Zimbabwe farmers benefit from land reform - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of Africa.

Moderator: PoFo Africa Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#13166316
http://allafrica.com/stories/200909150117.html
Isdore Guvamombe
15 September 2009
The Herald


Zimbabwe: Farmer Reaps Fruits of Land Reform

"Farming is business and an art in itself. At the moment my main problem is that my land has become too small for me," explains Bonde who occupies a 20-hectare plot at Adula Farm on the outskirts of Glendale but is leasing more land from his less enterprising neighbours.

"All the wealth I have acquired here is courtesy of the land reform programme. I had nothing. I came here in 2002 from my village in Shutu communal lands in Chiweshe with literary nothing but a master farmer certificate from a course sponsored for communal farmers by the Zimbabwe Farmers Union.

"I started with maize and moved to tobacco and wheat before eventually venturing into export vegetables like peas, broccoli and fine beans, this year."

Because his land has now become too small, Bonde now rents plots from neighbouring farmers.

Today, he has 60 hectares under wheat, 10 hectares of green peas, 5 hectares of fine beans, 2 hectares of broccoli, 2 hectares of cauliflower and has prepared land for 20 hectares of irrigation tobacco for the 2009 farming season.

The farmer has clinched a contract with Exort, a fresh produce export company based in Msasa in Harare, which is believed to have a contract with South African companies to supply vegetables during the 2010 World Cup finals.

In the just-ended tobacco marketing season, Bonde sold 28 000 kg or 28 tonnes of the golden leaf and hopes to double his output this coming season.

"I now have four tractors that I bought over the years and I want to replace some of them because they are two years old now. "The type of farming I am into needs smooth flowing schedules and any breakdown will give me problems and losses," says Bonde.

Bonde used to farm on a subsistence basis in his village and when the land reform programme started he was among a few young farmers who went for it.

"I have no regrets leaving the village for the farm. I think this is the best decision I have ever made. This is business and I wish to expand.

"What I was doing at the village was a joke compared to what I am doing now. With enough land, the sky is the limit."

In terms of labour Mr Bonde has 50 permanent workers and employs up to 100 more part-time workers per day when picking peas and harvesting broccoli and cauliflower or when picking or grading tobacco.

He has kept some experienced workers left behind by the former farm owner and sends a lorry to the nearby Chiweshe communal lands to pick up part time workers every morning before driving them back at the end of the day.

"I need these part time workers for picking or when harvesting so I send them a lorry in the morning and return them to their homes later in the day.

"I pay them well because I need them all the time. Without them things will not work," he says.

"One has to be prepared to wake up in the middle of the night and go to the fields to see if irrigation pipe lines have been changed or if the water pressure is okay.

"There is a team of guys who change the pipe lines after some stipulated hours so they must not sleep on duty. They need supervision."

When Zimbabwe embarked on land reform about a decade ago, many people who had been restricted to infertile communal lands by colonial Rhodesian land policy, grabbed the opportunity.

"I am helping some farmers who want to increase their production. They approached me after seeing what I am doing and I am helping them to develop their plots.

"I must say one needs to be a hard worker to turn into serious farming. I have cattle and goats too but I think I do better on the fields.

"With enough effort our country can retain its bread basket status," he says.

His is a clear story of the transformation from a peasant farmer to a commercial farmer contributing to Zimbabwe's export market.
User avatar
By Kaspar
#13166368
Posting from The Herald is like posting from The Granma. With that said, this article has no merit and any discussion should not use this article as a point of reference, unless it is to point out how inaccurate it is.

Mugabe's land reform has failed Zimbabwe and was completely unjust to the original white farmers. End of thread.
User avatar
By Nandi
#13166462
Anecdotal evidence is no evidence. I'm sure they had to search Zimbabwe far and wide to even find a succes story. That's even on the prerogative that it's not an outright lie, can't imagine a Zimbawean paper to have high journalistic standards.
By Korchagin
#13166821
Posting from The Herald is like posting from The Granma.

Both newspapers are excellent sources of information on the countries they are based in. Your suggestion that Zimbabwe's leading newspaper is not a reliable source comes across as bizarre. It's possibly the best source of information on the country not only for data, but for editorials and journalistic work in general.
Mugabe's land reform has failed

No, it has not. Land reform has proven to be immensely popular among Zimbabwe's peasantry. Read how Ian Scoones' work to a considerable debunks the lies and innuendo about Zimbabwe disseminated by the hostile Anglo-American media:

http://www.fanrpan.org/documents/d00585/
There is universal acclaim for the resettlement programme: ‘Life has changed remarkably for me because I have more land and can produce more than I used to, said one; while another observed, ‘We are happier here at resettlement. There is more land, stands are larger and there is no overcrowding. We got good yields in 2006. I filled two granaries with sorghum.
Anecdotal evidence is no evidence.

What're you talking about by anecdotal evidence? It is basic journalism to go out and gather the opinions of perspectives of people on a particular issue. This article makes it clear that land reform is in some respects successful and is viewed positively by poor Zimbabwean farmers who have benefited from the policies.
can't imagine a Zimbawean paper to have high journalistic standards.

Are you a racist?

