land redistribution should be integrated within the broader economic and infrastructure reforms which will enhance Zimbabwe’s productivity and improves the standard of living for the majority of Zimbabweans.
The Crisis Coalition shared a vision of a just, non-partisan, equitable land distribution programme for development, which leads to social stability and economic growth.
Farm Workers
The impact of the land resettlement exercise on the two million displaced farm workers and their families must be quantified. Before the Land Resettlement program began, farm workers represented one of Zimbabwe’s most marginalized populations. The current exercise has only worsened that situation. Many of these workers are now unemployed, homeless and destitute. There is apparently no government policy which appropriately addresses the issue of farm worker resettlement or compensation for workers who are forced out of their homes when a farm is acquired.
Some of the workers have been absorbed by the new farmers, and have been offered employment on these farms. However, there is very little protection for the workers in terms of minimum wage and living conditions. For example, in January 2003, the General Agricultural Plantation Workers Union of Zimbabwe (GAPWUZ) which represent farm workers negotiated a wage increment for workers across the board. This raised the minimum wage for farm workers to $9,500 per month. However, many new farmers are unable or unwilling to pay that amount, and instead are paying workers as little as $3,000 per month-less than what the workers earned before the wage negotiations.
Many of the farm workers in question are of Malawian, Mozambican, Zambian or other descent. Thus, when they are displaced, there is no- where else that they can go. Amendments to the Citizenship Act in 2002 effectively rendered many of theses workers and their children – who were born in Zimbabwe but who had foreign parentage-stateless. Proposed amendments to this Act will do little to redress the situation for most farm workers. Moreover, the changes do not address the damage which has already been done. Many farm workers have already been through a difficult and costly process to resolve their citizenship status. The Citizenship Act disenfranchised many farm workers. This means that they were unable to vote in the 2002 Presidential election.
In addition, the question of employment, residence, food security, schooling and health care, remain pressing concerns of the displaced farm workers, who have been doubly abandoned –firstly by the displaced farmer, and secondly by the State.
Food Security
Access to food and basic social security for citizens is an entitlement of all Zimbabweans regardless of their political affiliation, religious beliefs, gender, race, age, ethnicity, etc. In Zimbabwe in the past year, however, the land reform program, economic meltdown and issues of governance have exacerbated the effect of a regional drought, jeopardizing Zimbabwe’s food security severely. Food shortages grip the country. Queues for bread, mealie meal, sugar cooking oil and other basic commodities are commonplace in every urban center and throughout the rural areas.
It is estimated that over 7.2 million people in Zimbabwe –more than half the population-face food insecurity and possible starvation due to lack of access to basic nutritional requirements. This has particular drastic implications on both urban and rural women, who are, in most cases, daily expected to provide the family’s nutritional requirements. The non-availability and high price of food and other basic commodities have jeopardized many women’s capacity to meet their family’s needs. Thus, many women sacrifice their own health and nutrition to enable their families to eat more. Others have resorted to performing sexual favours in exchange for food for their children.
In a nation where an estimated third of the adult population is HIV positive, this inability to access food severely compromises the health and family security of the majority of the population. Good nutrition is essential to maintaining good health, particularly fo HIV infected individuals. Thus, the impact of food shortages and poor nutrition are compounded by high rates of HIV infected, jeopardizing the futures of millions of Zimbabweans.
In addition, the government has declared a monopoly on food importation, making it difficult for business, church groups and civil society organizations to mitigate the impact of the famine facing Zimbabwe. Moreover, seizures of food aid by para-state groups, particularly in politically volatile areas, have been wide spread.
Furthermore, the Ruling Party has worsened a desperate food security situation by using food aid as a political weapon. This involves instances where food is deliberately withheld from needy persons who fail to produce Zanu PF party cards. This is a system that is militantly enforced by the youth militia. Reports from rural and urban areas alike demonstrate that this dangerous trend is widespread and severe.
Briefing by representative of United Nations Development Programme
Overview
1. Background
An immediate and severe food crisis continues to worsen in Zimbabwe, where the total cereal deficit is expected to be 1,869,000 Mt. The government’s inability to buy and import sufficient grain, a ban on private sector commercial grain imports, and price controls have drained the country of food stocks. At the same time, failure of rainfall in January 2002 decimated communal –sector crop production, and a "fast track" land reform led to a collapse of the commercial farming sector. It is estimated that cereal production has fallen by 57% from last year’s already poor harvest.
Grain is simply not available for sale for most people, and black-market prices are beyond the reach of most. Devaluation of the Zim Dollar is rampant at 120% per annum. Food security is further undermined by extremely high rates of HIV/AIDS prevalence, which affects approximately 25% of the adult population.
Successful intervention on the current food crisis will depend on government policy changes, including allowing private sector commercial imports, lifting price controls, and allowing private sector grain movements in the country. Without increased involvement of the private commercial sector, the food crisis will continue to worsen.
Land
The UNDP has on numerous occasions made requests to government to assist in the land reform processes but has had little success. As a result, following the current land reform process, the UNDP is trying to assist farmers and farm workers who are displaced. The UNDP is of the view that in order to address the problem of communal farmers, there is a need to identify what kind of land is availed by the government. There are a number of the pieces of land earmarked for resettlement process.
For Zimbabwe to have a lasting solution to this problem, there is need to look at the situation on the ground and suggest proposals to government. Unfortunately, no response is forth coming from the government with regard to UNDP proposals. Currently, no one knows exactly how many families have been resettled. Because in the communal areas; there are +/- 2 million people.
Commercial Farm Production
Commercial operations have been reduced substantially since the 1999/00 season when the fast track resettlement began. These developments have had, and will continue to have severe repercussions on Zimbabwe food security and foreign exchange earning ability in the short to medium term. There have been significant contradictions in commercial crop areas planted and livestock numbers over the past three years.
