View source for Land reform in Zimbabwe

{{Short description|Reallocation of land belonging to white farmers in Zimbabwe}}
{{EngvarB|date=August 2014}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2014}}
'''Land reform in [[Zimbabwe]]''' officially began in 1980 with the signing of the [[Lancaster House Agreement]], as a program to redistribute farmland from [[white Zimbabweans]] to black Zimbabweans as an effort by the [[ZANU-PF]] government to give more control over the country's extensive farmlands to the black African majority. Before the implementation of these policies, the distribution of land in what was then known as [[Rhodesia]] saw a population of 4,400 white Rhodesians owning 51% of the country's land while 4.3 million black Rhodesians owned 42%, with the remainder being non-agricultural land.<ref>{{cite-web
<!-- The publisher parameter might not be the proper parameter to use. If someone wants to fix it see this link for citation details: https://www.gov.uk/research-for-development-outputs/redistributive-land-reform-and-poverty-reduction-in-zimbabwe -->
|url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08ae4ed915d622C000985/60332_Zimbabwe_Land_Reform.pdf|title=Redistributive Land Reform and Poverty Reduction in Zimbabwe|first=Nelson|last=Marongwe|date=1 January 2011|publisher=Institute for Poverty for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) / Institute of Development Studies, Cape Town, South Africa|access-date= 15 March 2025}}</ref> The discrepancy of this distribution, as well as the overall dominance of the white population in the newly-independent but largely unrecognized Rhodesian state was challenged by the black nationalist organizations [[Zimbabwe African National Union|ZANU]] and [[Zimbabwe African People's Union|ZAPU]] in the [[Rhodesian Bush War]]. At the establishment of the modern Zimbabwean state in 1980 after the bush war, the [[Lancaster House Agreement]] held a clause that prohibited forced transfer of land, this resulted in changes in land distribution from the willing sale or transfer by owners being minor until 2000, when the government of [[Robert Mugabe]] began a more aggressive policy.<ref>SADC newsletter: [http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0000015/index.php Eddie Cross interview, see Q2] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110719024016/http://www.sarpn.org.za/documents/d0000015/index.php |date=19 July 2011 }}</ref> 

The government's land reform policy is perhaps the most controversial and contested political issue surrounding Zimbabwe. It has been criticised for the violence and intimidation which marred several expropriations, as well as the parallel collapse of domestic banks which held billions of dollars' worth of bonds on liquidated properties.<ref name="Cry">{{cite book|last=Stiff|first=Peter|title=Cry Zimbabwe: Independence – Twenty Years On|date=June 2000|publisher=Galago Publishing|isbn=978-1919854021|location=Johannesburg}}</ref> The [[United Nations]] has identified several key shortcomings with the contemporary programme, namely failure to compensate ousted landowners as called for by the [[Southern African Development Community]] (SADC), the poor handling of boundary disputes, and chronic shortages of material and personnel needed to carry out resettlement in an orderly manner.<ref name="UN">[https://web.archive.org/web/20150114214750/http://www.undg.org/docs/12123/Zimbabwe-Country-Analysis-2010-Report_05-09-11.pdf Zimbabwe Country Analysis]</ref> Several farm owners and even more farm workers have been killed during violent takeovers.<ref name="HRW">{{cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2002/03/08/fast-track-land-reform-zimbabwe |title=Fast Track Land Reform in Zimbabwe &#124; Human Rights Watch |publisher=Hrw.org |date=8 March 2002 |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref>

Land reform has had a serious negative effect on the [[Economy of Zimbabwe|Zimbabwean economy]] and is argued to have heavily contributed to its collapse in the 2000s.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Richardson |first=Craig J. |year=2004 |title=The Collapse of Zimbabwe in the Wake of the 2000–2003 Land Reforms |location= [[Lewiston, New York]] |publisher=[[Edwin Mellen Press]] |isbn=978-0-7734-6366-0}}</ref><ref name="nation.co.ke">{{Cite news|agency=Agence France-Presse |title=Zimbabwe won't return land to white farmers: Mnangagwa |date=10 February 2018 |newspaper=[[Daily Nation]] |location=Nairobi, Kenya |url=https://www.nation.co.ke/news/africa/Zimbabwe-will-not-return-land-white-farmers-Emmerson-Mnangagwa-/1066-4299558-f7il3p/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180210161810/https://www.nation.co.ke/news/africa/Zimbabwe-will-not-return-land-white-farmers-Emmerson-Mnangagwa-/1066-4299558-f7il3p/index.html |archive-date=10 February 2018 |url-status=live |df=dmy}}</ref> There has been a drop in total farm output which has led to instances of starvation and famine.<ref name="Dancaescu 2003 615–644">{{Cite journal|last=Dancaescu |first=Nick |year=2003 |title=Note: Land reform in Zimbabwe |volume=15 |journal=Florida Journal of International Law |pages=615–644 }}</ref> Increasing poverty levels combined with the increased informality of farming operations amongst farmers who received redistributed land has led to an increase in the use of [[child labour]] especially in the growing of sugar cane.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/nov/19/the-bitter-poverty-of-child-sugarcane-workers-in-zimbabwe|title=The bitter poverty of child sugarcane workers in Zimbabwe|last=Chingono|first=Nyasha|date=2019-11-19|work=The Guardian|access-date=2019-11-19|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}}</ref>

As of 2011, 237,858 Zimbabwean households had been provided with access to land under the programme. A total of 10,816,886 hectares had been acquired since 2000, compared to the 3,498,444 purchased from voluntary sellers between 1980 and 1998.<ref name="UN"/> By 2013, every white-owned farm in Zimbabwe had been either expropriated or confirmed for future redistribution.<ref>{{cite web|title=Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2013|url=https://2009-2017.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2013&dlid=220176|access-date=9 November 2014|publisher=[[U.S. Department of State]]}}</ref> The compulsory acquisition of farmland without compensation was discontinued in early 2018.<ref name="Cost">{{cite news|author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.-->|date=12 May 2018|title=Mugabe's land reform costs Zimbabwe $17 billion: economists|work=News 24|location=Cape Town|url=https://www.news24.com/Africa/Zimbabwe/mugabes-land-reform-costs-zimbabwe-17-billion-economists-20180512|access-date=14 June 2018|archive-date=15 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180615055507/https://www.news24.com/Africa/Zimbabwe/mugabes-land-reform-costs-zimbabwe-17-billion-economists-20180512|url-status=dead}}</ref> In 2019, the [[Commercial Farmers' Union|Commercial Farmers Union]] stated that white farmers who had land expropriated under the fast track program had agreed to accept an interim compensation offer by the Zimbabwean government of [[Real-time gross settlement|RTGS]]$53 million (US$17 million) as part of the government effort to compensate dispossessed farmers.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kuyedzwa|first=Crecey|date=2019-04-08|title=White Zim farmers accept R238m interim payment for land compensation|url=https://www.fin24.com/Economy/Africa/white-zim-farmers-accept-r238m-interim-payment-for-land-compensation-20190408|access-date=2019-04-09|website=Fin24}}</ref> A year later, the Zimbabwean government announced that it would be compensating dispossessed white farmers for infrastructure investments in the land and had committed to pay out US$3.5 billion.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Zimbabwe agrees to pay $3.5 billion compensation to white farmers|url=https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/zimbabwe-agrees-to-pay-dollar35-billion-compensation-to-white-farmers/ar-BB17jSjN|access-date=2020-07-30|website=www.msn.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-07-30|title=Zimbabwe Signs U.S.$3.5 Billion Deal to Compensate White Farmers|url=https://allafrica.com/view/group/main/main/id/00074166.html|access-date=2020-07-30|website=allAfrica.com|language=en}}</ref> Compensation talks continued in 2024 as part of the efforts on part of the Zimbabwean government to restructure its debt with creditors, specially the [[African Development Bank]].<ref>https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-10-17/zimbabwe-to-compensate-white-farmers-who-lost-land-in-seizures-20-years-ago</ref>

