From: bing@jazz.concert.net (Carter E. Bing)
Subject: Zimbabwean Land Reform
Organization: Center for Communications, MCNC; RTP, NC
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:08:12 GMT

   		Mangwende Spells Out Land Policy Requirments


	The question of land distribution has been one of the most critical
 policy issue that has faced the Goverment since independance.

	The minister of Lands, Argiculture and Rural Resettlement, Ode Witness
 Magwende sad this when he spelt out the new land policy in an address to the 
 Commercial Farmers` Union (CFU), in Harare, on January 11.

	The full test of the minister`s speech follows:

	First of all I would like to thank the president of the Commercial     
 Farmer's Union (CFU) for inviting me to this meeting and for according me
 the opportunity to address members of the farming community on the important
 issue of land distribution in this country.

	The question of land distribution has been one of the most critical      policy issue that has faced the independant Government of Zimbabwe. The land 
 issue was of fundamental significance during the struggle for independence. To
 the majority of black Zimbaweans it was the raison dietre for the liberation
 war. It was therefore inevitable that for independence to have any meaning for
 the majority of the population, Government had to embark on the resettlement  
 programme. Ten years after the attainment of independence, Government has only  managed to resettle about 52,000 families. Given the increasing population 
 pressure in communal areas, the pressure to proceed faster with resettlement
 is mounting. In fact, any undue delays in land distribution may yield political social and economic disruptions and instability.

	Given the highly emotive nature of the land issue in this country, it is a mammoth task to come up with a policy that is acceptable to all the sectors 
 of the country that have vested interests in the land issue.

	Government has therefore tried to come up with a pragmatic policy that 
 reconciles all the divergent political, and economic interests encompassed by
 this divergent subject. In fact, the Lancaster House Constitution nearly broke
 down on the land issue as the different parties could not reconcile their 
 interests.

	The provisions of the Lancaster House Constitution were accepted by the
 Patriotic Front on the understanding that massive foreign resources will be 
 made available for the programme which admittedly has happened to a limited 
 extent. However, if cognisance is taken of the magnitude and national           importance of the land issue, selfish interests need to be sacrificed for 
 national gains. It is clear that some commercial farmers have to give up some   of their land as dictated by our socio-political realities.

	It must be stressed that the land question is a time bomb which must be
 solved now. The time for energy consuming debates on the desirability or other
 wise of this programme has run out. Only tangible action is required.

	In this respect, it is always important to remind ourselves of the basic facts so that we can all appreciate the complexity of the subject that we are 
 talking about. I would like therefore to begin briefly outlining the land 
 distribution system at independence and then go on to show the picture that
 exists at present before indicating what Government has decided for the future.

	Land Distribution at Independence:

	Zimbavwe has a total land area of 39 million hectares. Of this 
 about 33.3 million hectares have been reserved for agricultural purposes. The
 remaining six million hectares has been reserved for national parks and wild
 life and urban settlements.

	As a result of deliberately orchestrated policies of the previous 
 colonial governments, at independence we inherited a land distribution
 system which was highly skewed in favour of the large scale commercial
 farmers who in most cases were predominantly white.

	Agricultural land was divided along racial lones as follows:

	(i) 6,000 white large scale commercial farmers controlled
            about 15.5 million hectares which was almost half of  
            all the agricultural land.

	(ii) 700, 00 communal area families controlled about 16.4 million
            hectares and,

	(iii) 8,500 small scale commercial farmers had about 1.4 million
            hectares.

	This uneven land distribution pattern between the arge scale commerial 
 sector and the communal areas also extended to the suitability of land for
 agricultures purposes. Of the total communal area land, ever three quarters is
 located in the low rainfall regions IV and V where the potential of the land    for agricultural production is severely limited. In the large scale commercial
 sector, over half of the total land is located in the high rainfall regions
 of I, II, III where the land is very suitable for agricultural production.

	In addition the large scale commercial sector, had access to the best
 support services such as credit, transport, research, extension and marketing
 facilities that were available in the country. There is no need in my view to
 recount the various pieces of obnoxious legislation that brought about this 
 inequitable system of land distribution. Our task now is to look in the future
 with a view to redress these unjustified anomalies. However in doing so we      still have to cognisant of the realities of the past. Otherwise we run the risk
 of failing to find a confluence of discourse between the politics and economics of land.

	For example, we all appreciate the importance of the large scale 
 commercial sector in the economic devlopment of this country. The commercial
 farming sector provides employment for over 225,000 farm workers, produces 
 60 percent of the nation's gross agricultural output, 82 percent of crop
 sales, 94 peercent of marketed livestock offtake, and 50 percent of export
 earnings. At the same time the highly skewed distribution of land means that
 1,000,000 farm families which means between 6-7 million people remain in
 over-crowded communal lands located mainly in the poorest rainfall regions.
 The result is low productivity and natural resource degradation. This 
 obviously fuels the demand for land re-distribution and Government must redress the imbalances of the past in the interest of both political and economic
 stability.

	What we all need to appreciate is the fact that the present system of 
 land holding is untenable and unacceptable. Reform is obsolutely necessary 
 if not imperative.

	(end part one)

     

 
 
--
 "The oak sleeps in the acorn, the gaint sequoia sleeps in it`s tiny seed,
  the bird waits in the egg and God waits for his unfolding in man."
       Funkadelic                       bing@concert.net 
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african