Abstract
This article utilizes empirical data gathered in the Mhondoro Ngezi district of Zimbabwe to highlight how the Fast-track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) implemented in 2000, allowed landless peasants to access better quality land and other natural resources. It focuses particularly on the way in which the land reform transformed a dualistic agrarian structure inherited at independence, dominated by large-scale farms, into a tri-modal structure, in favour of landless peasants predominantly from communal areas. The article argues that the FTLRP created opportunities for landless peasants to diversify livelihoods by allowing them greater mobility and access to land and natural resources, historically confined or enjoyed by a white farmer minority under the racialized bi-modal agrarian structure. This argument is derived from empirical evidence based on a case study of 185 households resettled under A1 (villagized) schemes at the formerly white-owned Damvuri Conservancy.
Introduction
Zimbabwe’s Fast-track Land Reform Programme (FTLRP) began to be implemented in 2000, under the pressure of occupations of white-owned farms by a war veteran-led movement. The FTLRP reversed the dualistic agrarian structure inherited at independence in 1980, ‘expand[ing] the numbers of small and medium scale farmers, while diminishing the numbers and hectarages of large farms and estates’ (Moyo 2011: 261). Its outcomes were until recently contested, among those who questioned the merits of the land reform and those who defended it (Hammar, Rapfopoulos and Jensen 2003; Hanlon, Manjengwa and Smart 2012; Matondi 2012; Moyo and Yeros 2005; Moyo et al. 2009; Scoones et al. 2010). This land reform has fed into ongoing debates about the peasantry as an analytical category (Bryceson, Kay and Mooij 2000; Moyo and Yeros 2005; Van der Ploeg 2010) and the role of rural movements across the South. The resurgence of rural movements under neo-liberalism can be attributed to various reasons: first, the socio-economic crises engendered by neo-liberalism in the 1990s (Petras 1997; Petras and Veltmeyer 2001); second, the persistence of colonial-era agrarian relations, especially in former settler colonies of Southern Africa (South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe); third, the failure of market-assisted land reforms promoted by the World Bank (Borras 2006). This has led to the ‘repoliticization of the peasantry’ (Courville and Patel 2006: 11) and to direct action by the peasantry through ‘consciously placing land occupation at the centre of their arsenal of political tactics’ (Moyo and Yeros 2005: 46).
In the case of Zimbabwe, the implementation of the FTLRP undermined the ‘underlying logic of settler–colonial agrarian relations founded on racial monopoly control over land that deprived peasants of land-based social reproduction and compelled cheap agrarian labor supplies’ (Moyo 2011: 7). Land redistribution under the FTLRP reversed racial monopoly in land ownership and broadened access to land to a diverse group of new farmers representing different ethnic groups, classes, and genders. In their analyses of the outcomes of Zimbabwe’s land reform, Moyo and Yeros (2005: 195) observed that ‘repeasantisation has been the dominant phenomenon under fast-track land reform: the new petty commodity producing establishments account for 93.7 per cent of total new farming establishments, thus far on 40.7 per cent of the land acquired’. These structural changes occasioned by Zimbabwe’s FTLRP, and events elsewhere, particularly in Latin America, challenge claims as to ‘disappearing peasantries’ or de-agrarianization’ (Bryceson et al. 2000). They indicate that a trajectory of re-peasantization is underway across the South, transforming agriculture to peasant agriculture. This is a direct challenge to World Bank sponsored neo-liberal orthodoxy which dominates agrarian policy formulation in many countries (Courville and Patel 2006).
Zimbabwe’s recent experience with land reform has demonstrated that redistributive land reforms have the potential to address distortions in land ownership, by replacing colonial-era dualistic land ownership structures with a broad-based ‘tri-modal’ structure, which allows historically marginalized peasants to access land and natural resources formerly enclosed by the land monopolies. It also demonstrates the centrality of land to the livelihoods and social reproduction strategies of newly resettled peasant households, as well as new social differentiation among peasants and the wide variety of off-farm activities in which they engage (elaborated below).
This article utilizes empirical data gathered from a case study of 185 peasant households resettled under A1 schemes (villagized model), at the former white-owned Damvuri Conservancy, in the Mhondoro Ngezi District of Zimbabwe. The data elucidates how Zimbabwe’s FTLRP promoted a process of re-peasantization to redress historical injustices and racial distortions in land ownership. In so doing, re-peasantization allowed landless peasants to gain access to land and other natural resources which were formerly enclosed by white-owned farms.
