DRAFT

RURALFARMSIZEREGULATIONS:ANALYSISOFTHE2020STATUTORYINSTRUMENTOFTHEGOVERNMENTOFZIMBABWE

PolicyAnalysisWorkingPaper

ProsperB.Matondi(PhD)

5March,2020

ii

TableofContents

1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................11.1 Backgroundtotherevisedfarmsizesregulations.....................................................11.2 Formofthefarmsizeregulations......................................................................................21.3 ContextandScope.....................................................................................................................41.4 Briefhistoricalprecedence...................................................................................................5

2.0 Ruralfarmsizeregulations2020:ananalysis...................................................72.1 Acquisitionoflandanddemarcationbasedonfarmsizeregulations...............72.2 Allocationoflandanduseoffarmsizeinstrument....................................................82.3 Administrationofthestatutoryinstrument..................................................................9

3.0 Appliedpolicyandpracticesinuseofinstrument..........................................104.0 Adoptionandadaptationoffarmsizepolicyinstrument.............................114.1 Adoptionofinstrumentandpolicycontext.................................................................114.2 Deviationsintheuseofthefarmsizeinstrument....................................................134.3 Adaptationintheuseofinstrument...............................................................................14

5.0 Discussionpoints........................................................................................................156.0 Conclusions...................................................................................................................17

7.0 References.....................................................................................................................18

1

1.0 Introduction1.1 BackgroundtotherevisedfarmsizesregulationsTheMinisterofLands,Agriculture,WaterandRuralResettlementintermsofsection21oftheLandCommissionAct[Chapter20:29],revisedtheagriculturallandsizescitedastheRuralLand(FarmSizes)(Amendment)Regulations,2020(No.2).TheamendmentsoftheruralFarmSizesucceedsthestatutoryinstrumentpromulgatedin1999,andthenrevisedin2000atthefoundationyearsoftheFastTracklandReformProgramme(FTLRP).ThisactionofMarch2020caughtthemarket,especiallythosethatfollowtheFTLRPwithsurprise.Yet,thereishistoricalprecedenceontheuseofthisinstrumentbeforeandafterindependenceofZimbabwein1980,asatoolforlandmanagementandmonitoring.Thisanalysisseekstounpackthefarmsizeregulations,asanadministrativeandlandmanagementtoolforclaritytothereadingpublic.Avarietyofcasesinwhichthistoolhasbeenusedareanalyzedwithapoliticaleconomylenstounderstandbetterhowthislessthanprominenttoolhasbeenusedsince2000.Themainlegalinstrumentofnote,wastheLandAcquisitionAct(LAA)of1991,withsignificantrevisionsin2000forcompulsorylandacquisitionoflargescalecommercialagricultureforthelandredistributionprogramme.Thislegalinstrumentwasfirstmootedandrevisedoveryears,andradicallychangedtoenforcecompulsoryacquisitionwithqualifiedcompensation(in2000)forimprovementsonly,withtheexceptionoflandunderbilateralagreements.IntheimplementationoftheLAA,therewaslimitedusageofthefarmsizeregulations,despiteitbeingasignificantlegalinstrumentsatthedisposalofthegovernment.Scholars,whofollowlandadministration,areunpackingthegazettingofthisrevisedinstrumentasithashappenedinMarchof2020.Thisisalmosttwo(2)decadesoftheFTLRP,wheresignificantlandtransfershavehappenedinprinciplewithlandcontestationsbecominglessofanindividualfarmerissuesthanapolicyandprinciplenotion.Thequestionthathasreawakenedthemarketisthegazettingoftheregulationsandaseriesofquestionofhowthisinstrumenthasbeenusedfor2decades.Someofthearisingquestionsinpublicare:Whatarethesenewamendedregulations?Howhavetheybeenusedinthepast?Whereandhowweretheyeffectedandwhowasimpactedandhow?Whyhavetheybeengazettednow?Whatistheformofinteractionsbetweenfarmsofdifferentsizeswithinanarea?Whatdotheregulationsimplyonlandrightsandtenuresecurity?WhatarethefindingsofthelandauditoftheZimbabweLandCommission(ZLC)andthespecialcommitteereportofurbanlandredistribution?Whileatit,aretherepolicyinstrumentsthatcanfacilitatelandexpansionordisposalandhowdotheywork?Howcanamoreflexiblesystemoflandowningwithinthereasonedfarmsizesbeencouragedtoallowsuccessfulfarmerstoexpand,whileotherstomoveoutoffarming?Thesearemajorquestionsthatwillbecomeclearerovertime,buthavenecessitatedthisanalysisaspartofunderstandingthecontextoftheseregulations.TheZimbabweFTLRPnowinitstwentiethyearhastransformedtheruralagrarianlandscapebeyondthelarge-scalecommercialfarmsector.Ittouchesontheeconomy,regionalandinternationalrelations,whileithasshiftedsocialrelationsinavarietyof

2

wavelength.TheconflictsandcontinuedcontestationsoverthemeaningandoutcomeoftheFTLRP,remainsaseriousconcernandhasmadeagriculturerecoveryamostdifficultundertaking.Thelandpolicysituationremainsfluid,whichdoesnotprovideenoughconfidenceintheinvestingandlandtransactingpublic.Thesituationthatobtainsofmassivelandtransferislargelyirreversibleinallsortsofpermutationsinthecontextofastate-ledprogramme.However,thereareparticularexpectedtransitionsfromtheprogrammetowardsgreaterlandutilisationandproductivity.Thisfactalonemeansthatforsomebeneficiariesthelandbenefitscanbewithdrawnatanindividualpropertylevel.Thewithdrawalofthesebenefitsisnotnew,andhavehappenedintheFTLRP,andoftencontested.Beforethesemattersareanalyzedanddiscussed,thesectionthatfollowspresenttheruralfarmsizedistributionfromtheFTLRPfoundationperiod.

1.2 FormofthefarmsizeregulationsZimbabweisdividedintofiveagro-ecologicalregionsbasedonsoiltype,rainfallpatterns,climaticconditionsandagriculturalproductionpotential.TheamendingRuralLand(FarmSizes)regulationsof1999SI419/1999.“(1)Subjecttosections5and6,nopersonshallownafarmsituatedin–(a)NaturalRegionIifthesizeofthefarmexceedstwohundredandfiftyhectares;or(b)NaturalRegionIIaifthesizeofthefarmexceedsthreehundredandfiftyhectares;or(c)NaturalRegionIIbifthesizeofthefarmexceedsfourhundredhectares;or(d)NaturalRegionIIIifthesizeofthefarmexceedsfivehundredhectares;or(e)NaturalRegionIVifthesizeofthefarmexceedsonethousandfivehundredhectares;or(f)NaturalRegionVifthesizeofthefarmexceedstwothousandhectares”.Table1.1StatutoryRural(FarmSizes)SI419/1999NaturalRegion

A1FarmSize(ha) A2FarmSize(ha)

P.UArable Grazing Total

1 5 7 12 250 2-302a 5 10 15 330 2-302b 5 15 20 400 2-303 10 20 30 500 2-304 10 30 50 1500 2-305 10 60 70 2000 2-302020amendmentsstatethat"subjecttosections5and6,nopersonshallownafarminNaturalRegionOneifthesizeofthefarmexceeds250hectaresorNaturalRegionTwoifthesizeofthefarmexceeds500hectaresorNaturalRegionThreeifthesizeofthefarmexceeds700hectaresorNaturalRegionFourifthesizeofthefarmexceeds1000hectaresorNaturalRegionFiveifthesizeofthefarmexceeds2000hectares."Table1.2RuralLand(FarmSizes)(Amendment)Regulations,2020(No.2)NR 2000regulations 2020regulations1 250 2502 350/400IIa/b 5003 500 7004 1500 10005 2000 2000Average 917ha 890ha

3

Source:https://allafrica.com/stories/202002170105.htmlTheaveragelandholdingacrossallnaturalregionshasslightlyreducedfrom917hectaresto890hectareswithfundamentalchangesbeingthelandholdingsizeinnaturalregions2(aandb)and3.Inordertohaveabetterpresentationonthemeaning,table1.3showstheoverallrurallandsizes,includingperi-urban,oldresettlementandsmall-scalecommercialfarms.IncludedinthetablearealsotheaveragesizesoftheCommercialFarmSettlementScheme(CFSS)Table1.4MaximumfarmsizesbylanduseinZimbabwe(incomplete)TypeofFarmAverages

Specifictypology

Farmsizesasperagro-ecologicalzones1 11a IIb III IV V

Communal(customarysystem)

Residentialplot 0.1-3 0.1-3 0.1-3 0.1-3 0.1-3 0.1-3Fieldplot ? ? ? ? ? ?Grazing ? ? ? ? ? ?

