Zimbabwe Government Delivers on Commitment: Compensation of Former Farm Owners Under the Global Compensation Deed Commences
In February 2025, Government disbursed
US$20 million towards compensation of investors protected by Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement whose farms were affected by the 2000 Land Reform programme
HARARE, ZIMBABWE – EQS Newswire – 10 April 2025 – Zimbabwe Government has started fulfilling its commitment to compensate Former Farm Owners (FFOs) claims under the Global Compensation Deed (GCD) signed in 2020. To date, 740 farms have been approved for compensation. In this regard, Government disbursed US$3.1 million for the first batch of 378 processed farms. This amount is 1 per cent of the total compensation claim value of US$311 million. Government has also issued Treasury bonds amounting to US$ 308 million for the first batch of farmers.
FFOs receive 1 per cent of their claim in cash, with the balance being paid through US$ denominated Treasury bonds with a 2 per cent coupon and maturities of 2 to 10 years. Government allocated US$10 million in the 2025 National Budget for the compensation of FFOs under the GCD.
Zimbabwe's Minister of Finance, Economic Development, and Investment Promotion, Hon. Prof. Mthuli Ncube, reaffirmed the Government's commitment to reforms aimed at clearing the country's arrears and resolving its debt burden, emphasizing that 'payments to FFOs will continue.'
'
Monday 24 March 2025 saw the first US Dollar Cash payments due under this plan being paid to the signed up FFOs,' said
Mr. Andrew. J. Pascoe, Chairperson of the Compensation Steering Committee.
Mr. Pascoe thanked His Excellency, President Dr. E.D Mnangagwa for upholding the commitment to compensate FFOs for improvements on farms acquired under the Fast Track Land Reform Programme more than 20 years ago. He believes this move '
will attract and strengthen the local, regional and international goodwill that will be vital for the success of the country's current Arrears Clearance and Debt Resolution Process.'
UNDP Resident Representative Dr. Ayodele Odusola welcomed the progress made under the GCD framework and expressed commitment 'to
supporting a transparent, inclusive, and sustainable process that contributes to economic recovery and re-engagement
.'
Ambassador of Switzerland to Zimbabwe, H.E. Stéphane Rey said; 'These initial payments are a step in the right direction and hopefully more farmers will come forward to seek compensation based on this development.'
This compensation marks another historic milestone. In February 2025, Government disbursed US$20 million towards compensation of investors protected by Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement whose farms were affected by the 2000 Land Reform programme. Both milestones are key as Zimbabwe seeks to clear its arrears, restore debt sustainability, and unlock new concessional external financing to achieve its development goals. Zimbabwe further calls for support from partners to complement its efforts.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Zimbabwe's Ministry of Finance, Economic Development and Investment Promotion.
Download Image (1):
https://apo-opa.co/4iXaNax
(Zimbabwe President H.E Emmerson D Mnangagwa flanked by Zims Finance Minister Hon.Mthuli Ncube Afdb President Dr. A.A. Adesina Ambassador Nuno)
Download Image (2):
https://apo-opa.co/43N6Kc7
(Zimbabwes Finance Minister Hon. Prof Mthuli Ncube)
Download Image (3):
https://apo-opa.co/44mvw31
(President of Zimbabwe. H.E Emmerson D. Mnangagwa)
Additional Link (1):
https://apo-opa.co/42jtBtu
Additional Link (2):
https://apo-opa.co/43NiFH4
Download Audio:
https://apo-opa.co/3EgXlPI
Download Presentation:
https://apo-opa.co/4jlUnJb
Download Video:
https://apo-opa.co/4jntSCr
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Tribune
a day ago
- Daily Tribune
Stocks slide as Trump, Xi speak amid trade tensions
Stocks markets slid yesterday after US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke amid their trade war, while the European Central Bank signalled an end to its rate-cut cycle. Wall Street's major indices rose modestly as trading got underway, but had trouble holding onto the gains and soon slid into the red. Chinese state media reported that Xi had held a widely anticipated call with Trump, with investors hoping it could ease trade tensions -- but no details were provided. The call follows officials from the world's two biggest economies accusing each other of jeopardising a trade war truce agreed last month in Geneva. 'The stock market has traded more timidly of late... mindful that there are a number of loose ends out there on the tariff front, not the least of which is the direction the US-China trade relationship is headed,' said analyst Patrick O'Hare. After his return to the White House Trump launched a tariffs blitz, introducing a 10 percent minimum tariff and higher rates on many countries, with China subject to the highest rates. Some of the higher rates have been suspended as negotiations are underway. European stock markets were also in the red even though the ECB cut its key deposit rate a quarter point to two percent, as expected. It was its eighth reduction since June last year when it began lowering borrowing costs. But ECB President Christine Lagarde stated the central bank is 'getting to the end' of the rate cutting cycle, as inflation has largely dropped to its two percent target in the 20-nation currency bloc. That sent the euro surging against the dollar and European stocks gave up gains. The ECB's series of cuts stands in contrast to the US Federal Reserve, which has kept rates on hold recently amid fears that Trump's levies could stoke inflation in the world's top economy. Investors are now looking to the release on Friday of US non-farm payrolls data, which the Fed uses to help shape monetary policy. Other data released this week has been mixed. April jobs openings data beat expectations, but according to payroll firm ADP private-sector jobs rose by only 37,000 last month. This was a sharp slowdown from April's 60,000 and less than a third of the amount forecast in a Bloomberg survey. Another survey showed activity in the US services sector contracted in May for the first time since June last year.