UNDP Initiative
Following close liaison between UNDP, CFU, and various donor groups in Harare, the UNDP, under the Secretary General of the United Nations, launched an initiative to fund the land reform programme in Zimbabwe based on 400 farms identified by the CFU around the country as available for resettlement. On the 31st May 2000, the UN Secretary General agreed to send a Senior Administrator of the UNDP to Zimbabwe with refinements to the proposal. This was contigent upon the government of Zimbabwe not resorting to mass compulsory acquisition of commercial farms. The Secretary General was given assurances to this effect by the government. But on the 1st June 2000 when it became apparent government was to publish an Extraordinary Gazette notice in which it identified some 804 properties for acquisition. The UNDP initiative was aborted. The proposal could have provided US$300 million in immediate support for the land reform programme.
Briefing by World Food Programme (WFP)
Overview
1. Justification for WFP intervention
WFP food aid was necessitated by the decline in food production caused by erratic rainfall and disruptions of farming activities on commercial farms by land acquisition activities during the 2000/01 crop season. Food security has also been enhanced by the diminishing purchasing power of the different socio-economic groups as economic growth declines and food availability and accessibility worsened. At the household level, food security problems have also been exacerbated by the high incidence of HIV/AIDS in the country. Zimbabwe has been rated the second most affected by HIV/AIDS in Southern Africa with about 33.4% infected.
Facts and Figure: 2003
4.6 million targeted beneficiaries;
452,955 metric tons of food aid appealed for July 2002 through June 2003;
US$229.4 million needed to fund operations from July 2002 to June 2003 and
South Africa is the only country contributed.
Current WFP operations in Zimbabwe
In the light of last year’s critical food deficit, WFP launched the current emergency operations in July 2002. Food aid is targeted at the most vulnerable households across the country.
The humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe is deteriorating at a dangerously rapid pace. According to the latest joint vulnerability assessment, through the end of April, approximately 7.2 million people need food assistance in Zimbabwe- an increase of half a million since the previous assessment in September 2002. By mid April 2003, WFP had distributed food aid to 4.9 million people in 49 out of 57 districts in Zimbabwe. The UN Agency has distributed 307,000 tons of food in the one year since inception of relief operation.
Preparation and community mobilization process
Several pre-implementation meetings / workshops at national and provincial levels were held in December 2002 with participation of key government officials, provincial and districts level authorities, UN Agencies and NGOs. The targeting, distribution system and the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders were discussed and agreed on.
Districts level meetings, chaired by the District Administrator were held to identify wards to be targeted. These meetings were attended by the chief executive officers of rural district councils, ward councilors, chiefs, representatives from technical and line ministries, implementing NGO partners, local NGOs and community based organizations. Similar meetings convened by chiefs with the help of councilors and other community leaders were held at ward/village level at which the objectives of the WFP operation and beneficiary selection criteria was explained to communities. The selection criteria used is as follows:
No or low food crop harvest;
No or low cash crop harvest;
No fixed salaried employment;
No petty trade or business;
No or low remittance from RSA and other countries;
Livestock less than a defined number;
Priority to be given to female / child headed households, households headed by the terminally ill, elderly or handicapped persons.
Identification, selection and registration process of beneficiaries
Village heads and community in general were responsible for the identification, selection and registration of eligible households using the pre-determined selection criteria under the supervision of GOAL (an NGO). The communities were informed that WFP distributes food aid only according to vulnerability and without regard to political, religious or social affiliation, hence identification, selection and registration of beneficiaries was done accordingly.
Sample house- to- house visits to verify GOAL and WFP field monitors carried out the selected beneficiaries. In some cases, public meetings were held, where names of the selected beneficiaries were called out for purpose of gaining community approval of the registration lists. These meetings also ensured transparency.
Monitoring
Monitoring of the programme in the field is done at various levels:
During delivery of food to the distribution sites to verify the quantity and quality of the commodities delivered;
On site distribution monitoring to monitor the effectiveness of targeting, record keeping, community participation and delivery systems;
Beneficiary contact monitoring is done at distribution sites to check community perceptions on targeting, delivery systems, distribution process and awareness of their entitlements;
Conducting household visits and interviews to check the effectiveness of the targeting process does post- distribution monitoring.
To ensure efficient and proper distribution, GOAL and WFP field monitors work closely together, exchanging information and ideas and ensuring that crucial issues and concerns from beneficiaries are immediately addressed. From time to time GAOL in coordination with WFP and local authorities conducts verification exercises to verify the beneficiary lists. Re-registration is carried out whenever necessary.
Expected beneficiaries
Increasing numbers of beneficiaries under the current Emergency Operation:
* January: 3.5 million
* February: 4.5 million
* March: 4.7 million
* April: 4.6 million
Briefing by representatives of South African Farmers in Zimbabwe from Mwenezi District
Overview
Present situation
The representative of South African farmers in Zimbabwe indicated that they had been looking at this enclave of South African investment in the perspective of politics and ownership, but now had to look at the tragedy of the situation. This not just a mere racial appeal for protection of white farmers investments. The racial aspect was brought into this political survival campaign of the Government because it was known that South African farmers would shift the limelight in the press so that it would be a smoke screen for the more sinister aspects of the political campaign, which would otherwise be hidden.
Humanitarian
Agriculture is the backbone of the Zimbabwean economy on which at least 60% of business benefits from it, either directly or indirectly, therefore with the destruction of the commercial sector it has not only been farm workers who have lost their jobs, but also the workers of those factories and businesses.
During this "war" control of the main staple food has been done by "task teams" to ensure partisan distribution of food. All maize is compelled to go through the GMB and any food stored for either workers or livestock has been confiscated. It is of no consequence whether the maize was bought or grown on the farm.
Donors have come flocking in to hand out free maize to starving people. The only reason there is no food is because of the distribution to the main commercial growers and millers are prohibited from importing directly. So why provide free food for people who are being deliberately prevented from acquiring it through the "normal" channels?
In Mwenezi, there is 94% unemployment rate so surely the prize is to encourage development to create employment. Instead, this is being prevented. Why? The communal people in this dry district have become reliant on food handouts and the district boasts the first place on the top of the list of poorest districts in the country. Why?
