Share

Livelihoods after Land Reform in Zimbabwe, Working Paper No. 8, Livelihoods after Land Reform Project, PLAAS, South Africa, June Angeline Chamunorwa (2010)

Field study based comparison of performance of newly resettled famers with communal area farmers in Mashonaland East Province, Zimbabwe shows that to make the fast track land reform programme a success it is necessary to address issues related to availability of and access to inputs, prices for farm output and provision of extension services and security of tenure.

The Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) carried out in Zimbabwe in 2002 is known to have radically altered the hitherto inequitable land holding pattern. While the programme had major impact in terms of reversing the legacy of colonialism, its impact on agricultural production and productivity, on rural employment and livelihoods, on institutions, for example, has been varied.

There is, thus, no single story of the impact of the Zimbabwean land reform programme. It is well known that provision of land is only one of the critical components required to make such programmes a success. Access to adequate and timely agricultural inputs, credit, equipment, infrastructural support, fair pricing of agricultural products, agricultural extension services are some other essential elements required for making a land reform programme successful.

In this paper, Angeline Chamunorwa seeks to analyse the livelihoods of farmers newly resettled under the FTLRP. In this context the author carries out a comparative analysis of the productivity differences in crops grown by the resettled farmers and the communal farmers. The author bases the study using a sample of 89 A1 households randomly chosen from the 10 villages in three districts, namely Wedza, Murehwa and Marondera of Mashoaland East province.

Both qualitative methods and quantitative methods have been used to develop understanding about the efficacy of service provided to farmers and to compare productivity differences. Primary data for measuring the productivity differences in various crops produced by the respective set of farmers was collected in November 2008.

The key points of the study that have implications for both livelihood and productivity are the following.

First, with regard to social-economic profiles, A1 farmers are, on average, younger and have relatively less experience in farming compared to their communal area counterparts. Further, while the former own comparatively larger number of cross-bred cattle, the number of livestock owned in both communal and A1 areas are on the low side. According to the author this implies that A1 farmers, who own larger plots compared to communal farmers, are likely to face greater constraints in terms of draft power needed for agricultural production. This in turn, implies that compared to the communal farmers, they have lesser flexibility in using livestock for buying critical inputs or exchanging them “for services like draft power .. and labour”.

Second, barring selected crop management and soil fertility management techniques, A1 farmers in general seem to be lagging behind communal farmers in terms of adopting other farming techniques. Thus, while communal farmers use various techniques for soil and water management, A1 farmers mainly depend on rain-fed cultivation. It is only techniques such as crop rotation, plant spacing and inputs like chemical fertilisers and hybrid seeds that are used extensively by A1 farmers and at levels comparable to that of communal farmers.

In the view of the author, the observed trend of adopting relatively lesser number of farming techniques among A1 farmers is, to some extent, explained by the lack of access to adequate extension services. Thus, it is argued that “the unavailability of resources to extension staff to extensively reach out to all farmers”, loss of experienced extension staff arising from high turnover because of low pay in conditions of hyperinflation in the aftermath of the FTLRP are some of the factors responsible for the inadequacy of extension services provided to newly resettled farmers. While this affects communal farmers also, the impact on A1 farmers is likely to be harsher as they are less experienced in farming. 

As is expected, the two points noted above have implications for productivity of various crops produced by the two groups of farmers. The study shows that there are significant differences in crop yield produced by the two groups of farmers. In general, communal farmers register higher productivity for cash crops while A1 farmers post higher productivity in traditional food crops like maize and groundnut.

However, government policy of keeping prices of food crops low means that higher yields do not necessarily result in improved livelihood conditions for A1 farmers. One manifestation of this perhaps is given by the fact that fertiliser usage among A1 farmers is lower than that among communal area farmers.

In fact, the author opines, it is the government’s agricultural policies that are largely responsible for the poor performance of the agricultural sector. The case of maize prices provides one such example of the negative impact of government’s policies.

The Grain Marketing Board (GMB) which was the sole buyer and seller of grain not only paid low prices but also did not pay the farmers on time. Delayed payments, in an environment of hyperinflation, meant that “by the time they received the payment, it would have long been eroded by inflation”. Low output prices coupled with high costs of inputs further reduced the viability of cultivation. Inadequacy of extension services provided, shortages in supply of fertiliser and related supply squeeze on seed are other effects of the overall policy stance of the government following the FTLRP.

In this context, the author points out that compared to the 1990s, productivity of crops, especially those produced by the newly resettled farmers, is much lower in 2007-08. However, as the author notes, the problem of taking the year 2007-08 as the point of comparison is that rainfall in that year was much lower than long term averages. Therefore it is difficult to assess whether fall in productivity was due to bad weather or other reasons.

On the whole, the author concludes on the note that in order to make FTLRP a success, government policies need to effectively address issues related to availability of and access to  inputs, giving remunerative prices for farm output and providing extension services and security of tenure.