==Background==
The foundation for the controversial land dispute in Zimbabwean society was laid at the beginning of European settlement of the region, which had long been the scene of [[Bantu expansion|mass movements]] by various [[Bantu peoples]]. In the sixteenth century, [[Portugal|Portuguese]] explorers had attempted to open up Zimbabwe for trading purposes, but the country was not permanently settled by European immigrants until three hundred years later.<ref name="Nelson2">{{cite book | first = Harold | last = Nelson| title = Area Handbook for Southern Rhodesia|edition= 1975|pages= 3–16 | publisher = American University| asin= B002V93K7S}}</ref> The first great Zimbabwean kingdom was the [[Rozwi Empire]], established in the eleventh century. Two hundred years later, Rozwi imperial rule began to crumble and the empire fell to the [[Karanga peoples]], a relatively new tribe to the region which originated north of the [[Zambezi River]].<ref name="Nelson2"/> Both these peoples later came to form the nucleus of the [[Shona people|Shona civilisation]], along with the Zezuru in central Zimbabwe, the Korekore in the north, the Manyika in the east, the Ndau in the southeast, and the Kalanga in the southwest.<ref name="Nelson2"/>

Most Shona cultures had a theoretically communal attitude towards land ownership; the later European concept of officiating individual property ownership was unheard of.<ref name=Shoko>{{cite book|last=Shoko|first=Thabona|title=Karanga Indigenous Religion in Zimbabwe: Health and Well-Being|date=2007|pages=9–12|publisher=Routledge Books|location=Oxfordshire|isbn=978-0754658818}}</ref> Land was considered the collective property of all the residents in a given chiefdom, with the chief mediating disagreements and issues pertaining to its use.<ref name=Shoko/> Nevertheless, male household heads frequently reserved personal tracts for their own cultivation, and allocated smaller tracts to each of their wives. Population growth frequently resulted in the over-utilisation of the existing land, which became greatly diminished both in terms of cultivation and grazing due to the larger number of people attempting to share the same acreage.<ref name=Shoko/>

During the early nineteenth century, the Shona were conquered by the [[Northern Ndebele people|Northern Ndebele]] (also known as the ''Matabele''), which began the process of commodifying Zimbabwe's land.<ref name="Nelson2"/> Although the Ndebele elite were uninterested in cultivation, land ownership was considered one major source of an individual's wealth and power—the others being cattle and slaves. Ndebele monarchs acquired large swaths of land for themselves accordingly.<ref name="Nelson2"/>

Land hunger was at the centre of the [[Rhodesian Bush War]], and was addressed at Lancaster House, which sought to concede equitable redistribution to the landless without damaging the white farmers' vital contribution to Zimbabwe's economy.<ref name="Security">{{cite book|last=Alao|first=Abiodun|title=Mugabe and the Politics of Security in Zimbabwe|publisher=[[McGill-Queen's University Press]]|year=2012|isbn=978-0-7735-4044-6|location=Montreal, Quebec and Kingston, Ontario|pages=91–101}}</ref> At independence from the [[United Kingdom]] in 1980, the Zimbabwean authorities were empowered to initiate the necessary reforms; as long as land was bought and sold on a willing basis, the British government would finance half the cost.<ref name="Security" /> In the late 1990s, Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] terminated this arrangement when funds available from [[Margaret Thatcher]]'s administration were exhausted, repudiating all commitments to land reform. Zimbabwe responded by embarking on a "fast track" redistribution campaign, forcibly confiscating white farms without compensation.<ref name="Security" />

===Legal situation in Southern Rhodesia===

====European settlement patterns====
[[File:BSAC settlers Southern Rhodesia.jpg|thumb|300px|White farmers in [[Southern Rhodesia]], early 1920s.]]

The first white colonists to settle in modern-day Zimbabwe arrived during the 19th century, primarily from the [[Cape Colony]] (modern-day [[South Africa]]), less than a century after the Ndebele invasions.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1831470.stm |title=Zimbabwe profile – Timeline |work=BBC News |date=31 May 2012 |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref> This reflected a larger trend of permanent European settlement in the milder, drier regions of [[Southern Africa]] as opposed to the tropical and sub-tropical climates further north.<ref name=Borstelmann>{{cite book|last=Borstelmann|first=Thomas|title=Apartheid's reluctant uncle: The United States and Southern Africa in the early Cold War |date=1993|pages=11–28|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|isbn=978-0195079425}}</ref> In 1889 [[Cecil Rhodes]] and the [[British South Africa Company]] (BSAC) introduced the earliest white settlers to Zimbabwe as prospectors, seeking concessions from the Ndebele for mineral rights.<ref name="Nelson2"/> Collectively known as the ''[[Pioneer Column]]'', the settlers established the city of Salisbury, now [[Harare]].<ref name="Nelson2"/> Rhodes hoped to discover gold and establish a mining colony, but the original intention had to be modified as neither the costs nor the returns on the overhead capital matched the original projections.<ref name=Mosley>{{cite book|last=Mosley|first=Paul|title=The Settler Economies: Studies in the Economic History of Kenya and Southern Rhodesia 1900–1963 |date=2009|pages=13–24|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|isbn=978-0521102452}}</ref> Local gold deposits failed to yield the massive returns which the BSAC had promised its investors, and the military costs of the expedition had caused a deficit.<ref name=Mosley/> An interim solution was the granting of land to the settlers in the hopes that they would develop productive farms and generate enough income to justify the colony's continued administrative costs.<ref name=Mosley/> The region was demarcated as ''[[Southern Rhodesia]]'' after 1898.<ref name="palley742743">
*{{cite book|title=The Constitutional History and Law of Southern Rhodesia 1888–1965, with Special Reference to Imperial Control|last=Palley|first=Claire|year=1966|edition=First|location=Oxford|publisher=[[Oxford University Press|Clarendon Press]]|oclc=406157|pages=742–743}}</ref>

Between 1890 and 1896, the BSAC granted an area encompassing 16 million acres—about one sixth the area of Southern Rhodesia—to European immigrants.<ref name=Mosley/> By 1913 this had been extended to 21.5 million acres. However, these concessions were strictly regulated, and land was only offered to those individuals able to prove they had the necessary capital to develop it.<ref name=Mosley/> Exceptions were made during the Ndebele and Shona insurrections against the BSAC in the mid-1890s, when land was promised to any European men willing to take up arms in defence of the colony, irrespective of their financial status.<ref name=Njoh>{{cite book|last=Njoh|first=Ambeh|title=Planning Power: Town Planning and Social Control in Colonial Africa |date=2007|pages=159–160|publisher=UCL Press|location=London|isbn=978-1844721603}}</ref> The settlers of the Pioneer Column were granted tracts of 3,150 acres apiece, with an option to purchase more land from the BSAC's holdings at relatively low prices (up to fifteen times cheaper than comparable land on the market in South Africa).<ref name=Mosley/>

====Creation of the Tribal Trust Lands====

Friction soon arose between the settlers and the Ndebele and Shona peoples, both in terms of land apportionment and economic competition.<ref name=Mosley/> In 1900, Southern Rhodesia's black population owned an estimated 55,000 head of cattle, while European residents owned fewer than 12,000. Most of the pastureland was being grazed by African-owned cattle, accordingly.<ref name="zimstudy">{{cite book|last=Nelson|first=Harold|title=Zimbabwe: A Country Study|pages=137–153}}</ref> However, in less than two decades the Ndebele and Shona came to own over a million head of cattle, with white farmers owning another million as well.<ref name="zimstudy"/> As the amount of available pasture for the livestock quickly dwindled, accompanied by massive amounts of overgrazing and erosion, land competition between the three groups became intense.<ref name="zimstudy"/> A number of successive land commissions were thus appointed to study the problem and apportion the land.<ref name="zimstudy"/>

