Echoes From the Rocks: Contextualising Land Reform and Resettled Farmer Experiences in Matabeleland,Zimbabwe

Abstract

This article seeks to characterise and contextualise land reform, and the experiences of resettled farmers, in the under-researched Matabeleland South. It does so through a historicised, landscape approach to changes in the post-Fast Track Land Reform Programme agrarian structure in two wards in Matobo District. While new land dispensation is still consolidating, outcomes are varied, and while beneficiaries are vulnerable to drought in mixed farming there is also notable resilience. Importantly, we argue that changes in the landscape ‘echo’ the past, where material and discursive changes play out at the same time as agrarian livelihoods evolve.

Keywords

Land reform agrarian change livelihoods historical geography Zimbabwe

Introduction

Land reform in Zimbabwe under the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP, 2002–2011) phases resulted in a major reconfiguration of the agrarian structure in the country. Over 7 million hectares (ha) of land were transferred to both small-scale farm units (the A1 model) and medium-scale farms (the A2 model). The process was hybrid, such that ‘the instruments and mechanisms of order assert themselves even in the midst of violent disorder’ (Chaumba et al., 2003: 534), and was central to the multifaceted crisis that has so dramatically engulfed Zimbabwe since 2000 (Alexander, 2007). The interventions altered a dual system of a commercial sector controlled by around 6000 whites, and small Communal Area (CA) smallholdings on 16 million ha, to a system in which small- to medium-sized holdings comprise over 60% of the agricultural land (when including older resettlements, FTLRP A1 farms and communal areas) and many more medium-sized A2 farms. In this sense, the FTLRP represents the most significant event in the evolution of the land dispensation since the period of colonisation; the configuration of which it was ostensibly to undo.

Initially, scholarship on land reform was polarised, and premised, as Mazwi et al. (2017) put it, on livelihoods, political economy and neo-patrimonial approaches. Yet nuanced literature on land reform and agrarian outcomes in Zimbabwe has emerged over the last 10 years (Moyo, 2011; Scoones et al., 2010). There has been a particular surge of papers since 2016 on diverse reform themes as they relate to: radical social transformation (Mazwi et al., 2017; Murisa, 2016); persistent elite capture (Mazwi and Mudimu, 2019; Mazwi et al., 2018); new patterns of rural development (Shonhe, 2019); traditional authority (Dande and Mujere, 2019); and food security (Mangwanya and Manyeruke, 2019). Studies also explore impacts for differentiated social groups, including farmworkers (Hartnack, 2017; Scoones et al., 2019b), youth (Nyamupingidza, 2018; Scoones et al., 2019a), white farmers (Nel, 2020) and actors entering contract arrangements over land utilisation and commodity production (Mazwi et al., 2020; Sachikonye, 2016). As in other contexts where globalising or nationalising processes come into friction with local realities (Tsing, 2011) it is increasingly clear that highly variable outcomes, diverse challenges and surprising successes and results are experienced in varied localised contexts (Fontein, 2015; Scoones et al., 2012; Spierenburg, 2016).

Matabeleland is a relatively under-researched terrain of land reform (Cliffe et al., 2011; see also Ncube, 2018; Nyamupingidza, 2018; Thebe, 2017). It consists of communal land and proportions of commercial farmland and protected forest and wildlife areas, with particular agro-ecological characteristics that are pertinent to land reform outcomes. While Matabeleland has a lower population density and thereby less pressure for land than other parts of the country, pressures over grazing and water access do pertain, and land use is tied to the mobility and grazing of cattle, which are the mainstay of the region’s economy, combined with subsistence cropping (Anseeuw et al., 2012; Mabhena, 2014; Maphosa, 2009). Wage labour, remittances from employed relatives, informal sector activities and fishing all augment livelihoods strategies (Thebe, 2017). The province falls within the country’s drier, drought-prone Natural Regions IV and V,¹ and in this context peasant livelihood vulnerability can be significant. There is a dominant perception that the district is entirely unsuitable for cropping agriculture (Mabhena, 2010), which this study debunks, as well as questions regarding the condition, risks and successes/failures experienced in mixed farming practices by farmers. The focus here on Matabeleland is not to exceptionalise it, but to particularise and historicise the exploration of its land reform unfoldings and outcomes, complying with Moyo’s (2011) call for research that considers land reform in terms of its historical context.

In an attempt to particularise an understanding of land reform in a local context in Matobo district, this paper adopts a landscape approach. Landscape is considered here as both a material and a representational resource (Olwig et al., 2002), while a landscape approach in geography considers particular landscapes as products of the engagement between peoples and their world; through processes (including conflict and contestation – Peluso and Watts, 2001), material interactions and perceptual engagements over time (Gregory et al., 2000: 410). In approaching land and agrarian change this means taking account of historical processes, such as colonialisaiton and land reform, the material agro-ecological characteristics of the landscape, and the ways that racial, national and ethnic subjectivities, imaginaries and contestations over belonging have mediated the ownership, access and use of the land itself across different regimes. Terence Ranger’s (1999) seminal work, Voices from the Rocks, adopted such an approach to documents on the colonisation of the Matobo hills and the political, religious and symbolic struggles of race, nature, culture and identity it entailed. Voices from the Rocks provides a nuanced and compelling story of dispossession and transformation in this iconic landscape of south-western Zimbabwe, and, importantly for this paper, covers aspirations and frustrations over land and agriculture. The title of the present article is a play on words of Rangers’ work, as we chart the production and outcomes of the FTLRP in the Matobo landscape, using both qualitative and quantitative data. The research on outcomes builds on prior work in other districts in Mashonaland and Manicaland (see Scoones et al., 2010), and we draw on survey and interview data, as well as observation and peer-ranking exercises,² gathered between 2014 and 2017. The data covers 200 A1 farms, plus a sample of A2 and former commercial farmers³ in two wards of the Matobo District over the years 2010–2017, with particular focus on the 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 rain and cropping seasons. We paired these findings with inputs on the history of the landscape, qualitative inputs on experiences of the FTLRP process, the conflicts and accommodations it entailed, on discourses of land and livestock rearing, and on belonging and identity. In so doing, we situate findings on livelihoods after land reform within the longer history of land and agrarian change in the Matobo landscape, considering continuity and change, and offering a comparison to outcomes in Masvingo and elsewhere. Specifically, we argue that while land reform represents a significant departure in the land dispensation, contemporary changes echo those of the past, where material and discursive changes play out at the same time as agrarian livelihoods evolve.

In the next sections, we ground the study in the extant literature, and set out both land and agrarian dynamics in Matabeleland, and the history of colonialism and land-use change, which locate the subsequent findings and discussion.

