The demand for land in Zimbabwe was not resolved by the major land reform in 2000. Far from it. Many people missed out, and new generations too young to benefit from allocations nearly 25 years ago are seeking land for farming. With the urban economy continuing to contract and with limited formal jobs on offer, agriculture is seen by many as a relatively attractive and secure option. For this reason, we see many new plots being established in our study sites across the post-2000 resettlement areas, alongside people moving to farm in the old communal areas.
This short blog series focuses on ‘new entrants’, those who were not resident in the area before, and in some cases with no previous associations, although connections through kin and friendships are usually important in securing land. A later series will focus on young people, sons and daughters of land reform beneficiaries, who are also setting up homes and establishing farms.
There is a dynamic land market in the resettlement areas, with leasing, rental and purchases of land going on. There are a variety of mechanisms of payment ranging from share cropping, joint venture deals, rental in exchange for labour or inputs, as well as cash payments for rental or leases and also outright purchase. The legal basis for such transactions remains uncertain, with confirmations for arrangements sometimes presented in legal affidavits, although very often arrangements remain informal.
Attempts to change the status of ownership or use in offer letters issued by the state are usually in vain, as the system of registration and formal tenure rights remain up in the air in the absence of an effective land administration system. The recent cabinet announcement that land reform areas will be formally registered with a secure tenure arrangement and be available for sale has only added to the confusion. As ever in Zimbabwe, there are multiple, parallel systems in play. Yet, despite the uncertainties, the land market continues to thrive with its ‘vernacular’ forms, as it always has done both in resettlement and communal areas.
The third blog in this series will return to the policy implications of all this, but first let’s offer a little time perspective because, despite the recent growth in new entrants, there have been changes in ownership and use across all our sites over the last 25 years. We can identify four broad phases, starting in the period immediately following land invasions and the implementation of the Fast Track Land Reform Programme from mid-2000.
The establishment of land reform areas: 2000-2008
The so-called jambanja period of invasion and the subsequent formalisation of land reform areas under different ‘models’ by the state resulted in a lot of reshuffling of land use across our sites. The early invasions often established villages and pegged fields, with aim of being ‘seen by the state’, replicating state-based land use planning systems continuous since the colonial era. But subsequent allocations under ‘fast-track’ often did not follow these same arrangements established following land invasions, as certain plots were downsized, village sites moved and people were evicted from river banks. In this process others were slotted in, as certain farms were shifted from villagized A1 areas or informal settlements following invasions to medium-scale A2 farms.
For example, in our site in Sanangwe, near Masvingo, around 56 households were moved in 2002 by the District Administrator and Ministry of Lands officials from a nearby farm, which had been invaded but not been gazetted for land reform. They were settled in an area that had previously been designated a grazing area following the land invasions in Sanangwe. This has caused much conflict with the original settlers ever since. In other areas, where powerful groups of war veterans were in charge, such as one ‘self-contained’ resettlement area in Gutu district, some very large areas were allocated to individuals – or often across family members, some at that point very young. Some of these plots were never taken up and, fearing the consequences of subsequent audits and inspections, those holding the offer letters leased the areas out to others, some of whom took over the land permanently (see Case 1 below).
Case 1: I acquired this plot in 2004. This plot was one of the plots that were held by CN. The late CN was a war veteran and one of the leaders of invasions, who also later became the village chairman. Following the pegging, CN obtained five plots, which he registered in his children’s and sisters’ names. This particular plot was registered in her sister’s name, MN. I started looking for land in the resettlement in 2002, but I nearly gave up. In 2004, I then went to see the DA (District Administrator) who later allocated me this plot. I have an offer letter. When we arrived here in 2004, CN was already sick. He told us that it was his plot and we should give him “something”. We then simply showed him the offer letter that we had obtained from the DA. He was just holding on to the plot but his name was not even there on the official list at the DA’s office.
As the politics of the resettlement areas settled down and the revolutionary ‘Committees of Seven’ and base commander-led power structures ceded to elected councillors and ‘traditional’ leaders (sabhukus) – although often with the same individuals involved. New structures emerged in charge of land allocation, able to negotiate with state officials including the then influential district and provincial land committees. The new rural leaders were also able to use their influence to find space for new residents, often allocating land in what had been designated grazing areas, or slotting them into areas that were unoccupied. In the early years there was also a certain amount of turnover, as those who joined the occupations found that life was tough, without schools, clinics and having to carve out a farm from the bush from scratch. The new entrants in those days were often relatives of local leaders, or sometimes church members or followers of charismatic traditional cults.
For example, in Wondedzo near Masvingo a group of Apostolic church followers were part of the initial invasions and, together with the original base commander, later councillor, they became important members of the community. With their big families and close kin networks, they attracted others, expanding to sites along the rivers where they established large, successful irrigated horticulture operations. In Hariana farm in Mvurwi, the traditional cult leader, Ambuya Nyahundi, came to settle in the area soon after the invasions together with her followers, resulting in more reshuffling of land (see Case 2).
