Land reform: think tank raises questions

WHILE the Government has taken plausible measures to address limitations in the existing resettlement land titles, analysts have raised questions on some of the recent pronouncements, pointing out potential deficiencies in the scope and adequacy of the planned new interventions, including possible shortcomings relating to bankability, nature of tenure and confounding interpretation of the proposed new policy wording.

This comes after the Government recently reiterated that the land reform programme was carried out to address inequalities that existed during the colonial era to ensure that every Zimbabwean had equitable access to agricultural land.

Notably, most of the beneficiaries of the programme conduct farming as a business with young people accounting for a significant proportion of the indigenous commercial farmers.

In a statement on the planned interventions, the Government listed several challenges to the success of the land reform programme.

These include the fact that farmers face difficulties in accessing finance for their farming activities, lack of security of tenure, resulting in farmers not fully developing their land holdings as well as succession to farmers’ land holdings after their death creating problems as some holdings are divided up among surviving relatives.

Further, farmers have failed to repay loans given or guaranteed by the Government while land barons have been allocating land for urban development without regard for planning laws.

To address the challenges, the Government indicated it would implement several measures to make sure that agricultural land held by farmers under 99-year leases, offer letters and permits will be held under bankable, registrable and transferable documents of tenure.

In addressing the existing challenges, the Government said priority would be accorded to war veterans, youths and women, ensuring land secured by the new documents would be transferable only among indigenous Zimbabweans.

The State would also make sure that the new documents will not be issued for communal land and put an immediate and indefinite moratorium on the issue of new 99-year leases, offer letters and permits for agricultural land.

The proposals also intend to make urban land commercially available only to credible and approved land developers who will comply with the law, so that high-quality housing developments are established.

These processes will be overseen by a committee chaired by Defence Minister Oppah Muchinguri.

“These agricultural and urban land measures will have a huge impact on our economic growth, and will unlock the full value of the land while enhancing the performance of our economy.

“This will facilitate accelerated investments in agriculture and associated value chains, which include irrigation, dam construction, power supply and rural road construction,” the Government said.

One of the key stakeholders, the Bankers Association of Zimbabwe (BAZ), which will interact significantly with farmers in the provision of loans against the new land security document, told this publication recently that they had contributed extensively to the crafting of the new policy.

BAZ chief executive officer Fanuel Mutogo indicated that if all its input was incorporated, the new land tenure document would be fit for purpose in the provision of loan funding.

“The bankability of the 99-year lease has been a topic of discussion for several years. As an association, we have been actively involved in contributing to the provisions of the 99-year lease.

“As BAZ, we provided our input on the proposed improvements. We believe that following extensive consultations, the Government will finalise a position that reflects the collective insights and recommendations,” he said.

Mutogo expressed hope that the input from banks would assist in ensuring that the new land tenure document would be “fit for purpose” to not only support credit to agriculture but the country’s overall economic prospects.

The sentiments were echoed by Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers Union president, Shadreck Makombe, who said the improved land tenure model would enable farmers to realise the full value of their land, through use as collateral in loan funding.

Such a scenario, Makombe noted, would allow farmers to concentrate more on production.

Zimbabwe Farmers Union secretary general, Paul Zakaria, concurred saying bankable security of tenure would be a game changer for the country’s agriculture sector.

“If all modalities are put in place and all stakeholders are agreeable, then we will begin to see a flow of funding towards agriculture,” Zakaria said.

Bankability of new tenure documents

Legal and economic think tank Veritas Zimbabwe, in its review of the proposed land tenure improvements, noted that “bankable, registrable and transferable” documents of tenure have been mooted for a long time but have yet to see the light of day.

“If and when they are issued they will remedy at least one of the problems besetting the land reform programme: uncertainty about who holds the land,” Veritas Zimbabwe said.

“On the other hand, by emphasising documents of tenure, the statement (by the Government) is putting the cart before the horse because it is silent about the nature of the tenure under which farmers will hold their land.