Situating land and agrarian studies in Matabeleland

The last five decades have been significant for agrarian changes within and across countries, showing continuities and discontinuities with the past (Borras, 2009), which is evident in the consolidating literature on land reform in Zimbabwe. This scholarship, prominent in Mashonaland, Masvingo and Manicaland, varies from studies of outcomes, processes and macro and structural issues (Alexander and Tendi, 2008; Anseeuw et al., 2012; Hanlon et al., 2012) to grounded, empirically based studies which dissect the ‘multi-faceted realities’ of land reform (Chaumba et al., 2003; Moyo and Yeros, 2005; Nel, 2020; Scoones et al., 2010). Most prominent amongst the latter have been contributions which seek to challenge all-encompassing narratives of agricultural failure to express a complex picture and varied gains (Hanlon et al., 2012; Scoones et al., 2010). In one paper, for example, Scones et al. (2010) differentiate livelihood strategies of the sample population to present a clearer picture of livelihoods outcomes after land reform – noting that those ‘dropping out’ or ‘hanging in’ comprise 43.6% of the sample, while the remaining 56.4% are augmenting farming incomes, or accumulating from below, to ‘Step out’ or ‘Step up’ (see Figure 1). The study also included a similar ranking exercise to ours, which categorised farmers in relation to outputs – including maize outputs (kgs) and cattle numbers, amongst other things. These are essential comparative elements for this paper, as the following sections will demonstrate.

Figure 1.

Livelihood strategies and production statistics per ‘rank’ in Masvingo province.

While there is an emerging body of work on outcomes, Moyo (2011) writes that few studies had specifically historicised the structural reforms and outcomes initiated by the FTLRP. There are a number of studies covering aspects of land, agrarian and environmental history that have relevance. Dunlop’s (1971) history of the development of European agriculture in Rhodesia is an example, in which he notes the successes and limitations of colonial agricultural policy and practice. He noted limitations of cattle mobility and access as a critical failing of the white-dominated land dispensation in the colonial period (Dunlop, 1971; see also Phimister, 1984). Levels of state support for white agriculture, at the expense of black agricultural endeavour, are also documented (Bratton, 1977; Ranger, 1999).⁴ Moyo and Chambati (2013) do consider land reform in a historical context and more recently, Nyamunda (2019) historicises contemporary changes in Zimbabwe’s crisis economy and ‘re-ordered landscape’. However, to find further relevant literature we turn to a notable trend of environmental history in Southern Africa (Barret et al., 2016; Beinart and McGregor, 2003), and Zimbabwe specifically, that is pertinent. Contributions cover aspects of land and history (Alexander, 2006; Alexander et al., 2000; Ranger, 1999), forestry, conservation and hydro-politics (Alexander and McGregor, 2000; Fontein, 2015; McGregor, 2005, 2009). These contributions are pertinent as they deploy a landscape approach.

The focus on landscape has been fundamental in geography, anthropology and historiography in understanding the engagement between body and world, through processes, material interactions and perceptual engagements over time (Gregory et al., 2000: 410). Ranger (2000) initially applied this approach in Zimbabwean historiography of land and agrarian change. He asserted that ‘landscape is good to think’ in order to ‘penetrate into crucial struggles for resources, memories and rights’ (Ranger, 2000: 60). Most recent proponents have included Fontein (2015) and McGregor (2009). McGregor explored past engagements with the landscape in order to explore the ongoing importance of histories and memories in the unfoldings of the present in the Zambezi Valley (McGregor, 2009). Fontein (2015), for his part, explored a ‘genealogical geography’ of land reform and water, in struggles over belonging, sovereignty and legitimacy around Lake Mutirikwi. There, people’s aspirations, imagined futures, remembered pasts, claims to autochthony and belonging came to shape contemporary land claims. Most importantly for our purposes, both Nyathi (2014) and Ranger (1999) historicise land and agrarian change in Matobo District, and as such they provide key texts for our understanding in the next sections. Both are careful to point out that Rhodesian and subsequent patriotic Zimbabwean historiography systematically obscured and displaced indigenous identities, uses and visions of landscapes such as Matobo District. In so doing, those in power superimposed alternative narratives of both political and ecological settler and post-colonial state ascendancy respectively, as local state-run media has done with triumphalist narratives of land reform (Chari, 2013).

The literature on land reform itself in Matabeleland South, however, has been uncomprehensive and of mixed assessments (Mabhena, 2010; Matondi, 2012; Sibanda et al., 2014). From initial work in the district, Ncube (2011) points to improved livelihoods for resettled farmers, but Sibanda et al. (2014) suggest that beef production in FTLRP areas has not reached the pre-reform levels of production; sitting closer to levels of communal farm production. There are also speculations as to the role of identity and belonging on the part of resettled farmers, with evidence of resettlements, and potential tensions between so-called foreigners (in-migrants) and locals (Mujere, 2012). Ncube (2011) argues that the power basis wielded by war veterans and the culture of top-down decision-making processes in Matobo are lamented by resettled farmers Similarly, Mabhena (2014) criticises politicised ‘one size fits all’ land allocations for providing inadequate hectares for livestock ranching. Most recent inclusions cover more diverse and nuanced aspects of land reform outcomes. Ncube (2018) critiques state intervention for hindering social capital development in resettlement areas in Bubi District, while Nyamupingidza (2018) argues that few young people directly benefitted in favour of older, under-capacitated beneficiaries in places like Umguza. Nyamandi and Hove (2016) show that rental land markets act as vehicles to address land needs for temporary residents in Esigodini. Finally, Thebe (2017) explored informal madiro occupations (a term associated with freedom farming and unauthorised development of settlements) of former local authority annexed grazing areas in Lupane District as key livelihoods support activities.

In building on this research, the case for historicising land use and land reform in Matobo District is evident, and to this we turn next.

Voices from the rocks: land expropriation and settler agrarian endeavour in the Matobo Hills

The Matobo Hills in Matabeleland South cover an area of about 3100 km², of which 424 km² are Matopos National Park, an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) category II protected area and UNESCO World Heritage site. The remainder of the hills are mostly communal land (much of it to the east, along with the Brethren in Christ Matobo Mission), and a proportion of commercial farmland – including redistributed council land and World Bank-funded grazing schemes on land adjacent to the communal areas – predominately in the west and the south, the focus of this research. Matobo District itself is a second-order administrative division with a population of approximately 101,994 and area of 7244.59 km² and has a distinctive land use structure. Accordingly, the landscape has a significant historical agrarian context to consider.