The colonial government in Southern Rhodesia delineated the country into five distinct farming regions which corresponded roughly to rainfall patterns.<ref name="zimstudy"/> Region I comprised an area in the eastern highlands with markedly higher rainfall best suited to the cultivation of diversified cash crops such as coffee and tea. Region II was [[highveld]], also in the east, where the land could be used intensively for grain cultivation such as maize, tobacco, and wheat. Region III and Region IV endured periodic drought and were regarded as suitable for livestock, in addition to crops which required little rainfall. Region V was [[lowveld]] and unsuitable for crop cultivation due to its dry nature; however, limited livestock farming was still viable.<ref name="Women">{{cite web|title=Single women, land, and livelihood vulnerability in a communal area in Zimbabwe |last=Makura-Paradza |first=Gaynor Gamuchirai |url=http://edepot.wur.nl/139210? |location=Wageningen |publisher=Wageningen University and Research Centre |year=2010 |access-date=27 September 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150321010929/http://edepot.wur.nl/139210 |archive-date=21 March 2015 |df=dmy }}</ref> Land ownership in these regions was determined by race under the terms of the [[Land Apportionment Act of 1930|Southern Rhodesian Land Apportionment Act]], passed in 1930, which reserved Regions I, II, and III for white settlement.<ref name="Women"/> Region V and a segment of Region II which possessed greater rainfall variability were organised into the Tribal Trust Lands (TTLs), reserved solely for black African ownership and use.<ref name="zimstudy"/> This created two new problems: firstly, in the areas reserved for whites, the ratio of land to population was so high that many farms could not be exploited to their fullest potential, and some prime white-owned farmland was lying idle.<ref name=Mosley/> Secondly, the legislation resulted in enforced overuse of the land in the TTLs due to overpopulation there.<ref name="zimstudy"/>
[[Image:Rhodesialand.png|right|thumbnail|300px|Land apportionment in Rhodesia in 1965.]]
The Southern Rhodesian Land Apportionment Act reserved 49 million acres for white ownership and left 17.7 million acres of land unassigned to either the white preserve or the TTLs.<ref name=Mosley/> While a survey undertaken by the colony's Land Commission in concert with the British government in 1925 found that the vast majority of black Rhodesians supported some form of geographic segregation, including the reservation of land exclusively for their use, many were disillusioned by the manner in which the legislation was implemented in explicit favour of whites.<ref name=Mosley/> The overcrowded conditions in the TTLs compelled large numbers of Shona and Ndebele alike to abandon their rural livelihoods and seek wage employment in the cities or on white commercial farms.<ref name="Women"/> Those who remained on tracts in the TTLs found themselves having to cope with topsoil depletion due to overuse; large amounts of topsoil were stripped of their vegetation cover and rendered unproductive as a consequence.<ref name="zimstudy"/> To control the rate of erosion, colonial authorities introduced voluntary destocking initiatives for livestock. When these met with little success, the destocking programme became mandatory in 1941, forcing all residents of the TTLs to sell or slaughter animals declared surplus.<ref name="zimstudy"/> Another 7.2 million acres were also set aside for sale to black farmers, known as the Native Purchase Areas.<ref name=Mosley/>

During the early 1950s, Southern Rhodesia passed the African Land Husbandry Act, which attempted to reform the communal system in the TTLs by giving black Africans the right to apply for formal title deeds to specific tracts.<ref name="zimstudy"/> This legislation proved so unpopular and difficult to enforce that incoming Rhodesian Prime Minister [[Ian Smith]] ordered its suspension in the mid-1960s. Smith's administration subsequently recognised the traditional leaders of each chiefdom as the final authority on land allocation in the TTLs.<ref name="zimstudy"/>

Following [[Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence]], land legislation was again amended with the Rhodesian Land Tenure Act of 1969. The Land Tenure Act upended the [[Land Apportionment Act of 1930]] and was designed to rectify the issue of insufficient land available to the rapidly expanding black population.<ref name="zimstudy"/> It reduced the amount of land reserved for white ownership to 45 million acres and reserved another 45 million acres for black ownership, introducing parity in theory; however, the most fertile farmland in Regions I, II, and III continued to be included in the white enclave.<ref name="zimstudy"/> Abuses of the system continued to abound; some white farmers took advantage of the legislation to shift their property boundaries into land formerly designated for black settlement, often without notifying the other landowners.<ref name=Maxey>{{cite book|last=Maxey|first=Kees|title=Fight for Zimbabwe: Armed Conflict in Southern Rhodesia Since UDI|date=1975|pages=102–108|publisher=[[Rex Collings Ltd]]|location=London|isbn=978-0901720818}}</ref> A related phenomenon was the existence of black communities, especially those congregated around missions, which were oblivious to the legislation and unwittingly squatting on land redesignated for white ownership. The land would be sold in the meantime, and the government obliged to evict the preexisting occupants.<ref name="Raeburn">{{cite book|title=Black Fire! Narratives of Rhodesian Guerrillas|last=Raeburn|first=Michael|location=New York|publisher=Random House|year=1978|isbn=978-0394505305|pages=[https://archive.org/details/weareeverywheren00raeb/page/189 189–207]|url=https://archive.org/details/weareeverywheren00raeb/page/189}}</ref> These incidents and others were instrumental in eliciting sympathy among Rhodesia's black population for nationalist movements such as the [[Zimbabwe African National Union]] (ZANU) and the [[Zimbabwe African People's Union]] (ZAPU), which sought to overthrow the Rhodesian government by force of arms.<ref name="Raeburn"/>

====Bush War and Lancaster House====
{{Main|Internal Settlement|Lancaster House Agreement}}
The escalation of the [[Rhodesian Bush War]] in the 1970s led to a significant amount of rural displacement and interrupted agricultural activity.<ref name="Women"/> The disruption of veterinary services resulted in massive livestock losses, and the cultivation of cash crops was hampered by guerrilla raids.<ref name="Raeburn"/> The murder of about three hundred white farmers during the war, as well as the conscription of hundreds of others into the [[Rhodesian Security Forces]], also led to a drop in the volume of agricultural production.<ref name="QEH1">{{cite journal|title=From Open Season to Royal Game: The Strategic Repositioning of Commercial Farmers Across The Independence Transition in Zimbabwe|last=Selby|first=Andy|url=http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/qehwp/qehwps141.pdf|location=Oxford|publisher=Centre for International Development|year=n.d.|access-date=4 July 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160307053241/http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/qehwp/qehwps141.pdf|archive-date=7 March 2016}}</ref> Between 1975 and 1976 Rhodesia's urban population doubled as thousands of rural dwellers, mostly from TTLs, fled to the cities to escape the fighting.<ref name="Women"/> A campaign of systematic [[Villagization|villagisation]] followed as the Rhodesian Army shifted segments of the black population into guarded settlements to prevent their subversion by the insurgents.<ref name="Raeburn"/>

In 1977, the Land Tenure Act was amended by the Rhodesian parliament, which further reduced the amount of land reserved for white ownership to 200,000 hectares, or 500,000 acres. Over 15 million hectares were thus opened to purchase by persons of any race.<ref name="zimstudy"/> Two years later, as part of the [[Internal Settlement]], [[Zimbabwe Rhodesia]]'s incoming biracial government under Bishop [[Abel Muzorewa]] abolished the reservation of land according to race.<ref name="zimstudy"/> White farmers continued to own 73.8% of the most fertile land suited for intensive cash crop cultivation and livestock grazing, in addition to generating 80% of the country's total agricultural output.<ref name="zimstudy"/> This was a vital contribution to the economy, which was still underpinned by its agricultural exports.<ref name="Women"/>

Land reform emerged as a critical issue during the [[Lancaster House Agreement|Lancaster House Talks]] to end the Rhodesian Bush War. ZANU leader [[Robert Mugabe]] and ZAPU leader [[Joshua Nkomo]] insisted on the redistribution of land—by compulsory seizure, without compensation—as a precondition to a negotiated peace settlement.<ref name=Kriger>{{cite book|last=Kriger|first=Norma|title= Guerrilla Veterans in Post-War Zimbabwe: Symbolic and Violent Politics, 1980–1987|date=2003|pages=41–42|publisher=Cambridge University Press|location=Cambridge|isbn=978-0521818230}}</ref> This was reflective of prevailing attitudes in their guerrilla armies, the [[Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army]] (ZANLA) and [[Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army]] (ZIPRA) respectively, and rural support bases, which had high expectations of the redistribution of land.<ref name="Security"/><ref name="Women"/> The British government, which mediated the talks, proposed a constitutional clause underscoring property ownership as an inalienable right to prevent a mass exodus of white farmers and the economic collapse of the country.<ref name="QEH1"/> This was enshrined in Section 16 of the [[Constitution of Zimbabwe|Zimbabwean Constitution, 1980]].<ref name=Kriger/> To secure Mugabe and Nkomo's support for the constitutional agreement, [[Lord Carrington]] announced that the United Kingdom would be prepared to assist land resettlement with technical assistance and financial aid.<ref name=Kriger/> The Secretary-General of the [[Commonwealth of Nations]], [[Shridath Ramphal|Sir Shridath Ramphal]], also received assurances from the American ambassador in London, [[Kingman Brewster]], that the United States would likewise contribute capital for "a substantial amount for a process of land redistribution and they would undertake to encourage the British government to give similar assurances".<ref name=BBC>{{cite news|last=Plaut |first=Martin |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6958418.stm |title=Africa &#124; US backed Zimbabwe land reform |work=BBC News |date=22 August 2007 |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref>