The Dynamics of Resettlement in Mhondoro Ngezi
The new farmers who were resettled at the former Damvuri Conservancy in Mhondoro Ngezi came from diverse geographical and socio-economic backgrounds. Some came from nearby Communal Areas (CAs) and old resettlement areas, others from rural areas further away from Mhondoro Ngezi, such as Gokwe, yet others were urbanites from the towns of Kadoma, Kwekwe and Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital. An important dynamic reflected in the Mhondoro Ngezi district consists in the high mobility of the new farmers, who straddle livelihoods across diverse activities. Clearly, this does not constitute a process of de-agrarianization, as empirical data demonstrates that the new family farm is a key component of livelihoods strategies. Yet, the picture of farmers as confined to their land and involved exclusively in agricultural production would also be misleading.
In this context, two further aspects may be highlighted. First, the new farmers are socially differentiated, which has a bearing on their ability to utilize their newly acquired land. Second, the socio-economic dynamics obtaining during and after resettlement have been influenced by the difficult macroeconomic conditions deriving from the sanctions regime and international isolation imposed by Western countries. This has meant that the new farmers have received limited state subsidies, unlike their counterparts resettled in the 1980s, during Zimbabwe’s earlier land reforms. This has had a bearing on what and how the new farmers could invest in their newly acquired land, and helps to explain why agriculture is not the only activity undertaken by the new farmers. A large number of farmers in Mhondoro Ngezi are involved in a wide variety of non-farm activities, providing vital sources of income at a time when investing in agriculture has been difficult.
A wide variety of factors have influenced the trajectory of agricultural investments after resettlement in Mhondoro Ngezi. The idea of ‘successful’ utilization of the land is highly relative and dependent on such factors as the socio-economic background of the farmers, or their ability to utilize the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) political networks to gain access to agricultural inputs and other support services, which generally has been difficult. Another important point to consider when analyzing agricultural investments after the land reform is that not everyone who acquired land had the aim of utilizing it immediately. Some of the resettled, especially those from the nearby CAs, acquired land as a form of insurance policy for the future, given that CAs are congested and ecologically degraded. Such farmers have remained in CAs where they still enjoy land rights, while their newly acquired land has remained under-utilized, or has been leased out to other farmers.
An important feature of the newly resettled farmers is that they are socially differentiated, which has had a bearing on their ability to utilize the land after resettlement. Some farmers, those with the means to invest in their land and to hire labour, are more successful in making agricultural investments, while others, without means, struggle and are thus more involved in off-farm activities, including wage labour and gold panning. There is also a group of people who have come to constitute a rural proletariat. Within this group are people who were allocated land, but lack the means to utilize it and those who have not yet been allocated land and are still waiting to be resettled. Such people survive mainly by selling their labour power to the richer peasants and by working at the gold and platinum mines nearby. People in this group are also involved non-farm activities such as gold panning. The Damvuri case study shows that agrarian labour relations have changed after the land reform. On one hand, land reform allowed former farm workers access to land and hence the peasant option. On the other hand, interviews with those who are still landless, indicate that casualization of labour and non-payment of wages have intensified after the land reform, this has worsened the socio-economic situation of a minority of landless poor peasants who survive by selling their labour power to rich peasants and other black agrarian capitalists.
In the analysis below, the farmers have been loosely grouped into three broad categories based on survey data gathered during fieldwork. The first category comprises of rich peasants who had the means to hire labour and thus have made relatively large-scale investments on their land and other off-farm investments. Such people constitute an emerging agrarian bourgeoisie which is already accumulating from below. The second category is made up of peasant–workers who are involved in both farming and wage labour. People in this category constitute the majority of land beneficiaries (84 per cent) and straddle their livelihoods across diverse portfolios, with farming remaining the key basis of their livelihoods. The last category is made up of a rural proletariat (11 per cent) comprising of people who were allocated land but have no means to utilize it; among this group are also people have not yet been allocated land and are still waiting to be resettled. People in this group socially reproduce themselves through the sale of labour power to the richer peasants. However, it is important to highlight here that these categories are not absolute, as the situation is dynamic and likely to change in the long term. Table 1 shows social differentiation among the newly resettled farmers.
