CHAPTER 4: ZIMBABWE AND THE STATE OF FOOD SECURITY
4.2 Background to Zimbabwe
4.2.1 Post-Independence
In 1980 Zimbabwe inherited a dual economy characterised by a relatively well developed modern sector, and a largely rural poor sector that employed about 80% of the agricultural labour force. Government’s commitment to addressing some of the inequalities within the economy, and the country in general was evidenced by a number of key development strategies.
These include the “Growth with Equity” strategy of 1981, the Zimbabwe Transitional National Development Plan which ran from 1982 – 1985 and the first Five Year National Development Plan. In these plans, emphasis was placed on poverty reduction and increased social expenditure. Social expenditure was evident in the way government introduced immunisation programmes under the Primary Health Care banner and free universal primary education. By 1995, the nation registered a net enrolment rate of 86%, close to universal primary education and one of the highest literacy rates in Sub Saharan Africa (SSA). Social indicators for Zimbabwe at this stage were very positive.
As the tide turned, the decade of 1990s witnessed a downward turn as economic decline set in, and poverty and inequalities increasingly became evident. Explanations for this melt down have been attributed to several factors including recurrent droughts, non-realisation of the objectives of the economic structural adjustment programme, popularly known as ESAP. The advent of structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) in the early 1980s in Africa, which were presented as the panacea for all economic ills, have contributed to a marked increase in rural poverty, and an increase in vulnerability to external shocks and Zimbabwe was no exception.
Key social indicators such as food security, health and education began deteriorating due to the neoliberal orthodox economic structural adjustment programme (ESAP) which was imposed by the International Monetary Fund. As elsewhere SAPs have been implemented, the programme was characterised by:
1. Rule of the market i.e. liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the state no matter how much social damage this causes. Removal of price controls. The removal of price controls on basic foods like maize meal and cooking oil among others meant that consumers no longer had the protection of government unwarranted price hikes.
2. Cutting public expenditure for social services like education and health care and reducing social safety nets for the poor.
69 3. Deregulation- Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminish
profits, including protecting the environment and safety on the job.
4. Privatisation- Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors.
This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth in a few hands and making the public pay more for its needs.
5. Eliminating the concept of "the public good" or "community" and replacing it with
"individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
Source: CorpWatch (201, p. 3)
As with many other countries when the neoliberal policies were imposed, the expectation was the benefits would “trickle down” (Sewpaul, 2015, p.461) but this never was, with “inequality being recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve” (The Guardian, 2016, p.
2).
Market reforms put forward by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as the ideologically correct development path rejected notions of government intervention. As a result, the country was compelled to reduce its interventions in the economy, a move that included ceasing the subsidisation of agricultural inputs such as fertiliser and privatising the commodity boards that fixed producer prices and collected farmers’ produce. Ironically, these handicaps have been further compounded by policies in the North. At the same time that African farmers were told they could no longer have free seeds or fertilisers, the EU and the US maintained and actually sharply increased subsidies and support for agriculture. According to OXFAM (2002, p.26) US farmers were receiving an average $20,000 a year in subsidies, European Union farmers received $16,000 (Oxfam, 2002 p.26). A downstream effect was that of subsidised surpluses which undercut the prices of African foods in their own markets. During the 1991 – 1995 period, real GDP growth averaged about 1.5% per year. As extreme poverty
70 set in, an estimated 35% of households lived below the poverty line in 1995 compared to 26%
in 1990 and more households began to experience food insecurity.
Between 1996 and 2000, there was a marked acceleration of the deteriorating socio- economic environment in Zimbabwe. ESAP was replaced by a home-grown reform package “Zimbabwe Programme for Economic and Social Transformation’ (ZIMPREST, 2001). The reform programme was unfortunately undermined by lack of funds for effective implementation.
ZIMPREST was then superseded by the Millennium Economic Recovery Programme (MERP) and this was launched in August 2001. This was to be a short-term recovery programme spanning over a period of 18 months. Its main objective was to restore economic vibrancy and address underlying macro-economic fundamentals. The programme faced challenges and became almost impossible to implement as the international donor community withdrew support from the country. In February 2003 another attempt was made towards economic recovery in the form of a 12-month programme called the “National Economic Revival Programme’ (NERP). These ‘flopped’ because there was lack of commitment, inconsistent policy implementation, with failure to address economic fundamentals (Chronicle commentary, 22 April 2006). Exacerbating the economic challenges that Zimbabwe currently faces are factors like HIV/AIDS, hyperinflation, which was pegged at over 1200% in December 2006, before the dollarisation of the economy, economic meltdown, cultural and social changes, low foreign exchange reserves and a decline in investment (Mupedziswa and Ushamba, 2006).
