Maravi

(HERALD) Demystifying the white farmer

Demystifying the white farmer
By Sifelani Tsiko

RESTORING Zimbabwe's agricultural prowess: What is to be done? That’s the question.

Despite differing opinions on the wisdom of the land redistribution exercise, there is agreement among farmers, farmer organisations, agricultural experts and critics that the country’s agriculture is on its knees and needs urgent practical steps to resuscitate it.

The problems are known but what then needs to be done to improve the country’s agricultural production? Pointing fingers will not help the situation. The hungry need to be fed and the agricultural-based industries need raw materials.

Agricultural experts at the fortnightly Southern African Political Economy policy dialogue seminar held recently were unanimous that the reversal of the land redistribution is neither politically feasible nor a prerequisite to recovery arguing that sustainable land utilisation required sound land, agricultural and economic policy measures.

Main presenter Simon Pazvakavambwa, an agriculturist and former secretary for agriculture, told participants that the Government needed to "put the initiative back to the farmers to reduce the dependency syndrome and promote sustainable agricultural practices".

"Farmers need their own space. In the post-2000 period the Government took away the initiative from the farmers. Farmers depended heavily on the Government for everything. This is unsustainable," he said.

"Farmers must source their own inputs and market crops on their own. They are innovative and they know what works and what doesn’t. Farmers should not sit back and wait to get everything from the Government."

He said Zimbabwe has tremendous production potential in agriculture both for dryland cropping and irrigation.

"This productive potential is not in question, it’s there. The question we should be asking ourselves is: Why are we having problems in terms of production and food security?

"Why are we even battling to produce the staple crop — maize. The question is what has gone wrong," he said.

Some of the factors which he identified as having contributed to the decline in agricultural productivity included:

l Poor planning compounded by loss of skilled manpower with planning capacity.

l Erosion of farmer initiative and own farm production control.

l Politicisation of the smallholder farmer — this had profound effect on agriculture, it put politics to the fore than production.

l Marginalisation of the communal farmers and small- scale commercial farmers (in the former Purchase Areas) led to decline in production. More focus put on resettled farmers

l Dependency syndrome — people depended heavily on the Government and sat back. Inputs were ring-fenced targeting a particular people of political persuasion.

l Populist rhetoric subdued debate of real issues that mattered in agriculture.

l Command agriculture killed farmer initiative and production.

l Donor aid dependency syndrome — farmers sat back and folded their hands, relied heavily on local and international humanitarian food agencies.

l Influx of NGOs in food-related assistance — only a few focused on strengthening farmer capacity to grow own food. Limited technical backstopping.

l Energy crisis worsened the situation.

l Collapse of agricultural research and technical extension services.

l Collapse of supply system and the market system. Too much control aggravated the situation.

l Lack of credit finance and other support services.

"We failed to plan well and huge tracts of fertile land went into wrong hands. Those with political clout but with no capacity got large productive land. We should analyse these issues and find strategies to resolve these issues to boost production on farms," Pazvakavambwa said.

"All these policy thrusts, some well-meaning, some not have gotten us to this current scenario."

He said food aid is killing the communal agricultural sector which was once vibrant in the post-independence era.

"The communal farming sector was a huge success in the 1980s and 1990s. It produced the bulk of the maize staple crop as white commercial farmers shifted to more lucrative sectors such as horticulture and wild game conservancy.

"Government provided support — technical extension services, research and input support to communal farmers. Farmers were motivated and hence the production levels were high."

Dr Robbie Mupawose, a farmer and renowned agriculturalist, concurred and said people should disabuse themselves of the notion that the minority commercial farmers in the 1980s were responsible for the food self-sufficiency that prevailed at the time.

"Surplus grain came from communal farmers. The bulk of the cotton crop came from communal farmers. Commercial farmers had moved to horticulture and cash crops," he said.

"We need to correct certain myths or untruths about our country's agriculture. The transformation of Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector has both some positive and negative aspects. The land resettlement programme of the early 1980s was a huge success," Pazvakavambwa said.

"It led to an increase in maize production and the production of other crops such as cotton and others. Commercial farmers focused more on cash crops and less on crops that fed the majority of the people."

Pat Made interrogated the "breadbasket myth".

"When was Zimbabwe a breadbasket? There is a whole misconception that Zimbabwe was a breadbasket because of the white Rhodesian farmers. This is quite surprising given that Rhodesia was under sanctions. We should not downplay the role of communal farmers in the post-independence era who toiled to make this country food secure."