Irrigation scheme in the communal areas lay idle. Why?
One of the most unfortunate features of the post independence era has been the command economy, and especially as far as minimum wages and labour controls were concerned. It is a fallacy to think that the resolution of poverty is to continually increase wages, as can be seen to the present answer by Government to the recent fuel price increase. You cannot fight inflation by increasing wages, it is like a dog chasing its tail- it never catches it. This will more than likely result in more job losses in an already crippled economy. It is the workers who are continually suffering the most.
One thing is certain is that the "new" farmers will be unable to afford the newly gazetted wage increase because some are only paying less than $1000 per month at the moment. They have in the district been given "permission" to poach and harvest food from the wild to supplement their pittance of a wage.
Wildlife
Wildlife was once this district’s greatest asset, but the wildlife have been slaughtered. Half of the district has been settled under the A1 intensive settlement scheme. Each family unit is given between 25 ha and 50 ha of our farms. On this they clear 8 ha lands for growing dry land crops, and the rest of the area is used for grazing cattle, goats and donkeys at a completely unsustainable stocking rate. The scavenger dogs continually harass the wildlife, that which may survive the snaring and hunting. Wildlife cannot survive in such an environment.
On the other half of the farms which have been settled under the A2 scheme the wildlife has suffered a similar fate, but from a more commercial hunting scenario. Marauding poachers who have taken advantage of the lawlessness poach some of the farms. The National Parks seem powerless to control the slaughter and claim to be mere civil servants who cannot overrule the political decisions. This has been particularly evident where they have been "unable" to authorize legal farm owners hunting quotas but have instead issued hunting permits to the settlers whether there has been a legal transfer of land or not. The more disturbing factor has been the South African opportunist hunters who have been making deals with settlers on the farms whose ownership has not been legally transferred. This is poaching and theft.
On one of the ranches, which is receiving foreign investment, protection from the French government the owner is unable to attract hunting clients due to the international fear of the present lawlessness and political tension. The same has happened to a large number of safari operators who are now running their businesses externally in more peaceful neighbouring countries.
There is a huge wildlife development potential in the district through the extension of the concept of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park into Mwenezi. However, the biggest threat to this is the present dispute over the unlawful transfer of land compounded by the total destruction of the environment and wildlife in the district.
Cattle Industry
Once again the destruction of livestock industry has been used as a tool with which to break the farmers morally and economically so that they can easily be forced off their farms without payment / compensation for their investment. The tactics which have been used have been to inundated the ranches with herds of communal cattle and to overgraze the paddocks; to burn the grazing and to starve the cattle; lock the cattle for many days in kraals; spread Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) to interfere with sales techniques and to sabotage water pumping and holding facilities.
The inhumane treatment, which has been meted out to the livestock has been horrendous, and apart from the above they have been snared, starved and mutilated.
The commercial livestock figures have been reduced to a mere fraction of what they were before this "war". Foot and Mouth disease is totally out of control and the movement controls have become partisan in favour of the settlers. Cattle sales have been stopped and the only "market" has been e ither to the settlers or for immediate slaughter. As a result there has been a huge irreplaceable loss of the pool of superior genetics, which has been developed over the last hundred years or more.
The commercial cattle industry in Mwenezi has been all but destroyed. This is significant because the national commercial herd has traditionally marketed 90% of the exported beef and 70% of the locally consumed beef. The off-take from the commercial herd has been a constant 30% as opposed to 1-2,5% of the communal herds. We have recurring cases of FMD in the districts which only point to one thing- we have two or more types active in the area at the moment. No typing results have been given to the local veterinary officer since the outbreak was first confirmed in September 2002, and no FMD task force meetings have been held locally since October 2002.
The continual uncontrolled overstocking of the ranches by the settler’s cattle under particular the A1 scheme is totally unsustainable and although cattle have had the advantage of the late rains with subsequent growth in grass, cattle should start dying of lack of grazing again from August onwards.
SADC Investment Protection Protocol
As has been said before the District of Mwenezi has a proportionally large number of people still farming who should fall under such a protection agreement. However, it is admitted that some of those who have registered, and others who have not, have been forced due to political circumstances to renounce their birthright. The fact does remain that many of these people were born in South Africa and their original investment capital came from South Africa.
Others who are probably also debated about are those whose company shareholders are South African residents, some family, some not. There are others who are not on the list who although born and brought up in South Africa have long ago immigrated to Zimbabwe and taken Zimbabwe citizenship. Where do they stand? Surely, a South African is a South African and his investment in Zimbabwe should be protected. Although about 47 farmers from Mwenezi district have registered with the South African High Commission as South Africans.
Law and Order
The application of law and order has been selective and generally partisan throughout this unproductive period. When one of our farmers was recently assaulted and kidnapped the Mwenezi Police had to first seek permission from the hierarchy before they could proceed to arrest his assailants. A distinct line has been drawn to distinguish crime from "political" matters. Generally, anything to do with crime on our farms is considered political and offenders are seldom prosecuted.
Land Administration
Because the government has not legally acquired the farms, they are unable to supply any form of secure land tenure to the settlers. Although a "certificate of occupation" has been given in some cases this can be withdrawn for many unethical reasons.
Although replicas of the communal areas administration system have been set up with the settlers on the farms it has disregarded the traditional leadership. There is little respect for this type of leadership, which often results in continual power struggles and squabbling, as well as only partisan controls.
Although the Minister of Agriculture is technically "the acquiring authority" there are some nine government ministries involved in land administration as well as various other land committees, land task forces and local "Committee of 7", on farms. Therefore in order for any decision to be made there have to be months of individual meetings with all these various groups, which has to result in a few pages of signatures and rubber stamps. Then if just one individual suddenly decides he/she has a personal grudge against the applicant the whole process can be rejected.
