You are currently viewing 26 Years After Land Reform, Why Is the New Farmer Still New?
Political scientist Dr Abigale Mupambi has questioned the sustainability of Zimbabwe's continued distribution of free farming inputs, 26 years after land reform. She argues that farmers should gradually move from government dependency to commercial financing, with subsidies and full support reserved for those who genuinely need assistance.

26 Years After Land Reform, Why Is the New Farmer Still New?

WHY FREE FARM INPUTS EVERY SEASON IS NOW UNSUSTAINABLE IN ZIMBABWE!
……..26 years after land reform, Zimbabwean farmers should be graduating from government support rather than remaining dependent on free inputs.

Farming is the backbone of the Zimbabwean economy. It is not a social welfare programme. It contributes 12 percent to GDP, provides 60 percent of raw materials for manufacturing, and sustains 67 percent of our population.

On that basis, I objectively differ with the continued model of Government fully funding farmers with seed and fertiliser every season. The model may be politically viable, but it is economically unsustainable.

The model was valid at inception. In 2000, when Fast Track Land Reform began, state-funded support was necessary. The new farmer had assumed a demanding national responsibility without capital or equipment. Government had to jump-start production.

That was 26 years ago. Twenty-six years down the line, the new farmer has remained new. It is time to graduate.

Year in, year out, we see the same queue for the same 10kg of maize seed and 50kg of Compound D, while Treasury strains an already heavily strained budget. For 2026/27: CBZ has set aside US$18m under NEAP, Treasury is building a US$500m El Niño fund (US$250m cash + US$250m grain), and US$5.7m has been raised from grain levies. The Presidential Inputs Programme targets 3.5 million beneficiaries and one million hectares under Pfumvudza.

This continuous scheme has crippled graduation. It has broken the farming cycle of producing, selling, saving and reinvesting.

First, it has killed financial inclusion. Why develop a bankable plan when inputs are free? Second, it has weakened private agro-dealer networks. Third, it has killed commercial discipline.

What we need now is a graduation model:

Tier One – Graduate (60%): Farmers with 5+ years delivery to GMB move from free inputs to title-deed-linked commercial finance. Use title deeds as collateral for tractors and irrigation at 7.5%, as CBZ is piloting. Inputs become a loan, not a grant.

Tier Two – Transition (30%): 50% subsidy, 50% loan repayable via Agricultural Revolving Fund in grain to build Strategic Grain Reserve.

Tier Three – Safety Net (10%): Elderly, persons with disabilities, youth-headed households remain on full support under Persons with Disabilities Act [17:01]. This is true inclusive gatekeeping.

Fiscal logic: Capitalise the Revolving Fund once with US$100m and enforce 80% recovery, it becomes self-sustaining in 3 seasons. Government saves US$150-200m annually on procurement and leakages. That saving can fund dams, roads, and ZIMRA digital systems to prevent a repeat of the ASYCUDA collapse that cut capacity from 500 to 100 trucks per day.

We must stop celebrating tonnes of seed distributed and start celebrating farmers who no longer need free seed.

The Presidential Inputs Programme succeeded in its historical mission. Its greatest success would now be to make itself unnecessary.

Dr. Abigale Mupambi is a renowed Political Scientist and an International Relations Expert who provide diverse insights in contemporay Global Affairs Analysis.

Follow Dr Abigale Mupambi on Facebook for more political analysis and commentary: https://www.facebook.com/abigale.mupambi