Socio-economic Differentiation of the Newly Resettled Farmers
Rich Peasants (Hurudza)
Not everyone who came to Damvuri became a successful farmer or had the means to utilize the land. A small number of new farmers (5 per cent) have, however, successfully established themselves as farmers, despite the odds being greatly stacked against them. This small percentage of the new farmers constitutes a rich peasantry. According to Bernstein (2009: 431), ‘rich peasants...accumulate sufficiently to invest in production and/or labour power’. In Mhondoro Ngezi, a diversity of factors influenced the emergence of people who have come to constitute the hurudza. Interviews with informants in this category indicate that some people became successful because they were the first to join the land occupations, hence occupying positions of authority in new structures, such as local ZANU-PF committees. Such authority structures were instrumental in the way the new farmers could access inputs and other government subsidies, including tractors which were given to farmers under the agricultural mechanization programme. Moreover, some were already rich peasants who had the means to invest in their newly acquired land. Although they constitute a relatively small percentage of the total population at the former Damvuri Conservancy, they have been able to clear their land, build modern-looking houses, own large numbers of livestock and produce relatively large amounts of grain (an average of 25 tonnes of maize) and cash crops, such as tobacco and cotton.
Apart from being able quickly to make agricultural investments, such farmers took advantage of business opportunities created by the departure of the former white owner to start retailing businesses. For example, before the onset of land occupations at the Damvuri Conservancy in 2000, there was only one farm shop which serviced approximately 40 farm worker households. In the aftermath of land reform, the shop became too small to cater for the needs of over 185 resettled households. New business investments made by this small group have contributed to the emergence of a thriving business centre at the former Damvuri conservancy, which has grown from the one farm shop to three bottle stores, two butcheries, over five grocery shops, two general dealerships, and grinding mills. The growth in the number of households has also created new markets for more household goods, agricultural equipment, grinding mills and other services.
The biographies of farmers in this category demonstrate how people who were able to take advantage of these new business opportunities tended to be those who had access to financial resources, or those who could utilize their political connections to access government subsidies. First, those who were ‘rural entrepreneurs’ (Ranger 1985) in the communal areas prior to resettlement had a better chance of quickly re-establishing new farming operations after resettlement due to their ability to hire labour which allowed them to clear their land and invest in their land at a time when other farmers struggled. Second, being a member of local authority structures, such as ZANU-PF, the war veterans association, or village and ward development committees also enhanced one’s chances to access inputs and other government subsidies, which were largely accessed through ZANU-PF political connections, especially in the early stages of resettlement.
Political connections thus played an important role in the way those with political positions accumulated assets. The biographies thus indicate that agricultural investments and accumulation of assets were facilitated both by political connections and prior financial endowment. Access to cheap labour further contributed to the ability of the rich to accumulate, as poor peasants, lacking land and draught power, were forced to exchange their labour power in order to access such draught power from the former. Overall, and given the difficult macroeconomic environment generally, farmers in this category were better placed to hedge against economic and recurrent climatic risks. Farmers in this category were also able to expand their agricultural operations by procuring motorized machinery, such as tractors, increasing their livestock and hiring labour for both their farming and businesses. These farmers tended to link their agricultural investments to their businesses. However, it is important to highlight that ‘rural entrepreneurs’, or rich peasants, in Mhondoro Ngezi do not constitute a stable agrarian bourgeoisie, as they remain vulnerable to the wider challenges facing the agrarian sector in Zimbabwe. Time will tell if the current trajectory of accumulation among this group can be sustained, given the prevailing economic challenges and climatic vagaries.
Peasant–workers
A large number (84 per cent, according to the Damvuri survey) of the newly resettled farmers in Mhondoro Ngezi are peasant–workers. Although farmers in this category did not have the financial endowment to make large-scale investments, they have been able to clear part of their newly acquired land, construct houses and acquire some cattle, ploughs and ox-drawn carts. They have generally relied on family labour to clear the land and start their farming operations. Those who came from areas near the newly resettled area, such as the Mhondoro Ngezi Communal Area (CA), generally had better access to extended family networks which were a vital source of labour and agricultural equipment in the period immediately after resettlement. However, for those who came from areas further away, such as Gokwe, it was generally difficult to access labour from extended family networks, given the logistics involved, and they had to make do with whatever labour they had in order to clear the land and set up homes.