The Matobo Hills, in the 180 years since the 1840s, has been a locus for political and power shifts that have affected land use and agrarian change (Ranger, 1999: 4), with successive hegemonic territorial expressions during this period. Ndebele settlement from 1840 involved the assimilation of indigenous Babirwa (Banyubi) into the Ndebele ‘snowball state’, which was proceeded by colonial hegemony that marginalised both groups (Nyathi, 2014). The Ndebele, for their part, had purposely chosen to settle where there was the presence of fertile isibomvu soils, with the Ndebele King Mzilikazi locating his settlement Bulawayo north of the hills (interview, Pathisa Nyathi, January 2016, Bulawayo). That is not to say that agriculture could not and was not undertaken selectively in the hills themselves (including as far back as 14,000 BC – Hubbard et al., 2014), where bedding and ridge systems used to retain moisture and prevent gulley erosion had been admired by early colonial settlers (Ranger, 1999). This system of agriculture, with associated livestock rearing, was resilient and labour intensive, and control of lands and labour was the basis for differentiation of wealth and power. In this context, rain shrines such as Njelele (south of the National Park boundary) and Dula served as essential repositories of indigenous knowledge, and as sites of ecological control over cultivation and planting. The shrines were seen to have the power to intercede with Mwali (the God of Rain) for the production of rain, and remain significant today (Nyathi, 2000: 9) as our findings will demonstrate.

Colonial rule in the area was consolidated in the years after 1893, when the armed Pioneer Column moved into what became Matebeleland, resulting in an occupation described as ‘exceptionally violent’, destructive and ‘crudely imperialist’ (Bulpin, 1965; Good, 1976; Palmer and Birch, 1992). Cecil John Rhodes and his promises to the Ndebele feature prominently in the history of dispossession in the hills. His intercessions with the Ndebele izinduna during the Matabele uprising at Umlungulu in the eastern Matobo, between 1986 and 1987, came in the form of promises of security of settlement if they came out of the ‘fortress’ of the hills (Ranger, 1999: 73). In essence, the promises constituted an undocumented land settlement (Nyathi, 2014), but ultimately Rhodes took those promises with him to his grave in Matobo at what he called ‘World’s view’. When contesting the pending eviction of residents from the hills some 60 years later in 1946, the Bulawayo law firm Webb, Low and Barry, representing the Sofasonke (we die here) land movement, referred to Rhodes’ promises because of a lack of ‘documented evidence’. Thus the de jure claim to land for Ndebele and Banyubi residents was erased, just as the location of Rhodes’ grave itself constituted a ‘conscious usurpation’ of the history of the sacred Malindidzimu site it occupied –where the bones of indigenous rulers were interred (Ranger, 1999).

By 1902, three-quarters of African lands had been violently expropriated by the incipient colonial state (Peters and Peters, 1998), and subsequent European settlement and international mining and agricultural capital interests proceeded on territory secured by the British imperial state and the British South Africa Company (BSAC). The Ndebele monarchy were relegated to obscurity, and various Native authorities instituted to administer affairs on ‘native reserves’. Areas like Bululima-Mangwe and Matobo were peripheralised, as labour reserves, in the regional mining economy (Mabhena, 2010; Phimister, 1984). Nevertheless, for settlers, conditions in the Matopos were not comfortable. The then district administrator called Matobo a ‘Cinderella district’, ‘with no towns, too little rain, no resettlement schemes, and few markets for peasant produce‘ (Ranger, 1999: 2). In the 1928 drought, crop failure, undercapitalization and difficulties with investment, debt and cattle death led one WS George of Hole farm to describe himself as living on a ‘kaffir standard’ (sic) (Ranger, 1999: 2). Such experiences fuelled the perception of the region as ‘cattle country only’, despite the success of indigenous cropping in the hills.

The erosion of the remaining Ndebele settlement and tenure in and around the hills – apart from in consolidated ‘communal areas’ – was gradual. Rhodes himself bought land to the north of the hills, comprising the ‘Rhodes estate’, to ostensibly settle the Ndebele in tenant labourer conditions. To the south, there were assurances for settlement given to indunas Faku Ndiweni and Hole Khumalo (after whom Holi village in our study area is named) in the Mopani veld. After Rhodes’ death, however, neither belt of land was secure in the face of settler agriculture (Nyathi, 2014: 78). By 1953, those remaining residents in the hills, and the whole ‘Mwali cult’ sanctioned agrarian economy, was under threat. Evictions centred around the partitioning of the Rhodes Matopos National Park from the new Khumalo and Gulati reserves to the south and west in 1962. Those evicted were eventually settled in the south, on the government-purchased Prospect Ranch. Others moved to the remote forests of Lupane or semi-arid Wankie (Hwange) in northern Matabeleland. In 1949, lawyers for local land movement Sofasihamba (we die if we go) accurately criticised government strategy while defending occupation rights of their clients:

the reason for the persistent failure of Southern Rhodesia’s land policies has been the policy of providing just enough land for the existing African population and then an attempt, or series of attempts, are made to squeeze in the un-provided as they are ejected from the European areas. (Ranger, 1999: 199; initially reported in the Daily News, 17 March 1962)

Despite the onset of independence, the land dispensation changed little in the decades after the 1980s, and the Njelele shrine maintained some influence in the new nationalist politics. In the 1980 elections, while the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) won overwhelmingly, Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU candidates won in Matobo as a whole. As a result, the central government did not take much notice of popular demands expressed through ZAPU members. Since then, Matabeleland has experienced complicated processes of marginalisation and violence (Mabhena, 2010) – including the infamous Gukurahundi massacres of ZAPU cadres and those seen as sympathisers (Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe, 2007). Political tensions and resentments continued in the conflictual landscape (Alexander and McGregor, 2013), alongside a marginalised hollowed-out post-industrial economy, exacerbated through structural adjustment and uneven development. As a result, out-migration from the region has been prevalent, leaving a disrupted social fabric and an increase in informal and illegal activities such as gold panning and informal settlement (Mabhena, 2010). Land use, though, largely remained the same until the 2000s when the complicated land politics in Zimbabwe came to a head during the FTLRP, to which we now turn.

Echoes from the rocks: land and livelihoods after land reform

The land reform process (including the FTLRP) in Matabeleland unfolded later and arguably less violently then elsewhere in the country. An early impetus for fast track land reform originated in the district in 1996 when 200 peasants invaded an idle state farm adjacent to the Matobo research station. Designation letters for individual farms were released in 1998, and jambanja farm invasions (originating from ‘bases’ in wards 17 and 18 adjacent to the study wards) followed between 2000 and 2002. Interviews show that these times were extremely difficult for both white farmers, who felt insecure and traumatised, and land invaders, who were surviving their struggle for land in trying conditions. By 2003, notifications for white farmers to vacate properties were issued, but some white commercial farmers held out on the land until 2010 to 2012. A few remain uncontested (Nel, 2020). While ward 24 previously housed 18 properties with approximately 12 commercial farms, it now comprises 372 A1 farms and 11 A2s. Ward 23 had approximately 15 commercial farmers – as well as several ‘three-tier’ farming areas and ‘Model D’ grazing schemes – but now includes 165 A1 and approximately 30 A2 farms. The lands officer did not release official figures due to their political sensitivity.

