Livelihoods after Land Reform in Zimbabwe, Working Paper No. 2, Livelihoods after Land Reform Project, PLAAS, South Africa, June, Shingirai Mandizadza (2010)

After being allocated plots under the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP), beneficiaries in Athlone have engaged in activities ranging from crop production to other non-land based activities and despite the challenges that they face, Athlone households have better livelihoods than they would have enjoyed without the land, implying that if certain favourable government policies were put in place and the macro-economic conditions change they could even produce marketable surplus.

The Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) carried out in Zimbabwe, between 2000 and 2002 is considered to be a radical effort at pro-poor distribution of land. Arguably, the programme is said to have addressed, to some extent, the country’s “worrisome legacy of historic injustice and social and racial inequities and broadened the base of economic participation” (Moyo, 2004).  

While the land redistribution programme had major impact in overhauling “the racial distribution of land and rural power”, it was also associated with significant losses in agricultural production and several other negative impacts.

The negative impacts, often overly highlighted, have created a picture of pessimism about the land redistribution programme. However, how exactly the programme of extensive redistribution of land has impacted poverty reduction, has not been addressed adequately in current research. This is especially true when it comes to empirical research on the effect of land distribution on reduction in poverty.

With the broad aim of filling this gap, Shingirai Mandizadza carried out a case study based analysis of the livelihood experiences of Athlone households resettled under the FTLRP. Athlone is situated in the agricultural region of Zimbabwe which is considered to be the “bread basket” of the country.

The author uses the livelihoods framework that considers five types of capital assets: human, natural, financial, social and physical, to be main factors affecting livelihoods.  Thus, land is only one of the many capital assets that are critical for generation of livelihood. Given that land alone, without access to other complementary capital assets, does not suffice as a livelihood resource, the author looks “at what other assets are available to these beneficiaries to enhance or inhibit their livelihood activities”. 

Using this conceptual framework to, the study brings out some interesting points with regard to the assets extended to Athlone residents and the ways these assets have been utilized.

The author finds that while some households engage in non-land based activities, for most households crop production is the main source of livelihood. In this respect, almost all households have been able to utilize their landholdings to ensure availability of food for their own consumption needs. Further, several households also exchange grain as payment for labour services rendered by extended family members or other non-family labour. Further, while, maize is the dominant crop produced, there has also been some diversification of crop production into soy beans, tobacco, wheat and ground nut. 

The provision of land has also had the positive impact of enabling some beneficiaries to acquire certain assets “they did not have before they resettled, or that they would not have been able to accumulate in the areas they previously stayed”. This is evident from the fact that several households have acquired assets in the form of livestock, mainly chicken. However, cattle ownership is still not as broad-based as nearly 40 per cent of households do not own any cattle. Similarly, some households have bought scotch carts, ploughs and other farm implements. These assets are used supplement household livelihood in various ways.

There are however, several limitations, in terms of access to agricultural inputs, credit, equipment, infrastructural support, etc. that Athlone households face. These, in turn, severely restrict the potential of livelihood enhancement arising from land redistribution. For instance, the study points out that lack of “adequate transport and communication networks” hampers both timely access to inputs and farm implements as well as create difficulties in marketing products like tobacco.

The support extended by the government in the form of provision of critical inputs, seeds and fertilizers, through the Grain Marketing Board (GMB), Agricultural Bank of Zimbabwe (AGRIBANK) etc. often turns out to be inadequate. While such support has helped Athlone farmers to some extent, reliability of supply, timely distribution of fertilizers in particular, remains a challenge. Even access to agricultural loans is limited and fraught with problems. Several respondents interviewed in the study pointed out that accessing loans requires providing collateral, which they are not in a position to provide.

In sum, the author argues, these are reflections of the fact that the FTLRP “has not sufficiently extended the programme beyond just the provision of land, particularly for the small- holder and poor farmers”. As a result, the essential elements of a wider agrarian and development strategy are largely missing. For the pro-poor land distribution to realise its full potential, it is essential that the lacunae in several related areas are addressed. If and when these are addressed, Athlone beneficiaries could even produce marketable surplus. This in turn would not only increase food security of small famer households but also of the country as well.