Whenever there is anything to discuss nobody knows where the buck stops, and the system is very open to corruption and political interference. Where farmers have made genuine offers or swaps of land they have been encourage using the various land acquisition forms and work through the land committees. This has never worked nor have any agreements made been honoured.
What is urgently needed is for this whole exercise to be scrapped and for the exercise to be run by an impartial, non-partisan Land Board.
Possible solutions
Looking at the damage this unmitigated and unsustainable political programme has done to Zimbabwe, we request that government offer farmers the following guarantees so that they may begin to grow food for the nation again:
Restoration of non selective and non-partisan law and order;
Recognition and guarantee of security and rights of land tenure; and
Viability and sustainability.
There also needs to be development projects in the communal areas and on farms, which have been legally purchased and settled. Settlers would have to be moved off farms where the farmers wish to continue to farm so development would have to occur in the areas where the settlers are to be moved to. It is fortunate that they are not landless people as they do have their homes in their respective rural districts- only the farmers who have been forced out off their homes are landless.
Briefing by African Institute for Agrarian Studies
Overview
The framework could be characterized by three different stages in the land redistribution process.
New Land Act of 1992
The main thrusts of the national policy were presented to Parliament in late July 1990. The government plans were to amend sections of the Land Acquisition Act so that it would be able to acquire land where and when required for resettlement purposes. Furthermore, all land transfers including donations were to be approved by the relevant Minister. Therefore this suggested that subject to the new land Act, the president would compulsorily acquire any land, where the acquisition was necessary in the interests of the public and country planning or the utilization of that or any other property was for a purpose beneficial to the public generally.
Thus, the New Land Acquisition Act was designed to empower the President and other authorities to acquire land and other immovable property compulsorily in certain circumstances and also to provide for the designation of rural land
In 1995 government expropriated more than 100 farms in this manner. In November 1997, government gazetted close to 1500 farms for compulsory acquisition. After government gazetted those farms for acquisition, a Donor Conference was set up (for September 1998) to chart the way forward.
A policy paper was published after the Conference and during this phase 120 farms were offered to government. At least 70 were bought and a further 425 farms were offered to individuals as commercial operations under the indiginisation and tenant scheme.
International Donors Conference on Land Reform and Resettlement (September 1998)
The Conference agreed that Land Reform and Resettlement programme would go ahead. One aspect that was agreed on was that the programme would be implemented in a transparent, fair and sustainable manner, with regard to respect for the law, and broadened stakeholder as well as as beneficiary participation. It was also indicated that the programme would be enriched by further and on-going consultations with stakeholders and co-operating partners as well as learning from external experiences.
The conference supported the Inception Phase, which was to be implemented over 24 months. This was to begin with the resettlement of 118 farms on offer, the implementation of current government resettlement models and the provision of opportunities for testing alternative approaches. A task team made up of government and donors was to be set up to monitor the Inception Phase.
On the 31 May 2000 UN Secretary General Koffi Anan agreed to send a Senior Administrator of the UNDP to Zimbabwe with refinements to the donor conference proposal. However, on the evening of 1st June when it became known that the government was to publish an Extraordinary Government Gazette notice identifying more than 800 properties for acquisition. The whole initiative was aborted.
Briefing by Vice President of the Republic of Zimbabwe
Overview
The Vice President welcomed the delegation and indicated that it was important to exchange views from time to time in order to get facts of the current situation in Zimbabwe. The Vice President outlined the historical situation before independence.
The resolution was taken during the war that the redistribution of land should happen in Zimbabwe. This did form part of the Lancaster Agreement. As a result of the compromise this was put in the Constitution. Ten years later the issue of land was raised with the British government. The British view was that the status quo be maintained.
During the 1998 International Donor conference it was agreed that each farmer would have one farm. About $65 million was put upfront to deal with the land programme. Later it was indicated that that the matter should be determined by the judiciary. The programme could not take off because of the peculiar Zimbabwean relationship between the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.
Communal land had become too congested. The current land reform programme is divided into two categories, that is, A1 and A2 models. This was introduced in order to alleviate the problem of congestion in Communal Lands. This has given people an opportunity to do some farming. The government is also determining the maximum farm size. However, government is open to any suggestions presented, because it knows it will not be absolutely right in the implementation stage. No white farmer has been expelled in Zimbabwe. The government is aware that in some instances there are some wrong doings that have happened, however, such issues are being addressed. For example, for some of the farms were listed in a wrong manner, government has had to de-list such farms.
Traditional leaders are involved in the district committees, as they are answerable to the Governor of the Province. Their primary role is to determine who should go to a particular piece of land because they are the ones who know their subjects.
Briefing by Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlements
Overview
Land Redistribution –1980
* Large scale commercial 39% 15.5 million (hectares)
* Small scale commercial 41% 1.4 million hectares
* Communal 16.4 million hectares
* National Parks & Urban 6.0 million hectares
* State land 0.3 million hectares
From 1980 to 1998 the land redistribution was on the basis of the Lancaster House Agreement. The agreement was on willing buyer / willing seller. The government realized that this was not taking the country any further as far as the land redistribution was concerned. From 1998 to 2000 government continued to acquire land for resettlement on a fast tracked pace. This was a response of the government to the outcry that the resettlement programme was very slow. The overall target was to resettle 500 000 families. However, 11 million hectors that have been listed, which according to the Minister will be looked at.
Guidelines
There are stipulated guidelines to be followed in acquiring land, for example:
Derelic land;
Underutilised land;
Land under multiple ownership;
Foreign owned land;
Land adjacent to communal areas;
Absentee landlords
Exemptions
Whenever the government is to acquire land the following exemptions are taken into account:
Plantation farms;
Agro industrial properties;
Farms belonging to Churches / Missions;
Bilateral Investment Protection; and
Approved wildlife conservations
Resettlement models
Model A1 – for resettlement purposes
Model A2 – for commercial purposes
Briefing by Portfolio Committee on Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement
Overview
Land tenure, land reform and security of tenure
Both colonial and African governments alike have shown little respect or understanding of the land tenure systems practiced by majority of their rural people. Government needs to appreciate that land tenure institutions are invariably unique and develop over time to suit the local needs. Moreover, land tenure institutions are rooted in value systems and grounded in religious, social, political and cultural antecedents, which make them vulnerable to outside intervention. Within Africa, the nexus between tenure and government is found in the colonial and post- colonial belief that indigenous or traditional tenure systems are incompatible with Western systems of government, as well as the associated economic institutions.