A1modelandtheOldResettlementareas(1980-1997)

Residentialplot 6 6 6 6 6 6Fieldplot Grazing

A2Model Self-contained 250 500 500 700 1000 2000SSCF1 Selfcontained 230 30 40 60 120 240CommercialFarmSettlementSchememodel(mediumscale)

Self-contained 100 200 250 300 700 1000

LSCF Self-contained 250 500 500 700 1000 2000Peri-urban Self-contained 2-50 2-50 2-50 2-50 2-50 2-50Source:GovernmentofZimbabwe(2001)andvariousresearchreportsonFTLRPAnimportantfacttonoteisthatthenewruralfarmsizesstillremainsbelowhalfofwhatobtainedin2000,wheretheaveragelandholdingofthelarge-scalecommercialsectorwas2,200hectares(Moyo,2000).Outofthe8758farmsatotalof6,422farmsaccountedforabout10.8millionhectaresundermostlywhiteownershipascompanies,individuals,trustsforeignownershipregisteredasBilateralPromotionandProtectionAgreements(BIPPAs).By2005,some73%ofthesetotallarge-scalefarmareaswasgazettedfortheFTLRP.Asignificantoutcomeisthefactthatthelargescalecommercialsectorindividual“ownership”hasbeenhalved,whiletherearemorebeneficiariesabovethe4,200individualfarmers.Togetaglimpseintothestatistics,itshouldbenotedthat31%ofallagriculturallandinZimbabwe(or12.3millionhectares)wasreducedjustover5%ofallagriculturalland.Therewereatleast182,000beneficiariesundertheA12model.Inthe

1TheSSCFwereformerlyknownastheNativePurchaseAreasduringthecolonialperiodbeforeindependencein1980.They tend to be a buffer between large-scale commercial farms and communal areas. These farmswere allocated tobetter resourced Africans through purchasing land on freehold title. There are about 8,000 such farms on about 4.1millionhectares,whoseaveragesizeislessthan500hectares.2A1–wasdefinedasthedecongestionmodelforthegeneralityoflandlesspeople.Originally,itusedtohaveavillagizedandself-containedvariant,ofwhichthelatterwasdiscontinuedin2005.Beneficiarieshaveaccesstothefollowingaverageallocations:Agro-ecologicalRegion(AER)1(12ha.),AER11a(15ha.),AERIIb(20ha.),AERIII(30ha.),AERIV(50ha.),AERV(70ha.).Eachhouseholdisallocated3ha.arable,withtherestbeingforgrazing.

4

commercialA23atleast22,000farmersbenefitedwithlargesizedplots,towhichsomeoftheremainingformerwhiteownerswerereclassifiedtoA2iftheirfarmswerecompulsorilyacquired.ThepressuretoaccommodatemorebeneficiariesofbothA1andthedifferentiatedA2typeandlocalperceptionsoftheadequacyofgivensizes,aswellastheprescribedfarmsizeguidelineswereusedtodetermineactualpatternsoffarmsizeallocations.Thusbothdemandforlandandagro-ecologicallandusecapacitiesdeterminedfarmsizestowardsmedianlevelsbelowtheprescribedmaximforalllandsizecategories.Thefarmsizeregulationswereaninstrumentthatwaslargelyusedtolegallyfacilitatetheadministrativeproceduresofacquisition.However,asnotedinthisanalysis,thesewerenotcomprehensivelyusedtoguidetheredistributionorallocationsofland.Therewasnostrictenforcementasexplainedintheanalysisbelow.

1.3 ContextandScopeTheruralfarmsizeamendmentandtheireffectivenesswillsignalacomponentofthematerialfactsthatthelandreformprogrammeremainsinconclusive.Theuseoftheinstrumentwillbewatchedcloselyinthepublicspace,wherethelandreformprogrammehashadcolor,withakeyoutcomethattheagrarianstructureisdominatedbysmalltomediumscalefarms.ItistheindicationofnoforeclosureofthehighoctaneandcomprehensiveperiodoftheredistributionofthefirstdecadeoftheFTLRPthatremainsworryingforkeymarketsthatmaywanttoinvestinthefarmsector.Intheabsenceofaclearpolicyonland,andeventheagriculturesector,itmeansthatpronouncementofstatutoryinstrumentsiskeytoguidinglandadministrationatalegallevel.Thefarmsizeregulationstouchonthefundamentalaspectoftheprogrammeanditsbroadersocio-economicimportance.Thefarmsizeregulationsandtheirusewasmoreprominentinthefirstfiveyearsof2000,andlargelypassedtosome2decadeswithoutconsistentenforcement.Thefinancialmarketshaveremainedworryoftheprogramme,whichovertimehasmadebeneficiariesmorereluctanttofullydependonfarmingasabusiness.While,theA1beneficiariesonsmallerlandunits,seemtohavetransformedandmovedon,theA2farmersremainontheedgesandholdontolandwithminimalorpretentioususeforsomefarmsasnotedinearlierstudies(Matondi,2008).ThelandauditshaveconcentratedontheA2allocations,becauseofhiddentendenciestojustifylimiteduse.Nonetheless,themanylandauditswithafarmsizemarker,havenotbeenfullyusedfortakingactiononeitherlargefarmsizesand/orthelimitedusageoftheland.Thereareavarietyoflandmattersandeventsthathavebeeninthepublic,andthatis:

1. ThelandauditforurbanlandledbyacommitteesetupbythePresidenttoinvestigateallurbanandperi-urbanlandallocationafter2005concludeditswork

3A2–thismodelwasadministeredundertheformerAgriculturalLandSettlementAct(Chapter20:01).Themodelwastoincreasetheparticipationofblackindigenousfarmersincommercialfarmingthroughtheprovisionofeasieraccesstolandandinfrastructureonfullcostrecoverybasis.Thelandisissuedon99-yearleasewithoptiontopurchase.Landisallocatedinthefollowingmanner:peri-urban(2-50ha.),Small-scalecommercialfarmrangedfrom20ha.inAER1to240ha.inAERV,Mediumscalefarmrangedfrom100hainAER1to1,000hainAERV,andlargescalerangedfrom250ha.inAER1to2000inAERV.

5

andprovidedareporttogovernmentattheendof2019.Thiswasafteritstenureseemtohavebeenextendedfromendof2018toendof2019.Thereportwiththeresultshasnotbeensharedinpublic;

2. ThelandauditforFTLRPfarmswasundertakenbytheZimbabweLandCommission(ZLC),asgivenintheConstitutionofZimbabwe(N.20)Act2013.ItprovidesfortheexecutivefunctionsoftheZLC,andapportionofresponsibilityforthelandaudit,whichusesthefarmsizeregulationsasanimportantmeasureoflanduse.Therehasnotbeenapublicannouncementofitsprogressorconclusion.;

3. AStatutoryInstrumentwaspromulgatedon28June2019toallowforLandSubletting.Thiswasafollow-uptheJointVenturefarmingthathadbeenapprovedaround2016andstronglybackedtheAgriculturalandRuralDevelopmentAuthority(ARDA)togointopartnershipfarmingonitslargeestates.ItthoughneedtobeknownthatintheFTLRPfarms,manyofthefast-trackreformbeneficiariesarepart-timefarmerseventhoughtheplanningoffarmsizesisbasedonthebeneficiariesintheA2schemesengaginginfulltimefarming.Part-timefarminghassignificantnegativeimpactsonequity,andthepoorpersonalattentiontothefarmingenterprisebypart-timerscanimplylessoptimalutilisationofland.However,inthetransitionwhennewfarmersarestrugglingtoputupinvestmentsunderunfriendlyfinancingconditionsJVsthatusuallyrequirelandholdingsandguaranteesfromthestateplayabigpart.TheextenttowhichtheJVsconformtothefarmsizeregulationsneedstobeprobedandlessonsderivedonhowthesecansupportfarmerstoseefarmingasabusinessthanpart-timing.