Many of the farms redistributed in the north of ward 23 were those recommended in the early colonial period for purchase for the settlement of evicted Matobo dwellers. The Mopani farms, including Hole, had been occupied by Hole Khumalo and his followers, the parents or grandparents of a significant number of resettled farmers. Resettled farmers were largely communal area farmers (24%) and former farmworkers (18%) from Matobo District. Four-fifths of ward 23 households, and close to half of those in ward 24, originated from wards 16 and 17, and from as far as Insiza and Kembezi in ward 21. Thus while the land reform has been framed as redistributive rather than restitutive, aspects of the programme in Matobo, as elsewhere, have certainly served a restitutive function (Dande and Mujere, 2019). A 15–17% minority of resettlers in the sample were government department officials and former security services personnel (police, army, war veterans, Central Intelligence Officers).⁵ This finding runs counter to narratives of redistribution as solely benefitting war veterans, government employees and Zanu-PF (Patriotic Front) cadres. However, Zanu-PF politics certainly do play a part in the new dispensation, with some resettlees citing suport for the ruling party as contributive to their resettlement, while others say they must been seen to perform allegiance in order to access inputs such as seeds.⁶ The balance of 39% of settlers was not from Matobo District, with the majority stipulating they previously had unspecified jobs in towns (predominantly from Bulawayo), with smaller percentages of individuals working abroad (South Africa), in self-employment or unemployed.

With the profile of the sample in hand we proceed to trace the new dynamics from this emerging dispensation in our study wards drawing from survey and interview results, specifically regarding the A1 production, but including anecdotal evidence regarding the A2 production.

A1 farmer experiences in wards 23 and 24

The sampled A1 farmers now almost exclusively reside only in their resettled land. However, as is common in Matabeleland, some family members often work elsewhere and remit income, accounting for the low number of able-bodied people (above 20 years) per household (see Thebe, 2017). In terms of land use and allocation, the majority of A1 plots were allocated 5 ha, but on average only 1.3–4.0 ha were planted. Besides farming, most households, as reflected in many places in the literature (Scoones et al., 2012), had multiple livelihoods strategies, including a variety of productive activities – from broiler rearing, brickmaking and thatching to selling wild fruits and berries. Such multiple livelihoods strategies echo changes in the Matobo Hills by the 1930s, whereby a purely ‘peasant option’ on the part of Banyubi residents was precluded by drought, the rise of white agricultural production, and a lack of labour after young men migrated to the mines (Ranger, 1999: 5). In terms of employment figures, only 50 households (24%) employed a permanent worker, though shared ploughing labour practices (called amalima) were standard. This reflects a broader fragmentation of rural labour classes post land reform (Scoones et al., 2019b). Of the 81.2% of A1 plots in the sample registered with the lands office, only 18.8% were allocated to women. Levels of education were relatively low.⁷ In all instances, beneficiaries were still solidifying material and cultural ties to the land, with respondents in A1 farms, in particular, debating their security of tenure and their connection to the land (and whether to be buried in their new lands). Notably, all resettled farmers are accommodating to the Banyubi cultural traditions of the area, coming to observe the Mwali rest day tradition on Wednesdays. This corroborates findings elsewhere which show the importance of integrating with autochthonous individuals, groups and practices which have what could be called ‘positional power’ in the landscape (Fontein, 2015; Nyathi, 2014).

At the time of the survey, the infrastructure in the wards was poor. Sixty-five percent of dwellings were pole and thatch, and only 10% had toilets or latrines in wards 23 and 24 in the 2015–2016 season. Very few boreholes or wells were dug, and just less than a quarter of the sample had ploughs and the oxen to pull them. Only one household had irrigation, in line with a historically low provision for smallholders in the country (Manzungu and Van der Zaag, 1996). However, a number of areas, particularly in the east of ward 24, have wetlands and vleis, which are utilised for cropping as they have been in the Matobo landscape for centuries, as is recognised elsewhere (Scoones and Cousins, 1994). This slow rate of infrastructural improvement is not out of historical context in the landscape, however. In 1949 the National Park ranger Grobelar noted that the farms adjoining the park, in what came to be wards 23 and 24, ‘seem to be occupied by people who have been there for about 30 years and I cannot see any improvement that they have made to their farms’ (Ranger, 1999). More recently, however, changes can be noticed, with households investing in brick and sheet metal houses, a new shopping centre built in ward 24, and the installation of proper toilets in approximately 67% of ward 23 and 24 HH after a UNICEF-funded water and sanitation project.⁸

Ongoing processes of agrarian change in the sample are differentiated. For a start, our results bear out the impression of the respective wards’ agricultural extension officers that 40% of the A1 settlers – 95 households from our sample – are ranked in the third category and are ‘not doing ok’ – experiencing constraints in their ability to profit from the land, low crop yields and poor prospects. This was insignificant, partly due to inconsistent rains in the district, where the wards experienced drought conditions of 200 mm in the 2014–2015 season, then flooding and infrastructural damage from Hurricane Dineo in 2016–2017, before drought again in the following season. Partly because of this, there is a higher proportion of farmers ‘hanging in’ than the one-third of Scoones et al.’s (2012) Masvingo study population. However, as indicated in the second section above, these struggles can be contextualised, as many settler farmers battled on farms in our study area. In 1939 Afrikaaner settlers in Mopani veld were criticised by the land inspector for having no capital, failing to offer ‘natives’ a fair wage, and for deplorable living standards that led the government to feed and educate them (Ranger, 1999). However, as with most tenacious white settlers, none of the Matobo sample – even without the same state support – were found to drop out altogether. In part, this relates to the fact that all participants had cattle stocks (all higher than their Masvingo counterparts), which could be sold to buffer against risks. As Nyathi (2000) shows, this kind of resilience has been a hallmark of agrarian endeavour in the hills over time.

Secondly, the sample does include more positive dimensions and evidence of rural agrarian gains and class formation. Approximately 55% of the sample are faring better than their rank 3 counterparts (47 households were self-classified as R1 and 64 households as R2), and rank 1 participants in particular, across both wards, are progressing and either accumulating from below or drawing finds from off-farm endeavours to reinvest. Modest on-farm improvements in assets were attained in this 2016–2017 season through crop sales after improved rains, but with continued processes of differentiation whereby gains were still not achieved by the R3 category.⁹ These inequalities in agricultural pathways are well established within the literature, with both successes and stagnations experienced in the same area (Scoones et al., 2012; Shonhe, 2019). Success stories include a master farmer in ward 24 with over 120 cattle in the A1, and Mr and Mrs D in Holi village of ward 23 who harvested six-and-a-half tonnes in the 2014–2015 season, selling the excess and raising livestock as well.

Table 1 shows figures representing average yields recorded for each rank over the five seasons, where averages of both wards are displayed, in addition to the average yields per rank from Scoones et al.’s (2011) Masvingo study, for comparative purposes. For many in the sampled season were hardly enough for subsistence, and, of the 45 average scores, only 8 (highlighted in bold) exceed one tonne (the yield that AGRITEX aspires to for 1 ha per annum). Average production was better in ward 24 than ward 23 because of better rains and more red, izibomvu clay soils. Ward 23 with its varied soils saw a higher average yield for R1 farmers, but also a more substantial differential between R1 and R3 farmers. Nevertheless, there was a variance according to ward location, ranking, yield per season and ecological characteristics of the site. As in the past, those farms on or near rivers and river beds, vlei areas or seeps from ‘sponges’ are able to sustain crop yields even in adverse rain periods (Nyathi, 2000).

