Zimbabwe

Jeremy Lefroy Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the contribution of the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who knows so much about this subject, and indeed the many other distinguished contributions from right hon. and hon. Members today.

I wish to speak briefly about agricultural development in Zimbabwe. Many speakers have outlined the political situation, which is obviously critical and indeed is pertinent to agricultural development. However, although agriculture might not have the profile of mining or tourism, it has always been vital, as hon. Members have said, to Zimbabwe’s economy, as a food producer, exporter and employer. I have some personal experience of the very fine quality of Zimbabwean coffee through my employment in the coffee trade over the past 25 years.

I firmly believe that as the political situation is resolved—as it must be—Zimbabwe will begin to resume its place as an agricultural powerhouse of sub-Saharan Africa. That it was a powerhouse is beyond doubt. The hon. Member for York Central mentioned the 1980s, throughout which a newly independent Zimbabwe provided food security for the region, regularly exporting its surplus maize to Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia. Zimbabwe also supplied countries further afield, such as Ethiopia. Indeed, it was the place from which donor agencies bought food supplies to send elsewhere as aid. In 1986, the country had a maize reserve of nearly 2 million tonnes after a record harvest of about 3 million tonnes. To put that into context, as the hon. Gentleman did, the production level in 2008 was about 470,000 tonnes. This year, there has been an improvement and the figure is expected to be 1.3 million tonnes, but that is still less than half the level of production in 1986. So, this year, Zimbabwe will still be dependent on grain imports, although to a lesser extent than in the recent past. The welcome deregulation of the market will make it easier to meet the deficit.

I shall leave it to others to trace the history of that decline—the changes in marketing, an increase in land devoted to cash crops, serious falls in productivity and, in particular, land seizures—as I would like briefly to address the way forward for agriculture. The Select Committee’s report states:

“Land reform in Zimbabwe is a complex issue. It is also a highly-charged political issue between Zimbabwe and the UK. However, resolution is essential for political stability and continued economic”

growth. I certainly do not intend to wade into those deep waters—that is for others with far more specific knowledge of the situation. All I would say is that although I have followed events in Zimbabwe from afar, I have spoken with those who were very closely involved on more than one occasion. They filled me with great sadness about what has happened. Reform was desperately needed, but it could have been achieved in a very different way.

I will offer my personal experience from Tanzania, which might show a way forward for Zimbabwe in certain circumstances. In 1973, many commercial coffee farms in Tanzania that belonged to British, Greek, German and other nationals in the Kilimanjaro region were nationalised. For more than two decades, they were then owned and run by local villages and co-operatives, which were generally unable to invest. Production and quality declined so that by the mid 1990s, production was about 10% of what it had been in the early 1970s.

The Tanzanian Government wanted to see a revival of the farms but were conscious of the vital issue of land ownership. They considered two models: joint ventures and long-term leases. I was somewhat involved in the discussions in my capacity as secretary and then chairman of the Tanzania Coffee Association. We advocated leases and the Tanzanian Government, to their great credit, chose that route. We felt that that was the best way forward because, unlike with joint ventures, ownership of the land remained firmly in the hands of the local people, villages and co-operatives. The lease allowed the investor to develop the farm for the long term, paying a rent to the village or co-operative and employing local people while remaining the tenant.

The leases—I declare an interest, as I am involved in one—have so far worked reasonably well. Previously, the land brought almost no income to the community and little employment, and now it brings a healthy rent that has been used by the local communities to build school classrooms and much else. Many smallholder farmers in the surrounding area can supplement their income through employment.

I do not claim that such a model would work perfectly or that it would work in every situation. I am very much aware that there is justifiable anger over the leasing to new tenants of farms that were seized violently from those who had built them up over decades. By contrast, in Tanzania former owners were often encouraged to lease back their former properties and the ownership was in the hands of community groups, not powerful individuals. Such leasing arrangements are a way to put land ownership and its use to work for the benefit of the whole community while attracting investment and skilled management.

One objective of the Zimbabwean Government in recent years has been to transfer land to small-scale farmers. I welcome the objective, although not the manner in which it has often been carried out. My experience of smallholder agriculture, however, is that without good infrastructure to support it, it will be at best subsistence farming and certainly will not fulfil its potential. The infrastructure needed is physical—rural roads, storage, equipment, seeds and fertilizers—and, just as importantly, it involves training.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman has not at any stage indicated that out of the 4,000 farms that were seized from white farmers, 2,000 are lying destitute and in ruins. Does he see a role for those white farmers who have had their land seized in perhaps looking after that land again or does he see that land being reinstated to them? I would like to hear his ideas, because their expertise and energy could rejuvenate those farms.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman; in fact, in the example in Tanzania that I gave, two or three of the farms were taken back on long leases by the farmers who had developed them in the first place.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

The need to improve the ailing infrastructure for water and sanitation is referred to frequently, as it has been in this debate, in relation to the need to provide clean water to prevent disease. My hon. Friend makes a good point about infrastructure: we need to invest in it to support the nation’s agriculture. I hope that DFID will consider how to promote the development of infrastructure in a way that involves good governance and accountability, thereby instilling confidence in the partners who need to involve themselves in such large infrastructure projects.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree. DFID and aid agencies that give bilateral and multilateral support can play an important role in supporting infrastructure. I have discussed infrastructure in relation to agriculture, and I would add irrigation to that, but infrastructure for sanitation, health and education is also important.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although it is good to get land into small farms and perhaps to start up the co-operatives again, it is vital to have an incentive on pricing? The prices of products must be right so that those people can make a living and so that things do not fall apart again. DFID needs to consider that aspect and to ensure that there are returns on products, many of which, as he will know from his experience, are excellent.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

That is why I welcome the opening up of agricultural markets in Zimbabwe, which has been one of the most important Government reforms.

The need for rural infrastructure is shown by the figures on maize yields. The area planted to maize in Zimbabwe this year is 1.8 million hectares, which compares with 1.37 million hectares in 2000, but 300,000 fewer tonnes of maize will be produced as yields decline from 1.18 tonnes to 0.74 tonnes per hectare. How can yields be improved? The Select Committee report discusses conservation agriculture, which is supported by the protracted relief programme that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) mentioned. As the report states, Christian Aid recognises that

“DFID’s consistent support to this area despite initial reluctance by other key stakeholders”

has been vital, highlighting that it

“had been particularly beneficial to vulnerable communities”

and that it was

“proven to lift households out of subsistence poverty”.

I congratulate DFID on its support for that programme under both the previous and current Governments and on taking the lead on it.

Conservation agriculture teaches people how better to manage their land and how to get a profitable harvest. According to Christian Aid, it enables households to get at least two, three, five or, in many cases—I could hardly believe this—10 tonnes of maize per hectare. That is quite incredible and I welcome the Select Committee’s recommendation that DFID should explore how conservation agriculture could be extended to other parts of sub-Saharan Africa where it could be used. I also welcome the Government’s positive response to that suggestion and I ask the Minister to ensure that that support continues.

The ordinary people of Zimbabwe have suffered grievously over the years, but they have shown, as many speakers have said, extraordinary resilience and courage. There is no doubt that the country can once again become the agricultural powerhouse that it should be. Proper land reform, not arbitrary seizure and settlement, is an essential part of that, as is effective support to the growing number of smallholder farmers. I welcome the Committee’s report, DFID’s response and the Government’s continuing commitment to the people of Zimbabwe.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—