PRESS BRIEFING BY UN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME ADMINISTRATOR

Press Briefing

PRESS BRIEFING BY UN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME ADMINISTRATOR

The implementation of the Secretary-General's proposal for land reform in Zimbabwe by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) was expected to produce a political solution through a development and technical approach, UNDP Administrator Mark Malloch Brown told correspondents during a briefing today.

He said the Secretary-General had asked the UNDP to play a role in facilitating a renewed land reform programme in Zimbabwe, as it had always been involved with that issue there. It had co-chaired, along with the Government of Zimbabwe, the 1998 land reform conference. That conference engendered a process that could apparently produce major land redistribution. The land reform process incorporated principles of both land redistribution and compensation, as well as a legally enforceable approach that enjoyed broad support, both from Zimbabwe and from donors. However, events had since derailed that effort.

The Secretary-General's proposal was an attempt to put the land reform process back on a development and technical basis, Mr. Malloch Brown pointed out. It would ensure that the principles of the initial arrangement would again govern the land reform solution in Zimbabwe, so that the people would know that there was a realistic plan for land reform that would be funded and supported by the donors. Also, it would reassure the donors that the plan was transparent and fair, in addition to having a legal basis. The Secretary-General believed that the proposal would be welcomed by the different parties, he emphasized.

A correspondent asked whether the United Nations had contacted the Government of Zimbabwe with a proposal or solution to the issue of land reform, or was it merely an exploration.

Mr. Malloch Brown pointed to the 1998 agreement. He said there was ongoing collaboration with the Zimbabwean Government. President Robert Mugabe and the Secretary-General had spoken during the past few days and the document would contain no surprises for the President. Furthermore, the proposal was not a negotiated one -- it was the result of consultations between the Secretary- General and different governments. It was the Organization's effort to establish common ground between principles and process. He noted that donor support had ceased even before the recent political event.

Did that mean that President Mugabe was ready to back down from his position of expropriating white-owned farms? another correspondent asked.

The 1998 agreement provided for widespread land reform and redistribution based on the principle of compensation, Mr. Malloch Brown responded. President Mugabe had always indicated that he would prefer a voluntary process. The proposed process was an attempt to dissolve some of the frustrations that led to the threats of an expropriation solution, rather than a voluntary and compensated one. The Zimbabweans had always felt that the 1998 agreement would be the basis for discussions with the donors. The proposal was an effort to gain the support of both sides.

According to previous rhetoric, that was not the understanding, she said. Wouldn't the donors be sceptical? Mr. Malloch Brown responded that the previous rhetoric was the result of frustration from the lack of progress in implementing the 1998 agreement. He hoped the current proposal would revive the process.

A correspondent inquired about the implementation of the programme, taking account of the political factors that would obviously influence the undertaking.

The UNDP Administrator noted that the statement introducing the proposal had pointed out that attracting resources for an adequately funded programme would depend on changes in the broader political context, which was beyond the competence of the agency to address. The revival of the process should persuade Zimbabweans that there was plausible and credible land reform immediately ahead. That should take some of the tension out of the political situation and pave the way for donors who provided the resources. The upcoming elections would also affect implementation, and consultations were being planned for next week to decide on the time-line.

What impact would the election results have on the development of the programme? another correspondent asked. Had any of the donors announced target amounts for it?

The donors were ready to support the programme, but no blank cheques were forthcoming at the current stage, he said. The money would come when there was an agreement that the donors could support. In that light, negotiations would be undertaken. For example, the Danish Minister of Development had expressed his country's support for land compensation. The donors recognized that the political situation in Zimbabwe could never be fixed until the issue was resolved. The issue was to recreate the context in which widespread land redistribution, targeted at the landless poor, could be done in a way that would produce broad-based confidence.

Do you believe that the Government is committed to the programme? she asked. Mr. Malloch Brown said that if the proposal was not based on a transparent legal process that was acceptable to all parties, the donors would not want to provide resources. Therefore, everyone must meet each other's standards for it to work.

How important was the cessation of violence associated with land reform to the success of the initiative? a correspondent asked. How effective could the United Nations be in the process?

Mr. Malloch Brown said the announcement of the initiative, along with the efforts of the Government to reduce the tension and violence -- as it was in their interest that the elections be perceived as being free and fair -- would contribute to the cessation. Initially, the violence had been caused because of the frustration over the lack of progress in land reform.

Also, he added, the Organization had the trust of everyone, because of the recognition that it did not have a particular agenda and there were basic United Nations principles that could not be compromised. In addition, the Organization was genuinely committed to land reform in Zimbabwe.

Was there concern that the United Nations was being used for political purposes, considering that the violence erupted and the proposal was being introduced just a few weeks before the elections? another correspondent asked. Actually, it was the reverse, Mr. Malloch Brown emphasized. Zimbabwe was very interested in having observers affirm that the election was free and fair. That was very important for the long-term political and economic interest of the country. What was being reflected was a return to the principles of the 1998 agreement. No money was forthcoming until there was a legally enforceable agreement, in accordance with the processes and principles of the initiative. The proposal was addressing the causes of frustration, which had led to the explosion of violence and rhetoric over the past few weeks.

What would the UNDP do now? asked a correspondent. He responded that the agency would incorporate the work of the 1998 agreement, which was progressing slowly because of the lack of donor support. The much-debated constitutional amendment included the opportunity for compensation. The elements were there, but they must be formulated again, so they could be acceptable to everyone, and must be done within a reasonable time.

* *** *