Table 1.

Cropping in Wards 23 and 24, Matobo district.


	2010/11			2011/12			2012/13			2013/14			2014/15			Scoones ‘07/08
	Tot	23	24	Tot	23	24	Tot	23	24	Tot	23	24	Tot	23	24	Scoones ‘07/08
R1	778	545	936	701	563	795	880	697	1004	2989	3568	2596	602	237	849	3466
R2	422	129	651	441	191	636	655	335	904	2107	1972	2208	379	70	621	2593
R3	214	152	323	231	115	437	738	832	570	862	529	1451	221	20	579	2105
Avg*	405	275	637	402	290	623	744	622	826	1724	2023	2085	356	109	682	2721

Italics = 500–999 kg; bold > 1T; *AVG: mean yield figures represented are the simple average of the three ranked scores and not the mean of the overall sample.

While average yields are lower than in Masvingo (bearing in mind the years surveyed were generally poor in rainfall), in good years, some Matobo A1 crop outputs can approach but rarely exceed those elsewhere in the country. Five of the scores were over two tonnes, as was the rank 1 average, for the 2013–2014 season. This capacity was recognised in 1901 and 1904 when the Matobo native department noted bumper harvests on riverbanks in the alluvial soils of river valleys (Ranger, 1999: 7), unevenly contradicting Mabhena’s (2010) contention that Matabeleland South is solely for livestock rearing.

Regarding livestock production, ward 23 produces higher total numbers of livestock than ward 24. As Table 2 shows, rank 1 farmers in ward 23 are doing significantly better than rank 2 and 3 farmers. There is a more mixed gradient in ward 24, with some farmers’ reinvestment from off-farm income into farming increasing the average figures.¹⁰ This trend has been noted to be an important one in the post-FTLRP agrarian differentiation (Scoones et al., 2011). The grasses to the south of the park, in the sandy inhlabati soils of the Mopani veld, and beyond, are particularly suited for ranching. It is also evident that A1 cattle holdings are higher than those in Scoones et al.’s (2011) Chivi study, with four to six more cattle per household per rank in Matobo. However, drought, experienced in the 2014–2015 season, poses a severe risk for cattle farmers, who experienced many cattle deaths, and depressed prices at cattle auctions. The drought saw large movements of cattle from the south of the district northwards to areas such as ward 23 to find relief grazing, precipitating a set of emlaka arrangements discussed below. The incidence of struggles in drought periods was also suffered by white antecedents on the land – WS George, after three seasons of drought and crops registering ‘absolute failure’ at Holi farm, recorded the deaths of 40 cattle and 90 sold at a loss (Ranger, 1999: 132). This brings us to the anecdotal evidence of A2 farmers in cattle farming in our study wards.

Table 2.

Livestock production in Wards 23 and 24, Matobo District.


	Cattle	Goats	Sheep	Donkeys
Ward 23	7.798165138	6.311926606	0.907407407	2.605504587
Ward 24	10.08080808	5.474747475	0.97979798	0.676767677

A2 experiences

The livestock sector in Matabeleland South has witnessed a restructuring, from a mostly export-oriented, white commercial ranching model (with few communal cattle sales), to a diversified production system supplying local demand with more, mostly smaller, black producers, and an increased role for intermediaries and feedlots (Nkomboni and Beekman, 2015). This reflects broader changes in Zimbabwe’s post-FTLRP dispensation, where local private agrarian capital and the demands of the smallholder farmers exert more influence in rural development than public investment and the large-scale, commercial-farming development of the past (Shonhe, 2019). Some white commercial farmers from our study sites have, since their evictions, moved higher up the value chain to establish butcheries and abattoirs; others have dropped out of agriculture, moved out of the country or passed away (see Nel, 2020). Only two white commercial cattle farmers remain, primarily because of their ongoing amicable relationships with their new neighbours and communal farmers (Nel, 2020). Several black farmers remain in the study ward 23 with 99-year leases on council farms they obtained in the 1980s alongside their more recently resettled counterparts.

Newer A2 farmers are working to gain a foothold in the landscape with varying degrees of success. According to interviews with Agritex extension officers for the two wards, and a Matobo Research Station officer, approximately 40% of the A2s in ward 23 and 24 are doing ‘fairly well’. There was an average cattle holding of 70 head for A2s in ward 24, slightly less than in ward 23, where farmers held between 80 and 100 head on average. In ward 23, approximately 50% of the A2s have between 80 and 100 cattle, with approximately 5 A2s holding more than 150 cattle. Sixty percent are falling short of Agritex expectations, with up to 10 farms described as ‘semi-functional to non-functional’; either unoccupied or run by managers for ‘cell-phone’ farmers, or rented out for grazing. While officials are disparaging of these arrangements, contract and rental arrangements have been shown to be important livelihoods options for many in the post-FTLRP dispensation (Mazwi et al., 2020; Nyamandi and Hove, 2016; Sachikonye, 2016). This is consistent with historical experience in the landscape. In 1954, 6.6% of total farms in the country were inactive, and only 54% of farms were owner-occupied (with 36.2% under managers and 9.4% leased to others) (Dunlop, 1971). Those who are underperforming today cite grazing issues, the risks of drought in cattle farming (linked to changing climatic conditions), and a lack of access to veterinary services, with ward 23 only able to access a vet in Kezi to the south. As one farmer put it ‘with no credit and no title, you can have a good season this year, and get 8 calves, but then drought next year and loses all but 4, then takes 7–10 years to restock’ (interview, Matobo, January 2015). As a result, farmers attest they are more inclined to supplement their feeding or sell stock than their communal farmer counterparts (farmers’ interview, ward 23 and ward 24, May 2015).

Questions of utilisation and stocking rates in the district were a common feature during the colonial period (Ranger, 1999), and in the post-FTLRP are as prevalent, where land sizes and stocking rates are argued by respective commentators to be too small and too high respectively (see next section). Yet despite some poor performances, changes in livestock farming structure, combined with the more successful farming outcomes, represent positive dimensions of change. While the higher cattle figures from our sample do not approach the numbers of cattle held by some in the pre-colonial period,¹¹ Nkomboni and Beekman (2015) argue that cattle figures, including A1 and A2 beneficiaries stocks, are equivalent to pre-FLTRP levels. Perhaps more importantly, a sister study to this research in the district, by Chatikobo (forthcoming), indicates that mobility of cattle in Matobo and Matabeleland South has likely increased, with new kinds of arrangements working to unlock grazing potentials. This may be significant in overcoming restraints on production, which were noted in the 1950s and 1960s, when only an estimated 60% of potential stocking capacity was utilized in the ‘heavily understocked’ agro-regions 4 and 5 (Dunlop, 1971: 51).