I suppose a better source of information on Zimbabwe would be the BBC, Daily Telegraph, and other racist, anti-Zimbabwe propagandists, 99% of whose stories about Zimbabwe are negative.
User avatar
By Okonkwo
#13166868
Korchagin wrote:Both newspapers are excellent sources of information on the countries they are based in. Your suggestion that Zimbabwe's leading newspaper is not a reliable source comes across as bizarre. It's possibly the best source of information on the country not only for data, but for editorials and journalistic work in general.

Nonsense. They are state-sponsored for Christ's sake.

Korchagin wrote:No, it has not. Land reform has proven to be immensely popular among Zimbabwe's peasantry.

The difference between a failure and a success does not lie in the popularity of one's measures.
User avatar
By Nandi
#13166911
Korchagin wrote:What're you talking about by anecdotal evidence? It is basic journalism to go out and gather the opinions of perspectives of people on a particular issue. This article makes it clear that land reform is in some respects successful and is viewed positively by poor Zimbabwean farmers who have benefited from the policies.

The purpose of the article, documenting the succes of the land-reform, is based on one mere succes story. Don't you see how that is a problem? It fails to mention the widely known fact that for the most part the land-reforms Zanu-pf implemented, were a complete disaster. Had this article been an objective anecdote about one farmer's succes, it wouldn't have been a problem. This article on the other hand has the higher purpose of trumputing the succes of land-reforms based on one story, that's where the problem lies.

Korchagin wrote:I suppose a better source of information on Zimbabwe would be the BBC, Daily Telegraph, and other racist, anti-Zimbabwe propagandists, 99% of whose stories about Zimbabwe are negative.

I will admit that for the most part media is biased towards Zimbabwe but there's obviously a reason for that. Be that as it may from this and and other posts of yours it's very obvious you're just and even more blinded by your anti-imperalism.
User avatar
By Kaspar
#13167598
I would like to see Korchagin try to explain this.

Image

Or is this just propaganda.

It's possibly the best source of information on the country not only for data, but for editorials and journalistic work in general.


Really, and where did you read this? I was living in Zimbabwe while reading The Herald, and I can firmly tell you that reality rarely made it to the presses.

I actually don't even know why I'm wasting time with you, this discussion is extremely pointless.
By bigstick61
#13215358
Rhodesia really got screwed by being forced to allow Mugabe to run and to suffer from the election fraud and intimidation his men engaged in. It is unfortunate the order was not given to execute Operation Quartz. What could Britain have really done? Rhodesia would probably have remained a prosperous country, especially if Britain was left with no choice but to accept the form of government that existed under Muzorewa and the elections of 1979.

Of course, the inevitable happened (I find it amazing that people seriously thought that a Marxist, terroristic, ethno-centric nationalist regime would do any different), and Mugabe's regime unsurprisingly adopted brutal and racist policies, and a part of this was the land "reforms." In spite of the propaganda put forth in the newspapers there, the situation is in fct quite dire, and successes are extremely rare, and come at the expense of the rights and property of others (mostly whites, Asians, and Coloureds, and even those politically opposed to Mugabe, but especially the first). The result has been Rhodesia's decline from the breadbasket of southern Africa to what can aptly be described pejoratively as a hellhole. And these so-called reforms are also used as a form of political intimidation. Just look at what has happened to Roy Bennett, the Treasurer of Morgan Tsvangari's Movement for Democratic Change party...for his beliefs and his race he had his land taken, he was removed from Parliament, and is being charged with treason and in general has had his rights grossly violated. I can't believe someone who is not part of Mugabe's government actually tried to paint a rosy picture in regards to these "land reforms." Then again, I actually can believe it, something I find to be quite sad.
User avatar
By Invictus_88
#13216951
Mugabe wasn't a turd from the start. In the 1980s he was flavour of the month, even got an OBE. The wheels really came off after 1997 when the UK unilaterally ceased their funding for the gradual and voluntary system of land transfer.
By Korchagin
#13219627
I would like to see Korchagin try to explain this.

And I'll respond by saying that your argument is a false cause fallacy in that you are blaming land reform for the country's economic problems.

Stephen Gowans explains:
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2008/12/
In the late 90s, Mugabe's government provokes the hostility of the West by: (1) intervening militarily in the Democratic Republic of Congo on the side of the young government of Laurent Kabila, helping to thwart an invasion by Rwandan and Ugandan forces backed by the US and Britain; (2) it rejects a pro-foreign investment economic restructuring program the IMF establishes as a condition for balance of payment support; (3) it accelerates land redistribution by seizing white-owned farms and thereby committing the ultimate affront against owners of productive property – expropriation without compensation. To governments whose foreign policy is based in large measure on protecting their nationals' ownership rights to foreign productive assets, expropriation, and especially expropriation without compensation, is intolerable, and must be punished to deter others from doing the same.

In response, the United States, as prime guarantor of the imperialist system, introduces the December 2001 Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act. The act instructs US representatives to international financial institutions "to oppose and vote against any extension by the respective institution of any loan, credit, or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe; or any cancellation or reduction of indebtedness owed by the Government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution."

The act effectively deprives Zimbabwe of foreign currency required to import necessities from abroad, including chemicals to treat drinking water. Development aid from the World Bank is also cut off, denying the country access to funds to upgrade its infrastructure. The central bank takes measures to mitigate the effects of the act, creating hyper-inflation as a by-product.

No one would be arrested if protesters did not dis[…]

Nope! Yep! Who claimed they were? What predat[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

It seems a critical moment in the conflict just ha[…]

The Crimean Tatar people's steadfast struggle agai[…]