Together
with
last
Tuesday’s
Post-Cabinet
Press
Briefing,
the
Cabinet
issued
a
statement
outlining
the
Government’s
policy
on
land
tenure.
The
Statement
can
be
accessed
on
the
Veritas
website [link].
Before
analysing
the
Statement
we
should
point
out
that
it
gives
only
a
sketchy
outline
of
what
the
Government’s
policy
on
land
is
or
may
be
–
it
is
not
even
clear
if
a
policy
has
yet
been
fully
formulated.
Many
important
issues
are
not
touched
on
in
the
Statement,
and
some
of
the
points
that
are
mentioned
raise
serious
concerns.
Summary
of
the
Statement
After
noting
that
the
land
reform
programme
was
carried
out
to
address
inequalities
that
existed
during
the
colonial
era
and
to
ensure
that
every
Zimbabwean
has
equitable
access
to
agricultural
land,
the
Statement
says
that
most
of
the
beneficiaries
of
the
programme
conduct
farming
as
a
business
and
that
young
people
account
for
a
significant
proportion
of
the
country’s
commercial
farmers.
Beneficiaries,
the
Statement
says,
have
benefited
from
various
programmes
to
enhance
their
productivity
and
from
the
Government’s
provision
of
infrastructure
such
as
roads
and
dams.
Challenges
The
Statement
lists
several
challenges
to
the
success
of
the
programme:
-
Farmers
face
difficulties
in
accessing
finance
for
their
farming
activities
-
Farmers
do
not
have
security
of
tenure
and
so
have
not
fully
developed
their
land
holdings
-
Succession
to
farmers’
land
holdings
after
their
death
has
created
problems,
because
some
holdings
have
been
divided
up
among
surviving
relatives
-
Farmers
have
failed
to
repay
loans
given
or
guaranteed
by
the
Government
-
Land
barons
have
been
allocating
land
for
urban
development
without
regard
for
planning
laws.
New
measures
To
meet
the
challenges
the
Government
will
implement
the
following
measures:
-
Agricultural
land
held
by
farmers
under
99-year
leases,
offer
letters
and
permits
will
be
held
under
bankable,
registrable
and
transferable
documents
of
tenure.
This
measure
will
“be
informed
by”
the
following
guidelines:
o Priority
will
be
given
to
war
veterans,
youths
and
women
o Land
secured
by
the
new
documents
will
be
transferable
only
among
indigenous
Zimbabweans
o The
documents
will
not
be
issued
for
Communal
Land.
-
There
is
an
immediate
and
indefinite
moratorium
on
the
issue
of
new
99-year
leases,
offer
letters
and
permits
for
agricultural
land.
-
Urban
land
will
be
made
commercially
available
only
to
credible
and
approved
land
developers
who
will
comply
with
the
law,
so
that
high-quality
housing
developments
are
established.
-
To
oversee
implementation
of
these
measures
the
President
has
constituted
a
Cabinet
Oversight
Committee
chaired
by
the
Minister
of
Defence [why
her?].
There
will
also
be
a
Land
Tenure
Implementation
Committee.
Comments
The
Land
Tenure
Statement
is
couched
in
dense
officialese
which
is
sometimes
difficult
to
understand
–
perhaps
that
is
intentional
–
but
peering
through
the
murk
one
can
discern
some
problems:
Tenure
documents
The
“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.
Properly
drafted,
they
should
provide
evidence
of
the
identity
of
the
holders
of
the
land
and
the
boundaries
of
the
land
they
hold.
On
the
other
hand,
by
emphasising
documents
of
tenure
the
Statement
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
lease
–
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.
It
is
nearly
25
years
since
the
Land
Reform
Programme
began,
and
one
would
have
expected
the
Government
to
have
worked
out
by
now
what
form
of
land
tenure
beneficiaries
of
the
programme
should
enjoy.
If
the
Government
has
indeed
decided
on
a
land
tenure
system
the
Statement
should
have
set
it
out.
“Bankable”
documents?
When
the
Statement
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.