Ongoing reverberations in the hills

There are a number of key themes (echoes) we drew from the research on land and agrarian transformation in the Matobo landscape. These relate to (a) the ongoing consolidation in landholdings; (b) conflicts and accommodations; (c) stocking debates and livestock mobility changes in accumulation and agricultural practice; and (d) vulnerability and resilience. We cover these in turn.

Firstly, the land dispensation in Matobo District continues to evolve after the FTLRP, congruent with past changes in the landscape (Ranger, 1999). Just as both the nascent settlement with the Ndebele agreed to by Rhodes and the consolidation of white settler agriculture were long evolving and contested, the new land dispensation will continue to consolidate. The population in the study wards has increased after the completion of the FTLRP, where numbers today, just under 20 years later, have increased 10% over initial allocations, quite markedly in some of the sample villages. This has occurred predominantly in ‘villigised’ A1s where, as elsewhere, individuals have secured residency through the land committee (interviews, Matobo, January 2015), outside the formal land office planning and control (Rukuni et al., 2006). The slow consolidation of settlement parallels the 30 years in the hills and Mopani veld under colonial administration (Floyd, 1962) where the status quo that prevailed until the FTLRP was only reached in the 1950s.

A second theme relates to evolving relationships between landholders, with evidence of both conflicts and accommodations – or ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ – arising. There was a series of contestation points over demarcation issues and boundary/grazing disputes: internal to A1s; between A1s and A2s; across farm (A1 and A2), communal and district boundaries; between former commercial farmers or tourism operators and opportunistic political elites ‘grabbing’ land (four cases in our study sites); and between beneficiaries and aforementioned elites. Many other studies, including Dande and Mujere (2019) and Scoones (2015), note such incidences as reflective of the ‘new politics of the countryside’. Yet this has a precedent in Matobo, for as far back as 1935 conflicts were noted over settled white and black landholders (Ranger, 1999: 134). There are incidences of attempts at ‘elite capture’ of land reform, as noted elsewhere in the country (Mazwi and Mudimu, 2019; Mazwi et al., 2018), with the most notable being the resisted Maleme ranch occupations, which gained national notoriety after local resettled and communal farmers supported the remaining white commercial farmer in the ward. There is also further evidence of fluid and informal relations and accommodations between landholders and non-landholders. These include conventional rental agreements for grazing on resettled land, variations of indigenous lagisa and miraka arrangements between A2s and A1s¹² – especially for relief grazing during drought; and arrangements between resettled farmers and communal farmers or remaining white farmers. These arrangements in the landscape collectively work to mitigate issues to do with overstocking, grazing and drought.

The third theme of note relates to stocking debates and issues regarding carrying capacity. Stocking debates were especially prevalent in the decade after 1954 (Ranger, 1999), and have sprung up anew with changing dynamics – such as the intensification of settlement and stocking in the villigised A1 schemes which decreases communal grazing space. While some A1 farms are within designated limits, others are not. For instance, the Agritex extension officers and land officers planned for 240 head as Eskadale farm’s capacity,¹³ but in reality it has over 400 head, over even the liberal recommendation of one stock unit per 6 ha of Mr P, the remaining white commercial rancher in ward 24. Yet unsurprisingly, the common theme throughout this paper again arises, as overstocking on small farms was standard even in the colonial period (Dunlop, 1971: 7). Concerns extend to A2 farms. While Matobo research station and extension officials see unutilized capacity in some A2 farms, they note a lack of active management, and the prevalence of ‘zero-grazing’ in over 30% of the A2 farms, and 100% of the A1 farms. Such issues will require further research, and speak to the ongoing questioning of land utilization in the landscape.

Finally, the theme of vulnerability and resilience raises questions of state support and intervention. Despite gains in many areas, the dataset evidences that Matobo (as with Matabeleland more generally) has an increased vulnerability as compared to other parts of the country, particularly with regard to crop yields in times of drought. While the Scoones et al. (2010) study shows a gradual decline in production from ranks 1 to 3, the Matobo gradients are steeper, with rank 3 farmers particularly vulnerable. In this context, the risks, including an increasingly unstable yet ultimately drier local climate (Musiyiwa et al., 2015), are disproportionately borne by the poor. While it is indubitable that resilience is demonstrated by the respondents (as no farmers have dropped out of farming despite prevailing conditions), ongoing vulnerability is prevalent and there is a lack of support in various forms. There is a stark contrast between colonial agricultural subsidies and input provision (Arrighi, 1966; Dunlop, 1971), and the more recent ‘command agriculture’ post-FTLRP. According to our enumerators, there are large shortfalls in supplementary provisions by the state, and not all benefit. For instance, many did not receive farming inputs, and only four farmers in the study were included in the state ‘command agriculture’ scheme. Extension of credit has been absent after the FTLRP, where farmers struggle to secure loans without land recognised as collateral. This finding concurs with that of others in Matabeleland that there is a need for further support for resettled farmers, and in particular those more vulnerable (Mabhena, 2014).

Conclusion: an evolving landscape

This article has adopted a landscape approach to explore the post-FTLRP outcomes in the Matobo landscape, in which individuals and groups have interacted in a new frontier over land, creating new relationships, contestations, collaborations and agrarian practices in doing so. Matobo has an iconic history, and the while the FTLRP represented a significant rupture with the past, there are remarkable contemporary reverberations to take into account. Despite the drier conditions in Matabeleland South, the heterogeneous ecological conditions in the hills continue to produce varied agricultural outcomes, where livestock and in places mixed farming can be successful, but where vulnerability, as well as resilience, is a prevalent feature of livelihood struggles and rural class formation. While changes in the livestock sector servicing both A1 and A2 farmers has been significant and reflective of broader changes integrated into the post-FTLRP agrarian economy (Scoones et al., 2019b; Shonhe, 2019), cropping has had mixed successes and challenges. A key finding of this article is that the livelihood struggles of some contemporary beneficiaries have historical precedent in settler struggles and underdevelopment in the region. In fact, the history of the landscape reflects repeated peripheralisation by hegemonic structures (Nyathi, 2014; Ranger, 1999), and without further support for vulnerable subsistence crop production in the face of climate variability there are concerns for the ongoing place of peasant livelihoods (Mabhena, 2014; Mazwi et al., 2018). At the same time, there is remarkable resilience of mixed livelihood strategies, and evidence of infrastructural and farming improvements over time.