InthecontextoftheFTLRP,thereareparticulartroublingfactorsthatmilitateagainstagriculturalrecovery.Althoughlandreformhasredressedthecolonialinequitieswherelandownershipwasdominatedbyafewwhitefarmers.Yet,postFTLRPshowsthattherearesomeinequitiesthatremaininthenewagrarianstructurewiththemajorissuesbeingmultiplefarmholdingsbysomebeneficiariesandoversizedfarmsasdefinedbymaximumfarmsizeregulations.Theinequitabledistributionofinfrastructureinheritedfromformerownershasbeenprecededbyconflictsonaccessandusage,whilegovernmentpronouncesthepolicyofmarketpurchaseoruseoftheinfrastructurebythegovernmenttoprovideservicesforfarmers.InthiscontexttherearevariedviewsonwhethertheFTLRPhasdecongestedthecommunalareasornot,assomefarmsarenotbeingusedorarelessthanoptimal.Thisiscomplicatedbytheexistenceofahighdegreeofmultipleholdingofincomesources,andthuspeoplecombinefarmingintheruralareasandemploymentintheurbanareasbecausetheyareinsecureonthelandholding.Thereisstillahighdemandforlandpartlyreflectedbytheexistenceofsignificantnumbersof“illegal”settlersinallresettlementmodelsandlengthylandapplicationwaitinglistsattheministry.

1.4 BriefhistoricalprecedenceInthe1980sand1990,2000,thelateProfessorSamMoyoledworkinanalyzingfarmsizesinthepoliticalcontextofZimbabwethroughoutitsdevelopmentpath.Importantpiecesofworkwerethefarmsizeproductivityinthe1980s(Weineretal,1986),landsizesinthecontextoftheindigenization(Moyo,1995),landsizesinthecontextofthe

6

EconomicStructuralAdjustmentProgramme(Moyo,2000)andjointintheFastTracklandreformera(Sukume,etal,2005).Thisworkinthe1980sand1990s,providedconciseunderstandingthepoliticaleconomyoffarmsizesinZimbabweandglobally.Moreimportantly,itshapedthenatureofpolicyreformsthatgovernmentundertookinZimbabweandprovidedjustificationforthelandreformprogrammethatlargelyredistributedlargefarmstosmallandmediumscalefarmers.Farmsizeshavebeenhistoricallythemainpointofcontention,giventhatthecolonialadministratorusedittopracticeracialseparatedevelopment,whichdidnotdefinelandsizeintheblackareas(communalareas),whileitdefinedbyclassthelandsizesinthecommercialsector,whichthesettlerfarmersdominated.Inprinciple,farmsizeregulationswerethusdefinedinthecontextofcolonialseparateness,whileitalsohadsignificantintermsofassistingthesettlerfarmerracialgrouptoearnincomethatwascomparabletothetopcivilservantingovernmentoraprivatesectormiddleincomeChiefExecutiveOfficer.Therewasavarietyofreasonstodefinethefarmsizes,chiefofwhichwastoretainasmuchwhitefarmersonthelandtofarmandprovidefoodandproductsforindustry.Thisperspective,thenshapedthecolonialgovernment,whenitdeclaredUnilateralDeclarationforIndependence(UDI)bythethenRhodesiain1961.Coincidentally,itwastheyearwhenVincentandThomas(1961)producedareportonnaturalregions1-5,inwhichtheycharacterisedthedescriptionofnature,withlandsuitabilitybeinganimportantvariable.Itisworthytonotethatwehaveusedtheagro-ecologicalregions,withoutfundamentalchangesforalmost60years.Moyoetal,(2005),wroteonthenotionofviability:

Thenotionof‘viable’sizeisnotrelatedtoproductioneconomiesofscale,butlinkedtoaminimumincometarget.InSouthernAfricaforinstance,thisminimumtargetwassettoensurethatwhitefarmerswereabletoearnanincomethatwas‘socially’acceptablewithinwhitesettlersocieties.Oncethedesiredincomewasset,acalculationwasmadeastohowbigthefarmshouldbe,thusgeneratingthe‘viable’farmsize.Efficiencyhadnothingtodowiththiscalculation.Thisnotionofviabilitywasnotonlylimitedtoplanninglargescalecommercialfarmsizesbutalsosmallscaleagriculture.Forinstance,farmsizesinsmallholderresettlementintheearly1980swerebasedonresettlementbeneficiariesbeinggivenfarmslargeenoughtoaffordthemincomesequivalenttominimumwagesprevailinginthemarket.

Thisfactneedstobeinterrogatedinviewofthefarmsizeregulations,astherehasbeensignificantclimaticshiftsandchangesinthenaturalconditionsofthelandacrosstheagro-ecologicalregions.Continueduseofthezoning,couldleadtopoorplanningonwhatmustbethefarmsizeforeachregion.Unfortunately,studiessuchastheVincentandThomasclassificationrequirespecificgovernmentledplanning,whichcouldbecosteffectiveusingnewadvancedmeasurementtechnologiessuchasdronescombinedwithGeographicalInformationSystems(GIS)widelyappliedinspatialmeasurements.

7

2.0 Ruralfarmsizeregulations2020:ananalysis2.1 AcquisitionoflandanddemarcationbasedonfarmsizeregulationsAmajorinstrumentfortheacquisitionofthefarmswasbasedonthefarmSizeregulation.Theinstrumentmadepossibletoeffectcompulsoryacquisitionforalmostallthecommercialfarms.Theremainingwhiteownedfarmshavevariouslandsizes.Thelargerlandsizesreflectedfactorssuchastopographyandfarmingenterprise,whichwereconsideredinleavingthefarmsfullyintact.Theremainingwhitefarmerswereonreducedlandsizes,whichgenerallyconformedtothemaximumfarmsizes,eventhoughtherewasvariationwithsomefarmsthatweredominatedbymountainshavinglargelandsizesorthoseregardedashighlyproductivemeetingmajorexportsorcontributingtofoodsecuritysuchasinseedproduction,milkandwildlife.Someoftheacquiredpropertieswe“reallocated”undertheA2model.Mostofthefarmerswhoremainarehighlyproductiveandproducestrategicfarmingproductssuchasseed,citrus,horticultureandinvolvedinlivestockandcropbreedingwithcomplexoperations.Notalltheseoversizedfarmssurvivedthetakeover,assomesuchasKondozi(asmosttheprominent)wereacquiredandredistributed.Thefarmsizeatthelevelacquisitionhastobecontextuallyunderstoodatthematerialtimewhenlandconflictswereintense,andwhentherewerehighlevelsoflitigationsinthecourts.Yet,itwasalsoatatimewhengovernmenthadseriouslackofcapacitytodoa“massdemarcation”ofplotsbasedonthelawthen.Severalstudies(Moyo,etal.,2009;Scoones,2010;Matondi,2012)notedthatsomeoftheacquiredfarmswereallocatedbeforeproperplanninganddemarcationhadtakenplace.ThuswhenAgritexmovedintodopropersurveytherewerepeoplealreadyonthelandwhohadselfallocatedplotsaccordingtohowtheyhadoccupiedtheland,negotiatedamongsteachotherorinsomeinstancestheleadersinthelandoccupationsdidallocateplotsaccordingtotheirowncriteria.Utete(2003,p.51)foundthatinsometheprocessofdemarcationandallocationwasaffectedbythefactthattherewerepeopleonthegroundresultinginmorepeoplebeingsettledthantheassessedcarryingcapacity(notefarmsize)ofthegivenfarmsinspecificdistricts.Insomeofthestudies,compulsorilyacquiredfarmsweresubjectedtoavarietyoftreatmentbytheauthorities.While,in2005,thegovernmentmadeadecisionto“acquire”allfarms,theyusedthedelistingprovisiontodealwithacquisitioncontests.Forinstancelandownedbyindigenouspeopleorcompaniesweredelisted.Intermsofuseofthefarmsizeregulations,itseemsthatde-listedfarmswereleftintactintermsofthetotallandarea.Thiswasdespitegovernment’spolicyonmaximumfarmsizesforallagro-ecologicalzonesinZimbabwe.Ingeneral,theunderutilisedpartsofthesefarmsweresettledasoccupiersviewedsuchasexcesslandtotheenterpriserequirementsofthemainestates.Inadditionoversizedfarmswerealsoproactivelynegotiatedforofficiallandtakeoversbecausetheywereeithernotbeingused,orwereseenastoolargebytheirownersbasedonthelegalfarmsizeregulations.InthestudyofMazowedistrict(Matondi,2012)observedthatlandownersnegotiatedwiththeauthoritiestoallowforsomeoftheirlandtobeusedforresettlementpurposes.