Land reform encompasses any change, which redistributes land. Because land is finite resource and its ownership generally symbolic of wealth, social status and political power, all forms of land reform are political in nature. Land reform, therefore, often involves restructuring patterns of wealth, income flows, social status and so on. These are very basic elements of or ingredients of politics. Land reform is a revolutionary process and passes power, property and status from one societal group to another.
The Kenyan and some degree Zimbabwean experience with state imposed change from traditional to registered title has experienced problems based on the fundamental interpretation of these rights under customary law or belief. Often, traditional inheritance and succession laws will supersede the implied statutory law of inheritance. Moreover, in most patrilineal African societies, registered title usually means the individual name of the male head of household appears on the title. Since that title is negotiable property, women and dependents children are often prejudiced when property is let or foreclosed; business they were not party to.
Governance issues and implications
The majority of Africans hold their land under indigenous customary land tenure systems irrespective of the formal legal position under national law. Most African governments designate traditional land as a State Land. Most governments accept the de facto prevalence to customary tenure while at the same time maintain the de jure state ownership, which in turn allows bureaucrats, politicians and influential people to exercise privilege and authority over traditional land and rural communities. Other governments have attempted to replace customary tenure with state guaranteed individual rights (registered title). The general experience, however, has been that due to weaknesses of government institutions in Africa, state imposed individualized tenure systems do not offer greater security for African land users.
Legal and administrative processes
A fundamental problem is the clash between customary laws governing tenure and statutory laws, which are often based on European legal principles. A general observation is that customary laws always tend to confer greater recognition to group rights, whereas Western laws emphasis individual rights. These differences also lead to further differences in other elements of property rights institutions such as inclusion, exclusion, succession and inheritance.
Briefing by Council of Chiefs Representatives
Overview
In Zimbabwe traditional leaders are incorporated into community structures. Headmen reports to Chiefs. Some of the issues raised in some of the presentations are not a correct reflection on the ground. Land is given to Zimbabweans who can effectively utilize it and be productive on the land. The Governor of a particular Province chairs meetings of chiefs. Their meetings are scheduled quarterly. Villagers, communities and districts are working smoothly with people involved in land redistribution. There are also experts from government that assist the community to control numbers on resettlement schemes.
Briefing by Commercial Farmers Union (CFU)
Overview
Land and politics have been central to conflict in Zimbabwe for many years. In 1980 when Zimbabwe received its independence, there was reconciliation between all parties. Farmers were encouraged to farm. What gave farmers confidence then was that clauses affecting the appropriation of land and property were entrenched in the Lancaster House Constitution, written up at Independence.
Simply put, if government wanted to compulsorily acquire land, it had to pay compensation in the currency of the landowner’s choice. Also, land was bought on a willing seller, willing buyer basis. Three million hectares were acquired on that policy in the first ten years of independence. As a result, farmers invested heavily into their land, creating sophisticated infrastructure to develop their businesses, be it livestock, tobacco, grain horticulture, sugar, tea, or coffee etc.
Matters started getting difficult from mid 1990s, when Government had seen that the land reform programme had not gone as quickly as hoped. At that time the land issue was taken out of the institution of government and made a Party issue. This has politicized the land issue, which has not been good for commercial farmers. Decisions on land reform are now made on party political rather than sustainable production lines.
In 1997, after the decision to make the land reform programme a party project, the first listing of farms on a grand compulsory acquisition basis occurred. This was done on the terms of the now amended Land Acquisition Act that allowed government to take land without paying compensation.
In an attempt to stabilize the situation, what was known as the 1998 Donor Conference was organized. All parties got together and a comprehensive document was drawn up showing the scope of the land reform programme of over 5 million hectares of land. This land was chosen where government wanted it as opposed to where farmers wanted it. The whole programme was to cost US$2 billion. About 46 countries attended the Donor Conference. There were pledges of support for the principles, however, donor were reluctant to give money before they saw capacity to do such a massive programme.
The CFU in the meantime worked hard on some pilot projects to show land reform could be done successfully on commercial farms. Government was not particularly keen on private sector initiatives –they wanted a massive national land reform programme.
In April 2000, on the last day of Parliament, the Act that dealt with property was amended. It said that rural agricultural land that was acquired for resettlement would not be paid for. No compensation for the land, but the government would pay for improvements on the land. Compensation was the responsibility of the former colonial power.
Government has created a land Act that gives a farmer a notice of acquisition, that is, Section 5. That farmer has to object to or concede his farm in writing to the Ministry of Agriculture. The majority of farmers have objected. The government should issue a Section 7, which summonses the farmer to court to argue the case of why he should keep his farm. If government succeeds the farmer will be issued a Section 8, which is a notice of eviction and compensation should be agreed upon. However, government has amended the Land Act as follows: It will issue a Section 5 first, followed by Section 8. In other words the farmer is evicted from his farm within 90 days. So in reality, the farmer has to move off his farm, the farm is resettled and then he goes to court under section 7 notice, which could take up to five years to be heard.
What farmers have been doing is to find mechanisms to set aside the eviction notices through the courts. Government accuses farmers of frustrating the land reform programme and resorts to illegal use of gangs of thugs, police and settlers to force farmers off their land unwillingly. This situation is the most common way that farmers are being forced off their land. They are continuously pressurized and harassed at their farm homesteads until eventually they move off under duress.
The Commercial Farmers Union was forced, under these circumstances, to take a class action against government and the manner in which the land reform programme was being implemented. The case was heard in the Supreme Court and a favourable ruling was given to the Union that the programme was not being carried out in an organized and transparent manner, and declared all acquisition processes illegal.