Daily Tribune
2 days ago
- Daily Tribune
Alba promotes Ali Al Hanan to Manager Treasury & Hedging Operations
Aluminium Bahrain B.S.C. (Alba), the world's largest smelter on one site, has announced the promotion of Ali Al Hanan to Manager, Treasury & Hedging, effective 04 June 2025. This strategic appointment underscores Alba's commitment to developing its Bahraini talent from within. Ali Al Hanan's distinguished career with Alba spans an impressive 25 years, a journey marked by consistent demonstrations of exceptional financial acumen and strategic leadership. His progression through the ranks is a prime example of how Alba invests in its national talent, providing robust pathways for growth through continuous education and professional development From an entry-level position to his most recent role as Senior Head of Treasury, Ali played a crucial role in securing Alba's refinancing deals as well as expertly managing treasury operations. Commenting on his promotion, Alba's Chief Executive Officer Ali Al Baqali stated: 'Ali has consistently demonstrated the calibre of talent we cultivate here at Alba. His remarkable journey at Alba. With deep financial acumen honed over decades, Ali has played a key role in advancing the strategic growth of the accounting department.' Ali Al Hanan holds a bachelor's degree in Banking and Finance from the University of Bahrain and a Master of Business Administration from Arabian Gulf University.
Gulf Insider
3 days ago
- Gulf Insider
Is A New Oil Price War Between The West And OPEC About To Break Out?
Saudi Arabia's past oil price wars in 2014–2016 and 2020 backfired, as U.S. shale producers became leaner and more efficient. Riyadh drained hundreds of billions in reserves and faced rising fiscal deficits without achieving its goal of crippling U.S. shale. The low breakeven cost resilience of the U.S. shale sector is not quite the same as it was before. It is highly unlikely that anyone with even a modicum of intelligence has lost money in the past ten years or so by trading against the predictable thinking of those in charge of Saudi Arabia's oil policy. Quite the reverse, in fact, with enormous profits available from the failures of the enormously well-flagged and exceptionally predictable strategy of the 2014-2016 and 2020 Oil Price Wars — launched by the Kingdom with the intention of destroying or disabling the U.S. shale oil sector, as analysed in full in my latest book on the new global oil market order. As OPEC members and their toxic companion in the OPEC+ formation, Russia, mull keeping oil production on the high side of recent historical averages, the key question for the oil markets is — surely they are not going to launch another oil price war using the same strategy as failed twice before? It is apposite here to recall the reasons for the failure of the two previous oil price wars since 2014. The first (2014-2016) was based on Saudi Arabia's belief – shared by many in the oil market at the time, it must be said — that U.S. shale oil producers had a breakeven price point of US$70 per barrel (pb) of for the West Texas Intermediate benchmark. Therefore, the Saudis reasoned, if the price of oil was pushed below that level for long enough — by it and its fellow OPEC members dramatically increasing production while demand in the global market was predicted to remain around the same level for some time — then many of the new U.S. shale oil producers would go bankrupt. Any others would have to cease production at such uneconomic price levels and shelve future investment plans aimed at boosting their production even more. So confident was Saudi Arabia of the success of its strategy that shortly after the onset of the 2014-2016 Oil Price War, senior figures in its government and oil ministry it held a series of private meetings in New York to tell them in detail about the strategy it was to use and how well it would go, as also detailed in full in my latest book. At these meetings, the Saudis revealed that, far from looking to keep prices high – as had also been the usual inclination of OPEC for many years to boost the prosperity of member states – it was willing to tolerate 'much lower' Brent prices 'of between USD80-90 pb for a period of one to two years or even lower prices if necessary'. According to several sources at the New York meeting exclusively spoken to by at the time, the Saudis made it clear that it aside from destroying the then-nascent U.S. shale sector, the Oil Price War also aimed to re-impose a degree of supply discipline on other OPEC members. In terms of the first objective, the initial signs augured well for a Saudi victory. The U.S. oil rig count in January/February 2015 saw its biggest period-on-period fall since 1991, and the gas rig count fell substantially at that time as well. According to industry figures as at the end of the first quarter of 2015, around one third of the 800 oil and gas projects (worth US$500 billion and totalling nearly 60 billion barrels of oil equivalent) scheduled for final investment decisions in that year were unconventional