8

Atsomepoint,duringthefirst5yearsoftheFTLRPfrom2000,thelanddemarcationexercisebecamea"numbersanddeskexercise",resultinginunviabledemarcations(Matondi,2012).Therefore,Agritexsurveysanddemarcationswerecarriedoutinretrospectresultinginunviableplotsorplotsthatarestillbeingcontestedbybeneficiariestothelandauthoritiesorinthepubliccourtswithmanydimensions.

2.2 AllocationoflandanduseoffarmsizeinstrumentDealingwiththedemandsideoflandisakeychallengethatfaceslocalauthoritiesresponsiblefortheemplacementofsettlers.Thelandavailablehastobedividedamongstthepeopleandhenceacriterionhastobeputinplace.Itisalsoimportanttostatethatthelandallocationpolicyishighlycontestedontheground,whichmakesvariationsandattimesexceptionstotherule.Thereisawidevariationinthesizeoflandallocatedevenforpeoplewithinthesameschemeandmodelbecauseofecologicalandphysicallandvariations.Ingeneralacombinationofwelfare,political(deracialisation)andeconomicdevelopmentunderpinnedtheredistributionandfarmsizesthatwereallowedineachcategoryofbeneficiaries.Inastudyof4districtsbetween2004and2007,wefoundthatinMashonalandcentraltheA1(villagised)modelhasacommunalsetupandplotsizesaveragesix(6)hectareswhilstgrazingiscommunal.FortheA1schemesourdatashowsthateachholdingwasallocated21.5hectares,derivedasfollows:residentialarea(0.5hectares),arablearea(6.0hectares),andcommongrazing(15hectares).However,therewassomelargeholdinginsomeplacesassomeA1farmershadmorethantheaverageof6hectaresforarableland.ThekeyinfluencingfactorsweretopographicalvariationofthelandthelandusepatternsforexamplelivestockproductionwerefactorsconsideredinthedemarcationoflargesizedholdingsinMashonalandcentral.TheA2farmswereallocatedunderthesmall,mediumandlargescale,whichwasthenchangedintoonecategorybeingA2.Forinstance,inMazowedistrictin2005,some211farmsweredemarcatedundercommercialA2model.Theplotsizesaveraged30hectaresforsmallscale,100hectaresformediumscaleand300hectaresforlargescaleplots.Thelargestnumberofbeneficiarieswereinthesmallscale(509)followedbymediumscaleandlastlylargescale.IntheA2model,19%(n=305)ofthoseinterviewedgotbetween3-150hectares,with32ofthebeneficiariesgettingbetween31-50hectares.ForA2largescale,themajoritywereinthe31-50hectaresto301to400hectares.However,thesewereonly3%ofthetotalbeneficiaries.IngeneralthemajorityofthebeneficiariesinoursampleforbothA1andA2i.e.53%wereinthe3-10to31-50hectaresplotsizes.Itwasthusestablishedthatintermsoflandallocation,landsizewasanimportantfactorasgovernmentdidsticktoitscriteriaofmaximumlandsizesitprovidedforinitspolicy.However,thereweresomelocalvariationsassomesettlerscouldhaveobtainedlargelandholdingaswholefarms,butnotfarfromtheestablishedsizesassomelandcouldhavebeentakenfortheFTLRP.Therevisedregulationsaresilentontheperi-urbanplotsthatrangefrom2-50hectares.Thedisquietoverthefarmsizeofsuchplotsissurprisinggiventhataspecialcommittee

9

setforoverayeartoconsultandanalyzetheperi-urbanplotsanditstransitiontowardshousingdevelopmentthanagriculture.Thepolicypositionofgovernmentwasthatperi-urbanareasshouldnotbepermanentlyallocatedandreservedforurbanexpansion.Theperunitareaoftheplotremainedsmallwithlessinterestforaccess,aspreferenceformostbeneficiarieswasonagriculturallandwithclearrightsoftenure.Theperi-urbanfarmsprovideopportunityforagriculturaldevelopmentthatmaycushionurbandwellersfromfooddeficitsandmayactasasupplementarymeasuretotheirincomesneeds.Itseemsinthepast,complexlandusessuchhorticulture(flowers,vegetables),ostrichesandgamewerepromotedinperi-urbanareasacrossthecountry.BeforetheFTLRP,someproprietorsmadehugeinvestmentsingreenhousestoproducevarioustypesofcropsforlocalandinternationalmarkets.Inaddition,livestockproduction,particularlydairy,poultry,piggery,wildlifesanctuariesfortourismhavebeenthekeyenterpriseswithvariedlandsizes.

2.3 AdministrationofthestatutoryinstrumentItisimportanttoputthefarmsizeregulationstoadministrativetest,becausetheutilityvalueoftheinstrumentisdeterminebytheactionsinlandmanagement.Thereisnosynchronizationandhierarchiesinthedifferentlegislationthatadministerlande.g.inthecommunalareaslandisadministeredthroughmultipleacts–CommunalLandAct;TraditionalLeadersActandRuralDistrictCouncils.FurthermoreAgritexisnowresponsibleforlandmanagementissuesinalltypesoflandwheretherealreadyexistmultiplelandadministrationinstitutions.Theirworkhasbeendifficult,becausemostofthelowerrankAgritexneedtogoforfurthertrainingonlandmanagement.Inprovidingthemwithlegalstatutoryregulationssuchasthefarmsizeandlandsubletting,itishopedthattherewillbebetteradministrationoflandholdingsWhencraftingnewLandPolicythereisneedtoconsolidatethevariousactsthatfocusoncommunallandownership.Landrelatedlegislationisadministeredbydifferentlineministriesofthegovernment(e.g.MinistryofMines-MinesandMineralAct;MinistryofEnvironmentandNaturalResources-EnvironmentalManagementAct).Conflictsarisefromthisprocessastwobeneficiariescouldlayclaimtosamepieceoflandthroughdifferentavenues–onewithpermitfromtheMinistryofMinesandMiningDevelopment,whilsttheotherwithanofferletter/permit/leaseholdfromtheMinistryofLandsandRuralResettlement.Landmanagementinstitutions(DeedsOfficeandDepartmentofSurveyGeneral)thatarecriticaltofarmvaluationsandassessmentsareundercapacitatedtosupportthemandateoftheDepartmentofLandManagementandtheZLC.ForinstancetheDepartmentoftheSurveyorGeneralissupposedtoproducediagramstoaccompanythe99-yearleasedocumentasrequiredbylawfortheleasetoberegisteredbytheDeedsOffice.However,theyfacenumerousresourcesgapsinbothhumanandfinancial.TheextenttowhichtheseshouldadheretofarmsizesisguidedbytheMinistryofLands,thoughatthemomenttheDeedRegistryundertheMinistryofJusticeplaysalimitedrole,asthelandisownedbygovernment.Thereisduplicationoflandrelatedrolesbetweenthedifferentarmsofgovernment–forinstancetheMinisteroflandswithpowersofregulatingfarmsizes,istheoverall