However, after a reshuffle of the Supreme Court Judges, resulting in the Chief Justice resigning, government appealed against the favourable ruling to the Union, and a new judgment was issued. The new Chief Justice said that farmers may win in law but this was social justice and declared the land reform programme legal. In his judgment he added that no class actions would be recognized, however individual farmers had recourse to the law.
As a result of this court action, government broke off all links and communication with the Commercial Farmers Union. The CFU was unable to communicate with the Minister of Agriculture to discuss the manner in which the land reform programme was progressing.
In attempts to engage government in dialogue, a programme known as Zjri (Zimbabwe Joint Resettlement Initiative), where farmers, together with the business community, offered finance, expertise and other resources to demonstrate to government that Zimbabweans as a whole wished to see a land reform programme being carried out in a transparent, well organized manner was initiated. Over million hectares of land were offered to uncontested to government as an initial kick-off to a sustainable land reform programme. This initiative was recognized by the Vice President’ office, however the Ministry of Lands chose to ignore it and has subsequently collapsed.
In both Parliamentary elections and the presidential election, land has been used as the cornerstone of the ruling party’s campaign.
During the Presidential election, farmers were once again on the front line and systematically organized commercial agriculture was shut down. There is no doubt that while elections are high and the ruling party is trying to maintain grip on power, issues of production are not at the forefront of policy. Production throughout the commercial sector, from what it was in 2000, has been reduced by 70% and is being further eroded.
For example:
Year 2000 Year 2003
Maize 810 000 tonnes 80 000 tonnes
Soya beans 162 000 tonnes 30 000 tonnes
Wheat 283 000 tonnes 60 000 tonnes
Tobacco 229 million kgs 65 million kgs
Livestock 1.2 million head 150 000 head
Dairy 176 million litres 110 000 million litres
Existing irrigation schemes for winter cereals were up to 65 000 hectares in the extent, however these schemes have been looted and damaged and the CFU estimates that 15 000 hectares are still operational.
As poverty and unemployment increase, theft of assets increases, so making it very difficult for farmers to continue their operations.
Farmers are saying they cannot continue to operate sustainable businesses in this environment. Farmers are now reluctant to remain in production and will only consider doing so when there is a substantial change to the operational environment.
New farmers are not achieving their production levels due to the lack of knowledge, skills, inputs, finance, so that they do not have the capacity to replace production levels that previous commercial farmers were at.
Briefing by Indigenous Commercial Farmers Union (ICFU) & Zimbabwe Farmers Union (ZFU)
Overview
Impact of land reform on food
9 months supply of food supply is back till next harvest;
Good rains next year will see more maize coming out of the farms;
Two crops are rain fed October – April and winter Aril to September.
Cotton
Maize and cotton have been entry crops for small- holder farmers, maize and soya beans for large scale. Cotton depots, which have been closed due to low supply for example, Bankets have now opened due to the for more deposits demand. Average production of 200 000 tunes will increase to 250 000 tunes this season and in few years up to 300 000 tunes. Pricing and supply will do the trick.
Tobacco
Average production was 200 million kg at independence. Current production has bottomed up at 120 million. A loss of 80 million kg of tobacco season climbing back to 200 million. In 3 years time expect to double the crop to 400 million. How?
White farmers produced tobacco from only 25% of arable tobacco land-the crop of rotation 1 to 4 years is shortening that to 1 to 2 years will have double crop without opening new land. The research has produce varieties that that permit continues cropping.
Livestock
Most cattle from old commercial farming areas have been absorbed into A1 and A2. There had been some losses with outgoing farmers slaughtering in calves, cows, and bulled heifers. The drought also played havoc so the national herd has dropped from 6 million to 5.5 million.
Challenges
Farmers who left their farms took their tractors. Some are locked up in Harare or on the farms. Government is trying to have that equipment released and some negotiations are taking place. Total fleet of tractors before land reform programme was about 44 000 but those currently available are 20 000- 25 000.
The country needs more 5 000 new tractors every year. Through the Tobacco Scheme, the ICFU bought in 1000 units, which are being rationed out. The demand for trac tors is astronomical- affordable tractors even if we reach 5 000 tractors a year it would take 10 years to get each A2 farmer one. Some farmers require 3-4 on average.
Irrigation
Z$8.5 billion has been set aside to develop irrigation, mainly rehabilitate infrastructure-pumps, spray lime etc. There is a need to develop new schemes in all areas, the Low veld with over 100 000 hectares will turn a wasteland into green belt with irrigation. At a go 3 crops can be grown.
Land Bank
Innovative financing TGT and Merchants, such as cotton, beef farmers are reviving cattle finance scheme.
Overall
The land reform programme has unlocked the agricultural potential of the country. The large- scale farms were too large for individual farmers, with utilization of between 25-40%, with land reform the farms are smaller and manageable.
Seed
Up until the land reform the country required 33 000 tones of seed (maize). Last year, 47 000 were used and was not enough. Indications are that the country needs 60-70 000 tones of maize seed every year. More seed producers are needed and are currently being developed.
10. Fertilizers
The fertilizer companies cannot cope. There is shortage of forex but production capacity is not enough. Land reform is a mammoth exercise, which requires huge investments and can create jobs never realized before.
Labour
Labour is going to be at the premium. The 4 000 old white farmers employed 300 000. If the 54 000 new farmers, employ 10 workers – 540 000 new jobs could be created.
Extension services
The commercial sector before, the land reform was serviced by very few extension staff. Mostly were doing conservation works. Now every ward has four extension staff. Advice is there at farmers door- step. Unions are busy organizing commodity associations to complement government efforts. Even in urban areas there are extension officers to advise urban farmers who grow a crop in between houses and vacant plots awaiting development.