The Lancaster House Agreement stipulated that farms could only be taken from whites on a "willing buyer, willing seller" principle for at least ten years.<ref name="Security"/> White farmers were not to be placed under any pressure or intimidation, and if they decided to sell their farms they were allowed to determine their own asking prices.<ref name="Security"/> Exceptions could be made if the farm was unoccupied and not being used for agricultural activity.<ref name=Kriger/>

Southern Rhodesia's independence was finally recognised as the Republic of Zimbabwe on April 18, 1980. As Zimbabwe's first prime minister, Mugabe reaffirmed his commitment to land reform.<ref name="zimstudy"/> The newly created Zimbabwean [[Ministry of Lands and Land Resettlement (Zimbabwe)|Ministry of Lands, Resettlement, and Redevelopment]] announced later that year that land reform would be necessary to alleviate overpopulation in the former TTLs, extend the production potential of small-scale subsistence farmers, and improve the standards of living of rural blacks.<ref name="Women"/> Its stated goals were to ensure abandoned or under-utilised land was being exploited to its fullest potential, and provide opportunities for unemployed, landless peasants.<ref name="Women"/>

=== Post-independence ===
Inequalities in land ownership were inflated by a growing [[human overpopulation|overpopulation]] problem, [[Land degradation|depletion of over-utilised tracts]], and escalating poverty in subsistence areas parallel with the under-utilisation of land on commercial farms.<ref name="Cry" /> The predominantly white commercial sector used the labor of over 30% of the paid workforce and accounted for some 40% of exports.<ref name="zimstudy" /> Its principal crops included [[sugarcane]], [[coffee]], [[cotton]], [[tobacco]] and several varieties of high-yield hybrid [[maize]]. Both the commercial farms and the subsistence sector maintained large cattle herds, but over 60% of domestic beef was furnished by the former.<ref name="zimstudy" /> In sharp contrast, the life of typical subsistence farmers was difficult, and their labour poorly rewarded. As [[erosion]] increased, the ability of the subsistence sector to feed its adherents diminished greatly.<ref name="Cry" />

==Phases of land reform==

===Willing Seller, Willing Buyer===
Despite extensive financial assistance from the UK, the first phase of Zimbabwe's land reform programme was widely regarded as unsuccessful.<ref name="Women"/> Zimbabwe was only able to acquire 3 million hectares (7.41 million acres) for black resettlement, well short of its intended target of 8 million hectares (19.77 million acres).<ref name=pbs>{{cite web|url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/land/gp_zimbabwe.html |title=Online NewsHour – Land Redistribution in Southern Africa: Zimbabwe Program |publisher=Pbs.org |access-date=18 May 2016 |url-status=unfit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040501103309/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/land/gp_zimbabwe.html |archive-date=1 May 2004 }}</ref> This land was redistributed to about 50,000 households.<ref name=pbs/> Many former supporters of the nationalist movements felt that the promises of Nkomo and Mugabe with regards to the land had not been truly fulfilled. This sentiment was especially acute in [[Matabeleland]], where the legacy of the Southern Rhodesian Land Apportionment Act was more disadvantageous to black Zimbabweans than other parts of the country.<ref name="Dzimba">{{cite book|title=South Africa's Destabilization of Zimbabwe, 1980–89|last=Dzimba|first=John|year=1998|location=Basingstoke|publisher=[[Palgrave Macmillan]]|isbn=978-0333713693|pages=72–135}}</ref>

Funds earmarked for the purchase of white farms were frequently diverted into defence expenditure throughout the mid-1980s, for which Zimbabwean officials received some criticism.<ref name="Dzimba"/> Reduction of funding posed another dilemma: property prices were now beyond what the Ministry of Lands, Resettlement, and Redevelopment could afford to meet its goals.<ref name="Laakso">{{cite book | title = Twenty Years of Independence in Zimbabwe: From Liberation to Authoritarianism | last = Laakso | first = Liisa | editor1-last = Darnolf | editor1-first = Staffan | editor2-last = Laakso | editor2-first = Liisa|date=1997|pages=3–9|publisher=Palgrave-Macmillan|location=Basingstoke|isbn=978-0333804537}}</ref> It was also unable to build sufficient roads, clinics, and schools for the large number of people it was resettling in new areas.<ref name="Laakso"/> After 1983, the domestic budget could no longer sustain resettlement measures, and despite British aid the number of farms being purchased gradually declined for the remainder of the decade.<ref name="Fisher">{{cite book|title=Pioneers, settlers, aliens, exiles: the decolonisation of white identity in Zimbabwe|last=Fisher|first=J L|publisher=[[Australian National University|ANU E Press]]|location=Canberra|year=2010|isbn=978-1-921666-14-8|pages=159–165}}</ref>

In 1986, the government of Zimbabwe cited financial restraints and an ongoing drought as the two overriding factors influencing the slow progress of land reform.<ref name=Drinkwater>{{cite book|last=Drinkwater|first=Michael|title=The State and Agrarian Change in Zimbabwe's Communal Areas|date=1991|pages=84–87|publisher=Palgrave-Macmillan|location=Basingstoke|isbn=978-0312053505}}</ref> However, it was also clear that within the Ministry of Lands, Resettlement, and Redevelopment itself there was a lack of initiative and trained personnel to plan and implement mass resettlements.<ref name=Drinkwater/> Parliament passed the Land Acquisition Act in 1985, which gave the government first right to purchase excess land for redistribution to the landless. It empowered the government to claim tracts adjacent to the former TTLs (now known simply as "Communal Areas") and mark them for resettlement purposes, provided the owners could be persuaded to sell.<ref name=Drinkwater/>

Between April 1980 and September 1987, the acreage of land occupied by white-owned commercial farms was reduced by about 20%.<ref name=Drinkwater/>

===Compulsory acquisition===
After the expiration of the entrenched constitutional conditions mandated by the Lancaster House Agreement in the early 1990s, Zimbabwe outlined several ambitious new plans for land reform.<ref name="Fisher" /> A National Land Policy was formally proposed and enshrined as the Zimbabwean Land Acquisition Act of 1992, which empowered the government to acquire any land as it saw fit, although only after payment of financial compensation.<ref name="Fisher" /> While powerless to challenge the acquisition itself, landowners were permitted some lateral to negotiate their compensation amounts with the state.<ref name="Security" /> The British government continued to help fund the resettlement programme, with aid specifically earmarked for land reform reaching £91 million by 1996.<ref name=pbs /> Another £100 million was granted for "budgetary support" and was spent on a variety of projects, including land reform.<ref name=pbs /> Zimbabwe also began to court other donors through its Economic Structural Adjustment Policies (ESAP), which were projects implemented in concert with international agencies and tied to foreign loans.<ref name="Women" />

The diversion of farms for personal use by Zimbabwe's political elite began to emerge as a crucial issue during the mid-1990s.<ref name="Fisher" /> Prime Minister Mugabe, who assumed an executive presidency in 1987, had urged restraint by enforcing a leadership code of conduct which barred members of the ruling party, [[Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front|ZANU–PF]], from monopolising large tracts of farmland and then renting them out for profit.<ref name="Dowden">{{cite book |author=Dowden, Richard |title=Africa: Altered States, Ordinary Miracles |year=2010 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/africaalteredsta00rich/page/144 144–151] |publisher=Portobello Books |location=London |isbn=978-1-58648-753-9 |url=https://archive.org/details/africaalteredsta00rich/page/144}}</ref> Local media outlets soon exposed huge breaches of the code by Mugabe's family and senior officials in ZANU–PF.<ref name="Dowden" /> Despite calls for accountability, the party members were never disciplined.<ref name="Dowden" /> Instead of being resettled by landless peasants, several hundred commercial farms acquired under the Land Acquisition Act continued to be leased out by politically connected individuals.<ref name="Fisher" /> In 1994, a disproportionate amount of the land being acquired was held by fewer than 600 black landowners, many of whom owned multiple properties.<ref name="Fisher" /> One study of commercial farms found that over half the redistributed land that year went to absentee owners otherwise unengaged in agriculture.<ref name="Fisher" />

