Speaking in parliament on 6 May, Minister of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Water Resources Development Anxious Masuka said the farms previously belonged to nationals from Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands.
He said the move forms part of the government’s broader efforts to rebuild relations with Western countries and international lenders after years of isolation.
Masuka added that more than 400 white former commercial farmers will be allowed to buy back all or part of their farms, while 840 farms previously owned by black Zimbabweans will be returned to them.
Farmers’ union welcomes return of farms
The Commercial Farmers’ Union of Zimbabwe (CFU) has welcomed the decision to return the 67 farms covered by Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (BIPPAs), describing it as a step towards rebuilding international confidence.
“We are pleased that the government of Zimbabwe is making progress towards normalising international relations. This follows initial compensation payments made to 94 BIPPA farmers who will not be returning to their properties, since the land was resettled,” CFU chairperson Liam Philp told Farmer’s Weekly.
He said the union remains engaged with the government over the long-running compensation issue affecting former commercial farmers.
“The Global Compensation Deed signed by the government and CFU in 2020 has lapsed, with the government failing to meet its obligations regarding payment for improvements under a five-year plan,” Philp said.
“According to the agreement, the government was supposed to settle claims for approximately 4 500 white people who lost their land as part of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme [FTLRP], paying them US$3,5 billion [around R60 billion]. However, developments in implementing the agreement have been slow as a result of Zimbabwe’s financial difficulties.
“The government later introduced the Farmers Compensation Agreement [FCA], offering a structured 10-year treasury bill payment plan heavily weighted towards years seven to 10,” he explained.
However, Philp said many former commercial farmers are dissatisfied with the FCA, saying “it is not acceptable to the majority of farmers and, as such, there has only been an uptake of approximately 21%”.
He added that concerns regarding land tenure security and protection of investments remain central to restoring confidence in Zimbabwe’s agriculture sector.
“Land tenure and respect for business investment, whether international or domestic, underpins investor confidence and informs country risk,” Philp said, adding that although compulsory acquisition of agricultural land had stopped, “there is much work to be done in this area to restore confidence”.
He described the government’s plans to issue title deeds to farmers still operating on parts of their original farms as a positive development: “This will start to build confidence and encourage investment.”
Move reflects pragmatism rather than policy reversal
Farai Maguwu, executive director of the Centre for Natural Resource Governance, said Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa has historically taken a cautious approach to the land issue, a position that dates back to the introduction of the FTLRP.
“Some credible sources say that during the chaotic land grabs of the early 2000s, Mnangagwa personally protected some white farmers from losing their farms,” he said.
Maguwu added that the government’s decision to return the 67 farms to white farmers should not be viewed as a reversal of land reform policy but rather as an act of pragmatism and nation building.
“Land must be made available to all Zimbabweans, irrespective of their race, tribe, class, or colour. More importantly, we must make land productive to revive the economy.”
Call for full compensation and long-term security
Brian James, a white former commercial farmer, said the recent developments concerning land reform and farm restitution were unexpected, particularly the return of farms linked to BIPPAs.
“My understanding was that BIPPA farmers were to be paid their agreed compensation by the end of next year, so the return of 67 farms comes as a surprise,” he said.
“If this arrangement is agreeable to the farmers themselves, and those who might have moved onto these properties, then I think it’s good news.”
On the broader issue of investor confidence, James said the latest measures represent only a small step towards resolving Zimbabwe’s long-standing land reform challenges, stressing that full and fair compensation remains essential for restoring trust in the agriculture sector.
“As far as investor confidence is concerned, this is one small step in solving this whole land issue. Compensation, and I mean full and fair compensation, needs to be paid to all farmers, irrespective of their status. They all have legitimate title deeds.”
He said meaningful progress will require negotiations in good faith between the government and all affected landholders or their legitimate representatives.
James added that only a comprehensive settlement could restore Zimbabwe’s agriculture sector to its former strength.
“This is the only way to put agriculture back on track and achieve the breadbasket [status] the country once had. Having half-hearted agreements with some farmers is counterproductive. We all need to accept that what happened in 2000 was unfortunate and handled in a devastating way,” he said.
He also argued that any sustainable land policy must balance historical redress with responsibility and productivity in land ownership.
“All parties must be willing to put policies in place that achieve long-term productivity and confidence. The solution must address historical imbalances but also highlight the responsibilities that come with agricultural land ownership.”
In addition, James pointed to the emergence of joint ventures between former commercial farmers and land reform beneficiaries, saying there are now approximately 2 500 such partnerships in the country and adding that while they are important, they still lack long-term security.
“These farmers are putting considerable asset value into these farms but do not have long-term security for their investments. At the same time, the farms themselves are smaller and therefore unable to implement ideal crop rotations,” he said.
He said land values must be restored through formal recognition and compensation mechanisms.
“In situations like this, compromise is the name of the game. One must also realise that land values have been destroyed by the FTLRP. These values must be reinstated, so the beneficiaries of these farms need to realise that they must pay for this land and therefore have legitimate, bankable title,” he explained.
Move aims to restore credibility
Human rights activist Rashweat Mukundu said the return of farms under BIPPAs is largely about restoring Zimbabwe’s credibility in international trade and investment.
“BIPPA farms essentially represent a trust issue in trade and investment agreements, where credibility has been questioned for years,” he said.
He noted that foreign investors who lost land under the FTLRP argue that Zimbabwe violated the BIPPAs, exposing the state to possible international arbitration.
“Some investors had every right to sue the government in international courts for breach of agreement,” Mukundu said, adding that compensation is required.
He concluded that the latest developments concerning land restitution reflect efforts to reduce the country’s compensation burden while addressing pressure from foreign governments whose citizens were affected.