An important characteristic of people in this category is that they are largely worker-peasants involved in a wide variety of off-farm income generating activities, although agriculture remains a key part of their livelihoods. For example, some are regularly employed at the ZIMPLATS mine as wage labourers, others are engaged in gold panning, yet others are engaged in petty entrepreneurial activities, such as trade in household goods sourced through cross-border trade. Within this group are those who have accumulated enough capital through gold panning and wage labour to acquire farming equipment and to hire labour on a seasonal basis. Such people are already accumulating from below. However, others in this group have only been able to acquire farming equipment and to clear fields, as they have faced challenges in establishing themselves due to the difficult macroeconomic environment which has obtained after resettlement.
The biographies of farmers in this category indicate that despite the challenges they have faced after resettlement, they have made some investments on their newly acquired land. A fundamental characteristic of people in this category is that they owned limited means to utilize the land when they were resettled. However, such people have taken advantage of new opportunities associated with the new land to acquire livestock, farming inputs, and agricultural equipment, as well as hire seasonal labour. Off-farm livelihoods, such as wage labour and gold panning, have played an important role in the way people in this category have accumulated assets and reinvested in agricultural activities. Some of the money earned has also been used to address immediate needs, such a payment of school fees and procurement of food. Since farmers in this category have generally been vulnerable to climatic risks, such as droughts, they have also tended to use income from non-farm activities to procure food, especially during periods of drought. Petty entrepreneurial activities, such as cross-border trade, have provided an additional source of income for some.
Some farmers in this category have only been able to clear part of their land because they had to spend part of their time engaging in other income generating activities as a way of spreading risks. However, not fully utilizing the land does not necessarily mean that these farmers have failed. Across interviews, the farmers indicated that they intended to expand their agricultural production in the future, when the economic situation improved. Thus, patterns of agricultural investments might change in the future, as the new farmer’s access more government support, or have the financial resources to invest in their land.
One of the most important aspects of the FTLRP which has received limited attention is how the new farmers conceptualize land reform. Across biographies, the new land is viewed as an asset that provides economic opportunities not only in the present but also in the future. Thus, challenges in utilizing the land which confronted the new farmers at the time of resettlement have been viewed as temporary impediments to be overcome. The main reason behind this optimism is that many of the new farmers came from congested and ecologically degraded communal areas, where there were limited opportunities beyond farming. For such people, access to new land brought with it new opportunities beyond the farm which were not available in their communal areas. Another important factor reflected across biographies is that the new farmers did not necessarily view the benefits of land reform as inhering in the acquisition of land for farming, but also for gaining access to water, pasture, minerals and employment opportunities associated with new land. Therefore, land reform has been conceptualized as a process which could enhance economic opportunities beyond farming. The biographies of farmers in this category demonstrate that although patterns of accumulation and social differentiation have emerged among the new farmers, the possibilities of improving livelihoods in a broad-based manner have expanded substantially.
The absence of government support in form of subsidies featured prominently across many interviews and discussions with informants from this category; they were more concerned about how to access government help in form of subsidies, particularly maize seed and fertilizers. Such people were generally resentful of rich peasants who they perceived as corrupt and accused them of diverting inputs provided by the government for their personal use. Rich peasants were also resented for their price speculation practices which were seen as exploitative. Informants observed that one rich farmer who was also a local businessman had accumulated a large herd of livestock, having taken advantage of a recent drought to unfairly exchange grain with cattle at below market prices, as people were desperate for food.
While people lamented the absence of government support, they generally believed that the government would gradually support them after the socio-economic situation improved. Discourses of indigenization, which have been popularised by the ruling party, ZANU-PF, in the aftermath of the land reform, seemed to give people hope, that one day the government would address their problems. The creation of the Royal Mhondoro Ngezi Community Trust in 2012 (discussed later) was cited as an example of how the government was going to provide support to the new farmers in the near future. Sanctions were also cited by informants as a major cause of the government’s failure to provide input support on time; their removal was viewed as key to the revival of the agrarian sector at large. This shows that despite the socio-economic challenges facing a large section of the farmers, they remain positive of their future prospects.
