Zimbabwe Officials Say BIPPA Farm Returns Do Not Reverse Land Reform

Government officials have dismissed claims that the return of farms protected under Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements marks a reversal of Zimbabwe's land reform programme. Officials said the process is a legal and constitutional exercise aimed at resolving outstanding obligations.

Speaking in Parliament on Wednesday, the acting leader of government business and minister of agriculture said the return of 67 BIPPA-protected farms should not be interpreted as a shift in the country's land redistribution policy. The programme remains intact and irreversible while the BIPPA arrangements address investment protection agreements signed with foreign nations.

"The BIPPA process is about settling outstanding legal claims and compensating investments protected under bilateral agreements. It is not a reversal of the land reform programme," the minister said. The 67 farms represent only a small portion of land affected under the broader land reform exercise.

Officials said they are being handled within the confines of the Constitution and international treaty obligations.

Government is issuing permits, leases and offer letters to nearly 450,000 black farmers across different farming models. These include approximately 360,000 A1 farmers, 23,500 A2 farmers and more than 70,000 farmers under the old resettlement scheme.

Authorities are addressing administrative anomalies that contributed to confusion over land ownership. About 840 farms that were wrongly gazetted are set to be restored to black farmers deemed to be the rightful owners. Government will issue title deeds to around 10,000 Matenganyika farmers whose leases were granted before independence.

Officials said the measures aim to strengthen land tenure security.

A framework has been developed for 409 former farm owners who continued occupying their properties through peaceful arrangements with resettled farmers. Under the arrangement, the former owners will be allowed to purchase the farms they currently occupy.

The clarification was provided amid debate over land tenure reforms and efforts to balance constitutional obligations, compensation commitments and agricultural productivity.