In 2006 the government unveiled yet another recovery plan, dubbed National Economic Development Priority Programme (NEDPP) which aimed to put Zimbabwe on a sound economic footing within 9 months. The cornerstone of the programme was to harness US $2, 5 billion in cash and investments within 3 months from April 2006. This was a major challenge given that in the previous years, the nation had not been able to achieve similar set targets. One of the main thrusts of NEDPP was agriculture coordination, inputs supply and food security (GoZ, 2006). As the country continued to experience a decline in social and economic indicators, a Government of National Unity (GNU) was constituted on the 15th of September 2008, comprising the three political parties represented in the Zimbabwean Parliament. Under the GNU, the government introduced the multi-currency system in which the Zimbabwe dollar
71 was taken out of circulation to be replaced by the US dollar, South African Rand, Euro, British pound among others. Pursuant to this, the new Inclusive Government took office in the context of an economy that had many challenges. To show its commitment to economic and social recovery the GNU instituted the Short Term Economic Recovery Programme (STERP).
STERP was an emergency short term stabilisation programme, whose key goals are to stabilise the macro and micro-economy, recover the levels of savings, investment and growth, and lay the basis of a more transformative mid to long term economic programme that will turn Zimbabwe into a progressive developmental state (GoZ, 2008).
The key priority areas of STERP focused on political and governance issues, social protection and stabilisation. The food security situation improved slightly in 2011. The population of food insecure households in urban areas decreased from 26% in 2009/2010 to 10% in 2011. In rural areas, the proportion of food insecure population declined from 18% in 2009/2010 to 12% in 2011. In 2012, the food insecure population was 1.4 million people with approximately 30%
living in urban areas (FEWSNET, 2012).
Economic growth has remained elusive for Zimbabwe. Real GDP growth for 2016 initially forecast at 2,7% was revised to 1.4% due to the impacts of El Nino induced drought, low international mineral prices, appreciation of the US dollar, which is one of the currencies used under the multi-currency regime. These factors combine to trigger further risks to the economy which include the need to import food and avert hunger. Furthermore, the government of Zimbabwe declared a state of disaster due to drought on 3 February 2016, and subsequently launched the 2016-2017 Drought Disaster Domestic and International Appeal for Assistance.
72 Figure 4.2 GDP growth rate over a five year period
Source: ZIMSTATS, 2015
In 2013, the GNU was disbanded. Elections were held which brought into power the current ZANU PF led government. The new government launched yet another innovative programme which was set to place Zimbabwe on a recovery course. In pursuit of a new trajectory of accelerated economic growth and wealth creation rebuilding, maintaining macroeconomic stability and restoring the economy’s productive capacity, the Government of Zimbabwe has crafted a new macro-economic blueprint, the Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio- Economic Transformation (ZimAsset) (GoZ, 2013).
The Zimbabwe Agenda for Sustainable Socio-Economic Transformation (Zim-Asset) was set to run for the period October 2013- December 2018. It is said to be a results- based agenda that is built around four strategic clusters that will enable Zimbabwe to achieve economic growth and reposition the country as one of the strongest economies in the sub region and in Africa.
The four strategic clusters identified are: Food Security and Nutrition; Social Services and Poverty Eradication; Infrastructure and Utilities; and Value Addition and Beneficiation. Zim- Asset was crafted to achieve sustainable development and social equity anchored on indigenisation, empowerment and employment creation, which will be largely propelled by the judicious exploitation of the country’s abundant human and natural resources.
73 Under the Agricultural sector, ZIMASSET recognised that it was the backbone of the economy under-pinning economic growth, food security and poverty eradication. The programme also aimed to create a self- sufficient and food surplus economy and to see Zimbabwe re-emerging as the “Bread Basket of Southern Africa”. The agriculture cluster is closely linked to the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP), Draft Comprehensive Agriculture Policy Framework (2012-2032), the Zimbabwe Agriculture Investment Plan (2013-2017), SADC and COMESA Food and Nutrition Frameworks, to which Zimbabwe is signatory.
In response to addressing food insecurity Zimbabwe has also put in place National Food and Nutrition Security Policy. The policy promotes a multi-sectorial approach at all administrative levels to address food and nutrition insecurity, especially for the most vulnerable. The policy is based on the implementation of the seven commitments, one of which is food and agriculture.
Although Zimbabwe has experienced improved economic growth rates in the past few years, rising from a negative GDP of 5.7% between 2001–2006 to 5.4% in 2009 and 9.3% in 2011, this has not translated to growth in productive employment or poverty reduction. In 2011, 72.3
% of Zimbabweans were considered poor. Poverty is more prevalent in rural areas compared to urban areas, with about 76% of the rural households considered poor compared to 38.2% of urban households. Individual poverty prevalence is 84.3% in rural areas compared to 46.5% in urban areas, while extreme poverty is 30.3% in rural areas compared to only 5.6% in urban areas. The decline in formal employment, with many workers engaged in poorly remunerated informal jobs, has a direct bearing on both poverty and hunger. Ninety-four per cent of paid employees in 2011 received an income equal to or below the total consumption poverty line (TCPL) for an average family of five, while three out of every four employed persons in Zimbabwe are classified as being in ‘vulnerable employment’. The percentage of food-insecure rural households at peak (January to March) declined steadily from 15% in 2010–2011 to 12%
in 2011–2012. The prevalence of underweight children under five years of age fell from 11.8%
in 2009 to 10% in 2011 (FAO, 2002). It is against this background that Zimbabwe is faced with widespread abject poverty and hunger.
74