New research on land reform in Zimbabwe

As mentioned last week, the University of Sussex hosted the major biennial UK African Studies Association conference. Around 600 delegates were registered, and there was a real buzz, with panels on every conceivable topic from every corner of the continent. Quite a few papers reported on new work from Zimbabwe, and land and politics was a recurrent theme. In the end we had a single panel of three papers (as several panellists had to drop out at the last minute). It was a fascinating session to a standing-room-only audience.

The three panellists all reported on new research in the now not-so-new resettlements, representing different geographic areas, and diverse methodologies. All looked at how new livelihoods are being carved out following land reform in A1 sites. This included in-depth reflections on the relationships between farmers and farmworkers, a quantitative assessment of production outcomes across sites compared to communal and old resettlement areas, and an analysis of how farm and off-farm livelihood opportunities are combined in a mining area.

The session kicked off with an excellent paper by Leila Sinclair-Bright who discussed the changing social relations between ‘new farmers’ on an A1 resettlement area in Mazowe and farmworkers. Through a deep, focused ethnographic approach she looked at changing notions of ‘belonging’, and the way livelihoods are negotiated. A case of a chief’s court dispute over land highlighted many of the dynamics. For, while the farmworkers were accepted as part of the farm community, and even incorporated into the cultural fabric of life through their as ‘sahwira’ at burials, when a group tried to claim formally the land that they had been cultivating this was rejected by the A1 farmers. ‘Belonging’ had its limits, and the new farmers tried to circumscribe this, arguing that as ‘foreigners’ (many had Malawian origins several generations back), their role was not as land owners but labourers. That the farmworkers had been bargaining hard on wages and opting for alternate livelihoods had played into this tension. Certainly the emerging forms of ‘belonging’ differ dramatically from that described by Blair Rutherford in the pre-land reform era, but the cultural politics of farmworker-farmer relations are as live as ever, often flaring up into disputes of this sort. Leila’s paper highlighted the value of really in-depth analysis of cases to uncover the textured dynamics of change on the farms. We have been subjected to far too much simplistic analysis, often based on spurious statistics, on farmworkers, but this sort of work really provides a much-needed qualitative insight that is immensely revealing. As the new social, political and economic relations are negotiated on the new farms, new bargains and accommodations will be struck, and this will require innovations in institutional and cultural practices; sometimes drawing on traditional norms, but in other cases requiring new deals to be struck.

Taking a very different approach, Gareth James offered an overview of some of his impressive survey work across three districts in Mashonaland/Manicaland, involving a sample of over 600 (here’s the powerpoint). This involved a large sample extending the classic work by Bill Kinsey and colleagues that tracked the fortunes of ‘old resettlement’ area farmers, comparing these to their neighbours in the communal areas (see our Masvingo work on this, in a recent blog series). Gareth has developed a sample in A1 farming areas, and looked at a range of factors. This presentation focused on ‘outcomes’ and in a series of graphs he showed how the A1 farmers on average outperformed both the old resettlement area and communal area farmers across a range of criteria. As younger, more educated, more capitalised farmers, they had higher outputs and yields of major crops (maize, cotton, tobacco), applied more inputs and achieved higher incomes. He offered a listing of the constraints faced too, which included a familiar array focused on the challenges of accessing farming inputs and labour. For those of us who primarily work in the drier south of the country, the production statistics were impressive. Across the two seasons studied (both of which were not good seasons), the A1 farmers achieved an average output of around 6 tonnes of maize. Taking the standard figure of annual consumption requirements of 1 tonne per family, this means around 5 tonnes could be sold, and contribute to a dynamic of investment and accumulation that Gareth described. This was of course added to by the often impressive outputs of tobacco. Averages of course only tell one part of the story, and as he pointed out there is much variation. As we have seen in Masvingo, these dynamics create new patterns of differentiation and associated class formation in the new resettlements, with major consequences for agrarian social relations and longer term change. There was insufficient time in the presentation to explore these issues, but the results are tantalising, and the overall output statistics impressive. Of course there are qualifications, and some of these were discussed. Is this a temporary boom, based on the ‘mining’ of the soil? Will the success attract more and more people to area, and so undermine per capita success as land and outputs are shared among more and more? Did the new settlers manage to outcompete their neighbours through preferential access to inputs, offered through political patronage? All of these factors are important, but do not undermine the overall story of a production boom, with major opportunities for accumulation in the new resettlements.

The final paper by Grasian Mkodzongi reflected on his work in Mhondoro Ngezi in Mashonaland West Province. Here A1 and A2 resettlement areas are in close proximity to the major Zimplats mining complex. Grasian’s paper concentrated on the relationships between farming and mining, as mediated through labour contracts, business opportunities and political connections. In addition to the large-scale mine there are many other smaller mining operations, for gold and other minerals that provide opportunities for others. The paper focused on the social and political negotiation of the farming-mining relationship, based on a number of cases. New farmers are able to insert themselves into the economic activity associated with Zimplats, supplying inputs (such as silica found on their farms) as well as profiting from upstream aspects of the value chain. Farmers have used the politically-charged debate around ‘indigenisation’ to their advantage, manipulating the rhetoric and demanding economic benefits. This sets up new political and economic relationships between the farms and the mine that are played out through local political dramas. The story is immensely complex and fast evolving, but it offers an insight into how, at the local level, new economic relations with capital are being negotiated, and how a very particular political dynamics and discourses influence this. Contrary to analyses that offer only a simplistic and generalised view of politics concluding that all is guided by top-down patronage, looking at local relations through in-depth research reveals a room for manoeuvre for those who have the resources and ingenuity to play the system.