Rural Proletariat
Not everybody who came to Mhondoro Ngezi gained access to land under the fast track land reform programme, or had the means to utilize the newly acquired land. Since fast-track land reform has been an ongoing process, there remains a group (11 per cent of the informants) of rural proletarians who are resident at the former Damvuri Conservancy and who constitute an agrarian underclass. In Mhondoro Ngezi, rural proletarians comprise of widows, former farm workers and urbanites mainly from the towns of Kadoma and Chegutu. Some of them had lost their place of employment in farms during the land occupations, or had lost employment in towns and had come to the former conservancy in search of the ‘peasant option’ (Rutherford 2001). However, by the time of fieldwork in 2010, some people had accessed land, but lacked the means to utilize it, while others had not yet gained access to land, despite having arrived in Damvuri as far back as 2006. Such people were living with relatives or friends while waiting to negotiate access to land, while those who had gained access to land were involved in off-farm activities, such as gold panning and wage labour, with the hope of utilizing the land in the future.
As highlighted earlier, agrarian labour relations have changed after the land reform, at Damvuri wage labour is conceptualized as a temporary survival strategy with the hope of either gaining the means to utilize the land or gaining access to land for those who have not yet accessed land. It is important to highlight here that among the rural proletariat, peasant farming is still seen as a long-term term social reproduction strategy. Wage labour was thus conceptualized as a way of gaining income in order to invest in farming in the near future. For example, men from this group would often leave the farm (for those already owning land) to engage in gold panning during the dry season while the wife was left behind to tend the farm. The men would then come back at the start of the rain season, having earned enough income to acquire livestock, seeds and fertilizers. On the other hand, their wives were also involved in a wide range of activities such as working as labourers for rich peasants as well as selling wild fruits and vegetables by the road side. Interviews with informants indicate that wage labour was mostly a seasonal activity, people generally reverted back to farming during the planting season while having had spent the dry season working as labourers either at the ZIMPLATS mine nearby or gold panning near the towns of Kwekwe and Kadoma. Since some people in this category lacked land of their own or the means to invest in such land, they either worked as wage labourers for rich peasants or exchanged their labour for draught power and for grain from their rich counterparts especially in difficult times. However, interviews with such people showed that they perceived wage labour and barter as temporary survival strategies as they hoped to acquire land of their own and the means to utilize it in the near future.
In terms of demographics, households in this category were relatively small (on average four individuals per household, according to the Damvuri survey). These households consisted mainly of widows, single mothers and other young families lacking the means to farm, or had not yet accessed land by the time of fieldwork. Income from wage labour varied significantly, depending on the activity. Those who were lucky enough to get employed as wage labourers at the nearby ZIMPLATS mine tended to get relatively high wages by local standards and were thus able to acquire farming inputs and livestock which allowed them an exit out of poverty and deprivation. Income from gold panning varied annually, in some years some people struck it rich, and were able to acquire livestock and other means of production, while on more leaner years they only managed to gain enough income to buy food and other households needs such as paying fees for their children.
Interviews with informants in this category indicated that although they were still living in poverty, they were no longer indentured labourers working at white-owned farms. For such people land reform was seen as having opened opportunities for social mobility. Moreover, the availability of other forms of livelihoods opportunities such as gold panning was seen as providing potential pathways out of extreme poverty. Money acquired from these activities could be invested in the land or to buy land on informal land markets especially for those without land. This shows that the dynamics of agrarian labour relations have changed after the land reform, while new forms of extreme exploitation have emerged; poor peasants are not passive victims of exploitation, as they view non-farm livelihoods as a way of getting out of poverty in the near future. This is likely to create labour shortages for rich peasants and other A2 farmers (large scale commercial farmers), who rely on cheap labour for their accumulation strategies as observed by Moyo (2011). This is, however, beyond the scope of this article.
The fact that there are people who are without land but who continue to expect to gain access to land highlights that land reform has been viewed by ordinary people as an infinite process. Moreover, the fact that poor peasants believe that their situation will improve in the near future highlights another dynamic of the land reform process often underestimated in the literature on land reform. Land reform seems to have a symbolic meaning among the poor that in the long term, their socio-economic condition will improve.