Non-indigenous
Zimbabweans
Having
recorded
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”,
the
Statement
goes
on
to
say:
“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.
One
of
the
principles
guiding
policies
on
agricultural
land,
set
out
in
section
289
of
the
Constitution,
is:
“Subject
to
section
72
[which
deals
with
the
compulsory
acquisition
of
land],
every
Zimbabwean
citizen
has
a
right
to
acquire,
hold,
occupy,
use,
transfer,
hypothecate,
lease
or
dispose
of
agricultural
land
regardless
of
his
or
her
race
or
colour”
That
principle
must
be
observed
whenever
the
State
alienates
agricultural
land
in
terms
of
section
293
of
the
Constitution.
The
Government
needs
to
clarify
whether
non-indigenous
Zimbabwean
citizens
who
are
currently
occupying
agricultural
land
will
be
allowed
to
continue
occupying
it,
and
whether
and
under
what
conditions
non-indigenous
citizens
will
be
allowed
to
acquire
agricultural
land
in
the
future. The
government
also
needs
to
clarify
the
rights
of
farmers
who
hold
land
protected
by
BIPPA
agreements
Current
holders
of
agricultural
land
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
current
occupying
it.
The
Statement
says
the
new
policy
of
issuing
secure
documents
of
tenure
will
be
“informed
by”
guidelines,
the
first
of
which
is
that
preference
will
be
given
to
veterans
of
the
Liberation
Struggle,
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.
Farmers
who
are
currently
in
lawful
occupation
of
agricultural
land
have
vested
rights
to
their
land.
The
Government
must
show
due
respect
for
those
vested
rights
as
it
is
required
to
do
by
section
3(2)(k)
of
the
Constitution.
Current
holders
of
urban
land
The
Statement
says
that
the
activities
of
“land
barons”
have
overstretched
local
authorities’
resources
and
that
the
Government
proposes
to
put
a
stop
to
their
activities,
but
it
does
not
indicate
how
the
Government
proposes
to
remedy
the
damage
they
have
already
caused.
Our
main
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
has
nothing
to
say
about
what
will
happen
to
them.
Will
they
be
demolished?
Will
they
be
regularised,
with
their
occupants
receiving
title
to
their
land?
The
Statement’s
silence
suggests
the
Government
has
no
answers
to
these
pressing
questions.
A
further
point
is
that
the
Statement
suggests
that
the
Government
will
put
a
stop
to
the
land
barons’
activities.
This
is
the
responsibility
of
the
municipal
and
town
councils
whose
land
is
being
sold
off
by
the
barons.
Rather
than
take
action
itself,
the
Government
should
assist
the
councils
to
regularise
the
position.
Paying
for
the
land
The
Statement
gives
no
inkling
about
how
the
costs
of
resettlement
are
to
be
met.
The
Government
has
expended
vast
amounts
of
money
in
providing
new
farmers
with
inputs,
in
lending
them
money
and
in
guaranteeing
their
loans
from
financial
institutions.
Most
of
those
loans
have
not
been
repaid.
There
is
no
indication
of
how
the
Government
will
recoup
its
expenditure.
The
Statement
also
does
not
indicate
how
the
new
farmers
are
going
to
be
brought
within
the
tax
system
of
rural
district
councils
and
contribute
their
fair
share
towards
the
councils’
revenues.
A
comprehensive
land
policy
is
needed
It
seems
illogical
to
exclude
Communal
Land
–
which
is
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.
Conclusion
Agriculture
is
the
bedrock
of
our
economy
and
giving
farmers
secure
title
will
encourage
them
to
unlock
the
full
value
of
their
land.
It
is
unfortunate
that
the
Government’s
statement
does
not
provide
information
on
what
title
farmers
will
be
given
and
how
secure
their
title
will
be.
It
is
doubly
unfortunate
that
the
Government’s
brief
statement
raises
so
many
problems
and
unanswered
questions.
Veritas
makes
every
effort
to
ensure
reliable
information,
but
cannot
take
legal
responsibility
for
information
supplied.
Post
published
in:
Featured
Kathryn