10

custodianoflandpolicy.NeverthelessatprovincialleveltheMinistryrepresentative(Agritex)reportstotheMinistryofLocalGovernmentthroughtheresidentminister.TheMinistryofLocalgovernmentthroughtheDistrictLandCommitteesthatarechairedbytheDistrictAdministratordoesallA1landallocations.OnlandallocationMLRRallocatesagriculturallandwhilstMinistryofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesallocateslandundertheWildlifeBasedLandReform.Thequestionthatremainisifandhowtheseinstitutionssharedatabaseformakeinformeddecisions,whenthelandsizeregulationsresidingwiththeMinisterofLandswouldrequireeffectiveusebyotherstatutorybodies.Ingeneralwherethereareweakgovernancestructures,toolssuchasthefarmsizeregulationscouldbemostusefulinlandmanagementtowardsoptimumuse.However,evenaftertwodecadesofFTLRP,theresettlementareashaveweakgovernancesystems.Inaddition,thegovernmentishamstrungintermsofcapacitythatishumanandtechnicalresourcestofullymonitorfarmuseandtherelatedsizesofthefarms.Forinstancenaturalresourcemanagementproblemsareconcentratedinnewresettlementareascomparedtocommunalareaswhereitisgovernedbytraditionalauthorities.3.0 AppliedpolicyandpracticesinuseofinstrumentTherelationshipbetweenlandsizeandviabilityisacontentiousmatterinagricultureeconomics,becausesmallholdingcanbeveryviableandsustaintheeconomy.Viabilityneedstobeassesseddifferentiatingbetweenlandusepoliciesandagriculturalpolicy.Thereisadifferenceofwhatisviableinagriculturalpolicyandlandusepolicy.Forinstanceafive-hectareprojecton200hafarmcanhaveviablemarginsunderagriculturalpolicybutunderlandusepolicycanbeconsideredasunderutilisationofland.Inthecolonialperiodlandsizesweredefinedbyincomeviability.Itwasnotedthattherearenoeconomiesofscaleinagricultureandfarmsizesshouldbediscussedinadynamicway.Viabilitycanbeinfluencedbyinvestmentstothesectorespeciallybyindividualthatisdomesticandinternational.Whilethefarmsizeregulationsdonotdirectlyaddressviability,itwillbeanimportantpartonthedeterminationofwhatlandwillbesubdividedorconsolidatedbasedonpraxis.Thelandpolicythereforemustproceedwithhastetoclarifywhatviabilitymeansatthepolicylevel,inlinewithFastTracklandusers,whohavedifferentneedsandproductionsystems.Theruralfarmsizeregulationshavebeenmadeaspartoftheadministrativeandmanagementprocessofrurallands.Theregulationsrequiresandassessmentoflandparcelsintermsofcompliancewithexistingpolicypositionsintermsofobjectives,targets,implementationandstandardsinthelandmanagementsector.Thereisnoclearconsensusontheexistingonthelandpolicypositionsandthusthefirststeprequiresthespecification/collation/verificationofthepolicystatementsandlegislation.Inordertohelpintheusageofthefarmsizeregulations,thereisaneedtobuildacommonunderstandinganderadicatecontestsontheexistingpolicypositions.Inorderforthelandpolicytoplayitsroleandbacktherevisedfarmsizeregulationsthereisaneedforsomeofthefollowingactions:

• Todefinethepolicycompliancemeasuresfromthelandreformexistingpolicypositions.

11

• Tospecifythequestionsonfarmsizecomplianceaspartofthelandpolicypackageasacomprehensivemeasure.

• Theneedtomeasurecomplianceneedtobedefinedtakingintoaccountcontestedlandandnoncomplianceperspectivese.g.multiplefarmownership,oversizedlandbasedonthefarmsizeregulations,landuseandproductionmatters,locationofthefarmsandtheirtreatmentforeitherreplanningandsubdivisionand/orconsolidation.

Akeyconcerninthepasthasbeenthecontinuedlanddisputesoverboundaries,whichthenmadeassumptionsthatthesolutionsuchmustberegistrationoftheallocatedparcel.Inaddition,theargumentforregistrationwasmadestronglyinthecontextofcompensation,whichrequiresdrawinglandanddevelopmentdatafromthetimeofacquisitionofthefarms.Inallcase,farmsizeisanimportantelementofboth.However,itneedstobeemphasizedthatthetypeofregistrationandsurveyingisnotgoingtoresolveboundarydisputescomprehensively.InMazowedistrictin2007,wefoundthatthemostacuteboundarydisputesarebetweenA1andA2areas,wheretheboundariesarewellknown.Indiscussionswithavarietyoflandmanagersfromthedistricttothenationallevel,weestablishedthatthelanddisputesinvolvingboundariescouldberesolvedwithamoreintegratedlanddevelopmenteffort.ThismeansseekingintegrationoffarmsandwidereconomicactivityonaspatialbasisacrossA1andA2unitsinaparticulararea,andacrosstheagro-ecologicalregions,whichfeaturethegazettelandsizes.4.0 Adoptionandadaptationoffarmsizepolicyinstrument4.1 AdoptionofinstrumentandpolicycontextGiventhewaysinwhichgovernmentworks,theruralfarmsizeregulationsarenowpartofthelawandavailableforusebythelandauthority.Amajortalkingpointistheextenttowhichitwillbeusedandonwhatlandpiece.Therearemanyinstanceswheretheadoptionofthetoolwouldhelpeasytheburdenonlandmanagement.Theruralfarmsizeregulationsneedtobebackedbypreciseclarityonthecurrentlandparcel,withoutbeingblinkeredbywhoiscurrentlyseatingonthatland.Itcanthenbeabletoexpeditiouslydealwithcaseoflargefarmsbasedonthesemeasuretomakelandavailabletoapplicants.Someofthecriticalchallengesfacedinthelandadministration,towhichthispolicycouldbebeneficialinclude:

1. Longdrawnproceduresfortheconsolidationoffarms:incaseswherethereisagoodreasonwhylandneedtobeconsolidated.Suchlandmayhavebeenallocatedtofewpeople,andasacommunityseebenefitsofconsolidationfortheirproductionsystem.Thisisoftenthecaseinoutlierareas,whereacombinationofcropsandlivestockismoreexpedientthanasmallersizedland;

2. Resistanceforreplanningofthefarms:onceissuedanofferletter,afarmerfeelsempoweredandresistanymovestorationalizethelandtheyholdonto,despiteclearcasesofunderuse.Theappropriatenessoftheplansfollowedindemarcatinglandinaccordancewithlandusemodelassumptionssuggeststhat,inmanyareas,suchtechnicalconsiderationswereonlygenerallyfollowedbecauseofthispushbackbybeneficiaries.TherearemanyA1andA2plotswhichhavelessormore

12

arableand/orgrazinglandareasthanisassumedbythelandusemodels.Theempiricalscaleofthisneedstobedeterminedandwillrequirefarm-by-farmplanningworktodetermineandadjust,whichthenationallandauditmayhavedoneandstilltobepublished.

3. Knowledgeonfarmdivisionsandpractices:intheabsenceofmonitoringlanddata,itisdifficulttoknowthepatternsoflandsubdivisions(legalorillegal)thattakeplaceonthefarms.Thereisalotofdemographicmovementoffarmersastheyexitandenterandre-enter(Matondi,2012),whichmakesplanningdifficulty,assomeofthereplanningisinstigatedlocallyamongbeneficiarieswhomaynotreporttoanyauthority.Thisalsoappliedtocedinglandorpartsof,whileinsomecaseshavingperpetualrentalarrangements.Theseisneedtobuildconfidenceingovernmentlandmanagementforbeneficiariestoreportonthechangecircumstanceswithoutpunitiveactionbutformalreplanninginordertobringinformationtothegovernment.

4. JointVenturesandsubletting:onthe28thofJune2019allowedjointventureandsublettingasapolicytodealwithmattersoflandinvestments,whichhadlimitedreferencetothefarmsizesasanexistingpolicy.However,theimportanceoftheJointVentureinstrumentwastoallayfearsoflandbeingtakenbygovernmentduetounderutilization,asbeneficiariesoftheofferedfarms,weregivenroomtoseekowninvestmentsthancontinueddependencyongovernmentsubsidies.

5. Socialissues:accesstolandisnotjustatechnicalmatterofapieceoflandanditsmeasurement.Peopleandresourcesareontheland,andfamiliestransitionthroughdeaths,divorceandsomesuch.Thosewhoremainmakefamilydecisionsonaccessanduseoftheland,includingsubdivisions,whichtheymaynotreporttotheauthority.Whenonegetsaccesstoland,heorshewantstobecertainthatincaseofdeaththeirchildrenhaverightstothatlandfortheirownlivelihood,andoneacttoensurethisfamilylevelsecurityistosubdivideapieceofthelandforthechildren.

Inviewoftheproblemsencounteredinthelandreform,ithasbeenmostdifficulttodevelopandcomprehensivelandpolicy.Whileinthepast,thereasonswerecausedbytensionbetweendifferentgroupswithinterestsonland,itwouldseemthatFastTrackfarmbeneficiarieshangontothelandwithoutresourcesforfullusemakingitdifficultforgovernmenttoreplan.Itiscriticalthatassuranceofaccesstolandforthosewhocanfarmit,mustbegivenontheappropriatefarmsizesthatmatchtheirinterestsandcapacity.Alandauditthatexaminesfarmsizesandusepatternsmustincludenegotiatorstoaddresspossibleresistancetoreplanning,evenwhenitisknowthatitprovideseconomicandsocialgoodtothecountry.Therehasbeenverylittleprogress,andtheMinisterhavehadtoannouncepolicymeasuressuchassublettingandruralfarmsizeregulationsasstatutoryinstruments,asgovernmentwaitsforseveralpolicymattersthatareinconclusivesince2017orbefore.Atroublefeatureofthislackofpolicyprogress,isthatalmostallstakeholdersareapologetic,andhaveapologeticbehaviorsoverthelandredistribution.Intermsofpolicydevelopment,itwouldseemthatgovernmenthastakenanapologeticstancewithfarmerswhoarenotoptimallyusingtheirland.FastTrackFarmers,especiallyintheA2have

13

gottenthebulkofthesympathy,creatingasituationofperpetualunderuseofthefarmsthatarelargesized.Formerlandowners,needingcompensationhavelargelyshiftedtoco-operatingwithgovernmentandapplyingforlandundertheA2model,withthoseunableagreeingtoapackageofcompensationoveraperiodoftime.Thischangedviewandwillingnesstohavelandsizeswithinthelegallystipulatedoffersgovernmenttostructureapolicythatcanleadtoactionstowardsagriculturalrecoverybyremovingthestumblingblocks,ofwhichlandsizewasacontestedmatter.

