IN a discussion about the agricultural prospects following the recent rains, some colleagues at my place of work blamed lack of finance from banks as the main drawback on agricultural productivity.
With my recent experience of gross incompetence by farm employees and other service providers in the agriculture value chain, I quickly pointed out: ‘Ah mari hairime, chinorima vanhu’.
I was still arguing that the human factor content of the players is critical for success.
That remark sparked a heated debate which revisited and questioned the way the land reform programme had been handled.
In the process the debate revealed lack of basic understanding about Zimbabwe’s Land Reform by some in the group.
I pointed out that the Land Reform Programme was not an office-planned exercise but part of unfinished business from the Second Chimurenga War.
To a large extent it was spontaneous.
Like all revolutions it had no formula as such.
Another colleague then asked: “Then why did they resettle people who are incompetent in agricultural production?” This, he pointed out, had compromised agricultural productivity.
I explained then the resettlement exercise from 2001 onwards was more or less spontaneous.
War veterans and the povo moved in to occupy farms as part of the movement to reclaim lands stolen by British colonialists between the 1890s and the 1960s.
There was no set plan as to which farm was to be occupied when.
Similarly when the farms were subdivided, it was those individuals present who got allocated plots.
Later as the fast-track phase kicked in, AGRITEX and lands officers subdivided farms and allocated land to those who were available and willing to be allocated land.
There never was a means test like to say those who have expertise are the ones to get land, no!
The fast-track phase must be understood to have emphasised land occupation.
In some cases even passers-by were invited to pick plots to ensure that all the land was seen to be occupied.
This clearly dealt a psychological blow to the previous white owners who could not return as their former farms were now fully occupied.
The debate then turned to the agricultural competence of those in possession of farmland.
It is legitimate to assume that not all who found themselves with pieces of land had expertise to carry out agricultural activities.
Even in the subsequent stages when Government moved in to regularise and invited interested people to apply for A1 and A2 model farms, applicants applied based on interest, not necessarily agricultural expertise although this was an advantage.
The argument was then put forward that those who are incompetent are compromising agricultural productivity and must be removed from the land and replaced by competent people.
That was a far-fetched solution; there was need to capacitate those farmers who are already on the farms.
This is where training programmes for both farmers and farm workers come in.
The next question was: “Who will train the farmers and workers?”
One senior academic said university and college lecturers must be engaged to teach the farmers.
Then another academic pointed out that local academics were rarely consulted by Government or the private sector. That opened another lively discussion.
We seemed to agree that ideally each agricultural university must be allocated a farm where full-scale production is practised to give students and lecturers opportunities for hands-on experience.
But to get back to the debate among my university colleagues.
The economist put it that each farmer needs security of tenure in the form of title deeds so he/she can borrow money to finance agricultural operations.
I pointed out that banks were holding piles of title deeds of non-performing agricultural loans and repeated my argument that human factor challenges were behind the bad loans.
To increase the knowledge and skills base, both Government and the private sector must invest in farmer capacitation through appropriate training and technical support initiatives that include both farmers and their workers.
The universities were identified as ideal institutions for capacitating farmers with relevant knowledge.
Given the amount of investment put into agricultural education and the local universities, is it not time Government utilises the expertise in these institutions?
If appropriately funded, the programmes in each one of the agricultural universities and colleges should impact positively on agricultural productivity in the local communities.
Recognising and harnessing the agricultural expertise in our local universities could be a first step for Government to harvest the fruits of its investment in higher education.
Each academic appointment board at any university selects the best candidates on to its staff.
These people disappear into the university system.
The Government and other local institutions do not seem to have any interest in utilising this academic cream, going to the extent of hiring foreigners as consultants to solve local problems.
Is it because we come from the same village or went to the same school? This phenomenon is common across Africa; failure to utilise local academic expertise to research and find solutions to local problems.
Or are universities not considered to be competent and good enough to research our challenging problems and find solutions?
Africa’s best brains must be put to work to solve our problems! We are our own liberators, remember? Tiri kurasika papi? Where are we missing the boat?
We ask all these questions because universities are the repositories of most of the nation’s best brains both in terms of academic staff and, in the case of Zimbabwe, the best Advanced Level students that they enrol.
Universities must be consulted and given the role to work to raise agricultural productivity by providing farmers with the best working models generated from their practical research on-station and in farmers’ fields. Consulting foreign academics should be complimentary to local efforts, not our primary port of call!
Universities have capacity to produce high level manpower but more importantly, they must be capacitated to work on practical solutions to our challenges in the agricultural sector. So many brilliant Zimbabweans sit vegitating in the universities. No one seems to know they are there or that they are experts in various areas of knowledge that can be useful to Zimbabwe. Chenga ose manhanga, hapana risina mhodzi.
Perhaps it is time the relevant ministries dealing with higher education and agriculture deploy the available high level manpower trained here and abroad to tackle some of our challenges in agriculture.
They will provide better consultancy services than some of the off-shore people who are periodically called in and who have no familiarity with local conditions.
I sincerely believe local experts will be able to hammer out a strategy for sustainable agricultural productivity.
When it comes to fighting hunger and poverty, we are our own liberators. Our Chimurenga experiences speak to that.
The struggle to increase agricultural productivity and banish hunger from Zimbabwe continues until final victory.