Case 2: Originally from Chiweshe, my mother-in-law came as a group of people to Hariana with Ambuya Nyahundi in 2003. Ambuya Nyahundi was a spirit medium (svikiro) and my mother-in-law was an aide for her. She came to settle the spirits on the land after the invasions and secure the land for the new settlers. She and her followers were welcomed and given land. My mother-in-law was allocated a full plot of 6 ha. Later, my mother-in-law later became blind, and was taken back to Chiweshe by her relatives, where she later died. Her plot was then reallocated to someone else. Unfortunately, we did not benefit, and we only got 1 ha allocated by the sabhuku. We came late in 2004 after the farm where we were working (my husband as a foreman and me as a general hand) got into difficulties and we were retrenched.
In the commercial farming areas of Mvurwi, many farmworkers remained resident in the newly settled farms. They began working for the new settlers, but also claiming land for farming. In the mid-2000s, the period of hyperinflation struck and the currency collapsed, resulting in extreme hardship for anyone relying on wages. Systems of barter evolved, but having some way of farming was essential. For example, in our Mvurwi sites, 26% of compound dwellers in our sample across three farms were allocated 1 ha plots following disputes with the local leadership around the 2008 elections and a further 52% have at least some arable land. This is a vital way of assuring their livelihoods while at the same time keeping them in the compounds and available for piece work.
A more settled phase: 2008-2016
Following the establishment of the Government of National Unity (GNU) in 2008 and the dollarisation of the economy a more stable period followed. The reshuffling of use that followed land invasions had largely ceased, and there was a much slower turnover of people and plots. Systems of authority had also become more settled, as councillors and sabhukus took up their roles, replicating in many ways the patterns seen in the communal areas. Conflicts over territory between competing traditional authorities continued as chiefs and headmen contested different areas.
The continued claims that the government was going to ‘regularise’ land use and ownership there was little evidence of a new more formalised land administration system emerging. Some areas that had previously been ‘informal’ saw offer letters being issued, such as our site at Uswaushava along the Ngundu-Chiredzi road, but others’ attempts to get new offer letters issued were often in vain. This ambiguity in land ownership allowed for some to take advantage and slot in new people. For example, in our Matobo study areas, new ‘lines’ (of village settlements) were established in Luma village at the boundary in 2010 for ‘anyone seeking land’ as a ‘buffer zone’ aimed to prevent people from neighbouring Wenlock communal areas from accessing natural resources (including grazing and water resources), while in nearby Vimbi villagers approached the Land Officer to request that sons and relatives were settled in the grazing area, although the new settlement was exploited by government officials to allocate land to their own people (see Case 3).
Case 3: I was born in 1955 in Nkayi. After quitting my job as a panel beater in 2005, I decided to leave town life, and came to stay with my nephew, FM, who is also a land reform beneficiary here in Vimbi. While living with my nephew, he registered my name on the sabhuku’s waiting list. Then the sabhuku spoke with the villagers about my case. I also went to see the late Chief Masuku, who then instructed the sabhuku to give me some land. Finally, in 2012, I was then allocated my own plot here. Some villagers welcomed me, but others were not happy with me getting my own plot. But I had stayed with my nephew for seven years.
The build-up to the elections of 2013, which saw the end of the GNU resulted in lots of contestation around land, especially in our Matobo site. This involved senior political figures as well as those involved with the intelligence services and the army. Although some attempts to grab land were resisted and overturned, others were successful. As ever, land and politics gain especial significance around election time and the stability of the GNU period was disrupted.
In the period after 2013 and before the ‘coup’ of 2017, there was a steady growth of land leasing and rentals, with some limited purchasing of land, secured through affidavit agreements. A relatively stable currency environment with the use of US dollars persisted for a while, assisting in the development of a land market. As some became more successful in farming or livestock keeping, they needed more land, and rental arrangements worked well, as many had land that was underutilised. This pattern occurred in both A1 and A2 areas, and it was in this period that new ‘joint venture’ arrangements emerged with former white farmers, Chinese investors as well as some black investors. While initially frowned upon by the state (President Mugabe in particular feared that the gains of the land reform would be reversed), these arrangements became increasingly important in the A2 farms, especially in the high-potential area of Mvurwi. For example, a Chinese farm manager explained the situation to us a few years ago (Case 4).
Case 4: All but 20 ha is under pivot irrigation. We grow tobacco intensively. We have invested in a new ‘rocket barn’, and sell to different companies, depending on the type of tobacco. We have bought all new equipment – generators, irrigation, tractors, pivots. Perhaps a million US dollars. We suffered a major hailstorm last season, but still managed 3.15 tonnes per hectare. We also have a cattle-fattening project, but it’s just getting going. Yes, we manage a compound here, and employ around 100, mostly on a temporary basis. It’s difficult to do business in Zimbabwe – we have a consultant who used to be in the tobacco business, who helps us, but it’s a challenge here.
The emergence of a complex land market in this period set the scene for the explosion of land transactions in the period that followed. This is covered in the next blog.
This blog was written by Ian Scoones and Tapiwa Chatikobo and first appeared on Zimbabweland