Mixed feelings over productivity reports

THE recent announcement by the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Fisheries, Water and Rural Development to have both A1 and A2 farmers submit annual production reports by February 15 has been received with mixed reactions by stakeholders.

Many are hopeful the process will resolve challenges some farmers are facing before land is repossessed if need be. Robbing Peter to pay Paul might not be the best solution as feared by some farmers.

The major reason why Government embarked on land redistribution was to de-congest those rural areas where indigenous people were forced to live in infertile rocky areas while only 4 500 whites occupied more than 80 percent of the country’s fertile land.

As such, one cannot make available something which is in short supply by dispossessing those who already have.

The real issue is that when the land reform programme started in earnest in 2000, led by war veterans, Government called on every Zimbabwean regardless of gender, tribe or political affiliation to apply for land.

Those who heeded the call indeed submitted applications to the then Ministry of Lands and Rural Resettlement where applicants were required to fill in forms to indicate whether they were interested in A1 or A2 farms.

It was not an easy road to these brave new farmers to take over the allocated pieces of land as they faced resistance from the previous owners. Running battles were fought as the previous owners mobilised their employees to fight the new occupants.

Lives and property were lost from both sides as running battles ensued with former owners using their employees to attack the new occupants. At some police stations, the police officers danced to the tune of the white farmers, who had the financial muscle to influence decisions. Many new black land owners were arrested and charged for invading the farms.

Only those who braved the fights remained on the land, as others surrendered and left, never to return to the farms.

As a result, there were many pieces of land that remained vacant as some new occupants abandoned the farms, because they feared that the land reform programme would not succeed. It is against this background that farmers who acquired land during this time are saying that the productivity reports should not be used as a smokescreen to wantonly dislodge them from the land.

Repossessing the land is not the universal solution to address utilisation of the farms. Consideration should be made to address the concerns of the existing land owners. They have been through a lot. Failure to fully utilise land has been caused by a number of factors such as delays in the delivery of inputs and lack of capital to invest on the farm.

Although the Command Agriculture programme is a noble initiative that has uplifted many a farmer, there is a challenge that farmers do not receive the inputs on time. Timing is of the utmost importance in farming, so when inputs are delayed, the crop may fail.

Below are the views of some agriculture experts and farmers on the productivity reports.

Mr Aaron Mubayiwa —Agric expert “What guarantee is there that the next person to be allocated the repossessed piece of land is going to utilise it? All what is required is to fine tune the whole chain of production before embarking on repossessions. Those on the land sacrificed a lot to be there. They should not be punished for having the land. The production reports have sections asking farmers what their challenges are and these must be the entry points for Government towards combating the failure to utilise the land. When the land reform started, we had Doubting Thomases who did not believe that it would succeed. These are the same people that are now clamouring for land. Government should also consider the challenges that existing farmers face. Payments for maize and wheat farmers are delayed. Tobacco farmers spend up to a week sleeping at the auction floors to sell the crop. They then wait another week to get paid. Farming loans come with heavy interest rates, leaving most farmers to avoid them. Many farmers have lost their properties and equipment for failure to pay up loans, even in cases where the crop has failed due to natural disasters such as droughts.

Mr Peter Nyoni — Farmer

“The erstwhile Ministry of Lands and Rural Resettlement used to monitor farmer performance during the first five years as follows: The first three months from date of offer were used to check if the farmer had taken possession of the farm. If not, the offer was withdrawn. Then the first year was to check progress as per farmer’s five-year programme and if not satisfied the offer was again withdrawn. After three years it would check if recommendations made at the application were still within the agreed timeframe. Then year five was used to check on achievements. From there, nobody bothered the farmer as he or she was now considered a farmer.”

Agriculture expert who asked not to

be named

“If one is to analyse the productivity form/ questionnaire carefully, one would realise that it is one of the ways that Government is using to gather statistical information so as to enable it to make informed decisions. The major purpose of this is to increase and sustain agriculture production and its contribution to the GDP.

“The Government can better assist when it gets information from the horse’s mouth. We had slackened on this after adopting the land reform programme, so I think now, Government is doing the right thing.”

Mr Ronald Chiwundura — Farmer “If it is for national statistics it is a right move. But if it is an excuse to take back the land from the poor and give it to the rich then it becomes problematic.’’

Mr Ngoni Mufudza — Farmer “We hope that this move seeks to compile information to assist the farmers. We pray that it is not a witch-hunt to take them off the farms.

◆