and were subject to possible postponement or cancellation. Over the year as a whole, output from the U.S. shale producers typically fell by by around 50%, forcing them to cut investment to approximately US$60 billion over the year, compared to the US$100 billion or so spent in 2014. Crucially, though, from around that point the U.S. shale sector reorganised into a meaner, leaner, lower-cost production machine that could – at that time – broadly survive and profit at WTI prices above around US$35 pb from above US$70 pb previously. They managed to achieve this mainly through the advancement of technology that enabled them to drill longer laterals, manage the fracking stages closer and maintain the fracks with higher, finer sand to allow for increased recovery for the wells drilled, in conjunction with faster drill times, as industry experts old back then. These operations gained further cost benefits from multi-pad drilling and well spacing theory and practice. During this period, Saudi Arabia had moved from a budget surplus to a then-record high deficit in 2015 of US$98 billion and it had spent at least US$250 billion of its precious foreign exchange reserves over that period that even senior Saudis said was lost forever. Moreover, according to International Energy Agency estimates, OPEC member states collectively at least US$450 billion in revenues during the 2014-2016 Oil Price War. The 2020 Oil Price War – using exactly the same overproduction strategy as before — failed less through the long-term effects of misjudging the effectiveness of the U.S. shale producers and more through the direct political intervention of its then first-term President Domald Trump. Given the potentially disastrous economic and political consequences for the U.S. and its sitting president of sharp and sustained rises in oil – and crucially, gasoline – prices, as also analysed in full in my latest book, Trump began by warning Saudi Arabia repeatedly that the U.S. would not tolerate any sustained threat to its shale oil sector (and, by extension, to its economy and its domestic political landscape) – in speeches and tweets and in the increasingly close-run legislative passage of the 'NOPEC Bill'. He also directly warned Saudi Arabia's King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud that the U.S. might withdraw U.S. military support for the Al Sauds, and by extension to Saudi Arabia, with the additional observation that: 'He [King Salman] would not last in power for two weeks without the backing of the U.S. military.' With no sign by the end of March 2020 that the Saudis were going to cease the war, Trump clearly and specifically told de facto Saudi ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman over the telephone on 2 April that unless OPEC started cutting oil production – so allowing oil prices to rise above the danger zone for U.S. shale oil producers – that he would be powerless to stop lawmakers from passing legislation to withdraw U.S. troops from the Kingdom, according to a very senior source in the White House exclusively spoken to by a the time. Oil production consequently came back down again, and the 2020 war had ended. As of now, the low breakeven cost resilience of the U.S. shale sector is not quite the same as it was before. The recent Dallas Fed Energy Survey suggests that it is around US$65 pb for new wells drilled, although for existing wells it is significantly lower. It is also true that the lifting cost of oil in Saudi Arabia has also risen since 2014 from around US$1-2 pb, but it is still only about US$3-5 pb now. However, the Kingdom's 2025 fiscal breakeven price per barrel of the Brent crude benchmark is a minimum of US$90.9, according to IMF figures. Consequently, it can no better afford a major, sustained fall in oil prices now than it could in either 2014-2016 or in 2020. With Trump back in the White House, it is also no better off politically either. Indeed, with Republicans majorities in both houses, it is worse positioned to deal with the likely threats and actions that Trump would use against it if it went head-to-head with the U.S. again. Instead, according to a senior energy source who works closely with the U.S. Presidential Administration, Washington believes the Saudis will take a modulated approach to further oil production increases, in tandem with the U.S. 'Oil prices at the lower end of recent historical averages suit the U.S. from an inflationary perspective, as long as they don't go too low, and Washington has made this clear to the Saudis,' he said. In fact, these conversations were part of the dialogue that U.S. officials had with their Saudi counterparts during Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia on 13 May to sign a broad-based economic agreement between the two countries. 'There are longer-term financial and security benefits for the Saudis in taking this softer approach, even if oil is below the number they want for their budget in the shorter-term, and to bridge the gap they will have no problem in borrowing more in the capital markets,' he concluded.