Briefing by Agricultural and Rural Development Authority (ARDA)
Overview
Mandate of ARDA
ARDA was formed through an Act of Parliament, the Agricultural and Rural Development Act (Chapter 8), with a statutory mandate whose functions include to: plan, coordinate, implement, promote and assist agricultural developments and carry out schemes for the development, exploitation, utilization, settlement or disposition of State land.
Profile of ARDA
ARDA’s mission is to spearhead the commercialization of agriculture and rural development with increased support to farmers so as to facilitate the production of sufficient high quality food for the nation, and generate employment and income on a sustainable basis.
ARDA’s Key Areas of Organizational Performance
Commercial operations on ARDA estates
Support to farmers (both A1 & A2)
Support to rural development
Coordination of marketing services
Progress to date
Resettlement programme
Phase 1: 1980-1997
Technical support
Land Board activities
Disbursement of resettlement funds
Custodian role by management of State Lands
Small holder rural development programme
Phase 2: 1997 – 2000
Instituted in 1997 when ARDA gave way five Estates to the Commercial Farm Settlement Scheme.
Phase 3: 2000 – 2003
Pivotal role in the provision of:
Crop inputs;
Livestock inputs; and
Livestock input scheme:
Z$400 million disbursed;
532 farmers benefited;
478 dairy cows purchased;
4 919 beef cattle purchased
Dairy Production
Artificial insemination (AI) programmes;
Tillage and other mechanical services to the newly resettled farmers.
Irrigation support programme
April 2002 to date, the provision of loan facility to farmers for the rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure Z$9.8 billion disbursed;
1000 farmers benefited
52 403 hectares rehabilitated
Livestock Development
Supply of dairy bulls;
Dairy processing;
32 small scale holder dairy centers planned and implemented;
18 fully equipped for milk processing.
Seed Development
ARDA is the single largest seed producer for the country’s seed houses;
Grows over 30% of the national land produce for maize, wheat and cotton;
Facilitating production of seed under the new schemes through provision of the technical and advisory services to the new farmer.
Seed Nursery Development
Earlier fruit & vegetable projects the nursery development at transsau Estate for the out grower farmers;
Major source of production for urban markets;
Move to assist in rehabilitation of A2 settled farmers in fruit plantations in several provinces;
Extension support to tea / coffee out-growers and the provision of marketing services.
Tobacco Production Support
Stabilize production through:
Rehabilitation of curing facilities;
Irrigation rehabilitation;
Nursery development for both A1 &A2 farmers for 2003/4 season targeting to support up to 500 ha of tobacco.
Key success factors
Diverse experienced staff able to deliver in all the strategic business units;
Performance standards and targets are set at corporate, operational and individual levels;
Efficient management and coordination of resources, capitalization on economies of scale;
Experience in development initiatives and able to play as role model.
Strategic Alliances
ARDA undertakes the above programmes with:
The parent Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlements and other government departments;
Other parastatals;
Private sector actors; and
Partners in other countries.
Briefing by Agri- Business Association
Overview
Before the Land Reform Programme
Challenges:
Management skills;
Access to finance;
Training;
Technical support; and
Marketing opportunities.
Briefing by General Agriculture and Plantation Workers Union of Zimbabwe & Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe (FCTZ)
Overview
Most farm workers had not been resettled and that the majority of them are unemployed, making it difficult to buy food or pay school fees for children. The lucky few that now work for new settlers in A1 and A2 complained about low salaries and in some cases poor working conditions.
Farm workers at some farms have no protective clothing, no maternity leave, and breast- feeding time while some work during weekends. Casual workers are being paid $300 a day, which they complained is not even enough to buy bath-soap.
As food shortages and unemployment scale new heights among farm worker communities, farmer workers have pleaded with the government to be included in the land resettlement programme.
There are reports that indicated that many farm workers are crying fowl over their exclusion. The ex-farm workers are of the view that farming is the only option for survival since they are unemployed did not get pensions and have no other source of income.
For example, there are instances where it is said that out of the total workforce of more than 150 workers, only 12 were allocated land. The rest remained without land and unemployed. The newly resettled A1 farmers at the farm cannot afford to employ the former farm workers.
Some of the incidences are that the new farmers who settled are not tilling the land. They are mainly into gold panning. The former farm workers were living in constant fear as the settlers on the farm are threatening to evict them from the farm.
The future of the thousands farm workers and their families are unknown on most farms. The government and NGOs efforts to ensure peaceful co-existence amongst the ex-farm workers and newly resettled farmers seem to have fallen on deaf ears. Violence, harassment, physical assault counter accusations of theft and eviction farm workers are the order of the day on farms where the groups have failed to mend their relations.
The farm workers however are willing to move from the farms and relocate to other places by the government if they were assured of land and a place to build homes.
