Chavarove resettlement area, 20 km east of Chatsworth, is a Model A scheme, which came about as part of the accelerated land reform programme in 1985. We have been asking: what has happened several generations on? Do these experiences give hints to what might happen to A1 land reform areas of the early 2000s some 40 or so years later? How has this group of farmers dealt with generational transition?
1980s resettlement
Land reform with the objective of decongesting communal areas was high on the political agenda following Independence in 1980. The then newly elected government initiated an ambitious land reform programme, which initially targeted to settle 18,000 households, a figure which was later revised to 162,000 households. At the same time, the land reform was constrained by the Lancaster House Agreement of 1979, which stipulated that land would change hands through the ‘willing-seller, willing-buyer’ arrangement. The important work of Bill Kinsey and colleagues has shown that the benefits of land reform were real, with a growth in production, investment in assets and accumulation of cattle wealth, but with greater numbers of people attracted to the resettlements, benefits were distributed widely and individual gains were more modest.
This short blog series explores the fortunes of land reform beneficiaries who gained access to land in the 1980s. Replicating the studies we undertook in our post-2000 land reform sites, we examine how ‘success’ was understood over time. Our study focuses on three villages in Chavarove resettlement area, consisting of a combined total of 105 households. Similar to the contemporary A1 villagised schemes post 2000, the Model A schemes consisted of a private residential stand, 5 hectares of arable land and shared grazing. Unlike the post-2000 land reform, however, the 1980s resettlements were intensively planned, with a dedicated Resettlement Officer overseeing operations.
Origins
In Chavarove resettlement area, beneficiaries came from different backgrounds. Prospective beneficiaries had to approach their councilors or other influential political figures to register their interests, and later made their applications at the District Administrator’s offices for consideration. During this time, people were reluctant to take up new land in the resettlement areas, given the hard work of clearing the land and establishing a new home. As one farmer’s wife explained: “We were told that if you go to the new resettlement areas, Mugabe will make you work very hard.” The majority of beneficiaries were communal area farmers from Gutu communal areas, with most of them having ‘Master Farmer’ certificates.
Others were mine workers from nearby Zoma mine who had been abandoned by the white mine-owner. According to these farmers, the white farmer just disappeared and left them behind without any source of income. Amongst them, they were some of Zambian and Mozambican origin who also managed to gain access to land. Although prospective beneficiaries with Master Farmer certificates were targeted, some did manage to gain access to land without such certificates, although they were later ‘forced’ to undertake the course by the Resettlement Officer. Those who had Master Farmer certificates already were also encouraged to take up ‘advanced’ Master Farmer courses.
Land allocations
The standard allocation of land was 5 hectares, but plots could be expanded up to 12 hectares depending on the availability of unallocated land next to the plot with the encouragement of Resettlement Officers. As one farmer told us, “We were initially allocated 5 hectares of arable land in 1985. However, by 1987, we were already cultivating the whole plot, and wanting even more land. As a result, my father asked for additional land from the Resettlement Officer, and he was given permission to expand”.
Before settlement, these farms were mostly cattle ranches, although the white owners also engaged in tobacco and small grain farming. Small grains were used for brewing beer at a local brewery in Gutu-Mpandawana Growth Point, which was owned by a group of local white farmers. Most new farmers were allocated cleared land, however this meant that the soils were often of poor quality as a result of previous use. As one farmer explained: “Our field was so poor that we grew maize but crop could not grow beyond knee height. The soil was tired. So, we complained to the Resettlement Officer, and we were given virgin land where we are now.”
Changing success
In the early years, the Model A1 farmers were highly productive as new farmers were relatively young, full of energy and had access to family labour. Today, production has significantly declined due to many challenges relating to demographic changes, inheritance and succession. These challenges are only beginning to be experienced in A1 land reform areas, but hints about the future may be shown by a look to the past.
Next week, we will discuss how ‘success’ was understood in the 1980s and now, before concluding the series with a reflection on the future of smallholder A1 farms in Zimbabwe.
This is the first in a short series of blogs on the old resettlement areas.
This post was written by Tapiwa Chatikobo and first appeared on Zimbabweland
Post published in: Agriculture