Pazvakavambwa said blacks were the ones who carried out the production process on white former commercial farms.

"Most of the work was done by blacks. What they did not have was the financial power and access to banks and other credit facilities," he said.

"In the debate about the transformation of the country's agricultural sector we should not belittle the role played by blacks," Pazvakavambwa said.

But some, like Herbert Mugwagwa, were not convinced. "What is it that 4 000 white commercial farmers did to make Zimbabwe the breadbasket of the region and what is it with 320 000 new farm owners who made Zimbabwe to become a ‘basket case’," Mugwagwa asked.

Interjected Ibbo Mandaza, a political economist: "We must interrogate the breadbasket myth, this myth about the indispensability of former white commercial farmers. We have never interrogated this myth since 1980. Rhodesian farmers right up to the pre-Jambanja (Fast Track Land Reform 2000) era were protected specie with access to credit facilities (locally and abroad) and a whole range of benefits (including market access).

"We must not forget that soon after independence, the burden of feeding the country was shouldered by communal farmers. Rhodesian farmers diversified (into horticulture and cash crops) after 1980 when sanctions were lifted."

Said Gibson Guvheya, another critic: "Agriculture is in state of chaos. Despite the current political arrangement, agriculture is in a state of chaos. We have not gotten out of it. There is lack of good governance and the state of decay can become permanent if nothing is done to rescue the agricultural sector.

"Let’s study what worked and what has failed. Let's learn from our past mistakes."

Other participants said corruption, plunder of agricultural inputs and equipment and poor implementation of policies destroyed the country's agricultural base. Dr Mupawose said it does not help to hide behind issues of race.

"We should not hide behind issues of race. Let’s move on. The issue of race is not the reason why we are hungry. Let's tackle the problems head on.

"The key to production in this country is fertilizer — nitrogen! Why are we letting Sable Chemicals and Zimphos to die. These are critical industries for our survival in agriculture.

"We have no power generation capacity and this is seriously affecting this sector. When we get into the race issue we lose focus."

Cecil Gombera, a businessman and farmer, said lack of financial, technical and marketing support is destroying the farming business.

"I grew up in the Zowa African Purchase Area. My father took farming as a business. They had financial and technical support. They were very productive. Now all this production is gone. Farmers have no support and we are destroying a sector which was once vibrant and critical in making Zimbabwe food secure," he said.

What does Zimbabwe need to do to restore its agricultural prowess?

Pazvakavambwa proposed the following:

l Put the initiative back to the farmer, give control back to the farmer.

l Restore farmer viability — food aid kills agriculture.

l Depoliticise agriculture.

l Bridge the gap between maize (crop) import price and local price.

l Revive input supply and marketing as a private initiative. Reduce Government interference and promote private sector initiatives.

l Revive livestock production and marketing — resuscitate CSC and other marketing arms. Restructure marketing utilities.

l Reduce and eventually eliminate donor dependency as a policy.

"Donors are useful but when you depend on them for a long time they can be stifling."

l Strengthen regulatory framework.

l Eliminate populist production policies — "Government must take back bench and allow farmers to lead"

l Facilitate policies that lead to productive use of land.

l Harness water resources for irrigation.

l Long-term financing for agriculture critical.

l Pricing policy related to market.

l Enforce environmental and agricultural regulations — e.g. phytosanitary regulations required for export competitiveness.

l Reform State enterprises and make them commercial — CSC, GMB, Agribank

l Improve agricultural infrastructure.

"The problems are multi-faceted and we need to tackle one or a few problems at a time. Zimbabwe has lots of potential and we can turn around our fortunes in the agricultural sector if we are serious about implementing sound policies, Pazvakavambwa said.

Added Dr Mupawose: "Communal farmers are commercial farmers in their own right. Small-scale farmers were the biggest producers of beef in the 1980s. We exported beef, we had a vibrant livestock sector. The land reform programme in the 1980s was successful. We need to examine where we went wrong, learn from the mistakes and take practical steps to address the problems.

"Land is one of the most valuable resources. As we draft the new constitution, there must be a fundamental recognition that there is value in land. We need to implement some of the recommendations contained in the Utete Land Report. We need real leadership to transform the agricultural sector. You can’t get things right if there is no leadership."

Labels: AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM

posted by MrK @ 1:43 AM