Livelihood transitions in Zimbabwe’s old resettlements over 40 years

How have different household’s livelihoods changed over time? This was the focus of our discussions about ‘success group’ transitions, following the same methodology used earlier in A1 areas. By comparing rankings of all households across three Chavarove villages, we can look at who moved up, down or stayed the same over 40 years, as well as the drivers of such changes.

The following table shows the patterns of change across the three sites between the 1980s and 2026 for the subset of original households that were present in both periods. The analysis focused on 48 original households across three villages. Over half of the original settlers have since passed on, and their farms have been inherited by their wives or youngest sons.

• 56% (27 households) remained static (22 households remained in SG1, 3 households remained in SG2, and 2 household remained in SG3).
• 31% (15 households) decreased their rank moving down to one or two categories over the period.
• 13% (6 households) increased their ranking moving one or two rankings over the period.
• Overall, 44% (21 households) had changed rank.

The next sections offer case studies of transitions from across the three villages.

Transitions to a lower rank

Case 1: WN, Surati (from SG1 to SG2). WN was born in 1973 in Guvamatanga area in Gutu. He is the last born in a family of three boys and five girls. Two of his siblings (one girl and one boy) passed away some time ago. WN completed form 4 in 1991, and took up several parttime jobs, including at Delta in Harare and Masvingo, as well as a mortician at Nyaradzo in Masvingo. In 2023, he decided to come back home and concentrate on farming.  His parents, who were fulltime farmers in the communal areas, acquired land in 1985. However, his father passed away in 1999, while his mother passed away in 2007. Following his parents’ death, he then inherited the plot as the last born son, while his surviving brother who works as a security guard in Harare was allocated 1ha stand in the village, but shares the parents’ crop fields. At settlement, his parents had 5 cattle, 15 goats, as well as a plough, scotch-cart and plough. Upon settlement, they immediately built a three-roomed pole and mud house and kitchen. They were allocated 5ha of arable land that was already cleared and previously used by the former white farmer. In the early years of settlement, they would produce up to 10 tonnes of maize and sell up to 8 tonnes to GMB. However, three years later, they realised that their harvest was declining due to poor soil fertility, given that the land was previously used by the former white farmer to grow tobacco. Upon this realisation, his parents complained to the Resettlement Officer, who then allocated the household virgin land. In 2000, following the death of his father, the household’s output began to decline to around 3 tonnes. According to him, this was due to labour shortages when older brothers and sisters had left home as they either secured jobs in town or got married elsewhere. In addition, in the 1980s, the household received loans to purchase inputs from the AFC, a facility that ceased in the early 1990s. As a result of all this, the household’s cultivated area reduced from 5ha in the late 1980s to 2ha by 2000.  When his father passed away in 1999, the household’s cattle had increased to 30, while goats increased to 20. Following the death of WN’s mother in 2007, his mother’s relatives took some of his mother’s cattle while a few remaining was later shared among the children. By 2015, WN had 15 cattle. However, most of these cattle died due to January Disease in 2019, and was left with one heifer. Today, WN owns 3 head of cattle. Due to lack of draught power and adequate manure, WN now cultivates a total of 1.5ha, all of which are vlei (bani) and stand. The main outfield crop has been lying idle for years now. As he remarked, “The main field is now bush. I do not cultivate there anymore because of lack of draught power, inputs, plus cattle from nearby reserves destroy our crops.” In 2025-26 season, he harvested 1.5 tonnes of maize, and did not sell any maize. Unlike his parents, WN has a small family himself. He has two children (all girls). His eldest daughter (b. 2005) is married in Nemamwa, while his youngest (b. 2011) is doing Form 2 and lives her at the farm.

Case 2: TG, Ency (from SG1 to SG3). TG was born in 1947, and went to school up to grade 3. She and her husband acquired land in 1985. They came from Chagwiza area in Gutu. At the time of settlement, they were communal area farmers. They had seven children, six boys and one girl. The oldest child was born in 1966, while the youngest child was born in 1982. The oldest son acquired an A1 plot in the nearby A1 scheme, while three other sons were allocated 1ha stands within the village. The younger son, C (b. 1982), will take-over the farm when TG passes on. In 1985, the household arrived with 11 cattle, a scotch-cart and plough. They were allocated 5 hectares of arable land, which was already cleared and previously used by the former white farmer. However, it turned out that the field was of poor soil fertility. As she puts it, “the crops could not grow beyond the knee level.” As a result, they approached the Resettlement Officer for a new field, of which they were then allocated new virgin land at the border of the farm. This was a strategy to block the people from nearby communal areas of accessing grazing and other natural resources. Although they were officially allocated 5ha, they increased their crop field to 12ha. By 2000, they were cultivating 12ha. To cultivate this relatively large area, they relied on family labour and hiring temporary workers from nearby communal areas, often paid in maize. They would harvest up to 8 tonnes of maize, and only retain 2 tonnes for consumption while the rest was sold to GMB. In 2013, TG’s husband passed away. By 2015, cultivated area had declined to 5ha largely due to lack of labour and old age. All but one of her children had left home for work, or married elsewhere. She stayed at home with her last-born son (b.1982) who is mentally challenged. Cattle herd had declined to 6. In 2025, the household cultivated 3ha of land, and harvested 3 tonnes of maize. They sold 1.5 tonnes to traders, and retained half of the harvest. Of late, TG has been sick and her only daughter came to look after her.  