It is important to highlight that landlessness in Mhondoro Ngezi is juxtaposed to the fact that there is a relatively large amount of land belonging to absentee owners. This is because residents of the Mhondoro Ngezi CA acquired land at the former Damvuri conservancy but remained in the communal area. Thus, distortions in land ownership persist in the aftermath of land reform and are likely to be the source of ongoing struggles over access to land.
Straddling Livelihoods after Land Reform
In Mhondoro Ngezi access to land brought with it broader benefits beyond the farm, as mentioned earlier. Newly resettled farmers are involved in a wide range of income generating activities since they received limited government support after resettlement. This is especially the case for poor peasants who have not been able to fully utilize the land. Such households are involved in diverse activities beyond farming. Although they have made limited investments on their land, it does not mean that they have completely failed.
What kind of off-farm benefits were obtained by the land reform in Mhondoro Ngezi? And how have they influenced new livelihoods trajectories? In this section we focus on the diverse livelihood opportunities, including natural resource extraction, hunting, fishing, wage labour and gold panning, which have provided a vital source of food and income and have sustained a large number of farmers who have struggled to invest in their land. In their analyses of livelihoods after land reform in Masvingo Province, Scoones et al. (2010: 166) have observed that ‘livelihoods in Africa are highly diversified and Zimbabwe is no exception’; this is also observed in Mhondoro Ngezi.
The newly resettled areas in the district are located on the Great Dyke, a geological formation that cuts across Zimbabwe and is rich in minerals such as gold, chrome and platinum. Thus, a wide range of mining activities take place across the broader Mhondoro Ngezi area. These range from alluvial gold panning across riverbeds near the towns of Kwekwe and Kadoma, to small-scale ‘indigenous’ gold mines, and to large corporate mines such as the South African-owned ZIMPLATS mine. Moreover, the newly resettled area is located in an area of relatively high ecological potential (ecological Region II and III according to rainfall isohyets). The area is watered by four major rivers, which flow westwards (Muzvezve, Munyati, Sebakwe and Mungezi) and provide fresh water for domestic animals and gardening. Riverine ecosystems are also a source of freshwater fish and other wildlife, which are harvested for own consumption and sale. The new land has thus brought with it a wide variety of off-farm income opportunities and provided the new farmers with more food and income options at a time when many of them have struggled to invest in their land.
Natural Resource Extraction and Trade
At the time of their occupation by war veterans in 2000, the white-owned farms of Mhondoro Ngezi had a wide variety of fauna and flora which became accessible to the new farmers. In the aftermath of land reform, newly resettled farmers were able to harvest wildlife and other natural resources which were in relative abundance in the early stages of land occupations in 2000. Historically, such natural resources were formerly a preserve of the white landowners and foreign tourists who frequented the area during the safari hunting seasons. In the aftermath of the land reform, the trade in game meat became a lucrative business. It was largely a male activity undertaken through informal networks (approximately 5 per cent of surveyed households). In the early stages of resettlement, a large number of warthogs and other small game, such as impala, were snared and hunted with dogs. The meat was sold at the nearby ZIMPLATS mine and at gold panning sites near the towns of Kwekwe and Kadoma. The informal meat markets have become a vital source of income for some farmers although this cannot be sustained in the long term.
The woodlands across the former white owned farms of Mhondoro Ngezi also provide a rich array of wild plants and timber which have been harvested for both domestic consumption and sale locally and in the nearby towns of Kadoma and Kwekwe. The gathering of wild fruits and plants for sale, such as nyii (Brown Ivory), nhengeni (Ximenia Americana) and wild mushrooms, is an activity mainly undertaken by women (9 per cent of surveyed households). The trade in wild plants and fruits provide women with some income, which supplements their agricultural activities.
The wide variety of flora in Mhondoro Ngezi is not only exploited for economic gain. Informants reported during the fieldwork that some plant species with medicinal qualities are highly valued and conserved by the new farmers. For example, certain species of gavakava (Aloe-Vera), commonly found in the area, are harvested to cure livestock diseases such as Red Water, common during the summer season. Other plants are propagated and harvested to cure ailments such as headaches, stomach pains, and fevers. An informant who is a herbalist related during the interviews how ‘land reform had created access to a wide range of plants with medicinal qualities which were no longer available in ecologically degraded communal areas’. Thus, certain types of plants are conserved as they provide a vital source of alternative medicine in the absence of health care workers and clinics in the new area.