These brief and rather partial summaries cannot do justice to the richness of the papers. If you want to hear more, there is a recording of the presentations and the discussions here. As noted, each in different ways contribute to our evolving understandings of livelihoods after land reform, and demonstrate the importance of diverse methodological approaches in capturing the nuance and diversity. These three papers, all emerging from PhD studies at the University of Edinburgh, are examples of a growing array of research on different themes in different places. They add together to an impressive dataset that has yet to be fully grasped by policymakers, donors and other commentators, including many academic ‘authorities’ on Zimbabwe.

A couple of years ago, I compiled a list of research projects on ‘fast-track’ land reform of different sorts, many deriving from PhD and MA degrees, and mapped them. The coverage then was impressive, and I am sure has extended much further since. Yet, despite this growing body of work, we hear again and again misleading commentary and inappropriate conclusions being drawn on land reform in Zimbabwe. But building on the earlier work, including ours in Masvingo, we now have an impressive set of insights, offering nuance and perspective on our overall assessment of Zimbabwe’s land reform. I hope this blog will continue to be a space for sharing these results with a wider audience. So if you are doing a study, and have some results to share, even if preliminary, do let me know!

This post was written by Ian Scoones and originally appeared on Zimbabweland


Filed under Uncategorized

9 responses to “New research on land reform in Zimbabwe

  1. William Doctor

    All very nice and academic. Any comment on the latest WFP report? Link below. Reports such as these reach everyone, not student ppt presentations.

    • Academic research is vital in order to get a clearer picture of the production and food security situation. This report I am afraid is indicative of the problem we have, where basic facts are ignored, and assumptions made. Journalists and other commentators are just not looking at the data – exactly of the sort that you dismiss as ‘academic’ and ‘student powerpoints’. The headline in this piece relates to the WFP’s dramatic and in my view inappropriate claim LAST year that 2.2 million needed food aid (which of course proved way off the mark). The figure this year they claim is around 500,000 or 6% of the population, and only in the last few months of the season (from January next year) – and again there are question marks even about this number (more in a future blog). In other words the headline and the commentary in this shoddy piece of journalism is simply wrong. The knee-jerk assumptions that all is bad are so embedded that even the basic facts and figures ignored. This is shocking journalism, misleading readers like yourself. I will be doing a blog on the ZimVac report and the food security situation in a week or two, with all the facts and figures and some rather more informed commentary – yes based on academic research. If anyone from reads this blog, I hope the ‘staff reporter’ responsible for this piece is sent on a training course soon.

      • William Doctor

        Fair enough. Send the editor an e-mail [although 0.5 million is a lot].

        By the way – why have you not commented on Mugabe’s racist comments re ‘whites must go back to where they came from’?

      • 500k would be a lot if it was for any length of time. But the estimates indicate that all but 6% of the population will be food secure right through the hungry season, and those 500k may only require support for a very short period. And if, as this year, rains are good, green crops will fill the gap for many without the need for any external support.

        As for President Mugabe’s speeches, he is of course playing to the gallery, and a particular constituency. Elements are clearly unacceptable and indeed unconstitutional, but sadly still part of the political rhetoric we have come to expect. Let’s hope that one day political discourse will be carried out in more balanced and civil tones by all concerned.

  2. am
    Above is the SADC regional forecast for the rains of 2014 to 2015. It indicates, mostly, including for Zimbabwe a good rainy season with normal to above normal rains. It would seem to promise a rainy season similar to last year which, all things being equal, would suggest a second good rainy season in a row.
    An old man I knew stressed to me once, the value of two good and successive rainy seasons. One is good to help recover from hardship but the second can makes things much more comfortable.
    It is a useful document.

  3. Pingback: Beyond the ‘politics of disorder’: how bureaucratic professionalism persists in Zimbabwe’s public services | zimbabweland

  4. Batanai

    I have come across William Doctor is various fora on the internet. He seems to get his oxygen from any report that paints a negative view of Zimbabwe’s agriculture. I doubt that your “academic” research, as he calls it, will move him much.

    He is one of those people so invested in a failed Zimbabwe, any news contradicting that narrative is often considered incendiary or CIO-inspired! I have been called CIO, ZANU-apparatchik, Jonathan Moyo, etc for voicing some of the data that your research and the recent production figures in the country show.

    I doubt you will do much to convince the likes of William Doctor. I advise you accept there will be those to whom positive facts are the enemy, people you need not focus on as you carry on the scientific work that shines a competent light on the social economy that Zimbabwe is becoming.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s