The perceived monopolisation of land by the ruling party provoked intense opposition from the ESAP donor states, which argued that those outside the patronage of ZANU-PF were unlikely to benefit.<ref name="QEH2">{{cite journal|last=Selby|first=Andy|year=n.d.|title=Radical Realignments: The Collapse of the Alliance between White Farmers and the State in Zimbabwe|url=http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/qehwp/qehwps144.pdf|location=Oxford|publisher=Centre for International Development|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170708185433/http://www3.qeh.ox.ac.uk/pdf/qehwp/qehwps144.pdf|archive-date=8 July 2017|access-date=8 July 2017}}</ref> In 1996, party interests became even more inseparable from the issue of land reform when President Mugabe gave ZANU–PF's central committee overriding powers—superseding those of the Zimbabwean courts as well as the Ministry of Lands and Agriculture—to delegate on property rights.<ref name="QEH2" /> That year all farms marked for redistribution were no longer chosen or discussed by government ministries, but at ZANU–PF's annual congress.<ref name="QEH2" />

In 1997 the government published a list of 1,471 farms it intended to buy compulsorily for redistribution.<ref name="QEH2" /> The list was compiled via a nationwide land identification exercise undertaken throughout the year. Landowners were given thirty days to submit written objections.<ref name="QEH2" /> Many farms were delisted and then re-listed as the Ministry of Lands and Agriculture debated the merits of acquiring various properties,<ref name="Fisher" /> especially those which ZANU–PF had ordered be expropriated for unspecified "political reasons".<ref name="QEH2" /> Of the 1,471 individual property acquisitions, about 1,200 were appealed to the courts by the farmowners due to various legal irregularities.<ref name="QEH2" /> President Mugabe responded by indicating that in his opinion land reform was a strictly political issue, not one to be questioned or debated by the judiciary.<ref name="QEH2" />

The increasing politicisation of land reform was accompanied by the deterioration of diplomatic relations between Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom.<ref name="QEH2" /> Public opinion on the Zimbabwean land reform process among British citizens was decidedly mediocre; it was perceived as a poor investment on the part of the UK's government in an ineffectual and shoddily implemented programme.<ref name="QEH2" /> In June 1996, [[Lynda Chalker]], British secretary of state for international development, declared that she could not endorse the new compulsory acquisition policy and urged Mugabe to return to the principles of "willing buyer, willing seller".<ref name="QEH2" />

On 5 November 1997, Chalker's successor, [[Clare Short]], described the new Labour government's approach to Zimbabwean land reform. She said that the UK did not accept that Britain had a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. Notwithstanding the Lancaster House commitments, Short stated that her government was only prepared to support a programme of land reform that was part of a poverty eradication strategy. She had other questions regarding the way in which land would be acquired and compensation paid, and the transparency of the process. Her government's position was spelt out in a letter to Zimbabwe's Agriculture Minister, Kumbirai Kangai:<ref name=Short />

:''I should make it clear that '''we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe.''' We are a new government from diverse backgrounds without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and, as you know, we were colonised, not colonisers.''

The letter concluded by stating that a programme of rapid land acquisition would be impossible to support, citing concern about the damage which this might do to Zimbabwe's agricultural output and its prospects of attracting investment.<ref name=Short>{{cite web|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_200705/ai_n21288044 |title=Archived copy |access-date=2016-02-08 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130811072611/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5391/is_200705/ai_n21288044 |archive-date=11 August 2013 }}</ref><ref name=Greste>{{cite news|last=Greste |first=Peter |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7349166.stm |title=Africa &#124; Why Mugabe is deaf to the West |work=BBC News |date=15 April 2008 |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref>

[[Kenneth Kaunda]], former president of [[Zambia]], responded dismissively by saying "when Tony Blair took over in 1997, I understand that some young lady in charge of colonial issues within that government simply dropped doing anything about it."<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6728015.stm |title=Africa &#124; Viewpoint: Kaunda on Mugabe |work=BBC News |date=12 June 2007 |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref>

In June 1998, the Zimbabwe government published its "policy framework" on the '''Land Reform and Resettlement Programme Phase II''' (LRRP II), which envisaged the compulsory purchase over five years of 50,000 square kilometres from the 112,000 square kilometres owned by white commercial farmers, public corporations, churches, non-governmental organisations and multinational companies. Broken down, the 50,000 square kilometres meant that every year between 1998 and 2003, the government intended to purchase 10,000 square kilometres for redistribution.

In September 1998, the government called a donors conference in Harare on LRRP II to inform the donor community and involve them in the program: Forty-eight countries and international organisations attended and unanimously endorsed the land program, saying it was essential for poverty reduction, political stability and economic growth. They agreed that the inception phase, covering the first 24 months, should start immediately, particularly appreciating the political imperative and urgency of the proposal.

The Commercial Farmers Union freely offered to sell the government 15,000 square kilometres for redistribution, but landowners once again dragged their feet. In response to moves by the National Constitutional Assembly, a group of academics, trade unionists and other political activists, the government drafted a new constitution. The draft was discussed widely by the public in formal meetings and amended to include restrictions on presidential powers, limits to the presidential term of office, and an age limit of 70 for presidential candidates.  This was not seen as a suitable outcome for the government, so the proposals were amended to replace those clauses with one to compulsorily acquire land for redistribution without compensation. The opposition mostly boycotted the drafting stage of the constitution claiming that this new version was to entrench Mugabe politically.

Guerrilla veterans of the [[Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army]] (ZANLA) and [[Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army]] (ZIPRA) began to emerge as a radical force in the land issue around this time. The guerrillas forcefully presented their position that white-owned land in Zimbabwe was rightfully theirs, on account of promises made to them during the Rhodesian Bush War.<ref name="Fisher" /> Calls for accelerated land reform were also echoed by an affluent urban class of black Zimbabweans who were interested in making inroads into commercial farming, with public assistance.<ref name="Fisher" />

{{anchor|Fast-track land reform}}
===Fast-track land reform and violence===
{{quote box
| quote = "Under {{sic|those}} Bippas [Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements], which you allegedly say were violated, the only shortcoming was that we failed to raise the money to pay compensation, but there was no violation."

– [[Patrick Chinamasa]], Zimbabwe Finance Minister (2014)<ref name="Bippas">{{cite web |url=http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/zimsit_bippas-wont-stop-assets-seizure-chinamasa/ |title=Bippas won't stop assets seizure: Chinamasa |publisher=DailyNews Live |date=3 June 2014 |access-date=6 June 2014 |author=Majaka, Ndakaziva}}</ref>
| width = 25%
| align = right}}

The government held a referendum on the new constitution on 12–13 February 2000, despite having a sufficiently large majority in parliament to pass any amendment it wished. Had it been approved, the new constitution would have empowered the government to acquire land compulsorily without compensation. Despite vast support in the media, the new constitution was defeated, 55% to 45%.

On 26–27 February 2000,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.africaportal.org/documents/990/Country_Report_No_3.pdf#page=10 |title=Country Reports: Zimbabwe at the Crossroads |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs|page=10|access-date=27 August 2019}}</ref> the pro-Mugabe [[Zimbabwe National Liberation War Veterans Association]] (ZNLWVA) organised several people (including but not limited to war veterans; many of them were their children and grandchildren) to march on white-owned farmlands, initially with drums, song and dance. This movement was officially termed the "Fast-Track Land Reform Program" (FTLRP). The predominantly white farm owners were forced off their lands along with their workers, who were typically of regional descent. This was often done violently and without compensation. In this first wave of farm invasions, a total of 110,000 square kilometres of land had been seized. Several million black farm workers were excluded from the redistribution, leaving them without employment. According to [[Human Rights Watch]], by 2002 the War Veterans Association had "killed white farm owners in the course of occupying commercial farms" on at least seven occasions, in addition to "several tens of [black] farm workers".<ref name=HRW /> The first white farmers to die as a direct consequence of the resettlement programme were murdered by Zimbabwean paramilitaries in mid-2000. More commonly, violence was directed against farmworkers, who were often assaulted and killed by the war veterans and their supporters.<ref name="Hughes2010">{{cite book|author=David McDermott Hughes|title=Whiteness in Zimbabwe: Race, Landscape, and the Problem of Belonging|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sUnJAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA78|date=12 April 2010|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-0-230-10633-8|page=xiv|quote=In 2000, paramilitaries killed their first white farmer in Virginia, Dave Stevens. More typically, armed groups surrounded farmhouses and harassed their occupants (meanwhile assaulting and often killing black farm workers).}}</ref> Violent confrontations between the farmers and the war veterans occurred and resulted in exchanges of gunfire, as well as a state of armed siege on the affected farms.<ref name=meredith6273>{{cite book|title=Mugabe: Power, Plunder and the Struggle for Zimbabwe|last=Meredith|first=Martin|author-link=Martin Meredith|date=September 2007|orig-year=2002|location=New York|publisher=[[Perseus Books Group|PublicAffairs]]|isbn=978-1-58648-558-0|pages=[https://archive.org/details/mugabepowerplund00mere/page/171 171–175]|url=https://archive.org/details/mugabepowerplund00mere/page/171}}</ref>