Considered for its impact on the landscape, land reform in the district has been to a significant extent restitutive, as both material and discursive dynamics play out. For the former, contestation, boundary disputes, elite capture and more flexible accomodatory practices are readily evident. As elsewhere (Fontein, 2015; McGregor, 2009), more careful consideration of the discursive changes shows the navigation of belonging, and cultural acclimatisation¹⁴ and even the meaning of a landscape that may no longer simplistically be called ‘cattle country only’ are still evolving. Unfortunately for us, then, and as is the case for evaluations of prior dispensations in the landscape, there is a need for repeated research over time to make a more realistic appraisal of land reform outcomes in Matobo. Fortunately, for the resettled farmers and the lessons from history show resiliance and perseverance can improve their prospects over time.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Kuda Ndlovu, Harrold Matora and Sydney Johns for assistance in data collection. Agritex and the Rural District Administrators office for permission to conduct the research. Ian Scoones for assistance in facilitating the study, and Blasio Mavadzenge and Felix Murimbarimba for their expertise and insight.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Institute for Development Studies at the University of Sussex [Grant Number AD/0807].

ORCID iD

Adrian Nel

Notes

Author biographies

Adrian Nel is a senior lecturer in Geography at the University of Kwazulu-Natal, and a research associate of the Institute for Development Studies (IDS) at the National University of Science and Technology (NUST), Zimbabwe. Adrian was born in Bulawayo and persues research and teaching focused on political ecology.

Clifford Mabhena is the Director of the Institute for Development Studies at the National University of Science and Technology (NUST), in Bulawayo Zimbabwe. He is from Matobo South, and has a strong research and supervision focus in Matabeleland.

References

Alexander

(2006) The Unsettled Land: State-Making & the Politics of Land in Zimbabwe, 1893–2003. Oxford: James Currey.

Alexander

(2007) The historiography of land in Zimbabwe: Strengths, silences, and questions. Safundi: The Journal of South African and American Studies 8(2): 183–198.

Alexander

McGregor

(2000) Wildlife and politics: CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe. Development and Change 31(3): 605–627.

Alexander

McGregor

(2013) Politics, patronage and violence in Zimbabwe. Journal of Southern African Studies 39(4): 749–763.

Alexander

Tendi

(2008) A tale of two elections: Zimbabwe at the polls in 2008. Politique africaine 111(3): 111–129.

Alexander

McGregor

Ranger

(2000) Violence & Memory: One Hundred Years in the ‘Dark Forests’ of Matabeleland. Oxford: James Currey, pp.180–277.

Anseeuw

Kapuya

Saruchera

(2012) Zimbabwe’s agricultural reconstruction: Present state, ongoing projects and prospects for reinvestment. Development Bank of Southern Africa 32: 1–5.

Arrighi

(1966) The political economy of Rhodesia. New Left Review 39: 35–65.

Barrett

Brooks

Josefsson

, et al. (eds) (2016) The Changing Face of Land and Conservation in Post-colonial Africa: Old Land, New Practices? Abingdon: Routledge.

10.

Beinart

McGregor

(2003) Social History and African Environments. Melton: James Currey.

11.

Borras

(2009) Agrarian change and peasant studies: Changes, continuities and challenges – an introduction. Journal of Peasant Studies 36(1): 5–31.

12.

Bratton

(1977) Structural transformation in Zimbabwe: Comparative notes from the neo-colonisation of Kenya. Journal of Modern African Studies 15(4): 591–611.

13.

Bulpin

(1965) To the Banks of the Zambezi. Johannesburg: Thomas Nelson.

14.

Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe (2007) Breaking the Silence, Building True Peace: A Report on the Disturbances in Matabeleland and the Midlands, 1980 to 1988. Harare: Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe.

15.

Chari

(2013) Media framing of land reform in Zimbabwe. In: Moyo

Chambati

(eds) Land and Agrarian Reform in Zimbabwe Beyond White-Settler Capitalism. Dakar: CODESRIA and AIAS, pp.291–329.

16.

Chatikobo

(forthcoming) Livestock, grazing and land reform in Matabeleland South, Zimbabwe: Dynamics of accumulation and social differentiation. PhD Thesis, PLAAS, University of the Western Cape.

17.

Chaumba

Scoones

Wolmer

(2003) From jambanja to planning: The reassertion of technocracy in land reform in south-eastern Zimbabwe? Journal of Modern African Studies 41(4): 534.

18.

Cliffe

Alexander

Cousins

, et al. (2011) An overview of fast track land reform in Zimbabwe: Editorial introduction. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(5): 907–938.

19.

Dande

Mujere

(2019) Contested histories and contested land claims: Traditional authorities and the fast track land reform programme in Zimbabwe, 2000–2017. Review of African Political Economy 46(159): 86–100.

20.

Dunlop

(1971) The Development of European Agriculture in Rhodesia, 1945–1965. Occasional Paper No. 5. Salisbury: University of Rhodesia, Department of Economics.

21.

Floyd

(1962) Land apportionment in Southern Rhodesia. Geographical Review 52: 566–583.

22.

Fontein

(2015) Remaking Mutirikwi: Landscape, Water and Belonging in Southern Zimbabwe. Martlesham: Boydell & Brewer Ltd.

23.

Good

(1976) Settler colonialism: Economic development and class formation. Journal of Modern African Studies 14: 601.

24.

Gregory

Johnston

Pratt

, et al. (2000) The Dictionary of Human Geography. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

25.

Hanlon

Manjengwa

Smart

(2012) Zimbabwe Takes Back Its Land. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

26.

Hartnack

(2017) Discursive hauntings: Limits to reinvention for Zimbabwean farm workers after fast-track land reform. Anthropology Southern Africa 40: 276–289.

27.

Hubbard

Ranger

Burrett

, et al. (2014) Malindidzimu: A Guide to the People and Events Associated With the ‘View of the World’, Matopos. Bulawayo: Khami Press.

28.

Mabhena

(2010) ‘ Visible Hectares, Vanishing Livelihoods’: A case of the Fast Track Land Reform and Resettlement Programme in southern Matabeleland-Zimbabwe. PhD Thesis, University of Fort Hare, South Africa.

29.

Mabhena

(2014) Livestock livelihoods compromised: The dilemma of the Fast Track Land Reform and Resettlement Programme in Matabeleland South, Zimbabwe. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 32(1): 100–117.

30.

Matondi

(2012) Zimbabwe’s Fast Track Land Reform. London: Zed Books Ltd.

31.

McGregor

(2005) Crocodile crimes: People versus wildlife and the politics of postcolonial conservation on Lake Kariba, Zimbabwe. Geoforum 36(3): 353–369.

32.

McGregor

(2009) Crossing the Zambezi: The Politics of Landscape on a Central African Frontier. Rochester: James Currey.

33.

Mangwanya

Manyeruke

(2019) The political dynamics of food security and land reform in Zimbabwe: 2000 and beyond. Journal of Social Sciences 59(1–3): 17–27.

34.

Manzungu

Van der Zaag

(1996) The Practice of Smallholder Irrigation: Case Studies From Zimbabwe. Harare: University of Zimbabwe Publications.

35.

Maphosa

(2009) Rural Livelihoods in Zimbabwe: Impact of Remittances From South Africa. Dakar: CODESRIA.

36.

