Disclaimer: This site has been first put up 15 years ago. Since then I would probably do a couple things differently, but because I've noticed this site had been linked from news outlets, PhD theses and peer rewieved papers and because I really hate the concept of "digital dark age" I've decided to put it back up. There's no chance it can produce any harm now.
| Identifier: | 02HARARE2561 |
|---|---|
| Wikileaks: | View 02HARARE2561 at Wikileaks.org |
| Origin: | Embassy Harare |
| Created: | 2002-11-19 05:28:00 |
| Classification: | UNCLASSIFIED |
| Tags: | ECON EAGR EFIN ETRD ZI Land Reform Agriculture |
| Redacted: | This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks. |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 HARARE 002561 SIPDIS STATE FOR AF/S STATE PASS FOR USAID NSC FOR SENIOR AFRICA DIRECTOR JFRAZER USDOC FOR 2037 DIEMOND PASS USTR ROSA WHITAKER TREASURY FOR ED BARBER AND CWILKENSON USAID FOR MARJORIE COPSON E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ECON, EAGR, EFIN, ETRD, ZI, Land Reform, Agriculture SUBJECT: Zimbabwe's Resettled Farms: Can They Work? 1. Summary: President Mugabe's fast track land reform ranks among the most emotionally-charged and polemical policies in Zimbabwe's 22-year history. Given the small number of new farmers who have taken control of plots, the undermining of due process, the politicized and untransparent manner of reallocation, the resulting food crisis and losses in productivity, employment and export earnings, it is difficult to view the program as anything but a short-term failure. It is unclear, but doubtful, if the longer-term outlook will be better. End Summary. Problems on the Farms -------------------------- 2. The Mugabe government argues that the country could not escape some transitional discomfort as it passed farmland from white to black ownership. It has already declared land reform a success based on the number of farms allocated to black Zimbabweans, figures we will review septel. The government is also quick to point out that Zimbabwe already has a working model for communal farming that yields, in a rainy year, more than half the country's corn production. After having spoken with several agricultural experts and visiting some new communal farms, we nonetheless see nothing but problems in the near-term: - Loss of Tobacco Revenue. Because it is a capital- intensive, sophisticated crop, few new farmers occupying former commercial tobacco farms will continue to grow this cash crop. This is a tragic loss for a country that became the world's top tobacco exporter in the late-1990s. Production will have dropped next year from 232 to as low as 70 million kg since 2000, according to the Zimbabwe Tobacco Association. Tobacco was the private sector's largest employer, and Zimbabwe's largest foreign exchange earner. At the same time, tobacco took up only 3 percent of the country's arable land, using sandy areas not ideally-suited for corn, so the trade-off in land gain for new farms is modest. Raising corn in these sandy areas will also require extra fertilizer, a heavy burden on new farmers. (All of the calcium and one-third of the ammonium nitrate used in fertilizer is not produced domestically and quite expensive at present.) - Destruction and Ecological Damage. Former commercial farms now resemble a war-zone. "War Veterans" and others who took over the farms burnt crops, killed livestock, poached or snared wildlife, felled trees (including the common mopane that require two centuries to mature in Zimbabwe's arid conditions) and destroyed high-tech farm equipment. This is devastation that, in the best of circumstances, will take decades to overcome. - Low Interest or Skills of New Farmers. In a typical former commercial farm, based on our observation, only 15-25 percent of assigned plots are actually occupied. Some new farmers, often urbanites, have already given up trying to raise crops, while others are simply unwilling to take up residence there. On smaller A1 or even larger A2 farms, it is rare to see even four rows of crop. The GoZ has not enforced deadlines for new A2 farmers to take residence on redistributed land. - Displaced Workers. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of farm workers are now unemployed. (They were almost never offered new farms.) To varying degrees, commercial farms had provided workers with adequate food and housing (often with electricity and plumbing). Commercial tobacco farms alone may have housed 2-3 percent of the country's population. Many were born on the commercial farms and will be unable to find new jobs, an enormous and lasting economic burden. - Lack of Creditworthiness of New Farmers. Most new farmers are unable to borrow enough to finance production. This seems to apply as much to larger A2 as to smaller A1 farms. The GoZ has not given title to the new farmers, depriving them of their most important collateral. - Absence of Farming Inputs. Without collateral, new farmers are unable to acquire the necessary inputs for farming. Given fertilizer's imported components and the Zimdollars' rapid devaluation, the cost of fertilizer has increased 7-fold in a year. Seed supply is also low due to the disruption of seed-producing commercial farms. As a result, new farmers are dependent on the GoZ for input assistance. In the Nov 14 budget presentation, the GoZ proposed an additional Z$ 15 billion (US$ 9 million) to assist new farmers, but it is difficult to imagine how this small amount of money will make much of a difference. Comment ----------- 3. In economic terms, fast-track land reform has been a disaster for almost all concerned. Commercial farm workers are destined for chronic unemployment. Zimbabwean consumers must now pay higher prices than ever for staples such as corn, whose production dropped from 2.15 million tons in 1999/2000 to 500,000 tons in 2001/02, drought admittedly playing some part in the precipitous decline. White commercial farmers became among the most productive agrarians in the world; in a matter of months, they have lost nearly everything. New settlers seem unable to raise enough food for even their own consumption and generally live in crude shacks with no amenities. Only a smaller group of settlers, often political, police or civil service higher-ups, have done well, acquiring larger plots or well- appointed former family farmhouses. 4. Will the new farms ever become productive? If the GoZ grants new farmers titles to their properties, allows farms to freely change hands, eventually falling to "new farmers" willing to actually farm, we could envision these enterprises one day reaching subsistence levels with modest surplus for domestic sale. For one who places the greatest stock in indigenous ownership, this may qualify land reform as a success. However, more profitable crops and economies of scale -- the keys to export earnings -- will only return if the GoZ adopts another framework for land reform that can provide the foundation for a functioning formal economy. Sullivan
Latest source of this page is cablebrowser-2, released 2011-10-04