TWENTY-FIVE years have passed since the onset of the fast-track land reform, a programme that changed land ownership from the minority white community to the majority black. However, production levels per hectare have remained low.
It is a fact that as many as 300 000 people were resettled across the country from as little as six hectares to as large as 2 000 hectares, depending on various reasons.
They are working harder with each passing season, but the national output of maize on average has failed to rise to a tonne per hectare.
This is not only limited to maize, but extends to other crops such as tobacco.
Quantitatively, more hectares of land are now used for tobacco production and nationally about 280 million kilogrammes of the golden leaf are produced annually.
However, yield per hectare, so is the quality of the crop.
Keep Reading
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Bulls to charge into Zimbabwe gold stocks
- Ndiraya concerned as goals dry up
- Letters: How solar power is transforming African farms
The issue of production is a serious question. It is even more serious considering the billions of dollars that have been sunk into agriculture by the State in the last quarter of a century.
More than US$200 million was poured into the farm mechanisation programme. Selected and politically connected farmers got tractors, ploughs, trailers, boom-sprayers, bowsers and combine harvesters and never paid for the implements.
Small-scale farmers also benefited from the Presidential Inputs Scheme which distributed diesel, seed, fertilisers and pesticides under a supposedly revolving fund.
Millions worth of the inputs ended up on the parallel market as the farmers tried to make a quick buck.
It is important at this juncture, to mention the Command Agriculture programme, where large-scale farmers got inputs from the government, another supposedly revolving fund.
It is critical to mention that despite the billions of United States dollars ploughed into these agriculture schemes, production has largely remained very low compared to those obtaining in the region.
An analysis of the figures, which generally are suspect, shows the low level of production.
In a post-Cabinet statement, the government said: “The average maize yield is also expected to increase from 0,8 metric tonnes per hectare in 2023/24 summer season to 1,5 metric tonnes per hectare. Notably, the yield for traditional grains is expected to increase from an average of 180 kilogrammes per hectare during the 2023/24 summer season to 800 kilogrammes per hectare.”
It is interesting to note that the area under crop production is increasing with each passing year.
The government said: “The area under cereals is also expected to increase from about 2,3 million hectares during the 2023/24 summer season to 2,5 million hectares. Maize production is expected to increase from about 635 000 metric tonnes in 2023/24 summer season to 2,7 million metric tonnes.
Let’s compare this with regional production. In the region, South Africa, Zambia and Malawi on average produce more maize per hectare. It means they have effective farming or production.
ZimFact in a report said: “In comparison, Zambia’s 2020/21 maize yield was 2,8 tonnes per hectare. Zambia produced its biggest crop ever of 3,6 million tonnes, during the 2020/21 season. Malawi’s average yield is around 1,7 tonnes per hectare. South Africa’s 2020/21 maize yield was 5,8 tonnes per hectare, with total output for the most recent season being 16,2 million tonnes.”
It is embarrassing that Malawi, with less subsidies than Zimbabwe, is producing nearly double Zimbabwe’s output per hectare.
This means that Zimbabwe has perfected the art of working harder but producing less. No wonder why our farmers are among the poorest families.
What could have gone wrong with Zimbabwe’s farming? It is poor management of resources. The first thing is the government subsidised production instead of products.
What incentive is there for a farmer to produce when he has tonnes of fertiliser, thousands of litres of diesel and tonnes of seed to till the land?
Like all humans, farmers sold the inputs and made money without breaking sweat.
For the large-scale farmers, most enjoy the prestige of being called landowners.
Others have turned the prime farmland into private resorts or summer homes or worse still, those on peri-urban land have subdivided their land into residential estates. In short, they are not farming.
Zimbabwe has to change its agriculture policy starting with: Who is a farmer?
The majority of the resettled people are not farmers, but speculators and the politically connected.
It is time to revisit the Utete Commission report on land redistribution. Who got what and what are they doing on the land?
The report has not been made public for obvious reasons. The majority of resettled people are Zanu PF politicians and many of them are also multiple beneficiaries. The Zanu PF government is not ready to upset the cart. It still needs political support at the expense of production.
Zimbabwe has the most dams per capita than our neighbours, but agriculture is still largely seasonal and rainfed.
So, what needs to be done? The starting point is releasing the Utete land audit report. After that, Zimbabwe needs to adhere to the gazetted land farm sizes according to the natural farming regions. And lastly, real farmers should get land.
The agriculture extension services need to be revamped and so is the funding model.
Extension workers should identify the farmers and teach them the new technologies of production, while funding should change from subsidising production to subsidising the product.
More funds should be availed for agriculture research. This research should include seed varieties, irrigation mechanisms, post-harvest production and markets. This has to happen urgently.
Otherwise, our farmers will sink more into penury. They will continue farming into poverty, where they use more land and effort, yet the production levels remain low. Yes, lower than countries like Malawi.
- Paidamoyo Muzulu is a journalist based in Harare. He writes here in his personal capacity.