4.2 DeviationsintheuseofthefarmsizeinstrumentTheMinistryofLands,Agriculture,WaterandRuralresettlementin2009providedinsightsintotheperformanceonfarmsizes.Table4.1:RecommendedandobservedMaximumFarmSizesundertheLand

ReformProgrammeNaturalRegion

FarmSizeCategory StatutoryInstrument(Recommended)Farmsize(HA)

Observed(Audit)FarmSizeRange(HA)

I Smallscale 15-25 10-25 Medium 100 26-100 Largescale 250 101-1700 Periurban 15-50 1-350IIa Smallscale 25-40 10-40 Medium 200 51-200 Largescale 400 200-1400 Periurban 15-50 1-350IIb Smallscale 40-50 10-50 Medium 250 51-250 Largescale 400 251-8000 Periurban 15-50 1-350III Smallscale 60-80 40-80 Medium 300 80-300 Largescale 500 301-4000 Periurban 15-50 1-350IV Smallscale 150-200 6-200 Medium 700 201-700 Largescale 1500 701-7000 Periurban 15-50 1-350V Smallscale 250-350 140-350 Medium 1500 351-1500 Largescale 2000 1501-4000 Periurban 15-50 1-350Source:GoZ(2009)ThemainobservationbytheMinistryfollowingalandauditexercise(MLRRandSIRDIC,2008)wasthatgovernmentrelaxedthefarmsizeinstrumentinlandmanagement.Thisdeviatedfromthestricterperiodofthefirst5years,whenlargelytherewascompliancewiththefarmsizeregulations.Themainsummaryobservationswerethat:• Somesub-divisionscreatedduringthelandReformprogramsarenotviable.• Someoftheallocationsarewaybeyondmaximumfarmsizes.

14

• Someof thesub-divisionshave interferedwithproductivity incertainspecializedfarmingenterprisese.g.rotationsintobaccoanddairyetc

• Some of the planning rendered irrigation systems infrastructure non-viable andsometimesdysfunctional.

• Someofthesub-divisionshavecreatedconfusioninconservanciesandplantations.• Most A1 schemes are overstocked i.e number of resettled people exceeding

plannedcarryingcapacity.• Some sub-divisions have created land conflicts on farm infrastructure like

homesteads,sheds,tobaccobarns,waterpoints(boreholes,damsandpumps)andirrigationsystemsetc

• Illegalsettlersinconservancies,plantationsandacquiredfarms

4.3 AdaptationintheuseofinstrumentMakinglandavailablethroughstrictenforcementoftheruralfarmsizeregulationswouldbebeneficialtothelandreformprogrammeinparticular.While,largelythemainconcernswouldberaisedbythosewithlargeandmultiplefarms,thereareparticularfactsthatequallyneedstheattentionofthegovernment,andwherepotentiallythisinstrumentwouldbeuseful.Someofthisincludesthat

• Thereishighdemandforlandinsomedistrictsthatstillhaveoversizedfarms.Thesefarmswereissuedwithinthecontextoftheoldfarmsizeregulationsthatwerenotstrictlyenforced.Infact,inoftencasedecisionsonsizeweremadeatthedistrictlevel,andattimesdistrictadoptedthefarmer-ledparcelingoflandbasedonlocalreality.TheMinistryofLandsandthedistrictswouldthenendorsetheallocationsandprovideservicesforsurveyanddemarcationtoconfirmthelandarrangementsofsettledontheground’

• Farmsizeregulationsprovidegreaterdiversityintherangeof landssizesofferedtobeneficiariesbecause landallocations ingeneral tended tobegivenbelow theprescribedmaximtoaccommodatemoresmallerandmediumscalebeneficiaries.The prescribed maximum farm sizes are broad guidelines, adapted to localcircumstances.

• Therewasageneralagreementtoaccommodatefarmworkerswithfarmunitsrestrictedtothe2hectaresasinperi-urbanunits.Theideawastohaveapartofthefarmshavingfarmworkers,workingandalsoproducingfoodfortheirownfamilies,giventheusuallydepressedwagesforfarmworkers.Nonetheless.Farmworkers“disappeared”intothenewagrarianstructure,andtherehasnotbeenanyappetitetofollowontheirstandardsoflivingatapolicylevel.ThecreationofhamletsinFastTrackFarmareasforresidentialandothersocialservicesforformer,newfarmworkersandotherservicesprovidingentitieswhichareindependentofnewfarmerslandneedstobeencouraged.IfthefarmsizeregulationsresultsinmorelandavailableforadministrationbytheDepartmentofLandManagement,itsshouldprioritizedfarmworkerstohaveaccesstolandfortheirfamilyneed.SomedistrictssuchasMazoweatthebeginningrespectedthis“policy”provision,whileallowingsomeofthefarmworkerstoapplyforlandasanyotherpotentialbeneficiaryintheA1andA2farms.

15

• Someoftherecoveredlandsshouldbeallocatedtowomenandyoungpeople.Anassessmentsofthecurrentlandparcelsforthisgroupwillneedtobeestablished,andhopefullythelandauditcangivedirectionbasedondatafortheauditasandwhenitspublished.IndistrictssuchasMangwe,Shamva,GoromonziandMazowe(Matondi,20120)therewasnoclearpatternsoftherelationshipbetweenlandallocationandfarmsize.Itwouldseemthatthegovernmentandlocalauthoritiestriedtoadheretolegislatedsizes,irrespectiveofthebeneficiariesgenderorage.

• Deviationsfromtheregulationshavebeenallowedinthepastandwillapplyunderthenewinstrumentthroughassessmentsofcapability,suitabilityandcarryingcapacityandclimaticconditions.Themethodofhowthisisdoneatimplementationofthefarmsizeshouldbemadetothelandtransactingpublic.

Whilesmallersizedfarmsareingeneralefficient,thereareanumberofenterprises,which,duetoanumberoffactors,mayneedextraamountsofland.Onereasoncouldbetheecologicalneedsoftheenterprise.Examplesofenterprisesinthisclusterofspecialenterprisesincludeforestplantationsandwildlifeenterprises.Otherenterprisesinthisclassincludehugeagro-industrialcomplexes,whichneedcertainminimumthroughputstoremainviable.Insuchcasesitisprudentfortheconcerntomaintainenoughlandtocoverminimumthroughputrequirements.Wheresuchconcernsareusedasthecoreestatesforsomeformofoutgrowerscheme,extralandmightbeneededtosupporttheoutgrowerventure,includinglandtoprovideplantingmaterial,researchandtrainingplotsforoutgrowers.Examplesofenterprisesinthisclusterincludeseedcompanyfarms,horticulturalexportingcompanyfarms,aswellasplantationswithprocessinginfrastructure.Yetanotherfactorrequiringspecialconsiderationinlandprovisionisthetechnologyembeddedinsomeproductionforms.InA2productionsystems,therelativelylargesizesofplotsprecludetheuseofanimaltractionastheyneedingmechanicaltractionandimplements.Theserequirehugeinvestmentbyfarmersandhencewouldneedhighlevelsofproductiontorecuperatethecosts.Someirrigationsystemsaredesignedtooperateasoneintegratedsystem.Breakingthemupintosmallerunitsmayinvolvesubstantialcostsand/orlossinefficiency.Thesamecanbesaidofsomedairyproductionunitsinwhichamilkingparlorandsupportinfrastructurewasdesignedinsuchafashionthatunitsbrokendownfromthemainfarmwillnotoptimallyusetheexistinginfrastructure.Someofthesecriticalestates,suchasARDAandotherprivateonesrequirelargeorcontinuouslandtosupportthecoreestatetoensureminimumproductionforthedomesticandexportmarketsinenoughandconsistentquantities.5.0 DiscussionpointsIngeneralsettlersonA2andA1-modelfarmswerebeingissuedtemporaryoccupationlicensesbasedonlandofferletterssignedbytheresponsibleminister.Theofferletters,whichspecifiesthelandsizeoftheproperty,wastobeconvertedintoa99-yearleaseundertheA2modeland/orpermitsofoccupationanduseundertheA1model.Theprovisionsofthe99-yearlease,withdefinedlandsizesareyettobegrantedacceptanceoftheprovisionontransferabilitybetweengovernmentandfinancialinstitutions.Theland

