The recent announcement by the Zimbabwean government of a shift in land tenure policy has reignited debates around land reform, a topic that has shaped the country’s political and economic landscape for over two decades. The proposal aims to transition commercial farming land back to private ownership, enabling it to serve as collateral for investment and loans. Yet, this policy shift has met with resistance from opposition parties, war veterans, and other interest groups who fear a return to the inequalities of the past. In my view, while their concerns deserve attention, the proposal should not be dismissed outright. Rather, the focus should be on ensuring a fair and equitable implementation that addresses past grievances without compromising future economic stability.
By Brighton Musonza
The essence of the government’s policy is to make commercial farmland economically viable by restoring its status as tradeable private property. This move would enable landholders to use their properties as collateral, a crucial factor in accessing credit from local banks and international lenders. The issue is not the principle of the policy, but its execution. A successful implementation must avoid what is legally termed “unjust enrichment,” where individuals who initially acquired land for free can sell it at full market value, potentially leading to economic disparities.
To achieve this, a balanced approach is needed. After a comprehensive evaluation, commercial farm settlers or occupiers should receive full compensation for any improvements they made to the land, alongside 30% of the land’s assessed value. This portion acknowledges their contributions and ensures that they benefit from the development they brought to the land. However, the remaining 70% should be managed differently, with a focus on long-term economic stability.
The remaining stake should be held by Agribank as tradeable securities in trust for the Land Commission Trust. This strategy would create a fund that could be reinvested into the agricultural sector, with a particular focus on developing Agricultural Marketing Authorities. By institutionalising markets where agricultural products are sold efficiently and payments are made promptly, Zimbabwe can build a sustainable farming sector that supports both commercial and small-scale farmers. Predictable cash flows are the backbone of agricultural investment, allowing stakeholders to plan and present credible business proposals to potential lenders.
The reinvestment of funds from farm sales into agricultural development is crucial for revitalising the sector. These funds could be used to support the creation of tradeable financial instruments that would strengthen Zimbabwe’s financial system and facilitate broader economic growth. Moreover, such measures could attract foreign investors who have been hesitant due to concerns over property rights and legal uncertainties. For a country burdened by significant foreign debt—over $12 billion—the establishment of clear and predictable land rights could be a key step towards re-engaging with international financial institutions.
A portion of these reinvested funds should also be directed towards reviving communal farming, a sector that has long been the backbone of rural livelihoods. Strengthening communal agriculture would not only contribute to national food security but also boost the rural economy, where poverty rates remain high. This could include investment in irrigation systems, access to modern farming techniques, and creating a more efficient supply chain that connects rural producers with urban markets.
However, if the policy allows beneficiaries to sell their land holdings without the aforementioned safeguards, the risk is that the proceeds could be misused. We might witness the money being spent on luxurious houses, high-end vehicles, or other personal indulgences rather than contributing to the nation’s productive capacity. This could undermine the very goal of the policy—creating a dynamic agricultural sector that is both competitive and sustainable.
Resistance from groups like the War Veterans is particularly notable, given their historical role in Zimbabwe’s land reform movement. Their concerns stem from fears that the proposed shift might dilute the gains of the land redistribution program that followed Zimbabwe’s independence. However, it is vital for the War Veterans to recognise that their perspective, while important, is not the only one. A broader discussion, which includes voices from the farming community, financial experts, and civil society, is necessary to find a balanced way forward.
The War Veterans and other critics need to appreciate that a policy that revives the agricultural sector does not necessarily negate the achievements of past land reforms. Rather, it aims to build on those achievements by creating a framework that can support future generations. Moving away from a combative stance and engaging in a constructive dialogue could help refine the policy, ensuring it addresses past injustices while laying the groundwork for economic recovery.
The policy shift on land tenure could be a turning point for Zimbabwe’s struggling economy. By fostering a system where land can serve as collateral, Zimbabwe could unlock new avenues for investment, increase productivity, and stabilise its financial system. But for this vision to materialise, the government must commit to a transparent process, guided by principles of fairness and inclusivity. Only then can the country move beyond the polarising land debates of the past and take meaningful steps towards economic revival.
The debate around this policy should be seen as an opportunity to refine Zimbabwe’s land reform journey—acknowledging its successes and learning from its missteps. By focusing on sustainable investment and a fair approach to compensation, Zimbabwe has the chance to forge a new path that balances the needs of today with the promise of tomorrow.