Observations
There is a consensus amongst the Zimbabweans including Non- Governmental Organizations and both the opposition and ruling parties in Zimbabwe, that they support the land reform programme and it should take place, however in a correct way and on an equitable basis;
For the success of any land reform in a country, the national budget allocation must be adequate to undertake and sustain the settlement programme;
The lack of foreign currency in a country impacts negatively on both the sustainability of the land reform programme and the general socio-economic development of the country;
The land reform in Zimbabwe seems to be legislatively driven and where courts rule agai nst some clauses, Parliament quickly amend the law;
The land reform programme has impacted negatively on food security, due to inability of new farmers to necessary implements, capacity building, skills and financial support to undertake active agricultural activities;
Droughts played a negative role in the Zimbabwean agricultural production levels and socio-economic development;
New farmers face serious challenges in making their agricultural ventures due to lack or inability of private sector involvement, foreign currency and high bank interest rates;
Lack of agricultural infrastructure contributes in hampering agricultural development e.g. irrigation systems, tractors etc.;
In some instances rich and profitable land is some how not used for agricultural food production purposes but for business ventures like game farming, etc which impact on sustaining food security;
The Zimbabwean government has taken long time to monitor the implementation process as well as the review of their land reform policy implementation;
Whilst the policy states that all Zimbabweans who require land should have it, and that the intended beneficiaries are those that have Zimbabwean citizenship and specifically those who have fought during the liberation struggle (war veterans), some members of public, however seemed to have problems when the senior government official and / or ministers benefiting from the land reform programme;
Lack of communication between Zimbabweans (NGOs and political parties) seemed to exacerbate both the social and economical conditions in the country;
The Zimbabwean Parliament through the Portfolio Committee on Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement did not play an active role in the land reform process and its implementation, that is, by fulfilling oversight and monitoring function;
Agricultural unions are highly politicized, to an extent that discussion are not focused on the agricultural industry, challenges or development but are being based on party politics;
Polarization of the media has exacerbated the situation in Zimbabwe to an extent that the government, the NGO’s, the political organizations and the public in general, speak through the media as opposed to have or organize meetings;
The protection and or assistance to law abiding South African farmers in Zimbabwe need to be looked into and addressed;
In some areas the land reform program has negatively impacted on the job security specifically for people who are from neighboring countries, however, it does seem that the government has amended its laws to accommodate these Africans who have been staying in that country for a very long time;
The assistance provided to Zimbabwe by the South African government in combating Foot and Mouth disease, has limited the damages that could have been caused in the agricultural sector;
The Zimbabwean government has a compensation policy however, compensation for land acquired for resettlement purposes, the Zimbabwean policy is that the money should come from the British government in terms of the Lancaster House Agreement;
In Zimbabwe communal land is administered by the government, which sets up committees and district offices that monitor and allocate people to this land. Traditional leaders are represented on these committees and district level offices, which administer communal land;
It came to the attention of the delegation that the World Food Programmes food distribution is not politicized, the distribution criterion were laid down and all those who do not comply will not benefit, and the delegation observed how the distribution of food was well managed.
S. Recommendations
Parliament, when considering the Communal Land Rights Bill, should take note of observations in the Zimbabwean land reform process;
Parliament should work hand in glove with the Zimbabwean Parliament, to create a working relationship that facilitates discussions on matters impacting on land and food security;
Parliament recommend that the South African government if need arises should assists Zimbabwe on economic development and economic relations be strengthened in order to uplift the Zimbabwean economy;
Parliament encourages government and the South African agricultural sector to assist their counterparts, in the development of the agricultural sector in Zimbabwe, through sustained interaction and establish agricultural exchange programs;
* When there is a need for food aid in Zimbabwe, the South African parliament should consider voting for this and contribute through the World Food Program as the food programme reached the intended beneficiaries.
Conclusion
The delegation is satisfied that it attained the objectives identified by the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture and Land Affairs for the study visit to Zimbabwe and want thank all participants mentioned here below.
List of participants
Office of the South African High Commissioner in Zimbabwe:
Mr Jerry Ndou, South African High Commissioner
Mr K Sithole, Assistant to the High Commissioner
Mr J Vilakazi, Assistant to the High Commissioner
General Sibaqa, Defence matters
Crisis Coalition in Zimbabwe:
Ms EJ Win
Ms J Ncube
Mr R Hadebe
Ms W Mhanda
Zimbabwe Liberators Platform, Mr A. Mukwendi
Zimbabwe Liberators Platform, Mr W Munodawafa
African institute for Agrarian Studies, Executive Director, Prof. Sam Moyo
World Bank, Senior Rural Development Specialist, Mr Caesar Chidawanyika
United Nations Development Programme, Mr Victor Angelo
World Food Programme, Deputy Director, Ms Gawaher Atif
South African Farmers in Zimbabwe:
Mr Louis Uys,
Mr Mike Clarke
Mr Pieter Henning
Mr Digby Nesbitt
Vice President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, Mr Joseph Msika
Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement, Mr Mde
Portfolio Committee on Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement: Hon. Dipanga – Zanu PF
Hon. Sibanda – MDC
Hon. Gasela – MDC
Hon. Rooibel – MDC
Chief Bedi – Traditional leader
Hon. Nkosi – MDC
Hon. Kankayi – Zanu PF
Hon. Ncube – Zanu PF
Chiefs Council Representatives:
Chief Hama
Chief Mkota
Chief Charumbiya
Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers Union:
Mr MB Fox ex-farmer
Mr D Taylor Freere, Vice President
Mr Colin Cloete, President
Mr Mac Crawford, Vice President
Mr Hendrik Olivier, Director
Zimbabwe Farmers Union & Indigenous Commercial Farmers Union:
Mr Watter Nzembi, ZFU
Mr Tafereyi Chamboko, ZFU
Mr Wilfreds Mashinendze, ZFU
Mr Thomas Nherera, ICFU
Mr Davidson Mugabe, President: ICFU
Mr Silus Nungwe, President: ZFU
Mr Edward Paradza, ZFU
Agricultural and Rural Development Authority
Dr JZZ Matowanyika, Chief Executive Officer
Mr K Shamu, National Coordinator (Special Projects)
Ms E Mputa, Director Planning Service
Agri-Business Association
Mr Edward Paradza, Farmers World
Mr Eben Makhesa
Mr Walter Mtembi, Agri-Business Chairman
Mr Ivan Savala, FSI Agricom Holdings
Mr Phillip Chimukute, Farm City Centre
Mr Vincent Gwarazimba, ZSTA
Mr Walter Chigodora, Seed Co. Ltd
Mr Mutsa Mujaji, William Bain & Co. Holdings
Mr Onisai Machirindza, Windmill (Pty) Ltd
General Agriculture and Plantation Workers Union of Zimbabwe & Farm Community Trust of Zimbabwe
Mr Killian Mhoya, GAPWUZ
Mr Golden Magwaza, GAPWUZ
Ms Juliet Sithole, GAPWUZ
Ms Sophie Hamandishe, FCTZ
Mr Taddious Pasiparodza, FCTZ
Mr Jeffrey Foko, FCTZ
Ms Violah Shamu, GAPWUZ
Ms GetrudeHambira, GAPWUZ
Mr Godfrey Magaramomba, FCTZ
Report to be considered.