16

sizesofeachpropertywillneedtobespecifiedforallpartieswithinterests.Therearemultipledimensionstothisproblem.First,foranyleaseholdgranttosatisfytherequirementsofthelaw,thefarmstowhichitrelateswillneedtobesubdivided,surveyedandcertifiedbytheSurveyor-General’soffice.Thisrequiresprecisetriangulationsandbeaconinginordertosatisfyregistrationrequirements.Undercurrentlaw,compliancewiththeserequirementscantakemanyyearseveninthebestofcircumstances.Theupgradingoftheland-tenuresystemswouldrequirethecommitmentofmoresubstantialresourcestolandsurveysandregistration(andnottitling).TheofferofaleaseandleaseholdagreementforA2-modelsettlementatthismomentdoesnotconstituteafirmoffer.ThisisbecausetheprovisionsarethatitmaybecancelledatthediscretionoftheMinister.Althoughthelettercontainsanoptionforlongleaseholding,thisisbynomeansaguaranteetotherightsland.Accordingtotheletterofoffer,theconditionsgoverningtheexerciseoftheoption“shallbereviewedbytheMinisterfromtimetotime”.Thisthereforemeanthatirrespectiveofthefarmsizeofthefarmsgiven,onemustexpectsubstantialinsecurityoftenureintheA2modelinparticular,wheretheseregulationsareclearlyspecifiedthananyothertenurialregime.Apartfromdiscouraginginvestmentontheland,therightsascribedbythestatearestilltoostrong,andithasinadditiontothecompulsorylandacquisition,toolsthatitcanusetoforceredistribution.TheA1farmsarewidelyregardedasbeingon6hectaresplotsasastandardmeasure,yettheyhavemorelandwhichiswithintheirpotentialastheylargelydependonfamilylabourandanimalbasedtraction.Intheabsenceofamechanizationstrategy,theyareseverelylimitedintheamountoflandtheycancrop.Thereisthoughscopetore-examinethelivestockfarmsizesandtheirsharingarrangementsamonggroupsofbeneficiariesespeciallyinnaturalregions4and5.IntheA2model,theissueofmechanizationiscriticalandoverthe2decades,therehasbeensporadicinvestmentinmechanizationthathasnotchangedtheproductionlevels.Forthisreason,andintheimmediatethefarmsizeregulationscouldhelpre-optimizingthefarmunits.However,theneedforincreasingthesizesisalsocompelling,asthismodelofcommercialproductioniscriticallyneededinthecountry.Farmsizesregulationsarepartofaraftofstatutoryinstrumentsthatguidesimplementationofthelandreformprogramme,butmoreimportantlybeingamanagementandmonitoringtooltoensurethefollowing:

• Equitabledistributionoftheland• Efficientuseoftheland• Economicgrowth• Peaceandstability

Theseobjectivesareimpliedinallformsoflandmanagement,thoughmeetingtheobjectivesinpracticeiscircumstantial,astheobjectivesneedtologicallyconnect.InthecaseofZimbabwe,ithasnotbeenpossible,giventhatmuchoftheimplementationofthelandreformprogramme,hasnotfollowedalogicalsequence.Thegovernmenthasbeen

17

reactiveandclarifiedpoliciessuchastheFarmSizeRegulations(2020),andtheJointVentureandLandsubletting(2019).Indeedatthismoment,thestatehasinteresttoseethroughimprovedproductiononthelandbuthasbeenhesitantforunknownreasonswhyitwouldallowlandunderutilisation.Thereisdefinitelypoliticalpressurethatdiscouragesradicalactionsforthoseunderutilising.Thisisoneofthereasons,whyonJune28,2019itevokedandallowedJointVentureandLandSubletting(Matondi,2019)toreleasepressureonthelandbeneficiariestogetinvestment.However,giventhelimitedprospectsofincreasinglandutilisation,thegovernmenthaspromulgatedthenewfarmsizeregulationstoprovideitwithlegalpossibilitiestore-demarcateorconsolidateholdingwiththisnewlegalprovisionavailableforusebythelandauthoritiesintheFTLRPfarms.Tomitigatetheconcernovercontinuedunderutilisationofland,thereisaneedtoputacosttotheholdingofland.Discussionsonlandtaxationshouldcommencesothatthestatecandepressurizeitselffromthehighcostsaccompaniedbyunderutilizationofhighqualitylandcapabletooffsetfooddeficitsandcontributetotheeconomy.Theleasefees,infrastructurefeesandlocalunittaxesshouldbemaintained,whilethereshouldbeadequateservicesandmaintenanceofpublicinfrastructureinthecommercialfarms.ThemaximumfarmsizepolicyshouldapplyacrosstheboardtoincludelandthathasnotbeenacquiredforresettlementundertheFastTrackLandReformProgramme.HowevertheimplementationoftheMaximumFarmSizepolicyshouldnotberigid,butbeappliedonacase-by-casebasisassomelandcontainsmountainousterrainnotsuitableforagriculturalactivities.EquallythereisaneedtodownsizeallfarmsexceedingthemaximumfarmsizesregulationsincludingBIPPAandreallocatetootherbeneficiaries.Againthecurrentuseisamajordeterminantofpotentialforeitherdownsizingorconsolidatingtomeetthefoodneedsandproductsessentialintheagriculturesector.Thosewithseriousownresources,orhaveproventhemselvesconsistentlyinproductioninthelastfiveyearsfromtheirdateofoccupation,shouldbeprioritizedinthelandallocationafterlandrecoveryfromenforcementofthefarmsizeregulations.6.0 ConclusionsTheFTLRPhasnotbeenastraightforwardaffairandhasbeencontestedontheground.Itisforthisreasonsthatstatutoryinstrumentsthatareusedwithoutreferencetoparliamenthavebeenusedadministratively.Justasin2000,therehasbeenaraftofinstrumentstofacilitateadministrativecapacity,whilecreatingaseriousvacuumtomonitorprogresswiththelandredistributionprogramme.Thestateanditslocalstructures,committeesandtaskforceshavefacednumerouschallengeswithrespecttoenforcingstatutoryprovisions.Infact,thewholegamutoflandacquisition,theplacementofpeopleonplotsandthesubsequentreactionofpeoplewhohadoccupiedthefarmsfrom2000createdacomplexsystem,hardtountanglepolitically.Therewerevariousadministrativeproblems,andthereislittlesignthatsuchproblemshavebeenentirelyrectified.Theinabilitytocompletelyhaveclearlyimplementedpolicyonfarmsizeshasbeenlacking.ThefewrevisionsdonewithSIonfarmssizesinMarch2020,willnotdisruptproduction,whichforallpurposesremainsweak.Iftheinstrumentisappliedinafair