“Will it be ownership? Will it be leased – and if so, for how long will the leases last and under what circumstances will they be cancelled?

“These are the factors that will determine whether farmers’ tenure is secure or precarious.

“Documents of tenure or title will provide evidence of who holds rights over the land, but the holders’ security of tenure will depend on the nature and extent of those rights,” the think tank queried.

Veritas said nearly 25 years since the Land Reform Programme began, one would have expected the Government to have worked out by now what form of land tenure beneficiaries of the programme should enjoy.

Veritas said when the statement issued by the Government early last month refers to “bankable” documents of tenure, it presumably means documents that will be accepted by banks as security for loans.

“This is shorthand for saying that farmers will be able to mortgage their land as collateral for loans they take out with financial institutions. Several points arise here:

“When deciding to grant a farmer a loan, a financial institution makes a commercial decision based on the likelihood of the farmer repaying the money lent.

“The financial institution takes many factors into account: the farmer’s competence, for example, and what the money will be used for. The security for the loan is only one of those factors.

“A financial institution will not accept a mortgage over a farmer’s land as security for a loan unless the institution is able to foreclose the mortgage in the event that the farmer fails to repay the loan, that is, unless the institution can have the farmer evicted from the land and the land resold to someone else at a price which allows the institution to recover what it lent to the farmer.

“The Government cannot simply order financial institutions to accept tenure documents as security for loans, unless the above conditions are met, financial institutions will not lend money to farmers,” Veritas said.

The Government stated that the objectives of the Land Reform Programme were to “divest ownership of agricultural land from the minority white farmers to the black majority people of Zimbabwe” and also “to ensure that every Zimbabwean had equitable access to this finite resource”.

Non-indigenous Zimbabweans

Veritas noted that the statement issued by the Government on the matter proceeded to state that “Security of tenure to all land regularised under this programme, will at all time[s] only be transferable among indigenous Zimbabweans”.

“If this means what it seems to mean, that agricultural land will be transferable only to indigenous Zimbabweans and that non-indigenous Zimbabwean citizens will not be allowed to hold agricultural land, then it is unconstitutional.”

Veritas said subject to section 72 [which deals with the compulsory acquisition of land], every Zimbabwean citizen had a right to acquire, hold, occupy, use, transfer, hypothecate, lease or dispose of agricultural land regardless of his or her race or colour”.

It said the Government needed to clarify whether non-indigenous Zimbabwean citizens currently occupying agricultural land would be allowed to continue occupying it and under what conditions non-indigenous citizens would be allowed to acquire agricultural land in the future.

“Not only is the Statement unclear about the rights of non-indigenous citizens who are occupying agricultural land, it is not very clear about the rights of indigenous citizens who are currently occupying it,” Veritas said.

Veritas also questioned the statement’s implications about plans in the new policy of issuing secure documents of tenure “informed by” guidelines, the first of which is that preference will be given to veterans of the Liberation Struggle veterans, youths and women.

“Surely preference must be given to persons who are currently in lawful occupation of the land, whatever their background, age or gender?

If they are not to be given preference, are they to be evicted in favour of new occupants – are we, in other words, going to have a new round of evictions and resettlements? Surely not.”

Urban Land

Veritas also noted that the Government said that the activities of “land barons” had overstretched local authorities’ resources and that it sought to put a stop to their activities, but it did not indicate how the Government planned to remedy the damage they have already caused.

The think tank said “our cities are surrounded by unplanned and illegal settlements, many of them lacking essential services and infrastructure.

“These settlements have increased the size of Harare by 20 per cent, and some of them overlap the city boundaries and extend into neighbouring rural areas”.

The statement from the Government, Veritas said, had nothing to say about what will happen to them.
Veritas said it seemed illogical to exclude communal land in providing secure land tenure, as the land was mostly agricultural – from an agricultural land policy.

“Admittedly different considerations apply to Communal Land from those applicable to land held under individual title, but an integrated land policy which aims at increasing agricultural production should take all rural land into account,” Veritas said.-ebsinessweekl