Officially the land was divided into small-holder production, so called A1 schemes and commercial farms, called A2 schemes. There is however much overlap between the two categories.<ref name=Scoones>{{cite web|url=http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34979:zimbabwes-land-reform-challenging-the-myths&catid=72:thursday-issue&q=scoones |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130505080411/http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34979:zimbabwes-land-reform-challenging-the-myths&catid=72:thursday-issue&q=scoones |url-status=dead |archive-date=5 May 2013 |title=Zimbabwes land reform: challenging the myths |work=The Zimbabwean |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref>

The violent takeover of [[Alamein Farm]] by retired Army General [[Solomon Mujuru]] sparked the first legal action against one of Robert Mugabe's inner circle.<ref>{{cite news|last=Thornycroft |first=Peta |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/1366242/Evicted-farmer-sues-for-return-of-2m-assets.html |title=Evicted farmer sues for return of £2m assets |newspaper=Telegraph |date=24 December 2001 |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=Sam Kiley |url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-541448-britain-must-act-on-zimbabwe.do |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120914142124/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-541448-britain-must-act-on-zimbabwe.do |url-status=dead |archive-date=14 September 2012 |title='Britain must act on Zimbabwe' – News – London Evening Standard |publisher=Thisislondon.co.uk |date=25 January 2002 |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref> In late 2002 the seizure was ruled illegal by the High and Supreme Courts of Zimbabwe; however the previous owner was unable to effect the court orders and General Mujuru continued living at the farm until his death on 15 August 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/jeremiahkure/2011/08/21/of-securocrats-candles-and-a-raging-dictatorship/ |title=Of securocrats, candles and a raging dictatorship |date=21 August 2011 |publisher=Thought Leader |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.timeslive.co.za/africa/2011/08/21/mujuru-death-no-accident |title=Mujuru death 'no accident' |publisher=Times LIVE |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref> Many other legal challenges to land acquisition or to eviction were not successful.<ref name=freeman />

On 10 June 2004, a spokesperson for the British embassy, Sophie Honey, said:<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/jun11_2004.html |title=The Zimbabwe Situation |publisher=The Zimbabwe Situation |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref>

:''The UK has not reneged on commitments (made) at Lancaster House. At Lancaster House the British Government made clear that the long-term requirements of land reform in Zimbabwe were beyond the capacity of any individual donor country.''
:''Since [Zimbabwe's] independence we have provided 44 million pounds for land reform in Zimbabwe and 500 million pounds in bilateral development assistance.''
:''The UK remains a strong advocate for effective, well managed and pro-poor land reform. Fast-track land reform has not been implemented in line with these principles and we cannot support it.''

The Minister for Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement, John Nkomo, had declared five days earlier that all land, from crop fields to wildlife conservancies, would soon become state property. Farmland deeds would be replaced with 99-year leases, while leases for wildlife conservancies would be limited to 25 years.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Dixon|first1=Robyn|author-link=Robyn Dixon (journalist)|last2=Thornycroft|first2=Peta|date=2004-06-09|title=Minister Says Zimbabwe Plans to Nationalize Land|url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jun-09-fg-zimbabwe9-story.html|website=[[Los Angeles Times]]|location=Johannesburg and Harare}}</ref> There have since been denials of this policy, however.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://zimbabweland.net/Zimbabwe's%20Land%20Reform%20Booklet%20Web.pdf|title=Zimbabwe's Land Reform: A summary of findings|last=Scoones|first=Ian|date=2011 |website=Zimbabweland.net|access-date=23 February 2019}}</ref>

Parliament, dominated by [[ZANU–PF]], passed a constitutional amendment, signed into law on 12 September 2005, that nationalised farmland acquired through the "Fast Track" process and deprived original landowners of the right to challenge in court the government's decision to expropriate their land.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-09/2005-09-12-voa36.cfm?CFID=18138884&CFTOKEN=35884117 |title=Just a moment |access-date=6 May 2014 |archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20051112040534/http://voanews.com/english/archive/2005-09/2005-09-12-voa36.cfm?CFID=53041476&CFTOKEN=35798529 |archive-date=12 November 2005 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all}}</ref> The [[Supreme Court of Zimbabwe]] ruled against legal challenges to this amendment.<ref name="zimsupct">Mike Campbell (Private) Limited v. The Minister of National Security Responsible for Land, Land Reform and Resettlement, Supreme Court of Zimbabwe, 22 January 2008</ref> The case ([[Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd and Others v Republic of Zimbabwe|''Campbell v Republic of Zimbabwe'']]) was heard by the [[SADC Tribunal]] in 2008, which held that the Zimbabwean government violated the SADC treaty by denying access to the courts and engaging in racial discrimination against white farmers whose lands had been confiscated and that compensation should be paid.<ref>{{cite SAFLII|litigants=Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd and Others v Republic of Zimbabwe|link=|court=SADCT|year=2008|num=2|parallelcite=|date=28 November 2008|courtname=auto|juris=}}</ref> However, the High Court refused to register the Tribunal's judgment and ultimately, Zimbabwe withdrew from the Tribunal in August 2009.<ref>[http://blog.amnestyusa.org/justice/sadc-tribunal-struggles-for-legitimacy "SADC Tribunal Struggles for Legitimacy"], Amnesty International USA Web Log, 3 September 2009</ref>

In January 2006, Agriculture Minister [[Joseph Made]] said Zimbabwe was considering legislation that would compel commercial banks to finance black peasants who had been allocated formerly white-owned farmland in the land reforms. Made warned that banks failing to lend a substantial portion of their income to these farmers would have their licenses withdrawn.

The newly resettled peasants had largely failed to secure loans from commercial banks because they did not have title over the land on which they were resettled, and thus could not use it as collateral. With no security of tenure on the farms, banks have been reluctant to extend loans to the new farmers, many of whom do not have much experience in commercial farming, nor assets to provide alternative collateral for any borrowed money.<ref>{{cite web|author=Basildon Peta |url=http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=68&art_id=vn20060110061257518C122253 |title=Harare may force banks to fund black farmers |publisher=IOL.co.za |date=10 January 2006 |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref>

==Aftermath and outcomes==

===Land redistribution===
{{quote box
 | align = right
 | width = 25%
 | quote = The party needs to institute mechanisms to solve the numerous problems emanating from the way the land reform programme was conducted, especially taking cognisance the corrupt and vindictive practices by officers in the Ministry of Lands.
 | author = Central Committee Report for the 17th Annual National People's Conference, ZANU–PF<ref name="fin24l">{{Cite web |url=https://www.fin24.com/Economy/Africa/zim-government-to-evict-illegal-farm-settlers-20181219 |title=Zim government to evict illegal farm settlers |last=Kuyedzwa |first=Crecey |date=2018-12-19 |website=Fin24 |access-date=2018-12-20}}</ref><ref name="Herliald ">{{Cite web |url=https://www.pressreader.com/zimbabwe/the-herald-zimbabwe/20181217/281543702023631 |title=Corruption, double allocations spoil land reform: Zanu-PF |last=Mugabe |first=Tendai |date=17 December 2018 |work=The Herald |access-date=2018-12-20}}</ref>
}}
Conflicting reports emerged regarding the effects of Mugabe's land reform programme. In February 2000, the [[African National Congress]] media liaison department reported that Mugabe had given himself 15 farms, while [[Simon Muzenda]] received 13. Cabinet ministers held 160 farms among them, sitting ZANU–PF parliamentarians 150, and the 2,500 war veterans only two. Another 4,500 landless peasants were allocated three.<ref name="Cry" /> The programme also left another 200,000 farmworkers displaced and homeless, with just under 5% receiving compensation in the form of land expropriated from their ousted employers.<ref name="Reconciliation">{{cite book |last=Brian Raftopoulos & Tyrone Savage |title=Zimbabwe: Injustice and Political Reconciliation |year=2004 |edition=1 July 2001 |pages=220–239 |publisher=Institute for Justice and Reconciliation |isbn=0-9584794-4-5}}</ref>