18

mannerforallpropertiesandwithanobjectiveofagriculturalrecovery,thenthereisjustificationforthereplanning.Theactionsofgovernmentwillbepopularorunpopulardependingonhowitisused.Replanningofteninvolvedtheremovalofbeneficiaries,takingpartsoftheirland,and/ortheconsolidationofthefarmsbasedonspecificintendedagriculturevaluechains.Ineachinstance,thereshouldclarityonthereasonsfortheactionstopreventspeculationsinasectorthatishighlysensitiveandperhapshasbeenthemostsingularreasonforlackofeconomicgrowthandprogressduetoinsecuritiesinthelandsector.Intermsoflandacquisitionandallocation,governmenthasbeentryingtofollowthelaiddownlegalandpolicyproceduresonfarmsizes,butthishasnotalwaysbeensmooth.Thereiscertainlyadisjointinfarmsizesfromsmallagainstthepractices(e.g.beefproductioninregions2and3,whiletherearealsolargesizedholdingsbeyondtheprescribedwithinthesameregions.Theimportanceoftherevisedfarmsize,isnotitscreationofallequalsizedfarms,butrathertousetheinstrumenttowardsagriculturalrecovery.Moreawareness,ontheintentionoftheinstrumentmustbedoneinthecountry,sothatthetoolisappreciatedforitsintendedpurposeandlimitationsofitspotentialtodisruptproductivefarmentities.ThechangesofthepasttwodecadeshaveseentheendoftheextremedualismofZimbabwe’sagriculturalsectorandreaffirmationthatthelandredistributionprogrammeisirreversible,butrequireastrongerapproachtowardssystematicallysupportingagriculturalrecoveryinanagrarianstructurethatisdominatedbysmallerfarmsthanbefore.Amorestrategicdiscussionoftheoptionsforadiverseandeconomicallyvibrantruralsectorisrequired,lookingtothefutureratherthanthepast.Thiswillrequirefundamentalrethinkofruralinfrastructure,services,andthewaycreditinparticularisoffered,movingbeyondtherequirementforfreeholdtitleascollateraltonewformsofcreditguaranteesledbyfinancialinstitutionswiththesupportofstate.Considerationofarangeoflandtenureoptionsforsecuringlandrightsandencouraginginvestment,includingpermits,leasesandothermechanismsrequiretobedoneandconcluded,oncekeymattersthathaveslowedprogressaredealtwithcomprehensivelyandledbyZimbabwe.Aredesignofinfrastructuralandtechnologicalsupport,againmovingbeyondtheassumptionthatcertaintypesofscale-specificinfrastructuralinvestmentsinirrigationfacilities,production,processingequipment,etc.Theviewthatsizeistheonlymarkerforsatisfyingbeneficiariesneedstobechangedtofocusonproductionontheland.Therevisionofthefarmsizesisappropriatetothepresentcontext,buteventuallythematterswillturntomattersoflabourprovision,highlevelofagriculturalmanagementandtechnologybeingmorecriticaltodrivingagricultureintothefuture.7.0 ReferencesGovernmentofZimbabwe(GoZ),2001,Zimbabwe’sLandReformProgrammeGoZ(GovernmentofZimbabwe),(1999)StatutoryInstrument419of1999;RuralLand

(FarmSizes)Regulations,Harare,Zimbabwe:GovernmentPrinter.

19

GoZ,2009,SomeoftheMajorThemesProposedforDiscussionfortheretreat,fortheMinistryofLands,andRuralResettlement,CaribbeaBay,Kariba

Lipton,Michael.2009.Landreformindevelopingcountries:propertyrightsandpropertywrongs,Routledge,USA

Masiiwa,M.,(ed.),(2004)Post-IndependencelandreforminZimbabwe:controversiesandimpactontheeconomy.Harare,Zimbabwe:FriedrichEbertStiftungandUniversityofZimbabweInstituteofDevelopmentStudies.

Matondi,P.B.2012.Zimbabwe’sFastTracklandReformProgramme,ZEDBooks,London.Matondi,P.B.,2005,Agricultureandruraldevelopmenttransformation:findingsfrom

MazoweDistrict.Harare,Zimbabwe,RuzivoTrust,mimeoMatondi,P.B.,2011,Land,AgricultureandRuralDevelopment,inKanyenze,G.Kondo,T.,

Chitambara,P.andJ.Martens,BeyondtheEnclave:TowardsaPro-poorandInclusiveDevelopmentStrategyforZimbabwe,ANSA,LabourandEconomicDevelopmentResearchInstituteofZimbabwe,ZimbabweCongressofTradeUnionsandWeaverPress,Harare,Zimbabwe.

Matondi,P.B.,andT.KhombewithG.H.M.Matondi,N.R.MoyoandM.Chiweshe,2008,ThelandreformandresettlementprogrammeinMangweDistrict,MatabelelandSouth(LandsAndLivelihoodsResearchProgramme,MangweDistrictReport).Harare,Zimbabwe:RuzivoTrust.

Matondi,P.B.2019,JointVenturesandLandSublettinginTheFastTrackLandReformPrograminZimbabwe:AnAnalysis,WorkingPaper,RuzivoTrust,Harare,Zimbabwe

MLRR(MinistryofLandandRuralResettlement)andSIRDC(ScientificIndustrialResearchandDocumentationCentre)2008,Consolidated:NationalA2LandAuditReport,GovernmentofZimbabwe,Harare.

Moyo,S.,1995,ThelandquestioninZimbabwe.Harare,Zimbabwe:SapesTrust.Moyo,S.,2000,LandreformunderStructuralAdjustmentinZimbabwe.Uppsala,Sweden:

NordicAfricaInstitute.Moyo,S.,2011a,Landconcentrationandaccumulationafterredistributivereforminpost-

settlerZimbabwe,ReviewofAfricanPoliticalEconomy,38:128,257-276Moyo,S.,2011b,‘Changingagrarianrelationsafterredistributivelandreformin

Zimbabwe,’TheJournalofPeasantStudies,38,5:939–966.Moyo,S.,andP.B.Matondi,(2003)ThePoliticsofLandReforminZimbabwe,inM.Baregu

andC.Landsburg,FromCapetoCongo,InternationalPeaceAcademy,NewYork:InternationPeaceAcademy.

Moyo,S.,Chambati,W.,Murisa,T.,Siziba,D.,Dangwa,C.Mujeyi,K.andN.Nyoni,2009,FastTrackLandReformBaselineSurveyinZimbabwe:TrendsandTendencies,2005/6,AIASPublication,Harare.

Roth,M.,andJ.Bruce,1994,Landtenure,agrarianstructureandcomparativelanduseefficiencyinZimbabwe:optionsforlandtenurereformandlandredistribution(LandTenureCenterResearchPaper117).Madison,USA:LandTenureCenter,UniversityofWisconsin.

Rukuni,M.andS.Jensen,2003,Land,GrowthandGovernance:TenureReformandVisionsofProgressinZimbabwe,inHammar,A.,Raftopolous,B.andJ.Stigen,(eds.)Zimbabwe’sunfinishedbusiness:rethinkingland,state,andnationinthecontextofcrisis.Harare,Zimbabwe:WeaverPress.

20

Rukuni,M.,1994a,Theevolutionofagriculturalpolicy:1890-1990,inM.RukuniandC.Eicher(eds):Zimbabwe’sAgriculturalRevolution.Harare,Zimbabwe:UniversityofZimbabwePublications.

Rukuni,M.,1994b,ReportoftheCommissionofInquiryintoAppropriateAgriculturalLandTenureSystems.Harare,Zimbabwe:GovernmentPrinter.

Rukuni,M.,andC.K.Eicher,1994,Zimbabwe’sagriculturerevolution.Harare,Zimbabwe:UniversityofZimbabwePublications.

Rukuni,M.,J.M.NyoniandE.SitholewithP.B.MatondiandM.Mutema,2009,PolicyoptionsforoptimisationoftheuseoflandforagriculturalproductivityandproductioninZimbabwe.SubmittedtotheAgrarianSectorTechnicalReviewGroup(ASTRG),WorldBank,Harare

Rukuni,M.,P.TawonezviandC.EicherwithM.Munyuki-HungweandP.B.Matondi(eds.),2006,Zimbabwe’sagriculturalrevolution(2ndedition).Harare,Zimbabwe:UniversityofZimbabwePublications.

Scoones,I.MarongweN.,MavedzengeB.,MurimbarimbaF.,MaheneheneJ.andC.Sukume,2010,Zimbabwe’sLandReform:MythsandRealities,London:JamesCurrey.

Sukume,C,MoyoS.andP.B.Matondi,2005,FarmSizes,LandUseandViabilityConsiderations,TechnicalPaperNo.3,PresidentialLandReviewCommittee,HarareZimbabwe

Utete,C.M.B.,(2003a)ReportofthePresidentialLandReviewCommitteeontheimplementationofthefast-tracklandreformprogramme2000-2002.Harare,Zimbabwe:PresidentialLandReviewCommittee.

Vincent,V.andThomas,R.G.1961,AnagriculturalsurveyofSouthernRhodesia:PartI:agro-ecologicalsurvey.GovernmentPrinter,Salisbury

Weiner,D.,S.Moyo,B.MunslowandP.O’Keefe,1986,‘LanduseandagriculturalproductivityinZimbabwe’,JournalofModernAfricanstudies,23(2):251-285.