Mazwi

Mudimu

(2019) Why are Zimbabwe’s land reforms being reversed? Economic and Political Weeky 54(35).

37.

Mazwi

Chambati

Mudimu

(2020) Tobacco contract farming in Zimbabwe: Power dynamics, accumulation trajectories, land use patterns and livelihoods. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 38(1): 55–71.

38.

Mazwi

Chibwana

Muchetu

(2017) Land, agrarian reform in Zimbabwe viewed from a transformative social policy perspective. Africanus 47(1): 1–17.

39.

Mazwi

Tekwa

Chambati

, et al. (2018) Locating the position of peasants under the ‘new dispensation’: A focus on land tenure issues. Policy Brief 3.

40.

Moyo

(2011) Three decades of agrarian reform in Zimbabwe. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(3): 493–531.

41.

Moyo

Chambati

(eds) (2013) Land and Agrarian Reform in Zimbabwe. Oxford: African Books Collective.

42.

Mujere

(2012) Autochthons, strangers, modernising educationists, and progressive farmers: Basotho struggles for belonging in Zimbabwe 1930s–2008. PhD Thesis, Edinburgh University, UK.

43.

Murisa

(2016) Prospects for equitable land reform in Zimbabwe: Revisiting Sam Moyo’s work on the land question. Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy 5(2–3): 240–264.

44.

Musiyiwa

Leal Filho

Nyamangara

, et al. (2015) An assessment of gender sensitive adaptation options to climate change in smallholder areas of Zimbabwe, using climate analogue analysis. In: Filho

Esilaba

Rao

, et al. (eds) Adapting African Agriculture to Climate Change: Transforming Rural Livelihoods. Climate Change Management Book Series (CCM). Cham: Springer, pp.109–117.

45.

Ncube

(2011) Crisis of communal leadership: Post-colonial local government reform and administrative conflict with traditional authorities in the communal areas of Zimbabwe, 1980–2008. African Journal of History and Culture 3(6): 89–95.

46.

Ncube

(2018) The role of social capital in the Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) of Zimbabwe: A case of Rouxdale (R/E) Farm, Bubi District, Matabeleland North Province. PhD Thesis, University of Cape Town, South Africa.

47.

Nel

(2020) Conciliatory whiteness: White farmers’ accommodations and responses to land reform in Matabeleland South, Zimbabwe. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 38(1): 72–88.

48.

Nkomboni

Beekman

(2015) Beef value chains in A2 resettled farms in Zimbabwe: A review. Livestock Research for Rural Development 27(7).

49.

Nyamandi

Hove

(2016) An evaluation of the extent of compliance of the Zimbabwean land governance system with the agricultural land rental requirements of temporary migrants: Pilot case study of Esigodini Agricultural College in Matabeleland South Province. International Journal of Agricultural Policy and Research 4(8): 128–142.

50.

Nyamunda

(2019) Land and politics in Southern Africa, 2015–2017: A historiography of re-ordered landscapes and livelihoods in Zimbabwe’s crisis economy. Journal of Peasant Studies 46(6): 1312–1321.

51.

Nyamupingidza

(2018) The Fast Track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) and the youth in Umguza District, Matabeleland North: Zimbabwe. Masters Thesis, Wits University, Johannesburg. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10539/27236

52.

Nyathi

(2000) Alvord Mabena: The Man and His Roots. Harare: Priority Projects Publishing.

53.

Nyathi

(2014) The Story of a ZPRA Cadre, Nicholas Macala Dube: ‘Ben Mvelase’ Biography. Bulawayo: Amagugu Publishers.

54.

Olwig

Tuan

(2002) Landscape, Nature, and the Body Politic: From Britain’s Renaissance to America’s New World. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

55.

Palmer

Birch

(1992) Zimbabwe: A Land Divided. Oxford: Oxfam GB.

56.

Peluso

Watts

(eds) (2001) Violent Environments. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

57.

Peters

(1998) Women and land tenure dynamics in pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial Zimbabwe. Journal of Public and International Affairs 9: 6.

58.

Phimister

(1984) Accommodating imperialism: The compromise of the settler state in Southern Rhodesia, 1923–1929. Journal of African History 25: 294.

59.

Ranger

(1999) Voices From the Rocks: Nature, Culture & History in the Matopos Hills of Zimbabwe. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

60.

Ranger

(2000) African views of the land: A research agenda. Transformation 44: 53–62.

61.

Rukuni

Tawonezvi

Eicher

, et al. (2006) Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Revolution Revisited. Harare: University of Zimbabwe Publications.

62.

Sachikonye

(2016) Old wine in new bottles? Revisiting contract farming after agrarian reform in Zimbabwe. Review of African Political Economy 43(Suppl. 1): 86–98.

63.

Scoones

(2015) Zimbabwe’s land reform: New political dynamics in the countryside. Review of African Political Economy 42(144): 190–205.

64.

Scoones

Cousins

(1994) Struggle for control over wetland resources in Zimbabwe. Society and Natural Resources 7(6): 579–594.

65.

Scoones

Marongwe

Mavedzenge

, et al. (2010) Zimbabwe’s Land Reform: Myths & Realities. London: Curry.

66.

Scoones

Marongwe

Mavedzenge

, et al. (2011) Zimbabwe’s land reform: Challenging the myths. Journal of Peasant Studies 38(5): 967–993.

67.

Scoones

Marongwe

Mavedzenge

, et al. (2012) Livelihoods after land reform in Zimbabwe: Understanding processes of rural differentiation. Journal of Agrarian Change 12(4): 503–527.

68.

Scoones

Mavedzenge

Murimbarimba

(2019a) Young people and land in Zimbabwe: Livelihood challenges after land reform. Review of African Political Economy 46(159): 117–134.

69.

Scoones

Mavedzenge

Murimbarimba

, et al. (2019b) Labour after land reform: The precarious livelihoods of former farmworkers in Zimbabwe. Development and Change 50(3): 805–835.

70.

Shonhe

(2019) Land reform and new meaning of rural development in Zimbabwe: Reversal of agricultural declines and new development patterns. Presentation at the 4th annual international conference on Public Administration and Development Alternatives held at Johannesburg, South Africa, 3–5 July 2019.

71.

Sibanda

Khombe

Sisito

(2014) The production (reproduction, mortality and herd size) of beef cattle in ‘Fast Track’ A1 and A2 resettlements schemes in Bubi, Gwanda, Umguza and Matobo districts of Zimbabwe. International Journal of Agriculture Innovation and Research 2(6): 887–894.

72.

Spierenburg

(2016) Remaking Mutirikwi: Landscape, water and belonging in southern Zimbabwe. Anthropology Southern Africa 39(3): 250–252.

73.

Thebe

(2017) Legacies of ‘madiro’? Worker-peasantry, livelihood crisis and ‘siziphile’ land occupations in semi-arid north-western Zimbabwe. Journal of Modern African Studies 55(2): 201–224.

74.

Tsing

(2011) Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.