The [[Institute of Development Studies]] of the University of Sussex published a report countering that the Zimbabwean economy is recovering and that new business is growing in the rural areas.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ids.ac.uk/news/zimbabwe-s-land-reform-ten-years-on-new-study-dispels-the-myths |title=Institute of Development Studies: Zimbabwe's land reform ten years on: new study dispels the myths |publisher=Ids.ac.uk |access-date=20 November 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921055218/http://www.ids.ac.uk/news/zimbabwe-s-land-reform-ten-years-on-new-study-dispels-the-myths |archive-date=21 September 2013 |url-status=dead}}</ref> The study reported that of around 7 million hectares of land redistributed via the land reform (or 20% of Zimbabwe's area), 49.9% of those who received land were rural peasants, 18.3% were "unemployed or in low-paid jobs in regional towns, growth points and mines," 16.5% were civil servants, and 6.7% were of the Zimbabwean working class. Despite the claims by critics of the land reform only benefiting government bureaucrats, only 4.8% of the land went to business people, and 3.7% went to security services.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Scoones,Ian |author2=Marongwe, Nelson |author3=Mavedzenge, Blasio |author4=Mahenehene, Jacob |author5=Murimbarimba, Felix |author6=Sukume, Chrispen |year=2010|title=Zimbabwe's Land Reform: Myths & Realities|publisher=James Currey|isbn=978-1847010247|pages=272}}</ref> About 5% of the households (not the same as 5% of the land) went to absentee farmers well connected to ZANU-PF. Masvingo is however a part of the country with relatively poor farming land, and it is possible more farms went to "cell-phone farmers" in other parts of the country, according to the study.<ref name="Scoones2">{{cite web|url=http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35138:zimbabwes-land-reform-challenging-the-myths&catid=69:sunday-top-stories&Itemid=30&q=scoones |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130505075110/http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=35138:zimbabwes-land-reform-challenging-the-myths&catid=69:sunday-top-stories&Itemid=30&q=scoones |url-status=dead |archive-date=5 May 2013 |title=Zimbabwes land reform: challenging the myths |work=The Zimbabwean |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref> The study has been criticised for focusing on detailed local cases in one province ([[Masvingo Province]]) and ignoring the violent nature of resettlement and aspects of international law.<ref>{{cite web|last=Dore |first=Dale |url=http://www.sokwanele.com/myths_reality_and_the_inconvenient_truth_about_Zimbabwes_land_resettlement_programme_131112 |title=Myths, Reality and The Inconvenient Truth about Zimbabwe's Land Resettlement Programme |date=13 November 2012 |publisher=Sokwanele |access-date=18 June 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130614152517/http://www.sokwanele.com/myths_reality_and_the_inconvenient_truth_about_Zimbabwes_land_resettlement_programme_131112 |archive-date=14 June 2013}}</ref> Critics continue to maintain that the primary beneficiaries are Mugabe loyalists.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/10/robert-mugabe-land-reform|title=Robert Mugabe's land reform comes under fresh scrutiny|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|date=10 May 2013|access-date=12 August 2013}}</ref>

As of 2011, there were around 300 white farmers remaining in Zimbabwe.<ref name="freeman">{{cite news|last=Freeman |first=Colin |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/8598458/The-end-of-an-era-for-Zimbabwes-last-white-farmers.html |title=The end of an era for Zimbabwe's last white farmers? |newspaper=Telegraph |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref> In 2018 in the ZANU–PF Central Committee Report for the 17th Annual National People's Conference the government stated that the process of land reform suffered from corruption and "vindictive processes" that needed to be resolved.<ref name="fin24l" />

After close to two decades, Zimbabwe has started the process of returning land to farmers whose farms were taken over. With the United States demanding the country must return the land before it can lift the sanctions it has imposed on the once flourishing southern Africa country, Zimbabwe stated they will begin paying compensation to white farmers who lost their farms.But most have not received compensation to date. In 2020, there are many more than 1000 white farmers tilling the soil, and this number is rising.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.pulselive.co.ke/bi/politics/zimbabwe-now-moves-to-return-back-land-taken-over-by-mugabe-to-white-farmers/z3mgn06
|title=Over my dead body |newspaper=[[Business Insider]]|date=12 March 2020|access-date=28 March 2020}}</ref>

On 1 September 2020, Zimbabwe decided to return land that was seized from foreigners between 2000 and 2001; hence, foreign citizens who had their land seized, mostly Dutch, British and German nationals, could apply to get it back. The government also mentioned that black farmers who received land under the controversial land reform program would be moved to allow the former owners "to regain possession".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-53988788 |title=Zimbabwe to return land seized from foreign farmers |publisher=BBC News |date=1 September 2020}}</ref>

===Impact on production===
[[File:Africa Humanitarian Food Aid 21 (10665202905).jpg|thumb|Many Zimbabweans now rely on [[humanitarian aid]], such as this maize [[Australia-Zimbabwe relations|donated by Australia]] under the aegis of the [[United Nations World Food Program]].]]
Before 2000, land-owning farmers had large tracts of land and used [[economies of scale]] to raise capital, borrow money when necessary, and purchase modern mechanised farm equipment to increase productivity on their land. Because the primary beneficiaries of the land reform were members of the Government and their families, despite the fact that most had no experience in running a farm, the drop in total farm output has been tremendous and has even produced starvation and famine, according to aid agencies.<ref name="Dancaescu 2003 615–644"/> Export crops have suffered tremendously in this period. Whereas Zimbabwe was the world's sixth-largest producer of tobacco in 2001,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas16.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030925222627/http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas16.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=25 September 2003 |title=Growing Tobacco |publisher=Who.int |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref> in 2005 it produced less than a third the amount produced in 2000.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.afrol.com/articles/17158 |title=afrol News – Tiny tobacco crop spells doom in Zimbabwe |publisher=Afrol.com |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref>

Zimbabwe was once so rich in agricultural produce that it was dubbed the "bread basket" of Southern Africa, while it is now struggling to feed its own population.<ref>{{Cite magazine|magazine=The Economist |date=27 June 2002 |title=From breadbasket to basket case: Faced with famine, Robert Mugabe orders farmers to stop growing food |url=http://www.economist.com/node/1201137 }}</ref> About 45 percent of the population is now considered [[malnutrition|malnourished]].  Crops for export such as tobacco, coffee and tea have suffered the most under the land reform. Annual production of maize, the main everyday food for Zimbabweans, was reduced by 31% during 2002 to 2012, while annual small grains production was up 163% during the same period.<ref name="Scoones" /> With over a million hectares converted from primarily export crops to primarily maize, production of maize finally reached pre-2001 volume in 2017 under [[Mnangagwa]]'s "command agriculture" programme.<ref>{{Cite news|title=Land reform is a Zimbabwe success story – it will be the basis for economic recovery under Mnangagwa |date=29 November 2017 |newspaper=The Conversation |url=https://theconversation.com/land-reform-is-a-zimbabwe-success-story-it-will-be-the-basis-for-economic-recovery-under-mnangagwa-88205 }}</ref>

====Tobacco====

{{See also|Tobacco in Zimbabwe}}

Land reform caused a collapse in Zimbabwe's tobacco crop, its main agricultural export.  In 2001, Zimbabwe was the world's sixth-largest producer of tobacco, behind only China, Brazil, India, the United States and Indonesia.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas16.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030925222627/http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/atlas16.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=25 September 2003 |title=Growing Tobacco |publisher=Who.int |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref>  By 2008, tobacco production had collapsed to 48 million kg, just 21% of the amount grown in 2000 and smaller than the crop grown in 1950.<ref name="bloomberg2013">{{cite news|last1=Marawanyika|first1=Godfrey|title=Mugabe Makes Zimbabwe's Tobacco Farmers Land Grab Winners|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-11-03/mugabe-makes-zimbabwe-s-tobacco-farmers-land-grab-winners|work=Bloomberg|date=4 November 2013}}</ref><ref name="hodder-williams1983">{{cite book|last1=Hodder-Williams|first1=Richard|title=White Farmers in Rhodesia, 1890–1965: A History of the Marandellas District|date=1983|publisher=Springer|isbn=9781349048953}}</ref>{{rp|189}}

