Waiting to Reclaim My Land

Source from:  Zimbabwe Independent (Harare) February 24, 2006 Bruce Gemmill 02/27/2006

AS a dispossessed farmer and one who is determined not to be driven into exile, I fervently believe I will one day soon be back on my farms and begin the long haul of bringing them back to life. We produced tobacco, deciduous fruit and weaners. Just before our eviction we were in the process of applying for export processing zone (EPZ) status, having made the decision to go into greenhouse production. All we produced was exportable. When I return to my farms, which I do from time-to-time, the situation is so different from what it used to be. It is silent, empty and has the feeling of a graveyard, full of memories and sadness. Getting the farmers back onto their farms and into production makes economic and humanitarian sense, nothing else does. I employed 170 people as regulars, who in turn supported about 1 000 dependants. Most of my regulars are now located in the nearby communal land, they say, waiting for me to return. I keep in contact. They have no jobs or money and are chronically short of food. A high proportion of them are reported to have died. I am informed there are now only four settler families left on my farms plus two beer selling outlets. Land reform? No, it is denial and destruction. Large-scale commercial agriculture in Zimbabwe has a substantial comparative advantage over countries in the northern hemisphere with whom we seek to trade. We have the ability to produce and sell a wide range of agricultural products both fresh and processed at highly-competitive prices. We have a climate that allows us to produce crops all year round. A rainfall pattern that usually produces sufficient runoff water to be stored for use in the dry season and adequate good quality arable land, both high and lowveld. We also have long daylight hours, a large rural labour force (currently unemployed) who are flexible and capable of high productivity, and most importantly of all (until it was forced to disband) a competent and competitive commercial farming community which could hold its own anywhere in the world. The tobacco industry exemplifies this comparative advantage very well. Starting in 1980, this industry fought its way back to a leading position in the word market. It became a world-class industry, respected and trusted by both the trader and the manufacturer. Today it is in ruins, Brazil has taken over our market. A properly reconstructed large-scale commercial agriculture will in addition to providing food security at home, be able to seek out and exploit opportunities in the dynamic and fast-changing world food market. It is not entirely the fault of the white farming community that we do not have a black farming community capable of taking over abandoned commercial farms. The Zanu PF government has existed for 25 years and during that time it has made no effort to correct that imbalance. Large-scale commercial farming was a national asset, even though it was in private ownership. The same description would apply to the mining industry and tourism. All qualify as national assets because they exploit the natural resources and bring benefit to all Zimbabweans, either directly or indirectly. "Land is the economy and the economy is land" was a vacuous statement, on par with "never in a thousand years". Land has no intrinsic value; it only has value when you grow things on it, extract minerals from it, build on it or persuade tourists to come and look at it and what grows out of it. "Land is the economy and the economy is land" can be understood when used in the context of a tub-thumping electioneering speech. But when used in the context of everyday life in the modern world in which we struggle to survive and compete, it is irrelevant nonsense. Only after the present political debacle has been sorted out and brought to a credible conclusion can a serious debate about our return to economic good health get underway. It is imperative that the reconstruction of large-scale commercial agriculture is at the epicentre of this debate. It is known and accepted that the disruption of commercial agriculture is the genesis of this country's economic collapse, therefore the corollary must be its reconstruction if we are serious about getting out of the present morass. To pretend that we can manoeuvre our way around this contentious political hot potato is dishonest and delusional. From the platform created by a recovered large-scale commercial agriculture, we can diversify and expand into a more industrialised and organised economy. There are no shortcuts on offer. The reconstruction of commercial agriculture should not be done in a piecemeal manner, as some members of the present government seem to be contemplating. It simply won't work. Agricultural problems can only be solved by pragmatic agricultural solutions. What we put together this time must last for generations - a truly massive undertaking. It is estimated an investment in the region of US$15 billion will be required to restore the industry to where it was in year 2000. This figure excludes the cost of refurbishing and reconstructing the upstream and downstream service industries. This money can only come from the international donor community. Assistance of this scale will be predicated on proof of judicious and corruption-free disbursement. The scale of destruction wantonly carried out by the government is mind-boggling. The Reserve Bank governor (Gideon Gono) spends a lot of his time advising us that he can navigate the economy out of its present straits by fiscal and financial manipulation. He knows very well he is dealing with the symptoms and not the cause. He gives the game away when he goes to plead with the president on behalf of the 5% of commercial farmers still left on the farms. This plea has interesting implications. If a mere 5% can alter the course of events, should he not be telling the president: "Get the remaining 95% back on their farms and the country's problems are solved"? This of course will not happen. In Z