Recently an article in the media claimed that Zambia was expecting a harvest of 3.3 million tonnes. The tonne of the article was as if this achievement was solely or mainly done by ex-Zimbabwean white farmers.
According to the Zambian ministry of agriculture about 350 new commercial farmers have settled in Zambia in the past decade. Of these about 150 are are Zimbabwean and about 200 are South African. Therefore if Zambia's success with maize was solely attributable to commercial farmers less than half are from Zimbabwe.
As to how much commercial farmers contribute to Zambia's maize output the WFP says only 10%, or only 330 thousand tonnes. According to the WFP small-holder black farmers are responsible for 90% of Zambia's maize output. It supports these farmers through its P4P (Purchase for Progress) programme that is partly funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The P4P programme guarantees that small-holder farmers have a market for their produce.
Before Mugabe messed up agricultural marketing policies, small holder farmers were responsible for 70 to 80 percent of Zimbabwe's maize output.
The main reason for Zambia's success is that smallholder farmers are guaranteed an income from their produce through purchasing support of output.
In contrast Zimbabwe's government run Grain Marketing Board has been systematically failing to pay for deliveries on time. Some farmers have gone for years without being paid. The government itself has been wrongly focusing on funding inputs rather than output. The net effect of providing free inputs while failing to ensure output is paid for, is that people have resorted to simply selling the inputs to get at least some money.
Output support is nothing new. Most Western countries subsidize agriculture heavily. In February this year farmers in France (http://www.france24.com/en/20160215-france-angry-farmers-blockade-vannes-protest-falling-prices) protested low prices, demanding that the EU help France subsidise their output through a 'European Storage Plan'
In short Zambia's agricultural success is testimony of the benefits of getting more land into the hands of small holder farmers. It makes a very strong case for land reform rather than against it.
Zimbabwe's failure is not on land redistribution but interference in the market through price controls, restricted marketing options for farmers (you can only sell to state bodies which don't pay). Those crops that are not subject to excessive marketing restrictions are enjoying some success in production.