In 2005, the contract system was introduced into Zimbabwe.  International tobacco companies contracted with small-scale subsistence farmers to buy their crop. In return, the farmers received agricultural inputs such as seeds and fertiliser, as well as advice and supervision.<ref name="bloomberg2011">{{cite news|last1=Latham|first1=Brian|title=Mugabe's Seized Farms Boost Profits at British American Tobacco|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-30/mugabe-s-seized-farms-boost-british-american-tobacco-profits-in-zimbabwe|work=Bloomberg|date=30 November 2011}}</ref><ref name="herald2016">{{cite news|last1=Kawadza|first1=Sydney|title=Contract farming: Future for agriculture|url=http://www.herald.co.zw/contract-farming-future-for-agric/|work=The Herald (Zimbabwe)|date=16 June 2016}}</ref>  Production revived as the small-scale black farmers gained experience in growing tobacco.<ref name=Polgreen>{{cite news|last=Polgreen |first=Lydia |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/world/africa/in-zimbabwe-land-takeover-a-golden-lining.html |title=In Zimbabwe Land Takeover, a Golden Lining |location=Zimbabwe |newspaper=NYTimes.com |date=20 July 2012 |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref>  In 2019, Zimbabwe produced 258 million kg of tobacco, the second-largest crop on record.<ref>{{cite news |title=Zimbabwe farmers produce record tobacco crop |url=https://www.thezimbabwemail.com/farming-enviroment/zimbabwe-farmers-produce-record-tobacco-crop/ |work=The Zimbabwe Mail |date=4 September 2019 |language=en}}</ref><ref name="fao2003">{{cite book|title=Issues in the Global Tobacco Economy|date=2003|publisher=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations|chapter=Tobacco in Zimbabwe|chapter-url=http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y4997e/y4997e0k.htm}}</ref>  This increase in production came at the cost of quality as the capacity to produce higher-value cured high-nicotine tobacco was lost being largely replaced by lower-value filler-quality tobacco.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.politicsweb.co.za/news-and-analysis/the-last-white-farmers-of-zimbabwe|title=The last white farmers of Zimbabwe|last=Raath|first=Jan|date=26 October 2015|publisher=Politics Web|access-date=17 October 2016}}</ref>

===Economic consequences===
{{See also|Economy of Zimbabwe}}
[[File:Zimbabwe GDP per cap 2015.png|right|thumb|250px| [[GDP per capita]] in current US dollars from 1980 to 2014. The graph compares Zimbabwe (blue {{color box|#0000FF}}) and all of [[Sub-Saharan Africa]]'s (yellow {{color box|#DAA520}}) GDP per capita. Different periods in Zimbabwe's recent economic history such as the land reform period (pink {{color box|#FFC0CB}}), hyperinflation (grey {{color box|#C0C0C0}}), and the dollarisation/government of national unity period (light blue {{color box|#ADD8E6}}) are also highlighted.  It shows that economic activity declined in Zimbabwe over the period that the land reforms took place whilst the rest of Africa rapidly overtook the country in the same period.<ref name="WDI">{{cite web | url=http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do?Step=3&id=4 | title=World Development Indicators | publisher=World Bank | access-date=18 October 2015}}</ref>]]
Critics of the land reforms have contended that they have had a serious detrimental effect on the Zimbabwean economy.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Richardson |first=Craig J. |year=2004 |title=The Collapse of Zimbabwe in the Wake of the 2000–2003 Land Reforms |location= [[Lewiston, New York]] |publisher=[[Edwin Mellen Press]] |isbn=978-0-7734-6366-0}}</ref><ref name="nation.co.ke"/>

The rebound in Zimbabwean GDP following dollarisation is attributable to loans and foreign aid obtained by pledging the country's vast natural resources—including diamonds, gold, and platinum—to foreign powers.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Richardson |first=Craig J. |year=2013 |title=Zimbabwe Why Is One of the World's Least-Free Economies Growing So Fast? |journal=Policy Analysis |issue=722 |publisher=Cato Institute |url=http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa722.pdf }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sikwila |first=Mike Nyamazana |year=2013 |title=Dollarization and the Zimbabwe's Economy |journal=Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies |volume=5 |issue= 6 |pages=398–405 |doi=10.22610/jebs.v5i6.414 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310152327 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

In response to what was described as the "fast-track land reform" in Zimbabwe, the United States government put the Zimbabwean government on a credit freeze in 2001 through the [[Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001]] (specifically Section 4C titled Multilateral Financing Restriction),<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s107-494&version=enr&nid=t0%3Aenr%3A30 |title=Full Text of S. 494 (107th): Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 |publisher=GovTrack.us |date=13 December 2001 |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref>

Zimbabwe's trade surplus was $322 million in 2001, in 2002 trade deficit was $18 million, to grow rapidly in subsequent years.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ai469e/ai469e00.htm |title=Fao Global Information And Early Warning System on Food And Agriculture – World Food Programme |publisher=Fao.org |access-date=20 November 2012}}</ref>
{{clear}}

== Compensation to displaced farmers ==
In April 2025, Zimbabwe made its first compensation payments to white farmers displaced during the controversial land reform programme of 2000–2001. The initial US$3 million disbursement is part of a US$3.5 billion compensation deal agreed in 2020 between the government and local white farmers. This first payment covers 378 farms, with the remainder to be paid through US dollar-denominated Treasury bonds. The government has committed to compensating only for improvements made on the land, not the land itself, citing colonial-era injustices. While some former farmers have signed up to the agreement, many are holding out, retaining their title deeds. The move is part of broader efforts by [[Emmerson Mnangagwa|President Emmerson Mnangagwa]] to re-engage with Western governments and address Zimbabwe’s long-standing international isolation and economic challenges.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-04-10 |title=Zimbabwe's white farmers to receive first compensation payments over land invasions |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5wwp5eelxo |access-date=2025-04-16 |website=www.bbc.com |language=en-GB}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[Agrarian reform]]
*[[Economy of Zimbabwe]]
*[[History of Zimbabwe]]
*[[Land reform]]

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}
command agriculture program. Government of Zimbabwe 2016

==Further reading==
* Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/GxgYljL6ns4 Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20101222041851/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxgYljL6ns4 Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{cite web |author=[[CPGB-ML]] |title=Zimbabwe Speaks – Interview with the minister of land reform in Zimbabwe |publisher=YouTube |date=20 December 2010 |access-date=7 February 2011 |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxgYljL6ns4}}{{cbignore}}
* {{cite web |author=Fowale, Tongkeh |title=Zimbabwe and Western Sanctions: Motives and Implications |publisher=American Chronicle |date=30 July 2008 |access-date=14 July 2009 |url=http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/69939 |archive-date=11 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120111180806/http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/69939 |url-status=dead }}
* {{cite web|author=Lebert, Tom |title=Land Research Action Network |date=21 January 2003 |access-date=3 April 2008 |url=http://www.landaction.org/display.php?article=61 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928021918/http://www.landaction.org/display.php?article=61 |archive-date=28 September 2007 }}
* {{cite web |publisher=Human Rights Watch |date=March 2002 |work=Vol. 14, No. 1 (A) |access-date=3 April 2008 |url=https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/zimbabwe/index.htm |title=Zimbabwe: Fast Track Land Reform in Zimbabwe}}
* {{cite web|author=Annie Schleicher |publisher=Online NewsHour |date=14 April 2004 |access-date=18 May 2016 |url=http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/land/gp_zimbabwe.html |title=Zimbabwe's Land Program, PBS Backgrounder |url-status=unfit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040501103309/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/africa/land/gp_zimbabwe.html |archive-date=1 May 2004 }}
* {{cite web |year=2009 |access-date=14 July 2012 |url=http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Mugabe_and_the_White_African/70119673?trkid=496624 | title=Mugabe and the White African}}

==External links==
* [https://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/zimbabwe/ Fast Track Land Reform in Zimbabwe]
*[http://hdl.handle.net/10822/552663 U.S. and Third World Land Reform] from the [https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494 Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives]

{{Africa in topic|Land reform in}}
{{Robert Mugabe}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Land Reform In Zimbabwe}}
[[Category:Politics of Zimbabwe]]
[[Category:Land reform by country|Zimbabwe]]
[[Category:Economic history of Zimbabwe]]
[[Category:Reform in Zimbabwe]]