The broad utilization of natural resources after land reform in Mhondoro Ngezi has triggered fears of an environmental catastrophe among local authority structures such as chiefs and ward councillors. Although these local authorities are tasked with policing natural resource utilization, they tend not to strictly enforce the statutory laws governing their utilization. Since chiefs and councillors live among the people, they have a better understanding of the challenges faced during resettlement and why people resort to over-exploiting certain natural resources. Local authorities are faced with the dilemma of enforcing laws against the absence of alternatives available for ordinary people. Interviews with the new farmers indicate that histories of colonial enclosure of land and natural resources have influenced the trajectory of natural resource extraction. For example, some informants reported that there was nothing wrong with them hunting wild animals as they have been historically barred from hunting, while whites could hunt at will. Other informants argued that wild animals, such as warthogs, destroyed crops and hence needed to be culled. They further argued that it was inevitable that after resettlement trees were going to be cut as people needed to clear land to grow crops. Thus, the dynamics of natural resource utilization after land reform are complex and require an in-depth understanding of why and how people exploit such resources.
Cross-border Trade
Another important off-farm activity observed is cross-border trade. Many women (approximately 40 per cent of surveyed households) from the newly resettled areas of Mhondoro Ngezi were engaged in cross-border trade as a way of supplementing family income. A wide variety of goods were imported and sold locally by mostly women traders. These products comprised, inter alia, mobile phones, solar chargers for mobile phone, solar panels, televisions and radios. The availability of mobile phone connectivity across the wider Mhondoro Ngezi area has led to an upsurge in the use of mobile phones among the farmers. This has created a large market for mobile phones and associated gadgets, such as solar chargers and solar panels, in the newly resettled area, since the new farmers are not connected to the electricity grid.
The location of Mhondoro Ngezi in the middle of Zimbabwe close to both road and rail infrastructure means that it is relatively easy for women from the area to travel across Zimbabwe’s borders in order to import a wide variety of household goods for resale. These goods are sold at mine sites such as ZIMPLATS or gold panning sites. Female informants interviewed during the fieldwork related how they regularly travelled to neighbouring Zambia, South Africa and Botswana, where they exported locally made handcrafts and embroidered clothes, popular in those countries, in turn for imported goods for sale locally.
This highlights how women have become mobile and engaged in income generating activities across distances. An important dynamic observed in Mhondoro Ngezi is that women are no longer bound to family farms and merely reproducing male wage labour, as was historically the case in communal areas. Women are now travelling across borders exporting and importing products for domestic consumption and for resale. This new mobility of women has a bearing in terms of ownership of assets at household level. Several women interviewed during the fieldwork indicated that they now owned various assets bought from income gained from cross-border trade.
The role of women after the land reform has changed as some women have been able to acquire assets. Unlike before when ownership of livestock, such as cattle, was a preserve of men, land reform in Mhondoro Ngezi has enabled women to own livestock and agricultural equipment, such as ploughs and scotch carts. Ownership of such assets has empowered women to have leverage over the control of family income and assets. It has also enhanced their ability to have a say in the way land is utilized and leverage over how the proceeds from farming are shared among households.
Mining
There is a wide variety of mining companies that operate in the Mhondoro Ngezi area, including the South African-owned ZIMPLATS mine and other small-scale ‘indigenously’-owned gold mines, such as the Amble Mine. Alluvial gold can also be easily found in the wider area near Kadoma and Kwekwe, and, consequently, there is widespread gold panning activity in the area, providing a vital source of income for those farmers that have struggled to invest in their newly acquired land. A large number of men (67 per cent of surveyed households) reported being involved in mining and other mine-related activities. Illegal gold panning, locally known as chikorokoza, is a largely male activity undertaken during the dry season. According to interviews with the gold panners, income gained from gold panning has been vital for acquisition of livestock, procurement of food and payment of school fees for children.