Old resettlement areas 40 years on

How then did the land reform beneficiaries of the 1980s fare over the 40 odd years since land allocation? The story is inevitably mixed and has varied over time. There are distinct phases of relative success, with different drivers.

With the support of an enthusiastic government Resettlement Officer, many were very quick to get going after settlement. Given that most fields were already cleared, farmers started farming in the same year as when they were settled. Production peaked in the late 1980s, when farmers had access to loans from the AFC and family labour was still available as children were still young. It was in this period that land reform beneficiaries prospered, ‘accumulating from below’ through farm production, supported by family labour.

Through farming (and some off-farm work, even if officially not allowed), as well as crucially support through AFC loans, some were able to purchase cattle or venture into co-operative piggery or cattle fattening projects.  Later, some failed to pay back the loans, leading to their assets being seized and sold by the AFC to recover its money. During this period, some farmers were able to invest in cattle, farming equipment, while others ensured that their children were well-educated, many up to tertiary level. Such children were able to enter into middle-class professions, sustaining SG1 households over time.

However, linked to structural adjustment and a decline in state support for resettlement, access to loans stopped in the early 1990s. This resulted in a decline in production and so possibilities of farm-based accumulation. In addition, most fields that were previously used by former white farmers were now infertile. This promoted others to demand new virgin land elsewhere within the village. From the early 1990s, then, a period of decline was observed, although this was highly differentiated. In this period, the co-operative cattle-fattening and piggery projects collapsed due to lack of external financing, and following the death of parents, resulting in conflict that emerged between children of the original members.

In the late 1990s and 2000s, new challenges arose, particularly around generational transition. Production continued to decline as children (once important source of cheap labour) left homes for work or marriages. In the 2000s, hyperinflation and currency volatility also affected production and investment. In 2019, large cattle herds that had been built up over time were decimated by January disease. Declines in ‘success’ in this period were also due to old age, infirmity or the death of a household head. Today, most of the original farmers are now in their 70s and 80s or have since passed on and their farms have been inherited by their widows or last-born sons.

Although production on such farms is nowhere near the levels in the late 1980s and 1990s, some children who inherited these farms have now begun to invest in irrigation equipment and engage in horticulture and other agricultural projects (such as cattle pen fattening) while still working elsewhere. They see the farms as sites for later retirement and a new phase of investment is occurring, although very different to what went before. Today, this is more focused on ‘projects’ and intensive forms of production, with larger outfields on farms now abandoned.

Sustaining success

A longitudinal perspective on success highlights three different phases. A period of growth, driven by agricultural production and accumulation from below, supported in the 1980s by state financing (concessional loans from the AFC) and state-led extension support (through the Resettlement Officers and others).

This gave way to a period of decline, or at least stasis as external financing and state support was withdrawn through structural adjustment after 1991, and family labour grew up and left the farm, often with good educational qualifications thanks to investments made through the 1980s. This made local production more challenging, although people kept investing in education.

The third phase from the late 1990s into the 2000s highlights the challenges of generational transition, as the original settlers grew older and many died. However, children have begun to take over the farms or are investing in them from outside, suggesting a new period of accumulation. Those that have managed to maintain higher rank (SG1) have successfully navigated inheritance and succession. Some have since passed on, but children (mostly the youngest son) have taken over the homestead, although in some cases the widow is still alive. Older sons have either been allocated one-hectare plots within the resettlement areas but shares their parents’ crop fields or have gained access to their own plots in post-land reform areas.

How do these varied trajectories of success over time compare to what we are finding in the post-2000 A1 land reform areas? The next and final blog in this short series explores this question.

This is the third blog in a short series on learning lessons from post-1980 old resettlement areas. This post was written by Tapiwa Chatikobo with inputs from Felix Murimbarimba, Ian Scoones, Makiwa Manaka, B. Muzambirwa and Nyaradzai Mhiripiri.

This blog was originally published on Zimbabweland