Some informants highlighted that although gold panning increased after the land reform, as many private farms were opened up; gold panning in the Mhondoro Ngezi area predates fast-track land reform. Some of the new farmers were involved in gold panning long before they were resettled at the former Damvuri Conservancy. Such farmers used to visit gold panning sites periodically, near the towns of Kadoma and Kwekwe, where they would stay for some months and accumulate income before returning to their communal areas. Thus, chikorokoza is an old income generating activity undertaken by peasants, which has been enhanced by the land reform in Mhondoro Ngezi, by opening up access to minerals, especially alluvial gold, which, in turn, have become a key part of the livelihoods of newly resettled farmers.
The rewards of gold panning can be very high, but chikorokoza is also a dangerous activity, according to gold panners. One can either die by landslides, or can be murdered by criminal syndicates which periodically conduct raids on unsuspecting gold panners demanding gold and cash. These criminal gangs are reported to operate in collusion with the police and other state agents and thus are difficult to deal with.
Gold panners also periodically suffer from state violence, as was the case in 2007, when gold panning escalated across the newly-resettled areas. The government launched Operation Chikorokoza Chapera (Operation Gold Panning is Over), a violent campaign which led to the forceful eviction of gold panners. The government claimed that the reason for the violent evictions was that gold panners were destroying the environment and illegally trading in minerals, although some of the reasons could have been political. Nonetheless, in 2012 the government indicated that it would change its attitude towards the gold panners. In the context of Zimbabwe’s indigenization policies, popularized by ZANU-PF, gold panners have been rebranded ‘artisanal miners’ (The Herald, 28 May 2012), whose activities are contributing to the growth in national gold output. Moreover, there are indications that the government intends to amend the mining laws in order to give the new farmers legal ownership of minerals found on their land. These new policy shifts, if implemented, are likely to improve the situation of gold panners in terms of security and safety.
Large corporate mines, such as ZIMPLATS, have also provided a vital source of income, as they employ the new farmers as wage labourers on a part-time basis (40 per cent of men reported to be regularly employed by the mine on a part-time basis). Key informant interviews also indicate that the large mine employs a relatively large part of its work force from local communities. Moreover, the new farmers have benefited from the on-going indigenization of mining companies. The indigenization of the ZIMPLATS mine has resulted in the company implementing a wide range of corporate social responsibility programmes which have benefited the new farmers. For example, the company helped to fund the creation of a women-led brick moulding co-operative. The co-operative was exclusively awarded a tender to supply bricks for the construction of the mine’s staff quarters. The brick moulding co-operative has created employment for women and strengthened their economic position as they can now contribute to family income. ZIMPLATS has also invested in local infrastructure such as schools, roads, clinics and boreholes. Corporate social responsibility programmes, such as the repair of schools and clinics, create economic opportunities for local people, who are given preference in the supply of raw materials and labour.
Access to the benefits of mineral resource extraction is a key feature of land reform in Mhondoro Ngezi, which has improved livelihoods generally and is inextricably linked with agriculture. Interviews indicate that many newly resettled farmers are, in one way or another, involved in mining, either as gold panners or wage labourers, or otherwise as petty-commodity brokers at mine sites, in the case of women. Income gained from mining activities is used in agriculture, to procure inputs, hire labour to clear fields, and acquire livestock, or meet current expenses, such as food and the school fees of children.
Conclusions
This study of land reform in Mhondoro Ngezi demonstrates that the transformation of Zimbabwe’s dualistic agrarian structure has allowed landless peasants to access land and other natural resources, thus contributing to the diversification of rural livelihoods. The livelihoods of formerly landless peasants are now based on a wide variety of activities, with farming being a key part. This research also shows that many factors have influenced the trajectory of agricultural investments in the aftermath of land reform. Off-farm activities have played an important role in providing alternative sources of income for the newly resettled farmers, in particular those peasant workers and rural proletarians. Moreover, such activities have enhanced the economic position of women, as income gained from activities such as cross-border trade has been used to acquire assets which have leveraged their control over the household income. Newly resettled farmers have also benefited from the indigenization of foreign-owned mining companies, such as the ZIMPLATS mine. The indigenization of the mine has created employment opportunities for local people and the provision of social services which were largely absent in newly resettled areas. This, in turn, has contributed to local economic development, at a time when the country is facing socio-economic challenges. Overall, this research has demonstrated that the change in agrarian structure brought about by the fast-track land reform has created diverse livelihood opportunities which were not available under the previous agrarian structure dominated by a minority of white farmers.